HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag bashes Rev. Jackson, again
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:06:02 GMT

johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>    "Think of it as a burning house, and your children are in the house,"
>Jackson said. "How you approach it would be quite different than if it were
>empty. You might go in it if your children are in there. . . . If I had spent a
>lot of time attacking him in a way that diminished these numbers, we could have
>lost some congressmen we were trying to get."

>Gee, this is what Rush has been saying all along.

    Well, close enough. Rush has also been wondering aloud just what the 
Democrats promised the radicals in order to buy their silence. From what 
Jackson said it would seem the the silence was voluntary and not purchased 
by any specific promise (i.e.- a rare instance of factions within the 
Democratic party actually working together for a common goal rather than 
working against each other).

    Perhaps the only thing the radicals got out of the deal was a different  
president.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Here's why I love this guy...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:39:00 GMT

The wonderful thing about listening to thEwIndBag is that you can tune in 
at any time, for any period of time and get *something* that will make you 
wonder if his elevator goes all the way to the top floor.

For example, Tuesday I caught just a snippet of his act wherein he repeated 
his oft-spoken belief that people should not cluster in groups to demand 
that rights (his words, mine would be 'equality of rights') be accorded 
those groups.  thEwIndBag's contention is that people should remain as 
individuals and succeed or fail through individual efforts.

Ahem.

This is exactly what one would expect from a white male, someone who has to 
have described to him what it's like to be discriminated against *as a 
group,* else he'd never have a clue.  The reason for folks to band together 
by gender, or by color, or by sexual orientation to ask for equality of 
rights is precisely because they are denied that equality simply on the 
basis of those things that bring them together as a group.

One would only expect a white male like thEwIndBag to encourge people not 
to band together to cure what they see as injustice against them.  Simply 
because he knows that, as individuals, they are as powerless as they ever 
were and that only by working together can they ever hope to right some of 
society's injustices toward them.


+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8644 alt.rush-limbaugh:9770 alt.politics.clinton:17211
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:42:22 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1e6b57INNgqb@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>She can't be very bright then.  Rush says there are only 13 (or so)
>Feminazis around, you'd think Camille could have someone stop any (or
>all) of the 13 at the door.  Or even schedual around whereever the 13
>are going to be.

I disagree with Rush on this, there may only be 13 Feminazi leaders around
there, but there's an awful lot of fellow travelers that don't seem to be
able to make rational decisions on their own. It's kind of like some of the
posters around here, they just parrot what they here, and don't really think
it through.
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rfa@Turing.ORG (Robert F. Alexander)
Subject: Re: Please Listen!
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:53:50 GMT

In article <Bxvt2s.2Cv@cs.psu.edu> myers@redviolet.crayola.cs.psu.edu (Joseph F Myers) writes:
>
>what Rush Limbaugh is, is a Sexist, who among other things is for the abolition of free speech. Hear me out!
>
>Example a.
>---------
>
>Sinead O Conner performed a song on NBC's Saturday Night Live called War.
>Sinead O Connors performance was a personal artisic expression and therefore should be respected as such;WEHTHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT.
>
> Moving on....
>
>Rush limbaugh decided this topic was sufficently important to take up most of one of his half hour television programs. During the program he expressed disagreement with Sinead O Connors Ideas and actions;THIS IS PERFECTLY OK! but he didn't stop there, he continued to make fun of her actions by ripping up a picture of her, and continued to mock her performance throughout the show. He need not agree with her, but this country is founded on acceptance as well as TOLERANCE,and he chooses to undermine th
>
>
> continues..
>
>perhaps an even greater act of intolerance and sexisim was perpetrated by Rush Limbaugh on this same show.
>
>allow me to explain...
> 
>It was not enough to make clear that Sinead O Connor ws not "acceptable", but He beleived that somehow his argument would be STRONGER if he could tear her down personally. 
>
>Sinead O Connor has a very unique look as U.S. standards go, b
>
>OMEN, by drawing hair on her and in his words "make her into a woman". If this is the standard that rush uses to judge femininity, and insults someone who does not 'pass the test', then a voice like Rush Limbaugh can do a lot to destroy the progress women have made twords equality in our society.
>
>
>These are all angry replies, wehther true or not, they do not get any important points across. 

>Rusl Limbaugh makes sexist and intolerant statements, 
>
>                             Hoping that you'll at least listen,
>                                  Joe Myers
>myers@crayola.cs.psu.edu
>
Miss Oconner had every right to tear up the picture of the
Pope. She has every right to look the way she does. She even
has the right to sing the way she does.

In my opinion she looks like shit...She sings like
shit...and her political phiosophy is full of shit.

I have a right to my opinions and so does Mr. Limbaugh.

Your statements above seem to give me the impression that
you believe Miss Oconner has the right to make any kind of
statement she wants but Mr. Limbaugh does not. 

In my opinion you sir are full of shit, too.



-- 
rfa@turing.ORG    ( KD4QBD )         /      BROADCAST ENGINEER
(804) 296-7697  Hm                   /      WCHV         WWWVV
(804) 977-5566  Wk                   /      Oldies   AlbumRock 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tz10956@meibm25.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:28:05 GMT

kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.131514.4024@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>> In article <1992Nov16.190611.1@woods.ulowell.edu> enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>>>>tz10956@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>>>>> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>                                                                   
>>>>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths                                          
>>                                                                   
>>>>>>21. Abortion is wrong.                                             
>> 
>>>>> But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
>>>>> in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.
>>
>>>>	Biology 101, Sex is first and foremost for the procreation of LIFE. 
>>>>The old saying goes  here "If you don't want to get burned, don't play with
>>>>fire."  It was a woman's choice to have sex or not(except cases of rape or
>>>>incest) therefore she already executed her right to choose.  If a human being
>>>>in the womb were just another body part abortion should be legal.(i.e. if you
>>>>want your livver out take it out)  but human life is just that human life.)
>> 
>>> What if she was already trying to avoid getting pregnant, i.e. like using
>>> birth control, and it happened anyway?
>>
>>Sex is for procreation, as he said.  Any time you do it, you run the
>>risk - with or without birth control.  You accept the risk by engaging
>>in it - with or without birth control.  You know what you're getting
>>into.

>Some would argue that sex is sometimes for the sharing of intimacy between
>two people who are very close, and not for procreation.  In effect, the idea
>of "making love" instead of "making babies."

In fact, didn't the Catholic Church a few years ago issue a papal bull (or
whatever they're called) stating that it was permissable for married couples
to have sex for the purpose of 'strengthening the relationship', while   
specifically not desiring procreation?              


+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois           |
|           tz10956@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu |     at Urbana-Champaign...           |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|  The University may have all my money, but the opinions still belong to me. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|             Vegetarians eat vegetables.  Beware Humanitarians.              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+



Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8649 alt.rush-limbaugh:9775
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. facts
Keywords: irrelevant
Date: 16 Nov 92 07:56:16 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1dht20INNkjh@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach
) writes:
>Is such fair?  No more fair
>than the testing of the modulus of elasticty Rush does of the truth
>on his show.
Unnnh!  But thank you for playing.  This point is irrelevant.  In fact, it
isn't even a point, or a supporting fact.

>Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
>MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
>my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
>   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Jennifer, proud originator of the "President Clinton" thread on alt.rush-l
and watcher of relevant points in debates of "fact" on alt.rush-limbaugh.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Forget Rush and the Comedy Channel!  What's DOONESBURY (Trudeau) going to do?
I'd prefer he go on the lecture circuit, instead of more stupid cartoons
about that quintabizillionaire that lives on an island with his plain assist-
ant.  Wouldn't it figure I'd have to join alt.poltics.flame.flame.flame to
spawn my first thread?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:27:08 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle My Hero !!!!!!!!!!
 <1992Nov16.164632.29867@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

In article <1992Nov16.164632.29867@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Harry Tuttle) says:

>>Say... isn't that, "a beakon of truth," as it was in the official Quayle
>>family Christmas card of a couple of years ago...?

>I'm glad that you think he is a schmuck as well.

>We have another convert!

Oh, for crying out loud.  I think Quayle is great, but I still have a sense
of humor about him.  Is this something you can't understand?

Maybe it -is- true that liberals don't have a sense of humor.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:24:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Nov18.020350.12683@netcom.com> kc@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch) writes:
>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <69483@cup.portal.com> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>
>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.               
>>
>>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.

All Soviet leaders certainly are any one thing.  Soviet leaders, and by this I
mean the General Secretaries of the Communist Party, eg. Lenin, Stalin, 
Krushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev et. al, are all 
  1. male
  2. white
  3. Communist
  4. dictators
  5. left wing

It's true that people are all different in many ways, but let's not be blinded
to the ways people are the same.

>
>-- 
>Dameon D. Welch, NH6TW               kc@netcom.com OR dwelch@scuacc.scu.edu
>       Sophomore CS Major at Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA
>--
>          "Don't be afraid, it's only business." -- Roger Waters


William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
Life is a mystery and it's an unsolvable one.  You simply live it through, and,
as you draw your last breath you say "What was that all about?"
                                                          - Marlon Brando
===============================================================================
"The computer industry is journalists in their 20s standing in awe of 
entrepreneurs in their 30s who are hiring salesmen in their 40s and 50s and 
paying them in the 60s and 70s to bring their marketing into the 80s."
                                      - public relations wizard Marty Winston
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hagerjd@carina.unm.edu (John D. Hager)
Subject: Re: THE LIMBAUGH DIR/ALLAMERICAN RE
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:22:36 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Nov16.113315.3996@wkuvx1.bitnet> hargijk@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.135413.2195@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov15.220206.1@woods.ulowell.edu> enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
--------Long list of things to do excluded.

>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>RADIO STATIONS
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Station Name	Frequency	CITY 			STATE
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>WHDH		0850 AM		Boston 			MA
>>  KTSA           0550 AM         San Antonio             TX
>  WLAC          1510 AM    	Nashville		TN
>  W???  	0610 AM		Bowling Green		KY
>  W???		96.3 FMBuzzard  Bowling Green 		KY
KKOB            0770 AM         ALBUQUERQUE             NM
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>TELEVISION STATIONS
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Station Name    Frequency       CITY                    STATE
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>WFXT 		25 UHF		Boston                  MA
>>  KMOL           04 VHF          San Antionio            TX (1:05 & 5:30 AM)
>  WTVF		05 VHF		Nashville		TN (11:30p)
>  WBKO 		13 VHF		Bowling Green		KY (11:00p)
   KOAT             07 VHF        ALBUQUERQUE             NM (12:05AM)
>>>
>>>Lets start the Revolution!!!!!!!!
>>>
>AMEN!
>
>>>Robert R. Eno
>>>A Conservative Voice in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massachusetts
>>>
>>>The views are mine not those of UMASS Lowell
>> 
>> 


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Just a thought on Condoms.
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:09:17 GMT

shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes...
>>      1.  ABSTAIN from sex until marriage. Your life is worth it. Plus it
>>          may even be more enjoyable.

    Uh huh.
 
>>      2.  Don't take illeagal drugs, at all especially those which require
>>          you to use a hypodermic needle.

>I believe you are off base.

>The PROBLEM, arises from UNSAFE intercourse and UNSAFE use of needles. (Note
>the keyword of UNSAFE). 

    I'm racking my brain trying to think of a SAFE way to inject heroin.
Nothing immediately comes to mind. I would have considered it a given that 
injecting illegal drugs is inherently unsafe.

[snip]

>Note: I am NOT ADVOCATING pre-marital sex nor the use of illicit drugs. I AM
>indicating that these actions in and of themselves are NOT a cause.

    True. In fact, I would want to drastically limit the categories before 
I would even consider them as vectors by which HIV is transmitted. 
Promiscuous sex is dangerous regardles of whether it's pre-marital or 
not, and the danger from illicit drug use comes from the sharing or reuse 
of needles. 

    I don't want to be an alarmist, but in the past humans have attempted  
to control the spread of disease by attempting to eradicate their 
transmission vectors. This worked moderately well in dealing with bubonic 
plague, and was somewhat less successful in dealing with malaria. I'm not 
sure what this says about how we should act in our current situation, but 
I have a feeling that unless we address the ways that HIV is spread then 
in a couple of years we're going to be in big, big trouble. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle)
Subject: Re: THE NEWW AMERICAN REVOLUTION                               D
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:11:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.232754.1@woods.ulowell.edu> enor@woods.ulowell.edu 
rites:
>"You Say You Want a Revolution"
>
The Limbaugh Boycott of 1992 will be easy to accomplish.
Just follow these few steps:



>
> 1.  DO anything that you can to BOYCOTT the Rush Limbaugh show 
 
>
> 2. Tell that same friend to tell 10 friends to boycott whatever
   station Rush is on.
>
>
  3. Determine which stations broadcast Rush's show, using the name,
         frequency and city/state.  This will enable us to marshal our f
         forces so that we may boycott Rush Limbaugh !!!!!
       
  4. Write to these stations to tell them that you care that they
      accept advertising dollars from right-wing groups.
>
>
> 5. Write your Congressman to get a National Resolution proclaiming
>full equality for all people.
>
> 6.  Call ANY local talk show you can and sing Clinton's praises.
>
> 7.  Make a "pilgrimage" to the White House to show your support 
>	    for our new leader.
>
> 8.  Write to your newspaper argungg against any derrogatory story they 
>	    may publish about Clinton or the Democratic Party.
>
> 9. Don't vote for anybody who displays conservative tendencies
>	    EVEN for town DOG CATCHER.
>
	10. Visit your local VA Hospital and tell a veteran you are deeply
   indebted to them for their sacrifices and that you are very sorry
     for the indignities that they have suffered under the Bush regime.
>
 11. Vote a Republican out of office in 1994!!!!
> 
> 12.  Re-elect Clinton in 1996!


 



Amen, brother.  The Limbaugh boycott has begun.

You were right on the money, I think that the American people have
told us that they wanted a revolution.  Well, we both know that Rush
is not popular enough to call a boycott of his show a revolution, but
his lack of popularity will just make our boycott all the more 
effective, right?

We're with you 100 percent!!!!

BOYCOTT RUSH! BOYCOTT RUSH! BOYCOTT RUSH!







                                                                          
                                                                  
                               
>
 
>
 
>
                                                                         
>
From: paT bUcHAnaN
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  not all white males are rich and wealthy
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:43:01 GMT
Organization: Allegheny College

In article <22NOV199213535280@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>  
mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes:
> In article <1992Nov22.185537.2901@pellns.alleg.edu>, paT bUcHAnaN  
writes...
> 
> >Elliot, quit being such an assanine person and admit that you are  
biased  
> >against white males and that you are no better than say anyone in the  
KKK.
> 
> That's EllioTT, two Ts.  And when you find that dictionary, look up 
> asinine.  And what on earth gives you the notion that I am biased  
against 
> white males, being that I am one to begin with?
> 
> + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> | Elliott Mitchell
> |  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
> |  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
> |  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX

Like Quayle, I can't spell.  And the garbage that's spewing out of your  
mouth makes it clear that you are biased.  You sound ridiculous and it's  
obvious to me that you don't even understand what you're talking about.   
Go sit under a tree and let your brain cool down.  You try and use it too  
much.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:03:51 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>I really don't mind it very much, after all it is a free country and you
>>can say just about anything you want to. (It is illegal to threaten
>>the life of the president with mere words.) But I do think that is it
>>pretty stupid. Mainly since Clinton isn't president yet!! He is the
>>President-ELECT. You can't impeach someone who isn't the president yet!
>>GIVE THE GUY A CHANCE TO SCREW UP FIRST!!!
>
>But he has already promised to screw up, by saying that he will remove 
>the ban on gays in the military, etc.  I have not heard one of his 100 
>day promises which is not a screw up, at least IMO, therefore, as far 
>as I am concerned, HE ALREADY HAS SCREWED UP!!!

Read my lips. I didn't say a darn word about anything Clinton has promised
to do. All I did was to point out that he has not been inagurated so it
is downright silly to promote impeachment already. And that he has "promised
to screw up" is YOUR opinion of his campaign promises, not mine or 43%
of Americans who voted in the election either.

As far as I am concerned, I don't give a tinker's damn about what you are
concerned about. That's your opinion and you are free to have an opinion.
Doesn't mean you are right. Only time will tell.

>Ted (author and originator of the term `Zackane') Krueger
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which took one hell of a lot of originality and immaturity. If I were you,
I wouldn't admit to such childish comments. To revert to that type of name
calling just because you don't agree with me doesn't look very well on you.


-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9025 alt.rush-limbaugh:10250