HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Network projections
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:21:07 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>No, I'm not a sore loser about the election, but think about it--how many
>people may have voted based only on what they saw on TV?? 

    Even worse, how many of them voted based only on what they heard on 
the Rush Limbaugh show...

>I know this guy who voted for Clinton but could not tell me why beyond his 
>rehashing what he had seen on CNN.  No joke!!

    I guess he thought they explained it pretty well.

>He flatly refused to listen to anything the world around him.  

    CNN comes from the world around him and he was apparently listening 
to them. It sounds to me like you're honked off because he wouldn't listen 
to you.

>The issue isn't that he voted for Clinton, the issue is that he could not 
>engage in a discussion about why he voted the way he did.

    He couldn't explain it to your satisfaction, but I'm not prepared to 
condemn him on that basis. I noticed while Rush was taking calls from 
Clinton voters that he also refused to accept any reasons people gave 
for why they were voting for Clinton. It was hilarious. Here were these 
people talking about pro-choice and the economy and there was Rush claiming 
that they weren't voting based on issues.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 06:09:03 GMT
Subject: Re: November 3, the day Rush dies!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, c_caddy@oz.plymouth.edu (Cc) writes:

> >>	If you don't like it here, you can always move to some other
> >>country.
> >
> >Oh, believe me, there will be a lot of people moving to Canada in the
> >next four years....
> >
> 
> I've already bought my ticket to Russia. It'll be a lot better there
> than it will be here.

This is an extremely assinine statement.
I honestly wish that you were forced to go there and spend some
time.  I think that Russia is probably going to be a far
worse place to live in the next four years than America.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mk009b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ([Matt Kaufman])
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: fat lady
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:35:01 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

Steve,

You have to remember the level of intelligence we are dealing with.

These dope smokers probably have a tv without a remote control, so they are
probably TOOO LAZZZY to get off their asses to change the channel if they
don't like the show.

Matt
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Turn out the lights as you leave...
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:04:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov6.004104.22586@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:
>
>
>Well, Now that PRESIDENT CLINTON will be in the White House, I imagine
>that ole Rush Limburger should be on the last train to Dinosaur Land.
>I'll miss Rush when he's gone. 
>
>Hey folks.  The eighties are over.  Get on with your lives.  Rush, I
>hope you enjoyed your fifteen minutes of fame. Now maybe you and Danny
>Quayle can go cry in your collective beers somewhere.
>
>I hope the far right wing of the Republican party (Rush included) can
>comprehend what this election said.  
>
>No, you do not represent the views of mainstream America.
>No, we do not care whether Clinton was in Vietnam or not.
>Yes, we do care if our President and his party has lost touch with
>reality and commmon sense.
>
>Bye, bye Rush.  You probably don't read these posts, but I guess now
>you'll have lots of time to.  The pink slip is on its way...
>
>

What an idiot! Do you even listen to Rush's show? Did you even look 
at the election results? I'm a conservative and although Clinton won,
every single one of California's propositions, with one exception, went
the way I wanted. Conservatism is not dead by any means.

And I'll make you the same bet I made the other moron who predicted 
Rush's demise - $100 that Rush is not only on the air on March 1, 1993,
but that both his TV show and radio show are at least as strong in the
ratings as they are now, if not stronger. Put up or shut up, bozo.

Sheesh, why is that liberals are cruel, mean, and vindictive even in 
victory? What is so congenitally wrong with these people that they 
seem capable of enjoying life only when somebody else is suffering? 
Well, go ahead and laugh, you fool, and sit mired in your idiotic 
delusions. Conservatism will still be here long after your leftist 
folly will have forgotten.
-- 
John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
                           | Support the coup!
CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |
From: sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Why alt.fan.rush-limbaugh????
Date: Sun,  8 Nov 92 21:06:27 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

I have been lurking in this group since I found it about a week ago.  Since
I was not here at its creation, I wonder if somebody could tell me what is
the purpose of alt.fan.rush-limbaugh??  Is it to discuss Rush and his shows,
or to discuss what Rush discusses?  I realize that there will be some 
overlap, but it seem that around 80% of postings here are more related to
issues -- and there are plenty of groups for discussions of issues.  15%
of postings seem to be from people who hate Rush -- and are certainly not
his fans.  It appears that only about 5% of postings are appropriate based
on the name of this group.
   Of course, if these other topics are appropriate for this group, then
no problem!  So I return to my question:
    What is the purpose of alt.fan.rush-limbaugh??
  
Steve Thomas   sjthomas@cup.portal.com
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8543 alt.politics.clinton:17113 alt.politics.bush:13874 alt.rush-limbaugh:9661
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:49:45 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Nov6.140922.25193@fia.dmg.ml.com> jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber) writes:

>You're about right.  The percentage of voters afraid of Billy-boy is the total
>of the percentages of people who didn't vote for him.  Bush got 38% of the
>popular vote, Perot got 17% (we're at 55% already, folks!), plus all the votes
>for the various other candidates found on the ballots in each of the states.
>The fact that Billy-boy won with less than 50% of the popular vote is what's
>really scary.

Maybe it means that President Clinton, realizing that he will probably need to
appeal to a larger group than he has appealed to in this election, will attempt
to represent the country as a whole, in other words, be a _moderate_ in political
terms.  That's the way he positioned himself in the election, and it's to his
political advantage to conduct his presidency in that way as well.  There's every
reason to believe that this is just what he will do.  Relax, people.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Did Rush Lie on Abortion? (was Re: Summary Fri 10/23/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:30:48 GMT

archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:

>In <1992Nov04.231020.17209@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>*madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>*>As an aside, Allah is simply the Arabic word for God and it is the same
>*>God as in the christian or judaic accounts.
>*
>*Wrong.  One god has a kid, the other two gods don't.
>*
>*Sounds like at least two different gods to me.
>*

>Odd, all three religions share a large number of holy books, and Jesus
>is regarded as a prophet by Islam.  Perhaps you should do some comparitive
>religion reading.


>Archer Sully <archer@sgi.com> | Election '92: a 250 million way tie for last.

Odd, but I've never heard of a religion where prophet=GOD.  And the simple
fact that three religious traditions share similar holy texts means about
as much as saying that Spain, Mexico, and Cuba are all really the same
country because they all speak Spanish.  Perhaps you should stop reading
so many comparative religion texts.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8220 alt.rush-limbaugh:9293
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why alt.fan.rush-limbaugh????
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:39:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <69142@cup.portal.com> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>I have been lurking in this group since I found it about a week ago.  Since
>I was not here at its creation, I wonder if somebody could tell me what is
>the purpose of alt.fan.rush-limbaugh??  Is it to discuss Rush and his shows,
>or to discuss what Rush discusses?  I realize that there will be some 
>overlap, but it seem that around 80% of postings here are more related to
>issues -- and there are plenty of groups for discussions of issues.  15%
>of postings seem to be from people who hate Rush -- and are certainly not
>his fans.  It appears that only about 5% of postings are appropriate based
>on the name of this group.

Well, your figures are a bit skewed - it's 95% of the postings that come from
people who hate Rush, leading me to perpetually wonder why some people seem
incapable of being happy unless they're ragging on somebody. Must be some 
sort of Ren Hoek-prototype. (Now watch, some Rushophobe will compare Rush's
fans to Stimpy, once again showing how liberals think anyone who disagrees
with them has a low IQ. Ah well, c'est la vie.)

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and 
alt.rush-limbaugh exist for me to post my summaries. I rarely read any of 
the typical postings that exist, unless they are original posts that 
have an interesting subject, such as yours.

-- 
John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
                           | Support the coup!
CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: fat lady
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date:  5 NOV 92 08:15:30 EST


In article <Bx7pyt.EMn@umassd.edu>, s14255ss@UMASSD.EDU writes...

> the fat lady has sung hopefully she will drown rush out so we wont have to
> listen to his jiberish

Hmmm. I was unaware of the strongarm division of the EIB in which thugs come to
your home and force you to watch the Rush Limbaugh TV show.

In my part of the country, there are no such individuals and I find that there
are several controls on my TV which work to eliminate programs which I do not
care for. They are, 1) on/off, 2) volume, 3) channel select and 4) brightness.

Maybe your television is missing some of these features and is thus preventing
you from taking steps to view other programs. I suggest consulting the
manufacturer.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Sending E-mail to Rush
Organization: University of Lowell
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:53:09 GMT

Rush Limbaug's Compuserve E-Mail Address is 

70277.2502@CompuServe.com

However the postmaster at compuserve said that due to the large volume of mail
he recieves he has been choosing to either not read or read last the mail he
gets from the usenet.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu (Clay Spinuzzi)
Subject: Re: Rush's Email Address
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:13:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.033245.16742@tamsun.tamu.edu> n352cb@tamuts.tamu.edu (James Johnson) writes:
>From: n352cb@tamuts.tamu.edu (James Johnson)
>Subject: Rush's Email Address
>Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:32:45 GMT
>
>
>Could anyone please send me Rush's Email address at CompuServe?!?!?
>
>Thanks,
>Wayne
>
>Please mail it to: n352cb@tamuts.tamu.edu
>

Me too! It was posted a while back, but I didn't record it. :(

P.S. Some other addresses you may be interested in. Warning: Got these off 
the net last night so who knows if they're valid...


Jerry Brown:
75300.3105@compuserve.com
brown92@igc.org
brown92@well.sf.ca.us

Pat Buchanan:
76326.126@compuserve.com

Bill Clinton:
75300.3115@compuserve.com

Andre Marrou (Libertarian):
75300.3114@compuserve.com

Ross Perot:
71511.460@compuserve.com


=========================================================================
Clay Spinuzzi        spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu     Now only .004 out of phase!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.ru
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Rush grasps at straws
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 17:34:35 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Nov4.173115.12977@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>Well, Rush certainly started his show off in classic Limbaugh style.. 
>froth, rant, rave...
>
>"Conservatives didn't lose [in spite of the loss of the white house and
>lots and lots of congressional seats].  Conservativism won because
>Clinton had to move to the center to win.  Bush lost because he
>abandoned conservativism."
>
>Rush is trying to say that Clinton was more attractive to the conservatives
>than Bush?   Stretching...   really stretching.
>
>Right now he is claiming
>
>"We have a guy who drove a VW bus in the '60s as a president elect."
>
>This is a crime?
>
>"Conservativism triumphed in California!  It triumphed. It triumphed."
>
>Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer elected to the Senate is a triumph for
>conservativism?  Yah, sure.
>
>God, Rush is funny today.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:59:18 GMT

lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:

>In article <92315.011135MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>|> People, it's President Clinton now. Gag or applaud as is your wont, but
>|> whining about the percentages won't change one single thing.

>Actually, it's President-Elect Clinton now.  Won't be President Clinton
>until January 21, 1993.

Actually, it's Willie McPresident-Elect Clinton.

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:51:21 GMT

jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
 >>I think as a gesture of class, President Clinton should pardon Bush.

   >  I have predicted around here that Bush will be indicted.  If that
   >  happens, I expect we just might see a Presidential pardon (there
   >  is clear precedent for that act :-)  Personally, I hope that sooner
   >  or later someone goes to jail for the stunts/crimes that both
   >  Reagan and Bush permitted (and possibly ordered)....

I predict that just one portion of all this silliness will turn out to
be true.  You can bet the mortgage money that the newly liberated Demos
will appoint a special investigator(s) who will spend another 40
gazillion of _your_ tax dollars over many years to once again come up
with zilch.  These witch hunts never have anything to do with
determining facts.  They really ought to create something called the
Special Prosecutor Full Employment Act.  Hmmm...better not say that too
loudly.

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: November 3, the day Rush dies!
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:02:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.152858.17500@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <mjenkins.720888432@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
$ In <1992Nov4.131925.22260@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
$ >Ladies and Gentlemen, four years from now a man wil emerge from the ashes
$ >of 1992 and rise like a phoenix to lead this country.

$ >That man is ________________________________.

$ Dan Quayle.

>You bet! Remember my motto - Dan Quayle in 1996, 2000, and 2004 (after we 
>fix that dang Constitution!)

	The two-term limit was pushed by the Republicans, who couldn't
bear the sight of FDR's four victories.

	Talk about bad losers.

>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>                           | Support the coup!

	John Switzer, you are not a very good loser.

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8147 alt.rush-limbaugh:9219 alt.politics.bush:13483 misc.test:12842 talk.bizarre:37208 alt.politics.clinton:16350
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:00:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
'jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
'
'>Of course, thanks to liberals, the Bill of Rights is 
'>considered to have only 9 amendments already, so Clinton won't have
'>as big a job to do.
'
'I'm a liberal - which one of the amendments is it I'm
'supposed to not be in support of?

To me, #2: Right to arm bears. Uh, bear arms. 
(Actually, environmental liberals would want the right to arm bears, so
I stand corrected.)

'Since it's the conservatives who are threatening the right
'to privacy (with their anti-abortion stance) and the
'conservatives who are threatening the right to free speech (with
'their wanting an amendment to prohibit flag-burning) I am
'confused about why it is you think liberals are attacking
'the Bill of Rights.

One: The right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution in
the first ten amendments (i.e., the Bill of Rights). The right of
privacy regarding abortion as cited in Roe vs. Wade is actually cited in
the 14th Amendment. Privacy is implicit regarding Amendment 3?
(quartering soldiers), and perhaps 2 (bearing arms), and reaching for
Amendment 6? (self-incrimination clause). There is no such thing in the
Constitution explicitly as a "right to privacy." You actually don't have
have a right to privacy if you are driving in your car and get stopped
for a drug search or a drunk-driving search. (That's what I learned in
reviewing my brother for one of his law classes.)

Two: It is very interesting that liberals say they are in favor of "free
speech" just as long as it's the speech liberals want. Look at the
thread that evolved into this discussion. Someone called for the removal
of not only alt.fan.rush but also alt.rush as well.
	First of all, what statement is made regarding the burning of an
American flag? What is your point if you burn an American flag? Is it
the same as those foreigners in Iran, Iraq, or wherever who burn the
American flag? How is it the same or different? To go to the point of
burning the American flag, you've got to be making some point,
considering the number of people who have died for that flag only to see
you step on it and torch it with disrespect.

'I understand why conservatives disagree with liberals on a number 
'of issues, but what is it that makes you conservatives lie about us 
'liberals so much?

The same mettle that makes liberals lie about conservatives I suspect.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Clinton says:  James Brady is Dead
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Distribution: na, usa
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 21:38:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct21.222828.11040@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>What I have been doing for the last few months is using Rush Limbaugh 
>techniques against the conservatives, and not surprisingly, they're starting 
>to get unhappy with it...   So now, the next time you listen to Uncle Rush,  
>listen to the rhetorical tricks he uses - snearing jibes, innuendo, fake whiney
>voices, quotes out of context.  If it gets you mad that I am doing it here,
>then you should probably get mad that Rush does it on his show.

One of my favorite parts of today's show was the woman who called to let Rush
know that one of the things that turned off many of the older voters about
the Republican party were the speeches of Pat Buchanon and the Reverend Pat
Robertson.  She said "Reverend" with EXACTLY the same smarmy inflection that
Rush uses when he refers to the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

I love it when people start using Rush's tactics against him.  It made him
think a moment, too, before he responded.

Poor Rush, he must be so disappointed that his "singular voice" didn't convince
enough people to vote for Shrub.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"He's just a politician trying to save both his faces..."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle My Hero !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:17:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.140848.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
> Thank you Dan
> 
> Thank you Mr. Vice President for being a beacon of truth in the ranks of the
> Washington elitists. History will regard you Dan as a man of truth,
> conviiction, decency, honor, CHARACTER, and compassion.  You are a man that
> through the worst attacks on you person that stood up for what you believe is
> right and this country will be better for it.  
> 
> 	To the cultural elite: Whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Quayle's
> stands on the issues you must admit that through the great personal tragedy Dan
> suffered at your hands, he has stood up for his beliefs.  He has done this
> without compromise for political gain.  We must ask ourselves if we could have
> done the same. 

Here Here!!
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard
		Jack Kemp in '96
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc