HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh



	so i'm listening to the show yesterday (11/17) and 
	rush and a caller are harping on bill for letting
	his wife hillary in on all the planning meetings...

	how soon we forget... what about nancy pulling ron's
	strings??!  and i'm sure bar had more than a passing
	interest in georgie's work...  at least clinton is
	honesy enough to come out and say his wife is involved.
	(even if he's not normally honest;-)

	rush complained that we elected clinton, not his wife...
	NOT TRUE!  you always get two for the price of one.
	do we honestly believe that presidential marriages are
	like the cleaver's marriage??!

	come on people... 

	rush, you are better than this...



just my $0.004 worth (price adjusted for future inflation)
pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: The Mondale-Clinton Coalition
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:37:40 GMT

	According to Dan Rather on Election Night, Bill Clinton
had "broken up the Reagan Coalition."  Did he really?  Some interesting
numbers shed light on this question.  

			Mondale % 	Clinton %
---------------------  -----------     -----------
Total Voting Pop.	  40		  43
Republicans	           7              10
Independents		  36      	  38
Democrats		  74		  77
Liberals		  70		  68
Moderates		  47		  48     
Conservatives		  17		  18
Union Households	  53		  55
White Born-Again Chr.	  22		  23
Catholics		  45		  44
Black Voters		  90		  82  (Interesting!)
White Voters		  35		  39  
Hispanic Voters		  62		  62

(New York Times exit polling)

	In most cases, these numbers are statistically the same.   Bill
Clinton won fair and square, but he did so, apparently, by  holding on to
the Democratic base, letting Perot and Bush split the other voters.


Andrew Aiken   

  
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9830 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8697 alt.politics.bush:13919
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Popular Vote - Mandate or No Mandate?
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:48:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
^krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
^
^>The big deal is twofold: 1) Bush and Perot lost!  If Clinton had lost with 
^>60% not voting for him, then no big deal. 2) Liberals (esp. the liberal 
^>media) are claiming a mandate.  Not with 60% voting against!
^
^I haven't heard anyone in the media (liberal or otherwise) anyone claiming
^that Clinton has a "mandate". Now, I have heard (on several occasions)
^people say that the voters voted for a "mandate for change". Since
^over 60% of the people voted to oust Bush, then I tend to agree with that
^assessment.

I partially agree. It is correct that they wanted to change the
President, but there was not the big "mandate for change" that was
anticipated by all the pundits (amateur or professional) that there
would be this big anti-incumbency movement all across the government. If
there were a mandate for change, then many more incumbents would have
fallen out of the Congress. The voters wanted to change the President.

Besides, I did hear "mandate" touted around by CNN commentators after
the election was decided. Of course, there was also the "LANDSLIDE"
title on USA Today; to me, this headline implies Clinton had a mandate.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:05:17 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Religious Right
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <13848@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>>It is *not* an issue for the government.  It is only those people who propose
>>PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.
>>
>Many things are declared immoral by the government, from murder to theft to
>denial of civil rights.  If religions also see these things as immoral are
>the laws wrong?  Alternatively, if religions see these things as acceptable,
>are the laws then OK?  What it comes down to is, what basis does a government
>then have to declare this or that action immoral?

Murder is permanent unjustifiable deprivation of a person's right to life,
liberty, etc.  Religion need not enter into the discussion at all.  The
basis is in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The government does not declare things immoral; it declares them illegal.
There's a difference.  The basis for declaring many things illegal is
certainly rooted in morality, but that does not nor should it mean that
because something is illegal it is necessarily immoral.  Under no
circumstances should the government legislate morals, unless they can
be justified constitutionally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 14:49:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.223342.11374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Now we get to the real reason why gays want to be in the military.  They 
>want to take showers with men so they can see a bunch of naked men's 
>bodies.  Get a clue!  The reason why men do not shower with women is 
>because the women feel self conscious.  This is also why gays should 
>not shower with straights.  The straights will feel self conscious.  But 
>oh!  I forgot!  Straights are not a minority, so their feelings are not 
>taken into account.
>
>Ted

I do think Ted has something here...something the top media folks have not
discussed to my knowledge, and especially I do not see any headlines in
papers over the issue.  

	*Sexual Attraction:  Men do not shower with women in the military
because of various reasons, one of them being because of sexual attraction. 
Analogously, why would one want to allow for Men who are sexually attracted
to Men shower together?  The common response to this question is, "Give me a
break, sex is not the complete focus of gay men, and they have much sense
than to stare at other men sexually in the showers."  
	Pat Schroeder responded this way on a national news show, but why
did no one ask her, "Well Pat, how would you feel if 20 men took a shower
next to you?"  From a straigt perspective, this is quite analogous.  The
straigt man feels a bit conscious about being looked upon in a sexual manner
by another man.  Now, another anology...how would you straight men feel if
you took an open shower along with 20 young women?  From the gay
perspective, it must be an apporpriate analogy.  When we begin to look at it
from this perspective, can we not see the difficulties that come to bear?

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia
UCNS/Institute of Higher Ed. 


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:30:16 GMT

aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>>Gonna criticize me for criticizing you for criticizing Engle for being so
>>critical?

>       No, I'm sure he'll find a way to criticize Engle for facilitating
>your criticism of him for criticizing Engle for being critical of his
>criticisms of being so critical.

    Actually I was kind of hoping that he'd come up with a way to outlaw 
posts that don't have anything new to add to a subject. At least it would 
put an end to the abortion debate.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.162237.743@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:

}BTW, if you can't agree with this, then I have no option but to label you
}as pro-abortion, and not just simply pro-choice.

I don't agree with this.  Your misuse of a label makes you look like
a fool, not me.  Of course, if you said you were going to call me
cruel...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:24:39 GMT


ps>In article <1992Nov16.185223.13128@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>  psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
dk>In article <1992Nov16.164217.24828@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 
dk>See the thing is Paul, unless I specifically invite you to be 
dk>involved in my sex life, it is none of your business.  So why 
dk>don't you wait for the invite before assuming you have any 
dk>interest at all in what goes on in my bedroom.
 
ps>I won't wait because this is society's problem, not your bedroom problem.
ps>And, the original question was for society to offer an alternative to
ps>abortion - so, here it is.  
 
Care to elaborate on how abortion is a societal problem.  If anything 
I would say the reverse.  The forced continuation of un-wanted pregnancy
is a much larger societal problem.  Many of these forced pregnancies you
wish to force women through will require a large amount of societal
help in being raised.  Also by denying women reproductive freedom you
are denying them any chance at equality.  This denies 50% of society
a fair shot which is a societal problem.  
 
Another big problem with your so called solution is that abstinence 
is not an alternative to abortion.  Abortion is a method for terminating
an un-wanted pregnancy.  Unless I am un-clear on your definition of
abstinence, it offers no solution for dealing with an un-wanted 
pregnancy.  Even prior to the pregnancy, practicing abstinence is 
not a 100% effective way of avoiding un-wanted pregnancy.  How do you
propose women who do attempt to practice abstinence deal with un-wanted
pregnancy?  Would your answer by any chance be to shut-up and bear it?
 
ps>I really don't care what goes on in your bedroom, but as a member of this
ps>society I expect your to behave with responsibility when it comes to
ps>creating another member (and to not kill said member at your convenience). 
 
Looks like we again end up with someone who has no clue about responsibility
trying to force their warped vision of responsible behavior on someone
else.  You are the one that desires protecting fetus. To do this, you'd
rather use a method that requires no personal sacrifice of your own,
but would rather use government force to enslave women to care for this
fetus you treasure.  Sure there are other effective and less restrictive
ways for you to protect the fetus, but that would require you to 
actually give a little of yourself to accomplish.  I'm really not very
impressed with your version of responsibility.
 
ps>-Paul
 
Dan King
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Presidential Wives
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:21:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <105120024@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
>
>
>	so i'm listening to the show yesterday (11/17) and 
>	rush and a caller are harping on bill for letting
>	his wife hillary in on all the planning meetings...
>
>	how soon we forget... what about nancy pulling ron's
>	strings??!  and i'm sure bar had more than a passing
>	interest in georgie's work...  at least clinton is
>	honesy enough to come out and say his wife is involved.
>	(even if he's not normally honest;-)
>
>	rush complained that we elected clinton, not his wife...
>	NOT TRUE!  you always get two for the price of one.
>	do we honestly believe that presidential marriages are
>	like the cleaver's marriage??!
>
>	come on people... 
>
>	rush, you are better than this...
>
>
>
>just my $0.004 worth (price adjusted for future inflation)
>pjm.

You lefties just don't see the contradiction, do you?  What did the 
liberals in the media say when the possibility arose that nancy was 
having influence on the prez?  Lefties from coast-to-coast were 
outraged!  Now, since it is one of your own in the white house, it 
is perfectly fine that she gets as involved as much as possible.
(I was talking about Hillary as the leftist in the white house, 
since it is not agreed upon that Bill is one as well.)

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Subject: Re: Final call for Clinton cabinet nominations
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:27:01 GMT

In article <7221@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> A few days ago (more like a week) I called upon people to send in their
> humorous suggestions of a Clinton cabinet. Now, by no means is my list
> complete, but here are the positions I have called to be filled. If you
> have more, I can write them in.
> 
> Secretary of State
     Hillary Rodham Clinton -- lives in a state, Arkansas
> 
> Secretary of Defense:
     defense is irrelevant.
> 
> Secretary of the Treasury:
     Hillary Rodham Clinton -- balances Bill's checkbook
> 
> Attorney General:
     Hillary Rodham -- has a successful law career.
> 
> Secretary of the Interior:
     Bob Vila -- will use the White House as "this old house" in '93.
> 
> Secretary of Labor
     Hillary Rodham Clinton -- was once in labor
> 
> Secretary of Education
     Hillary Rodham Clinton -- has a college education
> Chief of Staff
     Hillary Rodham Clinton -- <tasteless joke involved here.>
> 
> National Security Advisor
     National security is irrelevant
> 
> Joint Chiefs of Staff (military)
     the military is irrelevant
> 
> Surgeon General
     position to remain unfilled until Hillary Rodham Clinton
      obtains her degrees (DMD,DDS,OB/GYN)
> Secretary of Transportation
     Hillary Rodham Clinton -- soon to have an airfield named after her
> 
> Secretary of Agriculture (Do we have one???)
     President of Food Lion
> Press Secretary
     Hillary Rodham Clinton -- clothes always neatly pressed
> 
> Director of White House Communications
     We'll give this one to Chelsea Clinton -- teenagers, phones,...
                you get the idea.
> And ... the "scapegoat"
      THE MEDIA!!!!!!!
Kevin L. Stamber
LATE FOR CLASS, BUT STILL POLITICALLY INCORRECT!
purdue.edu
> 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Liberal Agenda
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/JSC
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:35:25 GMT

Peter writes

When I read your original posting, I was first amused, then very
saddened.  You seem to think (from your first item) that the
government is responsible for the values of your family.  You, sir,
have that responsibility.  Every family is faced with that
responsibility.  If your children become homosexual because of what
they learned in school, you have not done a good job of teaching them
your values, or they had that proclivity from the start.  Or are you
suggesting that you can handle it, but the rest of the people,
sheeplike and unaware, cannot?  A little arrogance goes a long way.

Peter
------------------------

jpsb responds

I do feel that the government should not undermine the values of my family. I agree
that it is my responsibility to teach those values. I guess the point I am tring to 
make is that the radical left does not share my values, further more I often wonder
what values they do have. When I was a young man in the sixties, I was concidered 
liberal. My values haven't changed much over the years and now people call me a
conservative. 
One of the most destrubing comments that I have read regarding my post went something like
this.
	"We are a people living by the rule of law, not a people sharing common values"

The point of this comment and yours is that morality has no place in society.  That I 
have no right to expect society to have a shared set of values, and that each of us is 
on our own, and anything goes.  Well you are proably right, first we took God out of 
public life, now it is time to take moral values out of public life.  I am simply 
expressing the opinion that this is a mistake.  

jim shirreffs

I speak for myself

the road to hell is paved with good intensions
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:29:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <skcgak8@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <1ejn23INN6vd@agate.berkeley.edu>, don@ocf.berkeley.edu writes:
>|>Do you really think it's reasonable to ask all the married
>|>couples in the world to refrain from having sex if they don't
>|>want any more children?  Do you really think you will succeed in
>|>convincing people not to have sex?  Or could it be that you're
>|>recommending a course that is totally unworkable & unrealistic,
>|>and therefore ridiculous?
>|  This is classic liberal intellectual dishonesty. What fraction of
>|  women who get abortions are married?  Maybe 1%??
>
>Note that the previous poster recommended abstinence for married
>people, too.  But since you seem to think that married people
>don't experience unwanted pregnancies, I have some facts for
>you:
>
>========================================================
>From rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
>Message-ID: <1992May1.104931.17828@hemlock.cray.com>
>  
>Try _The World Almanac_; there's a nice chart there.  I won't type in
>the whole thing (wouldn't fit), but the figures for 1972, 1976, 1980,
>and 1985 in the 1990 World Almanac (page 846; they also have figures
>for 1981, 1982, 1983, & 1984) are:
>
[bunch of statistics deleted]

You do not give us the most important piece of information: is this for 
the entire planet or just the US?  If it is the planet, then the stats 
are worthless since americans have little to say about the abortion laws 
of other countries. >
>
>|What bothers me is how liberals aren't one-bit concerned about
>|the millions of unborn babies who are vacuumed-up, yet the
>|thought of a woman having an unwanted pregnancy sends chills up
>|their spines.
>
>What bothers me is how raving lunatics aren't one bit concerned
>about living, breathing women, yet the idea of undifferentiated
>tissue getting removed-- which nature does on its own, for 2/3 of
>all conceptions-- sends them into frothing control freakouts.
>
>---
>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
>				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9883 alt.politics.bush:13936 alt.politics.clinton:17354 talk.politics.misc:60585
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Abstinence and abortion
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:18:42 GMT

psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
#
  [...]
#
# I used to think sex was "important" outside of making babies.  
# Now that I have two children I realize that this is utterly false.
# And when you make one that you keep you might realize that, too.
# 
# A baby's life *will* come to an end if it is aborted.
# 
# I'm not asking you to stop eating, sleeping, etc.  I'm not even asking 
# you to stop having sex.  I'm asking *everyone* to stop killing babies.
# Can you understand that??  There *is* a big difference.

Sure.  Most people can understand that.  All *I'm* asking for is that
you shut up about abstinence.  It is *not* an alternative to abortion,
or pregnancy.  What we need is for people to understand that they have
a choice between living in harmony with the regular readership of
talk.abortion, and making a point of dragging pointless, distracting
and brain-damaged calls for an attempt to eliminate the need for
abortion by volunteering never to have sex unless for explicitly
procreative purposes.  You exercise your choice when you post, Mr.
Smith.

Please use this clue wisely.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:55:32 GMT

     How about "Moralists without Morals" or (more accurate but 
non-alliterative) "Moralists without Scruples"?

                                        Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10030 talk.environment:4667