HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: RESULTS of the Clinton vs. Bush Poll
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:23:48 GMT

In article <51@milestn.UUCP> you write:
>In article <1992Apr12.221727.10992@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> aiesec@magnus.ac
s.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State) writes:
>>Here are the results of the Bush vs. Clinton poll.
>>
>>Forty people responded, and gave Bush the victory, which is expected.
>>
>>   Candidate         # of voters   percentage
>>
>>   BUSH                35             87.5%
>>   CLINTON              5             12.5%
>>
>>It is interesting to note that I did recieve a significant, albeit small,
>>number of people who refused to vote for Clinton or Bush and would have liked
 a
>>third party candidate.  The majority of them being more liberal.
>
>So?  What is your point?  You asked ONLY for votes for Clinton OR Bush.
>Some people didn't follow 'directions.'
>

I asked for comments.  This network actually followed directions very well.  I 
thank them for making this rather easy actually.

>>Also, I think we all realize that this newsgroup is hardly a cross section of

>>society, so liberals can take heart.
>
>Considering the readership of the net tends to be college degreed and is
>(according to some) 1,600,000 people that's only 3 times the size of a
>radical fringe group.
>

I think you have this comedy thing all wrong, humor is supposed to be FUNNY.

>> Also, the good news for conservatives is
>>that they have proven that they like Bush one hell of alot more then they lik
e
>>Clinton.
>
>Are you trying to say something siginificant here?
>

What the hell could possibly make you want to this statement in such a venomous
manner.  If you ask me Marc, you have WAY to much free time.

>>I will leave the rest of the analysis to the reader.
>
>A poll was taken asking "Bush or Clinton - choose one".  What is a person
>suppose to do?   Get excited?  Neither canidate makes me want to leap
>out of bed at 3:00 AM and say "I'm gonna vote for this guy."
>And the poll was taken in a newsgroup called alt.FAN.RUSH-LIMBAUGH
>after a radio show that bills itself conservative.
>
>What kind of results did you expect?  I would have been surprised if you
>didn't get the result you were looking for.
>--

Oh really, what if about half the conservatives who reponded said they liked 
Perot?  I don't know about you, but before this poll I would have thought this 
was possible.  Also, what the hell are you doing on your computer at 3:00 a.m.?
See comment on free time Marc.  Get some sleep, you need it.  Your cranky.

Ryan C. Scharfy
Buckeyestate Dittohead
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 21:51:15 EDT
From: <JCS130@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 <m4JsiB2w164w@batpad.lgb.CA.US>

  Dear Rush(idiot) Limbo followers,
        If you think that Bush will win in the Fall, he might.  But he might
not if a better Democratic Canidate is found( i.e. the Mario Scenario, Lloyd
Benson).  Clinton had a chance earlier, before Brown exposed his inadequacies,
to be a contender for beating Bush in the fall.  I would support neither Bush
nor Clinton if I had to make a choice between them.  A lot of people obviously
feel the same way as I do (i.e. Brown and Buchanan supporters) but there are no
 canidates affilliated with a party that can win in the fall.  That is why I
see a chance for Perot, Cuomo, or Benson to be the next president.

                      Mega un-dittos
                      Jonathan C. Schon
                      JCS130@PSUVM

             P.S.  Who would re-elect a guy with an idiot as a running mate(no,
 I am not refering to Rush Limbo at this time)?

     Larry King is 100 times better than Rush Limbo!!!!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: clmn@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Reply-To: clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Department of Economics
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:17:43 GMT

In article <STEINAR.92Apr16150115@faust.solan.unit.no> steinar@faust.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:

>
>Of course not.  Limiting discussions to appropriate groups only, particularly
>the controversial subjects that are known to cause flame wars wherever
>they go, is contrary to the Higher Purpose of Usenet.
>
>Does anybody really need a 8-) for this post?
>

You see, the problem is that the subject line keeps changing, I need some
iterative self-modifying code to keep my kill file up-to-date.  Any codeheads
out there?


-- 
Bill Coleman
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush's Apology
From: sarnold@bgsu.edu (G. Steve Arnold)
Date: 17 Apr 92 06:03:01 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.

nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:

[stuff about Rush pulling the MS. Carriage Inc. stuff from the Feminazi
 trading cards ad deleted...]

>     I'm not sure what to think about the precedent for pulling material 
> deemed to be offensive;

	Well, he pulled the regular caller abortions as well as the Gay
rights update (and I think the death update, too, if I'm not mistaken) --
so there certainly is quite a bit of precedent for Rush admitting he's
gone just a bit too far...

> certainly the remainder of the edited trading 
> card commercial is offensive to feminists but I doubt that the commercial 
> itself will be pulled. 

	Nope, and it shouldn't be -- funny stuff.

> I guess the difference here is that Rush intended 
> to offend the feminists and doesn't feel bad about doing it, but he never
> really intended to offend the mothers of America.

	Yep, I think you're right, he shouldn't and he didn't.

toodles-
steve

-- 
   The only difference between a Communist        G. Steve Arnold
   and a Socialist is that the Socialist will     Dept. Math and Stats.
   only confiscate the resources that are         BGSU
   profitable.                                    sarnold@andy.bgsu.edu
                        "Keep circulating the tapes"
From: pearl@remus.rutgers.edu (Starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:57:30 GMT
Organization: the Worlds Welfare Work Association, Rutgers Anime division

In article <1992Apr10.121153.8605@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
> 
> >The baby is a human life from the moment of conception.
> 
> Do you suggest that we charge women who suffer "spontaneous abortions" with
> murder as well?
> 
Spontaneous Abortions... Also known as Ms. Carriages

Steve
---
Stephen Pearl (Starbuck)    Work: (908)932-3465   Home: (908)566-6842
UUCP:  rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!pearl  Internet: pearl@remus.rutgers.edu
FidoNet: Stephen.Pearl@f371.n107.z1.fidonet.org (or 1:107/371)
GEnie: S.PEARL6                    CI$: >internet:pearl@remus.rutgers.edu  
US MAIL:  359 Lloyd Rd, Aberdeen, NJ 07747-1826           
QUOTES: "What is Starbuck-ing?" -Adultress 19
        "Works for me!" -Rick Hunter (The Cop, not the Robotech Defender)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aiesec@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State)
Subject: Re: Poll Bush vs Clinton (if Rush ran)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:10:06 GMT

It's to late at night to copy where this question came from, but in answer to 
the previous post.  I honestly would vote Rush for President if he somehow ran 
and had the backing of the Republican Party.

Ryan C. Scharfy
Buckeyestate Dittohead
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: herbert@wam.umd.edu (David Mark Herbert)
Subject: Re: Unofficial Summary for Tuesday, April 7, 1992
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:20:15 GMT

>>
>>>Constitution does not provide any "right to an abortion," and in
>>>fact the founding fathers made a point about all citizens having
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Rush
>

>
>"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
                                                    ^^^
>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
>Happiness...."  (p 454 of "The World Almanac", 1992)
>
>I guess you are right...I guess as long as the fetus is a Woman, it
>has no right to "Life".  And since a Woman carries the baby, and the
>Man doesn't, she is not bound by the Declaration of Independance or
>the Constitution.  Sorry.  I thought I had something there about
>everyone being guaranteed the right to "Life", but that is only
>extended to "Men" and not "Babies".  I'm sorry for wasting your time.
>

When the founding fathers said all Men, they did not mean all members of 
Mankind. They truely meant all white men. It wasn't until this century that
everyone was endowed with those unalienable rights.  So your reference to
citizens is incorrect. Even if it were, unborn are not citizens. You can be
a citizen by naturalization or birth (not conception). So again, your reference
is not relevant. In my own opinion, though, what the founding fathers meant
is irrelevant any way.  They wrote in the consitution that the government
could not tax the income of its citizens, yet we pay taxes. Because of taxes, 
as far as I am concerned, they have already obstructed my "right" to pursue
happiness. What about a religion that requires a human sacrifice? Should the
government step in and say everyone else has freedom of religion, but not you.
The constitution is too vague to say that the founding fathers meant that 
abortion should be illegal.  Based on the fact that higher taxes interferes 
with my right to pursue happiness and your logic, I could say that the founding
fathers meant all people that could not afford to raise a child must have an 
abortion as to not be a burden to society.  By the way, if the government made 
abortions after three months of pregnancy illegal, it would not change my life 
one bit.  With the exception that I will have to pay higher taxes. But if they
made abortions mandatory, I have a feeling they would raise taxes any way.


-- 
___________________________________________________
David M. Herbert, University of Maryland
herbert@wam.umd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: e-mail addr
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 01:14:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <00958E60.88B5ACE0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> iadmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>In article <=!tjpsa.jrs@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>>In article <00958DA0.50D1D3A0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> iadmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>>>In article <167C4E676.JEZOR@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>, JEZOR@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>>>> 
>>>>Thanks.  I got it.  Please don't send it anymore.  I'll write, and if
>>>>it bounces back, I'll just send it again!  {Jonathan Ezor}
>>>
>>>
>>>PS If you have Compuserve Information manager and access Rush's forum, look 
>>
>>>for Enos Slobodnik.  That's one of Rush's aliases.
>>You don't even have to look for his name, just do a read search (RS) on 
>>Rush's Email address; you can have any name that you want but your
>>Email address stays the same. 
>>-- 
>
>That is tru, but it is easier to recognize Enos Slobodnik than it is to
>remember that dastardly Email address.  What would you rather be a Slobodnik or
>a 9 digit number separated by a comma?

Oh, that's easy - the numbers! After all, Enos SLobodnik has 13 letters, while
Rush's CIS address has only 9 digits. And numbers are far easier to remember - 
my own for example (74076,1250) is easy - 74 was the year I left high school,
the 0 is just a null separator, 76 is two years after 74, and 1250 was the 
number of my classroom in college in which I had band. See? Easy!

>
-- 
John Switzer-Hoek          | "You hear it, you see it, 
(note yuppy hyphenation)   | you want to turn away, but 
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | you CAN'T! It's Ren and Stimpy!"
jrs@netcom.com             | Happy, Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy, Joy!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: suo@cae.wisc.edu (Franklin Suo)
Subject: Re: Liberals and the Japanese economy
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:20:34 CDT
Originator: suo@sun-25.cae.wisc.edu


In article <1992Apr8.150238.28566@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
|> 
|> 	I thought it was funny how Rush could blame the Liberals for
|> ruining Japans economy because of all the "Japan-Bashing" thats been
|> going on. I guess he wasn't around to listen to Pat Buchannan during
|> one of his America First! speeches (Or is Pat a Liberal now? I've lost
|> my scorecard).
|> 
|> 	Between that and the idea that Japan can't hurt the US economy,
|> but the US is responsible for Japans problems, I actually had to laugh
|> out loud at Rushs "logic". Does anybody want to defend Rushs logic here,
|> I'd love to hear it.

[...]

|> 
|> -- 
|> #################################		           :alex.
|> #Disclaimer: Anyone who agrees  #                 Systems Programmer
|> #with me deserves what they get.#    University of Maryland Baltimore County
|> #################################	    alex@umbc3.umbc.edu

I thought Rush wanted to export tenets of Liberalism, such as our Draconian
laws against dumping PCB's into the local reservoirs, to Japan in an effort to
destroy their ability to compete. Sounds like a great idea to me! While we're
at it, we should advise all the fledgeling democracies in eastern Europe and
the former Soviet Union that the best way to jump-start their newly-forming
market economies is to enact massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the
population.

(In case no-one noticed, the above comment was sarcastic in its entirety.)


"America the Beautiful, land of the free,
Don't change the words to Land of Hypocricy"		Frank Suo
--Anthrax--						suo@cae.wisc.edu
From: axd7104@acfcluster.nyu.edu (Aaron Dickey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Date: 11 Apr 92 14:58:46 GMT
Organization: New York University

In article <1992Apr10.121153.8605@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
> 
>>The baby is a human life from the moment of conception.
> 
> Do you suggest that we charge women who suffer "spontaneous abortions" with
> murder as well?
> 
> MD

Of course not, because that is an Act of the LORD! ;)
-- 
Aaron Dickey                      Bitnet: axd7104@nyuacf
New York University             Internet: axd7104@ACFcluster.nyu.edu

Al Roker Is God.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: I tried not to get into this......
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:47:35 GMT



Just wondering if it matters to all you abortionists that in 1972 a child was 
born after 22 weeks of pregnancy.  He is alive and well today.
-- 
Susan E. Schudt
Department of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State

"When you're right, you're right!"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: iadmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: e-mail addr
Reply-To: iadmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:12:02 GMT

In article <167C4E676.JEZOR@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>, JEZOR@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
> 
>Thanks.  I got it.  Please don't send it anymore.  I'll write, and if
>it bounces back, I'll just send it again!  {Jonathan Ezor}


PS If you have Compuserve Information manager and access Rush's forum, look for
Enos Slobodnik.  That's one of Rush's aliases.

Mark...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark R. Rogstad		| Bitnet: IADMR@MTSUNIX1
Technology Education	| Internet: IADMR@msu.oscs.montana.edu
Montana St. University	| Compuserve: 76366,472
Bozeman, MT   59717	| GEnie: M.ROGSTAD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Always Question Authority", George Weber, KOA Radio, Denver, CO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roberts@triton.unm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH FAN NEEDS INFO.
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:53:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.qgxjjka
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <12213@tamsun.tamu.edu> n352cb@tamuts.tamu.edu (James Johnson) writes:
>
>IF ANYONE CAN SEND ME SOME INFO ON HIS TV SHOW PLEASE DO SO!!!

Rush was on the Donohue show that was taped today, and Phil asked 
him about his upcoming TV show.  He said he has so many good ideas
that he didn't want to talk about it due to the fact that there
are "competitors who would want to steal them".   I guess we'll
just have to wait and see!

Robert


-- 

Robert Smathers   (roberts@triton.unm.edu) Albuquerque, NM  USA
Moderator, UNI Satellite TV Conference
From: jeffb@gatecom.UUCP (Jeff Breitner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I tried not to get into this......
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 11:45:57 EDT
Organization: Gateway Communication Inc.

> s
> >> born after 22 weeks of pregnancy.  He is alive and well today.
> >> --
> >>
> >> "When you're right, you're right!"
> >
> >
> >And I supposed this bundle of joy was born and survived without any
> >medical intervention?  Ya -- right.  Had it not been for the wonders
> >of modern medicine it would have been called a miscarriage.
> >
> >I don't believe in abortion...but I believe in the right.  It's only
> >a few steps from restricting abortion to restricting other rights.
> >
> 
>        I believe that women should probably be allowed to have abortions, but
> your flippant response about the birth of a human child is pretty sick.
> 
  
Flippant?  Perhaps.  I have a wonderful one year old...was there to
witness the entire thing and wouldn't trade that experience for
anything.  I was merely stating what I believe is correct, although
I'm not an MD.  My opinion about abortion is simple.  It "ain't
my problem!"  When the doctors who perform them and the recipients
will have to bear the consequences of their actions.  I don't
believe in it but then I nor my wife will participa. 
 
But the quote "When you're right you're right" falls into an
argument, then there's nothing you can do to disuade nor pursuade.
The other party is literally demanding that their beliefs be 
forced upon you.  And I take exception to that.
 
And as far as my flippant response, I apologize if it offended you.
However, I think it wasn't any more offensive than what the 
pro-lifers use.
From: fsdaw@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I tried not to get into this......
Date: 17 Apr 92 21:36:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Apr17.123604.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <58@milestn.UUCP>, marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
> Putting this in terms of rights is the best argument.  
> 
> The idea of this land is not democracy, but liberty.  The liberty to
> make choices RIGHT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.  Why not allow people to make
> their own choice about abortion?
> 
> However, as soon as you do, you will have people step forward and say
> "You want the right to murder other innocent human beings?"
> 
> Allowing war, self defense, and capitol punishement is asking for the
> right to murder.
> 
Yes, but we all still agree that murder is wrong.  Most of us are uneasy with
killing even in war, that is why we have diplomacy.  However if you want to
claim that the rights of the individual are supreme, why is it that the
government has the right to tax the individual?  Why is it that it is illegal
for individuals to steal/rape/kill/monopolize/drive drunk?  Because our country
is based on the rights of individuals, so long as those rights don't skrew
another individual over in the process.  Therefore, if a fetus can survive
without its mother (aka, and individual), then killing it is killing an
individual, which we agree is wrong.  Don't give me flack about the baby
needing life support, or some other support from other people.  Babies born at
9 months still need support from others, but they are human.  Many of our      
elderly are on life support, but they are human.

> If you want to muddy the waters with innocence, then add mud in the
> form of the fetus is not human until the last trimester.

Now who's math is faulty?  22 weeks is definitely not in the last trimester!
Well, I guess that 20 year old guy is not human, he was born before the last
trimester!  Nice logic, eh?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: Bryan Schroeder
Subject: Rush radio in St. Louis/Southern Illinois?
Organization: U of ILL
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:49:12 GMT

That says it. Are there any stations serving Southern Illinois that carry Rush?
Any St. Louis stations are close enough.

The nearest one I know of won't reach down there. It is the one I listen to,
WUFI-AM 1460 in Champaign-Urbana-Rantoul in East-Central Illinois. Might as
well add it to the list.

I would have to also say that the Feminazi trading card commercial is one of,
if not THE best commercial I have ever heard any where. Could someone tape it
and post a transcript of it? I am at work during his show and can't tape it
myself.
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Poll John Gotti vs. Bill Clinton
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:31:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: CERIS.1992Apr8.213123.8157
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University


Speaking of polls, WLS in Chicago ran a poll with the "dapper
don" vs Clinton yesterday.  Gotti won by about 9 to 1.  Guess the
respondents are tired of the lesser of two evils ;-{).
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
From: fward@frumpy.helios.nd.edu (frank ward)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Perot's Town Hall and Security
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:53:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr14.155354.6622
Reply-To: fward@frumpy.helios.nd.edu (frank ward)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Apr14.002758@dogwood.cs.Virginia.EDU>, mad5c@dogwood.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong) writes:
|> One thing about this Electronic Town Hall thingy that I have 
|> never heard discussed is how secure it would be.  It would seem
|> to me that this would be very important if "the fate of the free
|> world" were resting on it.  
|> My current impression is that the basic mechanism would be a lot
|> like a Nielsen box.  
|> 
|> Just picked up the Vanity Fair.  What a horrible magazine.
|> 
|> Mike.

 Well, I don't know what particular scheme Perot has in mind technicaly, but
I'd be willing to bet that any half-way decent hacker (or cracker) could break
the system in a few weeks unless there was a prohibitive amount of security
added to the system.  Heck I`d probably be able to send 10000 votes instead of
1 after 6 months if I tried, and I'm not very good at that sort of thing.

All this begs the question of the motives and honesty of Perot and his people
working on the system. (even if you don't want to question that, what about
their successors?).  The other question would be how would they ask the 
questions.  Any poll's results depend to a large extent on what questions are
asked, and how they are asked. ie:  Do you favor restricting womens' reproductive
choice?  or Do you favor the killing of unborn babies for convienence?  
The same persorn could answer these questions and give altogether different
picture of what they believe.

enough rambling

Frank .

Frank Ward
Physics Department
University of Notre Dame
fward@happy.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh