HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bdsuba@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Grey Rider)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:16:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims02.13APR199214165917
Organization: Turner Ranch. Blood Butte, Texas
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <29E89ED6.21872@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes...
>em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>>I wondered what the polls would show if the question "Are you
>>pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or for restricted abortion?" were asked
>>instead of something simple and misleading like "Are you pro-choice
>>or pro-life?"
> 
>If you had ever even seen the Gallup Reports on abortion, you would not
>have asked this question.  The Gallup Polls asked whether abortion
>should be made illegal.  A majority of Americans (nearly two-thirds)
>has consistently stated that abortion should remain legal.

The original poster's observation that the polls are misleading is very 
real. You are correct in stating that nearly 2/3 of respondents state that 
abortion should remain a legal option, but it does not follow that America 
is "pro-choice".  When Gallup Polls ask whether abortion should be allowed 
for sex selection purposes an even greater percentage than 2/3 responds No.
Also, nearly 2/3 of respondents say that abortion for birth control should 
be illegal. 

In a Gallup Poll published in USA Today the question was asked, "Would you 
be more or less likely to vote for a presidential candidate if the 
candidate would make abortion illegal except for rape, incest, or to save 
the life of the mother?"  46% would be less likely, 44% would be more 
likely. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%. This data suggests that 
the country is about evenly divided. Not Pro-Life, Not Pro-Choice: Split.
Just the facts, ma'am.

>Possible independent presidential candidate, Ross Perot, is Pro-Choice.

I had believed this, too until I heard an interview that he gave on a local 
TV station. He ended by saying that the issue was much more complex than 
simply a woman's right.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:47:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.111241.2882@arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.uucp (Ted Krueger) writes:

>I don't know if fringe or not fringe can be decided based on a public 
>gathering of 500,000 people, but perhaps Rush does not think that a 
>gathering based on abortion is important since he thinks that Roe 
>v. Wade will be overturned because it is bad law, and not because 
>the population supports or does not support abortion.

	This was not what he said. He said that it wasn't important
because the people were not representitive of anybody important.

>Another comment: When the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will 
>not outlaw abortion, it will simply turn the choice over to the states.  
>If there is a great amount of public support for abortion, then what 
>is N.O.W concerned about? People in the individual states will vote 
>to maintain the legality of abortion. 

	I expect that it was a show of force, more then anything else.
NOW is actively pushing for a review of the Penn. law in the hopes of
getting it over and done with during an election season. The theory is
that they will be able to use their momentum to pass local laws to replace
the courts protection. Maryland, for example, has already passed a law
that forbids restrictions on abortion, in the event that Roe v. Wade is
scrapped.

	For a radical fringe element, the pro-choice movement is certainly
getting the attention of polititions, particulary the Republicans. I've seen
more then a few public appeals by republican senators on  the editorial
pages of the Times, all asking that abortion be dropped from the platform
(There is a fringe of the party that wants a constitutional amendment
banning abortion). I for one hope that the pro-life republicans hold their 
ground, thats one fight I'd like to see to the finish.


-- 
#################################		           :alex.
#Disclaimer: Anyone who agrees  #                 Systems Programmer
#with me deserves what they get.#    University of Maryland Baltimore County
#################################	    alex@umbc3.umbc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:42:32 -0500

In article <4009@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500scv1@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu 
(Steven C. Velasco) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.155308.18708@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
>nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>>The fact that Rush had one puff more than 20 years
>>ago shouldn't surprise or alarm anyone. I believe that the effects of
>>marijuana don't last more than a couple hours anyway. What's the big
>>deal?
>
>It seems to me that anybody who admits to one puff is trying to
>lessen the severity and the extent of their use (yes, this includes
>Bill Clinton).

    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you mean they're trying
to play down its importance then I suppose that I would agree with you,
but I'd also say that they're just trying to place the fact in its
proper perspective. Taking one puff of marijuana is not severe, and
short of complete abstension I don't see how the "extent" of their use
could possibly be less. 

> I do agree, however, who gives a shit any way.

    I think the people who do "give a shit" are the extreme zero-
tolerance crowd. There really are some people who think that even a
single puff is an unforgivable sin, so I sort of understand why public
figures start trying to dodge and side-step when the question of *any*
past drug use of any kind comes up. The question of judgement is bound
to arise, but I wouldn't say that one-time drug use is indicative of 
anything worse than an active sense of curiosity.

    Personally, I would wonder about the judgement and character of
anyone who managed to live through the 60's without being even a little 
curious about what all the fuss was about. 

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:47:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.46
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <1992Apr10.235247.11398@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.211518.6682@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>*>>>Has it ever occurred to you that because of our excellent judgment
>*>>>that's why we have never tried it?
[Backing up a bit for historic reasons...... The rush.regulars (I believe
it was none other than Nathan and Andrew) said they had tried pot and
said most people in the '60s tried pot.  Ed responded with the above.]

>>>Anal retentiveness perhaps?
[My answer to why Ed wasn't a pot smoker.]
>>
>> Now, Marc I think you'd better rethink what your saying here.  True, he
>>made some somewhat unreasonable statements, but that's no reason to lose
>>your cool and suggest that those of us who haven't tried pot are anal
>>retentive.  It seems to me that you both started out with some valid and
>>pertinent points and then went way overboard...

I wanted to imply Ed was anal rententive.  
(Oh, and your posts Pat seem to change tone.  I've like the last batch
of yours Pat.)

>Does this sound better? I did say they have excellent judgment;
>I won't comment on what they do with it.

No Ed, you claimed YOU and the other non-smokers had the excellent 
judgement.  

>Those who lack the ability to reason resort to violent behavior!

So Ed, is this your motto?  
(I liked the 'That's what I said in less words sthick' of yours Ed.)

-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: suo@cae.wisc.edu (Franklin Suo)
Subject: CLinton's Potsmoking Days
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:44:07 CDT
Originator: suo@sun-25.cae.wisc.edu


In article <1992Apr5.011718.11442@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
|> I don't care if Clinton smoked pot.  People do stupid things when they are 
|> young.  The trouble is, in the same sentence that he said he didn't like it, he
|> also said the he didn't inhale.  How can he know that he didn't like it if he 
|> didn't inhale?  Even when Clinton admits things he still can't tell the truth.
|> All you pot smokers out there - isn't it pretty impossible to get a buzz ( and 
|> know whether you like it or not) if you don't inhale or ingest the drug 
|> somehow?
|> 
|> Susan Schudt

Well, about 70% of the available nicotine in tobacco smoke is absorbed through
the mucosa of the mouth and throat (compared with about 98% absorbtion in the
lungs.) I'm not aware of any clinical studies on the buccal absorbtion of
marijuana smoke. But enough "elitist" talk about science.:-)

I don't really care if he smoked dope either. The real issue is that he was
LYING about smoking it at the time he supposedly fired up the old water bong.
The only reason to smoke dope is to experience its effects, which are to
relieve ocular pressure in glaucoma patients, to alleviate the nausea of
chemotherapy patients, and most often, to get stoned. 

The fact that Clinton didn't inhale shows that he didn't really WANT to get
baked; he was simply trying to impress whatever crowd he was with when he
supposedly was smoking dope. And he lied again when he started running for
president! That's two distinct times that he's lied on the subject, AND, he
changed his lie depending on the group he was with! 

WARNING: Before anyone gets riled-up about the above, please realize that it
was intended as a satirical representation of the "Liberal Media", written in
the style of Rush Limbaugh...



"America the Beautiful, land of the free,
Don't change the words to Land of Hypocricy"		Frank Suo
--Anthrax--						suo@cae.wisc.edu
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:44:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.42
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <1992Apr10.151505.6546@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>In article <36@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>... [Deleted] ...

Interesting you deleted point 1.  Any reason?

>>2) What do you consider acusations, and what do you consider evidance?
>> ...[deleted]... I've heard accusations of George Bush sleeping
>>around with some aid in a motel room......
>This is an accusation where the press had investigated and found
>absolutely nothing. And there is no evidence.

The press may ave found 'something'.  But what self-respecting 
(and employed journalist) would publish if they did not have
evidence?  Like 'tapes' or 'photographs' or 'credible eye 
witnesses'?

>For Slick Willy, there was an accusation, and Gennifer Follows and
>her tapes are evidence. Can't you see?

I can 'C', yet your original statement was about how there were no
'republican' scandals.  So I provide you with two.  Of which your 
only adressed one.
-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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.
From: 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Preston J. Park)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:50:43 CDT
Organization: Macrocosm BBS: 913-841-9446

In article <29E89ED6.21872@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
> My point was this:  More politicians are pro-choice than pro-life.  Why
> do you suppose that is?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that,
> say, a majority of the U.S. public is pro-choice?

I don't know.  Why do you suppose a group of 6000 pro-abortion demonstrators
get 2 full newspaper pages of coverage and a group of 30,000 anti-abortion
activists get a paragraph the next day?  Could it have anything to do with the
fact that, say, 6000 people is more than 30,000?

-- 
| Preston Park |____________________________________________________________
| 1:280/108    | 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | ppark@tesla.ece.ukans.edu |P.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|The LAUG Apple II Development Group -A SIG of the Lawrence Apple Users Group|
|and Lawrence S.P.A.M. Society -Serious (Silly) Programmers of Apple Machines|
From: mad5c@batik.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Designing Women?  Rush get Naive
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:48:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: batik.1992Apr17.124858
Reply-To: mad5c@batik.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong)
Organization: University of Virginia

Big loud spontaneous Rush goes on Designing Women to visit
Mz Sugarbaker.  Tune in to watch Rush go splat.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Reply-To: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:03:15 GMT

>Saying that the SC can declare the Constitution to be unconstitutional
>doesn't
>clear up much, except maybe our perception of your level of understanding of
>our government's structure.

	Frank, you got me.  I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote this,
it was very late at night (sheepish grin).  My humble apologies - I hope
you'll all forgive what really was a heinous mistake on my part - my 
political science teacher back in H.S. would have had me for lunch if I had
dared to say something like that in class.  

	Seein' as I's new to this here newsgroup, maybe you'uns could grant me
this one mistake - I promises I ain't gonna make no more and that the next 
time I talk to y'all, I'll be back up to my usual level of competence/
intellectual perfection.

	For the poor, misguided soul whose thoughts I tried to clear up with 
such a downright hornery example, much apologies.  The point however, (even
if I can't back it up with an example right now) holds true - 
> Point being - if the S.C. does overturn Roe v Wade, and as long as the
>laws protecting abortion on the state level are not of the same vein (ie
>they don't allow for unconditional abortion on demand) then there is a good
> chance that those state laws might survive.  True, abortion might also be
> outlawed completely, but the people, thru the demopcratic process, will
>have both choices at their disposal - which is my main concern.

                                   Humbled apologies once again,
                                        Pat Conway
From: 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Preston J. Park)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:44:23 CDT
Organization: Macrocosm BBS: 913-841-9446

In article <29E89ED6.21872@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
> If you had ever even seen the Gallup Reports on abortion, you would not
> have asked this question.  The Gallup Polls asked whether abortion
> should be made illegal.  A majority of Americans (nearly two-thirds)
> has consistently stated that abortion should remain legal.

The majority you speak of typically depend on the question asked.  I believe
the majority do not think abortion on demand should be legal.  At any rate,
considering what abortion is, I think 1/3 believing it should be made illegal
is an awfully big number.

> Well, we do have this thing called the separation of Church and State.

Which exists in the minds of Lefties and no where in the Constitution.

-- 
| Preston Park |____________________________________________________________
| 1:280/108    | 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | ppark@tesla.ece.ukans.edu |P.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|The LAUG Apple II Development Group -A SIG of the Lawrence Apple Users Group|
|and Lawrence S.P.A.M. Society -Serious (Silly) Programmers of Apple Machines|
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:46:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.34
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <1992Apr6.130618.11618@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>    As far as Clinton is concerned, I can't really believe that a guy
>with his scandalous "hands-on" reputation where women are concerned
>would go to the trouble of putting a joint in his mouth without going
>for the full experience and breathing deeply. To me, the most impressive 
>demonstration of good judgement would be to give something a real try, 
>and then decide that it's dumb even if you find that you *do* like it.

The idea of taking burning leaves and placing such in my mouth seems
silly, but then I take leaves and boil them then drink the liquid.

Nathan, you're right tho....seems like a lot of trouble to not
'inhale'.  Odds are the spin-doctors wanted to stop the zero-tolerance
crowd from making pot a big deal.

Another demo of good judgement is to be able to use things like pot, 
booze, etc in moderation.  When your actions under the inflance won't 
harm others.

-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:52:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.211518.6682@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>I guess comming from such a wonderful background qualifies you for
>>the abilty to judge others?
>
*>>>Has it ever occurred to you that because of our excellent judgment
*>>>that's why we have never tried it?
>
>>Anal retentiveness perhaps?
>
>	Now, Marc I think you'd better rethink what your saying here.  True, he
>made some somewhat unreasonable statements, but that's no reason to lose
>your cool and suggest that those of us who haven't tried pot are anal
>retentive.  It seems to me that you both started out with some valid and
>pertinent points and then went way overboard...

What is so unreasonable about it? Is it
another one of your Politically Corrupt things? Should I only
say good things about them even if they are bad. Ok, I'll do it.

I guess it's because of their excellent judgment, that's why they
do drugs and waste their brains. (Hey, don't look at me; it is
scientific that drug do damage brain cells.)

Does this sound better? I did say they have excellent judgment;
I won't comment on what they do with it.

Those who lack the ability to reason resort to violent behavior!
---
Ed
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dano@usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 07:07:39 GMT

2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Preston J. Park) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.100417.510@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>> anywhere else and 'remove everyone in sight'." Abortion is certainly
>> killing, but it is a very narrowly defined sort of killing (and it is
>> rarely done with firearms).

>Oh, a narrowly defined sort of killing.  Gee, I guess that makes it all right.

Are you a vegetarian?
No? Then can it.
-Dan
.

>-- 
>| Preston Park |____________________________________________________________
>| 1:280/108    | 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | ppark@tesla.ece.ukans.edu |P.|
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|The LAUG Apple II Development Group -A SIG of the Lawrence Apple Users Group|
>|and Lawrence S.P.A.M. Society -Serious (Silly) Programmers of Apple Machines|
--
Daniel Anthony Stephenson, player of Praetorius, namer of The Solarium.
dano@srl01.cacs.usl.edu das9674@usl.edu
"I can be, what I want to, and all I need is to get my boogie
down"- Al Jarreau.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Liberals and the Japanese economy
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:02:38 GMT

	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.

	As an aside, I'll observe that one of the following is true:

	(a) All dittoheads completely disagree with Rush on this point

	(b) Some dittoheads let Rush do the thinking for them

	(c) Some dittoheads arrived at these conclusion independantly.

I'm figuring (b), because it takes a pretty wild imagination to dream this
stuff up. I suppose (a) is possible, but I doubt it because there are so
many people who seem willing to believe anything, as long as its the fault
of the Democrats.


-- 
#################################		           :alex.
#Disclaimer: Anyone who agrees  #                 Systems Programmer
#with me deserves what they get.#    University of Maryland Baltimore County
#################################	    alex@umbc3.umbc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 17:33:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.153214.773@desire.wright.edu> psmoker@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Apparently, there are those in our society who do. Remember the big
>deal about the supreme court nominee a while ago? Also, Rush apparently
>thinks it is a topic of much humor, give the 10 minutes of air time he gave it.
>(That I know of) Just another form of hypocracy. When Clinton admits, Rush
>calls him a drug fiend. When Rush admits, people come to his defense. I agree,
>there is no issue.

Do you really believe that Slick really didn't inhale, especially
taking his integrity into consideration? Dope smoking was popular
in the 60's. It is one thing if you've done it; it is another when
you 'slickly' "deny" it. I could accept that Slick has done it
in the 60's and forget the whole issue. I can't accept his "denial."

Ed
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh