HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck)
Subject: Stations won't air RL's show during day
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:43:12 GMT

Our poor helpless RL can't get his TV show aired during the day.
Boo Hoo Hoo.  The reason is that there is some big conspiracy
to suppress his ideas.  Everyone is out to hurt poor little
RL.  You can't see me right now, but big crocodile tears are
running down my face.

Of course, the station managers are not acting in their self-
interest as we'd expect conservative capitalists to do.  Oh no.
They are left wing commie big business bad evil, which explains
why the radio stations that they also own are happy to air RL's
talk show during the day.  Besides, the airwaves are regulated
by the government, which also explains why RL has no trouble
getting his radio show aired.

Perhaps the TV stations think that the kind of people who would
watch RL's show are more likely to be up during the night, and
that the people who traditionally advertise on his radio show,
e.g. home-study literacy programs, would pay the station more
$$$ if the show were on during the night.  But no... that would
require the station managers to be capitalists.    

Now, a more important issue is about Hilary Clinton.  As far
as I can tell, people are arguing over whether she'll be another
Nancy Reagan or another Barbara Bush, and which would be worse.

f.deck

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Inauguration $$$$$
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 20:15:53 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:

> 
> I just saw on CNN that this inauguration could cost over 30 million dollars, 
> making it the most expensive ever.
> 
> Was it not just two weeks ago that it was stated on the news that THIS 
> inauguration would be different?  Not so expensive?  There was NO WAY that th
> would spend as much as Bush? (28 million)

The truly hilarious part is that this is supposed to be the man who's
out to "return the government to the people", and reduce the influence
of "big business" on government.. Yet look who picked up the tab for
this shindig: Motorola, Boeing, MCI.. The very money-changers that
Clinton is supposed to drive from the temple.

While sad, the symbolism is funny. Don't bite the hand that feeds you,
huh? :)

> Oh well, who counts money anyway?

Not the people who don't have to foot the bill.


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14031 talk.politics.misc:70136
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:38:56 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>In article <C1Hs2M.3DH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

>>  I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
>>this type of cost?  Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
>>before they implemented the regulations?

>That's a job for the free market. Instead of complaining, invent a method that
>will do it for $10 and still stay within the regulations and you will become
>filthy rich.

   The problem is that they took a job that could be done by an individual and
regulated to the point were it has to be done by a garage.  They never thought
that people might actually still work on their own cars.  This is a novel
concept to people within the government: "You mean people still actually do
_things_ for _themselves_ ?!?!"

   Just another example of people losing control to government.  I bet 
Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave.  Hell, Madison probably is, too.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:33:37 GMT
Reply-To: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Organization: BNR, Inc.
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks


In article (Ted Frank) writes:

|>Except it was never a $6 job.  It was $6 for the can, and $200+ for the
|>environmental damage.  Just because you didn't have to directly pay for the 

Where do you get the $200 figure?  I was unaware that some company produced the
ozone layer and charged everyone for it, or is this another of those instant
numbers that get thrown around and we are expected to accept as fact?

gaj
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13919 talk.abortion:58096
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:33:01 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C1JBtz.4G2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>Is Bill Clinton going to grow?  Is Bill Clinton going to use any of Ms.
>>Irresponsible's functioning bodily systems?  Is Bill Clinton going to
>>shut down any of Ms. Irresponsible's functioning bodily systems?

>>The answer is yes.

.You have GOT to be kidding me.  Ms. Irresponsible PUT Bill Clinton
.there.  Now she can kill him?  If you really believe this you are
.sick in the head.


Why, *there's* a cogent rebuttal!

I'm impressed!

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14032 talk.politics.misc:70137
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:41:45 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:

>In article <1993Jan27.061426.11591@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes...
>>In article <C1Hs2M.3DH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>> 
>>>  I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
>>>this type of cost?  Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
>>>before they implemented the regulations?
>> 
>>That's a job for the free market. Instead of complaining, invent a method that
>>will do it for $10 and still stay within the regulations and you will become
>>filthy rich.

>Here, here!  My company is doing VERY well in the midst (or tail end,
>perhaps) of a deep recession.  Our business is supplying products to
>help power generating utilities comply with the new Clean Air Act.
>My division has increased its staffing 300% over the past five years,
>and my company can support average raises of 13%.

   Did you ever think that your companies prosperity may come at the expense
of other companies, and that this may have led to a recession?

>Government regulation has been around forever.  You can either complain
>about it, or you can make it work for you.


   Why are you so glib about excepting every regulation to come down the 
pipe?  We need government, but not the blotted, all inclusive, federal type
that we are currently struggling under.
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Political Literacy Testing
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:54:50 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University


    I try to make it a point to praise Rush on something now and then 
so here's a good one; Rush took a call in his last 15 or 20 minutes today 
from a conservative guy who thought that the election of Bill Clinton was 
an indication that the American public is "politically illiterate". The 
caller's suggested solution to the problem was "Political Literacy 
Testing"; basically you make everybody pass a test on basic political 
facts before you allow them to vote. I was pleased and not really surprised 
when Rush took the position that it was a bad idea. 

    Firstly and most importantly, it's unconstitutional. Secondly, even 
if there was such a requirement then the process of deciding what to put 
on the test would be so politically heated that the idea would be impossible 
to implement. And finally, although I'm sure Rush wouldn't particularly care 
for me mentioning it, liberals are supposed to be the ones who think that 
the public is stupid if they vote for the wrong guy. Liberals are also 
supposed to be the ones who are in favor of trampling all over the 
Constitution. Unless it's just possible that Rush is exaggerating 
or distorting the typical attributes of liberals...

    On the dark side, I did notice that Rush took another slash at 
moderates today, this time sounding more peevish and aggrieved than 
ever. I didn't quite understand how it came up at the time since he had 
just been talking about how he thought it was understandable for liberals 
to want to backpeddle from supporting liberal nuts in the same way that 
Rush backpeddles away from some of the far right wingers. What does he 
think moderism is if it's not backpeddling from extremism?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 03:06:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>Now she is comming above ground with an office in the White House

Funny, I don't recall any fuss about Mrs. Bush's office in the 
White House.  (The one in which she ghost wrote Millie's book.)
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
From: mdiehl@triton.unm.edu (J. Michael Diehl)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:30:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

>||> You are wrong.  There is indeed such a debate.  In any case, no legitimate
>||> scientist could say that there is no doubt about global warming, because
>||> that data isn't good enough to say for certain that there is, i.e. the rise
>||> is inside the error band.  The "scientist" who says there is no doubt that
>||> the earth has warmed (over the last one hundred years), is either gravely
>||> mistaken or is serving a master other than science.
>|
>|Excuse me.  Would you like to explain how the earth came out of it's last
>|Ice Age that ended 18,000 years ago.  If the earth hasn't WARMED, then what
>|has it done?

Excuse me!  Would you like to explain how the earth GOT INTO IT'S LAST ICE AGE?
Looks to me like it's a cyclic kinda thing.  So, if global warming is valid, and
I don't think so, then all we are doing is extending the "warm" part of the 
cycle...not a bad propisition... ;^)


+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|  J. Michael Diehl  ;-]  |  I thought I was wrong once.  But, I was mistaken. |
|                         +----------------------------------------------------+
|  mdiehl@hydra.unm.edu   | "I'm just looking for the opportunity to be        |
|  Thunder@forum          |            Politically Incorrect!                  |
|  Thunder@Tiny*          |                               <me>                 |
|  (505) 272-HaHa         |                                                    |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: GOP "Zoes" surface in NJ (was Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Deep Space Nine (DS9)
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:17:23 GMT


Two more to add to the list: Christine Todd Whitman and Cary Edwards,
Republicans gearing up to run for the governorship of New Jersey, have
disclosed that they have both employed illegal aliens from Portugal as
domestic staff.  They are currently consulting with lawyers regarding
taxes on the unreported staff wages.  (NYT 93/1/23, p. 23)

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		Carnaval de Quebec (City)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			February 4 - 14
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:17:31 GMT

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>In article <ReFPXB6w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:

>>One can begin to save some money (at least on taxes; though I spend far
>>more on formula and Pampers) when children arive, propagation of the
>>human race is probably one of the few things I can think of that might
>>be deserving of a tax break.

>Not in this day and age.  Let's talk about donations to Planned
>Parenthood and the United Negro College Fund, now.

Well now.  I'm actually going to admit your half right... guess which
half?  

>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 


E.S.

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14021 talk.politics.misc:70131
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What will Bush and Quayle do now?
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:17:11 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young) writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.103003.1@hiramb.hiram.edu>
>medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu writes:
[...]
>[Quayle's] rhetoric always scared me, and now I thank God he is no longer a
>heartbeat away from the presidency.

As compared to Algore, who is only a cheeseburger away.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14072 talk.abortion:58440
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:30:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NCSU

In article <1993Jan27.225234.29616@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

> Uh, Paul, sorry to jump in here and all, but perhaps you don't realize
> that "pro-choice" is the middle ground.  We can legally force abortions,
> we can legally prohibit abortions, or we can find a middle ground and say
> that the legal status of abortion should not be addressed.  

We can legally allow abortions, we can legally prohibit abortions,
or we can find a middle ground and say that some abortions should
be legal and some should not. 

> I would far, far rather leave each individual decision up to the 
> people involved, 

...and allow people to force their decisions onto innocent human beings
by killing them.


>Galen Hekhuis  


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Theme Music FAQ
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:05:10 GMT

In article <93025.050024KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.215323.24374@mcc.com>, amck@.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
>says:
>
>>Why does Rush use The Pretenders (?) song "Ohio" as his theme music?
>
>Because it sounds neat.

Thanks a wad.

OK, let me try again.

As possibly the only national talk-show host, particularly a
conservative one, in captivity, who obviously understands and
appreciates music written post-1967, why does Rush use The Pretender's
"My City Was Gone" (thanks for the correction) as his theme music?  Is
he a long-time fan of the group?  Is he from Ohio?  Or what?


-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13786 alt.rush-limbaugh:15110 alt.politics.clinton:21185
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:38:43 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

article <C1Dxzo.AK8@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) says:
>>>> Clinton walks looks like a pig, runs like a hippo and brays like an ass.
>>>> So, what the hell is he?
>
>Now we're going to get four years of Bill Clinton's white thighs flapping
>in the wind - Mark Russell

Ummm, you might want to watch your attributions.  According to Ted Krueger
and Eric Whatsisname, I am exclusively known for cheap and easy humor and 
ridicule.   The above gem of erudition and reasoned debate was brought to
you by that gentleman and scholar, Kurt Ludwick.   Ted and Eric
don't write nasty things about Kurt's, so either they must think that
the above represents something other than "ridicule and cheap humor", or
they aren't terribly consistent.

Anyway, for whatever it's worth... that wasn't my quote.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:18:37 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <1993Jan22.174046.17956@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes) writes:
|> From article <93022.001903KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, by Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>:
|> > 
|> > I think (as one of Rush's callers theorized) that Clinton -knew- that Baird
|> > would not get confirmed.  He wanted to make a pretense of wanting some
|> > conservatism in the cabinet, so people wouldn't think he was a liberal.  He
|> > never intended for someone like Zoe Baird to be attorney general.  He just
|> > wants you to think he did.  Ingenious little ploy of his.
|> 
|> 	Hmmm, in a single paragraph, you went from a rush-droid's speculation
|> of a Clinton tactic to assuming it's fact.  This certainly adds credibility
|> to the anti-Clinton side.  Is it even remotely possible that Clinton truly
|> wanted Baird as AG?  Nah!  There's got to some conspiracy to fool the public
|> here.

It's probably just a piece of fun speculation, but I think it will be signifi-
cantly substantiated or disproven by the political bent of Clinton's next
nominee.

The more interesting question right now is that, since Clinton was fully aware
of Baird's hypocritical disregard for the law, but decided it was OK and
nominated her anyway, what does that say about his own ethics and respect for
the law?  Should he resign too?  It's only the second day of his presidency,
and people are already asking "How much did Clinton know?"

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: DC Myth # 302 : A tax increase will lower the deficit
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:38:36 GMT
Keywords: taxes, deficit, lower

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <C1JI84.7Cu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>  Why do people inside the beltway still believe a tax increase will lower
>>the deficit?  The following numbers would dispute this:
>>
>>         Year             Federal Taxes per person
>>
>>        1983                    $2,490
>>     
>>        1993                    $4,438     ( projected )
>>
>>( from a Tax Foundation report , Sept 1992 )
>>
>>   Of course, while the tax burden nearly doubled, the deficit spireled       
>>through the roof.  

>Gee, you didn't happen to mention that inflation nearly doubled also in the
>same time period, did you?  Naaaah.  

   Do you have inflation numbers ( I don't, and that's why I didn't post them)?
If you actually have some, then maybe we can make a comparision.            

>>[ no need to flame Reagan/Bush, they tried to decrease
>>spending, but Congress wouldn't do it ]

>Why do you pose such a canard?  Bush asked for *more* spending than
>Congress actually approved on *every* *single* *budget*.

   You know that the presidential budget is a wish list!  Besides, when
it came to crunch time Reagan made a deal with congress that tax increases
would be accompanied by spending cuts so as to keep the deficit down.  
Obviously only the tax increases survived!

>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Hillary (Was: What can we expect....)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:08:10 GMT



In article <93028.025711MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.p
su.edu> writes:
>In article <C1Jy92.EFq@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () says:
>>Can anyone see how this scenario relates to President Hillary?  Hillary
>>is now in charge of the single largest item in the federal budget.
>>The American people did NOT vote for her to have any authority whatsoever
>>in our government.
>
>The American people did not vote for George Stephanopoulos to be White
>House communications director, either. What's your point?
>
>     "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets."
>[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
>   DISCLAIMER: Penn State University cares about my money, not my opinions.


A spokesman and a policy maker are two entirely different things.
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!