HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:22:58 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 5895@news.duke.edu, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>neil.black@eabbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
>-What will happen in four weeks when Clinton is elected?  Will Rush admit
>-that he's wrong and that Reagonomics were wrong?  Boy, wouldn't it be
>-great to see Rush go away and someone intelligent like Ray Taliaferro
>-take his place?  I'd like that....
>Boy, you don't have a copy of his book yet. Chapter 3: My success is not
>determined by who wins elections. Besides, if Clinton is elected, Rush
>will start working on his next best-seller tentatively entitled "See I
>told you so!" [From RL himself on the radio.]

Do you think his popularity will stay if Clinton wins next month?  I
seriously doubt it.  He makes this claim about how it doesn't matter
who is in office and who is in power.  The point is, for the past 12
years we have had the disasterous effects of republican rule to deal
with while limbaugh has tried his best to put a positive spin on a bad
thing.

I do believe that if Clinton wins, limbaugh's ratings will cease increasing
and perhaps even shrink a bit.  His TV show is probably history, even now.
His book sales have a builtin 10,000,000 almost prepaid customer base and
it was sheer brilliance on his part to write it.  I applaud him for this 
book.

Nobody can predict when the downfall will occur.  I see him as a cross
between Mort Downey, jr. and Jimmy Swaggart.

I also noticed that he has been breaking his "habit" of not having guests
on his show, bush and quayl awhile back and today, BuchanaNAZI.  Not having
guests is his policy, however he will have on friendly ones which leads one
to believe that he is not capable of defending himself with one of the "enemy."

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Admits he's a Nazi
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:49:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.181218.26077@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct13.194614.14480@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>>I'm not a Nazi, in fact if you have read my previous
>>postings you'll see that one fundamental reason I oppose abortion is its
>>potential for use in Nazi-style eugenics.  I doubt I would last long under a
>>Nazi system.
>
>At least just judging from what you have posted here so far, I doubt
>that what you say is true.
>
>Pro-choice believes that the person most capable to make their own
>reproductive choice is the individual (For some women).
>
>Pro-life believes that this choice should only be up to the government.
>
>Guess which group has the higher potential to be used for
>Nazi-style eugenics?
>
The government is not saying anything about who should live or who should die,
that is what pro-choice is if you think about it.  Pro-life means all unborn
should live.  and I am not a nazi,racist, etc, ok???  Read my last postings.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:08:32 GMT

In article <3714@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.001338.27975@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>>>Rush says "it's
>>>not the first time that some guy blew into town for a night,
>>>trashed her, and then left."
>>
>>humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick.
>
>When he SAYS it, it's funny.  When you take offense, it's sick.

Aw, I can't believe this. All the b.s. jokes made about conservatives
in general, and these bleeding heart liberals turn right around after
that and cannot take the heat when the heat's directed back at them. 

Anyone who thinks sex jokes about Madonna are sick, are hypocrites,
IMO - they need to get off of Rush's back and get on the backs of
ACT-UP and other militant feminists and hardcore Lefties who make sex
jokes about Bush, Rush, Clarence Thomas and Jesse Helms. 

The sheer hypocrisy of this newsthread boggles the mind. 


=============================================================================
! "He's very smart and he does his homework. And you ignore him at your
peril." - Ted Koppel, on Rush Limbaugh. 

! "I'm still trying to sort out what I'm permitted to laugh at and
what is not politically acceptable for me to laugh at" - Feminist
Lawyer Gloria Allred, on Rush Limbaugh. 
 
				- Vanity Fair, May 1992 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush gets nailed on Columbus
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:19:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

And you all say Rush only takes callers that agree with him! Gees!
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:36:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

> 
> You *had* to go thru Prague.  This is from conservative Repub governor
> Weld who did the same thing 2 years before Clinton.
> 


CONSERVATIVE????????????????????????

You have got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!

You have got to ask yourself the question would a state like Mass. 
elect a conservative governor.

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7112 alt.activism.d:3774 alt.politics.elections:16129 alt.politics.bush:8654 alt.politics.clinton:9747 talk.politics.misc:50945 talk.abortion:41993
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:20:26 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <BAGCHI.92Oct9111245@quip.eecs.umich.edu> bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) foams:
>>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>>-- Ronald Reagan
>
>	It should be noted that Mr. Reagan signed into law a bill legalizing abortion 
>while governor of California.
>
	It also should be noted that Governor Reagon signed a law or order
	or whatever they call it allowing the State of California to pay
	for about 350K abortions; that is approximately the number of
	"welfare cheats" he claimed to have eliminated from the welfare
	rolls in California in his Presidential campaign propaganda.


		(Thanks, Hall, for remembering!)
From: ecpzp@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr V A Noronha)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: STOCKDALE ?!?!
Date: 14 Oct 1992 10:50:20 +0100
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
NNTP-Posting-Host: clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Summary: STOCKDALE ?!?!


Get this guy Stockdale!

He's inarticlate, confused, purely bewildered.

Did he turn on his hearing aid at all?

And to think he might be one heart beat from the Presidency.

Or this Ross Perot's secret weapon to make sure he doesn't do well enough to help Bush by ousting Clinton?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:05:57 GMT


Ken <kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu> writes:
>I will try for one last time!

And fail again!

>Draft--> Clinton said he never got a draft notice. When it was produced, 
>he said he forgot. I would not call getting a draft notice a minor experience,
>especially for one tryint to avoid getting one.

OK. So you find it hard to believe that he actually had forgotten it. I
don't. I am only a couple of years younger than Clinton and was also sweating
out the draft in 1969. I don't remember everything that happened to me then,
including some important things.

And he wasn't trying to avoid getting one. How could he receive one if he
wasn't eligible to receive one. What he did to avoid being drafted, also
all perfectly legal, was done after he had received the induction notice.

>Marijuana--> I don't think this is a big deal. As I have said before, Gore
>and also Thomas admitted to trying it and that was all. The problem with 
>Clinton when he was asked, his first response was I never broke any US laws.
>A slick way of avoiding the question. No he did not break any US laws, he
>smoked in England.  He did not answer the question honestly the FIRST time
>as you suggest, only after he was caught in a half truth.

The first time Clinton was asked the question, it was not posed direct
enough to force him to tell his exact experiance with marijuana. He answered
the question as any politician would. When asked a DIRECT question on
the matter, he answered it DIRECT and TRUTHFULLY. He did not answer truthfully
then because he had been "caught" in any "half truth". Sorry, I don't see it
that way.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: SPEECH: Carla Hills at Republican National Convention
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:57:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <5885@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>In celebration of Bill Clinton's endorsement of NAFTA, I release the
>following speech by Trade Representative Carla Hills, given during the
>Republican National Convention. Spelling mistakes are my own.
>
...
>................. for the first time, by stimulating economic growth in
>Mexico, we have launched a long-term solution to the problem of illegal
>immigration.
...

    What a great idea!!!  Stimulating domestic economy would only 
    attract new immigrants, whereas stimulating economic growth abroad 
    may completely eliminate illegal immigration and, in the long run, 
    replace it with illegal emigration!




-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:46:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Grass Valley Group

In article <1992Oct12.043734.5462@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu
(alex) wrote:
> 	It seems terribly ironic that Rushs rise would coincide with
> the fall of his beloved party, and even more so that his rise could be
> factor in the decline. It will take more then one race to show a clear
> cause and effect, of course, but it looks entertainingly suspicious.

If you will remember back to the primaries, Rush was urging people to vote
for Buchanan in order to send George Bush a wake-up call. The message:
Supply-side economics works--Ronald Reagan's policies resulted in the
longest period of economic growth and prosperity in the history of our
nation. Unfortunately, Bush didn't wake up to the call until after the
convention. If he had listened to Rush four years ago, the economy wouldn't
be in the toilet and he would be riding a landslide to reelection. In
short, there is no correlation between Rush's rise and Bush's fall. Bush
did it all by himself despite Rush's excellent advice and constant warnings
over the airwaves.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:21:32 GMT

In article <2566.339.uupcb@eabbs.uucp> neil.black@eabbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
>Boy, wouldn't it be great to see Rush go away and someone
>intelligent like Ray Taliaferro take his place?

Ray Taliaferro?  You've got to be kidding.  Intelligent, maybe, but
the man is stark raving nuts.  This is the man who, back during Jerry
Brown's medfly crisis, claimed that the whole thing was a sinister CIA
plot to conduct chemical warfare experiments on the oppressed masses of
Silicon Valley.

Plus, he has an obnoxious, grating, whiney voice that makes Andy Rooney
sound like James Earl Jones.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Limbaugh Poll
Keywords: A slight trend
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:49:04 GMT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes:

>Listening to Rush today, I noticed that he was taking a poll on who is lining
>up for who for the election.
>Well, the count was still under way but, his poll showed a 91% run for Bush, a
>4% + for Willy, and a 4% + for the Parrot.
>
>Amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On the contrary, it is not amazing at all, considering the average dittohead
who listens to Limbaugh. Any poll taken by Limbaugh is going to be guarenteed
to have margin of error of 90%.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Summary:  What were you doing?
Organization: NRAO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 06:10:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.005531.16892@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.083321.25736@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>>
>>>It *is* rather curious that Clinton would "tour" the Soviet Union AND
>>>Czechoslovakia so soon after the '68 repression.
>>
>>>Clinton impresses me more and more as a man of principle.   NOT!
>>
>>	The issue as I understand it, is not merely that he went to
>>the Soviet Union so soon afterwards, but that he denied going there
>>when asked about it on television.
>
>Yup.  Let me guess what his excuse for fibbing: the reason he denied it
>was he thought they were talking about Moscow, Idaho, right?
>
>Okay Guys ....  How about we all compile an encyclopedia(*) of lies
>President-presumptive Clinton has told. 
>
>(*) I would have said a book, but this looks like a multi-volume
>affair.
>
>>Jim Del Vecchio
>
>Pat
>		Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate
So is George Bush the regressive candidate?

Pat, what were you doing during the Viet Nam era?  What was fat boy
Rush doing in the Viet Nam era?  What was Danny Boy doing during the
Viet Nam era? What was I doing during the Viet Nam era?  I was on
active duty in the Army from September 1966 to August 1970.
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:56:51 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote (in article <1992Oct8.073626.1003@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>):
>Actually, there will be ice floes on the River Styx before THAT happens.

Before WHAT happens?!?  Are you talking to the walls again, Simon? ;)

>Let me rephrase that--I should have said "Perhaps there are extreme
>circumstances where abortion might be an option, but I am still against it.."

Define "extreme circumstances", then.

>I can't just walk away from this.  I have committed myself to this debate
>and cannot give up.  That would be wrong.

Then debate!  Don't just assert!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 19:23:45 GMT

In article <1687F9CC8.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> 

(Booth's stupid "flame" deleted)
(McMaster's "terribly, terribly hurt" rejoinder deleted)

Why are we wasting time on this 14-year-old from San Antonio?

Alan


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7291 alt.politics.bush:8990 alt.politics.clinton:10194 alt.politics.elections:16547 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6785 talk.politics.misc:51485
From: sunder@gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Thank you for answering my question! Maybe
Date: 13 Oct 1992 20:16:13 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <9592@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In <BvzwA8.3sL@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
|> 
|> >No dispute whatsoever. In fact, Darman is hinting that he'd be the new
|> >Treasury secretary in a second Bush term, as if we needed any other
|> >reasons not to vote for Bush! And Bush himself doesn't see that Darman and
|> >Brady are responsible for much of the trouble he's in. 
|> 
|> I saw in this morning's paper that Bush says that Brady and Darman will
|> not be on his staff if he is re-elected.  If true, this is the best news
|> that I have heard in weeks.

Not really. All he has said (through Fitzwater) is that the good members of the 
team will be asked to stay; those that he believes will not be able to do as good 
a job as the people he could replace them with, will go. This mention of 
Brady/Darman resigning, IMHO, is just a ploy to get conservative support. Such
rumors were floated before the convention as well, and were neatly deflated by 
the fact that Darman is closer than ever to Bush. In fact, I think that Darman's 
closeness to Bush and the  latter's inability to comprehend how much Darman has 
f****d his chances of getting re-elected by giving him terrible advice is 
probably a good reason that Bush does not deserve to be re-elected even as the 
lesser/least of two/three evils. 


|> Mark

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7045 alt.activism.d:3735 alt.politics.elections:16012 alt.politics.bush:8556 alt.politics.clinton:9612 talk.politics.misc:50760 talk.abortion:41840
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Bush Deserves to Lose, and Other Thoughts
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:42:08 GMT

In <1992Oct12.174923.11065@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:

>C'mon who are ya kidding.  You never intended to vote for the president in t
>the first place.  The most glaring inconsistency in your article was that the
>president appended "in a foreign land" in his statement on the Larry King s
>show.  Sorry to tell you this but I was there.  There was no later appendage

I referred not to his first refernce to Clinton's trip to the USSR, in which
he clearly stated "...in foreign land,"  but to some comments he made at a
campaign stop over the weekend.  Why do you assume that I never intended
to vote for the President?  Your assumption, that one cannot change his mind,
is gravely mistaken.  


i>of that phrase.  Trust in a persons character is of primary importance.  The f
>fact is that Clinton never tells the same story twice.  As to potential
>judicial appointments, I'm not ready to have Ted Kennedy passing judgement
>on who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.  Further I'm not ready for ja
>jutisce Cuomo.  And as far as principle is conccerned, if there is a deep
>seated place for principle in the Democratic party why then do they go
>out of there way to claim to be moderates if liberalism is the way to go.
>Seems to me that since they can't win using liberal themes they'll say
>whatever it takes.  I call this ideological prostitution.
>>

As I said, the court appointments are one of my misgivings about Clinton.
But why has Bush been silent on the issue?  I'd like to hear what Clinton
has to say about his qualifications for a justice.  Is the court judically
conservative now?  Hardly.

Ideology is prostitution.  You might as well attach a billboard to your
head reading, "This Space for Rent."



Andrew Aiken


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:13:59 GMT

Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:

>> You place too high a standard for a mere President. Clinton's marital status
>> and whether or not he cheated on his wife in the past is totally irrelevant.
>
>I have to disagree. After all the dust settles on the various "issues"
>discussed during the campaign, what we're really left with is the character
>of the man in the Oval Office. And in that regard, I think Ross Perot (as
>quoted by Rush) said it best: "If a man's wife can't trust him, how can I?"

The character issue is dead last with me. Especially since the whole Bush
campaign program to attack Clinton's character is pathetically full of holes.

And you imply that Hillary Clinton doesn't trust his husband because of some
alledged affair. Poppycock. The Clinton's admitted on live TV several months
ago that their marraige had had some problems in the past but that it was now
very strong. And Hillary seems to have been standing by her man for the
entire campaign.

To me, its those issues which you say are collecting dust which are
important to the country.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion