HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh who?
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:32:02 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <93022.165510KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1993Jan22.143157.24098@ryn.mro4.dec.com>,
> shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) says:
> 
>>>Call me stupid,
>>>but after watching his show for a couple of
>>>minutes and reading about 30 of theses posts, I STILL cannot
>>>figure out what he's about? or basically, is he a Liberal
>>>Democrat or Conservative Republican or a green Martian???
> 
>>Rush takes a WHOLE LOT LONGER to understand than just a few minutes. To
>>completely get in tune with him it takes several months.
> 
> Hey, be gentle.  Some people are so used to Leno, Letterman and Arsenio,
> whom you can understand after watching for about 5 minutes.
> 
> OK, OK, Letterman may take 15 minutes, but big deal... :)

Comparing Rush to Leno/Letterman/Arsenio is a distortion. If you have been
watching any of L/L/A you will notice that Clinton/Gore have been getting
razzed just as much as Bush/Quayle/Reagan ever did. However, with Rush
his 'comedy' is clearly directed against Democrats, while he continues to
enshrine his Republican 'values' and the fallen leader Bush.

-G


> 
>>To find out that he is an ultra right wing conservative republican takes more
>>than just a few  minutes, but definitely not any more than a single show.
> 
>>Maybe your attention span is just too short.
> 
> Probably right.  Most late night shows, you don't really have to pay
> attention -or- think anymore.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
>  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
>  kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Deficit
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:05:49 GMT

In article <mlbruce.727596260@husc.harvard.edu> mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
>cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>>Two comments:
>
>>1) I believe that the deficit *as a percentage of GNP* is not much
>>larger than it was in earlier decades.
>
>As percent of GNP, from what I've read it stayed pretty level under
>Reagan, but under Bush (esp. after the 1990 package) it skyrocketed as
>percent of GNP. Still, as this is fact not opinion in question, we'd just
>have to "look it up."

Deficit as percent of GNP doesn't tell us enough -- I wouldn't mind
a high percentage, just so long as the economy is growing faster than
the debt.  I'm going to use debt/GNP rather than deficit/GNP.

As percent of GNP, debt (rather than deficit) was steadily declining
from Truman to Nixon, levelled under Nixon, stayed level until Reagan,
and has been skyrocketing ever since.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Dittoheads
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:47:55 GMT

ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath) writes:
>Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>I still have not been able to figure out just what
>   DITTO's means.  Can someone, KINDLY, enlighten me.  Thank you.

>People who actually get to talk to Rush frequently wish to say many flattering
>and praising things about him ("I listen to your show every day", "It's 
>wonderful there's someone standing up for conservatism", "you're my hero",
>etc.etc.etc), and when they do it usually chews up valuable airtime with
>something that has been heard many times before.

    Exactly. The only person who gets to chew up valuable air time with 
repetitive stuff heard many times before is Rush. I know he hates to talk 
about himself, and that his show is consistantly ignored by the mainstream 
media, etc. I guess that we're really fortunate that Rush isn't shy about 
chewing up air time when it comes to tooting his own horn.

>If they want to be really emphatic about saying wonderful things, and still
>save time, they'll say "Megadittos, Rush". 

    I've considered calling sometime and wishing Rush "Moderate Democratic 
Nanodittos" (or maybe "Picodittos").

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Tales from the Dark Side...
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 07:36:18 PST

In <15627.2b60ce99@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>:

>Today Clinton wiped out several cornerstones of the Far Right Wing! Many
>anti-abortion laws into the toilet. Dan "Our Boy" Quayl's "competitiveness
>council" went into the trash can.

Don't you think this might set the right wing in motion again?  Those on the
*far* right are small in number, but they won't be defeated so easily.

>Thank you Bill. Fuck the Right Wing Nazis.

"Right Wing Nazis?"  Your credibility just sunk like a rock, pal.  That's no
different than saying "Left Wing Commies."

>-Garrett

Thoroughly entertaining.  Loaded with lots of facts and objective opinion.
I think the overall average intelligence level of a.f.r-l contributors just
went up three notches.

Garrett--Come back when you finish diaper training.


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using over 25% recycled pixels.
From: Gregory.D.Wadlinger@dartmouth.edu (Gregory D. Wadlinger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Read My Lips!  Clinton, You're History!
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:11:01 GMT
 <C15oL2.93q@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <JASON.93Jan20124202@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b3@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <JASON.93Jan20124202@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>
jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

>  Is it just me, or does
> everyone have no clue where Clinton stands?

 I don't know either, I'm afraid.  But this could be exciting, at least
briefly.
wadlinger@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:35:19 GMT

thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) writes:

>I have been watching bandwidth go by on the Aids stuff here and thought
>that I would add in a dilema that I am facing right now. 

>First a little background.
>I am a conservative, beleive in God, the Bible, am married with
>2 great little girls.

>As part of my work, I have the opportunity to join what we call the 
>MERT. This stands for Medical Emergency Response Team. In order to 
>qualify for this, I have taken the First Resonder course which is a
>40 hour course with a long test at the end. I am now starting my 
>training for the second time with cert. lasting for 2 years.

>The dilema:
>Recently, laws have been passed concerning the health care worker
>(that's me) and aids. I have had extensive HIB and HIV/Aids training.
>(Yes, you can get HIV from Saliva....but you need to drink about
>a quart of the stuff) We have been issued protective gloves and goggles
>and are expected to wear them at all calls we go on. The funny thing is,
>I love this kind of casual care that I get to give, but I am about to 
>leave the team because of the fact that I may get infected. With my girls
>to worry about, this is a risk I am not sure I am willing to take.

>The amazing thing is that all the laws today are mainly protecting the
>Aids victim. Example: I know that you have AIDS. You get hurt, and my 
>partner is taking care of you. It is illegal for me to tell you about
>your condition. I have to let my partner take his own chance as to 
>your infectious disease. 

Now maybe SOMEONE will believe me when I say the AIDS virus has SPECIAL
RIGHTS allowing it to be spread through our medical care system.


>I am quickly turning synical about this. I am now to the point where
>if I see a traffic accident and if there is a sitution where if I could
>give care and save a persons life, I am going to drive on and let the 
>person die rather than take the chance that this person may be clean.

>Just some thoughts, but some that seemed to belong near a discussion
>about Aids, Rush, Sexuallity. 

>Garen



Thanks Garen.


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Gee, i don't Know...
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:37:35 GMT

Matthew L Goguen (goguenm@bach.udel.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan20.071731.20074@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
: >drieux
: >
: >ps: fun is watching folks want to defend a part of
: >the constitution and the Right to the Free Exercise of Liberty....
: >
: >Even if It Might Mean KILLING folks....
: >
: 
: This guy is a pain in the ass.  But I guess we all can be one from
: time to time, what I can't figure out is his endurance.
: 
: I don't own a gun, I own a remotely actuated hole punch. :) I live punching
: hole in phone books and in targets.  If someone outlaws an item,
: just change the definition of the item to skirt the existing laws.
: Congress does it all the time, just look at the bribes they take.
: Matt G.
: 

I don't have a gun, but I joined the NRA.  Just to get a sticker for my
front door.  Just as good as having a "security system by smith & wesson"
sticker on the door :)

: 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re:  What does sacrifice mean to Bill?
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 22:29:41 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1993Jan21.153316.24755@athena.mit.edu> gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez) writes:
>Perhaps higher taxes would be good.  If Bill raised them, it 
>would probably screw up the economy, thus decreasing his chance
>of winning the election four years from now.  Not that I want 
>the economy to go sour just as I enter the job market, but you
>got to find a silver lining in every cloud.

Polls continually show that people are willing to pay higher taxes for
one good cause or another, eg Mass Transportation, Child Care,
Defense, Health Care, Deficit Reduction etc.  Personally, I would be
willing to pay higher taxes if it would guarantee that the Democratic 
party never again saw the light of day.

>
>
>					-John Gonzalez


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Above all, as the keynote of all Democratic policy, in passing upon any
 question, let the controlling aim and ambition be to keep the road open for
 private enterprise and personal initiative."

             John W. Davis - Democratic candidate for President - 1924

===============================================================================
"I do not want to live under a philanthropy.  I do not want to be taken care
 of by the government.... We do not want a benevolent government.  We want a
 free and a just government."

             Woodrow Wilson  

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: AIDS Question:
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 09:54:22 GMT

In article <74346@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:

>I just got run off soc.motss for finding out that no one there
>accepts the statment "gays on the average have more sexual
>partners than heterosexuals", despite the lack of anyone producing
>a documented study that shows the contrary.

You didn't find that out.  You only found out that people don't want
to discuss this issue there, because that isn't what the group is for.
If you want to discuss political questions having to do with gay vs
straight, try alt.politics.homosexuality.

>You also can't argue with the 10% figure despite the fact that every
>modern study shows it's a lot less than that, or that homosexuality
>can be treated in many cases, or that mainstream psychology still
>holds that homosexuality is an abberation or perversion.

Modern studies still come up with varying numbers.  The statement
about mainstream psychology is false.

>soc.motss holds that reducing the number of partners is not a feasible
>strategy for HIV reduction, and it is immoral to advocate this.

"Soc.motss" is not a person.  Certain ideas are widely held there, one
of them being that it is not a forum for attacking gay people.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gatortop@IASTATE.EDU (Mike W Kuenkel)
Subject: Re: Rush makes _truely_ substantive points w.r.t. Clinton
Reply-To: gatortop@IASTATE.EDU (Mike W Kuenkel)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:24:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.041102.23226@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> 
> Today I heard about 15 minutes of Rush's program...   He was really hitting
> Clinton hard on some really substantive points:
> 
> 1)  Clinton didn't go to the Oval Office until 13:30, whereas Bush had
> 	arrived at 07:30 on his first day.
> 
> 2) While Bill and Hillary were standing in the reception line, someone
> 	told Hillary that people with tickets were being excluded, while 
> 	people without tickets were getting in.   She said "these people
> 	are being screwed"
> 
> 	Rush spent a lot of time commenting on:
> 
> 	a) a new low in language in the white house...    
> 		I wonder what the [expletive deleted] the fat 
> 		[expletive deleted] think that Richard [expletive deleted] 
> 		Nixon talked like?
> 
> 	b) Hillary telling Bill what to do...
> 		If my wife heard of a problem, I would expect that she would
> 		feel free to make suggestions.  She is my closest and most
> 		trusted advisor, after all.
> 
> 		When the "kiss and tell" books revealed that Nancy Reagan
> 		ran Ronny's Calendar, I wasn't upset at that concept...
> 		I was aghast that she used an astrologer to help her tho'.
> 
> 		Maybe Rush never trusted his ex-wives that way...  Maybe thats
> 		why Mr "Family Values Limbaugh" doesn't have a family.
> 
> 	c) Bill whispering to Hillary "I have to go to the bathroom"..
> 		Does Rush think that bladder functions cease when somebody is
> 		elected to the white house?
> 
> Rush is fishing for things to say...   and I'd say he "floundered" today.
> 
CLEARLY ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF OF RUSH JUST BEING SATIRICAL AND ENTERTAINING, AND
ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT A SENSE OF HUMOR.

	LIGHTEN UP!!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:46:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan16.135010.17673@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>For those of you who believe in the fantasy of the liberal media,
>answer a question for me:
>
>If the media is so damn liberal and pro-Clinton, than why were there so
>many vicious stories yesterday pointing out the number of promises
>Clinton has broken? 

I think it's a seasonal thing.  Last year at this time, the media 
was grilling Clinton on Flowers and the draft.  Now that it is 
late winter again, it must be time to fry Clinton again.  :-)

Gee, if they keep this up, poor old Rush may have noone left to 
attach meaning to but himself!  :-)



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13463 alt.rush-limbaugh:14800
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: 13 of 18 Clinton appointments are lawyers?!
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 09:01:38 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:

>  I find it really amazing that Clinton tells us that he will appoint a cabine
>  that "looks like America" and that will stand for change when in fact 13 out
>  of the 18 are - LAWYERS -.  Ron Brown can't even figure out that it's 
>  not acceptable to have a party thrown in his honor that is paid for by the
>  same companies he will be regulating in the Clinton administration.  Nope,
>  Rush will have no want for good, new material for his talk show the next
>  four years.

There's a new feeling in America: We've got a president who has made so
many conflicting promises that there's no way he can avoid alienating
most of the country; a cabinet that looks like America - if you happen
to consider Riker's Island "America".

With four years of Slick Willie, America may just be ready to burn
Washington to the ground and start over.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning! :)


--
"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:14029 talk.politics.misc:70134 alt.president.clinton:1862
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:17:25 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (John Townsend) writes:

>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?"

No they're not.  The Republican whiners, the poorest damn losers I've
ever seen, are asking stupid questions like this.  I truly could care
less.  Why?  Because this is the first Cabinet nomination in this
century to be voluntarily withdrawn.  Unlike John Tower the drunk being
defended through a bitter rejection vote by Congress, Clinton felt the
will of the people and acted immediately.

Besides, Bush violated the law in Iran-Gate (at the very least, lying to
Congress), yet he took office.  He actually BROKE THE LAW HIMSELF.

Whaddya think of that, John?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:22:33 GMT
Reply-To: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Organization: BNR, Inc.


In article  ( Steve Novak) writes:

|>Besides, Bush violated the law in Iran-Gate (at the very least, lying to
|>Congress), yet he took office.  He actually BROKE THE LAW HIMSELF.
|>
|>Whaddya think of that, John?
|>

Well, I'm not John, but it sounds like someone is once again attempting to pass
off unfounded partisan accusations as facts.  It sounds much like the media
rantings about the supposed "October Surprise".  It holds as much water as 
the accusations of Clinton organizing anti-US rallies in the USSR.  It's
nothing more than wishful thinking.

gaj.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13954 talk.politics.misc:70041
From: Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What will Bush and Quayle do now?
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:59:12 GMT
 <C182Ez.7ns@cup.hp.com> <15590.2b5ee646@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> 
 <21745@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>  <1993Jan26.103003.1@hiramb.hiram.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan26.103003.1@hiramb.hiram.edu>
medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu writes:

> I understand the former VP makes a few hundred thousand more dollars per
> speech than you do, so since he can make more than most of our salaries
> in one night he doesn't really need to be employed.
> 
> As for the gratuitous use of a sexist profanity..... I spent some time in
> the Navy and I am sure I can out swear almost anybody here, but I wonder
> if instead of taking the lazy way out and using third-grade words you could
> apply just a few brain cells to the problem and tell us _why_ you think
> she is a hypocrite and exactly _what_ concept you are trying to convey
> when you call Marilyn a bitch.
> 
>                                          Jeff Medkeff
                       
The word is "fascist". Marilyn Quayle is utterly narrow minded. Her
entire family were followers of a religious fanatic named Tucker, who
among other things likes to wear a military uniform at religious
services.
She cowrote a "thriller" novel that was nothing but a soapbox of inane
Castro-bashing. She evidently wants a repressive El Salvadorish
oligarchical government there. Marilyn Quayle is a fascist.

Danny Boy, despite what the media say about him, is not stupid, but he
is scary. His hawkish rhetoric about Vietnam did not translate into
action, whereas Clinton at least was following his conscience. He also
headed the Council on Competitiveness, basically an anti-environmental
group who had the power to help big business evade environmental laws.
His rhetoric always scared me, and now I thank God he is no longer a
heartbeat away from the presidency. I'm sure somebody would have shot
him...

-Tim Young, Dartmouth College, Class of '96
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
College, its students, or anyone else.
"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..."- R.E.M.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh