HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: RUSH'S 'HIT' LIST (additions)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 10:50:25 PST

In <C0Ht9p.Jy@sunfish.usd.edu>, Christopher J. Hoover writes:

>A question for y'all.

>My wife, who has listened to Rush a bit more than I have, maintains that he ha
>from time to time done something called an "Indian Update" when various native
>issues came up, complete with war whoops and the like, which from her
>description sounds a little, well, offensive.

Actually, I hear the sounds of a crowd chanting as they do when they are doing
the "tomahawk chop."

>But she doesn't remember it all that well.  Not wanting to complain about this
>without proof, can anyone provide an accurate account of theme
>music/description of noises/etc for this one, or confirm that Rush even did an
>"Indian Update"?

I'm an Indian, and I'm not offended.  I *am* offended by those who (a) are not
Indian and (b) attempt to speak for me and for all Indians in their activism.

My life as an Indian is not affected by a tomahawk chop.  My life is not af-
fected by a team being called the "Redskins."  Why don't these people complain
about nicknames like the "Fighting Irish?" Well, obviously the Irish are
white Europeans and don't need our pity and sympathy.

It's bad enough when other Indians try to speak for all Indians.  It bugs me
even more when the person isn't even an Indian who is meddling in what should
be an Indian concern--and even then, a concern for only a few bitter ones.
These activists have problems of their own, don't they?


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11762 alt.rush-limbaugh:13178 alt.politics.homosexuality:9084 alt.politics.clinton:19753 alt.politics.bush:15638
From: an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment
Date: 6 Jan 1993 23:52:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu () says:

>For them that cares, here's the text of the CO Gay Discrimination Ammend- 
>ment:
>
>NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Notice heterosexuals are still (perversely) protected by the existing
anti-discrimination ordinances in Colorado.

-Ric
From: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Way Things Ought to Be!
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:08:29 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Reply-To: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.rose-hulman.edu

cse0115@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>	Has anyone read "The Way Things Ought to Be" yet?  If so, what do you
>think about it?

I think it's vintage Rush, myself.  I wish his shows anymore were more like 
they were when he was writing the book.  It was finished before the election,
so there's not the obligatory Clinton-bashing that appears on every radio and
TV show anymore (which, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing, but I wish Rush
would just give it a rest until Clinton is making policy instead of just
running his mouth).  There's a lot of really substiantive arguments, some of
which even liberals can appreciate.

If anybody reading this list hasn't read Rush's book yet, do so.  You'll
understand Rush and his radio and TV shows a lot better after you do. 
(Especially liberals.  Don't you want to understand people and be truly
open-minded individuals?  Open your minds to conservatism, then.  Go ahead.  I
dare ya.  8-)
>
>-James <><
>
clueless chuck				                     ___
pearsodc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu                             (o o)
------------------------------------------------------------w U w------------
|DOUGLAS C PEARSON JR                |we were headed for somewhere          | 
|rose-hulman institute of technology |but that was before                   |
|campus box 1204                     |you traded in your peace sign         |
|5500 wabash avenue		     |   for a finger...                    |
|terre haute, indiana  47803         |			- steve taylor, 1992|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: WHY DOES RUSH MISPRONOUNCE NAMES?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:30:18 GMT

In article <ndasmith-080193124849@amac222.acns.nwu.edu> ndasmith@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Noah Smith) writes:
>Regular listeners will notice that Rush likes to say the last names of
>Robert Reich and Mario Cuomo differently than most people are accustomed
>to.  If anybody knows why he's doing this, let me know at the above
>address.  Thanks!

He merely pronounces them as some of his favorite punching bags pronounce
them.  Ferinstance, his pronunciation of Cuomo is taken from Jesse
Jacksnnnnnn's pronunciation of Cuomo.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Didn't need no welfare state, everybody
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  pulled his weight...Those were the days!
This University is too Commie-	|  --From theme to "All in the Family"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11656 alt.rush-limbaugh:13106 alt.politics.homosexuality:9016 alt.politics.bush:15595 alt.politics.clinton:19673
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:58:07 GMT

In article <C0nEzo.56q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>
>>huh? Now behave yourself and keep your trash-mouth shut OK?  No 
>>slandering good men without good cause.
             ^^^^
>
>I trust you'll follow your own advice.
>

I would say he always does. He never said anything about slandering fools.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:09:17 PST

In article <9PJZwB9w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

it's not really necessary to include what he wrote.  he used so much
profanity that he proves himself to not be intelligent enough to
otherwise advance his argument, so why listen to him?
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:45:56 GMT
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <2168@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
> The recession of 1982 (very tight fed money) and the delayed tax cuts
>(net cut in 1983) slowed the launch of the seven fat years. If you remember
>the late 1970's was a period of economic catastrophe. Inflation looked out

And the 1980's was when the deficit quadrupled.  Makes the inflation of the
1970's seem like nothing.  We will be paying for the 1980's in each decade
to come.  The inflation of the 1970's is over and done with.


> Some of the roots for the 1990 to 1991 recession were created in 1986 when
>the republicans had no senate majority. The tax cuts were lost and many

Nope.  It was the 4 year period (1981-1985) when the Republicans gained
control of the Presidency, the Senate, and effective control of the House
that was the same 4 year period that the average budget deficit trippled,
making a future recession inevitable.  The result of that period is that
today 25% of our taxes are wasted in paying interest on the national debt.


>other tax restructures hurt certain industries. The real fault of the Bush
>years is the Doubling of the federal yearly deficit. It appears now that 
>the sole person responsable might have been Richard Darman. As a real funny

Wrong.  The cause of the quadrupling of the national debt in the 1980's
was Voodoo Economics.  The Reagan/Bush regime is what was responsible for
Voodoo Economics, which they claimed would balance the budget by 1983.
-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What Liberals have done to us already, not what they'll do later
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:14:23 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> > Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101 writes:
> >>And it's a warning that we have unleashed more of the same for the
> >>next 4 years, only this time, we are on a ride to hell with no brakes,
> >>no speed limits, and no rest stops for the next 1460 days (plus 1 day
> >>in leap year '96). We are going to have to hold it in for 4 years, and
> >>then that 57% of Americans that voted against Clinton in '92, will
> >>pick up the other 43% and vote for Kemp in '96.
> 
> >As a Kemp supporter myself, I'd like to state that I know of very few Kemp
> >supporters who has the attitude of this one.
> 
> >In short, Jack Kemp is *nothing* like the writer of the message to which I
> >reply.  I hope you remember that in 1996.
> 
>     Hey, I'll remember. I just wish that Kemp had been in the running 
> this past time around. Then maybe Chaney wouldn't be pissing and moaning 
> so much.
> 
> --
> Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
> Psychology Department               Indiana University
> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu


No! No!  You don't get it. Chaney LIKES being this way.  If he didn't 
have politics to cause him to drool, howl, tear athis clothing and throw 
himself on his bed sobbing uncontrollably, he would find something else 
that would.  Religion, gun laws, something.  This guy obviously likes to 
put on a show of his anguish and disagreement with the Universe at large.
So make sure you laugh at him and let him know you are laughing at his 
rsible yowlings.  This will make him even more enraged and silly.  And 
this makes him happy.  Indulge him a little bit.


Pope Charles

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willie: Promises #2, #3 broken
Date: 9 Jan 1993 03:36:37 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Reply-To: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.rose-hulman.edu

Dave O'Shea writes:
>So that's three down, and there's still 12 days 'till inaguration day.
>Anybody care to wager how many promises are broken by Jan. 20?
>
>"I will not raise taxes on the middle class"  (#1)
>"I will help the forgotten middle class"      (#2)
>"I will halve the deficit in four years"      (#3)
>
>       --   Slick Willie, Nov. 1992
>
>"You're lyin', Willie, and we both know it"
>
>       --   Me, again, today.
>
i know rush would call us cheapskates for not buying the LIMBAUGH LETTER to get
this, but can anybody post the list of future broken promises printed in the
january 1993 issue?

in other news, i haven't been on in the past few weeks.  what is the status
on alt.politics.conservative?  anybody volunteer to moderate the thing?  i'm
afraid we may have to go with an unmoderated group, which might not be that bad
of a thing...i'd rather moderated, tho...

someone hep me please...

>--
>"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

amen, brother.  8-)


clueless chuck				                     ___
pearsodc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu                             (o o)
------------------------------------------------------------w U w------------
|DOUGLAS C PEARSON JR                |we were headed for somewhere          | 
|rose-hulman institute of technology |but that was before                   |
|campus box 1204                     |you traded in your peace sign         |
|5500 wabash avenue		     |   for a finger...                    |
|terre haute, indiana  47803         |			- steve taylor, 1992|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Vote (was Sexuality)
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 02:30:43 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:

> [Cross-posts to alt.politics.homosexuality and alt.politics deleted]
> 
> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
> 
> >And it is the Xian homophobes amongst us that are putting such things as 
> >referendum 9 in ashington, and Proposition 2 in Colorado.  And in the 
> >case of Colorado, getting their way.  This is a worrisome trend.  If this 
> >bothers other nonhomophobic Xians and Conservatives, better start 
> >opposing these people strongly less this homophobia become the image of 
> >the "average Christan or Conservative".  
> 
> Why do you single out Christians and conservatives?  How many of the
> Colorado voters were Christians?  How many were conservatives?  If Pat
> Schroeder and the Aspen crowd are any indication, I'd say you are
> really stretching it to even suggest that conservatives have overrun
> Colorado.  That leaves Christians, and I'd have a real hard time
> believing that the majority of Colorado citizens are of that
> persuasion.  Gee, could it be that the _voters_ made a rational
> decision?
> 
> By the way, since most charges like this tend to combine Christianity
> and conservatism, I'd like to know when conservatives got their lock on
> Christianity.  Too bad about all those heathen liberals, eh?
> 
> |===========================================================================|
> |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        |
> |===========================================================================|


Gee, do you really think all those voters out there were liberal atheists 
maybe?  Or is Colorado inhabited mainly by Jews?   News to me.



Pope Charles.  SubGenius Pope Of Houston          "Bob" loves you!
  Maybe Colorado is inhabited by Subgeniuses then?  Nahhhh!  They would 
not have voted for Proposition 2.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:24:30 CST


In article <1993Jan5.152102.3981@octel.com>, keithp@octel.com (Keith Perrin) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.233515.2655@brtph560.bnr.ca> woodstock!chris@mcnc.org writes:
> 
> In reference to Colorados Amendment 2

Added for reference:

  NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.
  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
  nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
  districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statue, regulation, ordinance
  or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
  practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of,
  or enable any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
  status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.

  This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

> >What it does say is basically, "You're gay?  So what?  We don't care.  We won't
> >give you any special treatment, nor will we discriminate against you."
> >
> >Chris Fulmer                    

Where does the Amendment say "nor will we discriminate against you" (or
equivilent statement)?

> Finally, a very good summation of how the mainstream feel, but boy are you
> (and me probably) going to be flamed for being so far away from what is
> deemed politically correct in this wonderful age  when everyone feels that
> they have the right to force their morality upon you.

I suspect the flames will be for perpetuating the myth that the amendment
says "nor will we discriminate against you" (or equivilent meaning) when
in fact it does not.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11742 alt.rush-limbaugh:13161 alt.politics.homosexuality:9062 alt.politics.clinton:19728 alt.politics.bush:15623
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment
Date: 6 Jan 1993 15:06 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

For them that cares, here's the text of the CO Gay Discrimination Ammend- 
ment:

NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.

{
  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
  nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
  districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statue, regulation, ordinance
  or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
  practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of,
  or enable any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
  status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.

  This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.
}
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:33:32 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
:     Back during the Gulf War there were a lot of peacenik types going 
: around talking about stopping the war by withholding funding. As I recall 
: Rush criticised these people very severely, even going so far as to call 
: them unpatriotic and/or unamerican. I have to wonder, in light of the 
: arguments that have been proposed here, what the reaction would have been 
: if the peaceniks had tried to argue for the idea of "Defense Vouchers" 
: which they could elect to spend on whatever form of national defense they 
: thought was the most effective? I might also wonder what would be the 
: reaction to the idea of "Transportation Vouchers" to allow people to 
: elect just which potholes they want to have fixed. I'm not saying that 
: either of these propositions would be good ideas, but I do think that it's 
: a double standard to hand money to the Pentagon with the insistence that 
: Pentagon experts determine how the money should be spent, but when we hand 
: money to educators all the sudden we want everybody to have individual 
: control.

The obvious difference here is that there can be only one defense force for
everyone in the country, but there exist many different schools.  By choosing
a type of school for one's own child, one does not force that choice upon the
parents of any other child.  What's so wrong with using the forces of the free
market system, which have proven beneficial in everything else, in education?

-- 
// 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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Clark University
Date: 6 JAN 93 14:15:27 GMT

In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> 
>>It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to incentivize it,
>>than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", and it achieves the same
>>economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth rate among poor people.
> 
>Ahh.. I see.  You don't think poor people are capable of making intelligent
>decisions by themselves.  You want to make sure you hold their hand since
>you are so superior.  

You seem to think that female people are incapable of making intelligent 
decisions by themselves.  You want to make sure you decide for them whether or 
not they stay pregnant because you think your views are so superior.

>Your statement that the desired result is the "reduction of the birth rate
>among poor people" is insulting and narrow-minded.  The desired result
>is protect the children, born and unborn.  

Just out of curiosity, how many children are you busy protecting?  Have you 
adopted any AIDS babies lately?  Taken in disabled foster children?  

>>>You tell me which
>>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.  
> 
>>In my opinion...
>>The WORST "crime" is to let children starve. 
> 
>Is murder a lesser crime than neglect?

In general, I'd say murder is worse.  What does this have to do with abortion?

>>Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because 
>>she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
>>"the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
>>murder"?
> 
>Of course not.. The women involved are not the murderers.  The abortionists
>are the murderers.  I have written on this extensively in this group
>and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't keep up.  

If a woman pays someone to commit murder, she is certainly guilty of a 
crime.  If abortion is murder, why do you treat women who pay for abortions 
different from people who pay someone to bump off their ex?  By treating the 
two cases differently, you are admitting that abortion and murder are not the 
same thing.

>>								- Kevin
> 
>Edward Simmonds

				.... Heather.