HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Semantics humor Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:51:28 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
^eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:
^>A few days ago (actually it was a repost). He doesn't condone single
^                                                       -------
^Um... you -do- mean condemn, right? :-)

Well, I surely didn't mean "condom." :-)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	No social life & damn proud of it.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6392 alt.activism.d:3477 alt.politics.elections:14959 alt.politics.bush:7518 alt.politics.clinton:8199 talk.politics.misc:49152 talk.abortion:40066
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
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
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:16:32 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> Stan Knight) writes:
|> 
|> > Here's a free clue for you: A majority of Americans are pro-choice. 
|> 
|> That depends on how you define "choice". Roughly 70% of Americans
|> support restrictions on abortion.  Most Americans do not support 
|> unrestricted abortion-on-demand as we have today with Roe v. Wade, 
|> nor do they support a ban on all abortions.  
|> 
Sure makes you wonder why anyone would vote for someone who supports
the Republican Platform.  After all, the platform disagrees with
the majority.  Even though the majority can't easily agree on
what restrictions make sense, they do not believe abortions
should be outlawed.  On this issue, the Republican party is a fringe
group.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:18:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:

> >Did you know that liberals have 
> >virtually taken over the used book business as well? Right under our eyes! 
> 
>     You must mean right *before* our eyes (or right *under* our noses). 

No, I mean under our eyes. I've dedicated my life to tearing the vicious
Mobius strip of tired cliches.

> >And what about the libraries? Damn liberal cells. Why is it that so many 
> >literate people have succumbed to the liberal menace?
> 
>     Don't you see? It *must* be a conspiracy; a carefully crafted and 
> diabolically executed plot to subvert conservatism. How fortunate we are 
> to have Rush Limbaugh to let us know what we should really believe...

I feel sorry for Rush's fans. (Actually I don't. But it has a nice bleeding
heart sound to it.) They stagger through life grumbling that they've been
left out of the action. Here are these liberals with the best girls, the
best haircuts, the slackful attitudes, and a non-stop diet of chocolate
cake. And here are the conservorrhoids and bornagainazis eating bread and
water while plotting their escape from prison.

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Interesting Clinton Supporters
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa,na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:23:08 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>]VietNam                                       Gulf War
>]War drags on for YEARS                        (watch for Gulf War II)
>                                               war lasted <2 months. There
>                                               will be no gulf war 2 with
>                                               Iraq, although there might
>                                               be punitive raids

    This remains to be seen. I would have to agree that Tom that there is 
likely to be a sequel to the Gulf War, although I would question his 
comparison of the Gulf War with Vietnam. I'd say that the similarities are 
far more striking between the Gulf War and the British wars against the 
Maharattas and Sikhs in the early 1840's. 

    The conflict which is now known as the First Sikh War (~1843) was an 
extremely popular war at home, and the battles, although bloodier for the 
British than the Gulf Woah was for the US, were hard fought and decisive 
victories for the British in India. The only real drawback of the First 
Sikh War was that the "Khalsa", the Sikh millitary class, remained for 
the most part intact. This is what lead Sir Charles Napier to lament that 
"it was a shame that the whole damn thing would have to be fought again in 
a few years". Thus it wasn't really a surprise to anyone when the Sikhs 
crossed the Sutlej River in 1846 and started the Second Sikh War.

>I think this guy's silly posting shows how far a revisionist can go
>to reverse the facts of history.

    Perhaps. Concerning the facts in re Vietnam Tom's post may have been 
lacking. I'd have to add however, that he was making a reasonable point. 
He was just trying to draw comparisons with the wrong war. It seems like 
we try to evaluate everything based on whether it's "another Vietnam"; 
sometimes it's more fruitful to dig deeper into the history books for 
better examples. After all, what was Vietnam if not another Boer War 
(c. 1900 and 1881), Tirah (c. 1898), Afganistan (c. 1885 and 1842), 
or Umbeyla (c. 1868)?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: rovero@oahu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:34:21 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <1992Oct1.080436.9747@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>
>Suppose we decided that every American between the ages of 30 and 50 who
>skipped the Vietnam War was inelegible to run for any public office.
>Then, we also exclude any American who has every tried marijuana, because
>it's illegal.  Also exclude any who have had extramarital sex, because
>that reflects badly on their judgement.  Now:  how big is the remaining
>pool of potential candidates?
>
>Just for fun, also eliminate any who have had premarital sex or ever abused
>alcohol.
>
>How many are left?  Are the remaining people the best candidates?
>
As long as we are screening out the shreds of human debris, don't forget
to disqualify anyone who either attended or taught at a law school!

In fact, I'd prefer to skip all your criteria, and just go with this last
one.


-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:43:07 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Oct2.162901.1604@jack.sns.com> jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.162451.21387@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>The assumption here, of course, is that the developing "baby" is a person.
>>That, my friend, is a matter of opinion.
>
>OK Mister Opinion if the developing baby is not a person Just what is it????

Tag team Bests! ...

I like this analogy I heard which I'll repeat like a senile old man.
If the Voyager probe had scraped the Martian suface and plucked a month
old fetus, all those liberals like Carl Sagan would be jumping up and
down yelling 'life on Mars!'.  We would _have_ to say it and do nothing
to harm it.  However, when the same fetus is found in the womb of a
female earthling it is accordingly plucked and tossed into the local
medical waste burning facility.

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>...Dale Cook    "I'll do the thinnin' around here!"
>>                   ---Quick Draw McGraw

Mike Best "Leave the thinnin' to me, Babaloo!"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Liberals and more/less government
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:09:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.122557.3225@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

|> >All Rush fans were I work,  hes on once a month,  are what you might call
|> >liberal.  All are for Roe vs. Wade, Clinton,  Civil Rights,  Limited
|>                                                               ^^^^^^^
|> >Government,  Higher Education spending, etc.
|>  ^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> Good one!  Are Conservatives for increased taxes and Afirmative Action
|> in your world?

	I was struck today by the role reversial thats taking place in
modern politics. Conservatives, long heralded as standing for less government,
are actually producing more of it, while liberals are arguing for less.
To wit: The Right bought us the War on Drugs, complete with urine testing,
stop and search, property confiscation and arrest without charge. The left,
in contrast, has offered a health care plan that will privatize Medicare 
and Midicaid (Clintons health care plan) and welfare reform.

	Perhaps the lesson is that nothing is as simple as Rush makes it out
to be, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear "Tax and Spend Republicans" in
future campaigns.

	The NYTimes did a nice comparison of Bush and Clintons spending plans.
Bush has promised $185B in new spending and tax cuts, a 1% across the board
cut in income tax, a balanced budget, an *no* cuts in government services.
The balance will be made up with spending cuts to be announced sometime in
the futere. Clinton, in contrast, is offering a plan based on some optimistic 
math, but is no where near as unbalanced as the Bush plan, which could push 
the deficit as high as $0.5T!

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
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
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:50:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Oct2.172735.17267@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>That statement has no bearing--I'm trying to be serious about this.
>The unborn child is clearly aware of its surroundings.

This is no doubt true in the later stages of pregency. But in the early stages
this is completely impossible. Go talk to one of your biology teachers about
the minimun mass of brain tissue needed for cognitive thought/awareness. I'm 
sure there is brain wave activity very early on but this does not indicate
awareness. There was brain activity in the roach you squashed last night also.
Try going to your local library(there's one on your campus!)and find out some 
facts about fetal development instead of sprouting forth someone else's
opinions as if they were facts.

Here's a free clue for you: A majority of Americans are pro-choice. Of these 
the vast majority do not want later stage aborations unless the mother's life 
is in danger.

Stan Knight
|Perfection would be free legal aborations and no one would ever want one.|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:30:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Sorry I didn't give a humorous response earlier.

Dan attack a Kennedy? (OK, Arnold MARRIED a Kennedy, but still.)
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6056 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4674
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Hyperbole about Clarence Thomas
Organization: ILS
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:12:46 GMT

In article <20777@plains.NoDak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep25.210838.3942@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
> >The idea that the "creul and unusual punishment" only applies to sentences
> >is idiotic,  there is nothing in the constitution to cause anyone to take
> >this stance.  
> 
> This is typical, liberal, re-write the Constitution nonsense.

And this is typical right wing bullshit.  In my argument where is there an
effort to re-write the consitiution.  

> 
> >Thomas's reasonoing that this clause only protects an individual at
> >sentencing but does not protect him while in the prision is just shit. 
> >Thomas, who is the worst Justice on the Court,  is saying that the
> >constitution asserts that you can not sentence someone to torture for a
> >certain crime,  but if the guars at the prision torture the prosioner they
> >are not violating any of his constitutional rights.
> 
> Wow, a legal scholar, and he knows all those legal terms.  If a person was
> sentenced to jail for a crime, that's fair.  If the guards beat him, then
> you sue for assualt and battery, or whatever.  They MAY be violating his
> constitutional rights, but not the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

Why not, if the guards beat him with the consent of the administration why
is it not creul and unusual punishment.

Youre stupid reasoning here has bottomed out to simply it is not creul and
unusual punishement because it is not creul and unusual punsihement. 


> 
> >If the media didn't explain it how did you learn about it,  better yet how
> >did I learn about since I knew of the case also?
> 
> Try watching Court TV sometime, they spend a lot more time than the regular
> media, looking for sound bites.  As they summed it up, this was an
> extremely complicated case, not just a video.  The cops were tried for
> trying to KILL King, not just beating him.  Had they been tried for
> the beating, they probably would have been convicted.  Trying to prove
> they were trying to kill him was a little more difficult.
   

Where did you make this up?  The police were tried for a number of things
including assault,  but murder or attempted murder was not a
charge.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: zgeo0a@hou.amoco.com (Greg Ochab,PSC)
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Reply-To: zgeo0a@hou.amoco.com
Organization: Amoco Production Co, Tulsa Research Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:37:38 GMT

In article 19t0bbINNi1u@fido.asd.sgi.com, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep24.013758.27703@versyss.com>, keithd@versyss.com writes:
>|Regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you end up
>|having to defend an uncomfortable position.
>
>Really?  I'm pro-choice, and I don't find my position to 
>be uncomfortable at all.  I find great comfort in reflecting
>that my position allows people to make their own decisions
>and run their own lives as they see fit.  I would be uncomfortable
>were I meddling in other people's lives.

But you are meddling in other people's lives; specifically that of the unborn person.

---
Gregory E. Ochab, geochab@hou.amoco.com, 312/856-4889
                                                    Standard disclaimer applies.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS)
Subject: Re: Ultraconservatism in the US today
Originator: mhmulli@c00446-313mn.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:00:47 GMT


<I believe that rush represents the ever-growing slant in this country leading 
<us toward greater seperatism and isolationism.  The extreme right appears to be
<growing at an exponential rate, leading to a reprehensible stifling of 
<creativity, freedom, ingenuity, and adaptation.  This Calvanistic mentality
<that
<rush portrays will never contibute to positive progressive change.  <

<If we buy into his "philosophy", we will continue on our present course and 
<continue to isolate one another in the process.  I hope that we will wake up 
<and realize that he is part of the problem and not part of the solution.  It 
<sincerely frightens me that people like this (rush, Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, 
<etc.) are gaining widespread popularity at such a crucial juncture in our 
<history.  It is high time that the more liberal front is taken seriously and 
<that cooperation, compromising and communication are essential components for 
<effective change.  These ideals are not represented by the conservative front 
<and, thus, renders these individuals moot.

<A concerned semi-liberal American

 This is the philosophy that frightens me most about the country. Not that
 the country is leaning to the right, but the ever growing views of communism,
 socialism and increased central government. All I here is "we need change",
 "we need more government", "save the world market", and "what is the government
 going to do".  Has everyone lost sight of how and why our country was formed.
 FREEDOM against CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. CAPITALISM would be our way of life.
 The most prosperous this country ever was (and it would be safe to say 
 that no country anywhere was ever this prosperous) was between 1780 and 1850.
 That was a time when there was little to no central government, little to no 
 taxes, almost total isolationism, and everyone worked for what they had.
 In the 1850's liberals began taking office and offering quick fix social
 programs and centralized government. It caused the country to go downhill.
 So, the liberals decided we needed more government to fix it and a viscious 
 cycle began. Government is not the solution, IT IS THE PROBLEM.
    Our only chance to save the country, is to end social programs,
 end tarriffs, tighten our belts and pay off the debt. Yes it would cause a 
 recession, but like the Russians, we have become used to the government 
 providing for us instead of ourselves.

     A frightened conservative.
From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:52:46 GMT
 <1992Sep28.162600.24217@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <Sep.28.15.30.30.1992.20846@gandalf.rutgers.edu>  
 <1al6n4INN958@almaak.usc.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1al6n4INN958@almaak.usc.edu>
scarter@almaak.usc.edu (Steve Carter) writes:

> First, let's clarify that "according to statistics" statement.  True,
> minorities get "more" abortions than whites.  However, they are also
> more fertile (as a group).  Thus, the proportion of abortions to 
> devliveries is approx. the same in both ethnic groups.  As a result,
> more "minority" babies are born than "white" babies (remember, 95% of
> 100 is more than 95% of 10).

Of course. I'm not STUPID. I was just using a ludicrious statement to
show the ludriciousness of a reply I received. I have no problem with
civil debate, but if y'all start flaming, I'm outta here. (Notice that
I haven't been around for awhile!)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
-- Ronald Reagan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:53:00 GMT

> = (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>That statement has no bearing--I'm trying to be serious about this.

Including the statements of whoever you're responding to might make you
look a little smarter.

>The unborn child is clearly aware of its surroundings.

....Unless you post more inane stupidity like this.  

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Ditto" Anti-Choice?
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:21:57 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <JYM.92Oct1145300@remarque.berkeley.edu>
jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>> Does Limbaugh teach his cult members to be proud of being
>> idiots?
>
>=o= Well he does encourage them to chant "ditto", so as to
>assert unthinking agreement with his idiotic opinions.

Exactly how is it that you know their agreement is unthinking Jym?  Do you
think that is the only way they could come to such conclusions, i.e. by not
thinking?  If you think Rush is encouraging them not to think, then you
don't know what you are talking about.

If Rush's opinions (and therefore most of his audience's, since research
suggests that most of his audience largely agrees with him) are idiotic,
then you should have no problem demonstrating that for us.  I await such a
demonstration.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:22:47 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

# Re: These  rumors about Clinton having tried to switch his citizenship
# -- Just the other day, Rush said this was a rumor being circulated by
# Clinton's campaign.  The motive is presumably to let the Republicans
# pick it up and run with it, and then show the proof that the rumor is
# not true, making the Republicans look like they're making up dirt.

Rush must be smoking dope before he goes onto the air. His paranoid
thoughts have attenuated to a knife's edge of absurdity.

John
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6195 alt.politics.bush:7168 alt.politics.clinton:7784 alt.politics.elections:14646 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6072 talk.politics.misc:48595
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More deception from your hero, not mine
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:22:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>The co-chairman of the bipartisan debate commission is Gerald Ford.
>A real liberal out to unjustly hurt George Bush.

:-)

For the record, Ford made it clear as recently as the Larry King show
during the Republican convention that he proudly comes from the moderate
wing of his party. Wait... to the current leadership, maybe Ford *is* a 
flaming liberal.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6346 alt.politics.bush:7439 alt.politics.clinton:8106 alt.politics.elections:14881 talk.politics.misc:49013 alt.conspiracy:10894 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6189