HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:17:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <nate.607@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>Randy Eugene Griffith <rg3c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>As far as I'm concerned, I think the fact that all you people listen to
>>Rush seemingly religously, even though you obviously resent the man, is
>>a testament to the simple truth of his words.
>
>    Strange, I would've said that it was actually just a testament to the
>modern fascination with grotesque caricatures of reality.
>

Quite right.  A few years ago, I was commuting long distances to work every
day, and found I could pass the time enjoyably by tuning in a kooky radio
evangelist obsessed with demonology, rock music, sexual abuse and cults.
From time to time, I thought he produced surprisingly lucid ideas, but mostly
I enjoyed him for what he was:  bizarre, earnest and a little scary.

I guess I listen to Rush for similar reasons.  He's entertaining, pushy,
smart, persuasive, mendacious and infantile.
Where else can you find all that?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny)
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:03:57 GMT

griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes:

>How many people do you know that bought or have read Clinton-Gore?  The
>know quite a few people that have already read Rush's book.  WHen I bought
>my copy, the guy had to go into the stock room and open up a new case of
>books.  Yet the bookstores are pushing Clinton-Gore like crazy.  Big
>displays, they are up on the front counter, but I've never even seen
>someone pick one up to look at it, much less buy it.

I don't deny that Rush's book is interesting and all...but doesn't it
follow naturally that the book would sell very well with the exact
target audience being advertised to every day about it?  I haven't heard
a RUSHow go by without him plugging the darned thing for at least 2 or 3
minutes.  
 
I'm not condemning that action, I'd do it too.  The only reason I know
CLINTON and GORE have books out is because I heard it hear (perhaps I
don't go to book stores often enough)....so I don't think it's
neccessarily that there's a "conservative supra-majority"...I just think
RUSH has more plug-time logged.
 
...e

--
 ____                     + Editor, SOUND News and Arts magazine
|____                     + PO BX 31104, Omaha,NE 68131 (lg SASE for copy)
|____ D@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU  + SOUND FTPable: quartz.rutgers.edu(pub/journals) 
(Ed Stastny/UNO/Omaha,NE) +                141.214.4.135(docs/zines/sound)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:23:44 GMT

jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) supports traditional family values:

> Bullshit you idiot, a MAN will pay child support.
  
> To the NOW crowd and naive idiots like you, the women has ALL the
> choices. 

> Or d). stiff the asshole for child support. 

> Bullshit again nimrod. HE will pay child support whether HE likes
> it or not.

> I see, SHE provides the fatherly role. How come I get the feeling
> you hate fathers.

> He can leave all he wants, but he'll have to leave his wallet
> behind.

> Forced fatherhood happens every god damn minute in this country. 

> What working mother making 15 grand a year can afford DAY Care, 
> and why in HELL would someone spend 800.00 per month for infant
> care when they could stay home and take care of the little shit
> themselves for free. MOST working women can't afford to work and
> pay child care. So the NOW crowd insists SHE is entitled to 
> work, free daycare and a guarenteed standard of living (see family
> law on books in every state). 

> Bullshit. I'm not paying for her way. 

> Murphy Brown is Fiction all right, pure BULLSHIT!

> Murphy Brown is alright because SHE can afford to be a mother and 
> a complete idiot in my book.

The easiest way to win an argument, Mr. Woods, is to make up a position
for your opposition (which is NOW, I believe) and attack that position.

Are you aware, Mr. Woods, that the _vast_ majority of men paying child
support have run away from committed relationships and require the force
of law to fulfill their family obligations?

Why do I get the impression that you don't like children?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:11:48 GMT

In article <92280.013331KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.001338.27975@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:

@         It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
@ humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
@ for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.

>It was a joke.

>To you also get offended by Helen Keller jokes, Christa McAuliffe jokes,
>or blonde jokes?

	Yes, I do. I don't think that that kind of humor is in very
good taste when the victims are clearly undeserving of that kind of
treatment.

	And would you get offended by fat-redneck jokes?

Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:57:44 -0400 
From: Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
	<1aa1gsINNn91@fido.asd.sgi.com>

C J Silverio@eno.wpd.sgi writes:   
> Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> |She is only the victim of her own choice to irresponsibly have sex when
> |she was not willing to bear the potential consequences.  
> Remember, people-- if you don't WANT to take responsibility for
> an orgasm, don't have sex.  Orgasms are far & away the #1 most 
> likely consequence of sex-- so if you can't handle it, don't
> do it!

Having an orgasm is a consequence of sex that I would be willing to
accept responsibility for one.  However, impregnating someone is
something I would not want to deal with, so I make the choice to
abstain.  Orgasms are totally beside the point.  The fact is, if you are
not willing to accept responsibility for your own actions, you shouldn't
take those actions.
 
> |If she really didn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have risked
getting it. 
 
> If you really didn't want to get hit by that car, you shouldn't
> have risked crossing the street.

You make my point.  Sex has very different implications from crossing
the street.  Crossing a street is probably necessary for you to live
your life, but sex is not.  When you do decide to have sex, you should
realize you may impregnate the woman and be willing to accept
responsibility for the baby, just as the woman should accept
responsibility for it.  The risk of getting hit by a car is a risk I
accept responsibility for, knowing that if I get hit by a car, it is
probably my fault.  Whose fault is it when you cross a street when a car
is coming and get hit by it?  Do you blame your actions on other people
and always expect there to be a simple way out of your problem?  If you
get in a car accident, it is harder to "abort" the accident and pretend
it never happened, thereby healing your broken bones.

THINK NEXT TIME!

Chris A. Lyman wrote (in an argument presumably based on logic unlike
the previous one):
> Question for you, Erik: what do you suppose made this woman desperate
> enough to risk her life to not be pregnant?
That is missing the point.  If she really could not afford (not
monetarily speaking) to become pregnant, she shouldn't have risked
pregnancy by having sex.  
> TL> Remember folks, it's always important to BLAME THE VICTIM!
> TL> It wouldn't be Usenet without splashes of BTV all over.
> > It wouldn't be Usenet without splashes of people denying responsibility
> > for their own actions all over. 
> What actions has Tom taken that he's now denying responsibility for?
Tom, personally, none that I know of.  But he wants to give other people
the ability to do so.
Chris kept writing about women risking their lives not to be pregnant. 
Is he talking about illegal abortions?  This misses the point again. 
Abortions should never be neccessary.

Erik Witte

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: It gets bigger (was Re: The Big Lie)
Summary: Obviously 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:57:10 GMT

In article <Bv7o42.Gu0.2@cs.cmu.edu>, anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed writes...
>In article <1992Sep26.031032.7555@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>>In article <Bv36B5.H1E.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>>"In article <1992Sep23.190304.7059@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>>">Instead of
>>">getting Hussein, he kills 250,000 innocent people.
>>"
>>"Again, you repeat this lie.  Do you have a shred of proof?  This number
>>"sounds really good, so I'll grant you made a good choice, but where
>>"in hell does this number come from?
>>"
>>IT CAME FROM THE RED CROSS AND AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, THAT WHERE.
> 
>You lie.  Neither Amnesty International or Red Cross has *ever* claimed that 
>the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people.  Volume is not a substitute for 
>factuality, so next time tone down your post and present some *facts*.
> 
Since you are claiming he lies then you must know the truth. So what
is it? And why haven't you posted it? I've heard the same number from
Amnesty International, but appearently you have heard differently.
So state your evidence. Or do you have any?
>>
>>Palmer.
> 
>-anwar
> 
>-- 
>Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
>anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:38:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.105549.1@gacvx1.gac.edu> peckman@gacvx1.gac.edu writes:
>dear Rush fans,
>It would be nice if you would realize that conservatism has led to most of our
>country's current woes and if George Bush is re-elected, our country will fall
>even farther behind Japan and Germany both educationally and economically. 
>It's time for a change.  Our country needs fewer Rush Limbaughs and more Bill
>Clintons.  Rush spouting off about goofy liberals will get us nowhere.  But
>Bill Clinton as our next president will offer our country something it has
>sorely lacked in the past 4 years...hope for the future!

Sigh - a mind is a terrible thing to waste, isn't it. It's almost worth voting
for Clinton just so people like this realize the errors of their ways. How
can conservatives be responsible for America's educational woes when we haven't
had any control of public educational institutions for decades? 

It's not surprising that this guy didn't bother to sign his real name to his
post. Perhaps it was just another Republican dirty trick to cast aspersions on
the intelligence of the average Clinton voter?
-- 
John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
                           | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush in the National Review
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:56:30 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <Bv5JDD.KKC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>In <1992Sep25.105923.5420@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>
>>In article <Bv4ywK.L77@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>>> 
>>> 	Rush has an article in the latest (Oct. 5) issue of National 
>>> Review.  It is entitled, "Turn the Voters Loose," and it is written as
>>> a part of a set of three essays on how Bush can still win this fall.
>>> Rush advises the president that he can still win if
>>> 
>>> 	1) he exposes Clinton/Gore as liberals
>>> 	   (liberals don't win the presidency)
>
>>1) Clinton/Gore are moderates (even George Will admits that).
>
>	But this is a statement of opinion (yours and George Will's),
>not a statement of fact.  The terms "left", "moderate", and "right" are
>certainly relative, and probably meaningless.
>
>
>>> He makes minor points as well, but this is the gist of it.  Pick
>>> up a copy - there are several other interesting articles in the issue.
>
>>The gist is that Bush is a failure and does not deserve another 4 years.
>
>	Therefore, Clinton deserves four years?  Clinton is not equivalent
>to the contrary of Bush.  Why endorse any of these fools?  As I have stated
>before, I shall exercise my prerogative and not vote for President.  Let
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>anyone who actually believes that a politician can make his life better
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>maintain this illusion at his own risk.

Politicians may not be able to make our lives better, but they can certainly
make them worse.  And you don't do anyone any favors when you let them get
away with it by not voting, especially in the primaries when it REALLY counts.

>
>
>Andrew Aiken
> 


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

===============================================================================
"If an aging America ever begins to lose its short-term memory, it will really
 be in trouble - because that's the only kind of memory this country seems to
 have.  There's a perpetual tendency to believe that whatever is going on at
 this particular moment is absolutely unique in human history, but will,
 paradoxically, continue now into the indefinite future.  Both assumptions are
 certain to be wrong, but meanwhile they have sent a passel of chickens
 scuttling hysterically around the U.S. barnyard."
  
                                                  Louis Rukeyser - 1992

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:52:57 GMT

In article <1anjshINNr55@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@wpi.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>In article <adams.718034098@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>>
>>>	Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
>>>life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex...
>>>Well, you could say she's committed herself.
>>
>>Not at all.  Assume that she is using effective birth control, and using it
>>properly.  She still gets pregnant.  Where did she agree to pregnancy?
>
>	It depends.  Is she responsible for her actions?  You don't do anything
>without possible consequences.  She should accept the consequences for her
>actions (to me, this sounds like a tough statement to disagree with.  However,
>I've been amazed before).

  Lots of people (EVEN people on the political right :-) try to have
  others pick up some or all of the consequences of their actions
  under various rationales.  For instance, the owners of large
  businesses like Chrysler and Eastern Airlines and many S&Ls
  attempted (with varying degrees of success) to get the gov't
  to pay for their business failures with bailouts.  How about
  in Florida?  People CHOSE to move into a hurricane zone and
  then go uninsured, true?  Why don't THOSE people accept the
  consequences of their actions without asking for gov't assistance?
  (I obviously don't agree that this should be the case, but I also
  believe in the right to choose an abortion).  All I am saying is
  that there is relatively little consistency in asking people to
  accept and take the consequences for their actions.  It just
  depends on whose ox is being gored.

  Jon Rosen
From: snyder3338@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: RE: The End of Rush? - NOT!
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:49:06 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

What's the matter???  Are you afraid someone might agree with him???
Maybe it's because he's RIGHT!!!   Think about that.. and maybe you should
listen some more so you can straighten yourself out....

Jeff Snyder

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Damn cross-posting!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:42:43 GMT


Jeez louise.  I come back to this group after a long break only to see all this
cross-posting crap again.  Can someone tell me how I can put everythin but John
Switzer's summaries in a kill file???

Thanks,
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:04:35 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
protests during his college days.

    Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.

     This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
British citizenship.

     Is this the individual the American people should send to
The White House?

     Rep. Bob Dornan should be addressing the house again this
weekend.  I urge those concerned about what I have briefly outlined
here to call:

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

(202) 224-3121

     Your can either ask for Rep. Dornan's office or staff, or attempt
to reach your own.  This information must be presented to the American
public, and the events which occurred there must be researched and
addressed by Bill Clinton.


-- 
---------------------------------
     David De Trolio
---------------------------------
(detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6167 alt.politics.elections:14854 talk.abortion:39812 alt.sex:31556 alt.politics.clinton:8062 alt.politics.bush:7403 talk.politics.misc:48955
From: jseaver@yaya.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 1 Oct 1992 21:36:57 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: yaya.wpi.edu

>>>I wasn't aware that death was an appropriate consequence for having sex.
>>
>>	No, death isn't.  Having a child, however, IS.
>>
>>	Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
>>life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex..
>>Well, you could say she's committed herself.
>>
>>						-Jay
>
>Hmmm...interesting point, IF (notice it's a big if)  the folks
>engaging in sexual activities were actually aware of ALL the
>consequences of their actions, and the possible alternatives. There

	Small question:  How can someone NOT know that having a baby is a
natural consequence of sex?  I mean, this is not exactly unknown information;
I suppose it's possible someone wouldn't know this, but REALLY REALL REALLY
unlikely.

>are many people out there that believe that they are not going to
>get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) because they are practicing
>birth control such as the rhythm method, or premature withdrawl, or
>douching with a coke, or countless other methods. One thing many
>people do not have is accurate information regarding sex, and
>the associated risks and responsibilities. Can you say education?

	I may be in the minority for conservatives, but I have very little
trouble with sex education, or, indeed, education of any sort.  One cannot
expect people to act responsibly with too little data.  

					-Jay
From: bakerdj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Love to hate him don't just hate him
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:31:00 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire



I'm a Liberal Demecrate and I like to watch the show becuase it is
entertainment so what if he is totally Biased. It is fun to watch. He gets up
there and makes a total ass of himselfe. It is fun to watch his use of retoric
to bolster his points. It is fun to watch as he calls his distortions the
truth. It is fun just to hate him! 

He is another of those people who people love to hate.

Dan the curious one

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Who deserves a wasted vote?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 08:09:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <LARRY.92Sep27131245@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
> >The gist is that Bush is a failure and does not deserve another 4 years.
>Therefore, Clinton deserves four years?

Thomas Sowell, in a recent editorial, said the question wasn't
weather Bush deserved another four years, the question was does
the United States deserve four years of Clinton.  His opinion was
that the answer to both questions was "NO!"

> Clinton is not equivalent to the contrary of Bush.  Why endorse
>any of these fools?  As I have stated before, I shall exercise my
>prerogative and not vote for President.

Don't not vote for  President.  Perot is on the ballot in all 50
states; if you find him tolerable, as compared to B&C, vote for him.  I
believe the Libertarian Party has also gotten on the ballot in all 50
states; a vote for Andre Marrou would be another possibility.  If
neither of those are to your liking, there are candidates to the right
(the American Independant Party) and to the left (Fulani's "New
Alliance" party.  CPUSA may even be running someone this year, though
since most of their funds came from the USSR, they may be defunct.)

I'm considering a write-in for Dave Barry.  It's time for an anarchist
in the White House.

>Sure.. well, there is always Perot.. (if you're going to throw your
>vote away).  Might as well REALLY waste it!

The point is, there are lots of alternatives to not voting, which
is the biggest waste.

-- 
   "How can three dozen computer designers beat | Mike Van Pelt
a team of over a thousand?"    -- Thomas Watson | mvp@netcom.com
   "I believe Mr. Watson has answered his own   | mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
question."                      -- Seymour Cray
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush