HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and the liberal conspiracy
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:00:41 GMT
Organization: ILS

In article <1992Sep26.144824.10503@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip
Switzer) writes:
> 
> In article <nate.604@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> >jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> >>hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) 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?
> >
> >    Probably not, though I can't speak for Bob. It may be, however, that 
> >the liberals in "his world" defy the Rush Limbaugh description of the 
> >"typical liberal". 
> >
> 
> Well, there you go again, trying to undermine our perfectly OK
> stereotypes!  But seriously...  I can accept a lot of waffling on many
> fringe positions, but to say that a basic tenet of liberalism is
> "limited government" defies all attempts to define the liberal
> position. 
> 
> While most liberals may not say outright that they want a big
> government, the policies they advocate *do* result in big government.
> This type of denial is typical of Americans in general, nowadays. 
> We want to have lower taxes and no public debt, but also want to keep
> all our handouts.



Well conservative republicans have pushed legislation of drugs,  ending
abortion rights,  limiting the civil rights of accused when facing trial. 
Many policies which have resulted in more government.

Now the Republicans are makingh Family Values,  and the promotion by the
Federal government of a certain lifestyle.   This is limited government.
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:53:13 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <5642@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>It is now 2:33 AM. My mind has decided to go to sleep.

Apparently.


>Clinton could have been arrested for what he was doing. But George Bush
>could have been killed for what he did. The question is do you think
>that freedom and peace are worth dying for? Bill Clinton's answer
>doesn't come as clearly for me as does George Bush's.

YOU WORM!  YOU LITTLE PIPSQUEAK!  If you think U. S. involvement in
Vietnam had anything to do with "freedom and peace," you are sorely
misinformed.  This is not the place to give you a history lesson, or
to explain to you why World War II was not and is not comparable to
Vietnam.  If it were, I'd be happy to catalog for you the various
less-than-noble "causes" for which thousands of people died while
"hawks" like Dannikins played shuffleball in Indiana.  If you need
to get your testosterone flowing, stick to whooping about the Gulf
massacre -- you have no credibility when it comes to Vietnam.


>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	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.

Indeed.


Dhanesh

  Dick Cheney, Dan Quayl, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan.  Think about it.
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Are Republicans Evil? (yes they are!)
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:08:27 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Oct2.151448.2735@sdc.com> norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman) writes:
>>
>> [my pet cause of attacking group rights deleted.]
>
>What the hell are you talking about?
>
Normy, control yourself.  I was simply pointing out that the concept of
group rights is not the same as equal rights.  When one speaks of
group rights one is according rights to that group which other groups
do not posses.  This is not and cannot be a valid model for equal rights.
We should all be treated as individuals and receive the same treatment
under the law regardless of the group we belong to.  There is one group,
the human race.

That you did not grasp this is understandable because group rights are
one of the core philosophies of the left.  I abhor this concept and 
believe it to be contradictory to basic philosophy of our Constitution.

Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6044 alt.activism.d:3378 alt.politics.elections:14465 alt.politics.bush:6956 alt.politics.clinton:7535 talk.politics.misc:48272 talk.abortion:38943
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: 28 Sep 92 20:07:41 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <1992Sep27.093834.5371@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> 
|> I think instead of "pro-choice" or pro-abortion" we should use a term
|> that is more accurate.  The term "pro-infanticide", or more simply,
|> "Pro-Murder" is the correct term that should be used, since after all,
|> abortion is the outright killing of children.
|> 
|> With that line of reasoning, if abortion is murder, then those doctors
|> that perform abortions are therefore murderers.  Going further, if abortion
|> is murder, and those that perform it are murderers, and if murder is a
|> capital crime, then technically they should face execution-right?? I mean,

You forgot the mothers.  They are co-conspirators in a capital crime and
should be subject to the same penalties.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:44:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.232935.745@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:
>In article <Bv5Av7.4vM@ora.com> ellie@ora.com (Ellie Cutler) writes:
>>>MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>
>>>:If you believe this, why are abortions justified in the case of the
>>>:mother's life being in danger? Her life is no more valuable than the fetus's
>>Remember this timely quote:
>>
>>     "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
>>
>>BELIEVE IT!
>>-- 
>>        Ellie Cutler
>
>iOh give me a break.  A large percentage of anti-abortionists are 
>iwomen too.  Give it up.
>
>iManu

Oh, WOOOOAAAH! Wait a minute, Manu!

You have made a GRAVE error right there.

This slogan:
>>     "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

came directly from the 1977 International Women's Conference in Houston
Texas, as far as I know. I did time in the abortion rights movement around
1989, and these things are known classics among the rank and filers.

For you to condemn a classic and unanimously used and accepted term like
THIS, means you are either naive or a little too individualistic for your
own good, as far as your pro-choice leaders in the NOW, NARAL or PP are
concerned. They *REALLY* do not like this kind of attitude towards their
slogans.

Unless you want to find yourself chatting with some angry feminists on
USENET, I'd cut this out if I were you. :) 


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:53:41 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1992Oct5.163724.5204@nwnexus.WA.COM>, Jennifer Brindle writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.221234.14543@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.
>>In article <BvF348.6Fq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>>>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>>
>>>Being born to parents who don't want you isn't exactly the safest thing
>>>in the world, either.
>>>
>>Much safer than having your body parts ripped apart and sucked up in
>>a vacuum.
>>

>Well, let's see how "safe" abortion is for the embryo....About as safe
>as cutting your hair.  No pain, no awareness of what's happening.
>From the embryonic point of view, its no big deal.

True.  That's why I support the legalization of RU486.  I do not like abortion
at all.  However, I accept that it will happen, and as such, I'd rather see
the destruction of an embryo the morning after than see a five-month-old fetus
(with human-like features and a developing nervous system) get ripped from the
womb.

>>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

>Vote for Bush.  Then there'll be no jobs left to be had.
>Except in Isreal, Central America, Southeast Asia, or anywhere else in
>the world the Bush administration supports moving American jobs.

They will all move anyway if Al Gore's eco-fascism is ever implemented.  No
business can afford those regulations and taxes.

Anyway, you're both wrong :-).  Vote for the only candidate on all 50 state
ballots who favors personal freedom for *all* people:  Andre Marrou.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Rush and the liberal conspiracy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:29:53 GMT

In article <38440@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
> I was listening to Larry King last night and he was receiving many
> phonecalls from viewers asking him questions about the Rush Limbaugh
> show.
> Larry responded by saying that Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan e.a. are
> all part of a gigantic liberal conspiracy to give conservatism a bad
> name. This has been the biggest liberal offense against conservatism
> since they send Mcarthy to prosecute communists. These people do a
> better job defeating conservatism than anything else. Ever since the
> 'whacko religuous right' is part of the republican platform, the
> support for conservatism has been in decline.

Hm.  Then they must be copycatting the Democrats, who wrote the book
on gaining wacko group support: NOW, NEA, ACT-UP/Queer Nation, Earth First, 
PETA, SANE/FREEZE, ad nauseum....

> As a matter of fact, who are the biggest supporters of Rush ? Ultra
> conservative people ? *wrong*, The wacko religuous right ? *wrong*
> all wrong... the biggest supporters of Rush are the liberals who
> feel that Rush does a better job at exposing how ridiculous
> conservatism can be than at exposing the liberal agenda.
> This statement made by Larry King made me ask myselg the following
> question. HOw many Rush listeners out there are listening to Rush
> just for this reason ? How many feel he is the best weapon against
> conservative wackos ? How many of the 13 or so muillion listeners
> are actually agreeing with him ?

Wow.  Larry K. has this all figured out, so well-thought through,
isn't it?  By the by, has anyone *told* Rush????

> To be Rush has always been a wonderful entertainer, not too smart
> but every now and then funny. It makes me feel strong in my believes
> that ultra-right is as wacko as the looney leftt. But I have to
> agree with people who say that Rush is a great entertainer, who
> sounds very convincing about certain issues if one is willing to
> turn off ones critical thinking for a minute. That's also why I
> think Rush's television show is going to fail. He is not a tv
> personality, his facial expressions, body motions all make him look
> like a moron. I have to turn off the tv after 5 minutes, since I
> start to feel pity for Rush. The end of a great entertainer ?
> 
> Pim van Meurs
> -- 
Don't hold your breath waiting...got news for ya............

Rather, it's just the *beginning* of some long-overdue informational
dissemination that happens to be quite engaging in its nature. 


                                          H.R. Holm

*standard disclaimers, comment my own..
 replies to the newsgroup only, please*
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: All right! My fingers are killing me!
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:16:13 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>In article <5660@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
[From OCR scan of Republican Platform]
+   Healthy families. Responsible families are
=   the key to wellness. They are the best guard
+   against infant morality...
=
+I don't know if I agree with this.

Darn. Another one dodges the spell-checker.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
Living proof of Dan Quayle's statement: what a waste it is to lose one's
mind or not to have a mind at all. How true it is.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6046 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5989 talk.politics.misc:48277 alt.flame:13091
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Budget Debt/Deficit (Was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:29:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <barrett.717709261@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep28.162205.26063@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>>In article <BvAH8F.Fxz@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>>|> >Zeroing the deficit does not get rid of the debt, it just stops the 
>>>|> >debt from getting bigger.
>>>|>    This isn't true.  Part of the budget is payments on current debt,
>>>|>    so a balanced budget would still be paying down debt, and over time 
>>>|>    the national debt would be paid off.    A "balanced budget" simply
>>>|>    means that your revenues match your disbursements.   That some of
>>>|>    those disbursements are for exiting debt is immaterial.
>
>Are you sure?  It seems to me that since paying off old debt does not
>change net worth, it is not an expense and is not included in a
>"balanced budget". 

  Yes, I'm sure.  "Interest on the Public Debt" is listed as a (big!)
  category under the Treasury Department, according to the US Treasury
  Department Financial Management Service report on US Budget Receipts
  and Outlays.


---peter
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:06:50 GMT

In article <mlbruce.717736922@husc8> mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:

Ditto. 

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:17:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
-	I think I must modify my comments slightly. It seems to me
-that Rush Limbaugh is the sort of misogynist who objects to seriously
-assertive women, though not to submissive or passive or servile or
-objectified ones.
-
-	Consider his objection to feminism that it makes opportunities
-for relatively unattractive women, something he makes into a great
-catastrophe. This is from someone who hardly looks like an Adonis.
-
-	He also snickers that all feminists are lesbians, and claims
-to wonder why they are all "pro-abortion", when they supposedly don't
-have sex with men anyway.
-
-	I'm sure that there is one type of assertive woman that he
-would be more to make exception for: an assertive right-wing woman
-like Phyllis Schlafly. I think in his mind, an assertive woman is good
-when she asserts that women have no right to be assertive.

Again, I think your conceptions aren't quite correct. (And I mean it
politely.) I don't think he objects to "feminism" as he is to the
"militant feminist leadership" whose agenda seems to be nothing more
than creating tension (or a war) between the sexes. At least according
to the images seen publicly, e.g., at the DNC, the feminists shown there
were espousing lesbian rights, RU486, and abortion rights. I don't think
this is the agenda for most American women out there for whom the NOW
claims to be advocating. We even have a feminist "expert" claim that ALL
sex is rape, including sex in marital context; it's just that women who
are married are "blinded" by what they call "love" to see it that way.
Now that is definitely not what most of my female friends think.

I think Rush points out the inconsistencies of this "leadership" since
they want women to be allowed into everything that used to be exclusive
to men only from dining clubs to female journalists in men's locker
rooms (granted I don't quite know how high a priority this is) to women
in combat. On the other hand, they want women to be treated differently,
and perhaps preferentially or else the women can sue a male co-worker
for sexual harassment. They want to show that they can be equal to men
but still must be treated like a fragile baby that must be spoiled at
all times. Again this is the image that the leadership has perpetuated.
-- 
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:5997 alt.activism.d:3364 alt.politics.elections:14417 alt.politics.bush:6899 alt.politics.clinton:7460 talk.politics.misc:48187 talk.abortion:38844
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
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: 28 Sep 92 14:39:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

>Excuse me, but are you NUTS? Are you saying that the execution of
>individuals who (most would say) DESERVE to be put to death for
>committing crimes unimaginably heinous is more atrocious than the
>killing of an unborn child, who is the quintessence of innocence? I see
>a problem with your logic, my friend.

Exuse *me*, but are you a hypocrite?  If life is truely an inalienable right,
then noone DESERVES to have it taken from them, no matter what they've done.
To do so would make life a priviledge, to be taken way when they have
done something wrong.  By your standards, the guilty (as judged by mere
mortals) must die, and the innocent (as judged by mere mortals) get to
live.

I see problem with your logic.

>"The world is overpopulated already."

>I find it stangely ironic that those who are for abortion because of
>overpopulation are also opposed to hunting which, in most cases, keeps
>populations of animals with no natural predators under control. It even
>seems that they care more for deer and moose than children -- human
>beings. Weird.

I find it strange that you find it so easy to generalize these things.
I think that humane killings are fine.  I think that hunting for population
control, as long as the game is not wasted, is fine also.

In my personal spiritual philosophy, a child is not a child until it 
inherits a soul.  This soul is not inherited until birth.  At that
point, the soul deserves the chance to make the most of the life that
it has chosen, without interference.  Before that point, in the womb,
the body is a vehicle under construction.  I don't believe that when
a fetus is lost, it is irreplaceable.  It is the soul that is irreplacable.
But that soul cannot be destroyed -- at least not by any means that we
have at our disposal.

Therefore, to force me to carry to term, a fetus that I do not want, to
me would be ridiculous.  


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5963 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5955 talk.politics.misc:48106 alt.flame:13071
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:14:05 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <mykes.0e87@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>You forgot to subtract the $400 Billion we pay in debt interest.

Zeroing the deficit does not get rid of the debt, it just stops the 
debt from getting bigger.  Unless you can come up with a budget that pays 
all the interest and "everything else", plus a little extra to pay down the 
debt principal, it will only get bigger.  You can't just toss away the 
interest on existing debt because we're not borrowing any *more*.


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6395 alt.activism.d:3478 alt.politics.elections:14963 alt.politics.bush:7523 alt.politics.clinton:8205 talk.politics.misc:49158 talk.abortion:40072
From: boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD)
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: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:37:37 CDT
Organization: Consultant
Reply-To: "Boyd, Victoria L" <boyd@tmc.tulane.edu>
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1992Oct2.042310.4735@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> (alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion), sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
> 
> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
> moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
> 
> Simon
> 
> 

Certainly the woman is aware of the movement.  There is no evidence that the
fetus is aware, that I know of.  Some of the RTLers will argue that it makes
it aware but that is merely their point of view.  There may or may not be
awareness.

Victoria L Boyd PhD

boyd@tmc.tulane.edu

Quayle quote on the concept of a manned mission to Mars: It's "time for the
human race to enter the solar system."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:28:47 GMT


At the very least shouldn't a fetus be considered a potential life??


Simon

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame