HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1993Jan15.170241.2687@netnews.alf.dec.com>
	<1jhq2cINN34t@shelley.u.washington.edu>
	<wiggins.727482325@terra.cecer.army.mil>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:42:57 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 1993 22:25:25 GMT, wiggins@cecer.army.mil (Don Wiggins) said:
Don> ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:

Don>[comment from someone accusing RL of selectively screening
Don> his calls deleted]

  >This is untrue.  Today a lady raked Rush over the coals and BBQ'ed him. 
  >He didn't hang up eventhough she lied and was having a cow right on radio!
  >If it were me I would have hung up :)  --Ryan

Don> Exactly right.  He opened the lines to anyone who voted for
Don> former governor clinton and asked them to describe how they
Don> feel about that decision today, pro or con.  This woman
Don> yelled for several minutes about all the terrible things RL
Don> has said about her boy, birds 'n bunnies, and just about
Don> everything else under the sun.  Instead of a reasonable
Don> description of her position, she accused RL of everything but
Don> the Lindburgh kidnapping.  What a dweebette.

Then, of course, we had the call from the woman who had "misvoted" for
Clinton on an absentee ballot. Seems she punched out the wrong hole for
president or something. She was calling RL to 'fess up and ask for
forgiveness. 

Of course, Rush ate it all up like good cookies. And Dittodom nodded, in
unison, and their lips simultaneously mouthed a silent amen.

Real convincing.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Time to find out what's in the other half of Rush Limbaugh's brain. 
Now, where's my cleaver?
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:00:24 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Theme Music FAQ

In article <1993Jan24.215323.24374@mcc.com>, amck@.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
says:

>Why does Rush use The Pretenders (?) song "Ohio" as his theme music?

Because it sounds neat.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13319 alt.rush-limbaugh:14660
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: "Representative"  government?  HEE HEE HEE!!
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 02:07:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.190924.14919@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>In article <93021.52208.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>
>>   This according to a report I just heard on KGO Radio (810 AM--San Fran-
>>cisco):
>>
>>   The office of Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) has reported that they
>>have received about 200 phone calls regarding the confirmation hearings of
>>Attorney General nominee Zoe Baird--all of them negative.  You heard that--
>>ALL against Ms. Baird.  Senator Metzenbaum plans to support her anyway.
>
>While this issue is immaterial now, there's one point I'll throw 
>in: 
>I'll admit that it seems that the American public was vastly opposed
>
>to Baird's confirmation, but number of calls to a Senator's office 
>is hardly an accurate reflector of public sentiment. People call 
>their Representatives when they're angry about something, but rarely
>when they support.
>
>And Heaven help the U.S. government if our Senators start voting
>purely on the basis of phone calls to their offices.
>-- 
>We need not fear those who do evil in the name of evil, but Heaven
>protect us from those who do evil in the name of good.
>Arthur C. Adams acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil            	<fnord>
>No, I'm not the Arthur Adams who draws comic books. Don't even ask.


First, who is Arthur Adams who draws comic books? 
As a constituent of Sen. Metzenbaum, I must say that this is
just one in a series of such actions taken by "Mr. Filibuster."
He is a perfect example of how our "leaders" are out of touch with
the general public. While it may be true that calls
to senators' offices may be statistically biased, I think
it is pretty clear that the general public does NOT want Mrs. Baird
confirmed. 
Heaven help us if our senators actually start voting the
will of the people whom they represent..
--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Constitutional Interpretation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:00:18 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

> >Do you have any doubts that the framers believed that when the government
> >becomes too opressive and eliminates too many rights that the people should
> >have the facility to take arms against its government to overthrow it?
> 
> There is no question of this, as the framers agreed with Locke that we can
> rebel if the government fails to safeguard our natural rights.  But the 
> framers also vehemently objected to factionalism and the formation of
> groups which look out for their own interests as opposed to the common good
> (See the Federalist Papers), which IMHO is precisely what the NRA does.
> Mind you, I am not saying that liberal groups don't do the same thing at
> times.

There is a world of difference between a group like the NRA, and, as an
example, the AARP. The NRA seeks simply to avoid having the government
interfere further in peoples' lives. The NRA seeks no federal subsidy, no
tax breaks, and nothing more than "leave us alone".

The AARP, on the other hand, exists solely to reap financial benefits or
its' members by proposing laws to confiscate additional assets of the
taxpayers. The AARP has no interest in protecting rights, other than the
great democratic tradition of "Gimme!" (small-d democratic, as both
parties are guilty of this.)


--
"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

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.medicine
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: AIDS Question:
Keywords: AIDS
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:57:09 GMT

In article <C17yKL.K1q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>I just heard something which I would like to hear more about:
>
>Jesse Helms (AGGH!! scream the liberals) quoted the Center for Disease
>Control today as stating that the average male AIDS patient has had
>more than FIVE HUNDRED sexual partners.  Can anyone refute or confirm 
>this?  If in fact the CDC has come to this conclusion legitimately
>I would be pretty startled.

In all the research I did for Richard Posner's book on the economics of AIDS,
not once did I come across this figure or anything remotely near it.  Nor 
have I ever seen it in the sci.med.aids postings from the CDC summaries.  
Sounds to me like Jesse Helms is making it up or you misunderstood what he 
actually said.

Of course, you could actually call up the 1-800 number of the CDC and 
confirm or refute it for yourself.  Let us know what they say.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13294 talk.politics.misc:68946
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Two simple questions for our 'new' government
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:16:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) says:

>
>
>    Here are two simple questions for congress and Bill :
>
>
>   (1)   Is there enough money to fund every good idea?


     {Checking in wallet}    " Yep "
> 
>   (2)   Is there a limit to the power of the federal government?

      Nope
>
>
>
>
>

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Keywords: 4 names
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:30:58 GMT

kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:


>   Rush said on one of his TV shows that Bill had 4 names just like
>George Herbert Walker Bush.  Is there any truth to this?  Would be
>funny if true, considering all the heat George took over 4 names.

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

>   
>   Another question about Bill:  From what I understand, his educational
>history is as follows.  Prep School, Georgetown University (undergrad), Yale
>(law school).  Is this right?  If so, doesn't sound like a man of the people
>to me.

I'd like to know when he finished his work.  I've heard Rush say that 
there was at least some part of his education that Clinton never finished.
What was it, and in what text did Clinton make clear that he didn't 
finish it?  As I recall, Rush's assertion was the basis for generating
the Hillary Clinton cackle that's played on the radio.  But I don't recall
the exact assertion, nor the evidence he gave to support it.  
Does anyone have that information?

Steve Kellmeyer


-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:55:51 GMT

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan17.112958.19449@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

>>In that case, you have got to admit that Clinton is a moderate and
>>the liberal media don't like him.  Are you willing to make such an
>>admission?

>No,  it is a tenant of Republican Faith that "Clinton is a Liberal (amen)."
>Therefore they must say that Clinton is a closet liberal who talks like 
>a moderate, acts like a  moderate, and is criticized by the press 
>like a moderate would be.

A "moderate" would have put together a "moderate" cabinet... not the
communist manifesto-loving bunch of dope-smoking hippies we've got
now.  

>But you know the old Republican Duck Test;  if it looks like
>a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a liberal.


E.S.



Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14127 talk.politics.misc:70444
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DC Myth # 302 : A tax increase will lower the deficit
Keywords: taxes, deficit, lower
Date: 28 Jan 93 11:29:45 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>         Year             Federal Taxes per person
>        1983                    $2,490
>        1993                    $4,438     ( projected )
>( from a Tax Foundation report , Sept 1992 )
Good point, however....

>   Of course, while the tax burden nearly doubled, the deficit spireled       
>through the roof.  [ no need to flame Reagan/Bush, they tried to decrease
>spending, but Congress wouldn't do it ]
This is not entirely true, or at least not a string argument.  Reagan and Bush 
would have impressed me as *real* Republicans (pre McCarthy era) if they had 
done so much as submit a single balanced budget.  That never happened, so they
never really asserted themselves as standing for fiscal responsibility.  
   _________________________________________________________________________  
   Matt Ivaliotes	   lotus@uiuc.edu	ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
   a.k.a. Lotus		   Bitnet mail to: 	IVALIOTE@uiucvmd
			   NeXTMail to: 	mci41087@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu

   As much as I speak, I don't speak for C.C.S.O.  Aren't they lucky?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Summary: conservatives should support baird
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:19:59 GMT
Keywords: Conservatives, minor infraction, lynching


   Conservatives: now is the time to suppport a Clinton nominee.  Mrs. Baird
is a good lawyer who believes in many conservative ideas, but she is being
publicly lynched over a MINOR infraction.             

   Bill's next nominee will not be as conservative as Zoe Baird, and we can't
afford someone more liberals.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: "Trivial" Felonies (Was: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<93022.034317MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:26:17 GMT

<In article <93022.034317MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

<I say that by Zoe Baird withdrawing we have the right thing but for the
<wrong reasons. The immigration law stuff is wrong, true, but fairly trivial.
 

	Thanks for this assertion, Sachs. I was unaware that Federal
	FELONIES were "fairly trivial". 

<If anything it's more a symptom than an actual disease. 

	Yes, it certainly is, it is a symptom of the social disease
	of "Liberalism".

	Under this disease, family farms are destroyed by INS agents
	if they have ONE illegal alien on the premises; people that
	barely graduated from high-school are expected to understand
	the law and all its' ramifications or pay the price, a 
	price that may include bankruptcy to raise money for fines
	or even time in *jail* for failure to pay FICA taxes.

	But when the chief lawyer for a major insurance company
	AND her Yale law-professor husband knowingly and flagrently
	flout the law, they get off with a slap on the pinky (not
	even the wrist); a few thousand (petty cash, when your
	income is over $500,000 per year and net worth is
	over $2 MILLION). Obviously "just common folks", not rich 
	elitists like those Evil WhiteMale ReaganBushies,
	right?

	Sure.

	Not only that, but they are *defended* by the "party of the
	little guys", because the issue is not Federal crimes and
	violation of tax and immigration laws, but "child care"...
	according to the "unbiased" media sob sisters.

	Millions of Americans whose GROSS income is 10% or even
	5% of the Baird household manage to get child care without
	breaking Federal law...

	So there you have it, Clintooners, "change" obviously
	means:

		"Government OF the Yuppies, BY the Yuppies
	 	 and FOR the Yuppies....for the best interests
		 of The Common Folk, of course."

	
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13821 talk.abortion:57901
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 1/25/93
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:01:20 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


From the Summary (Mon 1/25/93):
> o       Lloyd Bentsen, America's new Treasury Secretary, was on
> one of the Sunday talk shows and confirmed that it's "bye-bye,
> middle-class tax cut" and "hello, consumption taxes." Rush joked
> last Friday about how Democrats will soon be taxing air, but the
> latest Clinton economic plan comes really close to this absurdity
> by taxing energy according to BTUs expended.
> 
> "You people don't even now the scope of what's ahead of you,"
> Rush warns. He notes that EIB recently had a "quite candid"
> discussion with "Lloyd Bentsen," and he plays a couple of sound
> bites from that interview. On the middle-class tax cut, "Bentsen"
> says "those fools in the middle class buy that tax cut line every
> time." On the deficit, "Bentsen" said "$18 billion - why, that's
> nothing."
> 
> Rush notes that only his show can produce this sort of candor in
> America's elected officials.

I think it is interesting compare/contrast Rush's (and many other 
Conservatives) reaction to Bentsen's comments with Wall Street's.

Rush (and others) comments have been quite negative (see above).

Meanwhile both the Stock market and Bond martkets continue to rise.
A story in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (Tues, Jan 27, 1993,
page C1) tells how investers, after fearing last Sept that a Clinton
presidency would result in exploding deficits, are now convinced 
that Clinton is will reduce the deficit and that interest rates will 
remain low.  Long term (30 year) interest rates continue to fall.
Small stocks (small buisnesses that create most new jobs) have 
especially been going up as Wall Street bets that those buisinesses
will have increasing profits.

I think the contrast is quite striking.  It may explain the public
perception that Conservatives don't know how to handle the economy
and that the country's economy will be better with Clinton in the
White House.
-- 
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!)
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:43:18 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <C1AAp4.MIr@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> 
>>In article <1993Jan17.112958.19449@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
> 
>>>In that case, you have got to admit that Clinton is a moderate and
>>>the liberal media don't like him.  Are you willing to make such an
>>>admission?
> 
>>No,  it is a tenant of Republican Faith that "Clinton is a Liberal (amen)."
>>Therefore they must say that Clinton is a closet liberal who talks like 
>>a moderate, acts like a  moderate, and is criticized by the press 
>>like a moderate would be.
> 
> A "moderate" would have put together a "moderate" cabinet... not the
> communist manifesto-loving bunch of dope-smoking hippies we've got
> now.  
[BTW, there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat in the Rush/Reagan
ideology, it is impossible for a Democrat to be moderate. Moderate is
such as Jerry Falwell, Phylis Shafly (sp?), Pat Robertson, etc...]


Oh please! I thought this kind of juvenile name calling Nazi fear propoganda
went out with Ronald Reagan. Rush seems to be doing a good job keeping
the faith it seems!

Is it true that Rush urged his listeners that Clinton wasn't really the
president, that the US didn't have a president now, and that Clinton should
be assasinated? It wouldn't surprise me if it was! He had better be careful
making statements like that...

You need to get a life my friend. You have serious problems.

-Garrett

> 
>>But you know the old Republican Duck Test;  if it looks like
>>a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a liberal.
> 
> 
> E.S.
> 
> 
> 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13910 talk.abortion:58085
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:50:06 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C1J7L3.1Aw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jj6707@meibm17.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski) writes:
>In article <1k6bmsINNg34@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>|> 
>|> Well, Paul, I am a DEFINITE human life.  And no other DEFINITE human life gets
>|> to use my body against my will.  NONE.  Reconcile that.
>|> Adrienne Regard
>
>Adrienne,
>   It's a damn good thing no one aborted you, or you wouldn't even be able to
>have this discussion.  How about giving others the chance to be born
>and do the same things you can do?

Been there, done that.

Now, John, how 'bout if you really believe this line of shit that you go out
and have 60 babies in the next 35 years -- you can work hard enough to support
'em all, can't you?  

"How about"?  How about you get a brain and think before you post, silly git?

Adrienne Regard



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re:  What does sacrifice mean to Bill?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 10:41:16 PST

In <1993Jan22.140021.7610@athena.mit.edu>, John R. Gonzalez writes:

>Regardless of whether or not I want Bill to lose the
>next election, if he raises taxes on business or the
>middle class it will make things much worse.  I fail
>to see the problem with trying to find something good
>from something bad.  I guess some people just brood
>on the bad and let it eat them up inside.

>So Mr. Irvin, I'll ask you, will raising taxes on the
>middle class and business make things worse or
>better?  If they make them worse is it not better to
>be optomistic about something?  Or should I put on
>the old sackcloth and mourne for our country day and
>night?

It will probably make things worse, though we haven't seen proof that such
tax hikes are coming, much less the details of them.  I won't deny that some
tax hikes are almost certainly coming.  Still, though, I still fear those with
a "the end is near" mentality.

I didn't vote for Clinton, and as I said, I very rarely vote for Democrats.
I think most liberal Democrat policy is bad for various reasons.  I fear that
a large injection of liberalism could spoil a recovery (or turn a decent
recovery into a feeble one).  Just the same, I'm just hoping for the best
but expecting less than that.  Yet I still hope that the Clinton administration
is a very successful one--for as many of us as possible.

Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using over 25% recycled pixels.
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Theme Music FAQ
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:24:25 GMT
 <93025.050024KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <1993Jan25.220510.11548@mcc.com>

In article <1993Jan25.220510.11548@mcc.com>, amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
says:

>>>Why does Rush use The Pretenders (?) song "Ohio" as his theme music?
>>Because it sounds neat.
>Thanks a wad.

That's not an answer? Then I misunderstood the question. Try again.

>OK, let me try again.

Please do.
>As possibly the only national talk-show host, particularly a
>conservative one, in captivity, who obviously understands and
>appreciates music written post-1967, why does Rush use The Pretender's
>"My City Was Gone" (thanks for the correction) as his theme music?  Is
>he a long-time fan of the group?  Is he from Ohio?  Or what?

Um... I think because it sounds neat.
Does that clear things up?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh