HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH'S SHOW IS A BIT (ONLY DIDO HEADS DON'T G
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:23:53 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1dkrkhINN1tp@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach
) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.162930.3100@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu
 (j. tinkle ) writes:
>>I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE ORIGINAL POSTER MEANT BY THIS Subject: LINE,
>>but I can tell you this: Rush freely admits that his show is supposed to be
>>entertaining.
>
>Entertaining?  I now listen to see:
>1) how far Rush will go in gathering some 'facts' and drawing a 
>conclusing from them that is lacking a major clue.
And .... What do you have to report?

>2) To marvel at the number of people who call and worship the man.
>   (proving the world is full of fools)
Because thirty people from the US call in one day, the world is full of fools.
Nice generalization.

>3) To marvel at his cash cow.  1-900 polls.  Rush merchandise.
>
>>And that's "DITTO HEADS" to you, SIR.  Obviously you haven't listened to
>>Rush long enough or at the right times to understand either of these things.
>
>Limbots works nice.  
Fine.

>Oh, and you've got the sthick down well.  If the viewpoint opposes yours
>you just say 'They don't understand' in a condecending manner.  Good
>little Limbot you are......
I DIDN'T say "They don't understand', although some people don't know
subtle humor if it was to bite them on the leg.


>-- 
>Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
>MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
>my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
>   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.

Jennifer, proud originator of the "President Clinton" thread on alt.rush-l.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Forget Rush and the Comedy Channel!  What's DOONESBURY (Trudeau) going to do?
I'd prefer he go on the lecture circuit, instead of more stupid cartoons
about that quintabizillionaire that lives on an island with his plain assist-
ant.  Wouldn't it figure I'd have to join alt.poltics.flame.flame.flame. to
spawn my first thread?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:47:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>The point was the media's use of "religious right" and not "feminist left,"
>for example.  Nor does the media ever use the word "radical feminist" when
>referring to organizations like NOW, for example.  Can't a feminist be of
>a rightist slant also, or does "feminist"="feminist left?"

Not according to Rush, who lately has been saying that there is only one
feminism, and it is defined by the extremists.  But nobody takes Rush
seriously when he says stupid stuff like that, right?

But I digress.  

So what should the media call the Religious Right?  It really isn't 
a very descriptive name.  I think we should have a contest.  Post
your suggestions here.  First prize:  Dan Quayle's spelling checker.

Special bonus prize for not using the word "Fascist."

David
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:01:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.015251.605@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.185223.13128@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.164217.24828@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Nov13.170451.24505@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>>> 
>>>>Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.
>>>>Abstinence is acceptable and reasonable behavior to expect from people who 
>>>>don't want to have a baby, whereas killing the child is not acceptable in 
>>>>the same way that neglecting a child when adoption is available isn't 
>>>>acceptable. 
>
>>I won't wait because this is society's problem, not your bedroom problem.
>>And, the original question was for society to offer an alternative to
>>abortion - so, here it is.  
>
>>I really don't care what goes on in your bedroom, but as a member of this
>>society I expect your to behave with responsibility when it comes to
>>creating another member (and to not kill said member at your convenience).
>
>As a member of this society, I really don't care whether you consider 
>abortion 'killing said member.' I also feel very sorry for you if you
>haven't yet figured out that sex is a hell of a lot more than 'making
>babies.'

"Sex is a hell of a lot more than making babies??"  We'll now that's 
real important!!  I suppose your life will come to an end if you can't 
have sex?  

I used to think sex was "important" outside of making babies.  
Now that I have two children I realize that this is utterly false.
And when you make one that you keep you might realize that, too.

A baby's life *will* come to an end if it is aborted.

I'm not asking you to stop eating, sleeping, etc.  I'm not even asking 
you to stop having sex.  I'm asking *everyone* to stop killing babies.
Can you understand that??  There *is* a big difference.

I'm not one for conspiricies, but today's culture would have you
think that something important is being taken from you - this supposed 
right to have sex without responsibility.  This is only a cover.  What's 
being taken from you is your children.


And to others that have e-mailed me on this:

Me: "...and to not kill said member at your convenience."
Others:  Then you oppose war, death penalty, etc, right?

No I do not oppose these things.  There's a difference between defending
yourself in a war or from a crime than killing a child for convenience.
(Understanding that difference is left as an exercise to the reader).

And yes, I consider the death penalty (one of) my defenses to crime
(it is also punishment as well).
-Paul
--
---
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Words of Rush
Summary: Why don't animals have rights?
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:51:05 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: HALF, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Nov17.160613.6990@ils.nwu.edu>
hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
|In article <1129@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|> And this is where you make your mistake.  You have twisted what he said
|> without realizing it.  Rush did *not* assert that the ability to enter
|> into agreements is what *grants* *individuals* Rights.  You have
|> switched from the general to the particular.
|> 
|> Human beings as a group have Rights, in part, because they can in
|> general enter into agreements (actually, I would say that this is not
|> the reason for Rights, but a necessary condition to Rights). 
|> Individuals have Rights because they are human beings, not because of
|> any ability they have or lack.  Individuals can only be deprived of
|> their Rights by due process of the law.
|
|I have to admit that I wish Clinton did not Waffle so much in the election,
|but compared to this he has balls.

Why do you say that?  I did not waffle.

|Rush said;  animals can not enter into contracts therefore animals do not
|have rights.  Now I pointed out that this could be applied to abortion and

And I explained why it could not be correctly apply to abortion above.  I
stand by what I said.  I don't think you made any effort to understand it.

|suddenly everyone said,  no Rush didn't mean A he meant B.

That "everyone" does not include me.  Do you blame me for the sins of
others (what you quoted above was my first posting on the subject)?  I
think Rush meant what he said, and *you* misunderstood it, and still
misunderstand it.

|When I examine B then its no Rush didn't mean B he meant C.  Over time we
|get closer and closer to the assertion that Animals don't have rights
|because animals don't have rights.  (Which is what you are saying)

No it isn't.  Let's go to the heart of the matter.  Why do you think people
have Rights?  I don't think you understand the philosophical underpinings
of the notion at all.

|Talk about endless revisionism and relativism.  I don't know what scares me
|more,  the open moral relativism and ruthelessness of some on the left or
|the ability to covertly employ these techniques on the right.

I employed no revisionism or relativism.-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:33:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.140112.28381@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>
>"Sex is a hell of a lot more than making babies??"  We'll now that's 
>real important!!  I suppose your life will come to an end if you can't 
>have sex?  

Likewise, would _your_ life come to an end if you couldn't make babies any more?

>I used to think sex was "important" outside of making babies.  
>Now that I have two children I realize that this is utterly false.

Not "false". Just not important to you, personally.

>And when you make one that you keep you might realize that, too.

Many folks here HAVE had babies, and kept them, and still aborted later, 
Paul. In fact, there may even be some here who have aborted specifically 
_because_ they had already had enough children to take care of, and didn't 
want any more of them.

>A baby's life *will* come to an end if it is aborted.

Pop quiz:

Which of the following bestows more life:

	a) abstinence (never gives life, ever)

		or

	b) abortion (often saves the woman's life or health, so she can
	   go on to have lotsa babies if and when she's ready to do so)

?? 

>I'm not one for conspiricies, but today's culture would have you
>think that something important is being taken from you - this supposed 
>right to have sex without responsibility.  

s/responsibility/undue governmental interference/
                      
								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10044 talk.abortion:48688
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 20 Nov 92 01:35:20 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov13.170451.24505@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:

> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>> Now, when society does not/cannot offer an alternative, this series of
>>  assumptions, behaviors and ramifications does not occur.  Society can
>> offer an option to parenthood, but it cannot offer an option to pregnancy.

> Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.

I think once you're pregnant, abstinence won't help you get 'un-pregnant',
will it? 

Abstinence isn't really an alternative to sex, if that's what you meant.
But there are many alternatives to sexual intercourse which are far more  
enjoyable than abstinence, and which don't involve any risk in getting
pregnant. 

>-Paul


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu (Clay Spinuzzi)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 17
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:09:22 GMT

In article <grendel.722306065@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Nov20.140810.25756@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>>In article <41298@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> Pim van Meurs, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu
>>writes:
>>>instance. I admire Rush for his ability to mislead so many people
>>>into believing he is something more than just an entertainer who is
>>>often more wrong than right but says what people want to hear or
>>>believe.
>>>Sure, Rush will be around as long as people need to be told what to
>>>believe. Guess that's why there is no liberal equivalent of Rush.
>
>>You mean like Phil Donahue, Geraldo Rivera, Dan Blather, Tom Brokaw, 
>>Vlademir Pozner, Arsenio Hall, Jay Leno, Whoopi Goldberg? 
>>That is all I could think of in about 10 seconds.
>

[stuff deleted]

>And anyway, none of the people you mentioned are liberal equivalents of
>Rush.  Rather and Brokaw are newscasters, not talk radio deejays.  Goldberg
>is principally an actress.  And Donahue, Hall and Leno host talk shows,
>usually with figures in the world of entertainment, and are not politically
>oriented.  Rush Limbaugh is an ideologue.  He is an openly conservative

Were you watching Arsenio Hall just before the election? I agree that Rush 
enjoys arguing ad hominem, but I felt Arsenio was much more virulent (and 
repetitive) in telling why he hated Bush than RL ever was.

Just my 3.14159 cents.

=========================================================================
Clay Spinuzzi        spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu     Now only .004 out of phase!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Rensselaevic Polytechnicov Instituctnachov, PRNY
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:02:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.003106.26874@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>>It has been much more common in the past 12 years for conservatives to
>>be shouted down by liberal "guarantors of the first amendment" than
>>the reverse.

>>Liberals have been the sponsors of restrictive restraints on speech
>>at many universities.  Actions speak louder than words........

>>Liberals like to shout down speakers with opposing viewpoints.  Actions
>>speak louder than words.......

>Sweeping generalities obviously full of opinion with no proof. Got any
>specific instances?

I can think of several instances :

1) Harvard : a professor (that is PROFESSOR) was physically attacked for
    saying something non-PC (this was not some "hate" comment, it was a
    very moderate comment -- I don't have the article on me) and the students
    who attacked him got a slap on the wrist.  On the other hand, at a
    student function, a student who removed a sign on a table reserved for
    the gay organization was expelled (that is EXPELLED) for performing
    a "hate" crime.

2) UC__ (forget the exact school, either USC, UCLA or UCBerzerkley) : a
    person in the Reagan administration was to speak, but because of her
    position on the "English as official language" issue, protesters had
    a cow, causing the speech to be canceled.  BTW, the person was a
    Hispanic who felt that standardizing English was the best way to help
    Hispanics and other immigrants.

I've read of many other instances but don't have the time or inclination
to go look them up.

Now, the real challenge is for you to come up with counterexamples with
respect to speech.

>One of the big reasons why many of our rights are being eroded are
>by products onthe CONSERVATIVE driven War on Drugs.

We were talking about "speech" rights, but since you brought up the WoD,
tell us exactly how our rights are being eroded?  I've not been tested
for drugs, I've not been searched, nor have my premises, etc.  As far
as I know, no one I know has had these things happen either.

Besides, the idea that WoD is partisan is hogwash -- almost no politician
in the US today has the guts to oppose it.  The WoD is about as mainstream
as you can get.  To suggest otherwise is pure Libertarian propaganda.
-- 
__ __  ____ ______ ______ __  __ 	Keith Jackson
|| // ||    | || | | || | ||  ||
||<<  ||==    ||     ||   ||==||	jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu
|| \\ ||___ |_||_|   ||   ||  ||
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Date: 22 Nov 92 21:13:12 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov21.031837.16924@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
]grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
]
]>Spike Lee is a racist on a level with Jesse Helms.
]
]You appear to have fallen prey to the poor representation of Lee in the
]press and have never seen him live. He is not a racist. And certainly not
]on the level with Helms. I should know. I live in NC. 
If he is not a racist, why did he only invite black reporters to his
press conference? Even Jesse Helms doesn't do that sort of thing.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:27:49 GMT

psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes ...
> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>>>Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.
>> 
>>See the thing is Paul, unless I specifically invite you to be 
>>involved in my sex life, it is none of your business.  So why 
>>don't you wait for the invite before assuming you have any 
>>interest at all in what goes on in my bedroom.
>> 
>I won't wait because this is society's problem, not your bedroom problem.
>And, the original question was for society to offer an alternative to
>abortion - so, here it is.  

First, abstinence is clearly not an alternative to pregnancy, since it
neither terminates an existing pregnancy nor assures the prevention of
a future pregnancy.  Neither does a lack of abstinence assure the
onset of pregnancy, for that matter.

Second, society does not have much of a problem with abortion.  While
some members of society do, they are still rather notably in the
minority.  It looks like it is _your_ problem, since I, as a duly
appointed member of society and typical respresentative thereof, have
very little interest what goes on in anyone else's bedroom.

>I really don't care what goes on in your bedroom, but as a member of this
>society I expect your to behave with responsibility when it comes to
>creating another member (and to not kill said member at your convenience).

I expect you to behave responsibly also.  Shall we consider adopting a
set of laws assured to enforce _your_ responsible behavior?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hawaii/WWII
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:42:05 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

Unnnnnnnnh!  Hawaii, being one of the two non-48-contiguous states, has been
a US "territory" since ~1950.  That's why the other 48 chose to defend it.
Hawaii alone could not have fended off the kamikazis.

Jennifer, proud originator of the "President Clinton" thread on alt.rush-l.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Forget Rush and the Comedy Channel!  What's DOONESBURY (Trudeau) going to do?
I'd prefer he go on the lecture circuit, instead of more stupid cartoons
about that quintabizillionaire that lives on an island with his plain assist-
ant.  Wouldn't it figure I'd have to join alt.poltics.flame.flame.flame. to
spawn my first thread?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10213 talk.abortion:49109
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:34:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <Bxy0zn.C53@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>> 
>> I challenge pro-choice and pro-lifers both to move with me to the middle
>> on this.  Let's do something instead of waiting for it to fall apart 
>> around us.
>
>Uh, just one thing Paul...  Isn't Pro-Choice the middle ground?
>
>Pro-Abortion  <----->  Pro-Choice  <----->  Pro-Life
>
>Jim

Yes, Pro-Choice is the middle ground, but not if you give only 
one person a choice.  For pro-choice to be the true middle ground, 
you must give everyone involved a choice: the mother, the child, 
and the father.  The pro-choice movement in america ignores two 
of the people involved.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:14:09 GMT

psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
> 
> I challenge pro-choice and pro-lifers both to move with me to the middle
> on this.  Let's do something instead of waiting for it to fall apart 
> around us.

Uh, just one thing Paul...  Isn't Pro-Choice the middle ground?

Pro-Abortion  <----->  Pro-Choice  <----->  Pro-Life

See, that's the one argument I've had against the Pro-Life
stance all alone.  By being Pro-Life, they're exercising
their choice to be Pro-Life.  Hence, they too are Pro-Choice
but fail to admit this fact in an effort to administer
THEIR choice upon everyone.  In this country of freedoms
(to include the freedom to invade someone else's freedom),
the only way anyone can be in this issue is to be pro-choice,
because whatever choice they make, it's their freedom to
make and believe in that choice.  For this very reason, I,
a primarily conservative person, have no alternative but to
be Pro-Choice.  That isn't saying I'm Pro-Life OR Pro-Abortion...

Jim

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:46:59 GMT

In <1992Nov17.162322.24709@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Has anyone seen Malcom the Tenth yet?  Is it worthwhile for a 
>conservative to see?  Is it at all like Spike's other glorious 
>work `Do The Right Thing?'  After watching that movie, I still 
>did not know what the hell `the right thing' was.

The right thing, of course, is to destroy the businesses of people who call
the police on customers who harass them in the event that the police kill
one of the customers, and to then ask for money from the person whose
business you have destroyed.

Spike Lee is a racist on a level with Jesse Helms.

I will probably see Malcolm (note the second "l") X anyway, however,
because I want to be informed about what the movie's like.

Same reason I listen to Rush.