HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 1993 03:46:16 GMT
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu

In article <5066@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article Nathan Engle writes:
>
>>    What the Clintons are doing for their daughter is only hypocritical 
>>if you accept the initial Rush-thought that Democrats always have to act 
>>based solely on symbolism and that not doing so contradicts their stated 
>>goals.
>
>(As usual?) You've got it backwards.  Clinton is NOT being criticized
>for acting rationally.  Rush never claimed "that Democrats always have
>to act based solely on symbolism".   The point is that Clinton is rich
>enough to be able to make a choice, but he does not support money
>for school vouchers to allow less rich people to make such a choice.

  Exactly correct.  Here is a simple way to get the point.  Substitute
"government funded abortion" for "public schooling" in the argument.  Lo
and behold!  You will hear echoes of the liberals saying how the poor and
middle class won't be able to exercise their "right" to good schooling unless
the gummit (tax the rich) pay for it.  Just like their argument that only
 the 'rich' will be able to exercise their right to abortion.....

  I personally feel there are good arguments for vouchers etc. and don't
for a minute agree with the 'right' to abortion paid for by the govt.
argument, but it is of interest to use it turned around on the perpetrators
of such inanity!  ;-))

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13484 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12076 alt.politics.clinton:19970 alt.politics.bush:15761 alt.politics.homosexuality:9254
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:22:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
: > Homosexual behavior is exhibited in some portion of all mammal species but
: > not all, clearly it is a natural phenomenon, and has a purpose in the natural 
: > scheme of things.
: 
: What is its purpose in the natural scheme of things? 

Nothing.  "Nature" is not a sentient being, and so does not have
purposes.
: 
: > Heterosexual behavior is exhibited in some portion of all mammal species but
: > not all, clearly it is a natural phenomenon, and has a purpose in the natural 
: > scheme of things.
: 
: 
: What is *its* purpose in the natural scheme of things?

See above.
: 
: Walter        

Bill     
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Does Rush ever post here?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:16:24 GMT

In article <Treble-080193123543@asc438.asc.slb.com> Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble) writes:
>Does anyone know Rush's CompuServe account number?  Or is that not public
>information?

His CIS # is 70277,2502, so an Internet email address would be
	70277.2502@CompuServe.com
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- MST3K's Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | after TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jahn@guinness.Idbsu.EDU (Greg Jahn)
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Reply-To: jahn@guinness.idbsu.edu
Organization: BSU - Data Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:50:23 GMT

In article <1ikfjpINNrup@hp-col.col.hp.com>,
 smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|>From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
|>owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
|>> Homosexual behavior is exhibited in some portion of all mammal species but
|>> not all, clearly it is a natural phenomenon, and has a purpose in
|>the natural 
|>> scheme of things.
|>
|>What is its purpose in the natural scheme of things? 
|>
|>> Heterosexual behavior is exhibited in some portion of all mammal
|>species but
|>> not all, clearly it is a natural phenomenon, and has a purpose in
|>the natural 
|>> scheme of things.
|>
|>
|>What is *its* purpose in the natural scheme of things?
|>

What the hell, I've been following this incredibly voluminous 
discussion, and I have to ask a simple question.

Why does any of this matter?  Getting upset about two homosexual
adults doing whatever they want and like to do in the privacy of
their own home is about as crucial an issue as whether someone puts
cream in their coffee or not.  If you happen to be religious in
such a way as to believe they are going to hell for their behaviour,
then, ... why not just leave it at that?  Why should you care if
you believe they are going to hell, and why should THEY care if
YOU think they are going to hell?  It's none of your business.

sheesh.

--
Greg Jahn Boise State Univ.| "Spoils of war are spoils of war,
/ jahn@guinness.idbsu.edu /|  says junk man, owner of the junk. 
/ dosjahn@idbsu.bitnet    /|  Grafitti man's got something to
/ (208)385-3891.thephone  /|  say. "   - John Trudell

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: TOURISM UP?
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:00:54 GMT

In article <3575.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)  writes:
>-> Newsgroups:
>-> alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correc
>-> From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
>-> Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
>-> Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for
>-> Boycotts.
>
>Really? Who reported this? (And are you suggesting a causal
>relationship?)  Last I heard, everybody and its sibling was
>cancelling conventions and events held in Colorado.  Maybe the
>effects haven't taken place yet.

ABC Evening News, for what it's worth.

>                                             
>----
>+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
>| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
>| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
>+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13518 alt.sex:41549 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12110 alt.politics.correct:6130 alt.politics.equality:54
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 10 Jan 93 08:07:48 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan5.181236.2245@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
|> 
|> Buzz! Wrong answer.
|> 
|> Amendmant 14, section 1, sentence 2, phrase 2.
|> "nor shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty, or property,
|> without due process of law"
|> 
|> A law allowing discrimination against homosexuals is allowing
|> the citizens of the state to deprive homosexuals of property,
|> and possibly liberty and life. This is most certainly contradictory to
|> the 14th amendment.

	This is really pure nonsense as far as constitutional interpretation. 
Not hiring homosexuals does not deny them any property they have any just 
ownership of; hence it does not deny them any property they have a right to
possess; hence it does not violate their right to property.  To justly obtain
what belongs to someone else, you have to MUTUALLY AGREE on the exchange -- some
good or service in exchange for some value.  Not hiring homosexuals DOES NOT
violate their right to property.
	It certainly doesn't violate their right to liberty.  The right to
liberty doesn't include the liberty to do as you wish with other people's
property.
	And an employer is not violating a homosexual's right to life unless he
slips some Anthrax virus in the guy's coffee during the interview.  Get real.

|> >My proposed super equality before the law amendment:
|> >NO PROTECTION BASED ON ANY CATEGORIZATION ... [Your State] Shall
|> >not adopt any law ... whereby any categorization ... shall
|> >entitle any person ... to claim of discrimination.
|> >
|> 
|> There are two ways to have equality before the law; either everyone,
|> or no one should be entitled to such claims. I, for one, much prefer
|> the former.

	Why on earth?  You think you have a right to do something with the
property of other people without their permission?  Nonsense.
	The former method involves the overthrow of the rights to liberty and
property; the second does not.  Hence, the second is always preferable.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:17:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1993Jan2.235727.5838@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Dec29.233922.2539@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>>> 
>>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>>>live their life without persecution.
>>
>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>
>
>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>largest single religion).  Besides, 'religious reasoning' sounds like
>an oxymoron.  

Note also:
Religious reasoning, _per se_, is simply man's attempt to understand the
divine. There are many versions of religous reasoning. And, yes, they are
all valid, despite what many say about Christianity being the One True
Religion. In other words, reasoning is *by its nature* an earthly matter.
Religion tries to apply an earthly process to a divine matter. What makes
religious reasoning so much better than secualr reasoning? Certainly,
we can observe the earthly much better than we can observe the divine.

>Look, whatever your opinion of secular reasoning, religiously
>justified 'reasoning' has a pretty poor history as well.  The Catholic
>church is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths alone.  Look
>at Hezbollah for a good example of religious 'reasoning'.
>
>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's Bigotry
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:10:44 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1ic69fINNpcb@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> Nathan Engle writes:
> 
>>    If you think that such activities are scarcely appropriate for a man of 
>>the cloth then I might possibly agree with you, but I would note that he 
>>appears to have had less influence at the Democratic convention than Pat 
>>Robertson had at the Republican convention. Congressmen and lawyers are 
>>certainly at or near the bottom of the list of people who command respect, 
>>but televangelists are still hanging in there.
> 
> 	Since Jackson is a US citizen, I guess he has as much right to
> make his voice heard in the democratic process as anyone.  Or does one, by
> virtue of his job, be it minister or welldigger, have more or less right
> to participate in the process, whether by voting or speaking to a political
> convention?  My question was not about appropriateness of Jackson's actions,
> but about his current standing as a man of the cloth.  Not for me to defend
> Robertson, but I understand he is a practicing minister, and therein draws
> his income.  So, is Jackson a minister, or is "Reverend" an honorary title from
> a previous role, much as retired judges are called "judge," or retired
> colonels are called "colonel?"
> 
> 	Dave


Jackson is a minister, I know that he married Sammy Davis Jr. How long ago
was that???

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12912 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11404 alt.politics.clinton:19542 alt.politics.bush:15447
From: asparrow@mcs213a.cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:52:43 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <7BoBwB3w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
>> Astute readers will notice on my previous post that I forgot the all
>> important NOT.  Be assured that there are no sodomites, socialists, or
>> any species of liberal in our home. Only fundamental Christian parents
>> teaching the children to love their enemies and to hate their enemies'
>> wretched sins.
>> 

Excuse please.
(I may be on the wrong group for this, but...)

Why ae socialists lumped with sodomites?  I am a fundamentalist
Christian and a socialist as well.  Socialism need not demand
atheism.  When it does not, it comes closer to God's command
to love your neighbor than democracy with its survival of
the greediest does.

As for sodomy: God does not care what my husband and I
do in our bedroom as long as we do it out of love.   

Homeschooling is fine, if you live in an area that permits
it and the primary teacher has the temperment for it.

Angel
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:09:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.212225.21517@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.230828.29316@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>| In article <1993Jan05.180438.5289@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>| >In article <1992Dec31.181358.17099@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>| >| 
>| >| That is the whole problem. Teachers in sex ed. and drug ed. classes are
>| >| told not to tell children what is right and wrong, to just present the
>| >| facts. This has the opposite effect of what they intend.
>| >
>| >This assumes that the purpose of sex ed and drug ed classes is the 
>| >spread of propoganda rather than information.
>| >
>| Please read more carefully. I did not say we should not have  those
>| types of classes.
>
>You stated "opposite effect of what they intend".  Your implication is
>that sex ed ans drug ed classes are supposed to 
>cause the students to not use drugs or have sex
>rather than have the data to make their own decisions.  

Children in grades 1 - 5 are to young to make these types of decisions
outside of parental authority. Which is what these programs teach.
They are taught to decide for themselves, outside of any influence
from their parents, teachers or friends.  Again, as I have stated
before read a book titled 'Why Johnny can't tell right from wrong.'
by Kilpatrick. It has tons of references.

>
>|  They do not say that
>| drugs are wrong and instruct the teachers to keep their opinions out
>| of any discussions the children are having.
>
>I would not say that "drugs are wrong" either.

Do you have children? This would change the subject, but, I teach my
children to respect the law.

>
>|  A paraphrase
>| of the description of LSD is something like: a feeling of euphoria,
>| a sense of great wisdom and is not habit forming.
>
>That matches my experience with LSD.

Exactly the point I made. In a sense they tell a first grade child
that LSD is better than candy. They fail to tell them that it can
cause temporary or even permanent psychological and physical damage.
Nor does the curricullum tell the child that is against the law.

>
>|  The child is never
>| told of the negative aspects of the drug. The same type
>| of garbage is used in sex ed. classes.
>
>What garbage?  You have so far complained that the drug ed class gave
>accurate (at least it is accurate in my experience)
>data about LSD.
>
>   Fritz
>

Accurate but incomplete.

-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13192 alt.sex:41173 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11790
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:24:48 GMT

gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> In article <1iekciINNkqj@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter
> Smith) writes:
>>glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
> 
>>> I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
>>> of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
>>> her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
>>> in nature"?
> 
>>Yeah, ever see ducks?  Go to your local duck pond in the spring...the males 
>>tend to gang up on and nearly drown the females...
> 
> People are constantly bringing this up, which I think shows that they
> don't know the history of ideas here, and what the real point of
> references to what is found in nature is.

Actually, I think that this argument shows the entire invalidity
of the "natural" argument as proposed by both sides of the argument.
I recently saw a PBS show where dolphins gang-raped the females
(that's right, the smartest mammal on Earth.)  If we're to try to
apply the argument of homosexuality being either natural OR
unnatural on the grounds of it either being found OR not found
in nature in other species (after all, humans are animals, too),
the it lends credence that murder for territorial rights (gangs),
rape (and gang-rape) and other things are all natural and should
therefore be incorporated into our society.  It just doesn't
work, no matter which side of the argument one is on, and should
therefore be considered an invalid argument.


> 
> The most fundamental and pervasive *intellectual* reason why Western
> civilization regarded homosexuality as evil in the first place stemmed
> from the idea that it was unnatural, and the reason it was thought to
> be unnatural was that animals were thought to seldom or never engage
> in homosexual behavior.  This line of thinking goes back to the Greek
> philosophers, and when combined with the idea that God created nature

I'll have to argue against this addition of the greek philosophers
to the argument.  All greeks, but especially Plato, found that sex
with females was a duty strictly for the purpose of procreation.
It was a time when females were basically considered slaves, servitors,
and such.  On the other hand, the greeks (at least some of them)
thought that the only TRUE form of love as expressed through sex
could be shared with an equal.  As it was in those times, the only
equals were males.  Therefore, the only true expression of love
that someone (male) could share with someone else was through the
form of homosexual relationships.  All nature was originally
considered to have been put there to serve _man_kind.

Jim
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:22:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Nathan Engle writes:

>Something tells me that part of 
>that $4000/year is padding to cover fixed operational expenses.

Could you mean the 50% that goes to "administrators"?

>    Both of those mechanisms already exist in some school systems. I'm 
>all in favor of them, in precisely the same way as I'm in favor of letting 
>public schools do the job we've hired them to do rather than trying to 
>undercut them at every step. 

Too bad they cost twice too much and do a terrible job. (IMO)

Too bad "shape up or ship out" doesn't apply.

>facilities that would suddenly look very empty if the student body gets 
>up and walks across the road to the closest private alternative.

Wow, a jillion students on the march.  Empty facilities don't cost
much to operate.  The good teachers would also go across the road.
Too bad it can't possibly happen overnight.

>the current system heal itself so that it can work better

Too bad the current system has very little incentive to do that.
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: "My Cabinet" by Clinton (was Re: Affirmative action is dead)
Date: 05 Jan 93 01:05:58 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa


In article <1993Jan03.033540.2412@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
# /(ssc)
# /No, only the politically correct ones.
# 
# (me)
# What politically incorrect minorities would you propose?


/(ssc)
/I thought it would be obvious.

No; enlighten me.



/(ssc)
/In any case, it's a silly issue--as Rush says, 'symbolism over substance.'

Sounds to me like you don't have an answer.


BTW: If you thought it was a silly issue, then why did you bother to
try to use the issue to make a point with?

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13438 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12026 alt.politics.clinton:19936 alt.politics.bush:15736 alt.politics.homosexuality:9227
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:42:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
: 
: Another example of revisionist teaching in public schools.  Thomas 
: Jefferson was a DEIST.  He believed in a God quite like the Christian 
: God, but somewhat different. 
: 
: Ted      

Ted, it's a bit disingenuous to claim the the god of the 18th
century rationalists was "quite like the Christian God, but
somewhat different."  Most deists believed in God as The Great 
Architect of the Universe, who created the laws of nature and 
then went bye-bye, never to intervene in human life again.  I
would consider that greatly different from the traditional 
Christian God.  
Regardless of their denominational leanings, most of the founding
fathers were rationalist, and would almost certainly have thought
secular reasoning superior to religious dogma or mysticism.  

Bill  
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh