HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: PC lives
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:22:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: atlantis.cs.orst.edu

In article <1hni7rINNk83@uwm.edu> stalker@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>From article <1992Dec22.201041.6710@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>> In article <BznJMK.Hqs@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>> 
>>>How do you explain the furor over the MLK holiday, when MLK doesn't really
>>>rate a holiday?  (He's the only, single person with his own holiday, Jefferson,
>>>Lincoln, Washington, etc. either don't have holiday's or share them.  I don't
>>>deny the good MLK did, but to single him out is, in effect, saying he is the
>>>greatest American that has ever lived.)
And what exactly is the furor over the MLK holiday?  Sure, there was the whole
flap over Arizona voting not to have one, but that seems long dead now.  Here,
in Oregon, we do celebrate King's birthday every year and I have yet to learn
of a furor about it.

>> 
>> 	Who would _you_ prefer to honor? The founder(s) of the Ku Klux Klan?
>> 
>Again, what the hell are you talking about?  Are you saying that if we dont
>happen to want to celebrate MLK's b-day, we are rasicts??  What are you saying?
>This person was only trying to point out that we celebrate MLK's b-day, but
>we dont have a certain holiday for any other person.  Geez....

Last I checked, we also celebrate the birthdays of Lincoln, Washington, and
Columbus, Independence day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and the big Christian
holidays.

I wouldn't know how to compare the importance of MLK with, say, Washington.
But King was leader (and martyr) in perhaps our country's most important
social overhaul of the century.  I think that's pretty important, so I'm
glad to have a national holiday on MLK's birthday.  I don't see what it
has to do with PC.  Why paint folks who support a MLK day with such a 
broad brush if you don't like it yourself?

---
David Christensen
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: the rabid Bob Dornan
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Distribution: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:09:40 GMT

Bob Dornan's amazing equation of "sexual deviations" including simple
homosexuality with child molesting and serial rape crimes showed him up
for the complete jerk he is.

Dornan resorted to the major New Right tactic - simply project your target
subject to the wildest possible extreme, even far beyond any reachable
connection or relevance, generalize again, and continue by ranting on
about the developed extreme. Then stand back and hope some of your manure
stuck.

In this manner Dornan has again proven himself a viable pinch hitter for
Rush Limbaugh on radio. Now if he can figure out how to mug moronic looks
during video bites, he may be able to sit in for Rush on TV too.

What's really sad is that these vile and stupid extremist presentations of
so-called "conservative" views destroy any semblence of credibility. Even
reasonable, solid conservative principles and ideas get corrupted into
disgraceful expressions of hatred and ignorance.

Are these New Right ignoramuses the ones to be speaking out for
Conservatism?

I would truly enjoy seeing either Limbaugh or Dornan in honest debate,
face to face with [most any other] live human. I'm betting neither could
last five minutes in a civil discussion.

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..
Tularosa: tullies, roses, lava, white sands, and home of THEM! (atomic ants).





Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:55:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.091103.12132@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>] In article <1992Dec28.075957.19167@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>] >
>] >] I read this and was sickened by it.  All I've got to say is that's what
>] >] the death penalty is for.  I honestly hope those three killers get the
>] >] gas chamber, no appeals.
>] >]
>] >] Call me crude, but something must be done.
>] >
>] >thanks simon, I was often confused about
>] >your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....
>]
>] This is precisely why I feel that these murderers should be executed.
>]
>] Simon
>]
>
>thank you again simon for clarifying that you
>do not hold to the sanctity of human life as
>some matter of intrinsic value.
>
>Or should we interpret this along the old
>"double predestinationalist" lines, wherein
>we KNOW that there was intrinsic value in the
>person who was killed, and NONE in the person
>who did the killing.....
>
>Or are you just intending to show off what
>Comes from ModernSeXularHumanist education
>and its MoralRelativisticThinking?
>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>ps: pulling out the old DD214 one more time, to
>wave the fact that as a Card Carrying WarMongerBabyKiller[tm]
>it is so nice to see folks willing to stand up for
>what they believe in.....
>
>"napalm, napalm, sticks like glue.... "

Actually white phosphorus is just as effective.........

(doesn't stick but will burn even under water)


Simon
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The "L" word
Date: 22 Dec 92 07:41:55 GMT
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Owen Barrus (omb@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) wrote:
: In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, crowder@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mark Crowder) writes:
:
: >
: > In reading this group, I can see that there are many different opinions
: > on what the word "Liberal" means.  However, I never see it actually
: > defined.  How about a dialogue on it?  I'll start.  This is one of
: > my recent favorites:
: >
: >   "When is say 'liberals'[ed. orig in italics], I certainly don't
: >    mean openhanded individuals or tolerant persons or even Big
: >    Government Democrats.  I mean people who are excited that one
: >    percent of the profits of Ben and Jerry's ice cream goes to
: >    promote world peace."
: >            -- P.J. O'Rourke  "Give War a Chance"
: >
: > Any other ideas?  No fair using the dictionary!
: >
: > Mark Crowder  "I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma"  crowder@spdc.ti.com

: > Dallas, Tx                                          Texas Instruments, Inc.
: > "If at first you don't succeed, try again.  Then quit.  No use being a
: >  damn fool about it."  -- W.C. Fields
:
: Based on what I read in notes from those who espouse "liberalism" I could
: define a liberal as follows:
:
: Liberal: A politically correct person that has puke for brains.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Useless, gratuitious flame that adds nothing to the conversation and is not 
warranted by the original post.

I view liberalism as, essentially, the belief that the old ways are not useful 
and new ways must be tried.  Under this example, Ben Franklin and Mikhal 
Gorbechev were liberals.  Liberalism is time and culture dependent.

I classify myself as a liberal and hold to the following beliefs:
1) Civil liberties are important to the point where every care must be taken in
criminal trials so that innocent people are not wrongly convicted.
2) Tax exemptions for all religious income and property should be repealed.
3) Only charitable organizations that directly benefit the poor should remain
tax exempt.
4) Tax deductions for political contributions should be eliminated.
5) The country should go to a year-round school calendar.
6) The Electoral College should be done away with.
7) Abortion should remain safe and legal.
8) Anyone who is invited to speak anywhere should be allowed to be heard, and 
any disruptive elements should be removed from the venue.
9) Homosexual activity should not be deemed a crime.
10) Gays should be allowed in the military.

And the list goes on and on.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | Let the raucous sleigh bells ringle   
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | Hail our dear old fried Chris Kringle |Tom
The Truth is still the Truth	 | Driving his reindeer across the sky   |Lehrer
Even if you choose to ignore it. | Don't stand underneath when they fly by. 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10563 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:44
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 1 Jan 1993 01:28:32 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti) writes:
> "I don't care what gays do, as long as they don't try to teach
> children.  I'm not to happy about them serving food in
> restaurants either."

??  Did he mean HIS children, THEIR OWN children, or ALL/ANY 
children?  And did he mean "teach" them homosexuality, or being 
a schoolteacher? 
> Me: "But you don't think they should be killed, do you?"
> 
> "No...  But I wouldn't mind putting them all on a boat to
> Antarctica or Cuba.  Or if they all just disappeared or
> something, that would be good..."
> 
> "<insert stunned look>"

insert second stunned look...

> He and I still speak, but I don't really think we could ever
> be friends.  He may not have said he wanted them dead (He's
> far too smart to fall into that trap), but there's not much
> difference between that and saying you'd send them off to
> Antarctica, now is there? 

Not much. 

> I'm still not sure what to think
> about the Cuba bit, and the food thing is just plain stupid.

Yeah, I'm with you there...

> Who thinks that you cannot love that which you refuse to be close to.
> Holding gays at arms length and saying "I love you, but hate
> what you are and do" isn't love, it's hypocrisy of the worst kind...

How about "I respect your right to do your thing without being 
discriminated against or persecuted, but I don't agree with what you 
are doing".  

Walter
From: ghartzog@terapin.com (Garrett Hartzog)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 3 Jan 93 09:36:05 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1993Jan3.022449.18546@netcom.com>, teddybur@netcom.com (John
Sanger) writes:
>In article <C095nK.82y@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer
st
>even l) writes:
>>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) 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.ne
>c.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>
>>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>
>>>I'm sitting 10 feet from a machine that can produce 3d images of your
>>>internal organs, it was designed by secular reasoning.
>>
>>And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  The 
>>country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.
>>
>
>If you are speaking of the United States of America, you need to reread
>your history, paying particular attention to the thoughts of Thomas
>Jefferson, who had some hand in the writing of the documents that founded
>our country.  You also need to take a look at the Bill Of Rights.
>
>
>
>Ciao!
>       John S. :^)
>       teddybur@netcom.com
>__
>
you should also take a look at many of our legal documents. Especially the
Declaration of Independance (written by none other than Thomas Jefferson) which
mention God. Look at many of the state constitutions as well. Look at the
pledge of alliegence. Look at our currency ("In God we Trust"). I'm sure you'll
notice one thing that's mentioned repetedly, "God".

Garrett Hartzog
ghartzog@terapin.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Charities in the '80's (was Whining bastards)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:25:37 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Dec31.192617.27344@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Borders) writes:
|> Hmmmm.  Looks like a *few billion* 'points of light' to me.  Face it: the
|> Eighties *worked*.  The rich got richer, *and* the poor got richer.

This is the stupiest thing I have ever seen posted on the
net.  The POOR GOT RICHER?   Go tell that to all of the
GM workers who lost their jobs, all of the steel mill 
employees.  Tell it to the homeless and those trapped
on welfare.  They'll laugh in your face.

Not only did the poor get poorer, the middle class joined
the poor.  Check it out.  Record numbers of people slipped
below the poverty line during the eighties.

We're all poor anyway, thanks to VOODOO ECONOMICS and 
the Reagan-induced NATIONAL DEBT!


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: psburns@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS)
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Dec 1992 08:48 EST  

In article <1h95ppINNf5g@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes...
> 
>I didn't get to see the Donahue Show with Rush, but if anyone did
>and video-taped it, could they lease take the time to post a trans-
>cript of it so that we can ALL "love Rush more" and "HATE Phil even
>more"? <<<SEG>>>
> 
>I for one would appreciate it. Thanks in advance!
> 
>-- 
> 

ME TOO!!!

Maureen Burns


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel)
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Organization: Bell Communications Research
	<1gl52rINN4mf@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> <m0iVVB6w165w@mantis.co.uk>
	<1992Dec17.072428.9152@cs.com> <1h4mbcINN1ov@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	<nate.960@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>
	<PATRICK.92Dec21115922@growler.owlnet.rice.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:42:48


Patrick Humphrey writes:

> In article <nate.960@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> 
>    >        I've never before heard anyone claim to have been kicked out of 
>    >an unmoderated newsgroup.
> 
>        This is admittedly the first time I've ever heard anyone make that 
>    claim as well, but I've seen a couple of cases in which hordes of people 
>    have posted "requests" for other dissenting persons to butt out and leave 
>    a group until they have "learned" more appropriate opinions. Consider the 
>    case of Steve Chaney or Jack Schmidling. Basically these two guys have 
>    gotten unpopular enough that they can no longer hold fruitful discussions 
>    here because people are so busy berating them for past transgressions or 
>    trying to put words in their mouthes in order to create new offenses. Both 
>    of these individuals have been effectively "kicked out".
> 
> Really?  It seems to me that the individuals in question made their own
> decision to leave.  They could have stayed, but they didn't.  In case you're
> too busy defending them to notice, those two you mentioned can't hold a
> worthwhile discussion for one basic reason:  they have no interest in
> holding one in the first place.  


Way to prove Nathan's point Patrick.  They don't even say anything & you
slam them (presumably for past transgressions).  What type of reaction could
we expect if they dared post something you disagreed with?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>
444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
Piscataway, NJ 08854

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:49:02 GMT

In article <C01u1B.7H9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
>>>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
>>>from the opposite, our concern for human life.  Creating a welfare state
>>>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
>>>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
>>>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the 
>>>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).
>
>>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take 
>>responsibility for their lives and find a job.  Funding programs such as 
>>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
>
>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children.  If they could
>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.  

It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to incentivize it,
than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", and it achieves the same
economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth rate among poor people.

>You tell me which
>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.  

In my opinion...

The WORST "crime" is to let children starve. 

The second-worst "crime" is to interfere with a woman's decision to abort,
either by mandating or forbidding abortion.

The third-worst "crime" is for government to start interfering in sexual
relations between consenting adults by telling them to "control their
hormones" or whatever.

Fourth on my list of "crimes" is for taxpayers to end up supporting children 
of poor people who are otherwise unable to support them adequately themselves.
Look at our GNP sometime -- we can easily provide this support.

>>>This is not meant to imply that certain situations don't exist where some
>>>assistance is warranted, but rather that many more exist that would be
>>>better solved by encouraging self-dependence rather than state-dependence.
>
>>But when it comes to abortion, you would rather have the state take charge 
>>than let the pregnant woman make her own decision about her life and her body?
>
>Abortion is murder.  It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>the baby's.  The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>in fact the state already has control over this issue.  

Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because 
she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
"the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
murder"?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Followup-To: misc.test
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 04:53:53 GMT

---
vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|Let's talk about welfare then... in this country we spend $7,000/year
|per PERSON on welfare.  So an average family of 3-4 costs us around
|$25,000 per year.  Are you trying to tell me there's not some incredible
|fraud going on somewhere here?  Even if that money is just eaten up in
|the bureaucracy it's still fraud.  [...]

Assuming that 100% of the money goes to the person in need (a
dicey assumption)....  Have you tried living on $7000 a year recently?

Followups to somewhere other than talk.abortion.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 
"You can't legislate morality. We tried to outlaw comsumption of 
alcoholic beverages. We found that violation of the law led to bigger 
crimes and bred disrespect for the law."  Jimmy Carter, 1976.
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The "L" word
Date: 24 Dec 92 02:26:15 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Dec22.120623.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> jsmcgi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> Mark Crowder writes: 
>>> In reading this group, I can see that there are many different opinions
>>> on what the word "Liberal" means.  However, I never see it actually
>>> defined.  How about a dialogue on it?  I'll start.  This is one of

 American Liberal Majority = Egalitarian Elitist or Socialist Liberal

 American Conservative Majority = Egalitarian Populist or Classic Liberal 

     note - Jack Kemp recently stated to a conservative gathering

            "We are all Classic Liberals" 

     ie - Its time to unite as populist. The elitist have it all.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
             - Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: So, anyone want to talk about Rush Limbaugh around here?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:53:58 GMT

mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>...my killfile is huge.

    Mine is not, but this morning I really kind of regret it.

    I've paged through almost 200 articles and this is the first one to 
even make a token attempt to talk about Rush (Yeah, Michael!).

    Just for the record, let me state that I'm really, really bored with 
        1) the "Gays in the Military" thread
        2) the "Sexuality/Lifestyles" thread
    and 3) everything to do with Steve Chaney (the new cross-post king)

    At this point I can only hope against hope that the people who have 
been sustaining those tired old topics will find new interests once the 
new semester starts. Thank heavens Rush will be back on the air in 24 hours 
and 15 minutes.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Twists on gays in military
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:11:32 GMT
Keywords: practicality

>No, he has a point.  If the military starts allowing avowed
>necrophiles to serve, then the military would have to build
>seperate shower and sleeping facilities for all the dead people
>already serving in the military.   So either they can't allow 
>necrophiles to serve, or they will have to allow all the dead 
>people to retire or discharge them.

Hahahahahahaha at last a sense of humor hahahahahahaaha

jim shirreffs

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh