HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:29:16 GMT

In <1500@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:

>greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>: 
>: You are correct. Lee is not a racist on the same level with Helms. But
>: Malcolm X was. We can thank (?) Lee for not bringing that racist attitude
>: into the 90s with his film.     

>Malcolm was a racist at one point, undoubtedly.  However, it's
>silly to equate his racism with that of Jesse Helms; the latter's
>racism is based on unthinking dogmatism and unwarrented feelings of
>superiority, while the former's was based on experience.  Not that
>that justifies anything, but the two viewpoints are not the same.
>At any rate, by the time of his death Malcolm had rejected racism,
>as you would know if you knew anything about the man at all.  I 
>suggest that you read "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" and pay 
>attention to what the man had to say before forming opinions of
>him.

Actually, I have read about Malcolm X, and I know that by the time of his
death he was not a racist.  I respect him considerably for that.  However,
a great deal of the legacy he left behind was racist in nature, just as
a great deal of the legacy Spike Lee (a basically intelligent filmmaker)
is leaving behind is racist in nature.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:41:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.140112.28381@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:

}                                  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).

For those readers who have trouble figuring it out, it is age.  

Rationalization as to what constitutes "convenience" may vary, 
however.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 14:36:50 GMT

In article <ged1.721807950@crux1.cit.cornell.edu>
ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle) writes:
> Can't believe that Clinton is allowing homosexuals in the military.  No, 
> what I can't believe is that he is ignoring the advice, thoughts and feelings
> of most (if not all) of the higher-ups in the military.  Certainly Colin 
> Powell knows more than Bill.

Who says?  Colin Powell is just another moronic "don't bother me with
the facts" brass hat.
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: President Clinton                                
Organization: None
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.025221.413@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>God, I love it.  Listen to you people whine.  Dig this: by a solid
>majority, Big Bill is THE PREZ.  THE CHIEF.

Ahem....Bill Clinton captured 43% of the vote. A majority means at least
50% of the vote plus 1. Bill Clinton certainly did NOT get a majority of
the popular vote - he had a PLURALITY of the vote. I ignore the electoral
college vote since it is largely a winner-take-all approach and does not
accurately reflect the popular opinion. A president can even win the
electoral vote but lose the popular vote.

I didn't vote for Bill but at least I hope he sticks to the
promises he made....Or else, back to politics as usual...

Joe
joec@morgan.com
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Keywords: Rush; religious, rich
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:04:55 GMT
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1dhtekINNkq8@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach
) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.140151.4548@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. B
oerner) writes:
>>It was interesting hearing Rush deny that a) the Republican party hase
>>taken over by the Religious Right and b) it doesn't matter anyway.  At
>
>Also note:  Rush had almost no "religious adds" on his show two years
>ago.  Now, one can hear adds for tapes/books to set you on the moral
>path sold by people traditionly associated with the "religious right".
>Also note Rush is inot the show for the money.  Now, when has Rush bit the
>hand that feeds him?
>
I think what you guys are driving at is that Rush has religious commercials
and is in the radio biz for the money?  (It's hard to tell with all the
misspellings due to angry/hurried typing.)  I've never heard either one on
his show, please stop making things up.  He's on the show to be a voice for
Conservatism (or, conservative Americans) and happens to be making money at
it off of the aforementioned Americans.  The closest thing I've heard to
religious commercials is commercials advertizing conservative written works.
>-- 
>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?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:10:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.185223.13128@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>
>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 love this ratchet effect: first the fetus is "human" (fine), then it's
"an unborn child" (if you must, you pre-dead corpse), next it's "a human 
being" (er, hold on), then it's "a person" (now wait just a cotton-picking
minute!), now it's "a member of society" (say WHAT?!?).

What is it tomorrow, I wonder? "My higher power"???

								- Kevin
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:14:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.722306819@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>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.

HUH?
>
>Spike Lee is a racist on a level with Jesse Helms.

Why, you must be some kind of insensitive racist.  Don't you understand 
that Spike has been genetically descriminated against.  You know...his 
ancestors were so discriminated against that it got into their genes.  

obligatory smilies ;)

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9843 talk.abortion:48165
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:52:51 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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.'

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:42:46 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems


>I've never heard anyone say "feminist left," either, but haven't you
>heard of "radical feminists"? 

>I'm sorry, I just don't understand what your objection is here.

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?"
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal Agenda
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:42:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Nov15.060659.1@deep-13.gizmo.com> maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com writes:
>In article <Bxor4L.HJK@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>> The comments about the Liberal Agenda were well taken, but today, The
>> Man gave us hope.  There's a vast majority of the people in this
>> country that do not subscribe to the "Liberal Agenda" and the backlash
>> is going to come.  Once upon a time, gays were like straight folks, they
>> kept their sexual preferences to themselves.  We didn't have "Hetrosexual
>> Pride" parades, or such, and everything was cool. 
>
>
>Good thing we don't have any Hetero Pride Parades-- just imagine all the 
>anti-hetero violence they'd breed. 

We don't need parades for anti-hetero violence.  What do you call rape 
(as occurrs in prisons)? Very seldom does a hetero rape a homo.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:57:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
'krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
'>>Funny; I was under the impression that both Bill Clinton and Al
'>>Gore were Southern Baptists.  Are they part of the Religious Right?
'>
'>At least not in good standing.  Bill's pastor said that he could not, in 
'>good conscience, support the candidacy of Mr. Clinton.
'
'Does this mean that Clinton is not a "Southern Baptist in good
'standing" because his pastor didn't vote for him?  
'
'Or could it be that your view of Christianity is so narrow that
'you can't understand how someone could be both a Southern Baptist
'and a Democrat?

The Southern Baptists do not have a mechanism like the Roman Catholics
do regarding an "excommunication" process fortunately. Sen. J. Bennett
Johnston is a Democrat from Louisiana who goes to my church. He's also a
rather moderate/conservative guy.

But of course the question was whether Bill and Al are considered part
of the "religious right" because they're Southern Baptists, not whether
they were Christians. At least to Bill's pastor that we can infer, Bill
is not a member of the "religious right."
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	Hope you have a very good "Native American Exploitation" Day.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:37:17 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <92321.34354.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>It is only those people who propose
>PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.
>
>Tim Irvin

Oh!  I see!  So people who argue that there should be a law against 
murder are in the wrong.  People who argue that there should be a 
law against thievery are in the wrong.  Can't see why it took me 
so long to understand.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Individual rights Re: Mr. Waffle King
Date: 14 Nov 92 05:27:31 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

Few institutions of higher learning pay taxes in the same way as industry.
Most are organized as non-profits, many (even state-supported) have
tax-deductible foundations, endowments, that you can contribute to.

Even state supported universities can have "liberal arts colleges"
within them.  My alma mater (University of Michigan) certainly did.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:36:54 GMT

In <1992Nov16.162924.1337@news.vanderbilt.edu>, John Rickert writes:

>   Oh, I get it now.  It took me long enough.  But I think I finally
>caught on.  Religious = religious right.  A public reference to religion
>is right-wing extremism.  Now I see...

Not quite.  The difference comes when the distinction between religion as
a *personal decision* and religion as a *government mandate* isn't made.
I'm fairly religious, and I freely share my *personal* beliefs.  One can be
a fundamentalist and not be part of the "religious Right."  How?  By accepting
that their religion, no matter how devoutly they practice it, is a *personal*
lifestyle choice involving them, their family, their church, and their God.
It is *not* an issue for the government.  It is only those people who propose
PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.

Tim Irvin
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:27:18 GMT

In <YOUNG.92Nov16220509@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:

>In article <grendel.721635779@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>>   Four liberals, four conservatives, and a swing voter.  Sounds good to me.
>>   Any objections?

>It sounds good in principle, but how are we going to account for
>people like David Souter?  He was supposed to be died in the wool
>conservative, and the son-of-a-gun is using constitutional scholarship
>instead of a political agenda to come to decisions.  What are you
>gonna do?

>Oh, yeah, IMHO.

No, I agree.  Earl Warren, a Repub who supported the concentration camps
for Japanese-Americans in California during WWII, later became the foremost
legal libber of his time when he got to the Court.  There's really nothing
that anyone can do to ensure beyond doubt that a justice will vote a certain
way.  However, _as a general rule_, judges' past records tend to indicate
their political bent.  That's the best anyone can do, and that's the criterion
that should be used in determining SC justices, in order to aim for the most
balanced Court possible.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Flaming Conservative (Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:17:17 GMT

In <15NOV199221081276@zeus.tamu.edu>:

>In article <BxoBI8.39r@news.iastate.edu>, barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett

>|   I would be happy to.  A few weeks ago, some femists here at Iowa State
>|started really pushing the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Iowa
>|Constitution.  They put signs up EVERYWHERE pushing the admendment and
>|advertizing rallies by true feminazis like Eleanor Smeal.  Many of the
>|signs were outright male-bashing, such as the ones that headlined
>|"WE REMEMBER ANITA HILL!!!!"

>Yes, it certainly is terrible.  Those people tearing down the signs
>certainly are not liberal, though.  They are apparently not open to ideas,
>as being liberal entails.

You use the term "liberal" in the classical sense--the type of "liberal" which
accepts all points of view and is open to new ideas--like the dictionaries do.
The problem is that few "liberals" today are liberals in the classical sense.
Most advocate *some* degree of left-wing government fascism, just as many "con-
servatives" of today advocate *some* right-wing fascism.  The term "liberal"
in the classical sense most resembles today's "libertarian" (small l).

>Here on this campus, we experience just the opposite.  Flyers hung
>up for liberal causes get torn down by conservatives who fear change.

With this kind of activity, I can see some need for campus control (yuck) of
signs and posters--provided that the rules are equally applied to people of all
ideologies.  If signs are somehow "registered" with adminstration (so as to
identify "ownership" of the signs), then the university can forbid removal of
the signs except by the "owner" group.  The ban on removal of these signs could
last for a certain period of time (say a week), and then would be fair game.
Of course, there would be no *requirement* to register signs, but there would
be no protection against sign removal without such registration.  And as I said
before--the rules for sign approval MUST be non-partisan and free of ideology.

It probably wouldn't work in the real world, but at least in theory it would
be fair and would be at least some protection against signs being removed.

Let's face it--people of X tear down the signs of Y and vice-versa.  Why does
the "you do it more" argument matter?  Isn't that stereotyping all members of a
group?  Isn't that like saying "Liberals tear down signs.  You are a liberal.
Therefore, you favor censorship."  Bullpuckey.

>I'd say there are opponents of free speech in every camp and on
>every side.

Yep.

>Are you people too stupid to realise this?

Not stupid; just blinded by ideology, I think.


Tim Irvin

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:06:42 GMT

grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>Actually, my opinion of Lee is drawn entirely from his movies and from the
>comments he has made in the press.  I'll agree that Helms has him beat in
>terms of actual racist action taken, but not in terms of racist opinion
>espoused.

Then that's your problem. You need to listen to a real live interview
with HIM and not reports of whayt he has said which you heard from
the media. Remember when the press said that he thought students
should cut class and go see his movie Malcomn X? Well, turns out he
never said that. He was referring to a scenario where students go
to see the movie as part of a school function. He himself as a high
school student was taken to see movies in that manner.

>Lee is, by his own admission, a racial separatist.  He thinks that inter-
>racial marriages are a mistake for several reasons, one of which is that
>it would weaken black strength.  He believes that AIDS is a government
>engineered disease designed to destroy undesirables (implicity, blacks).
>Lee made racist caricatures of Jews in his film "Mo' Better Blues".
>Those are only a few examples.

I just saw an interview with Spike Lee on Larry King Live. He didn't
mention any of those things. I have heard other so-called black leaders
make such claims, but never Spike. I didn't see Mo' Better Blues
so I don't know if it contained racists views of Jews, but I never heard
it mentioned in the press anywhere and I read and watch a lot of news.


-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9906 alt.politics.clinton:17381