HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar Chaudhary)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 18:46:20 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

To all of you who commented on my little article (and to anyone else who
might be reading this):

First, I admit that my tone was a bit on the harsh side.  I guess I just got
a bit worked up on this issue, which is one I take quite seriously.

It was quite correctly pointed out that the phrase "Love it or Leave it" was
a slogan used by many "patriotic" elements on the right during the 1950's and 1960's.  One person said that the hated America but stayed here because only here
could he say that he hated America.  While I don't hate America, I agree with 
that sentiment 100%.  That's what was wrong with all those who said "Love it
or Leave it" in the past, and why I thought it would be the ultimate irony for
me to use it.

"Ramming something down someones throat" has nothing to do with broadcasting
ones message and claiming that one's views are right, or even doing it in a
loud an obnoxious way.  Rather, it has to do with forcing people to listen, and
even worse, comply.  I might have been LOUD and OBNOXIOUS, but at NO TIME did
I force anyone to listen to me, and I certainly did not force anyone to agree.
In fact, I have enjoyed a lot of the disagreement generated.  That's what these
newsgroups are for!

When I said "We will fight you" (note that that does not necessarily mean YOU),
I was quite serious, although I have no intention of actually asking anyone to
step outside, or firing a weapon at anyone.  The sort of issues that are 
discussed in this thread (and others like it) call for open defiance and 
disobedience in the face of injustice, and sadly, the forces of bigotry and
intolerance, and fundamentalism are getting stronger in the country.

I would also like to say a word about all the Christian-bashing that's going on.There is a reason I mentioned the Ayetollah Khomeni in my article: to show that
we shouldn't single out Christians.  All societies, cultures and belief systems
have forms in intolerance towards others, be they Christian, Moslem, even Judaism and Hinduism (both of which are part of my heritage), or any of the other great cultures/societies/systems that inhabit our planet.  The fact that we are arguing quite often from an overly Western-centric view is part of the problem.

Heres the deal:  We must tolerate ALL views, even those which I have gone
though such great lengths to denounce.  We must remember, however, that because
one Tolerates a view doesn't mean one Respects that view, and that some ideas,
when acted upon, have caused a great deal of harm.
 

-Amar Chaudhary (The Peoples Tank) 

-----
The views expressed here might very well express those of this organization,
but don't quote me on that!
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:21:07 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis
Originator: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu

Who can confirm or deny that Rush Limbaugh used a student-deferrment to
dodge the Vietnam War?

Draft-dodging Rush? Could this be true?? It absolutely boggles the mind!
This fine patriot, this beacon of conservative sensibility, chickening out
of the honest and moral battle against communist aggression?

It can't be!   

OTOH, if it is, he joins other conservatives who dodged the draft, like
George Bush's son, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle ...

Dan
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15270 alt.politics.clinton:21341 alt.politics.homosexuality:10358
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 18:46:43 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <1993Jan22.193300.15133@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

|>If you think that the scripture refered to is talking about diapering 
|>your granddaughter, then you are foolish.  It is talking about having 
|>sex with them.  Read the history.

If you think that the scriptures is talking about homosexuality, then you
are foolish.  It is talking about cult prostitutes.  Read the history.

--
Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
SRL-1:  STS-59, launch date April 14, 1994
SRL-2:  STS-68, launch date December 1, 1994
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gjh2j@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Im a Joker Im a Smoker Im a Midnight Toker)
Subject: Re: TAX THE RICH!!!!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:15:58 GMT

In article <105120059@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
>(Mike W Kuenkel) asks:
>> 
>>Are there any lazy under-achievers out there that can give me just one good
>>reason why they think the rich should be heavily taxed. I have yet to see one!
>
>	i'm not a lazy-underachiever (but i play one on TV!), but
>	i believe if you are going to have a graduated tax scale
>	like we have here in america, there's no sense in NOT taxing
>	the *rich* (whatever that means) at a higher rate than the
>	*poor* (i suppose-- not *rich*)... otherwise lets go to a
>	flat tax and end this hub-bub.
>
Let's just tax the people who *LIVE* off Social Security under the age of 65
more highly until they get off their ass and start to work...Social Security
 is supposed to be a supplement, not a salary

>>PUNISHING ACHIEVEMENT IS WRONG!!
>
>	REWARDING UNDERACHIEVEMENT IS RIGHT??!
>
Well, look at the track record of Democrats and "hand-out" programs, makes
me want to quit school and start recieving checks from Uncle Bill

The problem I have, is that people say there are no jobs....is this true? Or
is it there are jobs people don't want to do....McDonald's and places like
that are always opening and hiring. There was a bum that had a sign that said
"will work for food" across the street was a McDonalds with a large banner
that said NOW HIRING.

My point is people that "will work for food" usually are lying because there
isn't anything they can do, except maybe clean your window...they expect us
to feel sorry for them and to GIVE them something instead of them earning it.

I showed the bum the sign, he told me to fuck off...I just laughed and ate
my cheeseburger and drove off.....

>happy motoring,
>pjm.

Happy motoring, at least until Clinton rises the price on our "environmentally
 hurting" gasoline


Jeff Hawkins gjh2j@virginia.edu
"If you do not prefer death, then how about a rubber chicken"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
XXXDate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 21:01:07 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A78C4623BC030614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:01:02 GMT

In article <Jan27.045129.38575@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> Don Keller,
dkeller@lamar.ColoState.EDU writes:
>Amend 2 IS totally an equal rights issue.  It's just everyone has it 
>backwards.  It's about keeping everyone equal.  

Ah, the familiar Limbaugh School of Thought on Antidiscrimination: "Let's
make everybody automatically equal."

Like Rush, you need to familiarize yourself with the difference between
"equality" and "equal opportunity."  The latter is what is being sought here
(i.e. a level playing field, =not= a tie score).

>I can get fired just as 
>easy if my hair was to long, or even if I had facial hair.  
>Well, I have a "SEXUAL PREFERENCE" with PVC Pipe.  

Congratulations.  I hope you are very happy together.

>How many other people
>do you know like that.  Not too many I would guess.  SO, it seems that
>I am now a minority and deserve special treatment.

Try hydrocortisone.

>Homosexuality is a personal
>preference, and until someone can show me otherwise, I will continue to
>think of it as such.  If it is not, answer me one question.
>If homosexuality is normal (Note:I'm not saying it is bad, and wrong so 
>don't take me out of text here) if it is normal think about this.
>If 90% of the humankind practiced it we would be an endangered species
>in one generation, and extinct in two.  What other living, breathing or
>not, thinking or not, organism makes itself extinct by something it has
>done to itself.  ANd tell my why we, as rational thinking organisms, would
>do such a thing to ourself and call it normal?

If =anyone= were promoting, or even recommending, homosexuality to anybody
else, then your argument might be relevant.  However, the 5% of the
population that is homosexual (a percentage that has apparently not changed
much throughout history, by all indications, regardless of approval levels)
does not pose much of a threat along those lines.

>I'll tell you, if Amend 2 gets overturned, we are going to really see who
>screams the loudest.  And if it gets overturned, I'm going straight to 
>my boss and I'm going to tell him I am homosexual and proud of it.  I'm not
>the only one either.  Lets see them try and fire us then.

It will be no more difficult than before.  Your boss just needs some other
reason (*any* other reason) besides your being (allegedly) gay.  Of course,
you can try to prove that you =were= fired for that reason, but you risk
losing big bucks if you fail.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gas Tax (was Re: Elvis has entered the building..)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 12:43:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com


Paul Havemann writes:


>he other "major benefit" that a huge gas-tax increase is supposed to confer 
>is to "help conservation" by "getting people to buy more efficient cars." 
>Uh-huh.  For the majority of drivers who DO have a fuel-efficient car, it's a 
>tax.  For those who can't necessarily afford a more fuel-efficient car, it's
>a tax.

If the gas tax were really a simple matter of the government trying to impose
policy- saving fuel, saving the atmosphere, whatever, then it could simply tie
the revenue gained to something related to automobile driving- improvement of
highways, for instance.

But I've not heard of any such tie in.  It's just plain revenue to feed the 
fat boy that is the federal government.

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: saari@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Jonathan Saari)
Subject: Re: Only a week until four dark years
Reply-To: saari@chdasic.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola SPS ASIC, Chandler, AZ
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:38:49 GMT

In article Fv0@ms.uky.edu, lrvanh00@nx38.mik.uky.edu (lee r vanhorn) writes:
> Well, as much as I hate Bush, I have to agree with him on the Persian  
> Gulf.  Even Jimmy Carter agreed with him on that.  Now, if we could divert  
> our attention to trying to find new evergy sources, we might not need the  
> war.  But Reaganomics is starting to show us that it will make our nation  
> crumble.  And besides, why would Bush want alternative energy?  He made  
> too much money from oil.  In fact, he has controlling stock in Pennzoil.  
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Controlling Stock???? Where do you get these liberal propaganda bullsh*t items???
Please post your proof that Bush is nearly as rich as Ross Perot (that about what
"controlling stock" would be worth). I do not think you have any, and you liberals
just post that crap out of "wealth envy"...

Just my $0.02...

                  _/_/_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/
                       _/       _/
                       _/        _/_/
                   _/  _/           _/
                   _/_/_/    _/_/_/_/
===========================================================
Jonathan Saari                 | The views expressed here
saari@chdasic.sps.mot.com      | are my own...
Test Engineer                  | They are not my employers.
Motorola, Incorporated         | Although they should be...
===========================================================
Rule of the Great:
	When people you greatly admire appear to be thinking deep
	thoughts, they probably are thinking about lunch.


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15114 alt.politics.clinton:21192 alt.politics.bush:16354 alt.politics.homosexuality:10261
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:33:00 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <C18M8v.A51@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>> I think it's perfectly okay for someone to quote Leviticus about
>>> homosexuality, as long as s/he follows it himself/herself.  So has s/he
>>> given up:
>>> Diapering his/her granddaughters?
>>> Blended clothing?
>>> Rare meat?
>>> Shaving and cutting the hair at his/her temples?
>
>>Evelyn, what is your religious upbringing?  Were you taught any of 
>>the tenants of Christianity, from the point of view of any denomination
>>in particular, or any at all?  Do you really not have any understanding 
>>as to why laws like those from Leviticus are not still followed, while 
>>sexual morality/conduct ones are?   
>
>The point that Evelyn is bringing up is that those people who
>claim to adhere to the *literal* word of the Bible (i.e. most
>of the Fundy Christian activists) are essentially hypocrites
>unless they also avoid diapering their granddaughters, wearing
>blended clothing, eating pork, shaving, etc.

If you think that the scripture refered to is talking about diapering 
your granddaughter, then you are foolish.  It is talking about having 
sex with them.  Read the history.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14754 alt.politics.clinton:20852 alt.politics.bush:16231 alt.politics.homosexuality:9987
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:02:06 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> 
> Only about two months ago did Walter Smith burst in upon soc.motss,

Burst?  Wow, sounds so,....dramatic...;-) 

> I've been weighing these issues in my mind for three years, and *I* am
> a relative young 'un to the field of gay politics.  Jess Anderson, who
> you blithely diagnose with "tunnel vision," has been openly gay for
> nearly forty, if I count correctly.

Maybe that explains why his postings have such a spiteful tone for 
those who disagree with his 'orientation'.  Being openly gay seems 
to have done little for his disposition, his posts are the most 
hateful ones I've come across in 5 years on the net.  

> Who the hell are you?  What makes you think that you have the
> background, the perspective, the slightest iota of comprehension on
> these issues to be qualified to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you
> as having "tunnel vision?"

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.  His (and your) 
"tunnel vision" isn't a function of your level of disagreement with 
anyone; it is the level of hate that blinds him, and apparently, you. 
Take someone like Ronald Hayden, Elf Sternberg, or Mark Christensen 
as a counterexample of someone who can disagree with someone without 
their posts oozing with spite and loathing for the person they are 
disagreeing with.  I'm _certainly_ no 'expert' on homosexual affairs; 
but I know hate and spite when I see it.

> That's a rhetorical question, Walter; you needn't bother to answer it.

That's Ok, they're usually the best kind to answer! ;-) 

> You *are* nobody, an utter ignoramus when it comes to the politics of
> gender and sexual orientation.

Of course; I don't always tow the PC line, and agree with whatever you 
say...and I assume you're an expert on issues of Christianity, since 
you wrote so many articles in talk.religion.misc?   Uh, huh...

> The fact that you were received so
> politely for so long is a testament to the patience of your
> respondents.  You warrant no such reaction any longer.  Go away.

Sure, Tim...one line in your kill file, and I'm gone.  No sweat. 
(if you call the responses I've gotten polite, I'd hate to see 
your idea of rude...) 

Walter
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Requiem" for the Common Man
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:19:55 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO

<nate.1109@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> (Nathan Engle) writes:
>     Besides, no musical misidentification could have been any more 
> appropriate for the inauguration than the Monty Python theme. I get the 
> impression that Rush isn't much of a Python fan either.

Just in case you don't know, the music in question is Sousa's
"Liberty Bell" March.  I assumed it was selected to tie in to
the big bell-ringing a few days earlier.  It was a standard
long before the Python gang made use of it.

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:19:38 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1jv1u4INNgt4@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> roderir@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (richard roderick) writes:
>But then, IF he did, so what?
>He is NOT running for President.
>He already admitted smoking dope (viewed as worse by many).
>What else do you want to trying and dig up, a 12 year affair with Madonna?

Well, now I've heard two reasons Rush avoided the draft: student-deferment and
medical problems.

I hadn't heard that he was a pothead, though. Thanks.

The problem, of course, is that even though RL says again and again that he
is an entertainer and a commodity, a lot of people view him as a spokesman
for conservative values. The kind of people who didn't smoke dope (ref: Marilyn
Quayle's 1960's comments) and who didn't dodge the draft are looking for
conservative leaders. Among others, they have found RL. His history doesn't
suggest that he's worthy of their attention. Since conservatives still consider
Clinton's potsmoking an issue, why not Rush's? Since they consider Clinton's
draft-dodging an issue, why not Rush's? Both are in the public eye; both are
influencing opinion. Both are being considered for 1996.

I'd *like* to hear of a 12-year affair with Madonna. Then I wouldn't have to
worry when RL whines about not dating.

I wonde what RL's real avoidance of the draft is based on? I hope he's not
being slick about it ... having spread 2 rumors. Heavens!

Dan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Broken Promises/Anti-Clinton sentiment growing
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 20:33:13 GMT

In article <oPFPXB5w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:


[ non-sequitirs deleted]
>
>That has been a trial baloon floating around two years now.  Taxing 
>medical benefits has a lot of support in washington.   Including the 
>Heritage Foundation and Republicans as well as Dems.   And when this was 
>passing around you didn't hear Bush protesting about it.  Everybody is in 
>on this one.  $4 trillion dollar debts do this to politicians.  You don't 
>think they are going to get that kind of money from leperachauns did you?
>Get ready to pay the Bills Reagan and Bush ran up.
>
>--
>popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
>Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
>1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis

The bills Pres. Reagan and Bush ran up??! Excuse me??! Let me put it
this way, if you will. Suppose that I am living in a co-op.
It is my job to do certain things, like make sure that the
doors are locked. Also living in the co-op is a group of people
upon whom falls the burden of deciding what ought to be
spent and on what, and to pay the bills. If they run up a huge
deficit, it's MY FAULT that the co-op is in debt??

You know DAMNED well that the DEMOCRATIC congress is
at least as responsible, if not much more so, for thje debt.


--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:27:45 GMT

In article <1jne8pINN7na@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > In article <1jn80uINN4j0@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> > > Do you really not have any understanding 
> > > as to why laws like those from Leviticus are not still followed, while 
> > > sexual morality/conduct ones are?   
> > 
> >   Expediency? Self righteous hypocrisy?
> 
> OK, now fess up.  How many people had actually placed bets that the first 
> response to that question would be along these lines?  =8^O  Money in 
> the bank...

  Listen Wally, Melinda has been overly patient following this line
of reasoning and the best she has got is "It's complicated" or some
incredulous tone. Sounds like a giant rationalization to me.
  You fess up, if this is so damned self evident.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:36:30 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <C1H2u8.Cu9@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

> Give me one example of a positive black person
> on TV, other than Tibbs on In The Heat Of The Night.  

Obviously not a science-fiction fan.  ALL of the "Star Trek" series have
featured them: Uhura in the original series, LaForge in 'The Next
Generation.'  The newest addition is Avery Brooks, who stars in "Star Trek:
Deep Space Nine," as Commander Benjamin Sisko.  It's syndicated -- but it's a
highly-rated show.  (Brooks was formerly a supporting cast member in
"Spenser: For Hire.") 


------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh