HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: hey
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:06:05 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

<AUJGH@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>i have two words for rush libbaugh

>            slim
>            fast

    Unfortunately products like Slimfast aren't particularly effective 
at keeping weight off once it's been lost. For the long term about the 
only thing that will really help is to change the things you eat between 
the crash-and-burn diets. "Yo-yo" weight reduction schemes in which people 
lose larges amounts of weight only to regain it all a few months later 
have been demonstrated to be more detrimental to the dieter's health than 
the overweight condition they're trying to get rid of.

    Rush will be much better off sticking with his current fat-intake 
reduction scheme than he would ever be with your suggestion.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
X-Still-Continued: Idaho
X-Job-Hunt-Header: Unemployed actuary will work for food
X-Politically-Correct-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott
X-Random-Header: Ignore this line
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
X-Pcs-Continued: Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:39:28 GMT

k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:

>>>>"Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.
>>>But it seems that "It is the right thing to do" is an acceptable one.
>>And how do you know that "it is the right thing to do"?
>>Ah, i see.  "Everybody knows it".
>Er...what exactly are we talking about here?

It's a near-flamewar.   Does it really matter?  ;)

--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow		
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15112 alt.politics.clinton:21187 alt.politics.bush:16353 alt.politics.homosexuality:10259
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:33:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
: In article <1993Jan19.153114.1746@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
: >
: >>Running out of real arguments?
: >
: >That is a real argument.  Since Leviticus presents a list
: >of transgressions, among which homosexuality is included
: >but not singled out for special attention, why aren't you
: >objecting to those who break other Levitical injuctions?
: 
: So, you are out of real arguments.
: Who says that one has to object to all those who break 
: the rules AT THE SAME TIME?
: Moreover, how do you know that he is not doing it?
: 
: 
: >Why aren't you at the mall picketing stores that carry
: >clothing made out of synthetics, or throwing
: >mixed-fabric-wearing people out of your church?  
: 
: Maybe, for the same reason he is not picketing any
: GBL organization, nor thrwing GLB out of his church.
: Anyway, why should he be doing all of this AT THE SAME TIME?
: 
: >Either
: >*really* stick to *all* Biblical precepts or stop arguing
: >that the Bible contains the literal, invariant word of
: >God.
: 
: Says who?
: You do you think you are to tell him that he has to
: do either this or that?
: How do you know that he is not sticking to all biblical precepts?
: How do you know he is not trying to do it?
: 
: Either you have an argument to prove him wrong, or you do not
: have one. I  would advise you to stop this thing about accusing
: him of doing something or not doing something that has no
: relation to what he said.
: 
: 
: >
: >If you're going to choose which parts of the Bible you
: >believe and obey, and which ones you don't, what are your
: >criteria?
: 
: Why should you care?
: He chooses whatever he wants to choose. Then, he expresses
: his opinion.
: Either you can refute his idea or not. It seems that you cannot
: and the only way out of this is complaining that he is not
: doing something else.
: 
: Tell us Melinda: If he were doing all of the other things, like
: picketing in the Malls, etc., would you say that his ideas are 
: OK?
: 


Well, I can't speak for Melinda, but if he were doing all those
things, I'd still say his ideas were ridiculous superstitious
hogwash- at least, though, they'd be consistent.  The point is,
there is no need to refute his argument, since it's not an 
argument at all; it's just "for the Bible tells me so."  If he's
going to base his opinion on the idea that the Bible is the 
Inspired Word of God, it's perfectly legitimate to ask why he 
doesn't think the injunctions against shellfish and synthetic
clothing are also the Inspired Word of God.

Bill
From: roderir@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (richard roderick)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 21:32:52 GMT
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobo.ece.orst.edu

In article <21724@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>Who can confirm or deny that Rush Limbaugh used a student-deferrment to
>dodge the Vietnam War?
>
[other crap deleted...]

Give me a break! Quit trying to be a dork.
Noticing that you say 'who can confirm or deny' tells me that you are
only trying to create a situation that does not exist.
If the media has not done anything on it then it most not have happened
since noone would love more than to catch Rush on a slip up.

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 so long,
Richard
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and the Gulf War
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:27:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

(Scott William Unger) comments:

> (John R Gonzalez):
> > 
> >    Rush on the Gulf War...
> > Most conservatives were against going there(true 
> > conservatives that is).  Did Rush first oppose our 
> > going and then support our troops or what?
> > 				John R. Gonzalez
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?  True conservatives?  A conservative
> is someone who basicly believes that the federal government is only needed
> for defense purposes.  We use it to keep our national intrests when we can.
> Why would conservatives be against going to War in the Gulf more than anyon e
> else?  That is what the government was origianally for, to maintain our 
> national intrests.  Not for giving handouts.
> 
	what the hell are YOU talking about?  you say a conservative
	believes that the government is for defense puposes such as
	protecting our national interests...  since when is a two-bit
	monarchy in the desert in our national interests??!  you will
	probably say OIL (an excuse used by Bush to get the american
	public [read: television vidiots] behind him...]).  so what
	if iraq took over the kuwaitii oil fields... the price of gas
	here in the states would NOT have changed since OPEC wouldn't
	have increased the price per barrel, especially after such
	in-fighting.  
	
	there was absolutely nothing in the gulf was that
	come under the umbrella of *national interests*

	and the original poster was right-- most true
	conservatives were originally against the conflict... they
	didn't get on the bandwagon until it was certain that Bush
	and the UN were going in there and they didn't want to NOT
	support our troops (which, IMHO, was the only reason to 
	*support* the action).

happy trails,
pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:02:21 GMT

In article <20JAN199316224332@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.002350.17373@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
>|vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>|] elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>|] 
>|] >The man was brutally beaten beyond recognition until he died because he was gay.
>|] >Gay killing" is an appropriate term.  So are "murder," "hate crime," and 
>|] >"terrorism."  To make less of this man's murder than it was is to say
>|] >that he was less important because he was gay.
>
>	True.  But wouldn't making /more/ of this man's murder imply that
>he was more important because he was Gay?  Murder should be treated as 
>murder.  Hate crimes laws tend to ensure that it is not treated as such,
>but as more.
>
	It should be handled like a murder.  All murders are *hate* crimes.
The fact that he was gay should not make any more important or any less
important.  When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..

cjk@netcom.com
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Donna Shalala and Bill's Welfare Promise
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:13:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>According to Rush, Shalala nipped this idea in the bud.
>If this is true, does anyone know what her wacky reasoning may be?

It's not "compassionate" to require an able-bodied person to work
for a living?!
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: 21 Jan 1993 18:14:14 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>     I'm sure that's true, but it seems to be the ranting, bible-quoting
> types who post here more than the tolerant ones (I wonder why that is...).

Mmmmm, maybe the same reason that it seems to be the ranting, flaming 
homosexuals are the types that post here, rather than the tolerant ones? 

> I, for one, would love to believe that most fundamentalists are tolerant,
> loving, open-minded people.  The net posters give me absolutely no reason
> to believe this, though.

And I'd love to believe that most homosexuals are tolerant, loving, open-minded people.
The net posters give me absolutely no reason  to believe this, though.  Who's more 
tolerant and open-minded?  Tim Pierce, or Mark Christensen?  Who's more 
likely to resort to foul language and personal attacks in their posts? 

>     Talk about living in glass houses!  I have never met a proponent of gay
> rights who did not celebrate diversity.

You mean like the celebration of diversity that we see here from many 
of the gay posters?  Calling most of the population "homophobes" and bigots, 
bashing people's religions because they have "sexual morals" that the 
posters don't like, and think are childish?  Howard, your "celebration 
ofdiversity" is a joke; anyone who doesn't agree with the PC-way, and 
who holds sexual morals that go beyond "sex between consenting anyones is 
ok" is called an idiot and worse.   

> I have, however, been exposed to
> many religious types who, in effect, say that if you're not like them in
> values, lifestyle, etc., then there's something wrong.

Sounds REAL familiar, Howard...

Walter
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and the Gulf War
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:41:19 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez) writes:
=Rush on the Gulf War
=
=I didn't start listening to Rush after the Gulf war.
=I was curious, what was his stance on our inter-
=vention before we sent troops to the Persian Gulf. 
= Most conservatives were against going there(true 
=conservatives that is).  Did Rush first oppose our 
=going and then support our troops or what?

I suggest going to the FTP site of Switzer's summaries and reading about
it. My opinion during the time was that if diplomacy was not going to
get him out of Kuwait, that we should bomb the hell out of him. I did
not favor waiting a year for sanctions to work, but I did favor the
formation of an international coalition and military force to protect
Saudi Arabia from attack. Any military attack should adhere to the
mission as defined by the UN, ie. to liberate Kuwait, and not to "get
Saddam."

Although I admit there are now a lot of people who wished we invaded
Iraq and captured/killed Saddam, I also remember warnings by Arab
supporters in the coalition that they would break their support if we
went after him. I would've liked to have gone after him, but I don't
think we had planned out our military attack that much to capture him in
a swift and effective manner. 
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A Small Thought Experiment
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:28:56 GMT


It seems a little mentally stressing to some to 
understand the difference between 'hate crimes'
and the generic type.

Then folks talk about the matter of 'motive' in
regards to sentancing.....

This is made even More Commical by those who are
Trying to defend the UnBornGrandParents who are
OBLITERATED at In vitro fertilization centers,
as those UnBornGrandParents were NOT selected for
implantation in a Donor and then Deleted as medical Waste,
even though these UnBornGrandParents were actually
concieved Persons_In_The_Petri_Dish.

{We shall now see if edward will resolve the above...}

Now the thought Experiment:

1. Evil Must be Stopped.

2. Sin is Evil

3. Homosexuality is a Sin

therefore:....

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:21:23 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1jn79uINNqpd@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
|> Sadly, I have also noticed that Mr. Clinton is a mouth-breather.

God, I hope Clinton never posts, because now that you conservatives
are running out of insults, you would have to resort to spelling
flames!!

What text editor would BC use anyway?  Or Rush, for that matter?

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
From: overmyc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Christopher Overmyer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: control
Date: 22 Jan 1993 14:44:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: overmyc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Christopher Overmyer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: o233-01.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu


> >One poster said the fetus has the right to life,
> >just as any other person has.  Larry Margolis replied as above.  I
> >took his reply to indicate that even under the assumption the fetus
> >has such a right, the woman can't be made to take care of it.  I
> >then inferred the response you see above.  It's an inference from
> >his premises.
> >
> A very inaccurate and poorly thought out premise.
> I notice you avoided explaining how you managed to arrive at the
> conclusion that a fetus was a person.
> 
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that a fetus is NOT a person?
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15319 talk.abortion:58272
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:08:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C1Hv4E.3LD.1@cs.cmu.edu> tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith) writes:
>In article <1k3nbaINNq0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <C1G1tt.Gus.1@cs.cmu.edu> tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith) writes:
>>>The role of state law is to protect people
>>>from the acts of other people.  (Incidently, this does not preclude the 
>>>outlawing of abortion, if you start from an assumption that the fetus is a
>>>human being.  Then you are protecting what you feel is a person from 
>>>destruction by another person).
>>
..Uh, it also covers allowing women to *have* abortions, since the fetus
..isn't just some little dot that remains a little dot for the course of
..9 months.  A fetus can and does create all kinds of stresses upon a woman's
..body, and a sensible government would recognise that, if another person
..did what a fetus does to a woman, she'd have grounds for a self defense
..killing.  Thus....

..OK, so it's a tangent.  You were doing a very good job of discussing moderate
..christianity, and only let your agenda slip in there once.
..Adrienne Regard

>I wasn't trying to present a full case for pro-life.  I was merely trying to
>point out that my argument did not preclude the outlawing of abortion if you
>start with certain assumptions.  I put those ifs and assumptions in to avoid
>exactly the response you're making on the point.

Didn't work.

Point is, your comment above may not preclude a pro-life argument, but it
also doesn't preclude a pro-choice argument.

You mentioned the one, but not the other, so I rectified the oversight.

>I'm continually amazed at the vehemence of the pro-choice lobby in insisting
>that any argument against abortion must somehow be the rabid foamings of
>extreme Christians who don't care about women. 


(1) the insistance is not 'any argument'.  Rather the insistance is most
smelly arguments.  Certainly unsupported claims, inconsistancies and un-
addressed points lead readers to conclude that, since RATIONAL discourse
is not the order of the day, something *else* must be taking over.

(2) many, though not all, of the arguments presented on this board from a
pro-life viewpoint are presented by rabid foaming extreme Christians, and
are phrased in such a way that a sensible reader *would* conclude that they
don't care about women.  i.e., it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, 
etc.  Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, people will come to
conclusions about ducks....

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:47:36 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan25.080945.18026@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
]] 
]] ]so what is with the 'Flag Box' in the Background on his show?
]] 
]] ]Or is he just trying to SUCK UP to vets who know what it
]] ]is suppose to mean?
]] 
]] Yo, Drieux.... I'm a vet. Why don't you tell ME what it is supposed
]] to mean?
]
]Yo John ..... I'm a Vet. Why don't You Tell ME what RUSH is
]trying to SUGGEST to everyone?
]
He is suggesting that he supports traditional American patriotic
values. Now, are you going to answer MY question?


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: TAX THE RICH!!!!
XXXDate: Thu, 28 Jan 93 16:22:56 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A78D56704E020614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:22:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.104456@IASTATE.EDU> Mike W Kuenkel,
gatortop@IASTATE.EDU writes:
>	Are there any lazy underachievers 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!
>
>	PUNISHING ACHIEVEMENT IS WRONG!!

This is too tempting not to take at least one shot at.

Has it occured to you, Mike, that most wealth in this country (especially
extreme wealth) is =not= acquired by anything that could even remotely be
called "achievement."  It is mostly acquired by investment of capital and
inheritance.

The biggest problem with our system is that, once a substancial amount of
wealth is accumulated in one place, the motivation towards "achievement"
tends to disappear.  One needs only live off the investment of it.  I have
no trouble with people living off the interest of wealth that they have
earned, when the "earner" passes away, their offspring continue to
accumulate wealth with no need to "achieve" anything.

I have no solution to this problem, but I also have no problem taxing the
heck out of such people, especially on passive income like "capital gains."

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: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Cultures" defined?
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:38:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1ji251INN34j@leela.CS.ORST.EDU> littaum@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Mike Littau) writes:
>Could someone please tell me what is "white" culture and what is "black"
>culture?  I understand what "German" culture is, or "Sub-Sahara African"
>Culture, or "Japanese" Culture, but not the two mentioned above.  Yet many
>people say we need more of one and not of the other, or vice versa (IE-
>the cultural diversity revolution cropping up).  

I'll take this one. First point: there is no such thing as "white", "black", or "sub-Sahara African" culture. All three areas are too diverse to be labeled as
having one culture. Culture is basically described as the learned beliefs,
behaviors, attitudes, values and ideals that are characteristic of a particular
society or population. Archaeologists tend to support this anthropological
definition by pointing out that artifacts and material remains are not culture;
they might be expressions of culture. Culture is mental.

Cultural diversity revolution? Haven't heard of that one yet ... 

Cheers,
Dan
deherrin@ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality