HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Borgy Boy's squeals
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:46:33 GMT

In article <1684@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>Buckle up tight, cause your pussy whipped sissy of a prez and his 43 % minority
>have put this country on a course for one hell of a bumpy ride.  And I for one
>will do my part to see to he fails as miserably as the last sniveling-crybaby-
>got-no-backbone Democrat we drove out of office. 

Imagine that, he'll HELP put this country on the course to hell,
just so he can blame it on Clinton.  Yep, here's a man who cares
about his country.  I'm surprised this isn't cross-posted to
talk.bizarre.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (G. Sandor)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 12:02 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan5.043840.9305@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes...
| 
|You are welcome.
|I was pointing out that men, as part of nature can only do natural things.
|After that, society considers some of those natural things as morally right
|and some those natural things as morally wrong.
|So, we cannot say that just because it is natural homosexuality is right,
|nor we can say that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural.

	I only wish more people understood this, ya know.  I mean,
since when do we look to the animal kingdom for our moral guidance?

|>     ____                _
|>    /    )               /          
|>   /    /               /       
|>  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
|>__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
|> /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
|>(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    
| 
|PD: Are you hungarian?

	No, why do you ask?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
XXXDate: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:11:30 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76F71C285024519@oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 05 Jan 93 23:07:52 GMT

In article <C0DKsH.2rx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Michael R Linksvayer,
mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>If one is really interested in applying the 14th amendment then
>all antidiscrimination laws should be eliminated. However, this
>is a major task, and the Colorado amendment is a step in the
>right direction. It seems that the amendment may have been
>written to appeal to bigotry (mentioning only samesex
>orientations, rather than simply any sexual orientation) but its
>effect is to increase freedom and equality under the law. Life
>is ironic sometimes, isn't it?

Increased freedom?  Perhaps only the freedom to isolate oneself from
people who are different.  Equality?  Only in the sense that everyone has
an opportunity to advance to a level equal to where their race (or other
category) is approved of by the empowered elite.

If I understand you  correctly, you feel that there should be absolutely
no legislation that protects oppressed minorities from unfair
discrimination.  Hence, people should legally be able to discriminate
against any class or  category of people they chose to.  It's perfectly
"American" to permit people in power to categorically exclude blacks,
jews, homosexuals, christians, or anybody else they take a dislike to. 
It sounds way too much like legalized bigotry to me.  Give a person
enough power and  absolutely no social responsibility and you get
tyranny, just the opposite of =my= ideal America.

>My proposed super equality before the law amendment:
>NO PROTECTION BASED ON ANY CATEGORIZATION ... [Your State] Shall
>not adopt any law ... whereby any categorization ... shall
>entitle any person ... to claim of discrimination.

Not bad... wipe out all civil rights legislation in a single stroke. 
Should be a big hit at Klan rallies and Aryan Nation gatherings.

Sure, such an amendment produces equality... Everybody has the same
opportunity to be descriminated against.  But who =actually= gets
descriminated against?  Whoever is least able to do anything about it!

The 14th amendment was a fundamental bulwark against tyranny by the
majority.  To suggest that it be used to =protect= such tyranny is, at
best, misguided... at worst, 

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:44:56 GMT

In article <1ihua8INN111@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> 
> >I see no advantage to putting a member of the first family at risk to
> >satisfy conservative whiners. And if you don't think there is any risk 
> >I suggest you look closely at the D.C. school system. 
> 
> This sort of elitist attitude is a little frightening.  It's OK for the
> children of the underpriveleged huddled masses to be murdered in the hallways,
> but the children of the rich and powerful somehow deserve better?  I thought
> promoting special priveleges for the rich was the exact opposite of the the Clintons' platform?
> 
> 	Dave

     Recall if you will the DemocratLoveFest at Madison Square Garden this
past summer, where line after line of Wealthy politicians were pushed into
the background; only a few, such as Kennedy and Cuomo made speeches to the
assembly, with the majority of the speakers being 'outsiders', much like
Billy himself.  These 'poor souls' included Lynn Yeakel, rich Democrat, who
now has yet another major debt to pay off -- can Bankruptcy be far behind?

     Throughout this convention, speakers bemoaned the concept of making a
profit during the Reagan-Bush era.  They claimed that the economy (which
we now know had been out of a recession for 16 months by convention time) 
was in the worst shape since Herbert Hoover was in office.  They blamed it
all on the failed policies of the past decade, and said

             "This prosperity must stop!"

     The voters believed them.  They bought into the lies of wealthy
Democrats.  And for this we must all hold on for a four year roller
coaster ride.

           "If you tell a lie often enough, people begin to believe it."

Kevin Stamber
Purdue University
COWHER POWER!

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12921 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11414 alt.politics.clinton:19550 alt.politics.bush:15457 alt.politics.homosexuality:8891
From: ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:13:40 GMT
Organization: UNC Charlotte

To consider the Rev. Mr. Peters as representative of all Christians
is as unfair and innaccurate as considering the members of ACT-UP or
the stereotypical "screaming queen" as representative of all homo-
sexuals.
 
There is enough hatred and bigotry in the world already without our
adding to it.
In article <C0BHJG.K2t@fc.hp.com>
jackies@fc.hp.com (Jackie Sheddy X6958) writes:
 
>
>Walter Smith (smithw@col.hp.com) wrote:
>: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>:
>: > When someone says that people of my type are not worthy of life, I do not
>: > make that person my friend. This is exactly the attitude of many christians
>: > towards homosexuals.
>:
>: Not worthy of life?  Get a grip.  If that were the case, you wouldn't be able
>: to openly post that you are gay and live to tell about it.  That is just plain
>: *absurd*.  There's no doubt that homosexuality is looked down upon, but
>: 'not worthy of life'??
>:
>: Walter
>
>        Obviously  Walter has not heard of the Rev.  Pete  Peters.  This
>        "person"  is in the form of the  Minister  of the  LaPorte,  CO,
>        Church of  Christ.  A year or so ago, he  published  a  pamphlet
>        entitled   _The_Bible_Advocates_Death_to_Homosexuals_.  If   you
>        want a copy,  Walter, I can  provide you with one.  Then tell us
>        what you told Robert.
>
>        Yes,  Walter,  there are those  people out there that think that
>        homosexuals are NOT worthy of life.
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Jackie
>jackies@hpxxx.fc.hp.com
>Hate is NOT a Family Value!!
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13119 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11684 alt.politics.clinton:19682 alt.politics.bush:15606 alt.politics.homosexuality:9027
From: markm@salem.intel.com (Mark Morrissey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:37:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa

In <C095nK.82y@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven 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.nec.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.

This is too much fun!

You are saying that if the founder of the company for which I work
believes in God then all my work is religiously inspired?  If the
founder of the school you waste so much time at was an satanist does
that mean that you are the anti-christ?

You really are too much fun.  Just learning logic 101?  Maybe it is
philosphy 050?

Get a life.

--mark
-----
Mark Morrissey               markm@ashland.intel.com
#include <disclaimer.h>      PC does NOT mean "Probably Can't"
From: Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Jesse Jackson's Bigotry
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 04 Jan 93  12:15:20

D&ED&ED The following story appeared in the LA Times on Sunday
January 3, 1993.

************************************************************************

Jesse Jackson rips networks over staffing

   Like many Americans, the Rev. Jesse Jackson spent New Year's Day
watching college football games on television.  He was displeased
with them, not because of the results, but because of the
broadcasters covering them.
   "It was quite embarrassing to go from game to game to game with
no blacks in the booths," Jackson said.  "Every play-by-play
broadcaster and every commentator was white."
   Ex-NFL player Beasely Reece, who is black, worked as a sideline
reporter for NBC at the Fiesta Bowl.
   "He was on the sideline," Jackson said.  "We were on the field
in all the bowls.  We are qualified to be in the booth, to interpret
the games."
   "The football broadcast staffs for NBC and CBS include Reece, Ahmad
Rashad and O.J. Simpson at NBC, James Brown and Greg Gumbel at CBS.
ABC uses John Saunders for studio duties and ex-NFL star Lynn Swann
in many events.
   Jackson said he planned meetings with the sports presidents of the
three major networks to discuss hiring practices for blacks.  "The
networks deny blacks the change to be on the air," Jackson said.
"We have broadcasters who are qualified to do it and who want to
do it."

************************************************************************

The first thing that comes to mind when I read these phlgematics by Jesse
Jackson is that statement by Martin Luther King.  "I have a dream of a
day when my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but
by the content of their character."  Not once does Jackson make any
reference to the quality of the coverage or even if the quality of the
coverage was in some how related to skin color.  His only complaint is
one of the color of the skin of those doing the in-booth reporting.  That
is a working definition of racial bigotry.

The next point is "Who gives a hoot about their skin color, anyway?"
In a typical game you *might* see the announcers once in the pre-game,
once at halftime, and once in the post-game.  If the game is fairly
well decided during the fourth quarter you might get a long shot up
into the booth.

The final point is Jackson's use of the exclusive "we".  His very
words establish an "us" vs. "them" mentality.  That kind of racial
devisivenes is not going to promote the kind of harmony and mutual
respect that Jackson has called for in the past.
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Perew  Unisys Corp   MREW/CORP  | Standing in the present, I see
(714) 380-5484  Fax: (714) 380-6560  | my future in my past.
mp%mpa15c@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com | Where are you in the here and
Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org        | now?
============== "All opinions are mine," sayeth the poster ==============


--- msged 2.07
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibi
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:44:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Laurel Schippers writes:
>Are you entitled to have him thrown out of your house? What if
>there are no police?  Are you required to feed and house this
>person?

If you can't do better than this, you shouldn't bother to post.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13140 alt.politics.clinton:19697
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:12:30 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DE83EA00A0614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 20:13:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.191535.10267@wam.umd.edu> Yamanari,
rsrodger@wam.umd.edu writes:
>	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
>	2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
>		their behavior.  The mentally ill, recluses, 
>		antisocials, serial killers, child molesters,
>		thieves.

But there are a variety of "deviants" that we are perfectly happy to leave
to their own devices, such as skydivers, race car drivers, hang glider
pilots and religious fundamentalists.  The rule is whether they pose a clear
and present danger to themselves or anyone around them.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:01:44 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DE5B8D4090614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 20:02:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.154816.1446@wam.umd.edu> Yamanari, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.152512.6080@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
(Howard 
>Black) writes:
>>In article <C057F4.842@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
writes:
>>>
>>>I'm tired of arguments, so I will not bore you with things you have 
>>>probably already heard. But I do have a question. Do you *really* 
>>>believe that the civil rights analogy holds in the case of homosexuals?
>>
>>    [I was not the author of the post to which Jim responds, but what the
>>hell...]
>>
>>    Yes, I *really* believe that the civil rights analogy holds in the case
>>of homosexuals.  Being black is not a choice, and, for most gays, being gay
>>is not a choice.
>
>
>	This is a matter of contention.  Being blackit is not even
>	a possibility that it's a choice.  Being gay, it is still 
>	up in the air as to whether it's inborn or learned behavior 
>	(with the further question of, "can it be cured in either case?")

The bottom line is... it doesn't matter whether one is born gay or choses to
be gay.  It is a no more valid reason for unfair discrimination than whether
one likes chocolate or vanilla ice cream.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:50:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.155238.7975@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.092845.2048@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
: >...
: >If the unborn child is a person, then the mother may not
: >simply kill him for any non-vital rights she claims the child is
: >violating.  You can't kill a house-guest just because he has overstayed
: >his welcome and doesn't want to leave and you think he is violating your
: >rights.
: >...
: >-- 
: >orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce

: If you are the NRA, then you will fight tooth and nail (and gun) to
: preserve your right to legally shoot and kill an intruder in your home.
: (If you don't subscribe to this, then you _ipso_facto_, Q.E.D., are not
: the NRA, and should stop misrepresenting yourself as such, or you will
: hear from their lawyers first thing in the morning.)  I believe, in this
: state at least, you don't even have to prove self-defense.  A Man's Home
: Is His Castle, and Men have to have to have the Right to Defend their
: Castles against Intruders with Very Big Guns, eh?

: Yet a woman can't kill an intruder in her own _body_!?

>The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.

	Horse excrement. If you accidentally leave your house's door
open, isn't it an invitation to burglars?

	Lots of women (and men, too!) have sex without wanting to
produce children. And lots of people of both sexes practice forms of
sex that _can't_ lead to children. Masturbation, both solitary and
mutual, oral sex, between-the-legs sex, armpit sex, anal sex, ...

... It 
>is one of those laws of nature, when women have sex, babies will result.  

	Not when good birth control is used.

>Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the baby would be an intruder, 
>then don't hang out the welcome sign.

	C'mon, Ted Krueger, why do you have to embarrass yourself by
making yourself seem like some sexual illiterate?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13159 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11740 alt.politics.homosexuality:9059
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:39:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan6.183827.10033@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes...

>	Or, if it's behavioral, do they stand up to their animalistic
>	desires and get a modicum of self control?  The "natural" reaction
>	to frustration or irritation is a violent one, yet most adults
>	learn to control this (parents, especially).  There are *countless*
>	examples of people getting a grip and denying desires or 
>	controlling them.  

While it's good to channel some desires to some extent, suppressing those
desires completely is unhealthy.  Imagine the ulcers we'd get if we didn't 
express our frustration or irritation *in any way*.  Extend this to sexual
attraction, be it homosexual or heterosexual.  One can channel one's attractions
properly (loving a partner) or improperly (Tailhook scandal, inappropriate 
sexual advances, etc).  Anti-gay folks seem to want homosexuals to restrain
their attractions more than they want heterosexuals to.  This way leads to
madness. 

Granted, an anti-homosexual could claim that this would be the same for child
sex offenders.  Thus, the issue boils down to the "morality" of the orientation/
preference/predisposition.  In that respect, I simply cannot see anything wrong
with a predisposition toward homosexuality, as long as how one channels the 
behavior stemming from the predisposition doesn't harm anyone.  Same with 
a predisposition toward heterosexuality.  With child sex offenders, that 
would be more difficult.  

With reference to the whole genetic/biological/learned debate, I suspect that
genetics sets the range of possibilities, while environmental factors such as
prenatal biochemistry and socialization can affect the eventual outcome.  
(Don't have the references to the biochemistry studies on homosexuality, but I
could find them if pressed.)  This seems to be true of many aspects of humanity
from sex roles to athletic ability to heart disease.  Why not homosexuality?  To
me, the whole "it's either genetic or a choice" is a false dichotomy.  

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13163 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11745 alt.politics.clinton:19731 alt.politics.bush:15625 alt.politics.homosexuality:9065