HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Closet Bigotry (was: Re:Buchanan's speech)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:19:15 GMT

tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>>Nonsense.  Many theists have presented such arguements before, but in the
>>final analysis, they are in truth hiding behinfd their metephysical beliefs,
>>claiming they feel homosexuality is wrong because their god has said it is,
>>instead of admitting that they are opposed to homosexuality because they
>>find it personally distasteful.

>The above remarks are not an argument.  They serve only to deny my thesis by
>implicating motivations of the argument giver.

    I'm afraid Ted is right here, Kelly. You seem to be accusing those 
"theists" of intellectual dishonesty without considering the possibility 
that their religions may in fact really preach intolerance towards 
homosexuality as a positive moral virtue.

    I'm afraid that when you get right down to it, the people who find 
homosexual behavior simply distasteful are not the greatest of your 
worries. In all honesty, I admit that *I* find homosexuality distasteful, 
but I support equal rights for gays.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:27:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu

hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu Jim Hulsey writes:  (continuation of
previous message)

HU>the big farms have a better ability to follow them (or more lawyers
HU>to fight them).  What the real problem with farms is is that the U.S.
HU>Gov't will not let U.S. farmers export at market rates.  The U.S. Gov't
HU>sets the price.  I would like to see all farm subsidies removed, as well
HU>as all U.S. export restictions removed.

I don't disagree with the removal of all protectionist laws.  The US
Gov't is not the right vehicle to set any price.  Only the market place
can do that.  The issue here is not that Uncle Sam won't allow the
farmer to export, but that the gov't is involved at all in the setting
of ANY prices, at any time.  If they hadn't been doing that, or issuing
subsidies in the first place, the marketplace would have gradually
eliminated the farms over time, maintaining the proper level to meet the
current demand.

HU>BTW, don't you think family farms are hurt by health care costs?  Farming
HU>is one of the most dangerous occupations there is, and I bet very few
HU>family farmers are able to afford decent health insurance.
Right!  They were too busy buying $150,000 tractors to farm land the
gov't was paying them not to grow anything on.  They used to share the
cost of machinary with the neighborhood farms, and work together.  Now,
they all had to have their own equipment.  They were quickly WAY over
capitalized.  When the rug was pulled out....down they went.  My father
was a CPA in the farm belt for many years.  Many sad stories.

For me, Jim, I see red flags anytime someone tries to suggest that the
gov't has the "answer" for what ails us.  I don't believe that national
health insurance is necessarily the answer.  A lot of people are looking
at the Canadian system as the savior, but there are many problems with
that system, too, much ofwhich is evidenced by the number of Canadians
who cross the border to get the medical attention they need in the US at
their own expense.  This means that the real medical coverage they need
is only available to those who can afford it.  While I certanly lament
the growing cost of medical insurance, and the fact that there are many
that can't seem to get access to it, I simply cannot accept the premise
that it can be solved by taxing the citizenry to a level that will
provide 'free', or low cost care to all.  The cost of that service will
continue to rise without the natural market to level it out.  No
competition for price or supply.

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . ***  Press <ALT> H to continue  ***
                                                         
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why's George in trouble?  (hint - he's got big ears...)
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:22:12 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep4.032056.13763@cs.rose-hulman.edu> pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:
->BOOM.  Alex, you slammed the nail on the head.  PEROT IS THE KEY TO THE  
->WHOLE THING.

->I don't think anyone is giving Perot enough credit here.  The man set the  
->agenda for the whole election and got out to let Willie and George brawl.
->He raised a number of concerns about the way government is run.  He was  
->able to pull in people from both sides of the political spectrum,  
->including the infamous Reagan Democrats.  He called for change in  
->Washington and all the people who were so distrustful of government in the  
->first place called right along with him.

 Before any Liberals out there start dreaming of new ways to spend (oops, I 
mean invest) the publics hard earned money, you seem to be missing one impor-
tant factor concerning Perot.

   The way he left the race. He has angered a lot of people. I personnally
think that the smart money is on the person Perot didnt endorse. Perots   
followers are so mad at the way he dumped them that they will vote for the
man Perot dosent want. Now the real question is how many people are angered
at Perot and how many people are still hearing the pipers song ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:13:13 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Sep3.011252.28043@cs.rose-hulman.edu>
pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:
>When Vietnam happened, both those guys were under 25, I know (under 21, I
>think).  Haven't you done stupid stuff in your youth?  Stuff you regret?
>Stuff that, if you ran for public office, would be embarrassing to you?
>I know I have.
>The question is, where do these guys stand now?  Do they actually have a

No it most certainly is NOT the question.  Dan Quayle has come clean about
what he did and Bob Woodward (hardly a conservative) has confirmed it.
Bill Clinton has repeatedly lied and told half truths until cornered
after which he admits some of the independently confirmed facts.  The
latest episode, in which his uncle's interference with the draft board
(which is also independently confirmed by representatives of the Navy
and others) was shown has found Bill Clinton stonewalling ("I never knew
anything about the Navy thing").  Do you really believe that his uncle would
go to such extremes to keep Clinton out of the draft and NOT tell him that
his efforts had worked?

The question is one of honesty.  Whereas Bush's "No New Taxes" pledge was
broken in the future and after much dispute with the hostile Democratic
Congress, Clinton's stories seem to intentionally misrepresent the past
to conceal potentially damaging facts.  Clinton is a baldfaced liar.
And I do not want the man who controls the CIA, the Armed Forces, etc.
to be so intent on lying that he will place his self interest above the
welfare of my country.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5005 alt.rush-limbaugh:4190
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:53:33 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug31.180737.15129@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:

>I've found recently that his show has become a three hour campaign commercial
>for Bush.  Equal time, anyone?

 On CNN Bela Shaw cracked a joke about the emmys being a 3 hour commercial for
Bill Clinton. Where is the conservative equal time ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 8/31/92
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:54:20 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: world,usa,na
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep3.185321.3120@natinst.com> davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) writes:
>So is you're problem with all of this that you think gambling is wrong?
>Or that state-regulated gambling is wrong?  If so, why don't you just
>say this.

 The problem is that the government was the one who restricted the gambling
days in the first place. Now were supposed to jump for joy when they lower
the very restrictions they created. Its not just gambling, the government
restricts every buissness in this country through laws and regulations. We
should not let ourselves get caught up in hysteria when the statists decide
to be less statist, even if it is for enhanced revenues. Taxation and regula-
tion is theft. They must justify the crime, not justify the sentence.
 How much of a revenue increase did the state gain ? How many people had to
lose money for that gain to be acheived ? How many new buissnesses where
created by this capital gains tax cut ? 

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:33:30 GMT
Distribution: world, usa, na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Sep1.182347.18026@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>      What about if I individually decide to post the Ten Commandments
>> in my classroom?
>
>>     Whatever happened to academic freedom?  If another educator decides
>>NOT to post the Ten Commandments and not teach creationism, then more
>>power to her/him.  Just let me present many points of view.
>> 
>>     -- C. Perttunen
>
>I'll support your right to put up the ten commandments,  if you'll 
>support my right to put up Satanic religious artifacts,  and then
>support my right to use subtle peer and teacher pressure to convert
>kiddies...  And let's not forget the ever popular celebration
>of Lupercalia, and the deflowering of Virgins at the alter of Priapus.
>
>
>"Just let me present many points of view."
>
>How often?  Once?  Twice?  Weekly,  daily?  How often am I supposed to let
>you try to shove Christianity down the throats of my kids?

No one said shove exept you.  You should have all the freedom in the world
to tell the kiddies about your Satanic artifacts, but the "community" locale
will see to it that your classroom is empty pretty fast.  On the other hand,
I don't think the community minds a teacher  explaining his or her faith to
the kids, as long as there is no attempt to convert. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: bab@wpi.WPI.EDU (Brian Alan Baker)
Subject: Re: Pat Buchanan on usenet
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:27:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.231220.27477@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>
>Rumor has it that Pat Buchanan wanted a usenet account until somebody
>pointed out that the news poster appends a ".sig file",  and not
>a ".sieg heil".

No, Tom has nothing better to do than to post things like this.

Brian

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Gore's Definition of Pollution
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:50:57 CDT


In article <mjenkins.715550985@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> In <1992Sep3.153709.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
> >     We all know of Sen. Gore's care and concern for the ecological
> >welfare of the planet.  On pg. 247 of his book, "Earth in the Balance,"
> >he gives us an indication of what he considers as 'pollution.'
> 
> >     "Indeed, the first instance of 'pollution' in the Bible
> >     occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the
> >     ground, rendering it fallow. ... God then tells Cain that
> >     his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a
> >     result, 'no longer will it yield crops for you, even if
> >     you toil on it forever!'"
> 
> >Are these words typical of a mainstream, moderate, centrist politician?
> >Moreover, is there anyone out there in NETland that agrees with Gore's
> >statement?  I would be interested in hearing.
> 
> It certainly is an interesting interpretation of the story of Cain and
> Abel, one that would probably confound most biblical scholars. God
> wasn't angry because of the "pollution" per se, but because of the
> murder!

Did Gore say that God was upset about the "pollution" and not the murder?

>           Gee, wonder if Mr. Gore has ever bled onto the ground
> before....?

Gee, wonder if you read before you flame...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: roberts@triton.unm.edu (Robert Smathers)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush's TV Show starts Sept. 14
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:04:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep2.141937.24779@walter.cray.com> toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg) writes:
>Just heard this on my headphones -- Rush announced that his new TV show
>will start Monday, September 14. Unfortunately, he could not give any times
>or networks, since it is not produced by a network. But there are currently
>190 stations signed up, covering 97% of the USA. There's only one major

Yes, Rush's show starts Sept 14.  It is a synicated show, not a network
show.  My local affiliate has already started running promos for the
show.  They are so funny (showing Rush wrapped up in paper with "RUSH" 
stamped on it, Rush rolling himself and his chair up to a microphone,
the announcer saying Rush must be kept under wraps until Sept 14).

I hope the TV show set is a "radio station" so the feel of the show
will be like the viewer is sitting down next to Rush watching
him do his radio show.

BTW, Rush will be on 5 days a week.  The bad part is my local
TV station is showing him at 12:00 Midnight so I will have
to set up a VCR.

Robert

roberts@triton.unm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:25:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.123427.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
    cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

> [referred Christian post deleted]
>
>     Dittos to both of these postings!  Regarding freedom of religion,
>the first amendment reads:
>
>           Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
>           of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
>
>If I, as an educator, individually decide to include creationism (along
>with evolution) as a part of the curriculum of a course I teach at a
>public institution, how in the world can one argue that this is 
>unconstitutional?  Is congress (or state and local governments)
>mandating that I teach this?  NO.

If I as an educator, individually decide to include Satanism (along
with creationism and evolution) as a part of the curriculum of a course I
each at a public institution, how in the world can one argue that this
is unconstitutional?  Is congress (or state and local governments)
mandating that I teach this?  NO.

Rhetoric aside, you, as an educator at a public instituion, have shed
your individualism and become a spokesman for the State.  That happened
the moment you accepted tax money.  As a spokesman for the State, you
cannot "respect an establishment of religion."  Congress passes a law
giving you tax money, you cannot use that money to preach your religious
beliefs.

> [...]
>     Whatever happened to academic freedom?

You shed that academic freedom once you take tax dollars.

>                                             If another educator decides
>NOT to post the Ten Commandments and not teach creationism, then more
>power to her/him.  Just let me present many points of view.

And then the pressure and innuendo starts.  Ms. Smith has the Ten
Commandments, why not Ms. Brown and Mr. Jones?  I guess Ms. Brown 
and Mr. Jones are evil, and I don't want *my* kids being taught by
them!  Teachers who don't post the Commandments might start getting
phone calls at night, or people talk in the street about them.  How
do you think the Lambs of Christ started getting OB/GYN doctors not
to perform abortions in North Dakota?  There is one left.  She flies
in from Minnesota, and is subject to incredible amounts of 
harassment.  This information was on "60 Minutes".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The George Bush Fan Club?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:14:10 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article mvp@netcom.com, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.181026.25252@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>>Clinton took more bashing from the media than has ever been unleashed on
>>a public figure regarding, inhalation, Gennifer, draft-dodging, taxes,
>>etc., etc.  What about that?
>Clinton definitely took a pounding... but all of it was pre-Perot-
>withdrawal.  Now, all three networks are practically part of Clinton's
>campaign organization.

My point was, that the revisionist republicans quickly forget that the
media did a job on Clinton and he emerged from it damaged and barely
breathing.  These type of attacks on Clinton were unwarranted before
that.  I admire Clinton for surviving it so far.

>Remember Rush saying, in the Clinton campaign's darkest days when it
>looked like he'd come in a distant third, that Perot was going to
>withdraw, and when he did, the media was going to perform the most
>heroic act of CPR on Clinton that's ever been seen this side of a
>"Rescue 911" episode.   He sure pegged that one.

I don't think the media did anything to help Clinton.  I think the bushman
has done it to himself (ignoring domestic issues for so long, now applying
worthless bandaids) and the sorry state of the economy is evidence of this.
Blaming Congress won't work anymore.  I think the people are sick of hearing
that.  If bush blames Congress and claims that he can't work with them then
it's time to step aside and give someone else a chance.


---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg)
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:21:49 CDT

In article <BtpHDJ.4qF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
>
>Go George Will!  Although I'll skip his baseball stuff, I gladly read his
>columns.  The Republican Party needs to dump all of the right-wing gutter types
>like Robertson and those quasi-journalists Limbaugh and Buchanan who just say
>anything to see their name in print/on air.
>
>The GOP could be a really great, all-American inclusive party if they just got
>rid of the kooks.
>
>Too bad I'll have to vote for Clinton this year.  Maybe if they lose this 
>election they will learn.
>-- 
>Daniel R. Sawyer
>daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

Just out of curiousity, what exactly do you think it would take for the
Republican party to be a "really great, all-American" party?

What, specifically, do you disagree with Buchanan about? My main two
disagreements with him during the primaries were his isolationist and
protectionist stances. But he seemed to drop both of those, at least for
his convention speech.

---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 2 Sep 92 10:07:22 CDT


In article <1872@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.055112.1848@mv.mv.com> mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett) writes:
> >George Will has been hard on George Bush for a long time.  He came into
> >great disfavor with Bush when he called him a "lap dog" 5-6 years ago.
> >Bush reputedly has never forgiven him for that.
> 
> >And to my knowledge, George Will has never lightened up on Bush.  So I wonder
> >why you wonder where he was 12 months ago.  :-)
> 
>  I have been a fan of George Will for more then a decade. My point was why did
> George join the conservative feeding freenzy asking President Bush and VP
> Dan to step down just two weeks before the convention ?

Probably because it then became clear that Bush would lose (his only hope
being that the Dems would self destruct at their convention).

George Will correctly realized that the Republicans only chance was to "Thatcher"
Bush - Dump him and run someone else.  Kemp could win this year.  Bush cannot.

>                                                          That only weakens Bush
> and increases the Democrates chances.

Their whole point is that Bush has no chance.

>                                        The time for fighting was over. Bush won
> the nomination. Bush is a moderate who is far to the right of Clinton.

Doesn't mater.  The economy has sucked under Bush, so the public will 
not give Bush a second chance.  Running a campaign where the major selling
point is that he will not do in his second term what he promised not to 
do in his first term but did anyway is no way to get re-elected.

>  At least no one caught up in the feeding freenzy pulled a mario cuomo. Mario
> previously stated that he would vote for Bush rather then Bill Clinton. He has
> since retracted this statement. Perhaps thats why Mr. Bill has offered a spot
> on the Supreme Court to Mario Cuomo.

Unfortunately for the Repubs, they are not running against Cuomo, not mater how
hard they try...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh