HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Date: 13 Dec 1992 02:57:27 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <11DEC199222450270@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> In article <Bz459z.484@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes...
|> | 
|> |It's fascinating to me that today homosexuals are trying very hard to
|> |get in (and stay in) the military, but during the Vietnam war there
|> |were straights who claimed to be homosexual just to get out or stay
|> |out.
|> 
|> 	It's even more fascinating to realise that the military will allow
|> Homosexuals in when a draft is imposed, that is, when the country may 
|> indeed be in real military danger.  

An article in today's S.F Chronicle Examiner suggested that this goes
all the way back to the Second World War.   A veteran writing in the
paper claimed that draft officials were supposed to ask a list of 
questions that allegedly detected and eliminated gay draftees, but
in practice, when casualities were high and more draftees were needed,
these questions were silently dropped and they took everyone.

Of course, he said, that didn't prevent them persecuting Gay draftees
who were "detected" later on.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Jury Duty (Was: Thewindbag Against Mo)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:22:42 GMT

Ed.Sterrett@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Sterrett) writes:

>Hi Nathan,
>      
> NE>     Being registered to vote can be inconvenient if because of being 
> NE> registered you get called to serve on jury duty. I can imagine circumstan
> 
>  The *new* thing now, since so many try to avoid jury duty by not 
>registering to vote, is to use the list of driver's licenses to select 
>prospective jurors.  At least in Florida, as well as several other 
>states, driving a car (legally) also makes you subject to call for 
>jury duty.
> 
> NE> in which (for instance) a single mother doesn't have an alternate daycare
> NE> provider and therefore wants to avoid the possibility of being called for
> NE> jury duty even though the chances are slim that she'd be called and even 
> NE> less that she'd be denied a hardship dispensation. I've also known a coup
> NE> Type-A personalities who didn't want to register because they really didn
> NE> have a valid excuse to get them out of jury duty. Doing their civic duty 
> 
> 
>  Of course, the easiest way to get out of jury duty is to have one of 
>the attorneys disqualify you.  All ya gotta do-  When they ask you 
>their questions during the selection process, just answer "Is this an 
>executable offense?  Can we give 'em death?"  Doesn't matter what the 
>question is, just give them that answer..  <g>  Of course the 
>prosecution may want to keep you, but the defense will just say, 
>"NEXT!"

This is if you think that avoiding jury duty is the right thing to do.
It is inconvenient and sometimes unpleasant but it's at least as
important, in my opinion, as voting for president.  In fact, since one
vote often determines the outcome of the trial, I submit that it's far
more important.  Anyone who fails to register to vote just to avoid this
civic responsibility shouldn't be allowed to vote.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Lead Scout for the Baby Boomers    | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:48:53 CST


In article <1gl52rINN4mf@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!) writes:
> I would like to formally propose a new group, alt.conservative.forum, 
> a moderated group to discuss conservative values and assorted political
> goings-on from a distinctly right-wing standpoint.

What are "conservative values"?

Take the following issues:

Drug prohibition: Conservative (former Drug Czar) Bill Bennett supports the
    "War on Drugs" while Conservatives such as Milton Friedman, William F.
    Buckley, and George Schultz oppose it.  Which side represents the 
    conservative view?

Abortion: Conservatives such as George Bush & Dan Quayle want abortion 
    made illegal (in most cases) while Conservative Barry Goldwater does
    not. Which side represents the conservative view?

Isolationism:  Conservative George Bush supports an activist US role in
    the "new world order" while conservative Pat Buchannan does not.  
    Which side represents the conservative view?

Free-Trade:  Conservative George Bush supports free-trade while conservative 
    Pat Buchannan does not.  Which side represents the conservative view?

Capital gains tax: Conservative Ronald Reagan wanted capital gains taxed 
    at the same rate as other income (1986 tax reform) while Conservatives
    George Bush and Jack Kemp want capital gains taxed at a lower rate than
    other income.  Which side represents the conservative view?

Yugoslovia breakup: Conservative (former Sec of State) George Schultz supports
    intervention in the former Yugoslovia while conservative George Bush does
    not.  Which side represents the conservative view?

-- 
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: spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu (Clay Spinuzzi)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: *I* got through (was Re: Posts by Rush? NOT!)
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:21:27 GMT
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences

In article <1gbtbnINN957@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:
>
>>70277.2502@compuserve.com [that's Rush's e-mail address]
>>Problem is, I've never been able to get through with that.  I get all my mail
>>returned. I maybe doing something wrong? who knows.
>
>No sir, you're doing everything just like you're supposed to.  Rush's mailbox
>just fills up rather quickly (surprise, surprise) and when you can't stuff any
>more mail into his box, it bounces back to you.


Actually, I've only e-mailed Rush once (I sent him and Clinton both a joke). 
To my surprise, the mail didn't get returned.


>>Matthew Anderson
>>andersmc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
>>
>clueless chuck
>pearsodc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu


Hey! My brother graduated from Rose-Hulman in the spring of 1992. Anybody 
remember Marc Spinuzzi?

=========================================================================
Clay Spinuzzi           spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu
"When I want your opinion, I'll divine it from your entrails." -- Me
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: dickw@IASTATE.EDU (Richard Wallingford)
Subject: Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!
Reply-To: dickw@IASTATE.EDU (Richard Wallingford)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:19:43 GMT

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

>>The Christians have lost almost all their power in this country.  God is

>I think not.  Virtually all elected officials of any great significance
>are Christians, and almost all corporate CEOs are Christian.  Christianity
>is the religion of choice for over eighty percent of the population.

Only because they were "born" that way.  If they were born into a
Chinese family, they'd be Buddist.

Really, most self-professed "Christians" are pretty sorry-assed sights.
Given that Jesus' most profound idea was to love your enemy, almost 
nobody is a *real* Christian.  I've found from observation that 
the more "Christian" one is, the more one *hates* his/her enemy.

Most people think that to love your enemy is an unrealistic ideal
and do not practice it.  Thus Christianity, truly remains an 
untried religion for nearly everyone.

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Dick Wallingford      | Internet: dickw@iastate.edu                  |
|Center for NDE        | Packet  : wd0anb@n0an.ia.usa.na              |
|Iowa State University | I'm not a musician, but I play one in a band | 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:20:45 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger

In article <22580003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony
Zugates) says:

>[blah blah blah]
>Certainly please don't think that I'm knocking the man....after all
>he is getting rich being a bigot...and I still have to work for a
>living.

You know, I never get tired of these idiots who never listen to Rush coming
in and making their stupid little ad hominem attacks on him.

>It just aint fair... Maybe next Christmas I can think of a way to
>get rich off of the bigotry phenomenon too....hmmm KuKluxKlan turtles?

Go away, little man.   I'm bigotted against anyone who posts crap like yours.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Khat (Summary Wed 12/9/92)
Keywords: Rush Limbaugh Unofficial Summary
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:23:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.132640.20090@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>Unofficial Summary for Wednesday, December 9, 1992:
>
>> o       The troops in Somalia are encountering a drug, Khat,
>> which is derived from a local shrub; Khat can cause paranoid
>> psychosis and distort judgment, and is a favorite of the Somali
>> gunmen who routinely chew the shrub's leaves to allay their
>> anxiety. The Marines are thus being warned to expect possible
>> psychotic behavior from some Somalis; US soldiers are also being
>> told that the drug is readily identifiable in urine, and thus it
>> would not be wise to experiment with it.
>
>It should be noted that a Doctor on NPR stated that while Khat
>is an amphetamine, the concetration in leaves is so low that the 
>effect is the same as drinking a strong cup of coffee.  The effect
>of excessive Khat chewing is the same as excessive coffee drinking.

The LA Times had a feature story on this, and it left the impression
that since no Khat was available for the first 48 hours after the 
Marines landed that there was a real threat of withdrawal-induced
rioting. The Times, though, also claimed that Khat calmed the nerves
of the Somali gunmen, which is hard to understand if it is an 
amphetamin (unless the dose is so low, that taking it is just calming
minor withdrawal symptoms?). 
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Conservative vs Liberal Discussions...
Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:01 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
> I think one thing you are all forgetting is this:  Rush Limbaugh is NOT
> a politician.  He is an entertainer.  We have listened to uneducated liberal
> imbeciles like Whoopie Goldberg, Arsenio Hall and Jay Leno calling Bush
> and Quayle names for years.  This is protected by liberals under the guise
> of "free speech", but when we conservatives FINALLY get a voice in the media,
> that's "deliberate name-calling".

     Wow, are YOU ever stupid.  While I have no idea
what Whoopie Goldberg might have to say on any issue
whatsoever (I take it she's liberal -- so?  You have
your Charleston Heston, so what), Arsenio Hall and
Jay Leno are talk show hosts doing monologue comedy
routines.  They aren't pretending to be anything other
than comedians.  It is standard operating procedure
for comedians to make fun of current political figures.

     While Rush Limbaugh may indeed *be* nothing more
than a comedian, that is not what he presents himself
as:  He pretends to serious political commentary.

--Ralph Kennedy      {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:10:13 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <1992Dec16.230952.7452@u.washington.edu>, scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec16.131326.4169@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|> >
|> >In article <BzBL42.4wC@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
|> >> In article <92350.145137KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> >> 
|> >> >Why do we need a moderated group?  There are intelligent liberals here, who
|> >> >help stimulate thought.  The stupid ones are easy to ignore (or flame, which-
|> >> >ever is your preference. :)
|> >> 
|> >> It still creates noise.  If we can have a moderated soc.feminism
|> >> group, we can have a moderated group for conservatism.
|> >> 
|> >> My question is why does it need to be called "alt.conservative.forum?"
|> >> Couldn't it have a more intelligent name, like
|> >> "alt.politics.conservative?"
|> >
|> >or "alt.politically.correct.conservatives" which would describe what the 
|> >group is about.
|> 
|> Or alt.conservatives.who.are.such.weenies.that.they.can't.bear.to.argue.with.
|> all.those.scary.liberals.

Conservatives are quite capable of strong arguments for their positions, but
tend to get annoyed by name-calling such as this when it occurs so frequently.
Personally, I see no point in excluding commie-libs from the newsgroup if they
want to engage in honest debate (even Rush says we need to keep a couple of
them around on each college campus as museum pieces).  Perhaps a better name
for the moderated newsgroup would be alt.politics.polite, and the purpose of
moderation be to censor attitudes, not ideas.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:31:49 GMT

In article <gsh.724014665@hela.iti.org> gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:
>rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>
>>|  - Most military bases have some family housing.  There is often not
>>|enough for all of the families who would prefer to live on base,
>>|resulting in waiting lists.  Will homosexual couples now be authorized
>>|family housing?
>
>>	That would seem to be the reasonable thing, if Homosexual
>>marraiges are recognised at least to some degree by the military.
>
>
>I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps and I'll tell you this: If same-sex couples
>were authorized to get on-base housing, many, if not all, would be claiming
>to be a couple just to get out of living in the barracks.  Therefore I don't
>foresee this being a likely event.  I personally wouldn't have a problem 
>lifting the ban on gays in the military.  Sure, there would be problems, but 
>if the military took a stance as strongly as their "drugs/racism will NOT be
>tolerated" policy, gay-bashing/homophobia could probably be dealt with as
>efficiently.  This is just my opinion. 
>   
>     There is one issue I would like to bring up if I may, and that is what I 
>see as hypocracy on the part of many who are arguing for the end of the ban.  
>Having been in the military, I know what if feels like to be looked down on and
>considered second-class citizens, especially by the same people who expect the
>military to accept gays with open arms.  It's kind of like saying to the 
>military "You must accept us and our values, but you are scum and don't expect
>us to accept you and your values."  To me, that is blatant hypocracy.
>Well, that's just my opinion and I welcome any flames/disagreement or 
>discussions on the subject.  Thanks :)

The two paragraphs above are the most thought provoking (to me, anyways), 
I have seen in this thread.  Thanks!

With regard to the second paragraph, I will point out that gay people who 
are already in the military have accepted "you and your values" and 
simply want to be accepted themselves for the good soldiers that they are.

Didn't the "scummy military soldier" idea die out in the 80's or earlier?
I thought most everyone was behind the military *personnel* in the Persian 
Gulf, even if they weren't all behind the leaders.  This is an honest query, 
not a counter-argument -- you know more on this matter than I would.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10008 alt.rush-limbaugh:11511
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 23:26:53 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes:

> 
> I find it vastly amusing that those who are the most vehemently
> opposed to Dr Limbaugh almost never have anything of substance to
> say. They are, however, most glib with the cutesy-poo adjectives
> of the derogatory variety. Fortunately, this people are in the 
> minority, invariably liberal who think appearances are more
> important than substance and because of this are the REAL losers!
> 

I notice your post is full of derogatory denunciations, and is very 
cutesy-poo.  And void of real substance.  Too bad.  Silly Git!
The usual embittered neo-conservative tripe!

Pope Charles    Subgenius pope Of Houston      "Bob" loves you!

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10071 talk.abortion:51935
From: cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:19:11 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: General Electric Co., Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Dec9.051743.26068@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com writes ...
>>I am dead set against bans on abortion, I just don't want it used as a 
>>form of birth control.  It is a medical necessity in some/many cases due to
>>known defects, risks, and cases of rape or incest.  It should not be used 
>>because a pregnancy/birth would be inconvenient for the mother.
> 
> It appears that you're using "inconvenient" as a propaganda buzzword.
> Care to explain just what you consider to be inconvenient?
> 
> -- 
> Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
> ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

inconvenient - not convenient especially in giving trouble or annoyance
           Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

As previously stated, I do not object to abortion in cases where medically
necessary, or where pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (especially rape).

I am not using the word as a buzzword.  I am using it to refer to those 
instances where people are too irresponsible to take precautions beforehand.
The argument is made that women would be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to
term.  Who forced them to get pregnant?  If I drive a car carelessly, I am
forced to face the consequences (fines, jail time, injury to myself or others,
even death).  If I don't perform my job in the manner expected, I can be
fired (or in my case, even imprisoned).  Is it so wrong to expect the same
kind of responsibility in sexual relations?

-- 


 "Natural laws have no pity."       |   C.J. Burke
        Lazarus Long                |   GE Aerospace 
                                    |    (soon to be Martin Marietta)

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:46:11 CST


In article <1992Dec11.161911.630@gw.syr.ge.com>, cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com (C.J. Burke) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.051743.26068@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> > cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com writes ...
> >>I am dead set against bans on abortion, I just don't want it used as a 
> >>form of birth control.  It is a medical necessity in some/many cases due to
> >>known defects, risks, and cases of rape or incest.  It should not be used 
> >>because a pregnancy/birth would be inconvenient for the mother.
> > 
> > It appears that you're using "inconvenient" as a propaganda buzzword.
> > Care to explain just what you consider to be inconvenient?
>
> As previously stated, I do not object to abortion in cases where medically
> necessary, or where pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (especially rape).
> 
> I am not using the word as a buzzword.  I am using it to refer to those 
> instances where people are too irresponsible to take precautions beforehand.

Does this mean that you would allow abortion in cases of birth control failure?

> The argument is made that women would be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to
> term.  Who forced them to get pregnant?  If I drive a car carelessly, I am
> forced to face the consequences (fines, jail time, injury to myself or others,
> even death).

Since you brought up this analogy, why not:
1) Deny medical attention to drivers injured after driving carelessly?
2) Fine (or jail) people for having sex without using birth control?

>                If I don't perform my job in the manner expected, I can be
> fired (or in my case, even imprisoned).  Is it so wrong to expect the same
> kind of responsibility in sexual relations?

At least you've clarified that the abortion issue is really a case of 
wanting to punish people for having sex (without birth control).

-- 
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,talk.abortion