HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:13:38 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <q182wB1w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:
>
>> What state do you live in that you can't send your children to the school
>> of your choice?
>
>Almost any. Parents have their assets confiscated, and possibly their
>children, if they attempt to refuse to pay tribute to the local school
>board, and use the money to send their kids to a real school.

There's a profound difference between sending one's children to the school of
one's choice while simultaneously complying with the laws and regulations of 
the region one lives in, and trying to send one's children to the school of
one's choice while simultaneously breaking the laws and regulations of the
region one lives in.  However, the difference does NOT involve the question
of whether one is allowed to send one's children to the school of one's
choice.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com		x 6244  ----------------+
|  I don't belong to any organized political party:  I'm a Democrat.	|
|						-- Will Rogers		|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:22:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

In alt.rush-limbaugh, Dave Bernard writes:
>>> Brian Douglass writes:
>>> Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for Boycotts
> 
> I've also heard that business at the ski resorts is up 20% this year.  Which
> brings to mind something I said here a couple months ago:don't start boycotts
> you're not sure of winning.  If you don't win, it makes your cause appear to
> have less merit than it did before, in effect vindicates the opposing cause.
> 
> 	Dave


		the reason tourism is up in colorado in general is,
		as dave points out, the ski resorts are doing a boomin'
		business thanks to nature's bounty (we've been
		pounded by snow since early november...  the increase
		is in relation to last year which was miserable w.r.t.
		early snowfall.


pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:34:44 GMT

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>To be specific, the "country founded upon a belief in God" is the 
>United States of America.

<bzzt> Sorry, but thanks for playing. [see below]

>"...the country founded upon atheism and a belief in man" is, ahem, was
>the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

This is also historically incorrect.  The "-ism" WRT the USSR is
attributable to Karl Marx.

>Indeed.  I've read Tom and Ben and George, et. al. 

Apparently you've not paid enough attention.  Read Andrew Jackson
while you're at it.  

>My statement stands.
>I've looked at the Bill of Rights.  If Tom, George, Ben, or anyone else
>had wanted to remove the religious foundations from the country, they
>had only to delete the amendment concerning "respect to religion".

The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion doesn't imply
in the least a Christian foundation for our country.  In fact, it
specifically denies the possibility of the country having a single
religious influence.

>Furthermore, it seems that these boys believed man was "endowed with
>certain inalienable rights".  Now they tended to be somewhat better
>schooled in English than you, and undoubtedly understood that one 
>cannot be "endowed" unless Someone is doing the endowing.  

That's a stretch of logic to its extremes.  You're giving Thomas
Jefferson more credit than he deserves.  His own religious beliefs
were in no way representative of the rest.  Andrew Jackson, Benjamin
Franklin, and George Washington are on record as being atheists.

>Finally,
>the numerous references to a Supreme Being that can be found in the public
>and private papers of all of these gentlemen makes it quite clear that
>this belief was the foundation of their conception of this country.

Back it up or take it back.  I think you'll find very little religious
influence in the lives of most of those who wrote the Constitution.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith)
Subject: Re: Colorado boycott
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:06:27 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Keywords: school choice, hypocrisy
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:23:57 GMT

wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>|     Perhaps. He definitely opposes policies which would result in a 
>| wholesale exodus of funding from already sagging public schools.

>The implicit point here is that it is unimportant what kind of education
>the children get, so long as _public schools_ survive.  

    If you can demonstrate to me who is going to take over the task of 
dealing with all those young people then I'm all ears. If we disbanded 
public schools tommorrow then private and parochial schools would be 
overwhelmed the day after that.

>|     IMHO before we start handing out what are essentially tax refunds for 
>| disgruntled parents we ought to look at giving those same refunds to people 
>| who don't burden the education system at all.

>And whose infecundity contributes no creative minds to the future...

    Perhaps. It's my belief that teachers do just as much to produce 
creative minds as parents. In fact, depending on which parents we're 
talking about, teachers might actually have a better batting average.

>| At that point maybe it will 
>| become obvious that tax money paid for public education is not tagged for 
>| the personal use of any individual kids, and that even people who don't 
>| have kids using the system enjoy benefits as a result of living in a 
>| society which provides its citizens with a basic education.

>We agree that education is a social good.  The question then becomes,
>"how best to provide it?"  I think that the public education system is
>bankrupt, financially and educationally.  I am not convinced that we 
>would not be better off without it.  

    Would you then agree that the primary goal of Bush's school choice 
plan is the wholesale dismantlement of the public education system? 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: School choice/Liberal Support
Keywords: school choice, hypocrisy
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:06:35 GMT

For all those involved in this discussion I suggest a good essay just printed
by the Brooking's Institute, authored by Chubb and Moe, "School Reform". They
are Moderate/Liberals who fully support a choice system, including the
integration of private schools of choice.

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia
UCNS/Institute of Higher Ed. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: TOURISM UP?
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

-> Newsgroups:
-> alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correc
-> From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
-> Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
-> Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for
-> Boycotts.

Really? Who reported this? (And are you suggesting a causal
relationship?)  Last I heard, everybody and its sibling was
cancelling conventions and events held in Colorado.  Maybe the
effects haven't taken place yet.
                                             
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13056 alt.politics.clinton:19636
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:48:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan4.145822.22420@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>
>Just as we are coming to the similar realization that our stereotypes about
>gays are similarly unfounded.

Sure they are.  I just finished reading an article in the latest issue of
Newsweek, titled "The Young and The Restless" and my first thought was;
gee just like any typical heterosexual teenager - NOT!

And here in lies the biggest problem that the gay rights crowd faces and
can't seem to deal with: that despite all the instance the stereotypes are
false, anyone who's lived in a large urban area knows from experience that
most are not false.  I was born and raised for the better part of my life
in NYC and I will tell you that no matter what you say, I saw first hand
behavior in public places ranging from beaches to street corners, that
in no way compared to anything I'd ever witnessed in the heterosexual
community, in public or in private.

Even in smaller cities the problems are becoming all to common.  In the
last few years Pittsburgh has (because of demands from neighborhood residents)
had to shut off access roads to public parks and pass anti cruising measures
to try to stop the day and night sex parades that our gay community seems
to think are perfectly normal and acceptable forms of public behavior.  
Again, there are no comparable heterosexual exhibitions and even the seediest
of their behavior (that which takes place between men and prostitutes for
example) takes place in isolated parts of downtown, away from residential 
neighborhoods, and even then in the privacy of a hotel room usually.

Argue 'til you're blue in the face if you'd like, that the stereotypes are
false, but what do you think most people will use to form opinions; your
word on the matter or what they see with their own two eyes?

PSG

From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:12:57 GMT
Subject: Re: TOURISM UP?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) writes:
>-> Newsgroups:
>-> alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correc
>-> From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
>-> Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
>-> Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for
>-> Boycotts.
> 
> Really? Who reported this? (And are you suggesting a causal
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> relationship?)  Last I heard, everybody and its sibling was
> cancelling conventions and events held in Colorado.  Maybe the
> effects haven't taken place yet.
>                                              
	nearly every major newspapaer in colorado has reported that
	overall tourism is up [i'm not sure what percentage] and
	this is due mainly to nature's bounty [she's dumped a ton
	o' snow on the ski resorts... YIPPEEE!].  while many organ-
	izations are taking a position by declaring a *boycott*, 
	there has not been any effect so far...  after the ski season,
	we'll see if there is any impact; but until then...
	H A P P Y  S K I I N G !!!


pjm.
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:27:56 GMT
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu

In article <1ikjsdINNog7@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> rww@mugwump.cl.msu.edu (Richard W. Wiggins) writes:

>Try another analogy: do you think someone who supports soup 
>kitchens for the poor is hypocritical if he ever eats at a
>nice restaurant?

    Ahhh,  Ummmm, do you guys READ what you say.  What a damning analogy.
A very good reason FOR a voucher system, you are damning the public school
system with your own words(!).  If it is what you say, why not give 
EVERYONE the privilege of getting out, at NO ADDITIONAL COST!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:02:49 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec31.153208.6085@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.154724.12695@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:

Summary of recent lines in this thread which I misplaced:

The preceding statement in the debate was a statement about homosexuality
being a behavioral trait, while blackness is not; this was an attempt to
rebut the comparison of the gays in the military issue with the blacks in
the military issue.  The following line is my rebuttal to that.

>]So is Christianity.  What's the difference?
>
>Christianity is a belief, not a trait.

It's a mode of behavior, as well as a belief.  Going to church on Sunday is
a type of behavior, just as sleeping late on Sunday, like I generally do, is
a type of behavior.  Handing out pamphlets about Jesus in the subways or the
street corner is a type of behavior.  When these modes of behavior are
exhibited on a regular basis, or even on a merely occasional basis, it's
accurate to call them "behavioral traits".  That's not a judgement, just a
definition.  The difference is that Christianity is a behavior motivated by
a belief, whereas homosexuality is a behavior motivated by a natural state
(the state of being homosexual) which is a product of genetics and/or
environment (an unsettled issue, but leaning towards genetics lately, I've
read).  Note that adherence to the Christian belief system is a product of
environment, usually the environment of being raised in a Christian home,
though there are other environments in which it occurs.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13511 alt.sex:41542 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12100 alt.politics.correct:6127 alt.politics.equality:52 alt.politics.homosexuality:9279 alt.politics.clinton:19985
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Date: 10 Jan 1993 01:24 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan8.082052.1759@anasazi.com>, karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes...
|In article <7JAN199309294308@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|>| [ cannot we come up with anti-descrimination laws of equal universality? ]
|>
|>	Certainly.  Why not say something like: "No person shall
|>	be deprived of employment, housing, or economic service
|>	simply due to his or her actual or perceived sexual ori-
|>	entation - regardless of what that orientation may be."
|>
|Seems to me you just gave protected status to pederasts.  Was that your
|intention?  (You might also explain why or why not.)

	Of course it was not my intention, but it was my intention
to leave it vague enough so as to get someone to raise the issue.

	Sexual orientation defines what gender you're attracted to,
and nothing more.  It does not define one's practises, or one's other
sexual preferences.

	If we ever did make laws which refered to sexual practises,
we could stipulate that such freedoms only involve consenting adults.
But the proposal as I have originally stated it does not
protect pedophiles.

GS

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:45:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.134018.21603@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes...
>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeyer steven l,
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>
>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>
>>Let's take a clear look at a couple of examples of *secular* reasoning:
>>
>>     <badly argued secular philosophy omitted>
> 
>Reasoning, of any sort, is good.  Religious or secular, when sound arguments
>are based on mutually accepted premises they generally lead to areas of
>agreement.
> 
>However, the problem with the common application of "religious reasoning" is
>that it is based on biblical premises, which are only acceptable to those
>who accept the Bible as doctrine.

I don't recall the argument being specifically limited to Christianity.

Was it?

>Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()
> 
>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | tFreedom means sometimes
>Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
>Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
>BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you offa.

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Borgy Boy's squeals
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:34:44 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1684@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu sez:
>In fact I'll make a little prediction, just for the fun of it...
>
>I say that three years from now, after Bill Clinton and Congress have tried 
>to use the force of law to regulate speech,

Like, say, proposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning?


> demand acceptance of their values

Like, say, claiming that they have a monopoly on Family Values?


>and generally ignored the will of the majority

Like, say, breaking a campaign promise not to impose new taxes?


> I say that the LA riots will
>pale in comparison to the fighting you'll see in the streets of major
>cities.



>WE WILL BE HEARD!  And if you and that lilly-white-puke-draft-dodging-coward
>of a president try to ignore us, well we'll just have to get a little louder
>and a little nastier and if that doesn't get your attention then a bit louder
>and even nastier that you can imagine.  So loud that you just might shutter at
>the chant of "Duke for President" that you might hear in '96.  

I might even shudder.  But probably not.



-- 
  I stared balefully out at the studio audience, which was chanting
  something that sounded like "dork".     -Mark Leyner

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:09:05 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:03:31 GMT, wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) said:
Will> Well, Miss Chelsea Clinton will avoid going to public school
Will> this year by virtue of her parents' money and connections.
Will> As Mr. Limbaugh pointed out today, Gov. Clinton opposes
Will> school choice for middle and lower class people, but not
Will> members of his own economic class.

Hmmm. Did Clinton oppose school choice for anyone? If so, when? 

I believe he does oppose the idea of having parents send their children to
a non-public school and receive a voucher to transfer public school funds
for this purpose.

There is a big difference between being free to send your children to a
private school at your own expense (school choice) and doing the same with
public school funds to subsidize it through vouchers (school choice,
according to Limbaugh and company).

I've never heard Clinton nor any other politician advocating that anyone
not be free to send their children to whatever schools they wanted.

Personally, I do find it a bit tacky of Clinton to send Chelsea to a
private school, but that is his choice as a parent. Now, I know that
taxpayers foot the bill for the Secret Service to protect the President's
family, but are we paying for her private school? [No.] Are funds being
moved from the public school system to pay for her private school? [No.]

Fine. What's the problem then?

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Freedom, freedom, take the wall away! Freedom, freedom, we will not obey!