HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:55:57 GMT

graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>>>>graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>>>>>One of the arguments against voluntary prayer that I hear over and over
>>>>>from the left is that those who do not participate may feel "left out"
>>>>>and therefore feel "ostracized" or somehow "inferior".  Poor babies.

[a bunch of text deleted, since almost everything is irrelevant]

>In practice, a student should have the right to pray at any time, and
>in any place, as long as it doesn't literally upset the classroom
>environment.
...
>One may argue about this, but so far, the only argument I've seen is
>that it _might_ or _could_ make someone who doesn't participate
>feel "left out" and therefore "inferior".

Perhaps you should active *seek out* real opinions on this issue, like
supreme court decisions, and the arguments pro & con given in various
school prayer decisions.

>And, just because the supreme court says it (if it does), neither justifies 
>it nor makes it fact.

This is about the level of your argument; you don't know what the SC says,
but if it says xxx, it's wrong.

All I've seen you do is bring up an argument just to shoot it down, without
addressing actual legal questions.  This is a classic strawman argument.
It's useless to argue with you unless you decide to address real arguments,
like the "no establishment" clause.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Flash!  Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The
         Fraud Called Global Warming) 
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:35:49 GMT
Summary: Is it magic, or what??

In article <1992Nov28.200433.27906@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
> 
> >Sort of like how nobody is announcing that this last summer was the
> >third coldest of this century in north america (or something like that),
> >even though the evironmentalists were screaming from the housetops the
> >year before when we had the 1st or 2nd warmest winter this century.
> 
> What on earth are you talking about. The unusually cold summer was
> acurately PREDICTED by several leading atmospheric scientists. The
> reason is simple. Ashe from Mt. Pinatubo shielding the earth from the
> sun. However, these scientists also said that this effect will be short
> lived (after all the ashe does eventually wash out) and it will back to
> business as usual with temperatures going back on an upward trend,
> which they have been on for over 100 years. 

Just catching up on postings for the last couple weeks, and just 
*couldn't* help but notice this...

So, once the ash washes out of the atmosphere, global warming goes
right on its merry way, never to be interrupted again??  Yes, folks,
after a couple of billion years' worth of volcanic eruptions, the
environmentalists have suddenly declared that Mt. Pinatubo will be
the *last one ever*, and that from now on, no other active volcanoes
will be allowed to interfere with the big, bad global warming boogeyman
(which actually plays right into the hands of the environmentalist 
tree-hugger agenda, ironically.)  How great to know that the environ-
mentalists secretly have the power to switch off some of the strongest
forces in nature---at will, and forever!!!   After all, they can't 
allow nature itself to get in the way of their *plans* for regimenting what
humanity does economically now, can they???

Yup, no more volcanoes to worry about--ever--now that the 'Cause-We-Say-So
Environmentalist Movement is exerting its secret power over the biosphere. 

This is is an obvious example of what Mr. Limbaugh means when he talks 
about the arrogance of liberals, i.e, to make such sweeping, baseless, PHONY
presumptions. 
                                                      H.R. Holm 
*comment my own; standard disclaimers;
 pls post replies to the group only*
                                        *************************************
                                        Listening to the Clinton team's answers
                                        I'd rather not hear the questions...
                                        **************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:03:56 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

js43+@andrew.cmu.edu (James William Stepanek) writes:
: >+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
: >| Elliott Mitchell
: >|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
: >|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
: >|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
: writes:
: >Then maybe you could spend some of your time convincing your fellows that 
: >God is out of schools because He wants to be and to quit trying to force my 
: >child to pray in school?
: 
: Wow religious slavery, new concept. Gee as I recall the concept proposed
: has always been voluntary school prayer, how that amounts to forcing
: your kid to pray rather escapes me, and I'm an athiest myself. Typical
: Liberal ranting in that freedom of choice is fine as long as the choice
: offered is what they like. 
: James Stepanek
: esp       

Guess I'll have to say it again- voluntary school prayer is not 
illegal.   
I'll repeat that for the judgement impaired among us:  voluntary
school prayer is not illegal.
There have been instances in which overzealous administrators
stopped kids from praying in the lunchroom, etc., and that's 
wrong, unjust, oppressive, all that nasty kinda stuff- but it's
not anybody's official policy.  What's not allowed under the 
doctrine of separation of church and state is state-sponsored 
prayer.  Teachers in public schools are agents of the state, and
if they lead their charges in prayer, that amounts to state
sponsored religion.  It's really very simple.  
The far right spin on this issue- that the evil liberals were
forbidding our children to pray- has been very successful, but
it ain't accurate, folks.

Bill  
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11774 talk.abortion:52173
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: When does personhood begin?
Keywords: abortion, religion
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:11:45 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Dec7.233224.16046@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu
(Brian Kauffman) writes:
|>stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>Abortion is no more strictly a religious issue than murder is.  [...]
|>Those who favor legal abortion often say, we don't know when human life
|>starts or science can't tell us when human life begins.  This statement
|>can only be made based on (at least) a quasi-religious belief in some
|>extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life.  The biological
|>facts are not in question (at least, not this century), and these, it
|>seems to me, are the only sound basis for deciding what is and isn't
|>human life.
|
|First of all, "human life" begins way before conception.  Conceptions marks
|an ongoing permutation of continuous chain of human life.  I think the
|concept you're grasping at is roughly "personhood".

Correct.  I meant to say "a human life".  Sorry.

|Next, if you want to claim that aborting-a-zygote is essentially the same as 
|a typical murder (the unjustified killing of a born person), then please 
|explain to us, with a biological (non-religious) explaination:
|1) why a zygote is essentially the same a typical born person
|   (this is usually where religion creeps in)

I wasn't arguing that, but rather whether or not abortion is a
legitimate issue for public debate and law, or rather simply a matter of
personal choice.  However, since you ask I will answer:

How are they different?  To kill a new born child is unquestionably
murder.*  What happened in the few hours of the birthing process the
unborn child into a person?  Where in the changes from conception to
adulthood does the concepta become a person?  There is no bright line,
no change we can point to that clearly marks this boundary, except
conception.  The only firm footing I can find to separate the non-person
(which you can kill) from the person (which you can not) is biological. 
The zygote is biologically a human being.  So to answer your question, a
zygote is the same as a born person in that they are both biologically
human beings.

* Legally at least.  I note with alarm that it seems more and more
people are questioning even that -- I see this an inevitable result of
legal abortion

|...and assuming you succeed in answering that, then continue to explain:
|2) under what conditions aborting-a-zygote/person is unjustified
|...and assuming you succeed in answering that, then continue to explain:

Under all conditions, except to save the life of the mother.

|3) how you will identify such conditions in practice

I view abortion to save the life of the mother as self-defense, and I
would treat it the same way, i.e. the same standards would apply.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush lets something slip ...
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:31:55 GMT

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>In article <JASON.92Nov30100309@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:

>>	I'm not too surprised by this, because many people have a
>>narrow minded view of what conservative means.  If you think a
>>conservative is automatically a Christian and a religious extremist,
>>you have no idea what it means.

>Yeah, I know what you mean. Sort of like watching Rush to find 
>out what liberalism means!  :-)


	exactly.  just as religious extremists do not characterize
	what it means to be a conservative, environmental extremists
	do not characterize what a liberal is.  however, Rush seems
	to think so and tries to make that connection every chance
	he gets.

	however, i would add that imho, the religious extremists are
	a much more powerful controlling subgroup of the republican
	party than environmental extremists are of the democratic
	party.  this is just my opinion.  one example i would use
	to back this statement is simply the contents of the republican
	party platform that was passed during the republican convention.
	it was clearly dominated by the religious right on topics such
	as abortion, prayer, and religious involment with government, to
	the point that some moderate republicans considered trying to
	split the republican party.  in fact, i thought that the fate
	of the republican party still wasn't over - talk about splitting
	the party may come back.

danj.
--
dan jatnieks.                      i'll take these opinions if no-one else will.
daj20@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com

Seinfeld, Star Trek TNG, The Simpsons - that's all I need, I don't need anyth...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: Homophobe: A definition please!
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:48:37 GMT

cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:


>  Ever since this gays in the military thing got started and the people
>of Colorado voted their opinion regarding proposition 2 I've heard liberals
>calling people homophobes. Please define this term for me as I have failed
>to find it after searching through 2000+ pages of the Webster's Unabridged
>Dictionary. It would seem (taken from the context in which it is normally) 
>used that it is a term used to describe a person who dislikes homosexuals. 
>  If the word is broken down into it's two Latin based parts HOMO- and
>-PHOBE you get a different meaning all together.
>          HOMO- Of the same (sex in this instance).
>        -PHOBE  A person with an irrational fear of.  
>-OR- A person with an irrational fear of someone of the same sex.
>Somehow I don't think this is the meaning trying to be expressed here.
>Some liberal news reporter probably coined the term (not bothering to 
>determine its actual meaning) then all the little liberals followed along
>blindly. In the future please use some intelligence in your name calling.

  Exactly Wally!  I have been interested in this aspect of the English lang.,
  specifically that compound words DON'T have to make sense,  for example:
  
  Alcoholic - a person that is addicted to alcohol
  Chocoholic - a person that is addicted to chocolate
  
  If we accept the first word, then why is the second word correct?  It seems
  to me that is should be "chocolateic" or "chocolatic", namely why is there
  a fragment of the word alcohol in the second word?  Analogously, homophobe
  should really be "homosexualphobe"! (hehehe) since if you leave off the 
  "sexual" as in "homophobe" this seems to be your meaning:
  
  homophobe  - someone who is afraid of "sameness"  
  
  But then my main complaint with "homophobe" is that deep down I dislike its
  PC intent, which I think is meant to imply that the disapproval of a
  lifestyle can only be the result of an unconscious instinct i.e. fear.
  If PC people really believe this then why are they so hateful to homophobes?
  According to them their phobia is just an unconscious fear and it results
  from lack of understanding -- so the sensitive liberal thing to do would be
  to treat homophobes with compassion and understanding...!    

  Mark
  schlegel@unomaha.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez)
Subject: Bo Gritz
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:02:06 GMT

In a recent post Mr. Crocker calls the bible a 2000 year
old piece of fiction...hmmm...I'm just going out to join
the libertarian party.  Anyone who can audaciously
attack something important to millions of americans is
alright by my book. 

Tell me Mr. Crocker, what piece of wisdom do you base
your life off of.  Tell everyone what book or literature
that you might agree with, or that defines your
positions, so we can go out and get it.  I don't know a 
whole bunch about the libertarian party, all I remember
 is when I first learned about them, I thought they were
 nuts.  So where is libertarian philosphy written, is it
just common sense?  Should it be obvious to us?

				John R. Gonzalez
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: consumer confidence (Clinton's achievements)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:18:00 GMT
Summary: But what about Congress??
	 ...and which Continental Utopia??....

In article <42374@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
> Well I noticed on television that consumer confidence in the economy
> has gone up 20 points since the elections. I guess one does not have
> to be inaugurated to make a difference. People seem to have high
> expectations of Clinton.

Symbolism over substance, indeed.  YOU Clinton PEOPLE just *don't* get it
*still*, do you???  The guy's not even in office yet, and he just works
all this big magic in your eyes, doesn't he??  Wait a year....we'll start
to see the big illusion, big time, by then......

> Clinton also announced that appointees have to agree not to work for
> a lobbyist for 4 years after they leave government. They are alos
> not allowed to looby for foreign investors/companies. i guess we
> have finally found a government with a consience.

WOW!  Whoop-de-do!  That in itself will show us, won't it?  Government
with a conscience?  Try dismantling the creature called `Congress' and 
starting over......

> 1992 When americans voted for change and created hope for a better
> future for all of us not some of us.

Oh, some of us voted for change, all right.  For starters, how about
eliminating the income tax and the IRS?  Change?  "Courage"??  The Clinton/
Democratic Tinker Squad wouldn't even have the pebbles for change like that,
much less the *balls*.......

> I am off to Europe for a month

Hmmmmm....to which  Wonderland Continental Utopia that the PC Democratic
Party crowd aches so to carbon-copy over here, I wonder......

                                                     H.R. Holm


                                   *********************************************                                   Listening to some of the Clinton team answers                                   I wouldn't really want to hear the questions
                                   ********************************************
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11955 alt.politics.clinton:18896 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10481 alt.politics.bush:14761
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 19 Dec 1992 07:04:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) says:

>What the hell does a person's political affiliations have to do with
>Physics?!  Either the man knew his business or didn't.  But to gloat over
>the idea that you toppled him (as if he was Somoza or someone) and that his
>knowledge as a physcists was irrelevant, clearly shows a you speak for a group 
>of people that have their priorities mixed up.
>
>By that kind of thinking you would have preferred to replace Edward Teller
>with Freddie Mercury (whom I do believe had a PhD in Astrophysics from
>Oxford).  To hell with truth, dogma is more important.

     You do believe that, but I don't.  Brian May of Queen--not Mercury--
has an advanced degree in astrophysics.  And the last sentence of the first
paragraph above clearly shows that you can't write coherent prose.  Have a
nice day.
-- 
    Vern Morrison               |  Only the strong survive: "I'm just not
    aa680@po.cwru.edu           |  going to have too much sympathy when I'm  
    vern@cray.csuohio.edu       |  putting in 50- to 80-hour weeks and not     
    Parma, Ohio: a modern Eden  |  seeing others keep up." --John A. Hnat
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11619 alt.politics.clinton:18593
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:02:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec11.193907.1831@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.203109.22379@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>Where is any individual guaranteed the right to serve in the military.  
>>This has nothing to do with equal rights.
>
>The military is a tremendous portion of the national budget, paid for through
>taxpayer money.  It's one of the major opportunities in this country for
>employment and service.  You want to deny a whole class of people this
>opportunity for service - I guess you feel that it's only for "your kind",
>your kind being people you consider "normal".  Well, I have a different
>definition of normal than you do.  We don't have room in the public sector
>for the kind of wholesale discrimination you espouse.

Which wholesale discrimination do I espouse?  I have never said that I 
wanted to keep anyone out of the military except in two cases. 1) Anyone 
who is not physically strong enough to perform essential tasks should 
not be allowed, and 2) people who are sexually attracted to foxhole-mates 
should not be allowed.

Where is any individual guaranteed the right to serve in the military.
This has nothing to do with equal rights.

Ted
 

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11692 alt.politics.clinton:18660
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:47:00 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec11.230618.29412@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <YOUNG.92Dec11163254@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:

>Peter, read "Book Burning" by Cal Thomas, find the evidence I have 
>cited, then please shut the hell up.

For those of you who don't know, Cal Thomas is a columnist who's views can be
fairly characterized as extremely right-wing.  For example, he claims that
George Bush lost the election not because he embraced the far right but
because he didn't take the far right seriously enough.  I haven't been
impressed by anything of his that I've read so far.  Not what I consider an
authoritative source of information.  But in fairness, I can't judge his book
before I read it.  But there are other books I'm much more interested in 
reading.

     - Dave Borden
       borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: MurderPhobes, RapistPhobes, etc. (was: Re: antihomosex...)
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:58:42 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush) writes:
: In article <1992Dec14.171835.22346@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
: >In article <1992Dec12.163349.8934@mic.ucla.edu>, rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
: >|> A solution to the rhetorical confusion here:
: >|> 
: >|> Since gay rights activists have chosen to define homophobes as
: >|> anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a completely
: >|> normal, moral, and admirable life-style (and if they
: >|> deny this, they are LYING), then let us:
: >|> 
: >|> coin the term MurderPhobia to describe the viewpoint that murdering
: >|> other people is wrong.
: >|> 
: >|> coin the term RapistPhobe to describe anyone who is so
: >|> closed-minded as to deny rapists the right to live how they want.
: >|> 
: >|> coin the term TheftaPhobia to describe that unbelievably
: >|> primitive attitude that stealing is wrong.
: >
: >All of these crimes hurt other people.  How does being homosexual
: >hurt someone else?  Why should you disapprove of them?  Is it your
: >job to judge them?
: >
: >Like shooting stupid fish in a barrel...
: >
: >Jared Dahl
: >Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
: >Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
: 
: If that's the only response you can come up with, then just
: replace Murderers, Rapists, and Thieves with Prostitutes,
: (adult)Pornography advocates, and Drug Users.  It is just as easy to say
: that these people don't hurt others, when in reality they do.
: 
: The "we don't hurt others" line is the only line that gays have that
: even comes close to being a substantial argument, but it quickly falls
: apart.                

Argument by assertion.  Kindly attempt to say something intelligent
so that we can have an actual discussion here.  Towit:

How, exactly, do homosexuals hurt other people AS A FUNCTION OF
THEIR SEXUALITY?

Why do gays *need* "a substantial argument" for their sexual
practices?

Bill   
C
C
How, exactly, do.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12013 alt.politics.clinton:18959