HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kens@css.itd.umich.edu (Ken Small)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Most Qualified (was Re: Clarence Thomas)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 01:53:57 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan - ITD Consulting and Support
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: blammo.css.itd.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Ted Krueger (krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu) wrote:
: I think that this thread is the perfect place to voice my question.

: Do any of you pro-Clinton (and especially anti-Thomas) types believe 
: that Zoe Baird is the BEST, MOST QUALIFIED person to be attorney 
: general?

No I don't. She's a corporate insurance lawyer,for one, which
means she's moreor less just a mercenary.  Doesn't give her
much breadth of experience either.  She's practically GOP.

: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Sure is.

--
Ken Small    kens@umich.edu
I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:56:50 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

]so what is with the 'Flag Box' in the Background on his show?

]Or is he just trying to SUCK UP to vets who know what it
]is suppose to mean?

Yo, Drieux.... I'm a vet. Why don't you tell ME what it is supposed
to mean?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14848 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13504 alt.politics.clinton:20956 alt.politics.bush:16261 alt.politics.homosexuality:10046
From: eric@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Eric Kuhnen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Tom Peregrin is a nit wit.
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:33:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>ANNOUNCEMENT!  ANNOUNCEMENT!  ANNOUNCEMENT!  ANNOUNCEMENT!
>To all readers of all newsgroups everywhere!  Attention!  Do not get 
>involved in net.discussions with Tom Peregrin.  If you disregard my 
>words, the following will happen:

[8 Theses Deleted]

I must agree with Ted on this one.  I get the impression from Tom's posts
and conversations with me and others that he goes for the quick and easy
ridicule/humor instead of writing anything of real substance.  I stopped
having conversations with him some months ago.

Normally, I would keep my own counsel instead of asking others to not talk
with Tom.  However, it is a bit unnerving to have Tom's particular brand of
static cluttering up the reception, so to speak.  I understand and endorse
the sentiment, Ted.

Eric

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments and criticism are welcome.  Flames to /dev/null.  "Get a life"
drivel to /dev/mirror.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15353 alt.sex:43377
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:57:30 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XXXDate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:57:31 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A78C0D0BFE010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <john.728106825@misty> John R. Moore, john@anasazi.com writes:
>00mlschmalz@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>
>]In article <john.727819560@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
>]> :) :) :) (only half in smiles.... this shows the idiocy of creating
>]> preferencebased governmentally recognized groups)
>]> John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 
(6029519326)
>
>]There is a de facto recognition of a sub group, but the point of all 
>]of this is to eliminate the artificial separation that the ignorant 
>]and the fearful create in the workplace, et al.  There is more recognition 
>]and separation in making rules whereby one CAN be separated and 
>]discriminated against than there is in trying to integrate the separated.
>
>Would you care to put that in English?

Translation: Some heterosexuals feel that their position is morally superior
to gays (i.e. "special") and, therefore, they are morally justified to
discriminate against them with regards to such things as employment and
housing opportunities.  Clear now?

>]The only people I've ever met that want specially recognized divisions 
>]are the heterosexuals who see this discrimination as something "morally" 
>]right.  Those of my friends who are homosexual don't want segregation, 
>]separate regognition, or special treatment. They want acceptance and
>]integration.
>
>Then why are they advocating policies which will in fact create
>separate recognition and special treatment? Perhaps they are like
>many who fail to differentiate between the goals of a proposed
>policy and the actual effects of that policy?

It is those who unjustly discriminate who, in fact, created the original
"special recognition and treatment."  The policies which are being advocated
are trying to =end= that "special" (negative) treatment.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:17:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.150318.18141@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:
> someone is conservative, it is generally from their point of view.  I
> tend to look at it in terms of the baseball outfield.  It is my
> belief that Clinton, his image consultants in the media, and his 
> pals in Hollywood all think that he'd be a gold-glove centerfielder,
> who could very easily range his way over to right field whenever he
> wanted to.  However, the influence of Hillary and his standing on issues
> social (IMHO -- mind you, this is MY opinion; last time I checked, this
> was not being banned by the P.C. thought police) tends to place the
> President in about the second or third row of the left field bleachers,
> selling peanuts and Billy Beer.
> 
>      The location of other prominent politicians and other folk would
> be as follows:
> 
>      Jack Kemp -- the TRUE gold-glove CF; has a great arm.
>      Edward M. Kennedy -- stuck at a tailgate party in the LF parking lot.
>      Rush Limbaugh -- seats on the first base side (and is happy with them.)
>      
Does this put Bush over/behind the wall in center field and Danny boy
behind home-plate or in one of the dug-outs?
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: A Critique of the Rush Limbaugh Show
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:31:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Greetings,

I, for a while, listened to the radio show for a while and have
seen a few episodes of the TV show. I don't usually watch Rush
but sometimes I tune in just to see if he's saying anything new
or insightful. By and large, he going thru the same routine
he always is.

Rush creates a world where there are liberals--the evil ones--
and the conservatives--the good ones. The liberals are 
instrinsically evil and conservatives are instrisically good.
All Republicans fight for less government. Blah! All 
Democrats fight for more government. 

Rush centers around a set number of issues and rarely variates.
He focuses strictly on issues regarding personal liberties such
as abortion. He never engage the audience in an issue that the
news does not cover. He rarely ever takes up a cause and pushes
it. 

I have virtually no idea how he stands on economic liberties.
The only thing I know is that he wants less taxes. But he 
never says where to cut. He as at times criticized social
security and other government programs but mentions them
briefly. 

He never criticizes Republicans and apparently never wants
to. The reason why he never discuses economic liberties in
depth is he'd probably find the Republicans are just as
guilty as the Democrats in promoting big government.
Certain issues that I believe he has not covered:
-- Attempt to break up Microsoft
-- Attempts at stopping British Air from buying US Air
-- Bush administration's import tax on French wine 
-- Measures in NAFTA that don't make it free trade
-- Sen. Simpson's legislation to make hiring illegals illegal
-- Govt. subsidies championed by both Republicans and Democrats

If he would deal with these issues, his show would no longer
be an ad for the Republican Party. Rush only deals with an
extremely narrow portion of the news and plugs himself as
presenting the whole picture.

On the whole, his show at times seems...glib. He only
covers the surface of politics rather than its innards.

Virtually,

Edmund J. Ryan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:47:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.220123.1605@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>I think it's perfectly okay for someone to quote Leviticus about
>homosexuality, as long as s/he follows it himself/herself.  So has s/he
>given up:
>

My dear Evelyn: I guess that you are confussed:

One thing is to quote something (Leviticus in this case), and
another completely different is to follow what is written there.
So, these people are saying that homosexuality is wrong because
it goes against some stuff written in Leviticus. They are not saying
that they are not gay becuase of that.
Then, the consistent thing for them is to quote Leviticus to
show that all the other things are also wrong, which is not the same 
as not doing them because they are wrong.

Anyway, it is not written that they should follow all these
rules or shut up. I guess that they feel pretty guilty about
not following all of them

So, be happy for them and say: At least they follow one rule, which is 
better than following none.

AAP
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Requiem" for the Common Man
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:47:11 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

In article 250193115059@gmiller.worldbank.org, gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller) writes:
>Apparently the half of Rush's brain that is tied behind his back contains
>the correct title for the Aaron Copland piece used for the Clinton
>whoop-de-doos. RL has repeatedly and without any evident sarcasm or other
>overt reference referred to it as "Requiem for the Common Man." It is
>"Fanfare for..." Think about it: why would the Olympics want to use funeral
>music as a theme? Does Rush remind anyone else of a right-wing Mort Sahl
>(who is sadly unfunny these days)...Gene


I heard Rush publicly acknowledge his mistake, that it is indeed called "Fanfare"
and not "Requiem."  But in his way, he insisted that in this particular case
his error was yet more valid than the right answer.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Aspin speaks on gays in military
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:24:51 GMT

From the San Jose Mercury News, Monday, January 25, 1993

ASPIN URGES COMPROMISE ON MILITARY'S BAN ON GAYS

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Les Aspin said Sunday that President
Clinton faces defeat in Congress on his pledge to lift the ban on gays
in the military and appealed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to help
him "come up with something that is broadly acceptable to everybody."

Aspin, who made his remarks on the eve of a White House meeting between
Clinton and the Joint Chiefs to discuss the president's pledge to
overturn the ban, also seemed to suggest that the ban on gays might not
be lifted if he does not get agreement from the Joint Chiefs.

Saying that a proposal on how to implement the order would take six
months, Aspin said: "Let us see if we can work it out.  If we can't
work it out, we'll disagree, and the thing won't happen."

A defense official said that in "no way" was Aspin backing away from
Clinton's pledge, and White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers
reiterated that "the president is committed to moving forward."

To others, though, it seemed that Aspin had weakened Clinton's pledge.
"Those of us who don't want the policy to be changed, listening to
Aspin today, we're encouraged," on Army staff officer said.

Aspin made the remarks on CBS's "Face the Nation," where questioning
about the ban on gays dominated the program.

"The point you've got to understand is that as a practical matter,
we are not going to be able to force this down the throat of the
Congress," he said.  "If the Congress does not like it, it isn't going
to happen."

The former House member said that if Clinton signed an executive order 
lifting it, Congress could vote to restore the ban.  Even if Clinton
vetoed such a law and was sustained, Aspin said, "they can put that 
amendment on something that he can't veto."

Saying there were "pressures" on all sides to reach an agreement that 
congress would find acceptable, accept, Asping urged gay and lesbian 
groups and the military to compromise.

"My argument to the military is, sooner or later the courts are going
to come at you on this issue," Aspin said.  The Pentagon "can object and
stonewall" in the short run, he said, but evenutally the courts would rule
"that this is unconstitutional."

The defense official, who asked not to be identified, said Aspin's
remarks were intended as a signal to the Joint Chiefs, who are
worried about how the executive order would affect, for example,
recruitment, discipline, housing, and battlefield sleeping arrangements.

Aspin's comments about congressional opoisition came after "Face the
Nation" anchor Bob Schieffer disclosed that a draft memo addressed
to Clinton quoted Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, D-Maine, as 
saying the White House could count on only 30 votes.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:09:12 GMT

In article <1jn80uINN4j0@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>  Do you really not have any understanding 
>as to why laws like those from Leviticus are not still followed, while 
>sexual morality/conduct ones are?   

Oooh, oooh!  I know the answer!  Call on me!  Call on me!

Because the Bible is not inerrant, and not all Biblical
precepts apply equally?

We're still where we were several days ago:  several people
are claiming Biblical inerrancy and literalness, yet
whenever the subject of the proscriptions which are not
generally obeyed comes up, someone then says that some laws
are civil, some are moral, and some are ritual without
coming up with a Biblical reference for their taxonomy.
They also never bother explaining why they aren't trying to
turn slanderers (obligatory N.T. ref.) into second-class
citizens.

Really, Walter - you're not thinking very clearly.  Try
putting all the pieces together and see if you can come up
with something internally consistent.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14750 alt.politics.clinton:20849 alt.politics.bush:16229 alt.politics.homosexuality:9985
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:37:17 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> In article <1jn80uINN4j0@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> >  Do you really not have any understanding 
> >as to why laws like those from Leviticus are not still followed, while 
> >sexual morality/conduct ones are?   
> 
> Oooh, oooh!  I know the answer!  Call on me!  Call on me!

Ah, the young lady in the 3rd row, Ms. Shore?  

> Because the Bible is not inerrant, and not all Biblical
> precepts apply equally?

Mmmmm..., no, not exactly, anyone have something to add?  

> We're still where we were several days ago:  several people
> are claiming Biblical inerrancy and literalness, yet
> whenever the subject of the proscriptions which are not
> generally obeyed comes up, someone then says that some laws
> are civil, some are moral, and some are ritual without
> coming up with a Biblical reference for their taxonomy.

As I asked Ms. Leeper, do you have any upbringing or background 
in this area?  It's a lenghty topic, that I don't imagine too many 
folks are likely to undertake with someone who appears to have 
no interest in the subject except to ridicule or twist, which 
is how you're coming across.  

> They also never bother explaining why they aren't trying to
> turn slanderers (obligatory N.T. ref.) into second-class
> citizens.

Most Christians aren't trying to turn homosexuals into 2nd 
class citizens, Melinda.  My impression of those who are, 
is that they are mainly interested in politics and power, 
and not religion and spirituality.  But I don't expect you 
to take my word for this; you've been told over and over 
that most Christians don't hate homosexuals, and don't think 
they should be relegated as 2nd class citizens.  But it 
makes such a wonderfully polarizing political statement that 
you and others seem loathe to part with the notion that 
most people hate you and want to discriminate against you.  

> Really, Walter - you're not thinking very clearly.  Try
> putting all the pieces together and see if you can come up
> with something internally consistent.

I appreciate the concern, Melinda.  If you take the time to 
learn and understand the Christian position on OT laws, you 
might clear up your confusion, although you probobly wouldn't 
agree with the conclusions, you might at least understand 
them; they are at least internally consistent.  If it isn't 
being too nosy, what is your religious background? 

Walter]
From: cmoore@scott.skidmore.edu (colin moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: honest question
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:21:25 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

Ok, I'm usually posting articles saying what a moron Rush is, but now
I have an honest question (really, no flames please).  I was listening
to him while I was reading, and he started talking about gays in the
military.  I wasn't listening all that attentively, but I thought I
heard him say that this was similar to the conflicts involving blacks
in the military.  He then said he didn't think this was a good idea.
Can I take that to mean he also doesn't think blacks in the military
is a good idea?  Just curious.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:34:43 GMT

In article <1jpabsINNaj4@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> If the person doing this were Jewish, she'd have a point.  But 
> Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law.   The fact that some 
> of the moral code Christians are told to follow also were in 
> the Mosaic Law doesn't mean Chrsitians are hypocritical for 
> following those, and not the rest of the Mosaic Law.  If a 
> Christian follows the *literal* word of the Bible, he will
> be following those parts which were reaffirmed in the NT, 
> which includes sexual immorality.  You may not like the NT 
> idea of sexual immorality, and may think Christian sexual morality 
> is repressive and outdated, but that doesn't mean the people 
> who believe in it are being incnsistant for using diapers. 

1) If the only parts of the OT that still count are those that are
re-affirmed in the NT, why bother to quote the OT at all?  Just quote
the re-affirmation.  (No one quotes the Code of Hammurabi anyone,
except for historical study, even though many laws derive from it.)

2) The NT also has many prohibitions which the same people who quote
Romans et al seem to feel free to ignore.  (See my previous posting
re Acts and I Timothy.)

3) (from another post somewhere) You seem to be saying the laws
governing sexual relations *outside of* marriage are moral laws, but
those governing sexual relations *within* marriage are ceremonial
laws.  I hope you will not be surprised if many people don't follow
that reasoning, and ask for definitions of "moral law" and "ceremonial
law" that they can apply to other OT laws.  If the definition is that a
"moral law" is one re-affirmed in the NT, then see #1 and #2 above.

4) The objection was not to the use of diapers, but "[uncovering] the
nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter."
(Leviticus 18:10)  BTW, this sounds more like a moral law than a
ceremonial law, so clarification re #3 is necessary.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  Rush Military Record
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 22 Jan 1993 23:02:25 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: chezmoto.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan22.162918.23565@ils.nwu.edu>,
hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER) wrote:
> Maybe you should try something alittle radical here big guy,  maybe you
> should judge Rush on the basis of what he says vs. what he does rather then
> justify his draft dodging by comaparing him to the "liberal media culture'.

Instead of judging Rush by what he says/has said, why not judge him by what
he does/has done?

Let's see....

Got out of serving in the military, using a method stereotypical of many
draft dodgers.

Didn't bother to vote in any election until his show was about to start.

Calls people lots of names, thus hindering rational discussion of his (or
other's) beliefs.

Acts just like those annoying little twerps we all remember from school who
claim to have all the answers, and say that people who don't believe them
either (1) were stupid, or (2) hated them.

Rush is big on hidden agendas. If you disagree with Rush, you must have a
hidden agenda.

If we are going to judge Rush by what he says, why can't we judge Pres.
Clinton by what he says? It works both ways.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.