HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:04:28 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1k7c8kINNg5n@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>Adolecent males who go out looking for gays to beat up do it because they
>think that 1) gays are easy targets and 2) that there will be no repercusions
>in doing the gay bashing.  2a) would be that they think that they can get 
>away with it because they think that its socially acceptable.

Exactly.  When the Houston police department had some officers go
undercover to prevent gaybashing, the officers were attacked so often
that they reported they were shocked and had no idea how bad it was
for gay men in Houston.  (One person told me that the police stopped
doing this because so many of their officers were getting beaten up
while on this beat.)

The ABC nightly news had a video clip showing a young man apologizing
to the police officer he had just bashed with words to this effect:
"God, I'm sorry, I thought you were a fag.  That's why I did it."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath)
Subject: Re: Clinton break tax (and other) promise(s)
In-reply-to: overmyc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu's message of 20 Jan 1993 20:53:40 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 17:11:20 EST


   > lruoff@cwis.unomaha.edu (Linda Ruoff) writes:
   > 
   > If you can't understand that it is possible that reevaluation may become
   > necessary as time progresses, then go ahead, call Clinton a liar all you
   > want. Don't excpect me to believe it.

Re-evaluation is fine in moderation (like anything else). What's amazing
is that so many of his positions are being re-evaluated so conveniently
_after_ the election, and conflict with the reasons that many people used
when voting for him. 

Don't know about you, but I'd like leader of our country to think things
through the first time around without having to re-evaluate his position
frequently - especially when nothing has really changed.

- Middle-class tax cut/freeze: promised it _before_ the election, is now
  indicating that it won't happen. This sure smells like the old "Read My
  Lips (tm)" ploy which got Bush labeled as a liar.

- Tells Hatian refugees before the election that his policies will welcome
  them into the US. After the election, tells them to stay home. 

- Fixing the budget deficit: Bush's revised figures are _still_ below the
  figures that Slick Willy used in the campaign, yet claims such a radical
  change that the deficit promise must be dropped.

- Ridiculed the idea of increasing gasoline taxes during the campaign, 
  and now is seriously considering it.

- ...and many more - and that was all _before_ the inaguration!

Sure sounds like he'll say whatever is convenient to execute his plans.
I'd call that kind of person a liar ("sure, I'll do that..." "...I'll
reconsider/renege that").
--
  _____/ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu   Carl T Donath \_____
 / The second amendment is the only right that guarantees \
 \        the preservation of all other rights.           /
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<1jp45bINN7ng@hp-col.col.hp.com> <C19Kto.7D9@unix.amherst.edu>
	<1993Jan22.173335.11099@wam.umd.edu>
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:32:28

>>>"Most" Christians can look at a law that prohibits multi-fabric
>>>clothing and see that it is ceremonial, and laws about sexual
relations
>>>and see that they are about morality.
>>
>>"Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.
>
>But it seems that "It is the right thing to do" is an acceptable one.

And how do you know that "it is the right thing to do"?

Ah, i see.  "Everybody knows it".

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15291 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13985
From: jj6707@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:42:34 GMT
Organization: CCSO College of Engineering Workstations

In article <C1H2u8.Cu9@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
|> maybe someone can give me some good role models for blacks on TV.
|>
  I don't watch that much TV, but how about Star Trek?  
    Original--Uhura-Chief Communications Officer
    Next Gen--Jordie (sp) -head engineer
    Deep Space 9-- the commander of the space station is black

And the best part is they all achieved their success as individuals.
There was no government program to "help" them.

--John
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:12:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCSU

In article <C1HCvB.AxJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> Doug Holtsinger is obsessed with following me from group to group,
> flaming each post.  

Have you often had these delusions?  I think this is only
the second or third time that I've followed up to one of 
your posts in a newsgroup other than talk.abortion.

Speaking of 'following' people, why do you insist on
re-posting my articles from other newsgroups to talk.
abortion?  I mean, how many times have you done that
now, about a half-dozen times?  It seems incredibly 
hypocritical for you to whine about me 'following'
you in alt.rush-limbaugh (egads, a whole two articles!),
and then turn around and re-post my non-abortion related
articles to talk.abortion.  

But I forget, we're talking about Susan Garvin here,
the Queen of hypocrites (hey, why don't you re-post
this to talk.abortion?).


>Susan


   "I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway."

                                       sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)

Doug Holtsinger
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:42:21 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <MDL.93Jan22010148@nv.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>In article <1jmogjINNpp4@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

:   Like Leviticus?  Anyone who questions why Christians view 
:   homosexuality as wrong, but don't have a problem with eating 
:   pork, haven't the slightest clue as to what Christians believe 
:   on these things, or why.  Definitly one of the more bizarre 
:   red herrings you'll find.  

:I swore I wasn't going to get involved in this one, but don't a lot of
:Christians say "we bring forth the moral teachings of the bible, not
:the cultural abberations of the time"?  In other words, thou shalt not
:kill, but wear any type of clothing you want.  or, love thy neighbor,
:don't cut his hand off if he steals...

	And how _does_ one tell the difference between "moral
teachings" and "cultural aberrations"? There's isn't much of a line
drawn in the Bible :-) And I dislike the implication that forbidding
murder and theft is specifically Biblical. I've hever heard of a
legislator who did not specify some penalty for these actions. And
I've never heard of anybody being excommunicated for being a hired
murderer (say). All we are told is that the can be _forgiven_. And let
us not forget about all the murder and theft that the Israelites were
described as committing as they conquered Canaan...

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Stations won't air RL's show during day
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:25:05 GMT

In article <LARRY.93Jan21134217@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:10:24 GMT, root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
>J.R.> said: Station managers are not idiots.. the reason they run
>J.R.> RL at night is that he's currently 3rd in the late night
>J.R.> ratings, the 2 in front of him have networks behind them.
>J.R.> He's currently beating the shit out of Arsenio, Letterman &
>J.R.> Woopie.
>
>And here CBS just signed Letterman for $14M.. What fools! I'll bet they
>could have had Rush for a lot less. And Dave is no doubt shakin' in his
>boots over the prospect of facing off with Rush.
>
>Then there's CNBC firing up old Tom Snyder again. More cannon fodder for
>Rush!
>
>J.R.> I'm glad the station managers aren't shoot from the hip morons like
>J.R.> you...
>
>Good Thing. With all that success, we can expect a whole flock of Rush
>look-alike programs along soon.
>
>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..
>O Fair New Mexico! Landfill of Enchantment. And home of THEM (Atomic Ants)..

As much as I like Rush and even considering how conservative I am, I
still doubt that Rush will remain "super-popular" as long as David
Letterman has.  Hopefully, I am wrong here and hopefully he will
help bring the quiet conservatives out of their closets to help
straighten out the mess this nation is in, but beating out David
Letterman may be tough.  I mean when will Rush try bouncing off
a trampoline onto a wall of velcro with a velcro suit on.  I mean
when will Rush wear a rice krispy suit, lay in a bowl, and have
milk poured on him.  The list goes on.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: "Requiem" for the Common Man
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:17:15 GMT

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..."

    Actually I think it may be intentional at this point. A caller brought 
that point to his attention and he admitted that it was a mistake, but 
then he adopted the angle that even when he's mistaken he's brilliant 
(implying that funeral music would be more appropriate than a fanfare 
when it comes to Clinton).

    Besides, no musical misidentification could have been any more 
appropriate for the inauguration than the Monty Python theme. I get the 
impression that Rush isn't much of a Python fan either.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:09:45 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

] 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?

Yo John ..... I'm a Vet. Why don't You Tell ME what RUSH is
trying to SUGGEST to everyone?

ciao
drieux




-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 12:05:41 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?

In article <21724@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu says:

>Who can confirm or deny that Rush Limbaugh used a student-deferrment to
>dodge the Vietnam War?

He was not drafted for medical reasons.  If you feel like jumping to the
conclusion (w/o a shred of evidence) that this makes him  a 'draft-dodger,'
then there's no way anyone could convince you otherwise.

>Draft-dodging Rush? Could this be true?? It absolutely boggles the mind!
>This fine patriot, this beacon of conservative sensibility, chickening out
>of the honest and moral battle against communist aggression?

Someday, I'm going to count the number of attacks on Rush that day for things
he didn't say or do.  Should total into the millions.

>OTOH, if it is, he joins other conservatives who dodged the draft, like
>George Bush's son, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle ...

Never mind that National Guardsmen were eligible to be sent to war.  Silly
little facts like that ruin an otherwise decent point, don't they?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15158 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13829 alt.politics.clinton:21231 alt.politics.bush:16367 alt.politics.homosexuality:10289
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS (Re: Read this if you are straight!)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:27 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan25.002341.4612@midway.uchicago.edu>, sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes...

|The point of anti-discrimination laws is to interfer with a person's  
|ability to choose who he wants to deal with based on his personal criteria  
|and to enforce what modern liberals say should be the "correct" decisions. 

	True.  So, do you think we'd be better off without 
anti-discrimination laws?

Gadson
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:55:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com


In article <1219@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>Brown worked for the Urban League for 11 years, eventually becoming
>>the Deputy Executive Directory, Chief Counsel, and chief Washington
>>spokesperson.  Brown has extensive *international* commerce experience
>>from his duties in his Washington law firm since 1982.
>

Just because someone was a lawyer representing a company engaged in international
commerce no more makes one an expert in international commerce than does it make
a software developer such an expert, or the stockboy, or the personnel manager,
working for the same company.  A lawyer is a very specialized job, and an important one- one of many, necessary to enable a company to engage in international commerce.
Think of the job as one of technician- a certain technical expertise necessary to
make sure that the real business of the company gets done.  

But international commerce is not the province of lawyers.  It is the province
of businessmen.   It is up to the businessman to know when to act upon his lawyer's
advice, and when to act in spite of it.

	Dave
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Double Standards
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:35:43 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <IfM1cdq00WBOE2UHsA@andrew.cmu.edu> js43+@andrew.cmu.edu (James William Stepanek) writes:
 comments on Michael Kinsely]

I found "Crossfire" much improved when John Sununu joined. Though I'd sooner
walk on coals than toe a conservative line, I found this conservative to be
highly intelligence, astute, personable, good-natured and funny. Sununu
dampened my opinion of Kinsely, who sometimes comes across as whiny or 
hysterical. Still, between the two of them, there was good give ... I almost
wrote "give and take", but neither would take much of anything from the other.

Of all the Washington media shows, I like Crossfire best. I'm sorry Sununu
is leaving. I hope that man who is either called Evans or Novak and who comes
across as a loudly braying ass on Capitol Hill Gang does not return.

Dan
deherrin@ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Different Point
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:15:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan22.113351.12980@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>In article <1993Jan17.084005.24444@leland.Stanford.EDU> becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling) writes:
>>>
>>>Rebecca Lynn Sparling (becka@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>>>:  The majority of abortions are gotton by
>>>: women who are non-caucasian and/or drug addicts and/or too poor to
>>>: afford the kind of pre-natal care needed to ensure a perfect healthy
>>>: baby.
>>>
>>>: These unhealthy, drug-addicted nonwhite babies are not the kind
>>>: of babies most people want, which, although unfortunate, is also
>>>: reality.  While I'll admit there are valid anti-choice arguements
>>>: this is not one of them.
>>
>>Why am I racist for speaking the truth?  The reality is that most
>>people do not want to adopt anything but healthy white infants.  Maybe
>>anti-choice people must resort to calling me racist because the above
>>refutes a great many of their anti-choice arguements.  If they read
>>what it really says instead of what they want it to say they might
>>learn something.
>>
>This sounds fairly arrogant considering that
>I noticed you deleted the portion where your claim that the majority
>of abortion recipients are non-white was refuted with some actual
>facts and figures.

Perhaps you missed the "and/or", as did the incorrect refutation.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:19:58 GMT

fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:


>In article <1993Jan24.115550.22354@athena.mit.edu>, 
>grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg) writes:

>|>In article <john.727818706@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)

>|>>What counts is whether you ARE a target, not whether you feel like one.
>|>>Do you really believe that there are not large areas of the major cities
>|>>where one's skin color (especially a white skin color) makes one
>|>>a target of violence? If so, I'll give you a few addresses to walk around.
>[list deleted] 
>|>
>|>I could add to that... If you have a chance, Tim, also visit [list deleted]
>|>Choose a place you like most
>|>and go there, because I am afraid you won't be able to visit
>|>anything else after this trip.

>So what ?  Anyone can go into a place where they are known to be hated,
>and get bashed.  In many parts of the country if you venture into a 
>strange neighborhood you are taking a risk.  You dont have to have a different
>colol of skin.  The gang violence in LA is often blacks attacking blacks or
>latinos attacking latinos for being from the wrong neighborhood.

>"Bashing" in the original context of this thread is people going out looking
>for someone of a specific race/religion/sexual-orientation to beat up, often 
>driving into those specific neighborhoods.  Going into the wrong part of
>town is different than minding your own business in your part of town.

>Gay bashing is often white adolecents from the suburbs driving into the gay
>sections of town looking for someone they assume to be gay to beat up.

>Now what was the original question ?

>--
>Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
>SRL-1:  STS-59, launch date April 14, 1994
>SRL-2:  STS-68, launch date December 1, 1994          (finger for details)



Tim, one of the main initiation rituals in gangs is to go FIND a
white guy and kill/rob/beat him.



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Gas Tax (was Re: Elvis has entered the building..)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:37:15 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1993Jan20.125129.5108@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>Another potential pitfall that lies ahead is the call for an increased
>gasoline tax as part of a "national energy strategy". 

The problem with the gas tax is that one thing they cry about doing with it
is improving mass transit.  Well, whoop te do...  Mass transit isn't going to
do much for us out on the prairies, not everyone has the misfortune to live in
New York City or LA.  (Not just here, how about Arkansas?)  A gas tax is going
to hit one hell of a lot of people hard that have to use gas just to survive.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14902 talk.abortion:57428
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:05:46 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
 <1993Jan19.193411.3636@advtech.uswest.com> <93020.184628KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1993Jan21.213829.24794@advtech.uswest.com>

In article <1993Jan21.213829.24794@advtech.uswest.com>,
steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) says:

>>I'm sorry.  How dare I imply that there could be consequences and inherent
>>responsibility involved in sexual activity.

>What you're implying, Kurt old chap, is that a woman be punished with an
>unwelcome pregnancy just because she has sex.

No, that's what you're inferring.  Big difference.  What I'm -clearly-
saying is that it's not OK to side-step consequences of an act by taking
an innocent life.

>BTW - you made the silly statement last week that all public schools
>force teenage girls to get abortions.

I said no such thing.  You have me confused with somebody else.

>Now, realizing you may have just shot off your mouth being a smart ass
>(something *I'd* never do :), you may either document your claim, or
>retract it.

(And I've always told myself I'd never, -ever- get into a stupid attribution
 argument like this... oh well.)

Ditto to you.  You retract your claim that I said schools are forcing girls
to get abortions, since I never said it.

Or, we can just forget all about stupid accusations, which I wouldn't mind at
all.

>> [Rush big & fat...]
>You're right.  And making money hand over fist from his reverent
>followers.  We'll probably find out he's a closet Commie.

No, someone with as much money as Rush can't -possibly- be a Commie.
Maybe he's a closet Fascist or Nazi, though.  Feel better thinking that?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality