HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisf@brtph316.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Chris Fulmer)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Reply-To: woodstock!chris@mcnc.org
Organization: BNR Dept 3B91, RTP
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:35:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.152505.22773@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
|>  Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
|>  Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:
|> 
|>  NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
|>  ORIENTATION.  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
|>  branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
|>  subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt
|>  or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
|>  homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
|>  relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or
|>  entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
|>  status, quota preferences, protected status or claim or
|>  discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shall be in all
|>  respects selfexecuting.
|> 
|> As you can see, the amendment was cleverly phrased to imply that it prevents
|> gays from acquiring special rights, but if you exclude the filler, you get:
|> 
|> Colorado...shall not adopt any statute...whereby homosexual...practices or
|> relationships...shall entitle any person... to claim of discrimination.
                                                        ^^
Greg -- I think that you might be misreading that....  Here's how I read it...

Colorado...shall [not] adopt any statute...whereby homosexual orientation...shall
be the basis of...discrimination.

The part that I've highlighted with the ^^'s should be an "or," not an "of".  The
way you're reading it, it implies that the amendment does not allow a homosexual
to file a claim that says s/he's been discriminated against, which is definately
not what it says.

What it does say is basically, "You're gay?  So what?  We don't care.  We won't
give you any special treatment, nor will we discriminate against you."


------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fulmer                    Bell-Northern Research
Sr. Software Designer            Research Triangle, NC
mail to woodstock!chris@mcnc.org (preferable) or...
        chrisf@bnr.ca            (not so preferable)
Oh yeah.  The usual disclaimers apply here.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Does Rush ever post here?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:01:28 GMT

In article <1ihpgoINNs3n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jps8@po.CWRU.Edu (James P. Schwonek) writes:
>
>Just wondering...

No - he only uses CompuServe as far as I know, and CIS doesn't have any USENET
gateways although it can handle private email. 
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- MST3K's Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | after TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Borgy Boy's squeals
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:11:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nate.1055@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>
>    Gosh. You guys have both expressed the views of your respective 
>parties so adroitly that I just don't know who to believe (neither 
>probably).

Gosh, Nathen, I read and re-read and read again my very heart felt rant and
you know I just couldn't find the part where I claimed to be speaking for 
my party.  Dadgumit I can't even find were I expressed what my party is.
Fact is I don't have a party, I'm first and foremost a conservative.  Which
ever party candidate represents my views the best, that's who gets my vote.

I speak only for myself, and in doing so I can tell you that since a socialist
(call him what ever you like, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...)
my intentions to become more politically active have peaked, as have those of
others I know.  I've never been a supporter of either the tactics or the views
of Operation Rescue but they got my support now, the money I used to donate
to the United Way and the homeless shelters in Pittsburgh, nah uh not anymore,
that money is in the mail and headed to the NRA, letters to Arlen Specter 
reminding him of who stuck with him this year and how the women's groups he 
supported for so many years, stabbed him in the back are already in the mail
and lots of other examples of how I'm going to do my part to disrupt the 
Clinton agenda.  Hey, call it what you want but that's exactly what the 
liberals have done the last twelve years, it's payback time!

Chaos and societal breakdown can be fun, if you have the right attitude 8^)

PSG
-- 
Industrial Policy: Phrase suggesting a Soviet style of		| Time magazine 
		   selective tax breaks and trade protection    |  Jan 18 1993
		   Seldom used by the Clinton team.              ---------------
Sector-Specific Strategies: Term used by the Clinton team.  Indsutrial Policy.
From: Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush's Ratings
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:32:33 GMT
Organization: ASC-Austin
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: asc438.asc.slb.com

In article <C0EFLz.GxE@andy.bgsu.edu>, jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
wrote:
>  
> Here in the Toledo area, Rush's TV show was originally aired
> on WUPW, the Fox affiliate station.  As of yessterday, there
> has been a minor (?) programming change.  Rush has moved from
> WUPW to NWO, the ABC station.  He completely took over Arsineo's
> time slot at 11PM.  This has not just bumped Arsinio back a
> half an hour, because after Rush they played "Top Cops" (or
> whatever the name of the show is, with the theme song about
> bad boys...)  Top Cops also used to be a Fox show, and moved
> to NWO.  TV Guide obviously hasn't noted the change yet, because
> Rush is still listed as being on WUPW.
>
 
Yup!  And here in Austin, a city swarming with liberals (UT @ Austin) we
have another anomaly in television: Rush Limbaugh is on at noon and again
at 10:30 on our Fox affiliate KBVO, Channel 42!  A double dose of dittos! 
Bumped ol' Arsenio Hall who used to come on in that time slot.....

treble@asc.slb.com "My humble, but accurate, opinion does not necessarily
reflect that of my employer. I get full credit for my insightful and witty
comments!"
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:39:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com writes:

>Look.  If you get taxpayer money in the form of vouchers accepted by
>private (religious) schools, then they should also abide by government 
>(and supreme court decisions) regarding school prayer. Don't like them
>apples, then don't accept vouchers.....
>
>                                O.P.P

So, if there were private non-religious schools and if they agreed
to not have "school prayer", would you support vouchers to them?

What other "government intrusions" might such a school find
unacceptable?  Are there problems with discrimation against
minority students?  Who gets to oversee the "scholarship" committee
to make sure they are not illegally discriminating?

All the same "forms" that the public school teachers have to file
would have to be done and processed by a similar, but private, army
of administrators?

Maybe you're right - if government money comes with strings attached,
it's simply not worth it.  I've been just kind of assuming that the
money from heaven^Hxxxxx nippl^Hxxxxx would flow with no strings attached.
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: bush should be impeached,for the pardon of the good old boys!!!
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:28:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: atlantis.cs.orst.edu

In article <1992Dec29.173304.8670@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.080654.29807@gator.use.com> Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer) writes:
>>The pardon is the biggest screw job done on the american public in
>>twenty years.We can only hope bush is the last republican president.
>>             happy new year to all
>>             Ted Schafer
>
>NO! NO! NO!
>
>The biggest screw job done on the american public is the $35 million that 
>Walsh has spent on the investigation over the last several years, even 
>though Walsh and all his spies could find no hard evidence.
>
>Ted

Sorry, but if you believe there were no laws broken in that whole sordid
matter, you are engaging in wishful thinking.  Clearly laws were broken,
first when the various operative parts of Iran/Contra were carried out,
and again when the resulting electronic and paper trails were destroyed
and key  figures lied to the Congress.  (Whatever you may think of our
unbeloved elected Representatives, it *IS* illegal to lie to them.)
There's also the disputed matter of whether or not the legislative branch
is entitled to exercise any degree of control over the executive's covert
operations, but unless and until the Supreme Court changes the oversight
processes in the Congress, it is still the law.

That said, I don't really have a problem with the fact Bush pardoned his
old colleagues, because I think it's time to move on to other things.  I
do wish some clearer resolution of the consitutional questions had come 
out of the matter, but that's not likely given the power and stakes involved.

BTW, if you toss off words like "spy" too casually, you make yourself sound
paranoid and persecuted.  It was, after all, the question of how much
secrecy the *executive* is allowed that brought this whole thing about.

---
David Christensen
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13242 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11839 alt.politics.correct:6103 alt.politics.equality:30
From: osiris@athena.mit.edu (Marcel Bruchez Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:04:00 GMT
	<1993Jan05.220654.33157@rchland.ibm.com> <qe1av5v@Unify.Com>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

tsv@unify.com quotes Jared Dahl in saying:

>> We have laws preventing murder, rape and theft.  If someone passes
>> a law making these laws illegal, instances of these crimes will
>> rise.  It obviously ENCOURAGES bigotry.
>> 
>Let  me get  this straight: If we pass a law saying murder is illegal, it
>will encourage people to murder?  I think you had better rethink your
>last paragraph, it doesn't make any sense.

I think you should maybe reread that paragraph that you slammed.  If someone
passes a law making a "laws against rape illegal" then rape is legal. No?
Note the question was of making laws illegal, not acts...that is the essence
of Co amendment 2.

-Marcel
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:21:52 GMT


In article <1993Jan6.170030.15194@m5.harvard.edu>, 
borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
|>It's incorrect because all the scientific evidence points to homosexuality
|>arising either from a genetic trait or from early-childhood experiences.  As
|>I understand it, the weight of evidence seems to be tilting towards genetics,
                                                                      ^^^^^^^^
|>though it may not be a settled issue.  Either way, it's not a choice.  The
|>only choice is, do gays continue to torture themselves by pretending not to
|>be gay, or do they come out of the closet and live the way they are meant to
|>live?

Biological may be more acurate than genetic.  Biological causes include 
genetics, but also includes hormones in the womb produced by the mother, etc.

|>
|>It's irrelevant, because it really doesn't matter whether or not gays choose
|>to be gay.  It's entirely an individual's decision, and any attempt to judge
|>a person for choosing a lifestyle that doesn't infringe on the rights of
|>others is irrational, bigoted, and just plain small-minded.  I'll forgive
|>some people, maybe, for genuinely not having the mental capacity to distinguish
|>between reasoning and prejudice, but I won't condone it.
|>
|>   - Dave Borden
|>     borden@m5.harvard.edu
|>
--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Subject: School Choice:  Public, Private, Parochial
Keywords: was Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:03:43 GMT

     Intersting piece on this morning's TODAY show on NBC, regarding
a new dance party -- can't remember the name of it -- that has popped up in
America now.  The general concept is as follows:  Kids (some as young
as 10, up to mid to late teens -- I'm 22 now, so I think that gives
me the right to call these kids kids) learn by word of mouth about 
these parties -- where they are going to be held (usually in abandoned
warehouses), how much they will cost (usually $5 to $10 plus chartered
bus fare), etcetera.

     These fests usually begin at about 11 PM with many lasting until 
the following afternoon.  No drugs or alcohol are permitted, only water
and an energy-boosting 'fruit type' drink.  This does not, however,
prevent drugs (specifically, ecstasy) from getting into the parties.  A
recent gathering which WAS announced drew over 18,000 to Los Angeles.

     some points:

o    where are these  kids' parents?

o    do they go to school?

o    are my tax dollars going to support their partying?

     I'm not blaming public schools in this case; from my experience, 
you're equally probable to find any of the following cliques

geeks, brains, toughs, nonconformists, metalheads, jocks, deadheads

at ANY school (yes, even parochial school).  As has been mentioned before,
the difference is in the parents.  Those who take a serious interest in
their children's education -- helping out with homework, checking even
to see that it's done, going to PTA meetings, going to school board
meetings --  will see results more often than not.  Parents who do not
will spend nights wondering where their children are.

     Values begin at HOME.

Kevin L. Stamber
Serra Catholic High School, McKeesport PA '88
University of Pittsburgh '92
Purdue University '??

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: proof of the need for better sex education
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:31:38 GMT

> = Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Absolutely.   I can't believe there are still some pubilc schools which don't
>encourage pregnant girls to get abortions.  Shocking.

I'd be amazed to hear of just one public school that DOES encourage
pregnant girls to get abortions.

Care to continue here, Kurt?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: bush should be impeached,for the pardon of the good old boys!!!
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:50:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
: 
: Of course, but the more important (to me) question is why did they lie to 
: congress?  The answer is simple.  The Boland Amendment, which made the 
: Iran-Contra thing illegal, is not only bad law, but unconstitutional.  The 
: Constitution clearly says that The President is the Head of State and 
: Chief Diplomat.  It gives NO, I repeat NO, diplomatic duties to the 
: congress.  The President is Chief Diplomat; he can do whatever the hell 
: he wants concerning foreign relations, and the congress has NO say over 
: it.  There is no provision for congressional oversight concerning the 
: President's foreign relations.  It doesn't matter a lick whether you 
: like it or not, it is the Law.

Bullshit, Ted.  The Constitution states that the President is the 
commander in chief, and that he may make treaties, which must then
be approved by the Senate; that's the only mention of the
President's foreign policy power.  Congress has several
specifically mentioned duties which relate, directly or indirectly,
to foreign policy, including the power to declare war and the 
power to make regulations affecting the armed forces.  At any rate,
Congress certainly has the power to approve spending, and that was
the basic thrust of the Boland amendment.  
Check out Article one, Section eight, and Article two, section two.
Read the Constitution before you start telling people what it says.

Bill

: 
: >That said, I don't really have a problem with the fact Bush pardoned his
: >old colleagues, because I think it's time to move on to other things.  I
: >do wish some clearer resolution of the consitutional questions had come 
: >out of the matter, but that's not likely given the power and stakes involved.
: >
: >BTW, if you toss off words like "spy" too casually, you make yourself sound
: >paranoid and persecuted.  It was, after all, the question of how much
: >secrecy the *executive* is allowed that brought this whole thing about.
: 
: 
: SPIES! SPIES! SPIES!  They are all SPIES!
: 
: Like you needed to wait until I said the word before you believed I 
: was paranoid.  Sure.
: 
: 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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 07 Jan 93 07:42:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1993Jan4.192724.25322@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>
>I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
>of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
>her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
>in nature"?

    Of course not.  It does mean, though, that if you call gang
rape "unnatural" you can be proven quite easily wrong.  You can
still call it immoral, but then you have a much harder case to
prove.

			-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: FOUNDED ON GOD?
Date: 4 Jan 93 10:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

-> Newsgroups:
-> alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.po
-> From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
-> Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
-> Message-ID: <C0AzG2.D2u@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
-> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
-> References: <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
-> <1993Jan2.230323.29355@murdoch.acc.Vi Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:16:36
-> GMT
q
-> Indeed.  I've read Tom and Ben and George, et. al.  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".

And surprise--they didn't! It's still there! Pretty amazing.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from giving religion
any special favors or special grief. It permits people to believe
what they will, but not to force anyone else to.

If it were discovered that a majority of religious persons in this
country were Goddess-worshipping Wicca, would you be accepting
of any laws they might want to pass because this is a "Wiccan-
based culture"?
                                                                                                              
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 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:13130 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11696 alt.politics.clinton:19686 alt.politics.bush:15608 alt.politics.homosexuality:9033
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:02:42 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan4.194233.8290@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.210630.19156@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, 
>>
>>Source please.
>>
>>Ted
>
>When I was in junior high school debating class I found that trick to be
>very useful, especially when I didn't have a good rational arguement
>with which to respond.
>
>But it would be jumping to conclusions to assert that this is what
>Ted is doing (at least in this case).  So I am awaiting Ted's reasoned 
>rational arguement, and the end of rhetorical tricks, with bated breath.
>
>Gosh this is sooooo exciting!

Ted is merely doing something that is necessary in this type of forum. 
Given the amount of flames, opinion and BS that is spread on the net,
it is always useful to have a source handy so what you post is credible.
I have posted requests for a lot of information that is put out as
fact and haven't received much backing up these broad based statements.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13624 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12240 alt.politics.clinton:20076 alt.politics.bush:15810