HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:43:30 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: eomer.hw.stratus.com

In article <1jkrr3INNdh7@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:

>You as an individual have the right to be a bigot.  You as a business,
>including being a landlord, do not.  Here in California at least, a landlord
>cannot deny housing based on race, creed, color, gender, religion, or
>marital status.  Here in California, you cannot deny employement based on
>the above list and sexual orientation.

Here in Massachusetts (liberal state as it is), a court ruling was recently
made ALLOWING a landlord to NOT rent to a couple because they were not 
married and the landlord has a religious conviction about such
relationships.  This is as it should be.  If I own a business or rental
property, I should be able to do with it as I see fit.  If I choose to
hire only black females of Swahili origin, that is my business.  If I choose
to rent to impoverished white blue collar males from Norway, that's my
business, not the state's.  

>With respect to employement, should you have the right to fire or not 
>hire a Hindu, Jew, athiest or anyone else who does not beleive in your
>Jesus Christ?

Yes.  I should, if it were my own business.  Not that I would.
In fact, I personally have put together one
of the most diverse groups here.  At one point, I led a group consisting
of a hindu from India, a Vietnamese man, a Chinese man, a black man from
St Croix, and two white men.  I also recommended a man who I suspect was not
heterosexual, though I could be very wrong.  You see, I hired and recommended
these people based on their skills, not their race, gender, or religion.
I'm sure you'll find someway to take this good action and delete enough of
it out to suit your own agenda though.

>I work for a company    Should you have the right to fire an employee if they 
>move in with their boyfriend/girlfriend ?
>
If I own a business, I should have the right to hire or fire for whatever
whim I might have.  Unfortunately, current law disagrees.  This entire
thread was started (I think) because I believe the goverment has
intruded too much into the personal live of it's citizens.

>With respect to foster parents, should non-Christian parents be allowed
>to be foster parents to Christian children ?  
>
Ideally no (in my opinion).  Legally yes.

>The point is, your religious beliefs are just that, yours.  They are not
>the official beliefs of this country.
>
Yep.  Never said they were.
>
mc
DISCLAIMER: These are definately my opinions and do not reflect the opinions
of my employer.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15087 talk.abortion:57804
From: cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Date: 25 Jan 93 03:50:17 GMT
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvafy006

In article <1993Jan23.173939.18362@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <93023.075047KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <#jl3d9a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) says:
>>
>>>>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.
> 
> Abortion IS a possible consequence of an unwanted conception. Why do you 
> consider it a "side-step"?
> 
>>>But it's ok to deal with the consequences of a rapist's act by taking
>>>an innocent life?
>>
>>In my opinion, yes, since it wasn't any deliberate act of the woman to cause
>>the situation.  
> 
> In the normal case of an accidental pregnancy, however, while the sex act may
> be "deliberate", the INTENTION of the sex act was not to conceive a child.
> Normally, in our systems of law and morality, the only time deliberateness
> becomes an issue is when the intention of the deliberate act is to cause the
> proscribed result. If a hunter were to accidentally shoot another hunter in 
> the woods, thinking that the movement in the bushes was a deer, then the 
> issue of deliberateness does not come into play (although the issue of
> recklessness would). On the other hand, in the case of a woman shooting
> her unfaithful husband, i.e. _intentionally_ killing him, the issue of 
> deliberateness DOES come into play -- it would be the difference between
> voluntary manslaughter (a so-called "crime of passion") or murder.
> 
> 								- Kevin

	Oh, I see.  Let's not follow the Christian guidelines becuase it might
actually have some morality to it!!!  If you have sexual intercourse, it should
be to conceive a child.  The fact that sex is used for pleasure is sin--it
should never be used for self-gratification!

	Oh, but I forgot--we don't follow Christian doctrine and morality. 
Guess that shows that Christians ARE the better people because of their value
of life--rather than selfish, gratification-seeking hypocrites!
-- 
Signed,

Daniel Rouse, Jr.
Sophomore, Computer Engineering 
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly, Pomona)
Email: cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu

And now...the moment we've been waiting for.  GamePro magazine and EGM
magazine proudly present:  The Arcade Champion!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS (Re: Read this if you are straight!)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:33:23 GMT

gadson@zeus.tamu.edu wrote:
: In article <farenebt.728024608@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes...
: |mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: | 
: |>Look up Plessy v Ferguson sometime.  We'd be better off without 
: |>anti-discrimination laws - YES.  We'd be much better off without
: |>laws that discriminate, which is a better place to focus.
: | 
: |I won't get into a debate about discrimination in private places but
: |there is no way in hell that we should go back to "separate but
: |equal" on public places.
: 
: 	I think that's just what he was trying to say.  "Separate-
: but-equal" governmental policies constitute laws that discriminate.
: 
: Gadson
: 


Exactly.  Nice to see someone who READS :)  Plessy was overturned
by the brown v board of education case of 1954.  But the 50 years
of separate but equal philosophy SUPPORTED and MANDATED by the
supreme court did tremendous damage to blacks and minorities.

The slaughterhouse cases of 1873 are another example of laws that
discriminate.  This supreme court decision permitted white organizations
to monopolize industries and conspire to keep out black enterprise.

Immigration laws are an obvious example of laws that discriminate, too.

cheers.

: 
: _______________________________________________________________
: |                                                             |
: |                     __                                      |
: |                 og  |    po                                 |
: |               /  #==~ooo=#            ,-Y~(_)\              |
: |               |   ,I~||       ///_.,()  ,_____}             |
: |               |  ,\I~\PPP///_,-~___.-~~  /~~~\|             |
: |               ||_\\I__/~~~/---~~        (     |             |
: |               /~ I___/           (m)     \__./              |
: |              _boo,,,____         //     .-~~                |
: |           _-~ 0000000000000ooooo,______(                    |
: |          \      000000000000000000000000o                   |
: |                   ~|0000000000000000000000                  |
: |               \~~~*,,,* ~000000000000000000                 |
: |                             ~0000000000000                  |
: |                                ~~~---~~                     |
: |                                                             |
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: 0 Uchu-senkan Yamato ........................................ 1
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Different Point
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:14:55 GMT

rocker (cookc@aix.rpi.edu) wrote:
: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >Planting the idea that a fetus is an unviable tissue mass is simply propaganda
: >aimed at easing peoples' consciences.  In France, they show a woman the
: >actual remains of an abortion and some change their minds and many don't.
: 
: Are these remains age-specific?  You do, of course, realize that the
: "remains" from a first-tri abortion fit in a teaspoon.

The remains are from the previous woman's abortion.  The abortions are done
with the RU487 pill, in clinics there.  The women see the remains of the
abortion, which are indeed small because RU487 is only allowed in the
first trimester, and considered dangerous into the 9th week and beyond.
The women accept it and do it anyway.  What's the problem?

:                       -rocker
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:38:29 GMT

> = (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>> = Steve Novak says:
>>> = Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

[...]
>>>Or, better yet, what if she was the one who -put- your nose there in the
>>>first place?  (There!  That should piss 'em off, even though it's accurate.)

>>My, feeling self-important, huh Kurt?

>Not 'til I read your post.  I consider a flame from you to be flattering.

Hmmm...I suspect you're being sarcastic!!!  (Can't fool *me*, by
golly.)

>>No, it's hard to get pissed at the 912th rendition of a pro-life lie.

>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.

>Besides, you never seem to have any trouble getting pissed off.

Now, did I sound pissed, Kurt?

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

I asked you to list even one public school that does that.

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.

>>You may now go back to worshipping your fat little TV evangelist
>>substitute.

>Hey!  How dare you call him 'little'!  He's BIG and fat!!!  :-)

You're right.  And making money hand over fist from his reverent
followers.  We'll probably find out he's a closet Commie.







-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:29:15 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1993Jan21.073943.28505@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) defends Rush Limbaugh:
>
>Be careful - you very successfully undermine your own credibitly when
>you do things typically done by those of very low inteligence, such as
>supporting ideas that you just dream up with no factual basis,
>especially when all the info you may have (e.g., Rush's word) is to the
>contrary.  Alas, this is typical of your posts.

Ah, Brian, using the RL tactic of sounding officious and serious while
actually spouting rage/bullshit? 

If what you described above were actually applied to real people, it would
aptly fit RL, yourself and your fellow dittoheads.

Dan
-----
who isn't suckered by conservative, or any other, bullshit, especially by
anyone in LA
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rush and george
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:04:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Nathan Engle writes:
>We may not be Jack Kennedy's,

maybe the plural is "Kennedies"?

>but at least we're not Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, you have no ability to laugh at a Democrat.
From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Dole promotes big, intrusive government!
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:27:17 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <AfM01vm00UhW01RI18@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> I was watching C-SPAN this morning and saw Sen. Robert Dole talk to the
> Senate about a new crime bill he wants to sponsor. One of the components
> of this bill would be a *Federal Police Force*. 
> 
> Isn't this inviting yet another big, bureaucratic mess while adding yet
> another security force to intrusively monitor and control the American
> people? Aren't the FBI, CIA, NSA and IRS enough? 
> 
> It's always seemed to me that liberals encourage government growth in
> social areas while conservatives encourage government growth in the
> military and enforcement areas, and increasing the power of the
> Executive office.
> 
>  Are Phil Donahue's (the Dittoheads Anti-christ) predictions of a
> stormtrooper police force enacting federal policies coming true? Can
> anybody give me a good argument as to why a federal police force is
> desirable or necessary?
>
> Anatole Wilson

Ask President Clinton for the justification. He seemed to propose such
an idea in his "Putting People First" plan when he talked about
an additional 100,000 police officers as part of a National Police
Corps. I've got the Plan around here somewhere, and I'll check to
make sure exactly what he said. It was probably just a "goal" anyway. :)
But, now that "gridlock has ended" we may really get Change...

-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com**********************
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Perfect Birth Control? (was Re: rights and responsibi)
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 13:48:42 GMT

In article <cpma9u7@Unify.Com> tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:
>> But actually, your missing the point.  If two consenting adults want to
>> engage in acts which give them pleasure, why should they have to modify
>> their behavior in order to not have kids if they don't have to?
>
>Everything you do has consequences.  *Everything*!  Everything has a price.
>If you want to have great sex  then the price may be getting pregnant, having to
>stop and use birth control or doing something else.

People *ARE* stopping to using birth control, *AND* getting
vasectomies, *AND* getting their tubes tied, ...  Women STILL get
pregnant.

>If you want to have sex, there is no 100% way to guarentee a pregnancy free
>romp in the hay. (except for not doing it)
>
>It sounds like you want something for nothing.

It sounds like you want to make sure that the price is always there
to act as a deterent.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14752 alt.rush-limbaugh:14753
From: tonyd@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:02:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.015226.11462@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.195017.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>>
>>	Oh, I see.  Let's not follow the Christian guidelines becuase it might
>>actually have some morality to it!!!  If you have sexual intercourse, it should
>>be to conceive a child.  The fact that sex is used for pleasure is sin--it
>>should never be used for self-gratification!
>>
>>	Oh, but I forgot--we don't follow Christian doctrine and morality. 
>>Guess that shows that Christians ARE the better people because of their value
>>of life--rather than selfish, gratification-seeking hypocrites!
>
>Why are you spending your time posting to the Net that could be better used
>making babies for your favorite deity?
>
>Could it be because it's (gasp!) ... self-gratifying???
>
>								- Kevin

hmm... it's true... Soloman was a sinful man... but he was wise and good...
the apostle Paul was a rightous man... but he was crass, intolerant and angry...
i would rather be Soloman... able to appreciate beauty and love...

than Paul... who hated himself because he wasn't as good as he thought he
should be... 

"You Err Samael"

see ya,
tonyd
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:06:48 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <C19pFr.Gzo@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
> In <1993Jan21.123130.533@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com sez:
>>
> Show me where I made *any* claim about Warren.  Surprise, Paul: you
> can't.  This kind of lie just makes you look that much sillier.

>>Thus your argument that "Thomas wasn't much of a
>>judge, therefore was not qualified" falls apart; surely you've been apprised
>>of this already?  
> 
> Again, please produce the article where I allegedly said this.
> 
> Don't hold your breath, folks.

Yup, that's right, folks.  Don't hold your breath, since I can't check it
out; they only keep a couple hundred messages here per group.  Maybe I'm
mistaken, maybe I'm not.  Frankly, I really don't give a damn, since Mark
long ago made it obvious that he'd rather flame me than discuss the topic; he
even _mails_ me his flames, just to make _sure_ I don't miss them.  So
whatever you say, Mark; we'll let you have this one.  Now go away--I'd rather
debate somebody with something to say.  (I suppose _that_ observation will
attract another of Mark's sizzlingly creative witticisms, but I really don't
give a damn.) 

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

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:55:40 GMT


    Mr. Margolis, in re: forced use of bodily resources, how about
required innoculations?  Breath-a-lyzer (sp?) tests?  Urinalysis?


John Rickert
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
-standard disclaimers-


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:33:35 GMT

In article <C19Kto.7D9@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1jp45bINN7ng@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>
>>> This is a typical example of the circularity we so often see in such
>>> arguments, in fact.  How do we know the prohibition belongs to the
>>> "moral" rather than the "ceremonial" law?  
>>
>>"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.


>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 

AAP

From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 22:37:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: ZOE BAIRD:  ATTORNEY GEN.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

Paul S Galvanek writes:

	[stuff deleted about ed meese and paul's problem with]
	[clintonians who drudge up the past...               ]
> 
> With that in mind tell us now, why is a person who broke the law, a lawyer
> who's best excuse is "I didn't know the law", why is that person about 
> to be confirmed by the Senate as AG without so much as hiccup at her 
> confirmation hearing? 
> 
	clearly it is a case of --no blood, no foul--  the
	situation zoe finds herself in is commonplace among
	the relatively well-to-do [a class i am unfortunately
	not a member of!]...  the immigration laws and tax laws
	in this area are confusing at best--  see, for example,
	the irs's reluctance in enforcing these laws and the
	fact that *violators* are simply told to pay back taxes
	and NOT prosecuted.  zoe has done this... she has paid
	back taxes.  in addition, and beyond what the majority
	of people caught do, zoe has paid a fine to the immigration
	service.  as orrin hatch has already pointed out, the 
	paying of the fine should be the final step.

	the infraction we speak of is along the lines of speeding;
	it is not a major crime and shouldn't interfere with her
	enforcement of the Law_of_the_Land(tm) and, if anything,
	make her more conscious in her dealings with illegal aliens...

	are you prepared to throw out an otherwise qualified candidate
	for attorney general and have herr slick willie enter a
	far left liberal in her stead??!   i thought not.



happy trails,
pjm.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:39:23 GMT

In article <1jmdmsINNkei@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> 
>> "Defending" homosexuality being defined here as arguing that the Bible
>> does not openly attack it?  God, what a sorry excuse for a person
>> *you* are.
>
>So what do _you_ think the 
>Bible says about homosexuality, Tim? 

Nothing.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh