HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:07:37 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
=: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
=: -jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
=: ->I am an Episcopalian, am I a member of the religious right?  Is everyone
=: ->who has a religion a member of the relgious right?
=: ->At times, it seems so.
=: -
=: -Several people have said this and I just don't understand it.  What
=: -have you seen to make you think that "Religious Right" is used to refer
=: -to everyone who is religious?  I only hear it being used to refer to
=: -that group epitomized by Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan who think that
=: -their personal values should be imposed on everyone in the country.
=: 
=: Southern Baptists sometimes are perceived that way. In fact, in a lot of
=
=Funny; I was under the impression that both Bill Clinton and Al
=Gore were Southern Baptists.  Are they part of the Religious Right?

I did say, "perceived" didn't I? You have heard of the internal conflict
in the Southern Baptist Conventions in recent years, right? 

Secondly, Bill and Al aren't pastors and don't preach sermons for a
living.

Well, then again...
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	Hope you have a very good "Native American Exploitation" Day.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Religious Right
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:17:54 GMT

In <13848@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>, Dave Bernard writes:

(I wrote:)

>>It is *not* an issue for the government.  It is only those people who propose
>>PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.
>>

>Many things are declared immoral by the government, from murder to theft to
>denial of civil rights.  If religions also see these things as immoral are
>the laws wrong?  Alternatively, if religions see these things as acceptable,
>are the laws then OK?  What it comes down to is, what basis does a government
>then have to declare this or that action immoral?

Sheesh.  I can't believe how distorted and taken out of context my statement
has been.  Let me try this again.  Murder and theft are not just *religion-
based* morality (re-read that portion of it).  It's common decency--with which
even atheists will agree.  They involve a crystal-clear violation of our basic
rights--religion not withstanding.

Much morality stems from religion--not all.  Virtually all "victimless crimes
and sins" are based in religion.  What about sodomy?  Homosexuality?  Are these
morally wrong based on the infringement of rights?  No--the objections that
people have to these acts are based in religion, not just a common sense of
fairness and protection of rights.  Big difference there, and one which many
of you seem to be oblivious to.  Sins are a violation of your God's law--not
civil and criminal law.  Only when others have had their rights violated by
your actions should civil and criminal law enter the picture.  That does in-
clude some religious tenets, but excludes others.  The point is that religion
should not be the *litmus test* which determines what is and is not legal.

Is that a little more clear?

Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"Dammit, Jim!  I'm a programmer, not a doctor!"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9807 talk.abortion:48107
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:52:23 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Nov16.164217.24828@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov13.170451.24505@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
> 
>>Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.
>>Abstinence is acceptable and reasonable behavior to expect from people who 
>>don't want to have a baby, whereas killing the child is not acceptable in 
>>the same way that neglecting a child when adoption is available isn't 
>>acceptable. 
> 
>See the thing is Paul, unless I specifically invite you to be 
>involved in my sex life, it is none of your business.  So why 
>don't you wait for the invite before assuming you have any 
>interest at all in what goes on in my bedroom.
> 
>>-Paul
> 
>Dan King

I won't wait because this is society's problem, not your bedroom problem.
And, the original question was for society to offer an alternative to
abortion - so, here it is.  

I really don't care what goes on in your bedroom, but as a member of this
society I expect your to behave with responsibility when it comes to
creating another member (and to not kill said member at your convenience).
-Paul
--
---
From: mlhutche@uncc.edu (Marvin L Hutchens)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea insult, apology
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:16:10 GMT
Reply-To: mlhutche@uncc.edu
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte

In article 18099@tellab5.tellabs.com, linda@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
>
>
>
>	RE: the alleged 'mistake' where photos of Celsea Clinton
>	and Millie the dog were switched...
>
>	Isn't that show taped?  So couldn't the 'mistake' have
>	been corrected before air time?  Didn't those involved in
>	the show recognize tastelessness and cruelty?
>
>	Nice  apology that followed.  The 'audience' gaffawing 
>	and giggling as Rush explains how 'Chelsea Clinton can't 
>	help what she looks like'.  Nice guy. Nice audience.  Nice
>	show.
>
>	Rush is not only willing to pick on a little girl, but
>	then doesn't even have gonads to stand up to what he did.
>	Instead, he offers up some very lame backpeddling.  Gutless
>	bully in my book......
>
>	


And you are still his fan?

Sounds like you are in the wrong newsgroup.

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

Signature - Marvin L. Hutchens    Address mlhutche@mosaic.uncc.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:25:55 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Term limits (was Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov19.153441.25692@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Karl.R.Kistler@dartmouth.edu (Karl R. Kistler) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.011903.10806@pmafire.inel.gov>
>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>> In article <6996@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@maui.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>> >More people voted FOR term limits in each of the 14 states which had
>> >it on the ballot than voted for Bill Clinton.
>> >
>> >Hint:  It wasn't just conservatives who supported these measures.
>> 
>> So?  How many of those people who voted for term limits also voted to 
>> return their current congresscritter to office?
>
>The idea behind term limits is to break up the careerist mentality and
>seniority system in congress.  Why should Jesse Helms or Teddy Kennedy
>have so much more power than my rep?  I didn't vote for them. A

I agree, the seniority system has its inequities.  So, let's do something
about *that* problem, and not blindly throw out the good reps with the
bad.  Term limits are a quick, easy fix for a hard problem.  Trouble is,
they fix things that aint broke.

>Congressman who gets elected with a 'throw the bums out' mandate finds
>himself powerless as a freshman rep.  By the time he has substantial
>power, (20 yrs or so) he has lost touch and become a bum himself. 

One of the big concerns of a new rep is to simply figure out the 
bureaucracy.  So what term limits *will* accomplish is a creating a
continuous crop of new reps who have very little idea how the system
operates.  This will, in my opinion, place a great deal of power in the
hands of career bureaucrats that isn't there now.  What choice does a
newbie rep have but to rely on the advice and experience of the permanent
staff?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:41:40 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <-b4122c@rpi.edu>, jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov17.003106.26874@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
|> >>It has been much more common in the past 12 years for conservatives to
|> >>be shouted down by liberal "guarantors of the first amendment" than
|> >>the reverse.
|> 
|> >>Liberals have been the sponsors of restrictive restraints on speech
|> >>at many universities.  Actions speak louder than words........
|> 
|> >>Liberals like to shout down speakers with opposing viewpoints.  Actions
|> >>speak louder than words.......

Just like Dan Quayle in the VP debate.   "WWWWHHHAAAAAaa, my turn."
Or Bush supporters ripping down Clinton signs or physically abusing
Clinton supporters.
Or Bush telling families of Vietnam MIA's to "Sit down and Shut UP!"

|> 
|> Now, the real challenge is for you to come up with counterexamples with
|> respect to speech.

Fine.  

  Conservative opposition to the Maplethorpe exhibit.
  Any number of attempts to ban books from school or 
     public libraries.
  The political pigeon-holeing of a prisoner who was
     about to announce that Dan Quayle bought pot from
     him.
  An attempt to make burning the flag illegal.
  
Not really a challenge at all.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:15:58 GMT

In <1992Nov21.230953.14125@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

>greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

>>You are correct. Lee is not a racist on the same level with Helms. But
>>Malcolm X was. We can thank (?) Lee for not bringing that racist attitude
>>into the 90s with his film.

>It is debatable that the label "racist" can properly be applied to
>Malcolm X.

He spent a good deal of his time as leader of the Panthers railing against
the "White devils".  Though he later recanted, X was undoubtedly a racist
during most of his career.  The only way you could fail to acknowledge this
is if you made the case that "there is no such thing as a black racist",
a statement with which I strongly disagree.



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Religious Right
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:08:52 GMT

In <1992Nov17.210540.24041@news.vanderbilt.edu>, John Rickert writes:

>   Tim Irvin apparently argues that people should be allowed to do
>whatever they want, provided they don't hurt others, (or presumably
>do not use fraud).  This is precisely the position taken by Andre Marrou,
>and I can get a reference if you like.  But you're forgetting something:
>to say that such and such "should" be allowed is to advance a moral
>position.  It is just as moralistic as a morality that calls for
>prohibition of an action.  Permissions and prohibitions differ in
>content but not in the _kind_ of positions they are.  Again, it is
>not a question whether law will reflect morality, but rather what
>morality the law will reflect.

   A bit of a stretch, don't you think?  I am quite aware of Mr. Marrou's
position and I agree with it.  So far, you're right on target.  According to
*your* definition, *everything* we do has moral overtones.  You almost make it
sound like I'm making a moral judgment when I choose to go to Burger King
instead of McDonald's.  The target is starting to move away now.
   You seem to be defining morality as the set of all beliefs, not just the
set of beliefs to which one attaches definite right and wrong.  This nation was
founded as a constitutional republic with very limited powers.  Also, anything
which is not written into law is legal (we have a constitutional clause which
prohibits ex post facto laws).  In this case, permission to act in a certain
way is granted because of a *lack of* a law prohibiting it--NOT because of a
law which expressly condones, permits, or even encourages it.  Is the lack of
a law against doing X the same as making a moral judgment in support of X?
   If you wish to define my belief--that I have no right to tell other people
how to act as long as no rights are violated--as a moral judgment in and of
itself, fine.  Just remember that I make no laws based solely on that judgment
itself.  And even if I *do* make a moral judgment about an activity, that
doesn't mean there should be a law about it.  Note the difference--EVERYONE
makes moral judgments--most of us do it every day.  However, some of don't
think that we have the moral authority to impose our judgments on others.

Tim Irvin
***************************************************************************
"Dammit, Jim!  I'm a programmer, not a doctor!"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Don't forget the cheese Re: the daily whine
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:25:19 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
=eyc@acpub.duke.edu:
=>Rush is definitely discriminated against; perhaps not because he's
=>white, or because he's fat (rotund), or because he's male, but because
=>he's a CONSERVATIVE.
=
=This is nuts. The whole basis of his commerical success is that he is
=a conservative.  Where are all the left-wingers with comperable shows,
=by the way?

Oh, hosting some MTV show or something.

I agree his commercial success resulted in his conservative viewpoints,
but he had to find a way to air his views to the public. The
"discrimination" occurs in general managers of stations (radio or TV)
that don't want to air his program because he's such an
"ultra-conservative wacko."
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
XXXDate: Mon, 23 Nov 92 18:17:07 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A7366E334E010642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:19:09 GMT

In article <grendel.722305591@camelot> Alyosha Bourgea,
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu writes:
>>But he has already promised to screw up, by saying that he will remove 
>>the ban on gays in the military, etc.  I have not heard one of his 100 
>>day promises which is not a screw up, at least IMO, therefore, as far 
>>as I am concerned, HE ALREADY HAS SCREWED UP!!!
>
>>Ted (author and originator of the term `Zackane') Krueger
>
><shocked gasp>!  You, good little conservative, actually _believe_ Slick
>Willie will follow through on any of his promises?  How dare you?!  Everyone
>knows he's just a waffler who tries to please everyone.

Great Cartoon in the paper this weekend:

Clinton: "I will consult both sides of the issue on Free Trade."
Reporter: "Uh, That would be you Governor Clinton!"

I thought that an excellent debate during the campaign would have pitted
Clinton against himself. With luck he never will reach a decision on anything
and I can keep some of my paycheck!

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Religious Right
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:59:48 GMT

In article <YOUNG.92Nov17132105@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>
>Now there you go again.  I have never heard of a decision to restrict
>prayer in public places.  The state is not permitted to display
>religious icons and imagery.  The state cannot mandate (good word,
>eh?) a time for prayer without violating the 1st amendment.  The state
>cannot restrict the exercise of religion, with a few noted exceptions,
>without violating the 1st.  Notice that these things all deal with
>what the state cannot do.  
>
>Peter Young
>young@erim.org


    Please show me exactly where in the Constitution you find this.
(Please cite the exact words.)


John Rickert						Quis custodiet
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu			ipsos custodes?
							  -- Juvenal

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 17
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Nov 92 04:16:09 GMT

In <spinuzzi.31.722394562@gab.unt.edu> spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu (Clay Spinuzzi) writes:

>In article <grendel.722306065@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1992Nov20.140810.25756@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>>>In article <41298@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> Pim van Meurs, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu
>>>writes:

>>And anyway, none of the people you mentioned are liberal equivalents of
>>Rush.  Rather and Brokaw are newscasters, not talk radio deejays.  Goldberg
>>is principally an actress.  And Donahue, Hall and Leno host talk shows,
>>usually with figures in the world of entertainment, and are not politically
>>oriented.  Rush Limbaugh is an ideologue.  He is an openly conservative

>Were you watching Arsenio Hall just before the election? I agree that Rush 
>enjoys arguing ad hominem, but I felt Arsenio was much more virulent (and 
>repetitive) in telling why he hated Bush than RL ever was.

What about RL's constant barrage of fake "Slick Willie" and "Taxula" ads?
Virulent?  Yes.  Repetitive?  Yes.  Arsenio may have been repetitive and
virulent on a few shows before the election (I didn't catch them) but he'd
have to work _very_ hard to match Limbaugh in terms of sheer volume.
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:07:52 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
: -jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
: ->I am an Episcopalian, am I a member of the religious right?  Is everyone
: ->who has a religion a member of the relgious right?
: ->At times, it seems so.
: -
: -Several people have said this and I just don't understand it.  What
: -have you seen to make you think that "Religious Right" is used to refer
: -to everyone who is religious?  I only hear it being used to refer to
: -that group epitomized by Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan who think that
: -their personal values should be imposed on everyone in the country.
: 
: Southern Baptists sometimes are perceived that way. In fact, in a lot of
: 
:

Funny; I was under the impression that both Bill Clinton and Al
Gore were Southern Baptists.  Are they part of the Religious Right?

Bill Anderson
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: thEwIndBag... a waste of space?
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:46:00 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

All I want to know is this.  Did or did not Ross Perot receive more votes 
than Limbaugh has listeners?

That's all I want to know.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:49:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.185114.27858@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.155459.6850@nas.nasa.gov> Dan King,
>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:
>>>Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
>>>No Sex is Safe Sex. 
>>>Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
>>>will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
>>>result from sex, either. 
>> 
>>Then don't have sex.  Some of us feel the rewards from sex are 
>>worth the risk.  Some of us are willing to leave our houses 
>>knowing that it could result in harm, but knowing the reward 
>>is worth the risk.  If you feel safer staying in your house 
>>and avoiding all outside risk, hey I would never pass legislation
>>forcing you to leave your house.
>
>I'm sorry, what risk are you referring to? Since you feel no 
>responsibility towards an unborn child and you can talk so callously
>about killing such an infant, it is apparent that you aren't taking
>any risks at all. 

Let me see if I've got this straight: abortion is wrong, because it's
legal, and, in your humble opinion, some people exercise their fundamental
reproductive rights "callously" [sic]? If I ate an ice cream cone, legally,
and "callously", would you consider that morally wrong also?

>Unless you mean the risk of having to pay for someone elses abortion!

Sorry, wrong planet.

>I guess I hadn't realized that I had become so out of touch and that
>I wasn't aware that so many people are using abortion as casual
>birth control. Naturally if you don't have even the morals to consider
>that you may be killing another human being, then you won't feel much
>compelled to consider taking responsible action to keep the pregnancy
>from happening in the first place.
>
>Thank you for making me aware how morally low people in this nation
>have sunk. I think I have just become much clearer in my stance on
>abortion.

Fine. Then don't have one.

>Elizabeth, don't let these hypocrites twist your thoughts about the
>subject. It is refreshing to find young people who use their brains
>rather than their genitals to make important decisions in their lives.

Whatever organ they use to do it, at least THEY are making their own 
decisions, instead of having Big Brother make the decision for them through
restrictive legislation.

								- Kevin
From: don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Expansion of alt.fan.rush-limbaugh proposed
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:20:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

>->The larger issue, though, is why
>->anyone would actually devote the time and effort to summarizing over 15
>->hours of radio broadcasts every week.

  No, the larger issue is why people like you, who don't even like
  Rush, spend countless hours reading these newsgroups every week.

						-Don Bromley
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:45:42 GMT
Subject: Presidential Wives
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA