HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:46:55 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Larry Fishbach writes:

>Sorry, but the Bill of Rights is there to help PROTECT MINORITY rights.
>If we went by the wishes of the majority, the 5th amendment would
>be repealed, Christianity would be the OFFICIAL religion of the
>United States, Miranda would disappear, etc. etc. etc.
>Anybody who is so insecure about themselves and their religion that
>they need public display and encouragement of that religion
>should seek help.
  
Actually, the B of R is there to protect individual rights from the
government.  Since it says specifically that the government cannot limit
the practice of religion, and that the government will not set up any state
religion ( as had been the case with the Mother Country), Christianity cannot
be an official religion in the US.  The bit about "Anybody who is so insecure
about..." is just a stick, which can be applied to any group having any cause
whatsoever, religious or not.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:44:15 GMT

In article <1gnoriINN4bl@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> > It is ludicrous to say school textbooks should show only the type of
> > family you prefer--in particular, only families which consist of one
> > male parent and one female parent each.
> > 
> > I trust that is crystal clear now.
> 
> Yes.  So should families where one parent is a crossdresser be shown? 
> Or both are?  Does a distinction need to be made between 2-male families 
> and households where there is a father and a male (non-gay relation) 
> sharing the house (to share expenses) where they sleep in *different* 
> rooms?  Do we need to show families where daddy and the family dog are 
> very close?  Do we need to show families where mommy and daddy are 
> swingers, and occasionally have someone else's mommy/daddy sleep over 
> instead of the usual mommy/daddy?  How about when daddy and daddy are 
> swingers, and swap daddies now and then?  I realize I'm going to an 
> absurd length here, but do you see the point?  

No.

If a book appeared in the curriculum that showed a family lighting
Sabbath candles instead of going to church, would people be protesting
that if they alllowed that, they would need to show families praying
five times a day, and families bathing in the Ganges, and families
lighting incense before their ancestors' graves, and families
sacrificing chickens and goats?  And that therefore they shouldn't
show the Jewish family in the books?

If a book appeared in the curriculum that showed a black family would
people be protesting that if they alllowed that, they would need to
show Chinese families, and Indian families, and Mexican families, and
families in which one person is Chinese and one is Mexican, and so on,
for every possible combination?  And that therefore they shouldn't show
the black family in the books?

Actually, someone out there probably would, given the human capacity
for bigotry and xenophobia.  I was assuming that the readership here
was more mature than that but, as always, I could be wrong.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11843 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10381 alt.politics.clinton:18825 alt.politics.bush:14691 alt.politics.homosexuality:8127
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:47:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa

In article <1gnskcINN6ac@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> Which leads me to a question relating to Col#2.  The reason some people
> voted for it was over the idea of minority status and quota preferences
> for sexual preference/orientation.  

Did you vote for it Walter?

> Because gay-rights activists often 
> equate the two (blacks and gays) and equate the way they would like 
> to see stereotypes removed (like forced education in public schools) 
> there has been some credence given to the notion that the gay-rights 
> movement might very well want the same type of minority status, with 
> the attached quotas, given to homosexuals.  

theres that loaded language again Walter, and this time 
followe up by an assumption.
do you know how to spell ass-u-me.?

> So I'd like to ask: 
> What *is* the position of homosexuals and the gay-rights movement? 

there are a lot of queers on this planet, I imagine you would find 
that answers would fall on a bell curve of possible answers.

> If there is such a correlation between blacks and gays, should gays 
> have minority status?  Should they have quotas?  Why/why not?  If not,
> why should blacks have it, and gays not? 

I can answer for myself only.

I do not believe that anti discrimination legislation that uses
discrimination in order to achieve its goals is good, and when 
given the opportunity to vote for such things I vote against them.

CO#2 falls in that category, quota based anti discrimination falls in that
category. I don't believe in quota based anti discrimination legislation 
for anyone, not blacks , not queers, not christians, not even HP employees.

If legislative remedys for discrimination are fair and equitable across
the board, then I am for them.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11541 alt.politics.clinton:18515
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:10:57 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.133627.5727@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>>In article <Bz601o.MCK@andy.bgsu.edu> A.P.K., jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu
>>writes:
>>
>>>  <lengthy, eloquent and difficult to summarize post omitted>
>>>  <Post referred primarily to unfortunate state of sexual repression>
>>>  <in U.S. and dangers of homosexual rape in the military>

Thanks for the input on the previous posting Greg.  Actually, I WAS
trying to state exactly that which you pointed out (in part), that
there is a BIGGER problem than just homosexual harassment/rape.
That problem, to follow it to its roots best I can, is the
sexual repression of this society at large.  If only I knew
how to fix THAT problem, I think we'd find a much safer society
to live in ... for everyone.  (This doesn't imply that it'd
fix everything, but it'd take care of a lot of smaller 'issues'.)

>>
>>I know of no reason to believe that homosexuals are inherently, or have
>>any tendency to be, any more sociopathic (i.e. rapists) than
>>heterosexuals.  If that is true, then the solution is not to try to
>>supress the symptoms of the problem, but to get to the source of it.
> 
> But, the military has done one very important thing to attempt to stamp 
> out heterosexual rape...men and women do not share quarters.

And here, I can agree with you both.  I never meant to imply that
that homosexuals are more sociopathic (as is perhaps falsely
evidenced by the real numbers.)  It is that they have greater
access to commiting such crimes.  Considering the emotional strain
put on soldiers (even in peace-time, and perhaps even moreso
in certain ways) with easier access I cannot deny that there
would be a CONSIDERABLY higher level of heterosexual problems
in the military.  But even with that as a given, and not to imply
that gays don't belong in the military from that, I honestly
feel that there is a much larger social problem which should
be addressed as the REAL issue.  I've gone to nude beaches in
Europe (as my biggest example) with NO problems.  My ex-wife
went there with me, with NO problems.  Many European countries
have open gays in the military with FEW problems.  I've used
unisexual toilette facilities in Europe with NO problems.  And
I'll not remention all of the other data I'd previously
mentioned.  It all points back to a root problem of a sexually
repressed society (and I only use sexually 'repressed' for
lack of a seeming better term, but there has to be one.)
If we could figure out this problem... our world might be a
much nicer and safer place for all in it.

Jim

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations - NOT!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:51:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.215250.1659@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant) writes:
>Franklin was a notarious womanizer (a right-wing republican/fundamentalist
>trait), but he also advocated many liberal causes of the time.  

**SNORF** This is the most hilarious thing I've seen all week, right
next to the "Funniest Cooking Disasters" thread on rec.cooking.
Right-wing Republican fundamentalists like Teddy Kennedy?  Bob
Packwood?  (Well, he's Republican, but a very *liberal* Republican.)
Daniel Inoye?  Wilbur Mills?

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11407 alt.politics.clinton:18421
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Breeder reactors (was Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:36:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.143517.23184@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Breeder reactors exist today.  The technology for reprocessing
>nuclear fuel exists.  Better, cheaper technologies for this are
>in the works (the pyroprocess being developed at ANL, for example).
>They are not moving faster because we have such an embarrassing
>glut of energy.

Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
them?

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

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: Jim.Shirreffs
Subject: Re: End the Ban on Gays in the Military
Organization: JJ Software
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:16:25 GMT


Against my better judgement I'm going to make one more attempt to enlighten

I propose a everyone perform the following thought experiment.

You give a juvenile a round peg, and a square beg. You also give him a board
with a round hole and a square hole. Now this juvenile insists on pounding
the round peg into the square hole or the square peg into the round hole.
Even attempts to pound a non-existent peg into the a hole.
I ask you what would you think? Kid is strange right? Probably needs some help,
might even be socially dysfunctional?


Well I submit that homosexuals are simply pounding their pegs into
the wrong hole. I know I'm going to get flamed again, but that's
how I see it.

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal Media
Date: 14 Dec 92 07:25:01 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <1992Dec1.035505.2563@leela.cs.orst.edu>
chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
|In article <ByJoK2.EM0@mail.boi.hp.com> hypes@boi.hp.com (Gary Hypes) writes:
|>Funniest media-bias comment to date:  on a roundtable that included Bill
|>Buckley and Bill Moyers, Moyers responded to Buckley's charges of
|>liberal bias by saying -- with a perfectly straight face -- "Why, I
|>haven't seen any liberal bias in the media, Bill; in fact, if there's
|>any bias, I would say it tends to be to the right."  Bill Moyers not
|>seeing a liberal bias in the media has to be akin to Michael Milliken
|>not noticing a problem with excessive greed on Wall Street...
|
|Sorry if I've missed something that's common knowledge, but how is Bill
|Moyers biased?
|
|He did a series of PBS specials on the election, and they were excellent,
|sensible, even-handed programs.  Some of it was even quite moving.  (At 
|the end of the last program, he told of trying get his show produced while
|shuttling to NY to try and catch the birth of his grandchild, and of 
|finding all the political goings-on in that last week of the campaign so
|pointless and wasteful.  He said that getting older had made him less
|interested in the partisan gamesmanship that runs politics, and finished
|the show by saying, "I used to be a partisan too."  I wouldn't put too
|much trust in most of what TV passes off as in-depth analysis, but Moyers
|is unique, IMO.
|
|And which administration did he once serve as a spokesman?  Nixon or Johnson?

Johnson.  He was responsible (at least in part) for the famous little
girl/flower/nuclear bomb commercial.  Berry Goldwater never forgave him
for that, and neither have many other conservatives.

Moyers has done some good work, and I even like him, but his bias (to the
left) is evident.  That's why the quote is funny.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:07:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec19.164707.7275@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>I recognize the obligation to discuss these things with children. However,
>I have NO obligation to recognize all lifestyles as normal/acceptable.
>I don't believe homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
>[flame suit on] This means that I don't feel that homosexual couples
>are a good place to raise kids (and NOT because I fear that the kids
>will be turned gay). 

    Why do you feel this way?  Gut feeling?  Opinion?  According to a study
recently conducted by the Univ. of Virginia-Charlottesville, children of
openly lesbian couples have no more difficulties in social skills or other
adaptations than those raised by het couples.  The study's author states
"The results suggest that it is the quality of parenting rather than the
sexual orientation of parents that is important for children's
development".
   Now, aren't you glad you have some real facts?

>Of course this is the same problem as voluntary prayer. However, since
>the goal is "sex ed" (whatever that is these days), it is considered
>okay to inflict this on kids even if it goes against their religion
>or their parents' wishes. And hey, sex ed must be important... look at
>how well it works: Unwanted pregnancies are at a record rate; VD is
>increasing rapidly. 

    Please.  The reason these things are happening is that our country has
been under the sex-phobic policies of Ron and George for 12 years.  Sex ed
isn't nearly what it should be, because of the conservative view that sex
ed encourages sexuality.  Before 1980 these rates were decreasing.
    But, I'm sure you'll be glad to know, Clinton's appointment for Surgeon
General is *very* pro-birth-control-in-high-schools and vehement on
substantive sex ed.  There will no doubt be a change in both of the
statistics you cite above, and it will be for the better.  And these
policies will go through despite the "sex ed should occur in the home"
crowd's objections, because, as you point out, it doesn't occur.

>Never underestimate the abilities of the social engineers to rationalize
>their impositions on others.

    If thorough sex ed occurred in the home, none of this would be
necessary.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 18 Dec 1992 13:02:46 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Bill Anderson writes:

>Dave Bernard states that governments should display religious 
>symbols because this is a democracy, and "plurality rules".

>The problem with this is, of course, that the United States 
>Constitution was designed specifically to put limits on 
>majority rule- and one of those limits is contained in the 
>first amendment

Not that governments SHOULD display religious symbols, but should
PERMIT the display of religious symbols on public property.  The
property may be owned by the "government," but all that means is 
the property is owned by the people.  Why can't people occasionally
display their religious symbols on their own property?  THis is permitted
by the Constitution... note that the Bill of Rights was not enacted to
limit *majority rule*... rather, it was enacted specifically to limit the
powers of the *government.*  It says that government won't interfere with
religious efforts, so why should it interfere with the occasional wish of
the people to display these symbols on otherwise unused government- er, 
public property?

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Jim.Shirreffs
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:08:04 GMT

|>      People should have the right to decide if they want to be registered
|>to vote.  They should not be forced to register just because they want a
|>driver's license.

|What's so awful about being registered to vote?   Is this such a horrible
|experience that we have to protect people from having it forced upon them?
|Except for possibly having to answer a few questions on a form, I don't see
|any way this could be detrimental to the person registering.  IMHO, the only
|bad part about this would be that the gov't would have to process a whole
|pile of registrations for people who will never vote.  As for the individual,
|there's no harm done.


I see three problems with "forced" voter registration.

1. This would just be another case of Big Brother, knowing
	what is best of you and emposing a "solution".
1. Democracy depends on an educated and concerned voter. If your going
	to force them to register, why not force them to vote too?
2. My vote wouldn't mean as much if everyone voted.

jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Guilty, Guilty, Guilty [Was:  Garry Trudeau, etc., etc....]
From: choover@charlie.usd.edu (Christopher J. Hoover)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:45:07 GMT
Reply-To: choover@charlie.usd.edu
Organization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.

Reality check here, kids.

First of all, Garry Trudeau's name, last I checked, had two 'r's in it.

Secondly, I find it pretty amusing that people on both sides of the fence have
been arguing about the "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty" strip as if it were a 
commentary on the GHWB's guilt or innocence.

Because that strip flat-out is _not_ about George Bush.  It couldn't be,
since it was published in 1973 or 1974, and the person Megaphone Mark was
declaring to be "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty" was, as I recall, Tricky Dick, or
maybe, just maybe, John Mitchell [but I am _almost_ certain it was Nixon].

And there was much talk at the time about that strip representing the fact
that Trudeau has consistently been, contrary to conservative opinion, rather
_balanced_ in his lampooning of targets on both the left and the right.  If
you've ever actually read the particular strip, you might remember that Mark
gets up out of his chair and has this wild-and-scary-eyed-true-believer
look in his eyes, and is practically drooling on the floor as he _shouts_
"Guilty, Guilty, Guilty" into the microphone, right after claiming to
present a "balanced" assessment of Watergate.

Now it's no secret that Trudeau was one of Nixon's harshest critics.  But
in this strip he was also taking on the level of hysteria that was coming
from the far left in _its_ criticism of Nixon.

Does Trudeau fall a little left of the center line?  Yeah, probably.  But 
nowhere near as far left as some people seem to believe.


Sorry about any typos, etc., but I've fallen into the wrong editor, 
and I can't get up,

Chris

---

Christopher Hoover
Network Coordinator for Student Life
User Services, University of South Dakota
choover@charlie.usd.edu
.sig line:  "I'm still looking for the right quote."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*!
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:07:03 PST

In article <1992Dec15.035926.21044@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>
>>young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>>> I didn't hear about this.  Clinton loathes the military?  Why wasn't
>
>>Clinton's letter to the ROTC colonel who got him off the hook for the
>>draft for that few crucial months back in 1969(?). Whenever, part of that
>>letter as that he "loathes the military". It was widely reported, but
>>nobody followed up on it; some people just don't hear things they don't
>>want to know.
>
>Ahhhh!! The good ol' "quote taken out of context" to make is sound like
>someone said something they didn't trick! Gotta watch out fer that one!!
>
>What Clinton REALLY said was, "I am writing to you in the hope that my
>telling you this one story will help you to understand more clearly
>how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their
>country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have
>devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give.
>
>Now, if you take that sentence as Clinton saying that HE loathes the
>military, the so be it, you'll read anytying out of anything you wish.
>Me? I don't see it that way.

That's because you have a low IQ.  Why would he have possibly brought
up that point of view if he wasn't implying that it was his?  It
would have been absolutely unecessary.
>
>
>-- 
>Zack Sessions
>sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
>University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
>"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."