HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:01:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <YOUNG.92Nov17132105@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>In article <Bxtz1o.8DE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>
>>   Let me make sure I hear you right. Are you saying that judges and legislators
>>   who make decisions that, in some manner, infringe on someone's religious
>>   rights are wrong?
>>
>>   Like court decisions to restrict prayer in public places?
>>
>>						   - greg
>
>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.  
>
>Oops.  I forgot.  The state doesn't allow burnt offerings to the god
>of Winston-Salem in public places.  My mistake :-).  IMHO.
>
>--
>Peter Young
>young@erim.org

Wrong again Peter!  A group of christians was prohibited from praying 
silently on a public sidewalk in Atlanta.  The case was appealed by 
Jay Sekulow and is on its way to the Supreme Court.

And before you ask, No the christians were not being disruptive, they 
were closing their eyes, bowing their heads and praying silently; three 
of them were within 50ft of an abortion clinic.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: rovero@maui.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:25:49 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

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.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: eliminate incumbents
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:47:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

The democrats are now arguing that congressional and electoral reforms
will obviate the need for term limits.

Some argue that MONEY is the problem.

I maintain that it is INCUMBENTS that are the problem.  Since the 
inception of this country, the congress has tried to accrue more and
more power and privelige unto itself.  This is the real source
of the incumbents advantage -- they make rules that favor themselves.

The only thing they do that is more arrogant is making rules for
everyone except themselves, ie, specifically exempting congress
from laws.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:18:37 GMT

grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>Spike Lee is a racist on a level with Jesse Helms.

You appear to have fallen prey to the poor representation of Lee in the
press and have never seen him live. He is not a racist. And certainly not
on the level with Helms. I should know. I live in NC. 

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush a bigot?  A case study.
Date: 15 Nov 1992 18:36:52 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1127@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>I think you unjustifiably underestimate his audience.  Moreover, I see
>no reason to think Rush is being anything but honest and forthright in
>his opinions.

Even if to support these opinions he has to twist facts or ignore facts
Rush is in a good position.  He can sit down and crumple paper, offer
up 900 numbers and get phonecalls, letters, email and faxes all
telling him how wonderful he is.  



-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:57:32 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley) writes:
|[text deleted]
|>>  This is classic liberal intellectual dishonesty. What fraction of
|>
|>This is classic ignorant stupidity.  More like 20 - 30%, depending on
|>what year you look at.  And of what relevance is that, anyway?  Saying
|>that people who don't want to have [any more] children should refrain from
|>sex *is* including *all* the married couples who don't want [more] kids.
|
|  Oh REALLY?  I notice you didn't cite any sources.  

I cited a source.  After you've read my post, apologize to Larry.

| And even if 20% were the actual figure, it is certainly the 
| minority of cases, and should be referred to as the exception, 
| not the rule.  Did I say that people who don't want kids shouldn't 
| have sex?  

The original poster did.  You attacked responses to her
ridiculous statement.  Therefore it's reasonable to assume
that you support her statement.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Most people are [idiots]," said Wimsey, gravely, "but it isn't kind to 
tell them so.  I expect you do tell them so."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9887 talk.environment:4643
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Religious Right
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:05:40 GMT


   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.  


John Rickert					Die Politik ist
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		keine Wissenschaft.
						  -- von Bismarck
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk)
Subject: Re: Term limits (was Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits)
Organization: Fast Technology
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:39:23 GMT

In <1992Nov19.212555.5049@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

>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?

That's easy.

The new congressman can always vote to get rid of as many career bureaucrats
as possible. All he needs to do are two very simple things:

	1) reduce congressional staff and micromanagement
	2) reduce executive bureaucracy by eliminating entire agencies

It's too bad that the American public wants MORE, MORE, MORE from their
government, so the above can't possibly happen.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10291 alt.rush-limbaugh:10292
From: mark.stevens@spacebbs.com (Mark Stevens) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EE
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: mark.stevens@spacebbs.com (Mark Stevens) 

To: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )

BR>I'll give you one guess as to the next Attorney General.  Her initials
BR>are H.C.

That can't happen.  Since the John Kennedy appointing Robert Kennedy
debacle it's against the law for the president to appoint any
relative to a paying governmental position.
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #42 . 
                                             
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 14 Nov 92 05:37:01 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

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.

I've heard various excuses for the practice, including "what they
(the conservatives) are saying doesn't deserve to be said","so what
if he/she is the scheduled speaker, they're not going to shut us up",
"what they are saying is criminal", etc, etc, etc.

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.......

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:58:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.170451.24505@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>In article <1e0kq7INN4br@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>Now, when society does not/cannot offer an alternative, this series of
>>assumptions, behaviors and ramifications does not occur.  Society can
>>offer an option to parenthood, but it cannot offer an option to pregnancy.
>>
>>Adrienne Regard
>>
>
>Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.

And what does society offer in the way of WORKABLE and NON-INTRUSIVE 
alternatives?

>Abstinence is acceptable and reasonable behavior to expect from people who 
>don't want to have a baby, 

Acceptable to whom? You? Reasonable to whom? You? Many people find 
contraception, sterilization, and abortion far more "acceptable" and 
"reasonable" than abstinence. Who are you to tell them they're "wrong"?

>whereas killing the child is not acceptable in 
>the same way that neglecting a child when adoption is available isn't 
>acceptable.

False analogy. Parents agree to care for their children when they take custody 
of them, but women don't necessarily agree to carry a fetus to term when they 
engage in sex. You're confusing a voluntary commitment with an involuntary one.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10074 alt.politics.elections:24188 alt.politics.bush:13968 alt.politics.clinton:17534 talk.politics.misc:61069 rec.humor:34440
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:17:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <grendel.721285610@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bou
rgea) writes:
>He'd be a hell of a lot better choice than Thomas was.  The Court is supposed
>to be balanced.  Cuomo, a liberal, would do better than Thomas to balance out
>the ideology of the Court.

Just out of curiosity, no politicking intended, how can you have a truly
balanced court with nine people?

Jennifer, proud originator of the "President Clinton" thread on alt.rush-l.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Forget Rush and the Comedy Channel!  What's DOONESBURY (Trudeau) going to do?
I'd prefer he go on the lecture circuit, instead of more stupid cartoons
about that quintabizillionaire that lives on an island with his plain assist-
ant.  Wouldn't it figure I'd have to join alt.poltics.flame.flame.flame. to
spawn my first thread?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch  Day 17
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:08:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
XXXDate: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:04:18 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A73284C2B6010642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com

In article <41298@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> Pim van Meurs, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu
writes:
>instance. I admire Rush for his ability to mislead so many people
>into believing he is something more than just an entertainer who is
>often more wrong than right but says what people want to hear or
>believe.
>Sure, Rush will be around as long as people need to be told what to
>believe. Guess that's why there is no liberal equivalent of Rush.

You mean like Phil Donahue, Geraldo Rivera, Dan Blather, Tom Brokaw, 
Vlademir Pozner, Arsenio Hall, Jay Leno, Whoopi Goldberg? 
That is all I could think of in about 10 seconds.

        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
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Of all the oddest things...
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:56:59 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Article taken from "U. The National College Magazine" for Nov 1992.
Published by American Collegiate Network, Inc.

It takes a lot of balls to be this artistic at St. Mary's

[Picture included]

It's just four balls of polyurethane, but it's caused the most heated
controversy at St. Mary's College in 15 years.

The Great Bulbous Sculpture Controversy began when the untitled work by
artist Marcia Kaplan was put on outdoor display at the all women's
Catholic college in Indiana.

And reaction to the sculpture has run the gamut. "The sculpture is so
blatantly sexual that the law was not the appropriate place to display
it," says junior Jennifer Rasmussen.

But senior Christine Makarewicz says the sculpture has artistic merit.
"I was glad to see that it was on our campus," she says.

Hard times -- or a hard body -- broke the sculpture and St. Mary's
administration leapt to the rescue. President William Hickey decided to
move the art indoors where it could be protected.

The saga ended in September three weeks later when faculty pressure
forced the administrators to move the work back outside.

But students like Makarewicz are still bitter. "If you're going to put
something that has a possible controversial content, a college campus is
the ideal setting."

-- Monica Yant and Anna Marie Tabor, The _Observer_, U. of Notre Dame /
St. Mary's College.

-- 
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.
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:25:47 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>       What about giving them a battalion composed of gays only?  I'd like
>to be in a battalion with people like me.  A group of politically conservative
>people who enjoy the finer things in life would suit me just fine.

    This sounds vaguely reasonable, but the scenario has been acted out 
before in the form of the British Army in 1915/1916. During the First World 
War Britain's Lord Kitchener called for volunteers pledging that those who 
signed up together would be allowed to serve together. It was overwhelmingly 
successful at first, but the regional composition of the battalions was the 
precursor to tragedy. As waves of shop-keepers and clerks were cut down in 
thousands on the fields of France, their communities were simultaneously 
striken with grief that is sometimes difficult to comprehend. Have you ever 
heard the phrase "the Lost Generation?" Just think of the tradegy it would 
portend if all those lost were right-thinking conservatives.

>>    Well, I also have problems with Quantum theory, but I wouldn't say 
>>that either I or Albert Einstein should be considered outcasts. Einstein's
>>criticism was usually more than just blowing smoke. Wasn't Dirac's 
>>relativistic QM a direct response to Einstein's criticism?

>--You have problems with Quantum theory?  Hmm, I'd like to know how much you
>know about it.

    Admittedly not much. Most of what I recall came from a book by Emilio 
Segre called _From_X-rays_to_Quarks_. Since Segre was a contemporary of 
Einstein and Bohr I find his description of the personal interactions 
involved in the development of QM quite fascinating.

>--Hopefully you don't have any problems with the stuff we have done here at
>Cornell involving QM. That'd be inexcusable.  Fermilab, ok.

    No, I don't have problems with empirical work either then or now. The 
thing that I (and Albert) have (had) problems with is the Copenhagen 
interpretation of the theory (essentially that beneath a certain level 
statistics are all there is and determinism goes out the window). Certainly 
at that point our tools for understanding and investigating are all 
statistical, but I just don't believe that low level particle interactions 
are purely due to chance. 

>       Read, AN AMERICAN LIFE, by Ronald Reagan.

    Currently I'm plowing through _Plagues_and_Peoples_ by William McNeil, 
and the next thing on my list is _The_Te_of_Piglet_ by Benjamin Hoff (sequel 
to _The_Tao_of_Pooh_).

    After that, who knows. I keep waiting for some conservative to buy me a 
copy of Rush's book since I can't bring myself to do it.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10140 talk.abortion:48940
From: don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 21 Nov 1992 02:55:43 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

[text deleted]

>>  This is classic liberal intellectual dishonesty. What fraction of
>>  women who get abortions are married?  Maybe 1%??
>
>This is classic ignorant stupidity.  More like 20 - 30%, depending on
>what year you look at.  And of what relevance is that, anyway?  Saying
>that people who don't want to have [any more] children should refrain from
>sex *is* including *all* the married couples who don't want [more] kids.

  Oh REALLY?  I notice you didn't cite any sources.  And even if 20%
  were the actual figure, it is certainly the minority of cases, and
  should be referred to as the exception, not the rule.  Did I say
  that people who don't want kids shouldn't have sex?  There IS a 
  thing called birth control, and an unexpected pregnancy doesn't
  necessitate abortion.  Certainly if a woman is older and can't
  physically cope with a pregnancy, then an abortion would be 
  performed to save the life of the mother, but MANY people who
  you see every day ARE the result of unexpected pregnancies.  I
  would say that people who CAN'T have pregnancies for one reason
  or another shouldn't have sex, yes...
    
  Please do tell me where you got that 20-30% figure, because that
  figure seems ridiculous.

>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

						-Don Bromley
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:49:46 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

I finally heard a commercial done by Bill Bennett.  Just out of curiosity,
is he considered a member of the religious right by the Liberals out there?
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.

Jennifer, "let's get a LITTLE more accurate with those Subject: lines, eh?"
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT
Forget Rush!  What's the Comedy Channel going to do?  All the dumb blonde
jokes resurfaced earlier this year and are worn out now.
---------------------------------------------------
I need a smiley for the sarcasmically impaired.
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:17:33 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

# As for a "public reference to religion" being extremism, don't be silly.
# Extremism is Pat Puke-cannon's declaration of "religious war" on those
# who don't agree with him.  See the difference?



Buchanan did not "call for a religious war."  He said that there was a
religious war already going on.

Do those with a religious orientation no longer have the American right
to speak their mind, to state their opinions?  Does their citizenship
somehow become second class?  If so, then "Separation of Church and State"
becomes, not a doctrine of fairness, but a club to subjugate those with
that orientation. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh