HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:39:07 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec8.203109.22379@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Where is any individual guaranteed the right to serve in the military.  
>This has nothing to do with equal rights.

The military is a tremendous portion of the national budget, paid for through
taxpayer money.  It's one of the major opportunities in this country for
employment and service.  You want to deny a whole class of people this
opportunity for service - I guess you feel that it's only for "your kind",
your kind being people you consider "normal".  Well, I have a different
definition of normal than you do.  We don't have room in the public sector
for the kind of wholesale discrimination you espouse.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:54:08 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1181@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov27.195814.17466@rotag.mi.org>
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>|In article <1152@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>
>|>In any case, how is this different than saying, "they implicitly agree
>|>to arrange care for the [possible] child" when people willingly engage
>|>in heterosexual intercourse (i.e. excluding rape or incest cases)?
>|
>|Because of the "[possible]" part you felt compelled to insert into your
>|sentence. The legality of possibilities differs substantially from the
>|legality of actualities. In the case of law wrt reproduction, there can be
>|no such implicit agreement before birth, although an explicit agreement
>|is always permissible.
>
>You argue above in effect that allowing the child to be born is an
>implicit agreement to care for it.  How is that different from saying
>there is an implicit responsibility on those who engage in sex to care
>for any resultant children?  It isn't.

You are correct.  If any children result, there is an implicit responsibility
to care for them.  However, action may be taken to ensure that no children
result.  For example, contraceptives.  If those fail, then abortion is
a way of ensuring that no child results.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11928 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10459 alt.politics.clinton:18878 alt.politics.bush:14748 alt.politics.homosexuality:8181
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:23:02 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> I'm not assuming anything.   The New York Times had an article on Sunday
> - you can easily look it up - in which it was claimed that many of the
> things that church and other groups complain about in the famous book
> simply are not in it.

And I told you I was not quoting a "church and other group"; I was relating 
what a homosexual poster told me it said.  Do you think his portrayal was 
inaccurate, or are you just being a snit? 

> Now I am waiting for you to produce quotes to substantiate your claims.

You can wait till you're blue in the face.  I've said repeatedly that 
I have not read the book myself; and the quote I gave was from someone
who had read the book, and whom I had NO reason to believe was 
misrepresenting it; if you feel it was inaccurate, say so.  If you 
just want to whine 'cause I haven't read the book, go ahead. You're
whining about me substantiating my claims, are you even saying they 
are wrong, or just plain whining? 

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12009 talk.politics.space:1563 sci.space:17933
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors (was Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:53:59 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Dec20.044836.26997@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

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

>Because they're too damn dangerous.


Gee, all kinds?  Do remember that there are at least 3 fundamentally
different classes of breeder reactors that we know are workable (fast
breeders, thermal breeders and spallation reactors).  The second of
these already has instances in commercial use (Canadian CANDU PHWRs,
and the related Indian PHWRs).  These can be operated in the
thorium/uranium fuel cycle which involves no plutonium, although
currently they operated as burners with natural uranium.

With natural uranium currently at $10/lb, and with fossil fuels
abundant (too abundant, some might say) breeders (as such) don't
currently have sufficient advantages to overcome political and
economic obstacles.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11889 alt.politics.clinton:18850
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:48:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

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>
>
>Your argument is well stated.  I think we can all agree on the problems
>inherent in sexual repression inherent to our culture.  And I agree that
>homosexual rape in the military is not only a potential problem in the
>military, but an actual, current one.
>
>However, the problem is actually a broader one, one of rape in general. 
>To limit the focus to homosexual rape distorts the reality of the
>problem.  Therefore, to make your argument complete and persuasive, a
>couple of other things need to be demonstrated.  One, that homosexuals
>are more likely to perpetrate a rape than are heterosexuals.  After all,
>rape has =always= been a problem with the military, regardless of sexual
>orientation.  This was true even before the admission of women.  It has
>been true throughout the history of organized combat.
>
>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.

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:11:01 GMT

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

>>In my local paper (which is owned by the NYT) today there was a story
>>which directly contradicts these assertions. The headline was "Transition
>>aide says Clinton won't put tax on medical benefits". In the story, Judy
>>Feder, who is Clinton's transition team health policy chief, said that
>>President-elect Clinton is not planning to seek new taxes on employee
>>medical benefits to pay for health care reform. She said, "That was not
>>contemplated in the campaign, and there has been no change in that."
>
>Another example of Clinton talking out of both sides of his mouth, because
>Friday's Wall Street Journal quotes Clinton as saying he is considering ending
>the tax exemption on at least part of a company's health care costs. End of 
>exemption translates into more taxes being paid and thus higher taxes. This 
>translates into a defacto tax on a person's benefits that are above the 
>basic minimum which Clinton and his advisers have yet to settle on.

Another example of someone complaining about Clinton and incorrectly quoting
him. Clinton said nothing of the sort of ending any tax exemption. The question
posed to Clinton was, "[Do you think that there] ought to be some kind of
cap on the deductions that companies can take for health-care expenses?"
To which Clinton replied, "I think I'm inclined to agree with that".

So, where did Clinton say he was going to start taxing employee health
benefits with that statement, eh?

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:53:27 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec16.141432.7151@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> you write:
>In article <1992Dec10.155115.15000@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted
>Krueger, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>>Well, first of all homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle.  It
>>>is a sexual orientation.  People with this orientation have as many and
>>>as varied lifestyles as do heterosexuals.  The only lifestyle you need
>>>to accept and understand is your own.
>>
>>Oh!  Is that why they are forcing homosexuality down the throats of
>>children in public schools?  Now I understand.  I guess if Christianity
>>was a sexual orientation, then public school instruction in it would
>>be mandatory.
>
>I'd like to know where there is a school that has more nice things to say
>about homosexuals than is does about christianity.  In point of fact,
>they say damn little about either.

How much do you know about public schools?  Homosexuality is being promoted  
as an acceptable lifestyle.  Christianity is being ignored or forced into   
the closet.  See the recent court decisions about a school teacher who was  
ordered to remove a Bible from a class library which also included books  
on other religions. 
 
>>>As far as accepting and understanding a sexual orientation that is
>>>different from yours, that would be a nice goal however it isn't a
>>>requirement.  All that is required is that you know that different
>>>sexual orientations exist and respect that to each individual their
>>>orientation is as valid to them as yours is to you.  Pretty easy, huh?
>>
>>I disagree.  When gays are having sex on floats in a parade down the
>>middle of Main Street, I believe that gays are attempting to force
>>acceptance down my throat (no pun intended).
>
>Your fantasy life is really running away with you, Ted!  Seeing people
>having sex in a parade, now, are we?
 
Are you disputing this fact?  This actually happened in San Francisco,  
last summer I believe.  And no, I did not see this myself, but it was  
reported in the media. 
 
Ted 
-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:58:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.obsession
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Of course Switzer takes it seriously - if Limbaugh disappeared,
Switzer would have to try to have a life of his own.  

Susan



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11622 alt.politics.clinton:18594
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:06:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <YOUNG.92Dec11163254@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>
>Sounds to me as if Ted is making stuff up again.
>
>--
>Peter Young
>young@erim.org

Peter, read "Book Burning" by Cal Thomas, find the evidence I have 
cited, then please shut the hell up.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: maven@lerc.nasa.gov (Larry Fishbach)
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Reply-To: maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:48:48 GMT

In article <14002@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> Peter Young writes:
> 
> >Would you elaborate on the symbols of the religion of Secular
> >Humanism?  I have seen various forms of crucifixes for Christian
> >symbols, the Star of David for a Jewish symbol, and a crescent (I
> >think) for Muslims, but I am unfamiliar with the Secular Humanists'
> >symbol.  If it is there, I will alert my local ACLU chapter to bring
> >procedings to have it removed.  I don't accept any establishment as
> >being valid.  
> 
> The government is not, or should not, be an entity in its own right, but
> merely a convenience to represent the people.  Since the US is a democracy,
> plurality rules.  The government should properly bear out the will of most
> of the people, most of the time.  To arbitrarily rule against the wishes of
> the people- in this case, if most of the community would like a nativity scene,
> or whatever, is not merely a neutral role.  Rather, the government is arbitrarily
> deciding that it knows better than the people do.  Notice, no one is being
> compelled to do anything, but the govenrment should be the servant of the people.
> Banning Christian symbols is not a neutral position, but does represent a bias.
> 
> 	Dave
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.
  

-- 
*******************************************************************************
maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov   Larry Fishbach @ NASA Lewis Cleveland Ohio
"Everything here is my own opinion"   Quoth the Maven "Evermore"
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11432 alt.politics.clinton:18439
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
In-reply-to: libwca@emory.edu's message of 18 Dec 92 03:48:49 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:01:35

In article <1658@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:

>   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, wherein the federal government is forbidden
>   to favor any establishment of religion.  Courts have ruled that,
>   due to the fourteenth amendment, the bill of rights applies to
>   state and local government as well.  If a local government
>   sanctions the display of religious symbols, it's favoring an 
>   establishment of religion.  
>   It's really that simple.

>   Bill

I guess I can understand the problem.  It's not really that simple.
There is a lot of folks that feel that the local government being
prevented from displaying the prevailing religious symbol constitutes
a restriction on "the free exercise thereof".  To some the question is
simple, but to others, the line isn't clear, and its position wouldn't
be clear if the line itself were.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:31:56 GMT
	<1992Dec13.054552.8080@anasazi.com>
	<YOUNG.92Dec13125039@ssdd475a.erim.org>
	<1992Dec13.222013.25233@anasazi.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
In-reply-to: john@anasazi.com's message of Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:20:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.222013.25233@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>   Okay, I'll explain  it again (for about the 3rd time in this thread).
>   Hets need not fear sexual interest by the African American. They
>   do fear it from gays. I know that some people will say that gays
>   won't find hets sexually attractive, but that is utter crap, as indicated
>   by plenty of unfortunate incidents where gays made passes at hets
>   who responded violently. It DOES happened. It HAS happened. It will
>   happen again. It is frightening and anger provoking for many young men, and
>   that is dangerous to military units. 

Listen dispassionately to your argument, John.  It is exactly the same
as those against integration:

  Now, understand, I got nothing against them, myself, but there's a
lot of boys in the service that just won't serve with 'em.  One of
them boys tries to eat at the wrong table, and it happens, I know it
does; I've seen it and it ain't pretty; and by God, your gonna get one
dead sunofabitch.  It is anger provoking and frightening for many
young men to find themselves exactly equal with those black folks.
Yessir, it just goes against all common sense to force this in the
military.

I see no difference between an irrational fear of skin color and
irrational fear of getting fucked in the ass.

Petyer
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:36:51 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Bill Anderson writes:

>Perhaps you were just being imprecise, but I haven't noticed that 
>Christian symbols "can't be allowed" by the government.  Rather,
>they can't be adopted by the government.
>I'm really, really sick of this "Christians are a persecuted
>minority" stuff.  It just ain't so, folks.  

My statement about "not being allowed" meant that the governments won't
put up nativity scenes, or can only do so with lots of restrictions.
This wasn't to imply that Christians are a persecuted minority, because
I don't think they are actively persecuted.   A neutral position would
be, let people put up their display on land that they own.  A non-neutral
position is, don't let people put up their display, since that display
happens to be avowedly Christian in nature.

	Dave


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11779 rec.humor:36627 alt.politics.clinton:18779 alt.politics.bush:14633
From: turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
Date: 18 Dec 92 09:11:03 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

To: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson
Cc: 
Bcc: 

In article <17DEC199211542156@zeus.tamu.edu> you write:
>In article <1992Dec14.190603.26283@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Teddy Krueger) writes...
>
>|Not only marital status, but sexual preference as well.  We, here in the 
>|liberal enclave of Tucson, AZ, have a board funded by the city which responds 
>|to ALL cases of discrimination.  Their billboard specifically mentions 
>|SEXUAL PREFERENCE.  I guess that means that teachers who have a sexual 
>|preference for children must be hired by our school district, or else we 
>|will be forced to pay defense costs in the discrimination suit.
>
>	I'd be worth looking into as to how your statutes define
>"sexual preference".  If it is defined, it's probably something that
>included only cases that involve two consenting adults.
>
>	If "sexual preference" isn't defined in law, it needs to be.
>Because I agree with you that sex with children should not be included.

The non-discrimination policy that Tucson has had for the last 15+ years
prohibits discrimination on the basis of "affectional preference" and
is widely interpreted to mean that one can not be discriminated against
because of sexual orientation (ie, gays, lesbians, bisexuals AND 
heterosexuals are included and protected under this law.).  There is
no way that one could misinterpret this law here to believe that 
child molesters are protected.  (Well, if one is an arch-conservative
than one would read about anything into it.)
 
>
--
LLLLLLLL LL  LL  LLLL  LL   LL  | Thom Turner, Co-Chair
   LL    LL  LL LL  LL LLL LLL  | Nat'l Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Student Caucus
   LL    LLLLLL LL  LL LL L LL  | 815 15th St. NW Suite 838/Washington,DC 20005
   LL    LL  LL  LLLL  LL   LL  | E-Mail: turnert@gas.uug.arizona.edu        
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton