HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Rush -- Insurance and AIDS
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 05:19:19 GMT

 (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: dickw@IASTATE.EDU (Richard Wallingford) writes:
:
: >Rush was talking about people whose insurance gets canceled when it
: >is found that they have AIDS.  He thinks it's just fine that they're
: >canceled because they caused their own condition (he used the analogy
: >that fire insurance won't pay if you set your own house on fire).
:
: >I don't think Rush understands insurance very well.  First, his
: >analogy is faulty because fire insurance *will* cover accidental
: >fires started by the homeowner (i.e. grease fire) and most AIDS
: >cases are contracted by accident (even if there is stupididty and
: >ignorance involved).
:
: >Second, if a person has health insurance *before* he/she gets AIDS,
: >then the insurance company should be required to pay up to the maximum
: >lifetime benefit of the policy.  Risk is the whole principal behind
: >insurance coverage.  The insurance company is "betting" that you won't
: >get sick and you're "betting" that you will.  Both parties are agreeing
: >to take the financial loss if they lose the "bet" by signing the policy!
:
: Hmm.. Ever considered this alternate scenario?  The insurance company
: is investing in your health like it is stock.  When the value of that
: stock is beginning to decline they sell it off.

Say what?  It's my money.  I pay them.  What, exactly is the insurance company 
"investing"?

[Lot's of stuff deleted because I have not studied the health care issue]

: >On something totally unrelated, I've noticed that Rush has started
: >making personal attacks on his enemies.  For instance, he said
: >Patsy Schroeder looks like she's constipated when she smiles (she does!).
: >It's a very accurate description and her smile *is* extremely annoying
: >but I'm worried about Rush loosing credibility by making these statements.
:
: Have you heard what these same people have been saying about Rush for
: all this time? Guess I can't begrudge him this.

No, what has Patricia Schroeder said?
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:15:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Dec29.000622.24041@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec28.154215.13989@rchland.ibm.com> 
|> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|> 
|> > This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
|> > all along.  They'll get arrested to save a life, but
|> > once the baby is born they could care less.  Try to get
|> > some of these folks to support social programs like
|> > WIC or foodstamps.  
|> 
|> Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
|> programs like WIC and foodstamps.  And the poor tend 
|> to be the strongest opponents of abortion.  

Not according to many posts already in this group.
  
|> But I don't follow your reasoning.  If someone supports 
|> the criminalization of an immoral act, then why must they 
|> support those who wish to commit that act?  Does my support 
|> of rape laws imply that I must satisfy the desires of  
|> potential rapists?  If not, then what's the difference
|> between that and abortion? 

Huh?  If you're implying that I support goverment funding
of abortions, you're wrong.  My statement simply said that
most pro-lifers I know are against feeding people and 
would rather ignore hunger in their own country than pay
more in taxes.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: Valid Space-related research...
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 26 Dec 92 22:29:15 PST

In article <1992Dec26.092310.11874@fcom.cc.utah.edu> freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
>  IMHO, there is some valid research going on as far as the space program
>is concerned.... it just isn't being done by NASA.  I feel that Biosphere II is
>the most important bit of space related research we could possibly support.
Only someone TOTALLY ignorant on the whole subject of space research
could
have possibly made that last statement.  Biosphere II is nothing but a
big scam being financed by a Texas(?) millionaire family for political
and personal gain.  I challenge anyone to find ONE reputable scientist
who thinks that it is a *real* scientific experiment.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:39:48 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Dec21112413@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>, larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes...
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:18:08 GMT, graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) said:
>  [...]
>>>Can you provide at least one reference to substantiate, without
>>>question, that Rush is a "bigot"?
>>>
>>>I'd really like to know.
> 
>> 
>>Definition (roughly) BIGOT: Someone who discriminates against another because
>>                            of a group that the other person belongs to.
>>                            Thus, all anti-homosexual type people are bigots.
>>                            So are all anti-feminists.  So are all
>>                            anti-aardvarks (a.s.s. joke =)
> 
>JIM> Ok.  Let me rephrase....
>JIM> In what way, specifically, has Rush shown himself to be a "bigot" by the
>JIM> above definition?
> 
>bigot: (from the Spanish, hombre de bigote, lit. "man with a moustache"),
>n. 1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed,
>opinion, etc. 2. a narrow-minded, intolerant person. -SYN. see _zealot_.
> 
>I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether either
>definition from _Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language_ 
>describes Rush or not.

Fine.  So far, I've seen two definitions of "bigot".

But, no one has YET shown a single definitive example that shows Rush
to be a bigot.

I suspect there aren't any, or I would have been flooded with them by
now, considering how quickly the left tends to label those opposed
to their ideologies, without first getting the facts.

I'm waiting....

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Socialism/Liberalism
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:04:27 GMT

gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:
>I haave often been dismayed by the self righteousness of socialists,
>and liberals.

    I have sometimes been dismayed by the self righteousness of both the 
left and the right.

>They have a holier-than-thou attitude because many people who call 
>themselves scientists have wonderfull theories as to how to structure 
>a less chaotic, and more compassionate society.

    And not only do those people call themselves scientists, that's what 
most of the rest of us call them too. However I'm confused that you single 
out scientists since they're not the only ones to ever have theories on 
how to structure a better society. Religious leaders were putting their 
own theories on that subject into practise for thousands of years before 
scientists ever existed. Military leaders since Sargon have also had 
their hand, as have merchants, industrialists, and lawyers. I have no 
problem with the idea of letting scientists have their turn at bat.

>If these theories are based on a false premise, then all of the 
>theorizing involved leads to a false conclusion. 

    In that case, what does that imply about the remainder of your post?
Could your theories be based on a false premise?

    (Such as...)

>Wealth can only be created by free enterprise. Wealth cannot 
>even be redistributed by govt. as it is destroyed in the process.

    I guess you're using some definition of wealth I've never heard of.
Governments have been based on redistribution of agricultural wealth for 
about as long as there has been agricultural wealth to pass around. In 
what way would you say that grain (for example) is destroyed when it is 
taken from farmers and given to artisans?

>The problems we have in this country do not stem from too little
>govt. created stability, but rather from too much govt. created
>instability. 

    I could almost agree with that except that I don't believe that 
governments are the ultimate source of either stability OR instability.
Those things appear to arise from economic and political forces which lie 
beyond the control of governments.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:01:22 GMT

In article <DOEL.92Dec21144248@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>
>Patrick Humphrey writes:
>
>> In article <nate.960@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> 
>>    >        I've never before heard anyone claim to have been kicked out of 
>>    >an unmoderated newsgroup.
>> 
>>        This is admittedly the first time I've ever heard anyone make that 
>>    claim as well, but I've seen a couple of cases in which hordes of people 
>>    have posted "requests" for other dissenting persons to butt out and leave 
>>    a group until they have "learned" more appropriate opinions. Consider the 
>>    case of Steve Chaney or Jack Schmidling. Basically these two guys have 
>>    gotten unpopular enough that they can no longer hold fruitful discussions 
>>    here because people are so busy berating them for past transgressions or 
>>    trying to put words in their mouthes in order to create new offenses. Both 
>>    of these individuals have been effectively "kicked out".
>> 
>> Really?  It seems to me that the individuals in question made their own
>> decision to leave.  They could have stayed, but they didn't.  In case you're
>> too busy defending them to notice, those two you mentioned can't hold a
>> worthwhile discussion for one basic reason:  they have no interest in
>> holding one in the first place.  
>
>
>Way to prove Nathan's point Patrick.  They don't even say anything & you
>slam them (presumably for past transgressions).  What type of reaction could
>we expect if they dared post something you disagreed with?

PROBABLY more of their drivel.  This is Steve Chaney we are talking about.

Alex
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%"Show me a young man who is a conservative,%
% and I'll show you a man with no heart,    % 
% show me an old man who is a liberal, and  %
% I'll show you a man with no brain."       %
%    <-- Winston Churchill                  %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Dec16.192317.24677@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <BzDnnu.L9K@news.udel.edu>
	<92352.102515KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:26:19 GMT

>>>>> On 17 Dec 92 15:25:15 GMT, KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) said:
Kurt> In article <BzDnnu.L9K@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) says:

>I vote for democracy in action -- no moderation.

Kurt> And I agree.

Then why do you folks want a new group?

With democracy in action, it'll be *infested* with evil net liberals in no
time, who'll spoil your alt.praise.rush-limbaugh posts with all their
non-right-thinking posts.

Well, maybe you do need a moderator after all.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
It's time to find out what's in the other half of Rush Limbaugh's brain.
Now where's my cleaver?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:37:08 GMT

aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) says:
>>If you lefties think that this is a contradiction, you should spend some 
>>time over on alt.fan.dan.quayle.  I got kicked out of that group because I 
>>didn't think that dan is as dumb as the media portrays him.

>        I've never before heard anyone claim to have been kicked out of 
>an unmoderated newsgroup.

    This is admittedly the first time I've ever heard anyone make that 
claim as well, but I've seen a couple of cases in which hordes of people 
have posted "requests" for other dissenting persons to butt out and leave 
a group until they have "learned" more appropriate opinions. Consider the 
case of Steve Chaney or Jack Schmidling. Basically these two guys have 
gotten unpopular enough that they can no longer hold fruitful discussions 
here because people are so busy berating them for past transgressions or 
trying to put words in their mouthes in order to create new offenses. Both 
of these individuals have been effectively "kicked out".

>This ludicrous assertion shows you for the bonehead you truly are.

    Merry Christmas to you, too.

>Have a nice day.

    Ditto.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Rush in Greenbelt Maryland
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:01:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.235206.12031@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu () writes:
>Can someone please tell me the time and station on which I can get
>Rush's show in Greenbelt Maryland.  I am going there on monday for a
>couple of weeks.  Radio and TV.  I would assume that Greenbelt gets the
>same TV shows as D.C., and I know that the liberals in D.C. have
>successfully kept it off of the air, but I don't for sure that Greenbelt
>doesn't get other programming.
>


Good luck, I spent a lot of time inthe D.C. area and to the best of my
knowledge rush's TV show is *not* aired there. He is one the Radio. 11-2
on 630 (i think) on the am dial.

jim shirreffs

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Enough Already!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:17:01 GMT


In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh a couple of geniuses write:

	>In article <1992Dec30.142658.14090@novell.com>,
	bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

		>> In article <C01x89.MC1@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com
		(Jim Shirreffs) writes:

		>>contention that anal intercouse is WRONG, men butt
		fucking

	>male member into and the results thereof(see baby), and the
	>anus for the removal of waste. I believe each

Folks, would you _PLEASE_ consider taking this stuff to
alt.politics.homosexuality where it belongs, and stop subjecting everyone
else to it?  Jeez, I'm trying to eat lunch here!

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Rush -- Insurance and AIDS
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:40:38 GMT

mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

> (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>:
>:
>: Hmm.. Ever considered this alternate scenario?  The insurance company
>: is investing in your health like it is stock.  When the value of that
>: stock is beginning to decline they sell it off.

>Say what?  It's my money.  I pay them.  What, exactly is the insurance company 
>"investing"?

Wrong.  The insurance company and its investors put up their capital to
invest in the first place.  Once you have "paid" them, that money is theirs 
also.  As long as they stick to the legal contract they have made they are
within their rights to do what they want with their money.

If their contract gives them to right to revoke coverage or raise premiums,
that's just tough luck.  If you agreed to it, you are the one at fault.

>-- 
>Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
>(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
>The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
>Even if you choose to ignore it. | 


Edward Simmonds


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stupid obligatory sig to satisfy Tony Zugates                             -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-                                                                           -
- Being a scientist doesn't make one an expert on everything, just on       -
- things no one else cares about                                            -
-                                                                           -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Summary: Ye must be born again!
Organization: These are my opinions.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:59:13 GMT

Mike McAngus writes:
>David L. Hanson (dlhanson@nap.amoco.com) wrote:
>: In article <0JoBwB4w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com
>(William C. Barwell) writes:
>:
>: >There aint any such clause.  However.   Thomas Jefferson and James
>: >Madison were the fathers of the first amendment.  In a letter to a group
>: >of Babtists, the Danbury Babtists, jefferson uses the phrase "Wall of
>: >seperation".  He makes it very clear that there is to be a STRONG wall of
>: >seperation between Church and State.
>:
>: The State he was talking about was the federal goverment, not state
>: governments, as will shown below.

>Even if your point is granted, the Fourteenth Amendment makes the U.S.
>Constitution the supreme law even in the States.

But you changed from the topic being discussed.  It was what was Jefferson's
view on the first amendment not whether that view is legally valid today
(I think that it is by the way).  I am not prepared to discuss the 14th
amendment's affect on the "one way separation" of church and state.  Perhaps,
if I get time later in the week, I'll look it up some material on it.

[Most of the rest of the discussion deleted since the 14th amendment was
not under discussion]

>: The first amendment has only been "stepped on" in this century by the
>: enemies of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  Liberals, both on and
>: off of the Court, are rewriting history and fooling most of the people
>: with their lies. They are doing this through their control of
>: the public socialist [school] system which is a tool of the socialist
>: left used to corrupt the minds of the youth of this country.

>Talk about sweeping generalizations!  Up to this point I thought Mr. Hanson's
>arguments were reasonable.  But here, at the end, he blows it by making ad
>hominem arguments with no substance.

Most of what I posted was quoted from the book by David Barton; this was
written by me.  It is my strong opinion that the public schools are
being used by Satan to corrupt the minds of children.  You may find that
unreasonable or not; it doesn't matter to me (not said defiantly just as
fact).

Signature follows:
"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."

=========================================================================
David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
Any opinions expressed are my own!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh