HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Libero/consevatives DO oppose First Amendment rights ?
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:49:35 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <15NOV199214193432@venus.tamu.edu>, lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:
>>>Perhaps you can point out a few opposing examples for us?
>> 

[.................]
>>   All of this leads me to the solid conclusion that conservatives
>>are the real guarantors of First Amendment Rights in the U.S.  Liberals
>>support other people's First Amendment rights only when the speach 
>>agrees with them.  Liberals have concocted a large number of terms 
>>like "political correctness" in attempt to stifle the First Amendment
>>rights of people with opposing viewpoints.  Political incorrectness
>>**IS** fully protected by the First Amendment, but liberals refuse to
>>accept this.  Conservatives, however, always respect the First Amendment
>>rights of everybody, regardless of opposing viewpoints.
>> 
>>   Liberals are no more the guarantors of the First Amendment than
>>totalitarians are the guarantors of personal freedoms.
> 
> 	I live and work on a primarily conservative campus. Everything
> 	you cited above goes on here too, only here its the conservatives
> 	doing it to the liberals. The era signs dont last 5 minutes and
> 	the religious/conservative signs have been known to evoke threats
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	if they are touched. If you will not confuse the entirety of liberalism
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	with the small sample  to which you are exposed, I will try not to
> 	do the same with conservatives.

It's a shame EVERYONE doesn't show respect for free speech.  However, a cynic 
might note that "threats if they are touched" may speak volumes, both about 
conservative defense of free speech AND about private-property rights.....

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
  
"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly 
[barking sound FX], relentlessly, ruthlessly [I wonder where Ruth is], 
toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..."
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag bashes Rev. Jackson, again
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:42:37 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

Just to bring this thread back to the original topic, on his TV
show a few nights ago Rush explained that he pronounced Cuomo's
name "Coo-mo" because the Reverend Jackson (which Rush pronounces
"uh-REV-uh-rend-uh-JACK-son-uh") pronounced it that way one time,
and Rush doesn't want to be accused of making fun of Reverend
Jackson's pronunciation.

Vintage Rush.  He makes fun of Jackson's pronunciation (both when
pronouncing "Cuomo" and when pronouncing "Reverend Jackson"), then
denies that he is doing it, and then claims to be going out of his
way to *avoid* making fun of Jackson.  

Of course, every good Limbot knows that Rush was only joking, and
that this is not an example of Rush hiding his nastiness behind
empty disclaimers.

David
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:34:12 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>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.

I guess you would be. I'm just a plain old Christian raised in a
Southern Baptist church and an Episcopalian school, now in a Methodist
university, so I guess I'm a Religious Right fanatic. The only people I
know who are "religious" and are not members of the Religious Right are
	1) Reverend Jesse Jackson and followers
	2) Ultra-environmentalist extremists
	3) Satan worshipers. (They're probably politically correct.)

-- 
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,alt.politics.clinton
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:35:45 GMT

In <Bxtz1o.8DE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, Greg Trotter writes:

>In article <92321.34354.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LM
>>In <1992Nov16.162924.1337@news.vanderbilt.edu>, John Rickert writes:
>>
>>>   Oh, I get it now.  It took me long enough.  But I think I finally
>>>caught on.  Religious = religious right.  A public reference to religion
>>>is right-wing extremism.  Now I see...
>>
>>Not quite.  The difference comes when the distinction between religion as
>>a *personal decision* and religion as a *government mandate* isn't made.
>>I'm fairly religious, and I freely share my *personal* beliefs.  One can be
>>a fundamentalist and not be part of the "religious Right." How?  By accepting
>>that their religion, no matter how devoutly they practice it, is a *personal*
>>lifestyle choice involving them, their family, their church, and their God.
>>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.

>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?

Last time I checked, we had a First Amendment which prohibits this, so they
would be wrong.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  But did you mean "are NOT wrong?  The
above statement is diametrically opposed to your next sentence:

>Like court decisions to restrict prayer in public places?

Of course not--not if the prayer is voluntary, anyway.  What you are talking
about is *not* what I was talking about.  I was talking about religious people
imposing their morality--NOT about non-religious people forcing their secular
views on others.  Either way, it's just as wrong.

Tim Irvin
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:20:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>Funny; I was under the impression that both Bill Clinton and Al
>>Gore were Southern Baptists.  Are they part of the Religious Right?
>
>At least not in good standing.  Bill's pastor said that he could not, in 
>good conscience, support the candidacy of Mr. Clinton.

Does this mean that Clinton is not a "Southern Baptist in good
standing" because his pastor didn't vote for him?  

Or could it be that your view of Christianity is so narrow that
you can't understand how someone could be both a Southern Baptist
and a Democrat?

David
From: ebcs1011@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:23:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <1992Nov17.230140.18099@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......
> 
> 	
What is this?

	Lighten up a little.  You can't tell me that you wouldn't have laughed
if that was Dan Quayle instead of Chelsea Clinton.
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:10:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

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.

To condemn an entire group for the sins of its extremists is bigotry.
Pat Robertson does not define Christianity any more than Florence
Kennedy defines feminism (or any more than Marx and Lenin define
American liberalism. :-)   If anyone is equating all religious people
with the extremists of the Religious Right, they are sinking to the
level of Rush Limbaugh.  If I hear them doing it, I will criticize them
just as loudly as I criticize Rush.

One final question.  If you object to all religious people being
lumped together with the Religious Right, will you object when Rush
uses the same tactic to stereotype and condemn some other group?

David
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Popular Vote - Mandate or No Mandate?
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:15:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article   writes:
>v!cfa203!borden
>From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
>Subject: The Popular Vote - Mandate or No Mandate?
>Message-ID: <1992Nov10.172113.2964@m5.harvard.edu>
>Date: 10 Nov 92 17:21:13 GMT
>Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
>Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA
>Lines: 9
>
>I'm not going to argue this largely semantic question; I would just like to
>point something out to all you people who are having fun pointing out that
>almost sixty percent of voters voted for someone other than Bill Clinton:
>_more_ than sixty percent of voters voted for someone other than George Bush,
>and _eighty_ percent of voters voted for someone other than Ross Perot.
>So there.  What's the big deal?
>
>   - Dave Borden
>     borden@m5.harvard.edu

The big deal is twofold: 1) Bush and Perot lost!  If Clinton had lost with 
60% not voting for him, then no big deal. 2) Liberals (esp. the liberal 
media) are claiming a mandate.  Not with 60% voting against!

Ted

-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:40:31 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
: >>What phrase would you want them to use for the "religious right"?  
: >>"Religious" alone is clearly too broad; believe it or not, there are
: >>some *liberals* who are deeply religious, too.  The real problem with
: 
: >no flames please - I am just providing factual information:
: 
: Not a flame, but an observation... When the US Catholic bishops a couple days
: ago decided to shelve a declaration on the Church's position on women's issues,
: the media reported it, then immediately interviewed feminists who want female
: priests.  The media passed up a golden opportunity to lable these dissenters
: as "the religious left," but instead passed with the impression that these
: dissenters represent an overwhelming majority of American Catholics... and they
: represent, of course, nothing of the sort.
: 
: 	Dave      

I dunno, I've never seen any polling data on this- but I'd imagine
that a majority of the American people (perhaps a slim one) 
would feel that keeping women out of the priesthood was rather
silly.  

Bill 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: The Popular Vote - Mandate or No Mandate?
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:25:37 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>The big deal is twofold: 1) Bush and Perot lost!  If Clinton had lost with 
>60% not voting for him, then no big deal. 2) Liberals (esp. the liberal 
>media) are claiming a mandate.  Not with 60% voting against!

I haven't heard anyone in the media (liberal or otherwise) anyone claiming
that Clinton has a "mandate". Now, I have heard (on several occasions)
people say that the voters voted for a "mandate for change". Since
over 60% of the people voted to oust Bush, then I tend to agree with that
assessment.


-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumni)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Anwar Mohammed's possibly fraudulen (was Re: Trickle Down Economic
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:20:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.215059.11116@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.214711.16499@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:

>>I have a major onjection,  I think it is very important that an open a free
>>discussion of the bush-organizations activities be brought to the light of
>>day.  Most importantly is the fact that information about President
>>Clintons passport and travels were circulated through the group.  As we all
>>know that information was obtained unethically and possibly in grossest
>>violation democracy and limits of the executive branch since Watergate. 
>>What do members of this group think about the fact that the executive
>>branch may have obtained this data by abusing its power and going into
>>Clinton's record?  Are not they also part of the crime by spreading this
>>information.  If the executive branch can search and distribute our
>>passprts and other private information in an effort to gain political
>>power,  and if their are stooges out their who will spread the information
>>around without think,  then how can we hope to continue to enjoy the
>>liberty we now have.

>Get a brain, and try a little honesty before you post.  From the first
>time this issue came out, the Rep. party has said that is was the

Is this the same Republican party which said that Nixon wasn't a crook,
or is this a different one?  Geez, now there's an unbiased source.

>(democratic run) State Department which did those things, and the

Huh?  Since when is the State Department run by Democrats?  Are you this
ignorant, or is it the fault of the liberal media that you think this?

>whitehouse was NOT involved.  And finally, the liberal press is forced
>to admit it.  Just yesterday, the (extremely liberal) LA times said so.

That would be odd, since it isn't true.  Elizabeth Tamposi, the
political appointee who was fired for doing the search, has said that
the White House ordered it done.

Now, granted, she could be lying to cover her own rear, but since she
was a political appointee (a friend of John Sununu's), it's hard to see
a clear distinction.  And besides, somehow I can't see someone doing
this on their own, without authorization from the White House.

If the media were liberal, they would have printed the Iran-contra and
Iraqgate stories without having to have them shoved down their throats.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9855 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8712 talk.politics.misc:60530
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:44:03 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
> >     It looks as though some Democrats are beginning to adopt the
> >"America, love it or leave it" slogan.  On CNN's Capital Gang,
> >Paul Gigot articulated the case for congressional term limits,
> >to which special guest Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D) replied, "If you 
> >like term limits, then move to Mexico."  (I guess elected officials
> >are only allowed to serve one term in Mexico.)
> >     Well -- I don't know about the rest of you -- but I think it's
> >time for me to order that "S-O-C-K-S" language course.  :-)
> 
> Great!  Now you've given me something else to disagree with Pat Schroeder
> on.  Thanks a lot!
> 
> Seriously though, I've wondered what impact the recently passed legislation
> in several states will have on the operation of Congress.  Since the choice
> leadership positions are based at least partially on seniority, aren't
> those states putting themselves at a disadvantage?  I've always favored
> term limits but it seems to me that they should be applied across the
> board.
> 

As if we NEEDED something else to hate about Patsy Schroeder!

Actually, term limits are already law in 17 states with about 35% of the
American population, and is on the ballot for the next election in a
number of OTHER states. I expect that by 1996, we'll have seen term limits
face the voters in every state that has an initiative process. Frankly, I
expect them to pass. 

When enough congresscritters are from term limited states, they'll pass a
Constitutional amendment for term limits, so as to deny an unfair
advantage to crooks, er, representatives, from non-limited states. 

Of course, if this is what it takes, I'm all for it!

ken mitchell

kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (Was: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:32:22 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
.eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
.>dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
.>-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? 
.>
.>Southern Baptists sometimes are perceived that way. In fact, in a lot of
.>cases, just plain Christians are perceived thusly. Anyone who calls for
.>a return of morals and a values system in American society is labeled a
.>member of the "Religious Right."
.
.Well, my father was a Southern Baptist preacher, and
.I know very well that Southern Baptists are a very
.diverse group.  Isn't Bill Clinton a Southern Baptist?

Yes, Bill is a Southern Baptist, and yes, I said "sometimes."

.To me it depends on what form the "call to a return to
.morals" takes.  To use your right to freedom of speech
.to try to convince others to adopt a particular value
.system is one thing.  To try to force it down other
.people's throats is another thing altogether.  I think
.that the problem here is that a lot of people on both
.sides can't tell the difference.
.
.I fully realize that there are people who think that
.Christians should not even be allowed to express their
.personal beliefs about morality and values.  But please
.don't assume that everyone who expresses disgust with
.the Religious Right has this attitude.  Some of us
.simply don't want to have someone else's religious 
.values forced upon us.

I agree that the call to return to some moral center cannot be coerced
or programmed into the populace. On the other hand, many things that
Christians do that are not intended to be coercive are being prohibited
or censored because of the perception that we are forcing our views on
others. 

I don't want other people's religious values forced upon me, but I'd
like to know what they are in any event, without ridiculing or
trivializing. The free exchange of ideas helps to challenge our faiths
and hopefully makes us stronger. This is one thing some in the Religious
Right don't like: to have their ideas challenged by others (even other
Christians). I cite the Southern Baptists basically because of the
conflicts it has endured for the past few years regarding the
"leadership" of the Southern Baptists, whether they be Fundamentalists
or Moderates. They also did not endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket, if I
remember correctly.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10220 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8987
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush's book
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:20:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
=Well, it seems that Rush Limbaugh's book has returned to
=it's lofty #1 position on the New Yorks Best-Seller list. (non-fiction,
=hardcover)
=
=Madonna seems to be going down ... And Rush is now atop her.
=Well, Madonna USED to be atop Rush, but no longer.

I know a lot of guys who would like to be atop Madonna and vice versa.
-- 
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
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:04:57 PST

In article <9799@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
>dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>>For that matter, I'm unclear why the media uses the phrase "religious right,"
>>and not, say, "homosexual left," or "feminist left."  For that matter, I've
>>never heard an "*anything*-left" mentioned.  To the media, the opposite of
>>"right" is not "left," but "moderate."
>
>What phrase would you want them to use for the "religious right"?  
>"Religious" alone is clearly too broad; believe it or not, there are
>some *liberals* who are deeply religious, too.  The real problem with

no flames please - I am just providing factual information:

In fact, religious left is very large, perhaps larger than the religious
right.  I am talking about several groups: (1) the Jesse Jackson crowd
(I know that he has many non-religious followers, I am not counting
them).
(2) those Christians who are considered, from a religous/theological
viewpoint, liberal (they vastly outnumber conservative Christians, and they are
mostly politically liberal too; many conservative Christians would say
that these liberals should not be counted as Christians) (there is overlap
between (1) and (2)). (3) the mayority
of Jews (I am basing this on the fact that I personally know very many
Jews, several of which very actively live out their religion, and they
are the ones who tell me that the vast majority of american Jews are
democrats.)


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion