HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Pollitically Correct vs M
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:14:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

JB>From: birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM (John Birge)
JB>Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
JB>Subject: Pollitically Correct vs Morally Correct
JB>Date: 6 Jan 1993 00:59:24 GMT
JB>Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
JB>Message-ID: <1idatcINNnef@male.EBay.Sun.COM>
JB>Reply-To: birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM

JB>What is morality beside the collective perception of right and wrong?
JB>Is religion anything other than that collective perception formalized?

Yes. Religion is a lot more than a set of moral tenets, backed up with
some sort of deity or deities. Religion is an entire system of beliefs,
morals, and practices centered around a particular faith.

JB>The Politically Correct bring us a world where a dolls (Barbi) comments
JB>about the difficulty of math brings down the  wrath of the PC'ers but
JB>they turn their heads as M tv provides footage exploitive of women hourly
JB>which, by the way, is aimed directly at our youth.

Not so. Feminists have, and do, protest the depiction of women (in
things like music videos) as brainless boy-toys.

JB>PC dictum is intolerant of Manger scenes on public property but
insist JB>that the public funding of "Piss Christ" ( the picture of
crucifix in a JB>jar of piss) is a valid use of tax payers funds.
Manger scenes on public property violate the 1st Amendment. Public
funding of art, even offensive art, does not.

You seem to be committing quite a syllogism.  Politically correct people
support feminism, secular humanism, anti-racism, etc.  Therefore, in
your syllogism, anyone who supports these things is PC.  Not so.
"All As are B" does not mean that "All Bs are A." Political correctness
can be a feature of any part of the political spectrum, and simply
denotes an intolerance of debate or openness about a subject.
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . "God created Michigan to train the faithful."
 * KMail 2.94e W-NET HQ, hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-663-4173 or 3959
               
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13512 alt.sex:41543 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12101 alt.politics.correct:6128 alt.politics.equality:53 alt.politics.homosexuality:9280 alt.politics.clinton:19986
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (Gadson Sandor)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Hate Crimes Laws (Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid )
Date: 10 Jan 1993 01:44 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan8.191523.24269@nma.mnet.uswest.com>, tareyno@nmws22.mnet.uswest.com (Toni A. Reynolds) writes...
|In article <7JAN199309294308@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

||> 	Certainly.  Why not say something like: "No person shall
||> 	be deprived of employment, housing, or economic service
||> 	simply due to his or her actual or perceived sexual ori-
||> 	entation - regardless of what that orientation may be."

|This suggestion has been made by a journalist for the Rocky Mountain News
|in Denver, it's called the "May amendment" I disagree because it stil 
|doesn't address the issue of hate crimes. You hets don't seem to realize 
|how real a threat that is to us.

	I'm not an Het.  I am Gay.  But I am not sold on the hate-crimes
issue.  I have seen cases where the someone guilty of battering a Queer
was given a lighter sentence.  I think this is as wrong as giving the
basher a heavier sentence than would be dictated for anyone who batters
anyone.  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| If you can come up with something that says I can prosecute some jerk who 
| beats me up because I'm queer I'll agree. Sure, I'm
|supposed to be able to prosecute for assault now, but the reason hate crime
|laws were enacted is because sometimes that doesn' work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Then it's a flaw of the judicial system that needs to be worked 
out.  But getting us the right to prosecute someone who assaults us does 
not require hate-crime laws.

	If we deem that a person's sexual orientation is not justification
for assault, then there is enough protection without having to elevate the
punishment beyond that for someone who assaults someone for /any/ unjusti-
fied reason.

	That's my opinion.  But I'll stand by it as firmly as by my belief
that there should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:46:05 GMT

In article <16B4C9DEB.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:

>To consider the Rev. Mr. Peters as representative of all Christians
>is as unfair and innaccurate as considering the members of ACT-UP or
>the stereotypical "screaming queen" as representative of all homo-
>sexuals.

Good point.  Let's go with someone like, say, New York's Cardinal
O'Connor.  Or perhaps the Pope?  Or are they not representative enough
of Christianity for you?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's Bigotry
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:23:54 GMT

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
>Jim Graham writes:
>>The irony of Jesse Jackson, to me, is that he claims to be a "reverend".

>>Hogwash.  Nobody that deliberately causes divisions can be considered
>>a peace-maker by any stretch of the imagination.

>>White, or black.

>I understand that Jackson is an ordained minister, but is he a practicing 
>one? Has he had a regular congregation in the last 20 years, one in which 
>he knows many of the common faithful on a personal basis, having attended 
>their births, baptisms, funerals, having consoled families on their losses 
>or confusion?  If not, exactly what does he do for a living?

    Well, not unlike Pat Robertson or my old favorites Jim and Tammy Baker, 
I would imagine that Jesse has a very demanding schedule of TV appearances.
And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he has been putting out feelers 
for some sort of position in the Clinton administration (which would put  
him, like many other Americans, in the category of 'seeking employment').
Didn't he also have rumors of a TV show beating in the wings?

    If you think that such activities are scarcely appropriate for a man of 
the cloth then I might possibly agree with you, but I would note that he 
appears to have had less influence at the Democratic convention than Pat 
Robertson had at the Republican convention. Congressmen and lawyers are 
certainly at or near the bottom of the list of people who command respect, 
but televangelists are still hanging in there.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:18:13 GMT

In article <C0DKsH.2rx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
>I only know of three states for the PC crowd to boycott now:
>Arizona (no MLK day)

Sorry, we now have one.  It was voted in in November by popular vote.  As
other's have mentioned, the ONLY state in the Union to adopt an MLK day by
such a vote.

>Colorado (no anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals)

Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for Boycotts.

-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:17:13 GMT

>In article <1993Jan6.201444.17666@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>There is no question that our founders were extremely Christian.
>
>Ted
>
There's no question that you missed a lot of the previous discussion
about this, Ted.

As has been pointed out by many and backed up by my own reading the
Founding Fathers were predominantly Deists who believed that after
creating the Universe, God sort of "went away" leaving mankind
to fend for themselves as best they could. At the very most the
god they believed in was strictly non-interfering in human
affairs.

They may have based most of their moral standards upon the Bible
but that's hardly suprising since the Bible had already been
the foundation of Western morality since the establishment of the
Holy Roman Empire. Besides, the Bible contains a lot of what you
might call "moral no-brainers" like:

	Don't murder other people
	Don't steal from other people
	Don't dis your parents
	etc...

Most of it might as well have come from Confuscianism with the exception
of the random reference to "God" in government documents.

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh



	Temple Owls Are Everywhere!!

give my love to petey & mr. chaney,
patrick  EE '86.
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was Re: Sexuality)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 13:42:00 GMT
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu

In article <1993Jan9.070936.5813@netcom.com> tomboy@netcom.com (Thomas Miller) writes:
>First of all, homosexuals pose no greater a threat to blood donations than any- one else.  All human beings who donate blood get the same test which is not
>discriminant on the basis of sexual orientation.


BZZZZTTTT, wrong answer.  (It is also stupid and potentially dangerous).  The
blood bank I am a member of has a pretty tough verbal screening test designed
to weed out high risk individuals from even DONATING blood.  (It used to be
a fill out the form questionaire but now is a sit down with the nurse one...)
The big high risk groups are homosexuals and those who practice homosexual
'style' activities.  Now why would the people who are RESPONSIBLE for the
safety of this country's blood supply do that?  Are they homophobes?  Are
they just stupid doctors who don't know anything?  Or do those groups,
maybe pose some significant risk to the rest of us?????

  BTW, the test that is done to the donated blood has a delay factor - it
doesn't detect HIV during the first 3(exact figure anyone?) months after
infection.

  Also, the blood bank has has to go to elaborate methods to keep these
yo-yo's from lying on the screening and donating anyway, so as not to be
'embarrassed'.  After the questionaire the give you a pair of barcode
stickers, one is labelled YES and the other NO.  You peel off the appropriate
one (and the label goes in the trash) and they put this on the blood you
donate.  They then scan it later and toss out anything that has a 'NO' bar
coding on it.  Talk about a sicko tho, too embarassed not to stop from 
endangering someone's life!  

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality is unnatural?  So what?  CIVILIZATION is unnatural!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:21:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.061047.19122@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>A lot of people seem to think that homosexuality is bad because it
>is "unnatural".  They leap through a lot of hoops to ignore homosexual
>behavior amoung animals, and perform other post hoc rationalizations to
>excuse their prejudice.
>
The fact that animals do it is irrelevant.
Men  are part of nature. So, if men do it, it is natural by definition.
Even if other animals do not do it, it does not change anything.

I do not know why people try to ignore that men itself is as part of 
nature as any other animal. 

Now, the fact that it is natural does not mean that it is good or bad for
us in terms of morals or desire.


AAP

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: CO Boycott ordinance in Chicago
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:46:56 GMT

Alderman Mary Ann Smith of Chicago's 48th Ward is sponsoring a Chicago ordinance
which would severely restrict official City business with the State of
Colorado. We Gay-Rights types from the Windy City are excited about this and
are hoping that this ordinance will pass. Ald. Smith has been a consistent
supporter of Gay Rights in her community and in the Chicago area.

Let the boycott spread.
Lost Boy
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:40:06 GMT

In <C0qDLv.HIz@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com sez:
>
>Where was Thurgood Marshall a judge?  

On the Second Circuit, one of the federal appeals courts.  FYI, he
also served as Solicitor General, the 3rd-ranking Justice Dep't post
whose officeholder functions as the government's primary advocate
before the Supreme Court.  Your beloved Robert Bork held exactly the
same offices -- federal appellate judge and SG -- albeit in the
opposite order.


-- 
  I stared balefully out at the studio audience, which was chanting
  something that sounded like "dork".     -Mark Leyner

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13510 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12099 alt.politics.clinton:19984 alt.politics.bush:15769 alt.politics.homosexuality:9278 talk.religion.misc:25725
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:44:25 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <g4022qg@rpi.edu>, root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
> In article <tinkess.726424634@cambridge> tinkess@cambridge (Randall Tinkess) writes:
> >
> >Get realistic! There is very little comparison between the public and
> >private school environment. School populations are usually smaller as are
> >class sizes in private schools. Also, the general environment is much more
> >controlled. I doubt that crack dealers are hiding in the fire escapes of 
> helsea's new school. All of these factors and many more will definitely
> >lessen the level of disruption caused by a studuent such as Chelsea. 
> 
> 
> Gee that's a nice description of Private schools, wouldn't it be nice if
> every child regardless of income to go to these schools that don't have
> "the crack dealers hiding in the fire escapes", as you put it.
> 
> You just made when of the best arguements FOR school choice that I've seen,
> thank you...
> 
> 
> >You obviously don't remember the circus atmosphere that surrounded Amy
> >Carter when she attended public school. All of the publicity and 
> >attention had a negative effect on  Miss Carter's school years. This
> >is a fact that she and her father have attested to. 
> >
     Perhaps Mrs. and Mr. Clintone have seen what happened to Miss Carter
as a result of attending public school and have decided that they didn't
want to foul up Chelsea...

> >I see no advantage to putting a member of the first family at risk to
> >satisfy conservative whiners. And if you don't think there is any risk 
> >I suggest you look closely at the D.C. school system. 
> >
     The Guv'nur took great pride in the public school system which was
in place in Arkansas; he said that HE would be a real education president;

     Leadership through example, Billy.

> >The school crisis in this country will not be solved nor changed by 
> >where Chelsea Clinton studies. 
> >-- 
> 
> Clinton campaigned as a strong supporter of Public Education, except I 
> guess, when comes to himself or his daughter. He supports school choice
> only for those that can afford it.

Amen to that.

Kevin L. Stamber
Purdue University

Two weeks until the four year winter begins....
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Berserk Sex Maniacs (was  Re: Lifestyle Choices)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:19:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.211206.18556@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.161506.7349@news.eng.convex.com> foster@convex.COM (Harry Foster) writes:
>>smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>>
>>>glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>>>> I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
>>>> of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
>>>> her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
>>>> in nature"?
>>>
>>>Yeah, ever see ducks?  Go to your local duck pond in the spring...the males 
>>>tend to gang up on and nearly drown the females...
>>>
>>
>>Fascinating!  One can only conclude that all male heterosexuals are 
>>berserk sex maniacs unable to control their behavior . . .
>
>Jeez!  How 'bout if we simply agree that humans cannot learn morals from 
>watching animals?
>
>Ted
>

How about if we simply agree that you are immoral by trying to change the
written record of history in regard to the religious belief or disbelief of
the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.
How about if we simply agree that you cannot prove the existance of any
diety, let alone yours.
  

Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ejohnson@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Eric E. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:02:17 GMT

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>>However, like I said, science at least offers proof of some of its
>>basic phenomena.  Religion offers none.

>And you can't prove the existence of color to a blind man.  The proof
>of science, like that of religion, is only useful to those who have
>eyes to see.

You should finish the analogy in proper fashion.  "The proof of
science, like that of religion, is only useful to those who have a mind
to think."  

Eric
-- 
Eric E Johnson             | "The uncontested absurdities of today are the
ejohnson@a.cs.uiuc.edu     |  accepted slogans of tomorrow." - Ayn Rand
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:37:39 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1irrl8INN7pr@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>
>Laurel Schipper writes:
>
>
>>Um, "one or two" years as a judge does not a Justice make. There were
>>plenty of qualified jurists (such as Edith Jones) who were passed
>>over, mysteriously, for Thomas. A position as a political appointee
>>at a regulatory agency, which deals with ONE AREA of the law,
>>doesn't provide much background.  A qualified Justice ought to
>>have a good deal of real legal experience.
>
>Why is it bad for a Republican president to make an important appointment
>based on politics, but OK for a Democratic president?  Clinton has said that
>he will make pro-choice a condition for his appointments to the bench.  Why
>is it OK for Ron Brown, a lawyer from an inner-beltway law firm and boss of
>the Democratic Party, to be appointed Sec. of Commerce... what does he know
>about commerce?
>
>	Dave

No one should ever say that politics should not play a part in the
appointment process. It should not, however, play the only part. The 
fact is that there were many conservative, republican justices much
more qualified for the court than Thomas.

As far as having a pro-choice litmus test for appointments, this makes
sense. From the pro-choise point of view, this is the same as having a 
non-anti-semite litmus test, or an anti-murder litmus test. Abortion
is viewed as such a basic right thet it would be absurd to grant an
appointment to someone opposed to abortion. Whether or not you agree
with this is another story.

As for Ron Brown, do you know that he isn't qualified? Hold judgement
until you have some evidence. I have no idea whether or not he will make 
a good secretary of commerce. With that being the case, I'll wait and see.
This is different from the Thomas appointment, where everyone, liberal
and conservative, seemed to know the man to be a low quality judge.

Robert Johnston