HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:50:45 GMT

In article <merlyn.724384557@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes...
>graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>>>>>graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>>>>>>One of the arguments against voluntary prayer that I hear over and over
>>>>>>from the left is that those who do not participate may feel "left out"
>>>>>>and therefore feel "ostracized" or somehow "inferior".  Poor babies.
> 
>[a bunch of text deleted, since almost everything is irrelevant]
> 
>>In practice, a student should have the right to pray at any time, and
>>in any place, as long as it doesn't literally upset the classroom
>>environment.
>....
>>One may argue about this, but so far, the only argument I've seen is
>>that it _might_ or _could_ make someone who doesn't participate
>>feel "left out" and therefore "inferior".
> 
>Perhaps you should active *seek out* real opinions on this issue, like
>supreme court decisions, and the arguments pro & con given in various
>school prayer decisions.
> 
>>And, just because the supreme court says it (if it does), neither justifies 
>>it nor makes it fact.
> 
>This is about the level of your argument; you don't know what the SC says,
>but if it says xxx, it's wrong.

No.  I at least know the major arguments used by the supreme court.  That
is why I'm not interested in arguing with those.

What I am interested in arguing is the flaky reasoning by some that 
even _voluntary_ prayer will make others feel left out.

In fact, my point is that this is absurd because there are so many 
analogies (which I've stated numerous times) that prove it.

> 
>All I've seen you do is bring up an argument just to shoot it down, without
>addressing actual legal questions. 

A.) How have I shot down my own argument.
B.) Again, I am not interested in what the supreme court says.  I 
    AM interested in the _reasoning_ about ostracization and
    inferiority.

>This is a classic strawman argument.

Why?  I've asked a simple question, and I've yet to see it addressed.

All I see, so far, is reference to supreme court decisions.

How is it a strawman?

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.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:56:20 GMT


Ted Krueger posted a few days ago a comment concerning a New York Times
article he saw in his local paper. According to Krueger the story said
that "the Democrats" were planning on "taxing health benefits" thus
actually increasing taxes on the middle class, something Clinton has
promised to avoid at all possible cost. Well, looks like he spoke too
soon.

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."

The story does mention that "some reformers have advocated taxing high-benefit
health plans".

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: "Dittos" for John Switzer (was Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:49:50 GMT

hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>> mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu writes:
>> >I just want to commend John for his tireless work in this area.
 
>> I can "ditto" that.  Although I find I disagree with Rush far more often
>> than I agree, I appreciate being able to keep tabs on him even when I can't
>> always listen to the show.

>Its also nice to know that John is spending all his free time doing this
>rather then going out to meet memebers of the opposite sex,  or other such
>activities which migh lead to a net increase in the number of conservatives
>in the world.

    It's entirely possible that John is doing more to spread conservatism 
by transcribing the words of Rush Limbaugh than he could ever do by going 
out with girls and making babies. For John's sake I hope that he finds a 
wonderful woman someday to be his wife (but I hope that it's not too soon 
because we'd probably miss his transcripts; as Garrison Keillor has noted, 
a contented man has no time for diaries [and probably no time for Limbaugh 
transcripts either]).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures (was: Summary Wed 12/2/92))
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 15:48:21 GMT

From porthos!walter!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!overload.lbl.gov!s1.gov!lip Sun Dec 13 10:39:39 EST 1992


>	About Madonna's book _Sex_ itself... Originally, she wanted to
>call it "Erotica" or "X", but decided on that title because of the old
>saying, "Sex sells". Just one of her little jokes.

[tons of Madonna garbage deleted]

I'd always wondered what desperate soul would spend $50 for such trash?  I 
mean $2.50 (or whatever it costs) for Penthouse or Playboy seems too 
expensive too me.  Myself, I've never understood the attraction of pornography
(or should I say ARTWORK (?!?)).  How viewing a woman in degrading poses can
turn someone on is beyond me, but then again I'm a boring Christian!

>	Looking over the many other things she has said over the
>years, I find her much more likable than Rush Limbaugh, who is an
>obnoxious, self-righteous boor.

I'll stick with Rush!  

-- 
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/lip@s1.gov

Bill Buoni
my opinions are my own!
From: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why can SNL get away with it....
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:37:37 GMT
Reply-To: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: polant@cuttlefish.cps.msu.edu

In article <92345.110321KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.123405.16049@afterlife.ncsc.mil>,
>acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) says:
>
>>>I wonder why Saturday Night Live can get away with making fun
>>>of Chelsea Clinton (blatantly) when Rush (my hero) gets dogged
>
>>Because SNL is not composed of professional political commentators.
>>They are humorists, first and foremost.
>
>They are entertainers, Rush is an entertainer.  It's not as if he were a
>news anchorman or something.  The fact that he also actually has something
>intelligent to say (unlike Wayne's World) does not take away from this fact.
>
>>Rush Limbaugh, by contrast, is a professional political commentator,
>>who (for some inexplicable reason) people take seriously.
>
>I'd say he's an entertainer whoM sometimes is taken way TOO seriously.

If rush is taken to seriously, then its because he wants to be taken
seriously.  Mike myers (wayne from snl) dosn't open for Bush, and dosn't
write articles in the NYT about clinton.  Rush was angling for a
insiders spot in the republican party, but bush ate it instead.  
    Rush can talk al he wants about "lighten up", but he is a partisan
comentator who has the ability to influence millions.  Unlike SNL, which
savaged both ford and carter and bush and reagan (ect.) he has a
message.  As far as it being more intelligent than waynes world I say
NOT!!!

--
p.s did anyone se rush one the donahue/pozner show.  I only saw the end
with him hedging on gays in the millitary, but it seemed his debate
skill are non-existant with anything smarter that a microphone.

Brad Polant
--LIke the missspellings? I made em' myself

>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
> kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.conservative.forum,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Welcome to alt.conservative.forum
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:03:05 GMT

This new group was created to provide a forum for conservative ideas. In
that sense, it is a counterpart to talk.politics.progressive, and pehaps
at some time should become talk.politics.conservative.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Another apology
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: usa
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:47:24


Once again I find myself in the unenviable position of owing Ted an
apology.  Some time ago, in the "Gays in the military" thread Ted
wrote:

>
>>   We don't need parades for anti-hetero violence.  What do you call rape 
>>   (as occurrs in prisons)? Very seldom does a hetero rape a homo.
>>
>>   Ted

It must have been a bad hair day or something, as I interpreted this to
mean that it is usual for homosexuals to be the rapists in prisons.  Of
course, as we assume that Ted is a reasonable man, he couldn't have
meant that.  There is no evidence that homosexuals are overly
represented among rapists in prison, so we must assume that Ted meant
that it is seldom that the victim of rape in prison is homosexual.  I'm
not sure why Ted wished to make this point; it seems rather self evident
that if the incidence of homosexuality in a population is 1-10%, then
the incidence of homosexuals as the victims of rape should be somewhat
lower than the rest of the population.

Again assuming Ted's reasonableness (is that a word?), there must have
been a reason for him to make this point.  Muzzy-headed thinker that I
am, though, I'm not sure what it is.  I will suggest some
interpretations, and then Ted can enlighten me, if he would be so kind,
as to what he actually meant.

1) Homosexuals have a hard time in society as it is.  It is unfair for
them to be the victims of sexual assault at all, so we need to remove
them from environments where it is possible for them to be so
victimized.

2) Homosexuals deserve whatever happens to them, and probably enjoy
being sexually assaulted, so we should do all we can to ensure that
there are many more of them in environments where they are likely to be
assaulted.

3) Men raping other men is so wrong that something needs to be done.
Perhaps we should insist on integrating women and children much more
fully into the military to give the sexual aggressors easy victims other
than men to choose.

4) Since forcing men to live together in crowded, stressful environments
will inevitably cause some men to choose sexual assault as a means of
demonstrating power over their lives, we must do whatever we can to stop
forcing men to live this way.  We must bring our collective voices to
bear demanding that the military as we know it be disbanded.


These are all of the conclusions that I can come to from Ted's post.
I'm sure I am missing something, as none of them sounds like what I
would expect to hear from Ted.  Oops.  There I go again, putting words
in Ted's mouth and thoughts in his head.  I wouldn't want to do that.
So, once again, I apologize, Ted, and await your response.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11968 alt.politics.clinton:18915
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 18 Dec 92 03:48:49 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Dave Bernard states that governments should display religious 
symbols because this is a democracy, and "plurality rules".
(Sorry for the lack of quotes, Dave- it's a flaw in the machine
I'm using.  If you feel I'm misrepresenting you, gimme a good
whack on the head.)
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

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: world, na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:17:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.230533.24002@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <300@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>Finally, I've seen a lot of men assume that all gay men will be
>>sexually attracted to them, or that all gay men are sexually
>>attracted to all men.  Either these men are incredibly conceited,
>>or they are themselves attracted to all women and projecting this.
>>
>>I wonder how many of these bigots believe that they've never

Susan, I must disagree with you, if you are saying what I think you
are saying. 

Now before we continue the name-calling in this thread with words like
"homophobe", "bigot", "racist", "sexist", and "anti-semitic" flying
like rain,let me make express my opinion. Personally, I don't have a problem
with gays in the military from the point of view that if a person is 
qualified to do a job, then his/her sexual preference should be
immaterial. 

However, I do believe that gays should be subject to sexual harassment
rules and conditions JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS. After all, the whole
point is to be treated  like everyone else, right? So as long as gays
keep their sex life to themeselves like everyone else, and theyre 
qualified to do the job, I'm all for it.

Susan, havent you ever been hit on by men? Women have made their opinions
very well known on how much they dislike unwanted attention from men. 
How is it any different from a man if he fears sexual harassment? Perhaps
the answer is to have showers for straight men/lesbians and women/gays.
That way we don't have the tension of being around someone potentially
sexually attracted to us when we are in a compromising position, so to
speak. I don't think you can totally invalidate the concerns men express
about potential sexual harassment. Are you telling these men to 
"lie back and enjoy it"? Do you know the sort of outrage such remarks
have engendered in women's groups? Be careful here, Susan, the shoe is
on the other foot now. If you want men to take women's concerns
seriously, you'd better be prepared to do the same.

Reply if youl like, but please: no-name calling, PC, "bigotry" or
"hate-crime" nonsense. If we can discuss the issue like adults, I'm
game.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11671 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10152
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:04:11 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Dittos" for John Switzer (was Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92)
 <1992Dec8.130035.27293@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
 <1992Dec15.001727.23303@ils.nwu.edu>

In article <1992Dec15.001727.23303@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (
BOB HOOKER) says:

>Its also nice to know that John is spending all his free time doing this
>rather then going out to meet memebers of the opposite sex,  or other such
>activities which migh lead to a net increase in the number of conservatives
>in the world.

Helping to spread the Word of Rush will likely do more to increase the number
of conservatives in the world than mere procreation anyway.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:14:37 GMT

In <1992Dec11.084944.8682@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:

>In article <grendel.723936369@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1992Dec9.131734.26204@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>>
>>>In article <grendel.723793007@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>>>In <1992Dec6.020030.25084@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>>

>[......]
>>
>>I agree.  I think there are some strong arguments against any governmental
>>funding of the arts, since the government is a secular, unbiased body.
>>And yes, there are extremists in the art community who are just as biased
>>as Helms and Robertson and their ilk.  I tend to dislike their art, and
>>refrain from patronizing it.  But at least they make art--Helms et al. don't
>>even try.
>>
>Ah, but there is an "art" to being a Right-Wing Extremist Senator...
>don'cha think?...
>"Piss Jesse" anyone?...:)

Touche.    :)


--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Newspapers screamed for blood...
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     it was the best of times."
Squid Power                              --Sting

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 20:53:27 GMT

Ted Krueger (krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu) wrote:
: In article <12DEC199213472570@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
: >In article <Bz5r1K.9wK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don
Wiggins) writes...
: >|
: >|  Except for an occasional screw-up (play on words unintended), the
: >|military has not knowingly drafted, enlisted, or commissioned anyone whom
: >|they knew to be homosexual.  Those who are later found to be such are quick
ly
: >|separated.  Admittedly, my experience only goes back three decades so I
: >|can't address what the policy was prior to that.  The "need every bit of
: >|help they can get" argument sounds more like a Billary initiative.
: >
: >  Indeed?  I was told that now-a-days, you cannot claim to be Gay
: >in order to get out of the military when there is compulsory service
: >(draft).  I hate to have given out incorrect information.  Do you know
: >if what you are saying is true for these days?
: >
: >Gadson Sandor
:
: I was in the US Air Force from 7 June 77 thru 1 Feb 1982, and if, at any
: point during that time, I wanted to get a "General" discharge, all I had
: to do was go to my commander and convince him that I was gay.  Guaranteed.
:
: Does anyone out there have newer information?
:
: Ted

I was hoping to stay out of this discussion, but now I must join in.  In the
mid to late seventies were a number of news reports of career military
personnel being discharged because they were homosexual.  The case I remember
most clearly was a _60 Minutes_ report about a black homosexual army officer
who served with distinction in Vietnam.  This officer did not hide his
homosexuality and was allowed to serve untill a few years after the war was
over.  Then he received a dishonorable discharge.

I am hesitant to bring this up because, just like a lot of the other arguments
on both sides, this is anecdotal information.

By the way, how do you all arrange to crosspost to so many Newsgroups?  (I am
arbitrarily removing alt.politics.bush and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh)

Mike McAngus
-- 
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the 
whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respection an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*!
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:59:26 GMT

kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:

>young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>> I didn't hear about this.  Clinton loathes the military?  Why wasn't

>Clinton's letter to the ROTC colonel who got him off the hook for the
>draft for that few crucial months back in 1969(?). Whenever, part of that
>letter as that he "loathes the military". It was widely reported, but
>nobody followed up on it; some people just don't hear things they don't
>want to know.

Ahhhh!! The good ol' "quote taken out of context" to make is sound like
someone said something they didn't trick! Gotta watch out fer that one!!

What Clinton REALLY said was, "I am writing to you in the hope that my
telling you this one story will help you to understand more clearly
how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their
country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have
devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give.

Now, if you take that sentence as Clinton saying that HE loathes the
military, the so be it, you'll read anytying out of anything you wish.
Me? I don't see it that way.


-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton