HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:39:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

rickertj@athena.cas.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...

No, you still don't get it.   Could it be that you have just never met
anyone who holds religious beliefs without wanting to impose those
beliefs on others?  That would explain your confusion.

As for a "public reference to religion" being extremism, don't be silly.
Extremism is Pat Puke-cannon's declaration of "religious war" on those
who don't agree with him.  See the difference?

David
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9759 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8642
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Name calling (Was: If character isn't an issue ...)
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:24:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>Have you noticed the clowns that supported Clinton so rabidly still haven't
                      ^^^^^^
>heard the election's over?  They still keep up the childish namecalling like
>a bunch of spoiled brats.  Come on children, you're supposed to be more
>mature than that, at least discuss your objections like adults.

I see.  Now that Clinton has won, the liberals should stand back
and let the conservatives do all the name calling?  

But what about those of us who, although Republicans, were so disgusted
by Pat Puke-cannon and his ilk that we voted for Clinton?  Can we be name
callers or not?  What about those of us who are conservative without
being followers of Pat Rawburpson and the Coercion Coalition?  What about
those Republicans who just couldn't stomach a President Dan Quayle?  Or
those of us who listen to Retch Lymphnode, but are not Limbots?  

You can see why I'm confused about whether or not I am allowed to indulge
in name calling or not.  I'm anxiously awaiting your clarification.  

David
Anagrams:
Presiddent Dan Quuaaiyl ==> End USA Quality and Pride.
Rush Limbaugh Fans ==> Laugh, F------ Mush Brains!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
XXXDate: Fri, 20 Nov 92 23:40:40 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A732C588C4050642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:49:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.155459.6850@nas.nasa.gov> Dan King,
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:
>>Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
>>No Sex is Safe Sex. 
>>Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
>>will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
>>result from sex, either. 
> 
>Then don't have sex.  Some of us feel the rewards from sex are 
>worth the risk.  Some of us are willing to leave our houses 
>knowing that it could result in harm, but knowing the reward 
>is worth the risk.  If you feel safer staying in your house 
>and avoiding all outside risk, hey I would never pass legislation
>forcing you to leave your house.

I'm sorry, what risk are you referring to? Since you feel no 
responsibility towards an unborn child and you can talk so callously
about killing such an infant, it is apparent that you aren't taking
any risks at all. Unless you mean the risk of having to pay for someone
elses abortion!

I guess I hadn't realized that I had become so out of touch and that
I wasn't aware that so many people are using abortion as casual
birth control. Naturally if you don't have even the morals to consider
that you may be killing another human being, then you won't feel much
compelled to consider taking responsible action to keep the pregnancy
from happening in the first place.

Thank you for making me aware how morally low people in this nation
have sunk. I think I have just become much clearer in my stance on
abortion.

Elizabeth, don't let these hypocrites twist your thoughts about the
subject. It is refreshing to find young people who use their brains
rather than their genitals to make important decisions in their lives.

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
In-reply-to: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu's message of Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:41:40 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<Bxtz1o.8DE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:21:05

In article <Bxtz1o.8DE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

>   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?
>
>   Like court decisions to restrict prayer in public places?
>
>						   - greg

Now there you go again.  I have never heard of a decision to restrict
prayer in public places.  The state is not permitted to display
religious icons and imagery.  The state cannot mandate (good word,
eh?) a time for prayer without violating the 1st amendment.  The state
cannot restrict the exercise of religion, with a few noted exceptions,
without violating the 1st.  Notice that these things all deal with
what the state cannot do.  

Oops.  I forgot.  The state doesn't allow burnt offerings to the god
of Winston-Salem in public places.  My mistake :-).  IMHO.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10346 talk.politics.misc:61502
From: michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Trend
Date: 24 Nov 92 04:11:08 GMT
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US

The easiest way to become an expert on the rules of
foreign policy is not to memorize the rules, but invent new
ones.


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:41:05 GMT

Aiken, great, at least you are amused.

	Come on, look what I have said.  I am not arguing for the status-quo, 
	as someone put it elsewhere with my discourse.  INstead, what you
	call criticisms aren't.  I am proposing better way of doing things.  
	Implicitly, yes, I guess they serve to criticize, but look back to 
	what I have been saying and you'll see that I am not a parody however
	humorous, of myself.

Gregory Daigle, Jr.
Cornell University

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9876 talk.abortion:48263
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 03:42:58 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Fraud called Global Warming
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <Ef4Gxaa00awYQ41EUn@andrew.cmu.edu> Gary James Patalsky <gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>More proof that global warming is a fraud.  The average temperature in
>the Antartic has dropped by 2.5 degrees in the last 40 years, according
>to an article in the Milwaukee Sentinel.  This is the same place that
>environmentalists said would be most affected by ozone depletion (which
>hasn't occured either).   What about those ice caps that are supposed to
>melt??  You would, of course, never hear about these facts this on the
>national news.

Proof?  Hardly.  If you want to claim it's evidence, well, that's another
story.  As others pointed out, it's hardly even evidence.  Global warming
(if it is a fact, and the jury is quite out on it) would *not* lead to 
uniform rises in temperatures around the world.  Ozone depletion isn't
even a minor factor in global warming theories.  What others didn't
mention is that under several global warming thoeries, the ice caps would
actually *grow* in size.  In fact, during warmer periods in earth's past,
ice caps have indeed grown in size.  This is because the warming trend
causes more water to evaporate into the atmosphere, resulting in an increase
in snow at the poles, for a variety of reasons.

C'mon, Gary, you do the folks who share your beliefs a disservice by
spouting this nonsense.  At least do a little research on the matter
beyond tuning in Limbaugh Radio every day.  You might learn something,
too.  There's a very good article in New Scientist (8/8/92) called
"Icy Prospects for a Warmer World" which you might find enlightening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lav4208@venus.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: Libero/consevatives DO oppose First Amendment rights ?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:41:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.174935.261@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com writes...

[...]

> 
>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.....
> 

So conservatives ripping down liberal signs and defending conservative signs
is constitutionally correct while liberals ripping down conservative signs and
defending liberal ones is constitutionally incorrect, even for the same
amendments? (or am i misreading the obvious implied double standard here)
Please elaborate.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Chelsea insult, apology
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:43:32 GMT

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?

Get a clue - the show is uplinked on the satellite at 8 p.m. EST, while 
Rush has already said that the pre-production meetings occur in early 
afternoon and we know that callers are supposed to call from 5:30 to 
7:00 pm. An hour and a half to shoot 22 minutes of show is not a heck 
of a lot, especially when you have a studio audience that you want to 
keep fired up and entertained.

So, after shooting there is less than one hour to edit and transmit the 
show, which any professional in the biz will tell you is not a lot of 
time at all. 
-- 
John Switzer               | "If you ask me, Larry, the Clinton Presidency
                           | has failed. What has he done? Nothing!"
CompuServe: 74076,1250     | --Dave Barry to Larry King, November 12, 1992
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | (P.S. Impeach Clinton, support the coup!)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:57:14 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea insult, apology
 <1992Nov19.024001.17263@rchland.ibm.com>

In article <1992Nov19.024001.17263@rchland.ibm.com>, jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
(Jared Dahl) says:

>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>Clinton is Prez, and the Right is PISSED!!!!
>HA!

We are?  I had no idea.  Oh well, guess I better go loot a grocery store.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: If character isn't an issue ...
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:14:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1e64trINNeka@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>Reminds me of the clowns that are making excuses about how BAD Clinton 
>is going to be.  Like, "He didn't have a mandate."  or "If the 
>Republicans had run a REAL conservative."  or  other such tripe.

I, for one, and most intelligent folks, don't see a "mandate".  There's been
a ton of onesided discussion of this "mandate" issue, the Democrats think he
has one, the Republicans don't.  The fact is, he doesn't.  The vote shows
that.  He has a mandate in the sense the dictionary defines mandate as an
authorization to act, but in the sense it's a landslide and therefore he
has the overwhelmingly complete support of the American people, he doesn't.
I'm not saying he's going to be bad for us, maybe some Clinton supporters
are already seeing the handwriting on the wall, maybe some Republicans are
getting a little panicky.  I do question the support for gays in the military
idea coming on Veterans Day.  I do question some of his backers getting
ready with their wish lists (Harriet Woods and her "50% must be women" idea).
Hey, I'm willing to give him some rope, and wait for '96.  I'm a government
employee, who probably won't lose my job during his reign, no matter what
he does.  I do fear for my kids and their job possibilities.  I do fear for
the moral position of this country.  I do fear for the idea that we have
a President who "will learn on the job" (a quote of a Clinton spokesman)
in the area of foreign affairs, when the world is looking like it's not
as safe yet as we thought.  And I do wonder about the common sense of
an electorate that voted in, to quote Rush quoting a listerner, a
reputed liar, womanizer and draft dodger.  But hey, this is America.
If that's what the largest number of voters want, so be it.  Like I said,
I can wait for '96.
 

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:52:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov20.185626.27980@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>
>Killing children is bad.

Yup.  It's also illegal.  But what does that have to do with abortion?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:52:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.162237.743@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.042749.7615@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>Huh?  Abstinence = no pregnancy.  That was my point.
This is untrue. Look up rape in the dictionary.

>Notice my "right now?" comment above?  I think that if we don't pull together 
>and acknowledge that killing an unborn child is just plain wrong 
>*as a society* (and do something about it) then we face self destruction, 
>either from a government that has to step in where it will only do harm
>or from a populace that has lost all reasonable definition of what a 
>moral/workable society is.
Why? It looks to me like the pendulum is swinging back from a regime
where the government steps in. And I don't see us facing self-destruction
from morality loss or any such thing. 

>BTW, if you can't agree with this, then I have no option but to label you
>as pro-abortion, and not just simply pro-choice.
Ratshit. !((!Believe abortion is wrong)==(Believe (!Abortion is wrong))).
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:18:34 GMT

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>    Actually I was kind of hoping that he'd come up with a way to outlaw 
>posts that don't have anything new to add to a subject. At least it would 
>put an end to the abortion debate.

	Kudos, Engle, my sentiments exactly.  Death penalty too, just personal
opinions, fact have long been uncovered.  Anyway, the conversations about
thought and  etc, were getting a little tired, so I posted the homosexual
bit.  Which I think is the correct way to approach the problem.  This is
Clinton's first "presidential" decision and I think that it is not a good 
one in the sense of his ignorance of top military officials, etc.  

	Gregory Daigle (emacs at last!)
	Cornell University
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Presidential Wives
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:39:11 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
$patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
$>	so i'm listening to the show yesterday (11/17) and 
$>	rush and a caller are harping on bill for letting
$>	his wife hillary in on all the planning meetings...
$
$Even better was Rush's TV show two or three nights ago,
$where he was whining about how so many liberals complained
$about Nancy Reagan's influence in the White House, but
$you won't hear them complaining about Hillary's influence!
$
$Here's a clue, Rush:  If Hillary starts getting her opinions
$from an astrologer, I think you'll hear some loud complaints
$from the liberals again.  

Yeah, right. Only if Clinton doesn't go along with THEIR program.

What if Nancy got all her opinions from some lobbyist or influential old
friend of hers or Ron's? Do you think there would be a lot of screaming
if this happened? Of course, because it's a conflict of interest. Will
it happen when Hillary's on Pennsylvania Avenue? Hmmm.....


-- 
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
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Religious Right 
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:30:04 GMT

In article <92321.34354.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>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.
>
>Tim Irvin

   Please re-examine your last statement again carefully.  The position
that morality should be left out of laws is itself a moral position!  The
question is not whether law will reflect a morality, but rather what kind
of morality it will reflect.

   Additionally, very few laws try to legislate beliefs.  Most laws that
impinge most directly on morality proscribe or punish _actions_.  Thus,
one is free to believe that murder is perfectly OK and that some people
may even deserve it;  one is not free, however, to commit it.  There is
a big difference between "morality" as a system of beliefs and "morality"
as reflected in actions, and public policy may rightly deal with the
latter.

   Here's something else to chew on.  In Washington's Farewell Address,
he said to the effect -- this may not be quite an exact quote -- "Let
it be asked where is the respect for property, for reputation, for _life_
if religion desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation
in the courts of justice?"


John Rickert					Nec vitia nostra nec
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		remedia pati possumus.
							-- Livy

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:27:56 GMT

In article <9728@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
# rickertj@athena.cas.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...
# 
# No, you still don't get it.   Could it be that you have just never met
# anyone who holds religious beliefs without wanting to impose those
# beliefs on others?  That would explain your confusion.
# 
# As for a "public reference to religion" being extremism, don't be silly.
# Extremism is Pat Puke-cannon's declaration of "religious war" on those
# who don't agree with him.  See the difference?

That's funny, when Buchanan said 'religious war,' I took him to mean 'a war
concerning the issues with which religion deals' not 'jihad.'

Here it is in context.

"My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It
is about who we are. It is about what we believe, it is about what we
stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our
country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to
the kind of nation we will one day be - as was the Cold War itself.
And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on
the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And, so, we have to
come home - and stand beside him."

You hear what you want, I suppose...

-- 
ssc@nwu.edu | Mentula conatur Pipleium scandere montem:
            |  Musae furcillis praecipitem eiciunt. (Catullus CV)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
In-reply-to: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu's message of 13 Nov 92 06:22:59 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<grendel.721584583@camelot> <1992Nov12.123540.3910@wkuvx1.bitnet>
	<grendel.721635779@camelot>
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:05:09

In article <grendel.721635779@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>   Four liberals, four conservatives, and a swing voter.  Sounds good to me.
>   Any objections?

It sounds good in principle, but how are we going to account for
people like David Souter?  He was supposed to be died in the wool
conservative, and the son-of-a-gun is using constitutional scholarship
instead of a political agenda to come to decisions.  What are you
gonna do?

Oh, yeah, IMHO.

Peter.
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh