HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Year of the woman
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:10:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.183005.13365@draco.macsch.com> Bryan J. Blumberg <bjb@macsch.com> writes:
>In article <Bzp13q.Dut@ns1.nodak.edu> Brad Green, green@plains.NoDak.edu
>writes:
>>Yep, this was the year of the woman, all right.  Just goes to show women
>>can do it better than men:
>>
>>Diane Finstein fined $190,000 by the Election Commission for screwing up
>>her election figures in her ill-fated attemp to become California
>>Governor.
>
>Yep, she did do it better.  Her opponent, Pete Wilson, who
>actually won the election was only fined $100,000 for screwing
>up on *his* election figures.
>
hmmm, if more people ran for office in California, their budget
crunch will disappear in no time.  ;->  

>========================================
>Bryan  J. Blumberg, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation
>815 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, California  90041-1777
>(213) 259-4914, B_BLUMBERG@MACSCH.COM


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: biediger@lonestar.utsa.edu (David . Biediger)
Subject: Show Summaries
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:21:24 GMT


Can someone tell me how often the summaries are posted?
Also, is there a mailing list for them?  I checked the
FAQ but only found reference to the site they're on.


Thanks,
David
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:16:39 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>Chaney isn't flamed for his opinions - he's flamed because he sends
>death threats via e-mail to anyone who disagrees with him and because
>he forges articles and lies about news reports.

    Perhaps. I disagree with Steve Chaney on just about every subject 
you could name but so far I have received no death threats. As far as what 
causes Steve to get flamed, I assure you that every time I have flamed 
him it has been for his opinions. I don't deny that there might be other 
reasons for roasting him, but his opinions have been more than enough for 
me.

>It's much easier to blame ostracism on some idiotic notion of 
>"appropriate opinions" than to find out the facts, of course.

    It was not my purpose to pass judgment on the reasons Steve and Jack 
are ostracised. Suffice it to say that they *are* ostracised (as evidenced 
by the way people have gone ballistic over the mere mention of their names
without the usual curses and epithets).

>It's also easier to pretend that Chaney or Scmidling were ever capable 
>of holding fruitful discussions with anyone than to admit that they're 
>anti-Semitic hatemongers with deplorable verbal skills.  

    I disagree. In my opinion it is far more difficult to refrain from 
judging people than it is to damn them good and proper. I don't have much 
use for either of them, but there are far more heinous people in this 
world. I believe that there is room in the world for both the Chaneys 
and the Garvins.

>Whining about "politically correct" censorship is rapidly replacing
>cries of "Nazi" as the last resort of the Usenet  loser.

    Perhaps, but if censorship has not occurred in this case (at least 
on an informal level), then where are Steve and Jack? I have a feeling 
that people wouldn't whine about it so much if it wasn't happening 
somewhere. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Just my musing....
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:47:46 GMT
     <1h7gtbINNcgj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <61s2ry@rpi.edu> J.R. Ordon, root@june.cmp.rpi.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.085718.6333@desire.wright.edu>
f0358@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>
>>		Rush Limbaugh is a MORON!!!!!!!
>>
>There's tolerance for ya!!......
>

Absolutely!  Is there any better proof that "liberals" are a tolerant lot
than the fact that they are capable of not only letting such a moron
continue to broadcast, but also of listening to him and thereby inflating is
ratings (and, consequently, his ego)!

Merry Christmas!  Happy Chanukah!  Blessed Solstice!     

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: jackass
Date: 20 Dec 92 04:35:00 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Dec8.033528.3996@scott.skidmore.edu>
cmoore@scott.skidmore.edu (colin moore) writes:
>How many of you honestly think even Rush believes half the crap he
>emits every day?  The man's a nutcase.

Subtracting out when he is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, I
think he believes all of it.  I agree with most of it.

Since you are so clever at seeing through Rush, unlike the rest of his
audience, perhaps you could fill us in on it, logically, without the
name-calling?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 20:22:18 GMT

It seems that somehow, someone has taken a post that I wrote and mixed it
with someone else's dribble and has presented it as one thought!

I wrote the following:

>>My children are a precious gift that God has given my wife and I.  We have 
>>been entrusted with the responsibility of raising our children in a manner
>>consistent with the teachings of our faith.  Jesus Christ is as real to us 
>>as the keyboard that I am using at this moment.  When the school teaches that
>>homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, it operates in direct conflict with the 
>>values I attempt to instill within my children.  
>> 
>>These are my beliefs.  I don't expect you to adopt them, nor do I expect you to
>>accept them.  All I ask in return is that you give me the same respect in
>>return.

I also wrote:

>>with our (my wife and I) values is a violation of this respect. 

As well as some other stuff in between.

But I DID NOT write:

>>You know bub, Jesus may be real to you (as he is to me), but HE IS 

Yet they all seem to be represented as being part of the same thought!!!!

Just thought I'd point that out.

Bill Buoni
my opinions are mine and mine alone!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Bisexuality (was Re: [a long list of subjects])
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:27:36 GMT

In article <1hsme2INNdu@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> between teaching same-sex families, vs teaching families where one or both 
> of the parents are active bisexuals.  It is the question of sexual monogamy. 
> Most people I know of think that marriage should be monogamous.  Not that 
> it always is, but *should* be; we're talking an ideal.  Active homosexual parents 
> can be monogamous, but by definition, the appearance is that active 
> bisexual parents cannot, unless they are married to a male and a female. 

Monogamous means that you choose to be faithful to one person.  It does not
mean that you stop finding other people attractive.

It is a source of constant amazement to me that men who are attracted
to both blondes and brunettes have such difficulty with the concept that
bisexuals can be monogamous.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12516 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10937 alt.politics.clinton:19257 alt.politics.bush:15094 alt.politics.homosexuality:8585
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 30 Dec 1992 22:00:45 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> Pre-school.... I mean they are optional... Some parents with one way
> of value system might believe it is best to start their children at
> an early age...so they will send their kids to the pre-school class.
> They have that option.  Those who want to send their kids at a later
> age will send their children when they see fit or they may even opted
> out of sending their children period.......
> 
> Now...are yo willing to allow a class on sexuality that shows
> homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
> class that would be optional....?

Not in pre-school, or early elementary school.   Even some of the people 
posting in favor of COTR say that first graders aren't able to understand 
sexuality.   I think it should be left to high school, if it is going to 
be done.  In your example, who is going to teach the class to the preschoolers? 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:13:23 GMT

"SLK>" is "kellmeyer steven l"
"LCF>" is "Lawrence C. Foard"

SLK>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 

LCF>I'm sitting 10 feet from a machine that can produce 3d images of your
LCF>internal organs, it was designed by secular reasoning.

SLK>And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  The 
SLK>country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.

REALLY?  Since when?  

The USA was founded mainly by atheists, and laws were put in its
charters to keep it that way.  Since then, we've moved farther away
from religious influence, not closer.  Take a look at the number of
judgements in the last few decades restricting things like prayer in
schools, etc.

Just exactly what has occured in the last 200+ years to make this "a
country founded upon a belief in God?"

Yes, of course, The Bible must have influenced the inventors of
magnetic resonance imaging systems.  How else could they have done it?
;)

SLK>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
SLK>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
SLK>right to divorce their parents.  

LCF>I totally agree with her, children are not slaves or property, parents are
LCF>there to provide for and protect children. 

SLK>Sorry, that isn't what she said.  She said that no individual should be
SLK>considered incompetent until proven otherwise.  

So you'd rather have a country where all individuals must prove their
mental competency?  Those who can't "prove" it are SOL?  Only those
with "state-approved competency" will have rights?

You'd, of course, be using your own religious criteria, since you
place so little weight on "secular reasoning."

SLK>There exists no religion of which I am aware
SLK>which holds that children are property and/or that a parent's 
SLK>decision to abandon said children is acceptable.  

Yes, but the Christian commandment "Honor thy mother and thy father"
makes the children slaves to their parents, which is synonymous with
property.  The choice is to do what mommy and daddy say or burn in
Hell.  That's "religious reasoning" for you.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military... what nobody is talking about
Date: 19 Dec 92 22:41:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec17.114432.14378@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.183446.25587@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted
>Krueger, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>>This and other studies have brought the scientific community into
>>>substancial agreement on the issue.
>>
>>Which other studies?  What scientific community? And if you agree with
>this, 
>>how do you feel about the interpretation that the differences in size of
>the 
>>hypothalamus (which I am not convinced of) indicate that homosexuality,
>at 
>>least as measured by the size of the hypothalamus, is an abnormality?
>>
>
>I really wish I had time to digest all the medical information that is
>available, but I have to rely on other sources to summarize.  One source
>that I like is Dr. Dean Adell (sp?), who has a nationally syndicated
>radio program.  He is rather outspoken on the subject and =does= provide
>professional references.
>
>Perhaps someone else here can provide names of some of the professional
>societies that have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease.
>
Funny that you would mention that your source is Dr. Dean E-Dull, so soon 
after another leftie criticized that since one of my sources was Cal 
Thomas, that I should be discredited.  Well, Dr. Dean is almost as lefty 
as they come.  He is in favor of (among other things):

	legalization of ALL drugs (including crack)
	abortion on demand, until the moment of live birth
	
He is also highly critical of anything anyone who calls themself a Christian 
says.  He feels that anyone who is religious should be ignored if they speak 
on any subject that has a religious corellary to whatever subject they might 
be interested in.

He never said one good word about Reagan or Bush. 

Point: Dr. Dean is a raving whacko liberal and should be ignored.  Unless, 
of course, you want to admit that it just might be possible that Cal Thomas 
could have something worthwhile to say.

Ted
 


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12694 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11108 alt.politics.clinton:19395 alt.politics.bush:15267 alt.politics.homosexuality:8725
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:44:55 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1hv3a3INN4re@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>> Then stop persecuting and discriminating against him!
>
>How exacly am I  persecuting and discriminating against him?
>

I suggest that It be preached throughout the world that Walter Smith
is a fool, and will spend eternity in non-existant hell. Is this 
discriminatory?

>> He does not mean the christian definition of love, in which those you
>> "love" are eternally damned.
>
>Oh, I didn't realize I was dealing with a Christian-phobe...
>

You would have to be pretty ignorant not to be scared of the christian 
fundamentalist movement. Ever visited Iran, Walter? Different
religion, same attitude. I'll bet you wouldn't approve of it. You 
might even hate Islamic fundamentalists for their acts of terrorism
and denial of human rights.

If you ment love in some other manner than I inferred, then i 
apologize. You must in that case be a truly great person, to love
those you hate.

>Walter
>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,a
From: mchenry@latech.edu (Michael Q. McHenry)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Summary:  How about a _real_ informative quote?
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:47:36 GMT

dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
>"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of
>evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be glad, for great is
>your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before
>you."  Matthew 5:11-12	
>
>Thank you for all the blessing, Mr. Barwell; you alone have greatly 
>increased my rewards in heaven. 
>
>============================================================================
>David L. Hanson
>Naperville, IL
>
>"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
> abideth on him." John 3:36

Oh, puke.  My stomache actually hurts after reading this.

"Small feet, Big feet, Here come pig feet.
His feet, Her feet, Fuzzy fur feet,
In the house, and on the street,
how many, many feet you meet."   Dr. Seuss, The Foot Book

Now that's useful.

-- 
Quinn McHenry
mchenry@engr.latech.edu
Biomedical Engineering
Louisiana Tech University
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: House Bank WAS a Scandal
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:24:29 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

Quoting unabashedly from the 12/21 Wall Street Journal editorial:

"It turns out the House Bank was a real scandal after all.

"In his just-released report on the affair [and will y'all tell us if it gets 
on ANY news shows?  And for how many seconds?], Special Counsel Malcolm 
Wilkey found that, contray to the claims of House leaders, the money Members 
'borrowed' from the House Bank with hot checks did belong to the taxpayers. 
The Justice Department has now begun a criminal probe into the creative 
checking accounts of several House Members.

"...In his report, Judge Wilkey listed the following assertions or 
'misconceptions' about the Bank, and said all of them were false:

"* 'It was a Members' cooperative, underwritten by Members' own deposits.'
* 'No checks were ever really bounced.'
* 'No Member was notified of his overdrafts and therefore was innocent of any 
   intentional abuse.'
* 'There was no kiting of checks.'
* 'There has been no violation of law because not a penny was lost.'"

There's more, but you'll have to read it yourself.  It goes on to tell how 
"Speaker Folwy continues to deny any public funds were involved..."

So -- how many seconds of coverage will be devoted to this by the networks? 
And will the Clinton Administration continue this investigation, or will it
be history as of January 21? 

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann  (paul@hsh.com)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea)
Subject: Re: RUSH=FAG!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:54:29 GMT
Summary: Homophobic

In article <2827.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us>, greg.mable@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Greg Mable) writes:
> Does the big guy ever get on this conference or is he too fat
> and stupid to use a computer?  I heard he's gay and his lover
> is a black man (and a democrat)!  Hope he uses a condom!
> ---
>  . Cam-Mail . WNET:The 4th Dimension (517)546-3948  Howell, Mi

Why do not not just come out and call him Homophobic !! Have you
not been reading the news lately yourself. Political Correctness
is the theme of the month here ;-)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:41:05 GMT
Followup-To: ixcim!catload

Loving another human being isn't wrong. Whether they be male/female is
not a condition I use. There have been very good friends of mine that,
both male and female, I have loved in the emotional way. (oh my god! I
must be bisexual!!:-). There should be no discrimination against these
individuals that love each other, emotionally..

Physically, a kiss on the lips or making love with another in a show
of affection is o.k. as long as the body parts are used for what they
exist for. The rear end is strictly for output, that is, it is for
waste management only. This is were my problem comes in. I do not think
ANYONE should practice this act(Homosexual or Bisexual or Hetrosexual).
I do not practice this act and never have. This is were I say, "It makes
me sick to think people do this."

A person has the right to be of a certain orientation if they choose to 
be, or if they were born to be (yes, I believe that some people choose
the gay/lesbian life style, but I also feel that there is a large number
that are born this way).  I am born Hetrosexual and choose women as my
sexual partner. Call me silly.  If you do not, that's alright.

David
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: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:36:21 GMT

In article <1hsme2INNdu@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>> In my experience,
>> few straight people make a serious distinction between bisexuals and
>> homosexuals.
>
>My wife and I were talking about that a couple 
>of weeks ago, (diff between gay/bi) and her feelings were that gay people didn't 
>'choose' to be gay, they just 'are'; whereas bi people chose to be bi, because 
>they like sex and it offers them more chances for it.

Perhaps I should withdraw my statement.  Your wife is full of shit.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /