HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
Subject: Re: Whining bastards
Date: 3 Jan 1993 21:55:19 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Dec30.181412.6382@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com 
(J H Woodyatt) writes:

> I wouldn't be so pissy about this if you dittoheads would just admit
> that you simply don't want the poor to receive any help whatsoever
> from the government.  Jeez.  At least the Libertarians can do that.
> Get some spine, you simpering fools.
> 

How is it that you get that attitude about ALL US DITTOHEADS!
I really resent that!

There are poor people: that's a fact!  BUT which poor people do we
end up helping today?  Some would argue, with good reason, that the
government supports the deserving AND the underserving.  I think
even you would agree with that.  I think what many on this net
would say (at least I hope they would) is that blind government
handouts do little to foster any self-esteem in any of the
benefactors.  The quality of self-esteem is internalized in each
individual by what he/she DOES.  The government is ill-equiped to
provide incentive for development of moral strength and character
of the undeserving person eating the government's lunch. That's
why, in these cases, the government should stay clear and, hopefully,
someONE will take the time and effort to turn these folks around...
On personal encounters and by example...TEACH THEM!  If they do not
learn to survive, they die...it is that simple.  This goes back to
what you may have heard others say in the past:  "you cannot help
those whom refuse to help themselves."  And, I dare say, that you
SHOULD NOT.  Not if you want to keep your sanity!

Mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Virgin Forests? (was Re: Life Under Clinton/Gore)
Date: 27 Dec 92 01:59:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


/(dprjdg)
/There is no reason to assume that "the resource will be consumed".  Men
/and women in the logging industry are not stupid and do not intend to
/clear-cut themselves out of jobs.  It is a fact that they plant as many
/or more trees than they harvest.


Then explain the following three things:

1.  Wide areas of clearcut in Oregon and Washington, where I live.  All
you need to do is take a flight over the area to see entire square miles
where no tree stands.  Even Mt. St. Helens was not this destructive;
ash is a good fertilizer.   

2.  If they are planting more than they harvest, then why do they want
to log old growth forests as well?  You said they were planting enough
for their needs.  If that's the case, then why do they feel the need to
expand into old growth?

3.  Decline of timber industry jobs.


That should do for starters.  When you have some answers, come on back.
From: larry@cs.com (Larry Spence)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:33:45 GMT
Organization: Computer Support Corporation,  Dallas,Texas

In article <BzxK6I.55z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>
>"Show me just one definitive example that shows or proves Rush to be
>a bigot, racist, or sexist".
>
>I have yet to receive an answer.
>
>If you really want to put this thread to rest (at least my participation
>in it), then answer my question, definitively, not with some dictionary
>definition and the assumption that I will judge the man based on what the
>dictionary says instead of the _facts_.

I don't know about others, but I haven't answered simply because the
usual "defense" is "oh, he was just _joking_! lighten up!"  No matter how
offensive a statement Rush makes, he can always back out by saying "it was
a joke, gosh you've got a poor sense of humor."  So unless Rush signs a
statement that he thinks women are inferior to men, no one here is going to
accept anything as "proof."  Having said that... %)

Recall the time on the tv show when Rush had a "messenger" woman who was
dressed in ultra-short shorts, tight outfit, etc., who delivered the poor,
shaking, terrified dog to the set (his name was Jeb, I think)?  Do you
recall Rush's comments when he called to the "messenger" to come back?  He
said she looked back, and then kept on going (off the set).  Rush then made
a comment to the effect of (I don't archive this stuff, look it up) how
women were like cats, giving you "go to hell" looks when you call for them,
unlike dogs, which are nice and loyal and loving.  This is _not_ the exact 
wording, but (some of) you get the idea.  Taken in isolation, you could try
to claim it was a joke (really funny, hoo boy), but consider that Rush is
constantly making feeble "jokes" about wives not letting their husbands
watch football, etc.  Rush's attitude toward women seems to be stuck at 
the "girls, yuck, I'd rather hang out with the guys" stage.  I expect this
attitude to change as soon as Rush can convince a woman to have sex with 
him.

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@cs.com
uunet!csccat!larry 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10810 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:58 talk.abortion:53366
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:46:30 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: SGI TechPubs


First sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|>] I honestly hope those three killers get the
|>] gas chamber, no appeals.

Then Drieux says:
|>thanks simon, I was often confused about
|>your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....

And Simon says:
|This is precisely why I feel that these murderers should be executed.

GHOD!  I love Usenet!  Where else can I find such choice irony?

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
``Is it really true that strychnine typically contains small traces 
of LSD?  I want to poison somebody but I wouldn't want them to die
tripping.'' -- John C. Baez
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10900 alt.rush-limbaugh:12480
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 07:07:14 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

Lyn.Perez@f157.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Lyn Perez) writes:

> You asked, " If mainstream christianity believes homosexuality is wrong, how 
> 
> 
> ptcy of their lifestyle.
> A gay has not a problem with women, his problem is his relationship with men.
> You would do well to couch you language in a more appropriate manner.
> 
> --  
>         Lyn Perez  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
>              UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!157!Lyn.Perez
>              ARPA:  -  Lyn.Perez@f157.n363.z1.fidonet.org


If one reads the four gospels, and the 1st two chapters of genesis 
carefully,  One can find numerous contradictions that cannot be rectified 
in an itelectually h onest manner without resoting to bad logic or word 
games.  This shows that the bible was not written by anybody who was 
eyewitness to the events depicted in the Bible or had any good sources 
who were themselves eyewitnesses.  The parts of the bible are false.

And the theology based on these false premises, these tall tales, myths 
and legends, are therefor also false.  I suppose that ifconservative 
Xians continue to use this book to deny Homosexuals their rights to live 
with dignity in America, there will come a day when gays come to the 
conclusion that these errors that prove the Bible wrong must be brought 
out forcefully to the American public at large.  

After all, if the bible is not the word of god, (and it is not0< and it 
is the babblings of ancient mideastern billy goat herders, why should we 
let their biases be falsely be called the will of god.

  The Bible merely has written into mere prejudices and biases and keeps 
them alive.

If the Xians won't let the gays alone, and use the bible as the reason 
for this, maybe it is time to stop asking for understanding for gays and 
lesbians from the Xian community and attack the problem at it's root.
  The Bible.  Cut roots, tree dies.
  

Sooner or later the homosexuals will be catching on to this.

For the record, I am not gay.  But I am tired of seeing this book of old 
fables and contradictions used to palm the biases of ignorant old desert 
pirates off as god's opinion when it bloody well is not.


--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Valid Space-related research...
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 08:33:00 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu () writes:

> >have possibly made that last statement.  Biosphere II is nothing but a
> >big scam being financed by a Texas(?) millionaire family for political
> >and personal gain.  I challenge anyone to find ONE reputable scientist
> >who thinks that it is a *real* scientific experiment.
> 
> I'm wondering why there's so much negative energy about this
> 'experiment'.  Perhaps from the viewpoint of a university researcher
> it's painful to see someone blow millions on a worthless pet project,

I don't think it's that as much as the same disdain that astronomers
must feel when someone confuses them with an astrologer. Real science is
a little different from political showboating; the scientist goes in
with data, and seeks a conclusion, while the politician goes in with a
conclusion, and seeks data.


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Military Efectiveness and Gays
Date: 27 Dec 92 02:27:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



(ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu)
/> A point of fact and history:  Alexander the Great was gay and it seems the
/> army he ran had no problems in being effective. 


/Well yeah, but his raucous partying caused his death and helped plunge
/the civilized world into many years of meaningless warfare.

1.  Prove that his parties were the direct cause of the downfall of the
civilized world.  Provide evidence as to why greed, bad statemanship,
failure to select appropriate successors, etc. are all invalid causes
of this plunge.

2.  Prove that the results would have been any different had he been 
a straight man throwing such "parties".




/(ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu)
/One example does not make a case, and your example is less than ideal.

I would say that your rebuttal is even less ideal than this other
fellow's example.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10783 alt.politics.clinton:19165 alt.politics.bush:14967 alt.politics.homosexuality:8482
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:46:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <1992Dec29.004539.5683@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>Nope, these are not the only choices. For example, I can claim that
>it is possible to modify behavior, but that it cannot be done
>well enough in the military case. Furthermore, I can claim that the
>condom distribution is itself a behavior modifier in a direction which
>is wrong. Finally, I can state that there is no strong reason to
>allow admitted gays in the military anyway (there is no RIGHT to
>participate in the military), and thus it doesn't justify facing
>all of these problems, whereas we are stuck with the issue of adolescent
>sexual behavior no matter what we do.
>
>
>-- 

It seems that what your premise amounts to, is discrimination by whim.

You seem to steadfastly avoid the fact that most of the world has
eliminated the discrimination that you want to continue in this country.
Their fighting forces are as capable as our troops in handling any situation
that is sent their way.  Our superiority of prowess is in the better
equipment and the training to handle it effectively.  Many of those who are
trained are homosexuals and handle the combat situation with some abilities
lacking in the ordinary heterosexual troop which is why so many of the
homosexual soldiers are personally decorated for excelling in bravery in
battle situations.

Because some small minded individual in the War Dept started this whole
thing in 1941 does not make it the right and proper thing to do.  It is
time to bring our military 'mindset' into the late 20th Century of social
thinking.  Getting the military 'mindset' out of the days of the caveman is
an advance in military strategy that will dumbfound the enemies of this
nation.



Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: crowder@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mark Crowder)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:56:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.190905.13966@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.024947.4840@news.stolaf.edu> kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz) writes:
>>
>>It's a well-documented fact that most of Japanese technology originated in 
>>the U.S.  They just produced it better.
>>
>>
>>Alex
>>
>
>
>Is that why Japanese companies are now the leading applicants for U.S.
>patents?

   Actually, its because Japanese companies are the leading purchasers
of U.S. high-tech companies.

>
>Your statement was true at one time, but not anymore. We are being beaten
>in every phase of the game, from research to development to production.
>Only in retail distribution are we still better than Japan.

  It is still true.  Japanese companies endow chairs and fund research
projects at many U.S. universities -- so they are able to directly 
benefit from American research.  And they are doing this in a *big*
way.  They do a better job trasfering development to production, but
the gap is closing.  
  You are quite right about our advantage in retail distribution.
It is best spelled out in a book called "Unlimited Wealth", 
subtitle: "The Theory and Practice of Economic Alchemy"  by
Paul Pilzer.  Interesting stuff.

Mark Crowder  "I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma"  crowder@spdc.ti.com 
Dallas, Tx                                          Texas Instruments, Inc.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:18:35 GMT

In article <PATRICK.93Jan2232345@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.031248.29133@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>
>   In article <1993Jan1.195123.11272@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>  >In article <PATRICK.93Jan1095848@blanco.is.rice.edu>
>  >patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>  >
>  >> "USENET Warlord", I can understand -- you *did* make a show of threatening
>  >> people in e-mail, and on other networks, no less.
>  >
>  >This is pretty funny coming from someone who's said
>  >"march your fat black ass down here".   Who are you
>  >going to threaten next with your racist remarks?
>
>   Doug Holtsinger, we can only hope.
>
>Nah.  I haven't had to threaten anyone yet, and I'm not about to start.
>Just brandishing a Roget's Thesaurus at him ought to do the trick equally as
>
Better be careful, or someone might confront and ask if you have permit to
carry that thesaurus......

Never take out your thesaurus unless you intend to use it!

:-)


Simon

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.usa.conservative (Was: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:03:31 GMT

kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>You don't like using "Liberals" and "Conservatives" to describe people, 
>therefore you disparage those terms.  But they are real things.  I think
>we do need a "Conservative" group of some kind so we can educate people
>about the meaning of the term.

    If you form a moderated conservative newsgroup so that only good 
conservative topics get discussed, then what makes you think that all 
the poor uneducated liberals on the net are going to swarm in their to 
see your conservative education? 

    If Christ had followed that example and set up a newsgroup for the 
pious then I kind of doubt that his message would have been heard by the 
sinners. We're all too busy having fun over here in alt.f.r-l.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
Date: 4 Jan 1993 01:24:34 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Dec23.170722.7051@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson) writes:
> In article <nate.978@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> 
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu 
> (Nathan Engle) writes:


..stuff deleted

> Oh, God, yes this clip made my skin crawl.  Was, then, the entire show
> carried on in this manner?  Rush sure has guts to venture into a hornets
> nest like that; it gave creedence to G. LeBon's observation of the sheer
> mindlessness of crowds.  Only LeBon was concerned about how groups like 
> juries, with some intelligent and respectable members, could be deceived and
> led about nonetheless - to see a crowd composed entirely of idiots, 
> Donahue's studio audience, is absolutely terrifying.  I presume that by 
> going on a show like that Rush wanted to counter the misconception that 
> he is not open to debate, by venturing into an alien forum.  Maybe he should
> try out Larry King...
>
..stuff deleted> -- 

That scene reminded me of the situation in "The World According to Garp"
when Garp was caught attending that "Ellen ???" meeting (the ones who
cut their toungs out), and the attendees turned rabid against him!

Just a thought...mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:35:59 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
> >Actually, while President of the United States, Jefferson also became first
> >president of the Washington, D.C. public school board, which used the
> >Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom - well subsequent
> >to the adoption of the First Amendment. According to Jefferson:
> > 
> >  I have always said, and always will say, that the studious perusal of
> >  the sacred volume will make us better citizens. 
> 
> Did he use his rewrite of the bible?  You know, the one Jefferson published
> with all the miracles removed...
> 
> >The first amendment has only been "stepped on" in this century by the
> >enemies of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
> 
> Ah, the old "my enemies are god's enemies" bit; sorry, I don't believe 
> in your pretend friend.
> 
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy


And I personally don't believe in his God or his bible, either.
Nor Jesus for that matter.


--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10797 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:57 talk.abortion:53328
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:02:13 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Dec29.000622.24041@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.154215.13989@rchland.ibm.com> 
>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>
>> This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
>> all along.  They'll get arrested to save a life, but
>> once the baby is born they could care less.  Try to get
>> some of these folks to support social programs like
>> WIC or foodstamps.  
>
>Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
>programs like WIC and foodstamps.  And the poor tend 
>to be the strongest opponents of abortion.  
> 
>But I don't follow your reasoning.  If someone supports 
>the criminalization of an immoral act, then why must they 
>support those who wish to commit that act?  Does my support 
>of rape laws imply that I must satisfy the desires of  
>potential rapists?  If not, then what's the difference
>between that and abortion? 
>
>
>>Jared Dahl
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>
Whew! Talk about reasoning that's hard to follow! Do you actually bother
to read articles before you follow up on them? It seems to me that the lack
of such reading is rampant among fundie/right-wing zealots. Try calling
1-800-ABCDEFG. Supposed to be a wonderful adult literacy program
available.

Now that I'm done trashing your basic stupidity, lets get to the contents of 
your post.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10760 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:51 talk.abortion:53204
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Date: 28 Dec 1992 17:11:15 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <1992Dec28.075957.19167@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> ] I read this and was sickened by it.  All I've got to say is that's what
|> ] the death penalty is for.  I honestly hope those three killers get the
|> ] gas chamber, no appeals.
|> ] 
|> ] Call me crude, but something must be done.
|> 
|> thanks simon, I was often confused about
|> your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....

Why should you presume that Simon's pro-life sentiments are any less consistent
than your pro-choice ones?  Surely you would agree that even one's right to
choose can also be forfeited, waived, or otherwise mitigated under some
circumstances (e.g. should Jeffery Dahmer be allowed to choose anything he
wants for dinner?).  The question is whether a person's desire to abort an
inconvenient pregnancy should be allowed to result in the death of the child.
If you wish to nit-pick, be consistent yourself and recognize both "Pro-Choice"
and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate labels
"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh