HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: It's his party, and he'll sleep if he wants to (?)...
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:39:49 GMT

harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:

>Intersting.....VERY interesting, that Rush showed video clips of
>Bill Clinton AND Algore AND Hillary Clinton all dozing off at this
>Grandstand Taffy-Pull/Brownie-bake*Fudge-make economic shades-of-
>Woodstock "rally" love-fest.  Did *anyone* see this anywhere else
>in the media?  I'm real curious to know.  My hunch is that Dan Rather
>didn't show it.  Or Tom Brokaw.  Or Peter Jennings.  Or any of the
>rest of the rat-pack, either.  Likely only on Rush's show. 

It was rather interesting that in such an arena as you think it was
there were numerous prominant American business men and women of all
ages, not just the Woodstock generation. And what is it you apparently
have against the Woodstock generation?

And if you had watched the meeting on CSPAN or somewhere which carried
it gavel to gavel, you might have seen more than just Clinton, his wife
and Gore nodding. And just how many DIFFERENT nods does the Limbaugh
clip show, eh? Have YOU ever sat through an all day meeting like that
and NOT nodded off at least once?

[other rantings deleted to save bandwidth]

Reagan deserved the criticism he got for sleeping through cabinet
meetings. I seriously doubt if Clinton or Gore (or Hillary, WHEN she
is allowed to attend, I doubt she will be invited to EVERY cabinet
meeting) will doze off at REAL cabinet meetings (after all, this was
only an economic conference, it was NOT a cabinet meeting). After
all, they usually don't last for two solid days.

Don't you have anything real to complain about or do you feel the need
to continually bring up absurd observations such as this?

-- 
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
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:14:46 GMT

libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>: The problem with the motor voter bill is that it REQUIRES everyone who 
>: gets a drivers license, gets food stamps, etc., to be registered to vote.  
>: Most people believe that it only gives people the opportunity to be 
>: registered.  It does not.  These people WILL BE  AUTOMATICALLY REGISTERED. 
>: 
>: I am in favor of a bill which would GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY to be registered.

>So what's the big deal, Ted?  These people are already in The Big
>Computer, via their driver's records- and they don't actually have
>to *vote*.  I don't understand your objection.

    Being registered to vote can be inconvenient if because of being 
registered you get called to serve on jury duty. I can imagine circumstances 
in which (for instance) a single mother doesn't have an alternate daycare 
provider and therefore wants to avoid the possibility of being called for 
jury duty even though the chances are slim that she'd be called and even 
less that she'd be denied a hardship dispensation. I've also known a couple 
Type-A personalities who didn't want to register because they really didn't 
have a valid excuse to get them out of jury duty. Doing their civic duty  
would interfere with their heavy workaholic work schedules, so to hell with 
civic duty. Please don't ask me how they worked that one out logically; I 
have the sneaking suspicion that the answer is that they *didn't* work it 
out logically.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Extremism is a healthy thing
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:57:30 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>but now we need the Republican Party to shift to the right.
>>Further to the right than Pat Buchanan?  You can't be serious.
>
>'ts already happening, though I hope it addresses its strong
>conservative stands without the Bible always being attached. There are
>reasons for the party's stands that can be stated INDEPENDENTLY of
>religious basis.

For which stands?  So much of what seems important to
Buchanan and Robertson is directly from their religious
views. Give me some examples.  Do you agree with them
about school prayer, the teaching of creationism, and
government funding for nativity scenes, etc?  Do you
agree with their position on homosexuality, and their
view of "family values" in general?  Do you support an
outright ban on abortion, with no exceptions?

If you support these sorts of positions without having
a religious basis for doing so, I'm very curious to know
why.  To me, these positions are an attempt to ram
Christianity down everyone's throats.  If you want
conservativism without a religious basis, I would think
you would oppose any movement in the direction of Pat
Robertson and Pat Buchanan.

I consider myself a conservative because I think that
government should be kept as small as possible, and
that free market pressures should be allowed to 
accomplish as much as possible.  People like Buchanan
and Robertson want to have government poking its nose
into people's lives much more than I care for. 

David
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu ()
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Organization: Chemistry Department, Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:07:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.160840.13595@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>There seem to be two sets of people here--those who believe gayness
>cannot be changed and those who believe it can.
>
>For the former, I will say that just as blacks (or Asians, or various
>other races) should not be discriminated against, neither should gays.
>
It just occured to me that even if gays can change their orientation
this does not make them different from people of whatever appearance,
as witnessed by sex-change operations or Michael Jackson.  If people
are discriminated against, it is because they stubbornly refuse to
change.

Tracy P. Hamilton

>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


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:26:47 GMT

Jim.Shirreffs writes:
>|>      People should have the right to decide if they want to be registered
>|>to vote.  They should not be forced to register just because they want a
>|>driver's license.

>|What's so awful about being registered to vote?

>I see three problems with "forced" voter registration.

>1. This would just be another case of Big Brother, knowing
>       what is best of you and emposing a "solution".

    You mean like when the state imposes minimum educational requirements 
like being able to read and write? "Forcing" someone to register to vote 
doesn't seem to be that much different than "requiring" them to have a 
Social Security number in order to hold a job. I would have said that the 
ubiquitous social security number is as much a threat of control by Big 
Brother as being registered to vote. Social Security numbers can be used as 
cross-references to find out all kinds of neat information about people.

>1. Democracy depends on an educated and concerned voter. If your going
>       to force them to register, why not force them to vote too?

    Forcing the to register is significantly easier than forcing them 
to vote. People can be automatically registered when they get their 
license plates, driver's license, or social security check, but it's a lot 
harder to enforce a rule that they have to vote.

>2. My vote wouldn't mean as much if everyone voted.

    Sorry about that. If these non-voters would get off their duffs your 
vote would be worth less anyway. But fortunately that's completely beside 
the point since the bill doesn't require people to vote, only to register.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11911 alt.politics.clinton:18865
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:02:53 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec17.225152.23861@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:

>If it is a choice, then it seems like a gay doesn't have sufficient
>will-power to overcome his sexual urges to go straight, which is the
>natural sexual choice.  If true, then will he have sufficient will-power to 
>overcome his fear amidst the horror and destruction of a battle-field and do 
>his job?  I think not.

Maybe he makes the choice he wishes to make?  Why should he have to pick
his "second-choice" lifestyle?

>If it is biological, then what other biological deficincies might a gay
>soldier have?  Deficiencis that may or may not prevent him fulfilling his
>job.  Do I want to take chance and bet my life on it?  I think not.

Why do you consider it a deficiency?  I consider it a mere characteristic.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:25:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1627@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>: The problem with the motor voter bill is that it REQUIRES everyone who 
>: gets a drivers license, gets food stamps, etc., to be registered to vote.  
>: Most people believe that it only gives people the opportunity to be 
>: registered.  It does not.  These people WILL BE  AUTOMATICALLY REGISTERED. 
>: 
>: I am in favor of a bill which would GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY to be registered.
>: 
>: Ted
>: 
>
>So what's the big deal, Ted?  These people are already in The Big
>Computer, via their driver's records- and they don't actually have
>to *vote*.  I don't understand your objection.
>Bill : 
>: -- 

#1) More bureaucracy will be required
#2) Do you really want people registered to vote who are not going to vote
#3) What if those people do not want to be registered

Is that enough, or do you require more?

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:11503 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10000
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:54:33 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <nate.921@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

  [>> = posted by me]

>>    One quick response:  because gays, in general, do not feel that the het
>>lifestyle is improper, nor do we sit in judgement on het morals or any
>>other favorite pastimes of 'phobes.
>
>    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Howard, and assume that 
>you really meant to say "some gays" or perhaps "most gays". 
    [an amazingly long rambling piece deleted]

    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Nate, and assume that
you don't know what "in general" means.  "....gays, in general,..." means
"most gays".  If you need further explanation, please email me privately.

    Amazing.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:49:08 GMT
Reply-To: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: polant@cuttlefish.cps.msu.edu

In article <1g3io0INN7bm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes:
>
>I find it vastly amusing that those who are the most vehemently
>opposed to Dr Limbaugh almost never have anything of substance to
>say. They are, however, most glib with the cutesy-poo adjectives
>of the derogatory variety. Fortunately, this people are in the 
>minority, invariably liberal who think appearances are more
>important than substance and because of this are the REAL losers!
>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:27:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.213921.24283@anasazi.com> John R. Moore,
john@anasazi.com writes:
>All right, let's stop the semantic dance. You want to argue on the
>grounds of military duties. Fine, go argue with yourself. The real issue
>is the effect on morale and on the hets who will be forced to live with
>the gays. Are you satisfied? Do you think you can stick to that point
>without ONCE AGAIN raising the issue of whether gays can perform
>what in your narrow view are "military duties?"

Keep in mind that most of those heteros you are referring to have no
problem serving with gays, being perfectly willing to "live and let
live."   And that percentage is growing every day.  The only ones who
"object" are, by definition, homophobes and/or bigots.  I do not chose
these words as insults, only as descriptives of their behavior.  Please
don't overgeneralize or project those attitudes on the majority.

Yes, it is true that an intolerant minority =can= be a disruptive
influence.  But should we just let them?

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".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: "Dittos" for John Switzer (was Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:19:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.125217.17957@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>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
>
>Those who confuse Mr. Limbaugh with the Second Coming should realize
>that he is first a businessman and then a conservative.
>
>Satya Prabhakar

So what's your point? Besides Limbaugh is a successful businessman, which
makes him far more qualified to speak out on economic issues than most of
the people who are filling Clinton's cabinet.
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11935 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10466
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Thursday, Dec 17 tv show
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:30:35 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

Can anyone (John..?) provide me with a transcript of Rush's
Thursday, Dec 17 tv show?  I would like to have Rush's big
speech on the soul and the sanctity of life, but I'm too
cheap to actually send for the video or the transcript.

PS I don't really want the whole show, just the big speech.

Please send me a copy, I may miss a post.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11579 alt.politics.clinton:18559
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: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:01:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> I think you need to do a bit better than "As it was described to me".
> 
> One of the problems about the current dispute in New York is that the
> way Church and other groups are describing the book is rather different
> to what the book actually is.
> 
> jon.

Jon, 

This was as it was described to me by someone who is homosexual, and not 
someone trying to distort the book.  I think you need to think before you 
knee-jerkingly assume things like that. 

Walter
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:30:32 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec11.223353.3500@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Jim.Shirreffs writes:
]I'd like to take a shot at answering this question. Although I never witness
]such an extreme case, it is not all that unusal. During my time in the USMC I witness
]several lessor beating of people who were disruptive.  The reason for the beating
]is unit disipline.  A combat unit can not afford to have someone incapable of doing
]their job.  If such a person is disiplined by the other members in the unit it is hoped
]that the offensive behavior will cease.  A combat unit is an entity unto itself. A
]unit tries to solve it's problems internally. I suspect that things just got on of hand 
]in the case in question.  I never saw combat but I was in a combat unit, things are a lot 

Thank you. That is exactly what happened.


-- 
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." - - -
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11563 alt.politics.clinton:18542 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10047 alt.politics.bush:14522
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: End the Ban on Gays in the Military
Date: 10 Dec 92 20:55:04 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec9.041959.26028@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.010710.13283@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Jim.Shirreffs writes:
>>
>>I would like to tell ecery one that I haved changed my
>>mind on the ban on gays and that we should all go home
>>and have some good anal sex.
>
>[silly stuff deleted]
>
>>jim shirreffs (a lesbian trapped in a mans body).
>
>This post saddened me.  Until now, Jim had been talking rationally.
>Sure, I disagreed with what he was saying, but he was trying to discuss
>the issues.  I was hoping that we could come of a syntehsis of
>ideas, or at least disagree on amicable terms.
>
>But jim has decided to become hostile, satirical, and hide
>behind a false front of hate-based "humor".  Sigh.
>

Hate-based humor! Perhaps you should enroll in classes, full-time, so 
you can get a Pell Grant to buy a clue!  Have you never read posts on 
a subject which continue to keep you frustrated at the lack of 
understanding of the posters?  I have, and I bet Jim had too, just 
before he made this post.  I wonder if you realize how you water-down 
the seriousness of anything hate-based when you post that tag on Jim's 
joke.  But perhaps you believe that anything that disagrees or pokes 
fun at you is hate-based.  Oh God!  That means that this post is 
hate-based!  Whatever shall I do?

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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
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: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 18:30:36 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

> >In article <645@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes...
(I may have the author confused here..)

> >	Blacks cannot, without much effort, change their skin colour,
> >and Gays cannot change their gender attraction.

Which leads me to a question relating to Col#2.  The reason some people
voted for it was over the idea of minority status and quota preferences
for sexual preference/orientation.  Because gay-rights activists often 
equate the two (blacks and gays) and equate the way they would like 
to see stereotypes removed (like forced education in public schools) 
there has been some credence given to the notion that the gay-rights 
movement might very well want the same type of minority status, with 
the attached quotas, given to homosexuals.  

So I'd like to ask: 

What *is* the position of homosexuals and the gay-rights movement? 
If there is such a correlation between blacks and gays, should gays 
have minority status?  Should they have quotas?  Why/why not?  If not,
why should blacks have it, and gays not? 

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11904 alt.politics.clinton:18859
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:35:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <YOUNG.92Dec15123638@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.150008.1040@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
>
>>   Ted, why do you keep shoveling those off-topic favorite arguments of
>>   yours as fast as you can whenever you can't think of any other way to
>>   disagree with someone?
>
>
>   Jim, Ted let it slip yesterday that Cal Thomas is his source.  Read
>some of Mr. Thomas' columns and you will understand why Ted feels it's
>ok to argue the way he does.

Thank you for answering for me, Peter.  Why don't you just continue, and 
answer my Christmas cards for me?  I'll send you a list of the addresses.

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