HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Rush is antiAmerican
XXXDate: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:46:57 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A785B96111020614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:47:15 GMT

In article <93021.171528KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick,
KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>So I assume you got really pissed off at every Dan Quayle joke you've ever
>heard, right?  How dare anyone make jokes about an elected official!

It's not a matter of =who= Rush is making fun of... it's just that he isn't
=funny= anymore.

Perhaps now that he is acknowledging some of the feedback he's been getting
regarding the declining quality of his show's content, maybe he'll start
getting back on track.

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.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14831 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13495 alt.politics.clinton:20944 alt.politics.bush:16254
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,a
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 02:22:38 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) writes:

> Humm... Interesting. Is it really possible to just give up your 
> citizenship? How would this work? Wouldn't you need to find some
> country that would claim you? What if there was no country that did
> claim you? 
> 
> Garen
> : 


Back in the very early 60's, (I believe), there was an organization of 
sorts, called Citizens of The World.  These people thot that it would be 
a great idea if one could declare one's self a Citizen Of The World and 
thus, technically being of all nationalities and yet none.  They used to 
maintain a registry and issue "passports" for those who did decide to 
declare themselves Citizens Of The World. It seems if memory serves me 
that some nations, even recognized these "passports" at least 
unofficially.  Anybody else remember anything about this Organization?


Pope Charles   SubGenius Pope Of Houston.
  Maybe if I printed up some citizens of the Universe certificates.....

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:11:43 GMT

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes ...
>Sex for pleasure is sin?  What Bible does this person read out of?

Since when have "Christians" been overly concerned about what is or is
not in the Bible?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14894 alt.politics.homosexuality:10107 talk.religion.misc:27305
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:43:05 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
> Fundimentalists teaching that they believe that homosexual behavior
> is against their religion is fine.

Really?  It seems many of the posters here disagree with you; they are
afraid that homosexuals who are influenced by such religious teachings 
will be harmed by these teachings.  Or are you saying that the churches 
can teach "it is agains our religion", but they cannot teach that it 
is "wrong"? 

> Fundimentalists
> dont stop there though.  They see gay and lesbian activists as evil people
> who must be stopped.

Sounds remarkably like gay and lesbian activists reaction to Fundimentalists. 

> Why do fundimentalists see homosexuals as any more evil than adulterers ?
> You dont hear any call from fundimentalists to deny civil rights of adulterers.

For starters, you might want to ask a funimentalist (sic) that question...=8^O 
Are you asking these questions of anyone in particular here, or just ranting
in general about fundies in the world?   I don't recall seeing anyone here 
advocating denial of civil rights to homosexuals. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:36:53 GMT

In article <1960@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>keithp@octel.com (Keith Perrin) writes:


>: 
>: So it starts already. Its amazing to me that the same people 
>: who burnt the American flag, and spit on U.S. troops in the 
>: late 60s and 70s are the same liberals who claimed that they
>: were really freedom loving Americans in the 80s, and now  
>: these COWARDS feel that its all right to make vet sacrifices
>: the butt of their sarcastic jokes again. Listen closely 
>: Cousin Slick. That crap doesn't fly anymore.
>: 
>llllllllll: KLP          
>
>You got some evidence that Willy burned any flags, or spit on
>anybody?  I thought not.
>Buy the way, you probably ought to shut your fucking young
>Republican hole on that coward shit.  A good number of the 
>most vocal protesters in the later stages of the vietnam war
>were vets themselves, including a couple of very good friends 
>of mine.  
>
>Bill  

AMEN BILL!!!!!!

Bil Snodgrass III
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:19:56 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams) writes:
> The point that Evelyn is bringing up is that those people who
> claim to adhere to the *literal* word of the Bible (i.e. most
> of the Fundy Christian activists) are essentially hypocrites
> unless they also avoid diapering their granddaughters, wearing
> blended clothing, eating pork, shaving, etc.
 
If the person doing this were Jewish, she'd have a point.  But 
Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law.   The fact that some 
of the moral code Christians are told to follow also were in 
the Mosaic Law doesn't mean Chrsitians are hypocritical for 
following those, and not the rest of the Mosaic Law.  If a 
Christian follows the *literal* word of the Bible, he will
be following those parts which were reaffirmed in the NT, 
which includes sexual immorality.  You may not like the NT 
idea of sexual immorality, and may think Christian sexual morality 
is repressive and outdated, but that doesn't mean the people 
who believe in it are being incnsistant for using diapers. 

Walter
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:33:36 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:

>The problem, of course, is that even though RL says again and again that he
>is an entertainer and a commodity, a lot of people view him as a spokesman
>for conservative values. The kind of people who didn't smoke dope (ref: Marilyn
>Quayle's 1960's comments) and who didn't dodge the draft are looking for
>conservative leaders. Among others, they have found RL. His history doesn't
>suggest that he's worthy of their attention. Since conservatives still consider
>Clinton's potsmoking an issue, why not Rush's? Since they consider Clinton's
>draft-dodging an issue, why not Rush's? Both are in the public eye; both are
>influencing opinion. Both are being considered for 1996.

Sorry, but you don't have to be lilly pure to be a conservative, and you
shouldn't have to be to be a conservative spokesperson. Sure, if one has
a pattern of lying or stealing or something, it would be an issue. However,
avoiding the draft by medical reasons, and smoking dope once upon a time,
are hardly important issues under the circumstances. If Bill Clinton had
had a cyst or some similar reason for dodging the draft, he probably
would have gotten far less heat (although his latest stupidity on
gays in the military shows how military experience would have helped).
Limbaugh espouses conservative views - he probably believes them.
Lots of conservatives have smoked dope (ever read PJ O'rourk (sp?)
or Collier & Horowitz?). Lots of conservatives did not go to Vietnam
(few people DID go to Vietnam). Are we to toss all of these people
to the side because of this?

Clinton, on the other hand, lied about these issues rather than telling
the truth. He used deceit to avoid the draft, which included participating
in a military program and then defaulting on his obligations. He
"didn't inhale" and "didn't like it anyway" on marijuana. What a dope!

Quayle, at least, did serve, and in spite of what all the whiners
are saying, he COULD have been called to Vietnam.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:02:01 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1jm6pcINNekg@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>
>What a shame that Robert and Melinda, who have such a high regard for the
>civil rights of others, including homosexuals, have such a disdain for the
>rights of those religious men and women who do not agree with them.  I guess
>Robert and Melinda, who appear to be stone throwing themselves, feel it's
>acceptable to throw those stones at people or groups of people that THEY
>feel should be excluded.  I detect some hypocracy (and definately

    Oh, please.  Robert, Melinda, and others, including myself, have not
posted anything that advocates denying basic human rights to religious
people.  If you disagree, please cite specifics.
    I won't presume to speak for them or anyone else, but I have no quarrel
with "religious men and women who do not agree with" me, as long as they
don't advocate my being denied my civil rights.   It's just that simple.
However, when someone says "Oh, but my bible says that homosexuality is a
sin, therefore, you shouldn't be allowed to <insert civil right here>",
they then affect me, and my tolerance ends.

>some hostility) here.  I also see that Robert and Melinda have stereotyped
>fundamentalists ("fundies" as Robert calls them...though I don't think
>he could give me a definition of a fundamentalist or know one if he truly
>met one) and misrepresented (drastically) them.  Not all true fundamentalists
						  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(and other religious and strongly convicted non-religious) people think 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>alike, just like not all homosexuals or (name your ethnic group, race, or
 ^^^^^
>religion) think alike.  You two appear guilty of the very acts that you

    I'm sure that's true, but it seems to be the ranting, bible-quoting
types who post here more than the tolerant ones (I wonder why that is...).
How about if you clarify for us the exact nature of the misrepresentation?
I, for one, would love to believe that most fundamentalists are tolerant,
loving, open-minded people.  The net posters give me absolutely no reason
to believe this, though.

>are railing against.  But then, I'm sure you truly believe society would be
>better if everyone was a clone of yourselves.  The reality is, it isn't.

    Talk about living in glass houses!  I have never met a proponent of gay
rights who did not celebrate diversity.  I have, however, been exposed to
many religious types who, in effect, say that if you're not like them in
values, lifestyle, etc., then there's something wrong.
    Society is obviously diverse and devoid of clones.  Some day, perhaps
people like you will accept that and mind your own business.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:15:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.003021.4613@lclark.edu> daniel@lclark.edu (Daniel Snodgrass) writes:

>In reality, Fundamental Christians usually:

... prefer not to be called "Fundamentalist," from what I understand.
"Evangelical" is the preferred term.

>1. make a distinction between the sin and the sinner; and more specifically,
>2. between those who commit the occasional wrong but repent (i.e. turn away),
>   and those who regularly and willfully sin to the point that they don't even
>   recognize their actions as sin.  

I don't recognize the existence of "sin."  I recognize actions to be
deemed morally wrong if they hurt others or impede their autonomy.  I
do not believe that something is "sinful" in a vacuum.

>As long as there are groups that lobby for special rights based upon
>behavioral preferences (name your favorite) especially those that are
>socially unacceptable, you will find condemnation from more than Fundamental
>Christians.

I don't know anyone who is lobbying for special rights (except perhaps
the heterosexists), or for anything which is socially unacceptable,
based on recent polls.

Is that why the "Fundamental Christians" are the primary enemies of
this issue?

>Anyone who recognizes that unique behavior ... 
>should not be a qualifier for ... positive
>educational awareness campaigns ... should rightly stand up
>and point out the injustices these special rights force on the rest of society.

I think you are a very sick man, and I can't imagine that your God
could possibly agree more.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: More Real World Stories
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:34:45 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
] 
] Drieux, why is it so hard to play a straightboy? He had BEEN a straightboy
] right up until he "came to understand himself." Why didn't he just continue
] the way he was? I am genuinely curious.... he could have engaged in
] homosexual BEHAVIOR off base/ship when away from others... what other
] characteristics did he have to hide or pretend?

an interesting premise....

Everyone is Born Straight?

Its a case that there are folks in the service who
do not do well in covert operations. Some folks are
just not good at living within the cover story. They
have a problem maintaining an Operable Truth for the
duration of the Mission, and for such time as the
Mission Remains classified.....

The same is also true of some folks who like to
be honest about their lives.

Its a shame that at that time there was no room
in the military for openly gay personnel. So it 
was simply a matter that before he got himself 
into any trouble with the military, he had to be 
honest about how he saw the world. { he was still
relatively 'clean' and had not had access to 
classified material that he might compromise... }

Now lets ask the Other side of the Question:

What does this say about those of us who have
worked within the Cover Story.


ciao
drieux

ps: I've also known GI's who have become preachers
and have had to get out of the military because in
their heart they could no longer carry a gun....


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: saari@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Jonathan Saari)
Subject: Re: Dole promotes big, intrusive government!
Reply-To: saari@chdasic.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola SPS ASIC, Chandler, AZ
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:02:20 GMT

In article AfM01vm00UhW01RI18@andrew.cmu.edu, Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I was watching C-SPAN this morning and saw Sen. Robert Dole talk to the
> Senate about a new crime bill he wants to sponsor. One of the components
> of this bill would be a *Federal Police Force*. 
> 
> Isn't this inviting yet another big, bureaucratic mess while adding yet
> another security force to intrusively monitor and control the American
> people? Aren't the FBI, CIA, NSA and IRS enough? 

Get your facts straight... name one instance of the CIA and NSA operating within 
the borders of the USA (provide proof.. not opinion)

> 
> It's always seemed to me that liberals encourage government growth in
> social areas while conservatives encourage government growth in the
> military and enforcement areas, and increasing the power of the
> Executive office.

Wrongo, pal... conservatives want goverment to shrink!!! All we want from the
federal goverment is to provide for the common defense (and stay out of my life)!!!
Federal police would help jail all of the scuz bags out there who seem to have no
respect for life or property. I do not, however, agree with Senator Dole on this
matter.

> 
>  Are Phil Donahue's (the Dittoheads Anti-christ) predictions of a
> stormtrooper police force enacting federal policies coming true? Can
> anybody give me a good argument as to why a federal police force is
> desirable or necessary? 

It is not necessary... just relax the gun laws and let people take care of 
themselves. What country has the highest per capita level of gun ownership?
Answer: Isreal... Their whole country had fewer murders last year than Los
Angeles had last weekend... GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!! PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING
TO SHOOT OTHER PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM!!!

                  _/_/_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/
                       _/       _/
                       _/        _/_/
                   _/  _/           _/
                   _/_/_/    _/_/_/_/
===========================================================
Jonathan Saari                 | The views expressed here
saari@chdasic.sps.mot.com      | are my own...
Test Engineer                  | They are not my employers.
Motorola, Incorporated         | Although they should be...
===========================================================
If you're going to do something tonight that you'll be sorry for
tomorrow morning, sleep late.
		-- Henny Youngman


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15251 alt.sex:43272
From: 00mlschmalz@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:14:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <john.727819560@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

> :-) :-) :-) (only half in smiles.... this shows the idiocy of creating
> preference-based governmentally recognized groups)
> John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)

There is a de facto recognition of a sub group, but the point of all 
of this is to eliminate the artificial separation that the ignorant 
and the fearful create in the workplace, et al.  There is more recognition 
and separation in making rules whereby one CAN be separated and 
discriminated against than there is in trying to integrate the separated.

The only people I've ever met that want specially recognized divisions 
are the heterosexuals who see this discrimination as something "morally" 
right.  Those of my friends who are homosexual don't want segregation, 
separate regognition, or special treatment. They want acceptance and
integration.

-- 
   Sparky!!
   marc@bsu-cs.bsu.edu   00mlschmalz@virgo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  
   "I'm a carton of hate."  "I'm a wedge of spite."
            -Milk and Cheese, Dairy Products Gone Bad
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15350 alt.politics.homosexuality:10400
From: connebr@yang.earlham.edu (Brandon Connerly)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:34:58 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1jpt9pINNkuu@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>> Fundimentalists teaching that they believe that homosexual behavior
>> is against their religion is fine.
> 
> Really?  It seems many of the posters here disagree with you; they are
> afraid that homosexuals who are influenced by such religious teachings 
> will be harmed by these teachings.  Or are you saying that the churches 
> can teach "it is agains our religion", but they cannot teach that it 
> is "wrong"? 

Close. They cannot teach that it is "wrong" for me (at least, unless They 
can prove that I follow their religion). Churches can teach that homosexuality
is wrong, and their followers have a right to believe them. But when they
try to tell someone else what is wrong for them, they are, in effect, telling
them what to believe. And most of us can decide for ourselves what we choose
to believe.

>> [blah....]
> [blah...]

>> Why do fundimentalists see homosexuals as any more evil than adulterers ?
>> You dont hear any call from fundimentalists to deny civil rights of adulterers.
> 
> For starters, you might want to ask a funimentalist (sic) that question...=8^O 
> Are you asking these questions of anyone in particular here, or just ranting

Does that imply that asking questions of no one in particular is ranting? Are
both of you asking questions of no one in particular?

(Et tu, Brute?)

> [blah...]
> Walter
-BC
-- 
"They don't call me stupid for nothing!"   -Stimpson J. Cat
"For some of these same Quakers are the most sanguinary of all...| -H.Melville
 They are fighting Quakers; they are Quakers with a vengeance."  | "Moby Dick"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14632 alt.politics.clinton:20747 alt.politics.bush:16176 alt.politics.homosexuality:9931