HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:41:40 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <92321.34354.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <1992Nov16.162924.1337@news.vanderbilt.edu>, John Rickert writes:
>
>>   Oh, I get it now.  It took me long enough.  But I think I finally
>>caught on.  Religious = religious right.  A public reference to religion
>>is right-wing extremism.  Now I see...
>
>Not quite.  The difference comes when the distinction between religion as
>a *personal decision* and religion as a *government mandate* isn't made.
>I'm fairly religious, and I freely share my *personal* beliefs.  One can be
>a fundamentalist and not be part of the "religious Right."  How?  By accepting
>that their religion, no matter how devoutly they practice it, is a *personal*
>lifestyle choice involving them, their family, their church, and their God.
>It is *not* an issue for the government.  It is only those people who propose
>PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.

Let me make sure I hear you right. Are you saying that judges and legislators
who make decisions that, in some manner, infringe on someone's religious
rights are wrong?

Like court decisions to restrict prayer in public places?

						- greg

-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: The Gang of Five
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:50:21 GMT

bm562@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard L. Trionfo) writes:


>   Those who say the Gang of Four in China are dead have been
>proven wrong by the presense of Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton,
>Tom Foley, Richard Gephardt, and George Mitchell together in
>Little Rock last night.  Let's hope there is no conservative
>student rally in Lafayette Park or they will send in the
>only tank of the U.S. Army on them.

<sigh> I wonder when idiotic, childish, ridiculous, absurd and
completely irrelevant comments like these will cease? Oh well,
this is a.r-l and I suppose one must expect such comments here.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumni)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:13:24 GMT

In article <BxuqxF.D4o@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> 
>> >     It looks as though some Democrats are beginning to adopt the
>> >"America, love it or leave it" slogan.  On CNN's Capital Gang,
>> >Paul Gigot articulated the case for congressional term limits,
>> >to which special guest Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D) replied, "If you 
>> >like term limits, then move to Mexico."  (I guess elected officials
>> >are only allowed to serve one term in Mexico.)
>> >     Well -- I don't know about the rest of you -- but I think it's
>> >time for me to order that "S-O-C-K-S" language course.  :-)
>> 
>> Great!  Now you've given me something else to disagree with Pat Schroeder
>> on.  Thanks a lot!
>> 
>> Seriously though, I've wondered what impact the recently passed legislation
>> in several states will have on the operation of Congress.  Since the choice
>> leadership positions are based at least partially on seniority, aren't
>> those states putting themselves at a disadvantage?  I've always favored
>> term limits but it seems to me that they should be applied across the
>> board.
>> 
>
>As if we NEEDED something else to hate about Patsy Schroeder!
>
>Actually, term limits are already law in 17 states with about 35% of the
>American population, and is on the ballot for the next election in a
>number of OTHER states. I expect that by 1996, we'll have seen term limits
>face the voters in every state that has an initiative process. Frankly, I
>expect them to pass. 
>
>When enough congresscritters are from term limited states, they'll pass a
>Constitutional amendment for term limits, so as to deny an unfair
>advantage to crooks, er, representatives, from non-limited states. 
>
>Of course, if this is what it takes, I'm all for it!

       Don't forget, you've got to get a fairly hefty number of states to 
back a Constitutional Amendment.  And when it comes to that, population 
doesn't mean diddly.  One state, one vote.

       If some of the more populous states get them, we'll probably see 
something come out of the House, but passing the Senate and being ratified 
are another thing entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10141 talk.abortion:48944
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:23:16 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1ejn23INN6vd@agate.berkeley.edu>, don@ocf.berkeley.edu writes:
|>Do you really think it's reasonable to ask all the married
|>couples in the world to refrain from having sex if they don't
|>want any more children?  Do you really think you will succeed in
|>convincing people not to have sex?  Or could it be that you're
|>recommending a course that is totally unworkable & unrealistic,
|>and therefore ridiculous?
|  This is classic liberal intellectual dishonesty. What fraction of
|  women who get abortions are married?  Maybe 1%??

Note that the previous poster recommended abstinence for married
people, too.  But since you seem to think that married people
don't experience unwanted pregnancies, I have some facts for
you:

========================================================
From rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
  
Try _The World Almanac_; there's a nice chart there.  I won't type in
the whole thing (wouldn't fit), but the figures for 1972, 1976, 1980,
and 1985 in the 1990 World Almanac (page 846; they also have figures
for 1981, 1982, 1983, & 1984) are:

                                 1972      1976     1980      1985
Reported # of legal abortions  586,760   988,267  1,297,606  1,328,570
Ratio per 1000 live births      180.1     312.0    359.2      353.8
Rate per 1000 women aged          13        21       25         24
     15-44 years
                 Percentage distribution (excludes unknowns)
  Age (years)
19 and under                     32.6      32.1     29.2       26.3
20-24                            32.5      33.3     35.3       34.7
25 and over                      34.9      34.6     35.3       39.0
  Race
White                            77.0      66.6     69.6       66.6
Black and other                  23.0      33.4     30.1       33.4
  Marital status
Married                          29.7      24.6     23.1       19.3
Unmarried                        70.3      75.4     76.9       80.7
========================================================


|What bothers me is how liberals aren't one-bit concerned about
|the millions of unborn babies who are vacuumed-up, yet the
|thought of a woman having an unwanted pregnancy sends chills up
|their spines.

What bothers me is how raving lunatics aren't one bit concerned
about living, breathing women, yet the idea of undifferentiated
tissue getting removed-- which nature does on its own, for 2/3 of
all conceptions-- sends them into frothing control freakouts.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: If character isn't an issue ...
Date: 15 Nov 1992 18:29:15 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <Bxqsoo.Cy8@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>Have you noticed the clowns that supported Clinton so rabidly still haven't
>heard the election's over?  They still keep up the childish namecalling like
>a bunch of spoiled brats.  Come on children, you're supposed to be more
>mature than that, at least discuss your objections like adults.

Reminds me of the clowns that are making excuses about how BAD Clinton 
is going to be.  Like, "He didn't have a mandate."  or "If the 
Republicans had run a REAL conservative."  or  other such tripe.

 

-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: The Fraud called Global Warming
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:59:37 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

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

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

Don't scream until you have all the facts.  Global warming is
indeed occurring.  The question is "Why?"  Some people say 
that it is because of industrial pollution and other human-
related factors.  Others (myself included) simply state that
the world exited the last Ice Age only 18,000 years ago and
the average temperature in 1990 was still 11 degrees BELOW 
the average temperature for the last billion years.  This 
seems to indicate that the temperature on Earth fluctuates
wildly.  If you chart out these average temps, you can see that
we are coming out of a deep valley that represents the last
Ice Age.  

I can testify to the alarming rate of the buildup of greenhouse 
gases in the atmosphere, which is something that should be 
controlled.  If we don't care about nature, let's at least 
take care of ourselves.  A study showed that three out of
four young men in LA had unnatural growths in their lungs. 

Also, Global Warming and the thinning of the ozone layer 
are not necessarily connected.  The ozone layer traps 
ultraviolet radiation, not infrared, and wouldn't keep heat
in (Greenhouse Effect).  Also, if you compare the levels
of ozone in the late '70s to today, you would see that 
ozone thinning is happening.  Why? Nobody knows.  CFC's
is a good place to start. 

What really needs to happen is some major funding for 
programs to study these problems to really determine what 
is going on.  Then we can figure out what we are gonna do
about it(if we can do anything).


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:15:24 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>For that matter, I'm unclear why the media uses the phrase "religious right,"
>and not, say, "homosexual left," or "feminist left."  For that matter, I've
>never heard an "*anything*-left" mentioned.  To the media, the opposite of
>"right" is not "left," but "moderate."

What phrase would you want them to use for the "religious right"?  
"Religious" alone is clearly too broad; believe it or not, there are
some *liberals* who are deeply religious, too.  The real problem with
the term "religious right" is that it is still too broad, since
there are religious people who are conservatives, but who are not
part of the movement that wants to impose fundamentalist values on
everyone.  So, what name do you suggest instead?

I've never heard anyone say "feminist left," either, but haven't you
heard of "radical feminists"?  (Rush Limbaugh thinks there is only one
feminism, and it is defined by the radicals.  Rush wasted his money if
he bought a color TV, since he sees everything in black and white,
anyway.) Would you be happier if the "religious right" were called the
"religious radicals"?  

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what your objection is here.

David
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:19:32 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

>I dunno, I've never seen any polling data on this- but I'd imagine
>that a majority of the American people (perhaps a slim one) 
>would feel that keeping women out of the priesthood was rather
>silly.

Point is, the bishop's conference had no power to decide and rule upon
anything of the sort.  The issue in question was a pastoral, a statement
of their outlook.  It was the media which hyped a strawman issue.

Since the Constitution allows for the separation of CHurch and State, the
American people do not, of course, vote on what rules or beliefs the members
of this or that particular religion should freely choose to accept, no matter
how silly those beliefs might appear.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Of all the oddest things...
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:21:29 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

00066033@ysub.ysu.edu writes:
]eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
]>Article taken from "U. The National College Magazine" for Nov 1992.
]>Published by American Collegiate Network, Inc.
]>
]>It takes a lot of balls to be this artistic at St. Mary's
]>
]>[Picture included]
]>
]>It's just four balls of polyurethane, but it's caused the most heated
]>controversy at St. Mary's College in 15 years.
]>
]>The Great Bulbous Sculpture Controversy began when the untitled work by
]>artist Marcia Kaplan was put on outdoor display at the all women's
]>Catholic college in Indiana.
]>
]>And reaction to the sculpture has run the gamut. "The sculpture is so
]>blatantly sexual that the law was not the appropriate place to display
]>it," says junior Jennifer Rasmussen.
]>
]>But senior Christine Makarewicz says the sculpture has artistic merit.
]>"I was glad to see that it was on our campus," she says.
]>
]>Hard times -- or a hard body -- broke the sculpture and St. Mary's
]>administration leapt to the rescue. President William Hickey decided to
]>move the art indoors where it could be protected.
]>
]>The saga ended in September three weeks later when faculty pressure
]>forced the administrators to move the work back outside.
]>
]>But students like Makarewicz are still bitter. "If you're going to put
]>something that has a possible controversial content, a college campus is
]>the ideal setting."
]>
] 
]Why did the artist stop there. They should have added a few breasts and
]perhaps a towering penis. Or perhaps a living sculpture of two men
]having anal sex would have been dandy.  Of course, they would have
]had to move that indoors during the winter months.

Well, I thought that the original sculpture was meant to be a fountain.
A large towering fountain... (Perfect for a Catholic girls college,
huh.)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (Was: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:05:49 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

kinne@netcom.com (Kinne Strong) writes:
=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
=> I agree that the call to return to some moral center cannot be coerced
=> or programmed into the populace. On the other hand, many things that
=> Christians do that are not intended to be coercive are being prohibited
=> or censored because of the perception that we are forcing our views on
=> others. 
=
=Could you give some examples? I suspect that most such events are easily
=explained, but since I really don't know what you are talking about I'd
=rather have you tell me, rather than explaining away my guesses.

Well, the one thing that pops into my head is forming an ecumenical
religious group on a public high school campus (story based on my high
school experiences, plus other stories that I've heard, so forgive me
for mixing this all together). It is not sanctioned by
the school board or the local school administration, and is organized
primarily by the students and some of the teachers themselves. There is
a lot of pressure on the administration to disband this group. I can't
recall if the Supreme Court has ruled on the "constitutionality" of
having such a group, but many people say that this group should not
exist because it has the perception of being supported by the state,
even though it does not (to my knowledge financially).

I recall very vaguely a story that goes like this ...
Even some of the lights at some of the more popular parks, though
privately owned, have received complaints because they dared have a
manger scene. (They also had a menorah, but this didn't seem to be the
focus of their complaints.) They suggested to add Santa Claus
and reindeer to the manger scene in order to make it more pallatable.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	Hope you have a very good "Native American Exploitation" Day.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Spotted Owl/Re:The Environment
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:47:01 GMT

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>Also, timber is a very beautiful resorce.  What the hell are we doing
>sending it out to other countries?  I would like to keep it all here 
>in the states.  We don't have enough to share....We have a large 
>enough market to sale it here only.

    That would be nice, but it wouldn't do anything to help our trade 
balance, especially since timber is one of the few things that Japan is 
still actively interested in buying from North America.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 17
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:35:00 GMT

In <1992Nov21.061122.8251@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <grendel.722306065@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1992Nov20.140810.25756@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>>
>>>In article <41298@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> Pim van Meurs, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu
>>>writes:
>>>>instance. I admire Rush for his ability to mislead so many people
>>>>into believing he is something more than just an entertainer who is
>>>>often more wrong than right but says what people want to hear or
>>>>believe.
>>>>Sure, Rush will be around as long as people need to be told what to
>>>>believe. Guess that's why there is no liberal equivalent of Rush.
>>
>>>You mean like Phil Donahue, Geraldo Rivera, Dan Blather, Tom Brokaw, 
>>>Vlademir Pozner, Arsenio Hall, Jay Leno, Whoopi Goldberg? 
>>>That is all I could think of in about 10 seconds.
>>
>>Took you 10 seconds?  It shows.
>>
>>Rivera a liberal?  Give me a break.  He's about as liberal as Charles
>>Bronson.  And explain, please, how Leno is a liberal.  What, he makes
>>Quayle jokes?  So does everybody except you.  They're entitled.  It's
>>time to realize that the media is not biased against _conservatives_,
>>but against _power_.
>>
>>And anyway, none of the people you mentioned are liberal equivalents of
>>Rush.  Rather and Brokaw are newscasters, not talk radio deejays.  Goldberg
>>is principally an actress.  And Donahue, Hall and Leno host talk shows,
>>usually with figures in the world of entertainment, and are not politically
>>oriented.  Rush Limbaugh is an ideologue.  He is an openly conservative
>>commentator who admittedly relies on opinion, not fact.  There is still
>>no equivalent to him in the media, despite your conspiracy theory.

>Obviously you missed Alan Colmes.  You must not know much about talk 
>radio.  Hmmm, funny that you would make claims about something you know 
>so little about.

Hmmm, yeah, scary, I'm turning into a Netconservative.

>FYI there are only two national, issue-oriented, no-guest-type, radio 
>talk shows in the US (Probably setting myself up here.) The two hosts 
>are Rush Limbaugh-Conservative, and Alan Colmes-Liberal.

"Probably setting myself up here"?  You mean you don't know what you're
talking about either?  Curiouser and curiouser.

Here's the deal: no, I have never heard of Alan Colmes, despite the fact
that I expose myself to a great deal of media.  Could it be because
Mr. Colmes is not, in fact, paid nearly as much attention to as Rush is?
I still maintain that there is no liberal equivalent to Limbaugh in the
media.  There is no liberal ideologue who routinely and openly bashes
conservatives on a national scale on television and radio.