HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: symanzik@pigeon.egr.msu.edu (Edward Symanzik)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:29:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: pigeon.egr.msu.edu

In article <1jkrr3INNdh7@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
|> What equal rights are gays and lesbians looking for ?
|> 
|> To be able to get a job, promotion or raise based on your abillities,
|> without reguards to your sexuality.

|> To be able to live where one chooses to live, limited only by ones
|> ability to pay for such housing.

Race, gender and age are things we have no control over and, as such, 
it is unfair to limit access to basic necesseties based on these
attributes.  Matters of choice on the other hand, should not enjoy
this protection.  If a potential landlord won't allow goldfish in the
building, look elsewhere or give up the fish.  If the landlord doesn't
want your business and is willing to accept the possible loss of income,
that's his business (pun indended).  The apartment belongs to the landlord
and, a his personal property, he can do with it as he sees fit.  

The same applies to the job market.  If I wish to hire people who ride Harleys,
you either get a hog or look elsewhere.  If I think that what you ride is
more important than your skills then my business may or may not suffer for it,
but it's *my* choice.  If riding a Honda is more important to you than where you work, then you may or may not suffer for it, but that's *your* choice.

Both parties involved need options.  If I don't let people in their thirties live in my building, then those people don't have a choice.  If I am required to permit goldfish on the premises then I don't have a choice.

--
Ed Symanzik
Michigan State University
symanzik@egr.msu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: control
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:47:56 GMT

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.213829.24794@advtech.uswest.com>,
>steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) says:

>>>I'm sorry.  How dare I imply that there could be consequences and inherent
>>>responsibility involved in sexual activity.

>>What you're implying, Kurt old chap, is that a woman be punished with an
>>unwelcome pregnancy just because she has sex.

>No, that's what you're inferring.  Big difference.  What I'm -clearly-
>saying is that it's not OK to side-step consequences of an act by taking
>an innocent life.

But it's ok to deal with the consequences of a rapist's act by taking
an innocent life?

> Kurt  E.  Ludwick     

              -rocker
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:56:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.060221.18670@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:

>When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..

Boy, that's tellin' em!  Like these ridiculous laws about the
sentencing of people who attempt to kill the President.  I mean, why
should *his* lifestyle choice be considered more important than
*mine*?  Let's judge people on the basis of who they are, not what
they do!  etc., etc.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pot anyone?
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:12:27 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <C1A6Hy.G6x@ms.uky.edu> lrvanh00@nx38.mik.uky.edu (lee r vanhorn) writes:
>In article <1jo3uuINN64u@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
>loweaa@o231-23.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Anthony A Lowe) writes:
>> 	Hey yall! Here is one we did not catch before the election. It  
>> starts with Bill and his appointment to the Attorney General. Well she  
>is  
>> a firm believer in the legalization of pot for medicinal uses. So she is  
>a  
>> hippy feminist who still is not read the research proving the couple of  
>> hundred of chemicals in each joint does more damage than a pack of  
>> cigarettes and THC does permanent brain damage, the good part is Bill's  
>> response. He says that if he were to smoke pot today he would inhale.  
>> Watch for smoke in the White House!
>Sorry my friend, but you are wrong.  All studies showing that pot does  
>brain damage have been proven wrong.  They were li ke the stuidies that  
>said LSD changed your DNA...propoganda.  Also, cigarrettes do much more  
>damage to the system than marijuanna.  In fact, marijuanna usage can  
>reduce a cigarrette smoker's risk of lung cancer.  You see, your  
>conservative fascist views are not only based on an incorrect idealism,  
>they are based on incorrect data too.

While I agree that this person's facts are bad, I doubt that this is 
solely attributed to incorrect idealism.  Besides, I wouldn't label
him as fascist just because he believes the propaganda that is out there.
Like anything else, real facts need to be presented rather than stories
or urban myths.

-- 
RULE #1:  At all costs, we must make society fair.
RULE #2:  At all costs, we must make people be nice.
RULE #3:  Rules #1 and #2 are impossible to achieve.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:51:07 GMT

In article <1jn80uINN4j0@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> > I think it's perfectly okay for someone to quote Leviticus about
> > homosexuality, as long as s/he follows it himself/herself.  So has s/he
> > given up:
> > Diapering his/her granddaughters?
> > Blended clothing?
> > Rare meat?
> > Shaving and cutting the hair at his/her temples?
> 
> Evelyn, what is your religious upbringing?  Were you taught any of 
> the tenants of Christianity, from the point of view of any denomination
> in particular, or any at all?  Do you really not have any understanding 
> as to why laws like those from Leviticus are not still followed, while 
> sexual morality/conduct ones are?   

  Expediency? Self righteous hypocrisy?
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:55:50 GMT

In article <john.727818706@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
writes:


>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>]I don't recall ever feeling like a target because of the color of my
>]skin walking the streets of either New York or Boston.  My earrings
>]tell another story altogether.
>
>What counts is whether you ARE a target, not whether you feel like one.
>Do you really believe that there are not large areas of the major cities
>where one's skin color (especially a white skin color) makes one
>a target of violence? If so, I'll give you a few addresses to walk around. 
>If you survive, drop us a line:
>  24th street and broadway, Phoenix, AZ
>  much of south central LA
>  most of Washington, DC

I could add to that... If you have a chance, Tim, also visit
Harlem, NYC; and while you are in New York, you also may want
to take a stroll on the streets of South Bronx, Brownsville,
Crown Heights and East New York. Choose a place you like most
and go there, because I am afraid you won't be able to visit
anything else after this trip.



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
| I love the women's movement...| I am pro-choice. I just |
| especially when I am walking  | hope the choice is for  |
| behind it.                    | life.                   |
|                       (Rush Limbaugh)                   |
===========================================================
| Grigory Golberg, PI               grisha@athena.mit.edu |
===========================================================
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15338 alt.sex:43357 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14043 alt.politics.correct:6394 alt.politics.equality:179 alt.politics.homosexuality:10392
From: tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:29:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.195017.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>
cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:

> Oh, I see.  Let's not follow the Christian guidelines becuase it might
> actually have some morality to it!!!  If you have sexual intercourse, it
> should be to conceive a child.  The fact that sex is used for pleasure
> is sin--it should never be used for self-gratification!
>
> Oh, but I forgot--we don't follow Christian doctrine and morality.
> Guess that shows that Christians ARE the better people because of their
> value of life--rather than selfish, gratification-seeking hypocrites!


Sigh.  Its rants like this that make it so difficult to defend moderate,
reasonable Christianity to the masses.  Let me take this point by point.

1) Following Christian guidelines is a matter of personal choice and personal
morals.  It is inherantly evil for the state to impose morals upon its people,
since people are given the gift of free will by God to choose whether to act
in accordance with his teachings.  The role of state law is to protect people
from the acts of other people.  (Incidently, this does not preclude the 
outlawing of abortion, if you start from an assumption that the fetus is a
human being.  Then you are protecting what you feel is a person from 
destruction by another person).

2) Certainly part of sexuality in the Christian context is the creation of
children.  However, sex is also a valid expression of love between a husband
and wife outside the possibility of child creation.  Although sex outside
marriage is sinful, its use within the context of marriage as an expression of
love is fully condoned in the Bible.

3) Christians are only better people if they follow all of God's teachings to
the best of their ability.  You seem to forget that Jesus wanted us to
forgive sinners.  Jesus was also very critical of those who became self
righteous because of their belief that they were closer to God because of
how they lived their lives.  I would submit that someone who lives with a
conviction of personal superiority because of his Christianity is far more
hypocritical than someone who sins and is honest about it.

				Tom the non hacker
				An imperfect Christian trying to reach a
				compromise between his principles and his
				senses.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Tom Peregrin is a nit wit.
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:37:41 GMT

eric@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Eric Kuhnen) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>ANNOUNCEMENT!  ANNOUNCEMENT!  ANNOUNCEMENT!  ANNOUNCEMENT!
>>To all readers of all newsgroups everywhere!  Attention!  Do not get 
>>involved in net.discussions with Tom Peregrin.

>I must agree with Ted on this one.  I get the impression from Tom's posts
>and conversations with me and others that he goes for the quick and easy
>ridicule/humor instead of writing anything of real substance.

    Well, I hope that you'd at least consider me in the running in that 
category. I'd match up my one-liners against Tom's any day. 

>Normally, I would keep my own counsel instead of asking others to not talk
>with Tom.  However, it is a bit unnerving to have Tom's particular brand of
>static cluttering up the reception, so to speak.  I understand and endorse
>the sentiment, Ted.

    Personally I think you guys are overreacting - you've had practically 
nothing but heated arguments with Tom and now you're saying you don't like 
him because he's so contrary?

>Comments and criticism are welcome.  Flames to /dev/null.  "Get a life"
>drivel to /dev/mirror.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: sguy@hubcap.clemson.edu (Stacy Lee Guy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: honest question
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:00:37 GMT
Organization: Clemson University

cmoore@scott.skidmore.edu (colin moore) writes:

>Ok, I'm usually posting articles saying what a moron Rush is, but now
>I have an honest question (really, no flames please).  I was listening
>to him while I was reading, and he started talking about gays in the
>military.  I wasn't listening all that attentively, but I thought I
>heard him say that this was similar to the conflicts involving blacks
>in the military.  He then said he didn't think this was a good idea.
>Can I take that to mean he also doesn't think blacks in the military
>is a good idea?  Just curious.

Please excuse me if I do this wrong. First time posting here. This 
news group looks pretty cool...

Rush's view of gays in the military is that the military knows best what's
good for them. But those who support the idea of gays in the military like to
bring up when we started letting blacks join the military. Many didn't want
blacks in the military for much the same reasons the military is giving for
not wanting gays in there. Being gay means living a certain lifestyle, a
lifestyle that, acording to top military brass, does not go along with
military life. Being black is much different then being gay. Black and white
GI's can live together peacefully, gays and hetero's can't. 

From now on, I would recommend that you give Rush your undivided attention
during his show. No reading unless it's his newsletter or The Conservative
Chronicle, that way no liberal or false idea will enter your skull full
of mush.

Stacy L. Guy, ditto-head

-- 
Stacy L. Guy

Clemson University
From: jdough@sinkhole.unf.edu (Joseph Dougherty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: LIES LIES LIES
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:35:12 GMT
Organization: University of North Florida, Jacksonville

In article <105144@netnews.upenn.edu> nstowfis@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Nicholas J Stowfis) writes:
>
>So is ANYONE gonna post these damn promises, or are we just gonna
>fill the newsgroup with requests for them???
>
>		-- NJS



	I saw one request and thought about posting them. I would have 
to type them manually and upload the list via message, which is time
consuming. I don't have a text scanner or something to make it easy.
	I was going to to it anyway. Then I was struck by something.

1. I paid $30 for a subscription to the newsletter when it started
last year. One of the benefits of that expenditure is that *I* get
the list. I paid for this privelige.

2. The list is a portion of a copyrighted work.

3. If you really want one badly enough, subscribe. The number is 1-800-
457-4141. 

4. If I spend lots of money to publish the thing, and copyrighted it as
well, I wouldn't want some schmuck giving it away free.

Therefore, no.	

However, here are the two he has already broken:

#44 "Middle-class taxpayers will have a choice between a children's tax
credit or a significan reduction in their income tax rate." *Putting
People First*
	Broken 14 January 1993. His claim that the Bush deficit esti-
mates were "nearly double" what they predicted (that is what *he* said)
now forced his economic people to re-think everything. When he was pressed
on this by a reporter, he said they would have to take a different approach
than they planned.

#18 "My first priority  would be to pass a jobs program, to introduce
it on the first day I was inaugurated." St. Louis, MO., October 11, 1992.
	He was busy shaking hands the first day, after appearing at the
WH at 1:00 in the afternoon, probably due to a late night of parties.
He was too busy undoing Bush policies on his second day to bother with
 it then.


Joe Dougherty

jdough@unf6.cis.unf.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:00:24 GMT

In article <2746@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>Homosexual activity is sinful
>and, in a civilized society, should be considered criminal as well.
>
>Tom Albrecht

Au contraire.

Modern Western civilization originated with the Greeks.  The Greeks tolerated,
and even celebrated, homosexuality.

It is the civilized democracies of Western Europe, such as Sweden, Norway, France,
Denmark, and the Netherlands, where homosexuals are treated with respect and
tolerance. 

The uncivilized non-democracies of the world are also the countries where homosexuals
are persecuted only for their sexual orientation:  Iraq, Iran, etc.

Who is more uncivilized:  those who treat all human beings with respect, no
matter what their sexual orientation, or those who wish to lock up homosexuals
simply because they love a person of the same sex?

I find it ironic that Mr. Albrecht evidently works for a computer company and
uses a computer network to vent his bigotry.  Why?  Because Alan Turing, the
man who first analyzed the ultimate power of computing machines, and the man
for which computer science's highest award is named, was homosexual.
Turing was persecuted by the Albrechts of his day, being forced to take hormone
injections that made him grow breasts.  The result was Turing's suicide.
(Read _Alan Turing:  The Enigma_ for more information.)

Let us stand up and say no to the bigotry of people like Albrecht, so that
there will be no more tragic deaths like Turing's.

Jeff Shallit
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: honest question
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:04:05 GMT

cmoore@scott.skidmore.edu (colin moore) writes:
>Can I take that to mean he also doesn't think blacks in the military
>is a good idea?

    No.

>  Just curious.

    That's ok, no penalty for being curious unless you're a cat.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tendico@hubcap.clemson.edu (Todd Endicott)
Subject: Clinton & the Press
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:53:31 GMT

Hi there. I'm just curious about how the conservatives view the recent
ragging of Clinton in the press; seems to me this kind of weakens their
standby complaint about the "liberal media". Comments anyone?

Disclaimer: I'm no Clinton fan; I voted for Marrou.
-- 
Todd Endicott
tendico@hubcap.clemson.edu					 "Yow!"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gatortop@IASTATE.EDU (Mike W Kuenkel)
Subject: TAX THE RICH!!!!
Reply-To: gatortop@IASTATE.EDU (Mike W Kuenkel)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:44:56 GMT

 
Keywords: 

	Are there any lazy under-achievers out there that can give me just one good
reason why they think the rich should be heavily taxed.  I have yet to see one!

	PUNISHING ACHIEVEMENT IS WRONG!!






Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:08:32 GMT

In article <1jn80uINN4j0@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> Evelyn, what is your religious upbringing?  Were you taught any of 
> the tenants of Christianity, from the point of view of any denomination
> in particular, or any at all?  Do you really not have any understanding 
> as to why laws like those from Leviticus are not still followed, while 
> sexual morality/conduct ones are?   

I don't think most Christians follow all the morality/conduct laws in
Leviticus.  Do the women use mikvehs each month?  Do they refrain from
intercourse for a full week after the woman's period?  Do they follow
all sorts of other laws which are considered morality laws?  (Do they
even realize these are considered morality laws?)

And if you'll notice, for the benefit of those who say the NT
superseded the OT, I pointed out that rare meat (blood) is forbidden in
the NT as well, and in the same verse that many people quote about
fornication.  Even in the NT, it seems to be that people pick and
choose not only what they will follow, but what they will insist others
follow as well.

(Oh, my upbringing is a combination of Jewish and non-demominational
Protestant with a fair amount of Pentecostal and Baptist on top of that
and a not insignificant amount of reading since then.  Yes, I
understand that the Christians say that Jesus's coming superseded the
old law--and I realize that is a gross simplification--but my reading
of the NT seems to lead me to the conclusion that most don't follow
that 100% either.)

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion