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: 18 Nov 92 12:24:31 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <92322.26926.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <Bxtz1o.8DE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, Greg Trotter writes:
>
>>In article <92321.34354.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LM
>>>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?
>
>Last time I checked, we had a First Amendment which prohibits this, so they
>would be wrong.

Good call. Let's continue.

>Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  But did you mean "are NOT wrong?  The
>above statement is diametrically opposed to your next sentence:

No it's not. Read them again.

>>Like court decisions to restrict prayer in public places?
>
>Of course not--not if the prayer is voluntary, anyway.  What you are talking
>about is *not* what I was talking about.  I was talking about religious people
>imposing their morality--NOT about non-religious people forcing their secular
>views on others.  Either way, it's just as wrong.

What you said was:

	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.

So, policy that is based (pro|con) on religion-based morality is wrong.
Restricting prayer is religion-based morality.

Would you care to qualify what you mean by "voluntary?" When is prayer not
voluntary? When there's a gun to your head? A government mandate?

						- 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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Presidential Wives
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:12:14 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
>	so i'm listening to the show yesterday (11/17) and 
>	rush and a caller are harping on bill for letting
>	his wife hillary in on all the planning meetings...

Even better was Rush's TV show two or three nights ago,
where he was whining about how so many liberals complained
about Nancy Reagan's influence in the White House, but
you won't hear them complaining about Hillary's influence!

Here's a clue, Rush:  If Hillary starts getting her opinions
from an astrologer, I think you'll hear some loud complaints
from the liberals again.  

(And did anyone else happen to catch both the Hillary
interview on MacNeil/Lehrer, and Rush's exerpts of it?
Talk about creative editing.)

David
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag bashes Rev. Jackson, again
Summary: Existentialism, absurdity, and all that stuff
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:12:39 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
|Just to bring this thread back to the original topic, on his TV
|show a few nights ago Rush explained that he pronounced Cuomo's
|name "Coo-mo" because the Reverend Jackson (which Rush pronounces
|"uh-REV-uh-rend-uh-JACK-son-uh") pronounced it that way one time,
|and Rush doesn't want to be accused of making fun of Reverend
|Jackson's pronunciation.
|
|Vintage Rush.  He makes fun of Jackson's pronunciation (both when
|pronouncing "Cuomo" and when pronouncing "Reverend Jackson"), then
|denies that he is doing it, and then claims to be going out of his
|way to *avoid* making fun of Jackson.  
|
|Of course, every good Limbot knows that Rush was only joking, and
|that this is not an example of Rush hiding his nastiness behind
|empty disclaimers.

That's called absurdity. I know you make fun of Rush fans by calling
them "Limbots"; that is your way of making your point that all Rush fans
are programmed to think the way Rush thinks (and other things). Whether
you like the way Rush makes his points is your opinion, just as whether
I think your labeling RL listeners/viewers as Limbots is meant to be
equally as malicious is mine. (I think it's pretty funny by the way.)
-- 
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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:08:56 GMT

don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley) 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

This is classic right-wing bigotry.

>  women who get abortions are married?  Maybe 1%??  What bothers me

20%

>  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.

How is it that right-wing pro-forcers are so interested in
less-government, except for pregnant women, and are so concerned 
about unborn children and so unconcerned about born children?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 15
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
     <knauer.722462322@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu>
     <92327.160414MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:59:28 GMT

In article <knauer.722462322@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> Rob Knauerhase,
knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu writes:

>The Limbaugh Watch is only a waste of bandwidth in that it draws out
the
>lame and feebleminded from their keyboards and infuriates them that
someone
>like Limbaugh could be intouch enough with the country to remain so
popular.

That's kind of like saying that "All in the Family" was so popular
because everybody could identify with Archie Bunker!  (Actually, many
people did, but they did not tend to like the show.  Radicals of
either wing are not known for their sense of humor.)

Most of Rush's listeners find him entertaining because he is such an
excellent example of the worst of pseudoconservative thought. 
Personally, I think he did more for Clinton's reelection than Pat
Buchanan and Pat Robertson put together.

Let's keep Rush on the air... where we can keep an eye on him!

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman

Internet: 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:10311 alt.politics.elections:24274 talk.politics.misc:61421
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh



i didn't catch the show today (11/16)... did rush mention
anything about the two men in gov. weld's administration 
who came out as a "couple" over the weekend?  i know rush
kinda likes weld (from what i hear weld seems pretty cool)
and was harping on the navy case & clinton's promise
to issue an executive order on gays in the military...
just wonderin' if he had anything to say...

pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:47:22 GMT

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

>Would some one care to comment on how one can go from the series
>about how Nathan Engle is without a clue to phone lines into the white
>house?

	No better person than the Author, I guess.  There is another article
	posted by Engle in this newsgroup (we alternate elsewhere!) and
	I guess that if you didn't read it, you wouldn't understand.  Engle
	said something about his wife, redecorating and daughters, so instead
	of posting twice, each letter falling in the pertinent area, I 
	elected to post but once, as I really hate VI, and want emacs.

	Engle without a clue?  You said it, I did not.  Actually I like Engle's
	comments much better than the snide ones that appear above.

		Marquette, now that's getting a little closer to where I am 
		from.

Gregory Daigle
Cornell University
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton % vs. Bush %
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:38:59 GMT
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <105120019@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writ
es:
>In alt.rush-limbaugh, scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) wr
ites:
>>      Not necessarily. Look at these rough calculations:
>>      Bush '88:     53% of vote x 50.4% turnout = 26.7% of population
>>      Clinton '92:  44% of vote x 55.0% turnout = 24.2% of population
>>                                    Steve
>> -- 
>	i wouldn't be gloating over numbers like 26.7% of the pop.
>	in fact, i'd hide my head in the sand...
>just ponderin'
>pjm.
Gee, pjm, it would seem to me that since the % received is being multiplied
by the %age of people who bothered to vote, that maybe, uh, SOMETHING AS LOW
AS 26.7% IS OF THE TOTAL POPULATION OF THE VOTING U.S.  It would be a little
more astounding if more people voted.

Jennifer, proud originator of the "President Clinton" thread on alt.rush-l.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Forget Rush and the Comedy Channel!  What's DOONESBURY (Trudeau) going to do?
I'd prefer he go on the lecture circuit, instead of more stupid cartoons
about that quintabizillionaire that lives on an island with his plain assist-
ant.  Wouldn't it figure I'd have to join alt.poltics.flame.flame.flame. to
spawn my first thread?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea insult, apology
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:47:18 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
=jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
=(Jared Dahl) says:
=>Clinton is Prez, and the Right is PISSED!!!!
=>HA!
=
=We are?  I had no idea.  Oh well, guess I better go loot a grocery store.

Well no one wanted to riot in the streets with me...
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 22 Nov 92 08:28:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Nov19.153413.18953@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Yes, Pro-Choice is the middle ground, but not if you give only 
>one person a choice.  For pro-choice to be the true middle ground, 
>you must give everyone involved a choice: the mother, the child, 
>and the father.  The pro-choice movement in america ignores two 
>of the people involved.

>Ted


Although it is ultimately the female who will have to make the
decision, this does not mean that the man involved cant be asked for
his opinion. However it it the woman who will decide and should have
the choice to decide what to do with this clump of growing cells in
her body. I assume that you disagree with me on this point that a
bunch of cells in a woman's womb is not a living being. Well I argue
it isn't until it reaches a viable state in which it can maintain
itself outside. Pro-choice movement ignores noone since there are at
max only 2 people involved. But if these two people disagree it's
ultimately up to the female to make the decision.

Pim van Meurs

-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:42:17 GMT


In article <1992Nov13.170451.24505@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
 
>Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.
>Abstinence is acceptable and reasonable behavior to expect from people who 
>don't want to have a baby, whereas killing the child is not acceptable in 
>the same way that neglecting a child when adoption is available isn't 
>acceptable. 
 
See the thing is Paul, unless I specifically invite you to be 
involved in my sex life, it is none of your business.  So why 
don't you wait for the invite before assuming you have any 
interest at all in what goes on in my bedroom.
 
>-Paul
 
Dan King
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Malcom the Tenth
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:23:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

Has anyone seen Malcom the Tenth yet?  Is it worthwhile for a 
conservative to see?  Is it at all like Spike's other glorious 
work `Do The Right Thing?'  After watching that movie, I still 
did not know what the hell `the right thing' was.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10240 talk.abortion:49168
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: Hi, Stevie!!  We miss you!
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:09:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:

>I am simply advocating that men and women should not have sex if they
>don't want a baby at that time, but if they do have sex then they should be 
>prepared to, at the least, give that child up for adoption.  That *WAS
>THE ORIGINAL QUESTION* - "adoption is a viable alternative to raising the
>child, so what is a viable alternative to pregnancy".  That viable 
>alternative is abstinence.

But abstinence is not viable for all people.  I point out that, in some
states, refusing conjugal relations with your spouse is grounds for
divorce.  (I don't have that post handy -- anyone know WHICH states?)

Claiming abstinence is the *sole* viable alternative is disingenuous, at
best.

>And that is all I'm saying.  I was not saying that abstinence is an
>alternative to abortion.  I'm simply saying that abstinence is a
>resonable behavior to expect from two people to *prevent* a so-called
>"unwanted pregnancy".

So is contraception.  When contraception fails, and a pregnancy results,
then other remedies may/must be sought, depending on the people.

I think that if you try to claim contraception is NOT a reasonable way to
prevent unwanted pregnancies, you'll find most people here to be rather
unsympathetic.  Personally, I find that to be a laughable view.

>You seem like you might know what you will do to protect rights and 
>freedoms, which I applaud, but what will *you* do to protect a child?

Quite a bit.  But fetuses aren't children.

What will *you* do to protect the rights of women?

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10144 talk.abortion:48946
From: don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 21 Nov 1992 03:29:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

[Irrelevant data charts deleted]

>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.

  anti-abortion = doesn't care about women ???  I don't think so...

  Undifferentiated tissue?  Do you realize that second and even
  third trimester abortions are performed daily by the thousands?
  Have you ever seen what get's sucked out of the womb?  It's arms,
  legs, heads...  not "tissue".  Since you're so gung-ho about
  abortions, why don't you go see for yourself what gets aborted!
  Well, I'm more interested in discussing Rush than abortion, so this
  is all I have to say concerning abortion on alt.rush-limbaugh.

  "However one answers the metaphysical or theological question
  whether the fetus is a 'human being' or the legal question
  whether it is a 'person' as that term is used in the
  Constitution, one must at least recognize, first, that the fetus
  is an entity that bears in its cells all the genetic information 
  that characterizes a member of the species Homo Sapiens and
  distinguishes an individual member of that species from all
  others and, second, that there is no nonarbitrary line
  separating a fetus from a child or, indeed, an adult human
  being."
				-Byron R White
				Associate Justice
				US Supreme Court

>
>---
>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


					-Don Bromley
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:20:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <1500@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>: 
>: You are correct. Lee is not a racist on the same level with Helms. But
>: Malcolm X was. We can thank (?) Lee for not bringing that racist attitude
>: into the 90s with his film.     
>
>Malcolm was a racist at one point, undoubtedly.  However, it's
>silly to equate his racism with that of Jesse Helms; the latter's
>racism is based on unthinking dogmatism and unwarrented feelings of
>superiority, while the former's was based on experience.  Not that
>that justifies anything, but the two viewpoints are not the same.

Why not? To me, racism is racism, whether you've been dumped upon or not,
and whether it's PC or not.

>At any rate, by the time of his death Malcolm had rejected racism,
>as you would know if you knew anything about the man at all.  I 
>suggest that you read "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" and pay 
>attention to what the man had to say before forming opinions of
>him.

While I've not read the autobiography, I'm not convinced that Malcolm wasn't
racist when he died. I mean, only he knows for sure, and he's quite dead.
While it's quite possible that is totally rejected his hatred for the white
man, I feel it's also likely that he figured that he would get more credibility
if he pretended to be tolerant.

I have formed an opinion of the man, based on what I know of his life. Reread
my post; nobody as yet has said "Malcolm was not a racist." Just trying to
prove a point. I hope to see the movie this weekend; I've been told that the
"racist" element in him was not in the movie. I'll find out for myself.

							- 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: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:53:53 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

>>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

>no flames please - I am just providing factual information:

Not a flame, but an observation... When the US Catholic bishops a couple days
ago decided to shelve a declaration on the Church's position on women's issues,
the media reported it, then immediately interviewed feminists who want female
priests.  The media passed up a golden opportunity to lable these dissenters
as "the religious left," but instead passed with the impression that these
dissenters represent an overwhelming majority of American Catholics... and they
represent, of course, nothing of the sort.

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Religious Right 
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:32:53 GMT

In article <9728@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
>
>As for a "public reference to religion" being extremism, don't be silly.
>Extremism is Pat Puke-cannon's declaration of "religious war" on those
>who don't agree with him.  See the difference?
>
>David

   Sinead O'Connor seems to think there's a religious war on, too, and 
I'd bet she's no conservative.  

   And in reply to your term for Patrick Buchanan, I'd say: QED.


John Rickert
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh