HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS (Re: Read this if you are straight!)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:23 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <C1G1wy.6Lz@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes...

|Look up Plessy v Ferguson sometime.  We'd be better off without 
|anti-discrimination laws - YES.  We'd be much better off without
|laws that discriminate, which is a better place to focus.

	Thank you.  At least someone is thinking.

Gadson
     ______________________
    |   ______    ______   |
    |__|   ___|__|___   |__|   From the Ice Age
      __   \        /__    __  to the dull age,
      /\    \      /  |\  /|   there is but one concern:
     /__\    \    /   | \/ |   I have just discovered,
    /    \    \  /    |    |   some girls are bigger than others
   --    --   |\/|   --    --  some girls' mothers are bigger than other girls'
           ___|  |___          mothers.
          |__________|
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15014 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13673
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:07:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.232453.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.120413.27404@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- your name may vary) writes:
: > The fact that sex is used for pleasure is sin--it
: >should never be used for self-gratification!

:  Truth by brute force.  I don't buy it, I don't agree with it, and I've
:  never seen a convincing argument of its validity.

	I've never heard of any such argument either.

: >Guess that shows that Christians ARE the better people because of their value
: >of life--rather than selfish, gratification-seeking hypocrites!

	What's wrong with having fun???

:  Uh-huh.  And I bet you would *never* have sex unless you were prepared
:  to have a child.  Which means that after you get married and have your
:  1 or 2 or however many kids you have, you'll never have sex again.

:  Here's another question for you: is masturbation ethical?

>	Why yes...masturbation IS ethical...but not morally right. 
>Masturbation is an act to relieve sexual tension to get...once again...self
>gratification!  This is also frowned on by Christianity.

	What's the difference between "ethical" and "morally right"?
And what's wrong with having fun (yes, fun)? And why be so prissy
about sex and not about anything else? So one can gorge oneself on
tasty pastries (say), with that not being a sin? After all, it's
self-gratification, isn't it?

	And is it a sin for a married couple (say) to have sex just
for the fun of it? Is birth control a sin? Randall Terry and the Pope
both agree on believing both abortion and birth control to be sins.
Are alternative sexual activities sin? Is it a sin for a married
couple to practice mutual masturbation? Oral sex? Not to mention other
possibilities.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:22:49 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?

The "tenants" of Christianity?  That's a good one!

Do you mean those passages of the bible where people "rent" their garments?

Sounds like somebody needs to look up the word "tenet".

>Walter

Jeff Shallit


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14626 talk.politics.misc:68909 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13279
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 20 Jan 93 18:49:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan19.135506.7590@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <1993Jan14.203635.1358@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan13.135103.9159@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>>I'm not familiar with this incident, however, if you meant to draw
>>>a parallel between this and gay-bashing, was the Cardinal or any of
>>>the churchgoers beat to a bloody pulp by the gays?
>>
>>The only analogy I meant to draw was the way that gays (at least in this 
>>case) violated the civil rights of the people attending the church service. 
>>They entered the church (uninvited) and knocked over stuff and chased 
>>the parishoners out.
>>
>>Do you have to beat somebody to a bloody pulp for your actions to be 
>>considered illegal?  Do you believe that gay-bashing only starts with 
>>physical violence?
>
>No, but if you're trying to compare knocking over stuff and chasing
>parishioners (hmmmm, doesn't sound like such a bad idea :-)) to beating
>someone to a bloody pulp or killing them, it won't wash.  All illegal
>acts are not the same, that's why a convicted murderer usu. gets a
>more severe punishment than a guy who swipes cars.

This seems to be an example of both of us getting way off the original 
topic.  Since I posted the original question, please allow me to repeat 
it.

To those of you who support gay rights (and specifically, against the 
Colorado law):  how do you feel about gay activist law-breakers, such 
as the ACT-UP group that disrupted the church service.

Please note that I did not make any comparisons in the original 
question.  (Also note that this is not a quotation of the question, but 
a paraphrase.)

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.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

 (Randall Tinkess) writes:

> (Dave Bernard) writes:
> 
> >The round-up and incineration of Jews was the law of the land in
> >Nazi Germany.  The Catholic Church ushered thousands of Jews out
> >of Europe by means of an "underground railroad."  Thus, the Catholic
> >Church defied the "LAW OF THE LAND" in favor of what it perceived to be
> >a higher LAW, and helped the innocent.  I can see no difference in
> >its position to save, in this case, the unborn innocent.
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Are you saying that a woman's right to control her own body
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	randall & dave--  do either of you think that these
	two items are mutually exclusive??  it is just this 
	sort of problem with the current abortion debate that
	will prevent any helpful discussion...   one side
	always refers to unborn children while the other refers
	to a woman's right over her body...  both postures 
	defeat any chance of discussion and this is what 
	saddens me about this issue.

	let's TALK first and make policy later...


peace out,
pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:24:15 GMT

> I remember growing up on stories about my old grand pa who lied about a bad
> heart condition so as to be able to fight the Nazis.  Then there was old
> JFK who went to fight in the Pacific even though he had a serious back
> problem.  

Very true, and *lots* of Republicans (Qualye most noteable) dodged the draft.

Seems that neither party has a lock on love of country.

jim shirreffs


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh


	so paul, what is your response to my posting concerning
	the zoe-zone?  your previous repsonse does exactly what
	you complained clintonians do...  remember?

Paul S Galvanek writes:
> 
> Just once I'd like to see a Clinton supporter answer the questions with
> out digging up the past, I bet you can't do it.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	you grabbed a post from another article and harp on some
	misguided waif (you are right, though, he didn't score a
	point...).   when you asked the following question:
> 
> With that in mind tell us now, why is a person who broke the law, a lawyer
> who's best excuse is "I didn't know the law", why is that person about 
> to be confirmed by the Senate as AG without so much as hiccup at her 
> confirmation hearing? 
> 
	i provided an answer (see above)...

	so what's up with you?  what do you THINK? (not how
	many points did you score... not well-we're-better-
	than-you drivel...).



have a day,
pjm.
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: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:36:59 GMT

In article <1jp45bINN7ng@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>
>> This is a typical example of the circularity we so often see in such
>> arguments, in fact.  How do we know the prohibition belongs to the
>> "moral" rather than the "ceremonial" law?  
>
>"Most" Christians can look at a law that prohibits multi-fabric 
>clothing and see that it is ceremonial, and laws about sexual relations 
>and see that they are about morality.  

"Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15432 talk.abortion:58515
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:39:23 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <markp.728252901@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

I wrote:
>>..OK, so it's a tangent.
>>(1) the insistance is not 'any argument'....`
>>(2) many, though not all, of the arguments presented on this board from a
>>pro-life viewpoint are presented by rabid foaming extreme Christians, and
>>are phrased in such a way that a sensible reader *would* conclude that they
>>don't care about women.  ...

Then Mark Pundurs wrote:

>Adrienne, you seem ready to conclude that about EVERY pro-lifer on t.a --
>their explicit statements to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Interesting comment, Mark.

You will note, if you are paying attention to such foolish things at all,
that I don't *bother* with the arguments of most of the noted pro-lifers on
this net (noted in this case for being illogical and/or boring).  So, with
that particular handy notation in mind, would you care to support your
comment about, about how I 'seem ready' to *anything* WRT "EVERY pro-lifer"
in t.a.?

We'd love to see _something_ that would give support to your comment.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:26:59 GMT

In article <C187tA.E7n@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.191924.22566@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>
>>If you suggest to others that you are X, then, it is
>>logic that the other would assume that you also do all
>>the things that X's do. 
>
>No, it's not.  That's the most illogical thing I have heard in years.

Which is telling us how much contact you have with the real world.
If you see someone with a police uniform, you assume that that person is
a policeman or policewoman, and then you assume that they can help you
if you need them.
If you see a bunch of people dressed as firefighters, you assume that
they are firefighters, and then, that they will help people whose house
are burning.
If you see a person dress as a nurse, you will assume she or he is a 
nurse and that he or she would help you in a hospital.
SO on and so on.

So, if you see someone who has a t-shirt that says: I am Gay, you will 
assume that he/she is Gay (or Lesbian), and that he or she is attracted
to people of the same sex, and that, in case of having sex, he/she will
have sex with people of the same sex.

I have to admit that lately the difference men/women in our society
is not as clear as it was before. Anyway, you can assume that if you
are a man, you do not piss like a woman.



>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 

AAP
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14684 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13333 alt.politics.bush:16199
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Haiti -- Love this man's .sig file!
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:57:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
=++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
="The Bush policy 'is another sad example of the administration's callous
=response to a terrible human tragedy...If I were president, I would -
=in the absence of clear and compelling evidence that they weren't 
=political refugees - give them temporary asylum until we restored 
=the elected government of Haiti"
=	------------Clinton's written policy statement, May 27, 1992
=
="For Haitians who do seek to leave Haiti, boat departure is a terrible
=and dangerous choice...For this reason, the practice of returning
=those who fled Haiti by boat will continue, for the time being, after 
=I become president.  Those who do leave Haiti...by boat will be
=stopped and directly returned by the United States Coast Guard.
=        -------------Clinton's radio address to Haitian people 1/14/93
=++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Pot anyone?
XXXDate: Mon, 25 Jan 93 18:01:50 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A789791EEA020614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:01:55 GMT

In article <1jsqt0INNiao@master.cs.rosehulman.edu> Anthony A Lowe,
loweaa@g22203.RoseHulman.Edu. writes:
>	Well I guess someone else has been suckered into the lies put out  
>by researchers that will do anything for the government to but pot for  
>them. Here let me explain something to you. You see the only way to really  
>prove that pot does brain damage is to take two people, have one of them  
>smoke pot and the other stay clean. After a couple of years cut their  
>brains open and see if any damage has been done.

Such an approach would tell you nothing, since we don't know enough about
the brain to evaluate it's ability to function just by looking at it.  There
is, however, plenty of evidence that prolonged moderate regular use has no
measurable effect on performance, which is the only measure of damage that
we have.

By the way, I smoked pot regularly (almost daily) for over 15 years, and I'd
be happy to match mental function with you or any other nonsmoker any time.

>	Now to cigarettes. Where the hell did you hear that pot helps cure  
>lung cancer? 

That isn't what was said.  What was said what that it has been found that
use of marijuana reduces the risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers
(probably due to it's analgesic properties).

>Lets do some simple calculations now. The cause of lung  
>cancer is smoke. You smoke marijuana. That means smoke goes into your  
>lungs and causes cancer! Are you still with me? I would hate to loose you  
>now. Well what is our result. Smoking marijuana causes cancer.

It is the =contents= of cigarette smoke (primarily tars) that are believed
to cause cancer, not =any= kind of smoke.  There are =no= recorded cases of
cancer (or any other fatal illness) attributed to marijuana.

>	Now my last point is on how you tried to make your point. If you  
>spent more time thinking and less time shooting off your opinions then you  
>may be coherent.

You might take some of your own advice here.  Your argument shows a truly
profound ignorance of science in general and this subject in particular.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
From: loweaa@g222-03.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Anthony A Lowe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:hey
Date: 24 Jan 1993 01:33:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
NNTP-Posting-Host: g222-03.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <93022.233058AUJGH@ASUACAD.BITNET> <AUJGH@ASUACAD.BITNET>  
writes:
> i have two words for rush libbaugh
> 
>             slim
>             fast

If you really knew anything about Rush then you would know at one time he  
was going to go on a diet and make it a fund raiser but the diet  
corporations turned him down. Try reading the book!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
XXXDate: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:26:58 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A7841CE22D010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:27:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.184912.13317@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted Krueger,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>To those of you who support gay rights (and specifically, against the 
>Colorado law):  how do you feel about gay activist lawbreakers, such 
>as the ACTUP group that disrupted the church service.

I feel the same way I do about antiabortionists who harass women at
clinics... I find it absolutely reprehensible.  It is unfortunate that there
must be extremists whose activities only make the struggle for justice more
difficult for those who are working for change within the system.

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: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Broken Promises/Anit-Clinton sentiment growing
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:46:50 GMT

eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch) writes:

>"5.  Open up the US to the Haitian refugees.  He has already said that he
> will send them back."

>thank God for that.  The last thing we need right now is more people
>looking for a handout.  When are people going to get it into their
>heads that America is in bad shape, and it's time to start taking
>care of our own business and stop being the world's welfare organization?

>(note: I'm not saying this to defend Slick Willie - I voted Libertarian)

You know, I really have a tough time understanding this one.  The US had 
no national immigration laws for the first century - didn't really start that
up until after the Civil War.  Anybody who wandered in was ipso facto American.
We picked up shiploads of starving Irish from the 1848-50 potatoe famine
this way (they'd land in Canada and walk across the border because the 
harbor authorities in New York and Boston imposed their own little 
"immigration laws" to keep the Irish out).  It didn't hurt the country a bit
to have them in.  Ditto Southeast Asian and Cuban immigrants.   Immigrants
tend to be very hard working and loyal Americans.  The only thing that's
changed is the way our society treats them.  Instead of letting them make
it on their own, we insist on treating them as incompetent boobs who need
hand-outs.  

America doesn't have to work about too many people for the size of the
pie - we just used to have more people making pie, and insist people make
their own if they wanted it.  

>--

>Edward A. Bertsch (eab@msc.edu)   Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
>Operations/User Services          1200 Washington Avenue South
>(612) 626-1888 work               Minneapolis, Minnesota  55415
>(612) 645-0168 voice mail         [DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS; NOT MSCI'S]

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality