HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Borders)
Subject: Re: Charities in the '80's (was Whining bastards)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:26:17 GMT

dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
>> 
>> You don't seem to understand that we conservitives (most) do care about
>> the poor, hungry, and homeless.  We just don't think the Fed Gov should
>> solve the problem by throughing in  money and socialistic jobs.  Instead
>> we give through private organizations or directly to bypass the waste and
>> fraud that has run rampid through congress and the white house.

>In most times of prosperity, private donations to charities increased. This
>didn't happen in the 1980's. Bush's 'thousand points of light' never really
>took off.

Wrong answer.  In the 1980's, charitable contributions *did* increase.
This quote is from Rush's book:

    "As reported in the *National Review*, 'charitable donations
     by individuals rose from $64.7 billion (1990 dollars) in 1980
     to $102 billion in 1989, an increase of 57.7 per cent.
     Moreover, after declining relative to national income during
     the Seventies, charitable donations rose from 2.1 per cent
     of income in 1979 to a record 2.7 per cent in 1989.'"

Hmmmm.  Looks like a *few billion* 'points of light' to me.  Face it: the
Eighties *worked*.  The rich got richer, *and* the poor got richer.

--
Scott Borders
sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu
borders_scott@tandem.com

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Twists on gays in military
Keywords: practicality
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:00:30 GMT

In article <C0362y.BtE@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.190851.31809@rchland.ibm.com>, jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>|> In article <C00xG4.3oA@rice.edu>, byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>|> [beaten to death stuff deleted]
>|> |> 
>|> |> Q:  How about those who like to have sex with dead people
>|> |> (necro-sexuals?)?  Don't they have a right to serve in the
>|> |> military?  Where would they be housed? 
>|> 
>|> Once again we come back to the "Gays are criminals" viewpoint.
>|> I've heard this argument a hundred times in this group.  This
>|> is just like comparing a homosexual to a pedophile or a serial
>|> rapist.  ONCE AND FOR ALL:
>|> 
>|>     How does homosexual activity between two consenting adults
>|>     constitute a crime?  Who's rights does it violate?
>|> 
>
>How does sexual activity between a consenting adult and an
>inanimate dead person constitute a crime?  Who's rights does
>it violate?  (For better parallel, say the dead person put in their
>will that he/she wouldn't mind).
>
>By the way, I highly resent having words put in my mouth ("gays
>are criminals").  
>
>-- 
>Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
>Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
>Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
>XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 

I have yet to meet a dead person able and willing to give consent to
any sort of sexual activity. Additionally, I would imagine that there
are legitamate concerns about public health involved in the topic of 
necrophilia. Keeping dead bodies lying around is a health hazard.

By the way, No one put words in your mouth other than you. Also, you
have yet to address the basic question involved here: How does an act
of homosexual sex between ( or among, for that matter) consenting adults
personally harm you? If it does not, and is not harmful to society, 
then you have no right to complain about or outlaw such acts, or even
to teach, actively or by ommision, that such acts are wrong.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Bathing In Rushland (was Showering in the Military, etc, etc.)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:47:19 GMT

 john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

  >In article <1992Dec30.154724.12695@m5.harvard.edu>
  >borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
  >]In article <1992Dec30.042419.2105@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
  >]Gays constitute about ten percent of the population.  This is a very
  >]significant percentage.

 >This is a bogus number, also. It is based on a Kinsey study where the
 >subjects were self-selected, and where gayness was defined as anyone
 >who admitted any single instance in their life of any homosexual
 >activity. A better number is 2 - 2.5%.

But they've managed to cross-post their views 98% of the time.  Does
cross-posting have anything to do with cross-dressing?  Just curious.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:23:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.191504.19413@rchland.ibm.com> 
jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
>> programs like WIC and foodstamps.  And the poor tend 
>> to be the strongest opponents of abortion.  

> Not according to many posts already in this group.

It's hard to tell your point here.  You're either claiming 
that you know the opinions of my pro-life friends better 
than I do, or you're making a generalization about 
millions of pro-lifers based upon a few posts in this
newsgroup.  Which is it?  

>Jared Dahl


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu (Kevin Gowen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 2 Jan 1993 18:02:39 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cie.uoregon.edu
Summary: Hillary Clinton's legal reasoning

In article <1993Jan02.093611.24497@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>
>>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
>>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
>>right to divorce their parents.
>
>    Can you document this?  I haven't heard anything of the sort.
>

I believe this comes from an essay that Hillary Clinton wrote that was included
in a collection titled "Children's Rights: Contemporary Perspectives"
published by Teacher's College Press in 1979.  Her main thesis was
that the legal system's presumption of juvenile incompentence should be
abolished and that a minor should be considered to have equal standing with
adults unless proven incompetent. "Children should have a right to decide their 
own future if they are competent" is what Ms. Clinton said back then.
Therefore, it is necessary to "...reverse the presumption of incompentency
and instead assume all individuals are competent unless proven otherwise."

She also said that some decisions "should not be made unilaterally by
parents" regarding areas "where the decision or lack of one will significantly
affect the child's future."

In this 1979 essay, Hillary Clinton does *not* say outright, "I think that
children should be allowed to sue and divorce their parents".  But in my
opinion it can be easily derived from the ideas she presents in this essay.
  
>[rest deleted]

>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         

-kevin
kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Valid Space-related research...
Reply-To: hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:15:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.230810.8067@netcom.com>
   mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.082644.25866@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
    freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
>(re: Biosphere II)
>>   Regardless of where the funding is coming from or what the intent
>>actually is, it is the kind of experiment that MUST be done before any
>>plans for colony projects can even begin.  (Not that I approve of 
>>colonization plans, mind you.)  I freely admit that if data is not 
>>being taken properly, then Biosphere is a scam.  
>
>The problem with Biosphere II is that there are just too many variables
>-- If the people involved were interested more in science than in
>ideology, they'd have tried a number of simpler combinations of life
>forms instead of attempting to create a microcosm of the entire
>planetary biosphere, with animals rather than the grand-standing of
>putting people in it.  I just hope their data collection is more
>science-like and less advocacy-like than their experimental setup.

From what I've heard, Biosphere II in not a valid experiment in setting
up a closed system, like what would be required in a planetary colony.
Biosphere II is *not* a closed system.  There is a significant gas
exchange through the walls.  I can't remember the percentage, but it
was more than enough to invalidate the idea that Biosphere II was a
closed system, which would invalidate much of the data acquired in the
experiment.  Also remember that early on, one of the people inside had
some sort of injury, and was taken outside the experiment to be treated.

I agree with the goals of the experiment, but I believe more basic science
needs to be done first before a project like Biosphere II would be useful.

It's typical that the media would latch onto such a worthless endeavor,
while real science gets ignored.  It's just not as flashy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)
.sig on hiatus
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Stolen Life, A Dying Soul
Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:56:58 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <nate.998@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, 
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) 
> 
> >For the sake of the victims now, and in the future, our national
> >"soul" must be found, and healed. And fast. 
> 
>     Perhaps so. To get back to my dispassionate analytical mode, I would 
> note that violent, "soulless" cultures have a tendency to be fairly 
> successful empire builders.

Maybe the word "soulless" is giving you some trouble...how about
"MORAL CHARACTER."  Do you honestly believe that an empire can be
build and sustained if its leaders and citizens do not have the
moral character that binds them together for common purpose?  And if
you do disagree with me, would you like to live in that society?

> As long as the inherent tendency towards 
> violence doesn't impair population growth our prospects for continuing 
> as a nation are fairly good.

Sure!  But who will want continue putting up with anarchy?  A nation
is more than a random collection of human beings!  The nation,
today, is being pulled apart by the seams, by special interest
groups, and you sit back and evaluate the prospects of our society
surviving as "fairly good"...I'm sorry, but I hope you are in a distant
minority of this country.

> If you would like to make the argument that 
> the current level of violence is excessive then I would agree, but at 
> least from a historical perspective I would say that the level of violence 
> we're seeing doesn't necessarily pose an immediate threat to our survival 
> as a nation.
Okay!  But do not continue with the "threat" statement...it clouds the
point.  I would rather LIVE than only SURVIVE, as you seem to propose.
You are part of the problem!  Where are your standards?  Are you happy
being a victim of this mess.  The insane idea you have about putting
up with any level of violence is absurd.  Until we as a society
reestablish standards and moral guidelines, how do we keep the
violence from getting worse?  I do not want to live in YOUR world!

> It would certainly be much more pleasant to have nice neighbors 
> whose kids we're pretty sure aren't going to murder us, but at this point 
> I think that the murder rate is still less than the birth rate.
> 
You have obviously not been privy to first-hand violence recently!
I do not mean to be obnoxious, but where is the common sense in 
your passive attitude.  Is anyone responsible for anything?!

Mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:42:15 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Dec28.075957.19167@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> 
|> ] 
|> ] I read this and was sickened by it.  All I've got to say is that's what
|> ] the death penalty is for.  I honestly hope those three killers get the
|> ] gas chamber, no appeals.
|> ] 
|> ] Call me crude, but something must be done.
|> ] 
|> ] Simon
|> ] 
|> 
|> 
|> thanks simon, I was often confused about
|> your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....

This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
all along.  They'll get arrested to save a life, but
once the baby is born they could care less.  Try to get
some of these folks to support social programs like
WIC or foodstamps.  It's a hoot!


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum
Organization: Who wants to know?
	<1992Dec17.072428.9152@cs.com>
	<1992Dec19.220755.18545@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:25:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.220755.18545@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec17.072428.9152@cs.com> larry@cs.com (Larry Spence) writes:
>>In article <m0iVVB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>>pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!) writes:
>>>> I would like to formally propose a new group, alt.conservative.forum, 
>>>> a moderated group to discuss conservative values and assorted political
>>>> goings-on from a distinctly right-wing standpoint.
>>>[...]
>>>> A moderated group would cut out this gibberish and allow reasoned,
>>>>intelligen
>>>> discussion of the issues facing the country and the world.
>>>
>>>Is it just me, or is there a teensy little contradiction here?
>>
>>It reminds me of the term that Rush has been using: "taffy pull."
>>
>If you lefties think that this is a contradiction, you should spend some 
>time over on alt.fan.dan.quayle.  I got kicked out of that group because I 
>didn't think that dan is as dumb as the media portrays him.

You got kicked out?  That's funny -- it's an alt.* group.  Last time I
looked, no one got "kicked out" of alt. groups, period.  Maybe you could
enlighten us and tell us who this authority is who allegedly kicked you out.

(For some reason, I suspect that said authority's name won't be forthcoming,
because you quit of your own accord -- you just want something to whine
about, and those nasty folks who don't worship your hero, the one who's
going to be out of a job four weeks from Wednesday, provide as good an
excuse as any to play fast and loose with the true story of what really went
on.  Next time, if you're going to lie, put some effort into it.)

--PLH, sometimes it's almost too easy...

--
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                                 Power corrupts.
                          Absolute power is kind of neat.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu ()
Subject: Rush in Greenbelt Maryland
Originator: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 1 Jan 93 23:52:06 PST

Can someone please tell me the time and station on which I can get
Rush's show in Greenbelt Maryland.  I am going there on monday for a
couple of weeks.  Radio and TV.  I would assume that Greenbelt gets the
same TV shows as D.C., and I know that the liberals in D.C. have
successfully kept it off of the air, but I don't for sure that Greenbelt
doesn't get other programming.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<LARRY.92Dec27042311@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<BzxK6I.55z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:44:11 GMT

Please consider this my final non-response to your original question, Jim.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Yo! Bottoms up! US motto. Boy!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:05:14 GMT

In article <0JoBwB4w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>
>
>If anything, the first amendment has definitely been stepped on by our 
>politicians in the last half century.  Putting in 'God we trust" on our 
>dollars....
>
>We need to go back to following the Constitution, not subverting it for 
>the benifit of right winged evangelicals and the like.
>
>popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)

Perhaps we should all, (as a protest) cross this line off our dollars.
I think it would get a lot of attention if people saw a black line 
accross there dollar bills.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Reply-To: hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:07:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.231710.20966@netcom.com>
   mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.165342.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>
   stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>
>(1) Article VI Section 3, "... no religious test shall ever be
>    required as a qualification to any office or public trust under
>    the United States."
>
>(2) Ammendment 1, " Congress shall make no law respecting an
>    establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE
>    THEREOF..."
>
>(Fanatical, intolerant anti-Christians conveniently "forget" the
>free-exercise part of the Bill of Rights.)

Most Democrats and liberals are not "Fanatical, intolerant anti-Christians."
What most of them object to is the use of public facilities and monies to
promote Christianity, or any other religion.

If Democrats were "Fanatical, intolerant anti-Christians," they would try
to pass laws which would prevent you from practicing your religion in your
own home or church.  But these laws would unconstitutional, because they
would prohibit the free-exercise of your religion.  But when those exercises
are performed on public grounds, it crosses the line and becomes "respecting
an establishment of religion."  Allowing the use of public facilities for
religious ceremonies implies that the state is giving tacit approval for the
religion, which is also unconstitutional.

Free-exercise means you can put a nativity scene in front of your church.
It does not mean you can put one in front of City Hall.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)
.sig undre contsruciotn
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Date: 4 Jan 93 04:43:17 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1i7kqfINNbjs@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, Michael Rowland writes:

> In spite of what most (not all) of you think, there *IS* such 
> a thing as absolute Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, Moral and 
> Immoral.

Prove it.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2618

Score: 0, Diff: 1, clong killed by a Harvard Math Team on  1
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:48:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party ( Was Re: Conservative Values (Re: New
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

Thankyou! Glen Stegner thanks you too I'm sure!


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh