HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Good discussion on another group
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:01:05 GMT

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>tel002@dunix.drake.edu (Tim "Spock" Larson) says:
>> and of course I'm getting flamed for
>>defending a harmless little fuzzball (RL).  So come over and join
>>the fun.

>Why don't you just cross-post it?  Two good groups that come to mind are
>alt.rodney-king and alt.rush-limbaugh.  Makes sense to me.

     Arrrggghhh!

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
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: bcd@fang.att.com (Brendan Dwyer)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: AT&T Tax Systems Development, Maitland FL
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:54:40 GMT

From article <1k6k23INNrb5@lynx.unm.edu>, by mdiehl@triton.unm.edu (J. Michael Diehl):
> Come on folks, their only people.  Homosexuallity makes me sick to my gut,
> but they are still (sick?) people.
> 
>>with the gay community.  Murder is murder.
>>
> 
> That was the point of the original post!  You don't have to stand "shoulder to
> shoulder" with the gay community in support of hate-crime legislation.........
> We allready have it; it's called homocide! (sp?)
> 
> 
> +-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
> |  J. Michael Diehl  ;-]  |  I thought I was wrong once.  But, I was mistaken. |
> |                         +----------------------------------------------------+
> |  mdiehl@hydra.unm.edu   | "I'm just looking for the opportunity to be        |
> |  Thunder@forum          |            Politically Incorrect!                  |
> |  Thunder@Tiny*          |                               <me>                 |
> |  (505) 272-HaHa         |                                                    |
> +-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
> 

Michael,
    I agree 100% with everything you said, so I guess I didn't state my
position clearly.  The murder of a black man is the same as the murder of 
a woman is the same as the murder of a homosexual.  A premium sentence should
not be applied to a hetero who kills a homo, but a lesser sentence should 
not be applied either.  There was a situation in Texas where a judge gave a
reduced sentence to a hetero man who killed a homosexual.  I agree that this
the minority of cases but it does happen.  My brother and father believe it
is perfectly o'k to kick the crap out of a homosexual because "Hey, he's 
just a queer."  What twists my balls with a pair of vice grips is when the
burning of a black man in Tampa is considered a hate crime, but when a few
black men hyjack a car in Kissimmee Florida containing three white males and 
a black woman and shoot the white males execution style (two died and one 
survived with a bullet wound to the hand) while releasing the black woman 
because "We don't shoot sisters" and the media/liberals refuse to call this 
a hate crime.  The killers were charged under Florida's new carjacking law.
This was a racially motivated crime.  This AFs no different then a white person
killing a black person for for racial reasons.  To sum up, the PC movement
which claims to unite people of all races, religions and cultures does just
the opposite.  Their hypocrisy destroys any credibility they might claim.

Brendan Dwyer

"Sometimes the odd number wins, the way the big wheel spins." N. Peart

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dward@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
Subject: Re: Tom Peregrin is a nit wit.
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:50:07 GMT

    This is in response to Ted's post about Tom being a poor debating
    partner because of (you'll have to read the original.)

    I don't know, Ted....I've generally found Tom's post informative
    and interesting.  I am surprised he was able to find a later edition
    of a book you quoted which had different words.  Amazing!

    By the way, Ted, I feel you have taken a couple of my quotes out of
    context.  Keep on pluggin, Tom.

       Dan 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Subsidizing porn?
Organization: sdf public access Unix, Dallas -- 214-436-3281
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:18:16 GMT

In article <C133DI.4o0@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>Personally, I agree with Ken Barnes; let's just abolish the NEA. Too often
>we've seen that subsidized art is BAD art, whether sexually explicit or
>not. 
>
>Sexually explicit art, like every other genre of art, complies with
>Sturgeon's Law; i.e., "90% of everything is crap." The 10% that's NOT crap
>will pay for itself, in ticket sales or whatever; why should we support
>the 90% that IS crap? 
>
>Ken Mitchell
>kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

<Devil's Advocate mode ON>

Very simple, Ken.  To you, only a small percentage of the art is suited to 
your tastes (let's use the Sturgeon 10% figure for grins...) I say that a 
_different_ 10% is suitable. Joe Smith says yet another 10% is suited to _his_
tastes. You can see where this is going. I'm not one who is going to decide 
what your tastes should be, so why should you decide on mine?

<Devil's Advocate mode OFF>


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt                                  I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've    thyat@sdf.lonestar.org                     suffered quite enough, thank you!    Arlington, TX                                                                                                                                                    Help! I'm being repressed!  -M.Python                                          -------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re:  Rush Military Record
Organization: ILS
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:29:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.161333.2300@athena.mit.edu>, gonzalez@athena.mit.edu
(John R Gonzalez) writes:
> 
> It seems to me that one important fact is being forgotten in
> this topic.  Rush Limbaugh cannot send anyone to war, while
> that little weasle Bill Clinton can.  Let's compare Rush to 
> other media people and commentators.  Did Larry King serve?  
> How about that idiot Dan Rather, or Sam Donaldson, or Mike
> Kinsley?  Did any of those people serve?  These people are 
> the ones Rush should be compared to.  
>

Maybe you should try something alittle radical here big guy,  maybe you
should judge Rush on the basis of what he says vs. what he does rather then
justify his draft dodging by comaparing him to the "liberal media culture'.
 
> Now let's compare Clinton to his peers:  George Bush; Bob
> Dole; Ross Perot; Pete Wilson.  Hmmm... they all served.
>
 You forgot Dan Quayle and  Pat Buchanan.


> Of course there was Ronald Reagan(did I spell this right), he
> didn't serve, but I don't recall him rattling his sabre any-
> where near as much as Clinton has been (Bosnia, Somalia,
> Iraq).  I guess if he enters a war where they need to draft I
> can opt not to be drafted.  If it were Bush or Perot sending
> me I would go, if the little panderer Bill Clinton tries I 
> guess I'll have to get an ROTC deferment until I draw a high 
> draft number.
> 


Do you have any memories at all from 1980? 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Political-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and Idaho
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:10:06 GMT

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?   

The point that Evelyn is bringing up is that those people who
claim to adhere to the *literal* word of the Bible (i.e. most
of the Fundy Christian activists) are essentially hypocrites
unless they also avoid diapering their granddaughters, wearing
blended clothing, eating pork, shaving, etc.

Claiming to disallow some of the rules due to changes in the 
social/political/"real" environment but preaching strict adherence
to others is seen by many people to border on hypocrisy.


--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow		
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: "Requiem" for the Common Man
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: worldbank.org
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:52:53 GMT

Apparently the half of Rush's brain that is tied behind his back contains
the correct title for the Aaron Copland piece used for the Clinton
whoop-de-doos. RL has repeatedly and without any evident sarcasm or other
overt reference referred to it as "Requiem for the Common Man." It is
"Fanfare for..." Think about it: why would the Olympics want to use funeral
music as a theme? Does Rush remind anyone else of a right-wing Mort Sahl
(who is sadly unfunny these days)...Gene
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: roh@spot.Colorado.EDU (ROH JOHN J)
Subject: Re: Al Gore on C-SPAN
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:06:32 GMT

In article <1jm6asINN2tl@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding) writes:
>Our new, respectable, vice president has shown how honorable he really is.   
>Yesterday afternoon on shortly after the Inaugural Parade Al come into the  
>screen and said "I want some more!  I'm ready for more! What happened to  
>this ___________ is BULLSH** if you ask me!"  We were unable to figure out  
>what he was referring to as the solid wastes of a male bovine, but the  
>point is that regardless of what it is, I don't recall Dan Quayle ever  
>crying about a parade ending.  Maybe Al was just upset that there wasn't a  
>Santa Claus at the end of the parade?
>
>--
>

   I watched C-Span and I don't recall this.  

>"If all our neighborhoods were like Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, we'd live in  
>a happier country." - Bill Clinton   Any guesses what would have happened  
>if Dan had said this???

  He was talking to little children.(I guess that includes you too)

John

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Gregory.D.Wadlinger@dartmouth.edu (Gregory D. Wadlinger)
Subject: Re: Read My Lips!  Clinton, You're History!
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b3@newshost.dartmouth.edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
 <C15oL2.93q@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <nate.1084@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:56:05 GMT

I appreciate that Clinton, in luring voters in with the "promise" of a
middle class tax cut, was apparently no more guilty than Bush in
reneging on NNT. It might have been better for appearances if Clinton
had waited till he had engaged in lengthy battles with the various
budget directing powers that be before capitulating on his promise.  I
might then more easily believe him earnest.  I recall televised reports
in the days prior to Bush's forfeiture of NNT which featured stallwart,
"pro tax" (or whatever) budget committee members driving in limousines
to meetings in which they argued and refused cuts, letting the media
infer that it was the stubborn Bush people who needed to give in.  I
understand that people forget  politics is partisan, that they assume
the Prez is the bad guy, largely because his partisan opposition is so
numerous and faceless. (except for the omnipresent, bulbous Ted
Kennedy)
 Clinton ostensibly would placate all comers with a wishy-washiness
that appears to have defined him significantly, well ahead of his
inauguration.
 As for the "phantom" prosperity of the '80's, I can't easily account
for why recessions assail our economy in a cyclical way, as this most
recent one certainly has.  I don't blame the recession on Bush,
however.  Likewise, I don't attribute the Clinton recovery-sic to
Clinton. (though I do, in an unrelated matter, attribute the end of the
cold war to Reagan/Bush at least as much as to the bumbling Soviet
economy)
 I do blame Clinton for reneging on his "promise" of a middle class tax
cut, though as a conservative, I could hardly believe it (the cut)
would happen anyway.  In a way, I cannot possibly be more disappointed
in the positions Clinton holds on many things, no moreso than I am
already.  One of a conservative's only hopes these days is that
Clinton's appeasement-style of politics, appeasement, that is, to as
many polarized political groups as possible, will result in the
moderation of some of his positions.  The rest of my hope for the
future is in God alone. 
wadlinger@dartmouth.edu-----------thanks for the response
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:35:42 GMT

Brad Green (green@plains.NoDak.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan26.025815.8046@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
: >	Or perhaps the whole idea is absurd.  Who cares is cosby is 
: >	a hypocrite?  Hell, anyone who didn't figure that out when he
: >	started complaining about the media portrayal of blacks on
: >	television (meanwhile, he just finished up the last season on
: 
: Well, I think he had a point.  Give me one example of a positive black person
: on TV, other than Tibbs on In The Heat Of The Night.  Most blacks on TV are
: portrayed as idiots, dumb, worthless, etc.  Look at In Living Color, or any
: of the other dumb Fox programming.  Look at the major networks.  We used to
: have an intelligent investigator on Matlock, but he's now gone.  I usually
: watch intelligent programming, like Rush ;-), so I'm not up on all of it,
: maybe someone can give me some good role models for blacks on TV.
:  
: 

The Cosby Show.  How about the NBA, which sponsors commercials by black
atheletes telling children to stay off drugs and to stay in school?
And what do you think of the Jeffersons?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:35:08 GMT

In article <1jmechINN451@umbc8.umbc.edu> ac999273@umbc.edu (ac999273) writes:
>If people don't notice you as lesbians,
>they are much less likely to discriminate against you for your orientation.

Yes and no.  Lesbians are not as likely to be bashed on the
street, nor are we as likely to be persecuted by thumpers 
(those that thump their Bibles instead of reading them).  
On the other hand, lesbians are thrown out of the military
in proportionately larger numbers than are gay men (blowing
the AIDS "justification" out of the water).  We lose our
children in custody battles, and I know many lesbians,
myself included, who have been fired from our jobs because
of our sexual orientation.

But yes, society is generally less worried about lesbians
than about gay men.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Subsidizing porn?
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:47:39 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1938@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>,
libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:

> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> : Personally, I agree with Ken Barnes; let's just abolish the NEA.
[snip!]
> : Sexually explicit art, like every other genre of art, complies with
> : Sturgeon's Law; i.e., "90% of everything is crap." The 10% that's NOT crap
> : will pay for itself, in ticket sales or whatever; why should we support
> : the 90% that IS crap? 
> : 
> : Ken Mitchell
> : kmitche@eis.calstate.ed
> 
> I tend to agree with your assertion that 90% of everything is crap;
> however, just as the good 10% cannot necessarily be found among 
> funded art, it also cannot necessarily be found among popular art.
> The government is apt to fund crap, and people are apt to buy crap.
> Don't know what the solution to this is, but the Glorious Market 
> doesn't, in general, produce better art than government funding.
> 
> Bill

Therefore, using Occam's principle of parsimony, your statement
supports the proposition that the NEA is useless, and should be
abolished.

No?
-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com**********************
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow
From: casey@thebe.ecn.purdue.edu (Kenneth H Casey)
Subject: Re: THE INAUGURAL TRIPLECAST!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:27:13 GMT

stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:

>          God, what an evening...

>          I returned yeserday afternoon to find that my television had been
>     turned on, and that I was only able to pick up three channels.

>          It was the Inaugural TripleCast.

> stuff deleted

>Kevin L. Stamber
>Purdue University

Too bad you didn't tune in a bit earlier on CPAN2, which replayed portions
of the 1981 inauguration.  

Ken
--
casey@ecn.purdue.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14892 alt.politics.homosexuality:10103 talk.religion.misc:27301
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:25:34 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <1jppekINNic5@hp-col.col.hp.com>,
 smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|>
|>> >Maybe you need to show how Christians create an atmosphere of 
|>> >anti-morality. 
|>> 
|>> Teaching bigotry creates an atmosphere of anti-morality.
|>
|>And as long as Christians teach that homosexuality is wrong, 
|>they are teaching bigotry?  So to satisfy you, the churches have 
|>to stop teaching that homosexuality is wrong...righto, Gene. 

Fundimentalists teaching that they believe that homosexual behavior
is against their religion is fine.  (It would be nice, however, if they
could concede that homosexual orientation is not chosen.)  Fundimentalists
dont stop there though.  They see gay and lesbian activists as evil people
who must be stopped.

Why do fundimentalists see homosexuals as any more evil than adulterers ?
You dont hear any call from fundimentalists to deny civil rights of adulterers.

Why do fundimentalists see homosexuals as any more evil than non-Christians ?
You dont hear any call to deny the civil rights of Jews, Moslems, Hindus,
athiests, agnostics, etc.

--
Tim Fogarty  (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
SRL-1:  STS-59, launch date April 14, 1994
SRL-2:  STS-68, launch date December 1, 1994
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:08:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.183450.4668@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>In article <C1A3uv.Cu2@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>I am a human.  
>
>Let's assume, without proof that this is right.

Thanks.

>So, if you are a human, then, we can assume that you eat, and do other 
>things that humans do, and that distinguishe humans from other things in
>nature.
>Then, we can assume that YOU eat, not what you eat in particular.

Really?  But your original statement said:

] 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. 

All of the things, eh?  So you eat spicy foods, read trashy science
fiction, and bear a strong affinity for old Joni Mitchell albums?

After all, I am a human and you are a human.  Logic suggests that you
do all the things that humans do.

>In the same way, we can assume that homosexuals have sex with people
>of the same sex.

Can we assume that heterosexuals have sex with people of the opposite
sex?  I know quite a few people who haven't had sex with anyone,
regardless of their gender.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: control
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:22:28 GMT

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

>In article <#jl3d9a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) says:

>>>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?

>In my opinion, yes, since it wasn't any deliberate act of the woman to cause
>the situation.  (Anyone who doesn't already know the forced kidney donation
>analogy, ask me.  That's the same idea I base this opinion on.)

So then your primary concern is not the "life of the child" but the
notion of enforced responsibility?  This seems to be Holtsinger's
position as well.

Do you mind giving us a few other examples where you feel it would be
appropriate for the government to legislate the enforcement of 
responsibility?  Would this extend to the personal habits of pregnant
women?  Smoking? Drinking?  Smoking (paticularly while pregnant) is an
action which could be considered to be very personally irresponsible.
Do you wish to outlaw smoking?  What about dangerous sports?  If you
would not outlaw these things generally, would you outlaw them for
pregnant women?  If so, why?

> Kurt  E.  Ludwick

                   -rocker