HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:57:08 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Reply-To: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.rose-hulman.edu

Russ Anderson writes in response to my post:
>
>In article <1gl52rINN4mf@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, 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.
>
>What are "conservative values"?
>
>Take the following issues:
>
(several awesome issues addressed)

I dunno, Russ.  Help me create alt.politics.conservative and find out.  8-)
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)


clueless chuck
pearsodc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
clueless chuck				                     ___
pearsodc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu                             (o o)
------------------------------------------------------------w U w------------
|DOUGLAS C PEARSON JR                |we were headed for somewhere          | 
|rose-hulman institute of technology |but that was before                   |
|campus box 1204                     |you traded in your peace sign         |
|5500 wabash avenue		     |   for a finger...                    |
|terre haute, indiana  47803         |			- steve taylor, 1992|
From: ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Subject: Re:  Disappointment with this group
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:34:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.182630.18130@dbsun.uucp> hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.003709.376@u.washington.edu>
>   ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
>>
>Yep, the libs indulge in childish, name-calling arguments and if facts start
>to work against them, they resort to profanity.  Meanwhile those intelligent
>conservatives never resort to name calling, sophistry, or ad homimem
>arguments.  After all, terms like "FemiNazi", "environmentalist wacko",
>"Slick Willie", and "commie/lib" aren't perjorative names, they're accurate
>descriptions of those type of people.
>
>Feh.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
>An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)
>.sig closed for remodeling


I don't mean symbolic names shuch as those mentioned above.  The ones are
where people are refered to as !@@$!%$%$ and #%$#^$#^ and ^%^^#$#$!$%@%
(word masked or the younger viewer).  I don't mind being called a facist
or whatnot but when it gets into profanity it should stop.

The only time the symbolic names become name calling it when this happens:

"You Femnazi"
"Oh yeh, you Limburger head"
...
...
and so on and so forth...

If they are used in a decent discussion it is considered humor or just a
symbolic representation.  Only when they become the focus of the
conversation is it really name calling.  --Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:53:48 GMT

Jim Shirreffs writes:
>Since I will not be able to post for a while (Going Home to Texas!!!)

>I just wanted to wish you *all* a Merry Christmas. 
                                   ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
    Thanks very much. In keeping with the atmosphere of Good Cheer I 
won't report your hidebound and reactionary reference to the "Midwinter 
Non-denominational Holiday Festival" to the PC cops. ;)

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: New news group????
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 00:14:47 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

kyeh@remus.rutgers.edu (Kung-Ching Yeh) writes:

> After reading several of the comments posted to this group, it occurs to 
> me that we might be able to get rid of many of our liberal frineds if we
> created a new group:
> 
> 		alt.self.hating.white.males
> 	
> 
> Posting is so phallic!


Hmmmm.  Show one post on this group where the white male poster obviously 
hated himself.   You can't?   Well, what does thsi say about your powers 
of observation?  Or your lack of any thoughts of any real importance or 
utility.  Geeeez!

Back up your insinuation there bud!  Show us them self hating white 
males!

Pope Charles  SubGenius Pope Of Houston.  "next on Geraldo, Men who love 
themselves too much".

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez)
Subject: Re:  Disappointment with this group
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:39:35 GMT

C'mon Ryan, don't you know the old addage "know thine enemy",
how do you expect to be able to defend your beliefs if they 
never come into question.  I think some of the most interest-
ing posts come from the liberals.  I get to see what I used
to sound like...


				John R. Gonzalez
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion will never be criminalized. (WAS rights and responsibilities)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:49:33 GMT

> = (Clay Spinuzzi) writes:
>> = (Elliott Mitchell) writes:

>>And here's why.  The anti-choice/anti-abortion/pro-life crowd doesn't 
>>really want to end legal abortion.  If they did, two things would happen.  
>
>[anti-abortion trashing deleted]

...because it's too painful to read, hm?

>>that's what they want you to think.  It's really about a very profitable 
>>theocracy with Pat Robertson or someone very much like him as God's 
>>appointed.

>Doesn't this belong in alt.conspiracy? This line of thinking is for people 
>that are too shallow to believe that other points of view exist.

You're confused.  Elliott was pointing out that one type of view *does*
exist: that's the obvious attempt by Pat Robertson, "Rev." Shelby, and
other religious nuts attempting to set up a theocracy in the U.S.

Are you trying to say the '92 Republican platform WASN'T written by
these crazies?  

>"When I want your opinion, I'll divine it from your entrails." -- Me

This "Me" person sounds like a real jerk.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Abortion will never be criminalized. (WAS rights and responsibilities)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:17:20 GMT

> = cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com writes:
>> = (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>>I am dead set against bans on abortion, I just don't want it used as a 
>>>form of birth control.  It is a medical necessity in some/many cases due to
>>>known defects, risks, and cases of rape or incest.  It should not be used 
>>>because a pregnancy/birth would be inconvenient for the mother.

>> It appears that you're using "inconvenient" as a propaganda buzzword.
>> Care to explain just what you consider to be inconvenient?

>As previously stated, I do not object to abortion in cases where medically
>necessary, or where pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (especially rape).

"Especially rape?"  What is it about incest that makes it more palatable
to you?

>I am not using the word as a buzzword.  I am using it to refer to those 
>instances where people are too irresponsible to take precautions beforehand.

Of course, many do.  Of course, no birth control method is 100% effective.

>The argument is made that women would be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to
>term.  

Um, that's what you want.  It's not an "argument"; it's exactly what
people like you are trying to make into law.

>Who forced them to get pregnant?  

Faulty birth control.  Ignorance of birth control.  Rape.  Incest.  _And_
women who use it as birth control. 

>If I drive a car carelessly, I am 
>forced to face the consequences (fines, jail time, injury to myself or others,
>even death).  

A pregnant woman is in no way analogous to your crappy driving.  Get an
argument.

>If I don't perform my job in the manner expected, I can be
>fired (or in my case, even imprisoned).  Is it so wrong to expect the same
>kind of responsibility in sexual relations?

I love hearing pro-lifers too sleepy to smell the coffee.  By all means,
continue to work at outlawing abortion.

But guess what?  That part of the battle is OVER.  After 12 years of
stacking the Supreme Court, the Court STILL refuses to outlaw abortion.
They will allow restrictions, yes (Pennsylvania decision on waiting
periods.)  But they will not criminalize.  They wouldn't even CONSIDER the
Guam tripe worth considering.  And with Clinton elected, with every
pro-life candidate running AWAY from abortion in the elections, there is
no longer a chance of abortion _ever_ being criminalized.

Truly intelligent pro-lifers should apply their efforts to: (1) trying to
increase restrictions, and (2) work to change the social climate in
America so there aren't so many unwanted pregnancies.

So, the CJ Burkes of the world can go on making all the brainless
analogies they want, they can go on wishing the world was more like the
Handmaid's Tale.  It'll just leave those loonies hopelessly mired and as
ineffective as always.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10267 talk.politics.misc:64549
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 21:51:59 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Russ Anderson) 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.

I thought there were already lots of forums -- The Moral Majority, The
Republican Platform Committee, the Young Republicans, etc.  And where does
anyone get labeling issues as "values."  Church is where you discuss values,
politics is where you discuss issues.  Are you proposing a church meeting?
|> 
|> What are "conservative values"?
|> 
|> Take the following issues:
|> 
|> Drug prohibition: Conservative (former Drug Czar) Bill Bennett supports the
|>     "War on Drugs" while Conservatives such as Milton Friedman, William F.
|>     Buckley, and George Schultz oppose it.  Which side represents the 
|>     conservative view?
|> 
|> Abortion: Conservatives such as George Bush & Dan Quayle want abortion 
|>     made illegal (in most cases) while Conservative Barry Goldwater does
|>     not. Which side represents the conservative view?
|> 
|> Isolationism:  Conservative George Bush supports an activist US role in
|>     the "new world order" while conservative Pat Buchannan does not.  
|>     Which side represents the conservative view?
|> 
|> Free-Trade:  Conservative George Bush supports free-trade while conservative 
|>     Pat Buchannan does not.  Which side represents the conservative view?
|> 
|> Capital gains tax: Conservative Ronald Reagan wanted capital gains taxed 
|>     at the same rate as other income (1986 tax reform) while Conservatives
|>     George Bush and Jack Kemp want capital gains taxed at a lower rate than
|>     other income.  Which side represents the conservative view?
|> 
|> Yugoslovia breakup: Conservative (former Sec of State) George Schultz supports
|>     intervention in the former Yugoslovia while conservative George Bush does
|>     not.  Which side represents the conservative view?
|> 
|> -- 
|> Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
|> ------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
|> EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: dlovely@meaddata.com (David Lovely)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 18 Dec 1992 05:56:41 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tteam.meaddata.com

In article <1646@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
|> 
|> Perhaps you were just being imprecise, but I haven't noticed that 
|> Christian symbols "can't be allowed" by the government.  Rather,
|> they can't be adopted by the government.
|> I'm really, really sick of this "Christians are a persecuted
|> minority" stuff.  It just ain't so, folks.  

IT JUST IS SO, FOLKS!

Raleigh, NC
A church has filed a lawsuit against the city in order to be able to fly the
Christian Flag (a red cross on a blue/white background) ON ITS OWN PROPERTY!

Stone Mt. Park, Ga
A man recently won a Supreme Court case allowing him to exercise his 1st Amentment
rights (expressing his religious views) on park property.

There are many more examples in just about every state in the U.S.
I'll post them if you want them!

The only problem is that Christians are the only group that can be lampooned, abused
opressed, and demeaned without drawing the wrath of PCers/Liberals/Media.

This proves again that:  LIBERAL=HYPOCRITE


-- 
*******************************************************************************
David P. Lovely					      BOYCOTT BARBRA STREISAND!
Mead Data Central	       Don't Blame Me.  I didn't vote for Slick Willie.
Dayton, Ohio						       Vote KEMP in 96!

"Government isn't the solution to our problems, government IS the problem!"
	-Ronald W. Reagan

		NO DISCLAIMER NEEDED (Nobody claims me anyway!)
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy) writes:

> 
>      Still not convinced?  Watch as the guy takes
> calls.  Do you really think that anyone who makes
> faces mocking callers who disagree with him is
> anything more than a clown?

I tend to agree.  The mugging during the alleged attempt to
allow dissenting opinions marks Rush as the ENTERTAINER he
is.  He is no more interested in truth and fair representation
than the liberal media he bashes.  Of course he actually
ADMITS this with his "equal time" spiel.  He essentially
points out that his is an opposing editorial opinion.
 
> 
>      If you're seriously interested in current
> affairs, watch the McLaughlin group on PBS where
> at least there is debate from both sides instead
> of a fixed arena.

Absolutely, although I suspect that Rush would view this as
liberal news too, and this is still, essentially infotainment
as opposed to hard-hitting and objective news.

I think that McNiel-Lehrer (probably spelled wrong) is probably
the closest thing that TV news has to objectivity, but I am sure
even that looks quite leftist to Rush.

doug
From: dlovely@meaddata.com (David Lovely)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH'S 'HIT' LIST (additions)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 00:57:47 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tteam.meaddata.com

In article <1992Dec12.213520.4562@memstvx1.memst.edu>, kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
|> 
|>  In article <1992Dec11.135155.4539@memstvx1.memst.edu>,
|>  kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu wrote, to much acclaim:

[ . . . ]

|> > UPDATE THEMES:

|> > Spotted Owl/Timber Update:
|> > "Lumberjack"? by Jackyl?

Remove the ?s, this one is correct!

|>   Muammar Khadhafi? Sadaam Hussein? Update:
|>   "You're No Good"? by ?
|>   Help me out here.

"You're No Good" was done by Linda Ronstadt in 1974.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the album...
 
|> > [additional note: ? <question mark> means that the information
|> > listed is uncertain/unreliable/unknown]
|> > 
|> > More corrections/confirmations/additions wanted...

-- 
*******************************************************************************
David P. Lovely					      BOYCOTT BARBRA STREISAND!
Mead Data Central	       Don't Blame Me.  I didn't vote for Slick Willie.
Dayton, Ohio						       Vote KEMP in 96!

"Government isn't the solution to our problems, government IS the problem!"
	-Ronald W. Reagan

		NO DISCLAIMER NEEDED (Nobody claims me anyway!)
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10455 talk.politics.misc:64840
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:13:39 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Dec17.111544.23826@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1gq80kINNb9@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!) writes:
: Russ Anderson writes in response to my post:
: >In article <1gl52rINN4mf@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, 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.
: >
: >What are "conservative values"?
: >
: >Take the following issues:
: >
: (several awesome issues addressed)

	[Self-proclaimed conservatives take the opposite sides of a
whole host of issues: war, protectionism, abortion, and so forth.]

	I'd like to add another one: religion. Though many of the most
prominent right-wingers are rather shameless Fundie theocrats, there
are right-wing atheists out there. Ayn Rand and her followers are some
of them. I wonder if there will someday be a big fight between the
Fundies and the Randroids...
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu (Clay Spinuzzi)
Subject: Re: Abortion will never be criminalized. (WAS rights and responsibilities)
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:41:29 GMT

In article <14DEC199222504365@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes:

>And here's why.  The anti-choice/anti-abortion/pro-life crowd doesn't 
>really want to end legal abortion.  If they did, two things would happen.  

[anti-abortion trashing deleted]

>that's what they want you to think.  It's really about a very profitable 
>theocracy with Pat Robertson or someone very much like him as God's 
>appointed.


Doesn't this belong in alt.conspiracy? This line of thinking is for people 
that are too shallow to believe that other points of view exist.

=========================================================================
Clay Spinuzzi           spinuzzi@gab.unt.edu
"When I want your opinion, I'll divine it from your entrails." -- Me
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:26:57 CST


In article <BzCu8L.EA8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> >	The Right has its own set of buzz-words, principles, slogans,
> >and ideologues.  In fact, wasn't the term, "politically correct" first
> >used by Right wingers to refer to a set of political assumptions that had
> >begun to prevail in America?  I never heard of the term until conservatives
> >on this campus used to as a rallying cry to fight off perceived liberal
> >policies here.  In doing so, they're setting up their own agenda of
> >"how things ought to be".  That's the essence of a Politically Correctivist
> >system.
> 
> It seems to me that "politically correct" was a term originated by the
> Marxists, and was used to describe their own internally acceptable thoughts
> and ideas.  I'll have to do some digging and get back to you.

As a life long liberal (going back to the days of Hubert Humphrey) I have
to admit that the first I heard the term "politically correct" was when
conservatives started screaming about it a couple years ago (~1990).

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel)
Subject: Mistaken logic in Rush's book?
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Distribution: alt
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:22:16


I've been reading Rush's book the last few days.  In so doing, I think I've
come across a pretty big logic flaw (yeah I know, there's probably lots of
them depending on your perspective) that I'd like your comments on -
especially if you've read the book.

He does a chapter on the animal rights movement.  His contention is that
animals don't have any rights (which I agree with).  His reasoning is to
appeal to the definition of a right and note that in all of the definitions,
the person with the right must be able to assert that right.  Animals, says
Limbaugh, are unable to assert anything without the intervention of humans
and thus don't have any rights.

Hmm...  Methinks he didn't think very long on this one.  Clearly a
profoundly retarted child is unable to assert their rights.  The same goes
with a person in a coma and an unborn child.  Yet Rush clearly feels all
these people have rights.  Like I said, I agree that animals don't have
"rights" in the same way we do, I just think Rush made a major mistake here.

Did anyone else read this the same way?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>
444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
Piscataway, NJ 08854

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh