HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aa762@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Babinsky)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Lying Politicians
Date: 28 Jan 1993 19:18:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


What the fuck?  How long has Clinton been in office?  You got it-
just over a week.  How much can a man possibly do in a week?
He's already fighting Congress on his PROMISE (that's right --
promise) to lift the ban on gays in the military.  This is a 
promise that he is taking a lot of heat for and could be a trend
setter for how things go between the Congress and the president.
He's sticking out his neck here in the public eye and with 
his relationship with the Congress to keep a promise.  That 
seems like a pretty good start for a man who has just taken 
office.  Give the man some time.  Quick, radical, change is 
foolish and stupid.  Thinking things through for a good long 
term change is the answer.  Over the next 6 months we will here
all about the gay in the military situation.  Rush will be able
to use it to keep his show going because he's an entertainer.
That's all he is---- Mr. Conservative entertainer who does a
damn good job of marketing his book.  As a matter of fact, that's
all he did when I watched last night.  He showed a bunch of silly
clips of babies and a pig reading his book.  From what I see
of the show, I bet his book smells just as bad as the pig 
reading it.  
-- 
|aa762 I am| "Sometimes at night I think I hear you calling my 
|the Bibman| name. These dreams--they keep me going these days"
	     ---Words of hope by the late Jim Croce----
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:48:48 GMT

In article <1jmogjINNpp4@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>You know, that makes a lot of sense.  Too bad you and the Robert 
>Johnson's, Jess Anderson's, and Bob Donahue's of the world have 
>such tunnel vision that they can only see this concept from 
>their own point of view.  The nastiness and venomness of typical 
>posts from Tim Pierce and others shows _deep_ hatred.  

Only about two months ago did Walter Smith burst in upon soc.motss,
announce that he had no grasp of gay issues, and attempt to engage
posters in a debate regarding the Children of the Rainbow curriculum.
I've been weighing these issues in my mind for three years, and *I* am
a relative young 'un to the field of gay politics.  Jess Anderson, who
you blithely diagnose with "tunnel vision," has been openly gay for
nearly forty, if I count correctly.  I'm not certain you've been alive
that long.

Who the hell are you?  What makes you think that you have the
background, the perspective, the slightest iota of comprehension on
these issues to be qualified to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you
as having "tunnel vision?"

That's a rhetorical question, Walter; you needn't bother to answer it.
You *are* nobody, an utter ignoramus when it comes to the politics of
gender and sexual orientation.  The fact that you were received so
politely for so long is a testament to the patience of your
respondents.  You warrant no such reaction any longer.  Go away.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Adios
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:06:28 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: eomer.hw.stratus.com

My apologies to everyone if my remarks in the last few
replies have seemed a bit testy.  I find the attitudes
of Melinda, Tim, Robert, and some others to be quite
hateful, bitter and their agenda quite plain, not to mention all the
filthy communication that proceeds from their mouths (keyboards).
There can and will be no compromise from me and most likely will
be no understanding on either side from you.  So to
keep from getting further angered, i will not be submitting
any more responses to the above named folk.  This isn't
a blanket promise, for one never knows what will cause
me to react.  But I will attempt to honor this.
  As for you, Melinda, Tim, Robert, etc.  I hope you
someday see the error of your way.  I know you find such
a statement as narrow-minded or intolerant.  I believe
you have done more in the last few days to harm your
agenda than to help it.  There is only one way to escape 
the penalty of sin...and that is through Jesus Christ.
We ALL stand condemned...yes even me.  The difference is,
I repented of my sin and have accepted that precious gift
which Christ has offered.  Eternal salvation through the
shed blood of Christ Jesus.
  As for you Walter...sorry to leave you alone to battle
it out.  If I see you sinking, I'll jump in to help.  I 
don't know anything about you or your positions, but you
seem to have a good head on your shoulders.

X10SEN
mc  

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15179 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13851
From: hargijk@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:59:33 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

How sterotypical can you be?

Bill Cosby has the nerve to stereotype all Souther white males
as hillbillies and "bubbas". Talk about hypocracy, If I (white,male)
were to go on t.v. and stereotype all southern black as a bunch of
welfare cheats, drug dealers, and lazy. THen I would be thrown in jail
for violating his "constitutional rights". 

LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!!!

BOYCOTT COSBY!
jo
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Requiem" for the Common Man
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:21:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller) writes:
>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..."

I normally don't believe in spelling flames, but this one seemed quite 
appropriate.  While Gene finds it strange that someone as "smart" as 
Rush might get a word in the title of a song wrong, he spells the name 
of the composer wrong.  It is Aaron Copeland.

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
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14885 alt.politics.homosexuality:10094 talk.religion.misc:27292
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:34:50 GMT

In article <C1A3uv.Cu2@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

Pierce: WHat's up there? Don't they teach you any logics there?

>I am a human.  

Let's assume, without proof that this is right.
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.

>I eat spicy foods.  Does it follow that because you are
>a human, you eat spicy foods?

No, because you are reversing the process. We can assume that you eat,
and that I eat.
In the same way, we can assume that homosexuals have sex with people
of the same sex. Now, which can of sex (Oral, anal, masturbation, etc)
they have, is a different problem. So, because you eat spaicy food we
cannot conclude that all people eat spicy food, in the same way that 
we cannot conclude that all homosexuals have anal sex or oral sex 
because one of them does. 

>>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.
>
>Bingo.
>

Now, go and give a call to Ms. melinda Shore and she will explain to
you what is the probability of something happening.


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

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Subsidizing porn?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:38:21 GMT


>Just one: ABOLISH THE F**KING N.E.A.!
>[Not that it would save that much money, but it'd be nice for
>us not to pay taxes for art no one else will buy. There's enough
>bad art as it is that's produced commercially. Just watch MTV.] :)

The N.E.A. funds *lots* of local art groups, the vast majority of which
are respectfull of tradisional values. Let's not throw the bady out with 
the bath water. ABOLISH THE F**KING PORN!

jim shirreffs (Ok I'll tell you when it's porn)


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15097 talk.abortion:57811
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.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
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:42 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan25.030351.18225@netcom.com>, cjk@netcom.com writes...
|In article <21JAN199321310961@zeus.tamu.edu> gadson@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|>In article <C1722E.MtA@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes...
|>| 
|>|>When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
|>|>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
|>| 
|>|Boy, that's tellin' em!  Like these ridiculous laws about the
|>|sentencing of people who attempt to kill the President.  I mean, why
|>|should *his* lifestyle choice be considered more important than
|>|*mine*?  Let's judge people on the basis of who they are, not what
|>|they do!  etc., etc.
|>
|>	So, I don't understand.  Are you saying that we should or
|>shouldn't consider some people more or less important that others, 
|>and if we should, on what should this be based, who they are or what
|>they do?
| 
|Some governments have already tried that [valuing some people over others
|because of what they do]  We used to call them Fascists and Nazis.

	Ah, I see.  Sarcasm.  Beautiful point.

Gadson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14799 talk.politics.misc:69178 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13461
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Basic Rights for Gays? (was Re: Your own words, of course != big
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:49:11 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:

> In article <C0yJ81.630@news.cso.uiuc.edu> , vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> >I'm sorry, but the social barriers to being overweight are EXTREME.
> >The Chicago Tribune did a huge story on this a few weeks ago.
> 
> So, if overweight people can demonstrate a pattern of unfair discrimination
> against them, then there might be a justification for legislation to protect
> them.  However, there are a few things going against them.  For one, they
> can cease to be overweight simply by changing their behavior (as opposed to
> gays, who remain gay regardless of how the "behave").  For another, their
> condition can, in some cases, be considered =justifiable= reasons for
> descrimination (i.e. poor health risks).

You forgot about the large number of, what to call them? Gravitationally
challenged? - people who claim to have a "slow metabolism" (usually
claimed while wolfing down a pint of Haagen-Dazs

Actually, I fully expect to see affirmative action programs within the
next few years requiring employers to hire a certain quota of people
from each weight class. Stupid? Yes, but that's what we have congress
for.


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Willie Horton Goes to Moscow"
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:59:47 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article ID: <1993Jan25.215431.29285@s1.gov>, 
lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) sez:

>	If Jym Dyer's source about the Bush campaign staff
>collaborating with Rush Limbaugh is true, then thank the Goddess that
>Clinton was elected! I knew that Bush had appeared on Rush's show, but
>this? And it seems in character with someone who made an issue out of
>Willie Horton to do some Red-baiting. At least he didn't win this
[message was chopped at this point, probably by an intelligent word processor]

What "collaborating"?  Limbaugh runs an _entertainment_ show -- just like 
Larry King.  Yet I don't hear you whining that Clinton "collaborated" with 
King.  Are you using emotionally-loaded words for any particular reason? 


------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15269 alt.sex:43312 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13958 alt.politics.correct:6389 alt.politics.equality:177 alt.politics.homosexuality:10356 alt.politics.clinton:21340
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:06 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <PA142548.879.728078726@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes...

|Looks like Slick Willie is ACTUALLY gonna follow through with his promise to 
|force the military to endorse the homosexual lifestyle.
| 
|I'm impressed. I thought that it was one of those political promises made to 
|be broken.
| 
|I wonder how many people are gonna die before things stabilize?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	I've been wondering about that same question long before Gay 
integration was ever an issue.

Gadson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14635 alt.politics.clinton:20756 alt.politics.bush:16180 alt.politics.homosexuality:9934
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:54:38 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> Me either.  What we have, though, is people who do hate
> homosexuals and who are actively working towards limiting
> gay, lesbian, and bisexual civil rights claim a religious
> foundation for their position.  

I've also seen people use the Bible to say that it is a crime 
against God to vote, or to wish someone "good luck".  "Most" 
people don't claim that the Bible says to "hate gays".  But 
some Christian bashers would seem to want to portray the 
average Xian in that light.  

> In this newsgroup we've
> seen posting after posting vainly attempting to demonstrate
> that the Bible states unequivocally that homosexuality is
> a heinous sin of incomparable magnitude.

Nothing like spicening up the wording there, Melinda.  Glad to 
see you're not shy about using hysterical paraphrasing to try 
and make a point...=8^O   The posters who have attempted to 
show that the Bible, Old and New testaments both, condemns 
homosexuality as sinful have made their point; but it doesn't 
matter how well they make it.  If _you_ don't like the meaning 
of what they say, you're not going to listen anyways.  And 
some of the arguments I've been seeing about the rest of 
the Leviticus laws are downright funny...:-)  Do any of the 
people questioning why Christians don't kill those who wear 
polyester have any background or understanding on the subject?  

> I know you're genuinely stupid, Wally,

Why thank you, Melinda, from you I take that as a compliment..;-)

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TAX THE RICH!!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:32:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

(Mike W Kuenkel) asks:
> 
>Are there any lazy under-achievers out there that can give me just one good
>reason why they think the rich should be heavily taxed. I have yet to see one!

	i'm not a lazy-underachiever (but i play one on TV!), but
	i believe if you are going to have a graduated tax scale
	like we have here in america, there's no sense in NOT taxing
	the *rich* (whatever that means) at a higher rate than the
	*poor* (i suppose-- not *rich*)... otherwise lets go to a
	flat tax and end this hub-bub.

> 
>PUNISHING ACHIEVEMENT IS WRONG!!

	REWARDING UNDERACHIEVEMENT IS RIGHT??!



happy motoring,
pjm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Clinton break tax (and other) promise(s)
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:51:32 GMT

>From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
>Subject: Re: Clinton break tax (and other) promise(s)

>-Did *I* ever call Bush a liar? 
>-
>-If you can't understand that it is possible that reevaluation may become
>-necessary as time progresses, then go ahead, call Clinton a liar all you
>-want. Don't excpect me to believe it.
>
>Okay, so it's okay for Clinton to reevaluate his stance on a middle
>class tax cut, reducing the deficit, Haitian refugees, sending Chelsea
>to Sidwell Friends, etc. So was it okay for Bush to have "raised taxes"
>in order to get spending limits on Congress during the Budget Act of
>1990? I'd call that a reevaluation of a problem too.
>
>If you call it, try to call it both ways.

Hold on a second!! I sure that you are aware that Clinton never made
campaign promise to send Chelsea to a public school while they live
in DC. And Clinton has clearly stated that he has NOT changed his position
on the Haitian refugees. He is merely keeping the Bush policy in place
so he can transition his policy into place without causing a mass exodus
of refugees. And there is a hell of lot of difference to re-evaluating
a promise and totoally abandoning one.  (Bush was actually PROMOTING the
tax increase just before it was voted on.)

And the Read My Lips broken pledge was not the only campaign promise of
Bush's he broke. What about those 50,000,000 million jobs? What about
his pledge to be the environmental president? What about his pledge to
be the educational president?
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
They say money talks, but all mine ever says is Goodbye.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: My fellow citizens?????????
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:28:56 GMT

In article <C17p6C.Ens@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>   The subject says it all.  Whatever happened to my fellow Americas?
>I don't care if you're black, white, oriental, or some mixture.  The president
>reports to Americans, not just citizens.   God, this makes me ill!
>  
>   Oh, I can say God without offending, right?  After all Bill said it several
>times yesterday.
>
>
>

To be fair to President Clinton, he did say "My fellow Americans" several
times during his address.


--------------------------------------------------
J.R. Ordon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Rush's E-mail address?
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:20:41 GMT

Anybody out there got the Big Guy's (Rush Limbaugh that is) e-mail address?  
Respond via e-mail, please, I'm not a regular on this newsgroup.

Ken Whitehead
kdw@icd.ab.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:39:46 GMT

In article <C1722E.MtA@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>Boy, that's tellin' em!  Like these ridiculous laws about the
>sentencing of people who attempt to kill the President.  I mean, why
>should *his* lifestyle choice be considered more important than
>*mine*?  Let's judge people on the basis of who they are, not what
>they do!  etc., etc.

But, doesn't what you do define who you are?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15290 alt.sex:43327
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: It's all Clinton's Fault!  It's all Clinton's Fault!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:13:46 GMT

Damn straight!  He got that stupid Fleetwood Mac song running through
my head now!  Arghhh!



--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15169 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13840
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

 (EMIL CHUCK) helps out a wayward soul:

>(Todd J. Dicker) writes:
>>   (Simon Streltsov) writes:
>>Clinton has said he will include Gore in many decisions, and it is
>> "promised"? 
>> Can somebody check if it is in the Rush Limbaugh list of Clinton's
>> promises?
> 
> 15  "I am going to send Al Gore to Capitol Hill to take the
>      lead in passing our program in the first 100 days of the
>      new administration." -- Little Rock, Ark.,              _
>      July 10, 1992                                          |_|
> *****************************************************************

	i don't see these two as being similar, let alone the
	identical promise...  what cousin willie said was, in
	essense:

		i'm gonna make al a glorified messenger boy...

	it says nothing of including al in decision making.  


	sorry, can't be a broken promise until the 100 days are up!



thanks for playing the game!
pjm.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15398 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14093 alt.politics.correct:6406 alt.politics.equality:189 alt.politics.homosexuality:10431