HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: What do you think?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:39:10 GMT

In <1992Dec9.021940.10059@rock.concert.net> cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:

>I don't know what it is, but the arrogance of the liberal American press
>shining their Sun Guns into the eyes of the US troops' night vision scopes as
>they land loaded-for-bear on a potentially hostile beach completely
>overwhelmes me.  I get the feeling the press did the traditional thumb-on-nose

They were invited to a party (the beach landing). The Pentagon forgot to
say no lights as they thought that would be obvious. The news brought them
because (naturallY) it was at night so they needed lights. Shows how much
military acumen there is among the press.
From: kamilewi@inga2.acc.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY !!!
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:30:51 GMT
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN

In article <1992Dec11.175317.15587@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <168BA7335.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU> VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.215827.17547@csus.edu>
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>I know logic and reasoning was one gift you were probably not endowed
>with, but I'll labor your brain and waste bandwidth anyway on a little
>logic question: 
>
>1- Sexism means bashing someone because of their gender or attaching
>   stereotypes to a gender. 
>2- Militant feminists and even mainstream TV commercials and shows, do
>   this to the male gender every day. 

And the female gender, if you'd happen to notice.

>3- Militant anti-male shirt buttons like "the more I know men the more
>   I like my cat" and other stuff, are common place. 

As are shirts like "Fifteen reasons why a beer is better than a woman."

>4- Sexism has been defined under discrimination. 
>5- Discrimination has been recognized as wrong.
>6- Male-bashing is sexism. 
>7- Male bashing is as wrong as woman-bashing. 

And right now you're trying to stop male-bashing.  And some people are 
trying to stop women-bashing.  And you say that isn't fair?

>
>Whoops. I almost forgot. I apologize. The reason why it is logically
>correct for women to bash men is because:
>
>8- This is the Year of the Woman. 

Proof?  You always seem to have a problem with proof, Steve.

>>Agreed, this is absurd.  But this is not a good reason to commend
>>environmentalists.
>
>Yes it is a good reason. Look at how conservatives are condemned for
>tiny, extreme events in their camp? Hell if they can be condemned for
>that, we can condemn your people for that stuff happening in Carmel.

Proof?  You always seem to have a problem with proof, Steve.

BTW, I'm sort of upset that you never finished mailing me that stuff
about how Clinton was going to lose the election.  But I guess it doesn't
matter now, does it?

Alex
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10009 alt.rush-limbaugh:11512
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What do you think?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 23:33:59 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:

> Greetings!
> 
> I don't get many chances to listen to Rush on the radio, so when I can read
> John's summaries, current events might be a day or two old.  I'm posting this
> now, though, so that I may get your/Rush's feelings/thoughts on it.
> 
> Is anybody else thoroughly disgusted with and pissed off at the press for
> their actions covering the US troop landings in Somalia?  Why the troops are
> there aside, I simply can't believe their audacity.
> 
> The jewel in the crown about this has got to be NBC's Pentagon correspondent
> Fred Francis.  Fred's political agenda can be viewed regularly on NBC's Night
> News (with Tom Brokaw.)  Just look over his left shoulder to see the book he
> has displayed.  This evening, during a special report on the Somali (?) event
> his book was entitled "Your Right to Know", author unknown.
> 
> I don't know what it is, but the arrogance of the liberal American press
> shining their Sun Guns into the eyes of the US troops' night vision scopes as
> they land loaded-for-bear on a potentially hostile beach completely
> overwhelmes me.  I get the feeling the press did the traditional thumb-on-nos
> wave-fingers salute to the military on this one because of the limitations
> imposed during the Gulf War.
> 
> What do you think?  (Equally important, what does Rush think?)
> 
> Derrick
> 
> -- 
> "Lucasfilm confirms that 1997 (the 20th Anniversay of Star Wars) is the targe
> date for the next STAR WARS film!"
>                        -- Creation Con Flyer
> -----


The military, INVITES the pres to watch 'em land, tells them where the 
landing is going to be, and then freaks out when the press is there with 
cameras, lights, the whole nine yards.  What the hell did they expect the 
press to do?  Send one guy with a pad of paper to stand there and write a 
note or two.  Of course THAT bit about telling the press where the 
landings were and when, ect., ect., are left out of the militaries 
statements about the press.  I find this hilarious.  I wonder if the 
military is just stupid, or if they are playing games with the press.


--
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: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Ca
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:38:03 GMT

In article <gate.4LcNVB1w165w@infopls.chi.il.us> fpittl@infopls.chi.il.us (Frank Pittel) writes:
>HB>In article <1992Nov23.224329.13768@cis.ohio-state.edu> lassiter@catnip.cis.o
>HB>state.edu (douglas scott lassiter) writes:
>HB>>
>HB>> I think the same discomfort, if not a more unfair
>HB>> one would accompany hetrosexual males being forced to take showers
>HB>> with homosexual men.
>
>HB>    As has been stated previously ad nauseum, they're already taking
>HB>showers with gay men.  Lots of them.  They just don't know it, because the
>HB>gay folks are discreet.  There is no reason to think that their discretion
>HB>will suddenly disappear when the discrimination is signed away by Clinton.
>
>I think the operative word there is that "they just don't know it".
>
>An applicable analogy is: there is a woman's shower room with a hole .
>The other side of the hole is in the floor of a men's locker room. Men
>there notice the hole and spend their time watching the women taking
>showers. After about six monthes the hole is discovered by the women and
>they ask to have the hole fixed. At that time the men who were watching
>complained saying "whats the problem we've been watching for six
>monthes and nobody ever had a problem." and demanded that the hole
>remain.

I think the analogy would be more applicable if it were the women who 
were watching the men through the hole.  After all, we are talking 
about how sensitive the military men are, aren't we?

I always thought that boot camp made military men "tough as nails".  
Now we find out that they are very sensitive.  This shower argument 
has made me wonder how "tough" our military men really are.  

From what I've heard, most military gay people will continue to remain 
discrete after the ban is dropped.  So the point that they "just 
don't know it" will largely still be in effect.

P.S.  Why hasn't this silly shower argument ever been used to ban 
homosexuals from schools and athletic teams?  Perhaps, because it's silly?

I don't believe in special rights for homosexuals 
and I don't believe in special rights for heterosexuals.
I believe in equal rights.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Military Efectiveness and Gays
From: dfriedman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 12:43 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

A point of fact and history:  Alexander the Great was gay and it seems the
army he ran had no problems in being effective. 

Dfriedman@bpa.arizona.edu
-------------------------------------
"Courses, programs, and requirements described in this catalog may be 
suspended, deleted, restricted, supplemented, or changed in any other 
manner at any time at the sole discretion of the University..  The catalog 
does not establish a contractual relationship.
		--From the University of Arizona 1992-1993 Catalog
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date: 18 DEC 92 07:48:40 EST


In article <1992Dec17.173953.17650@dbsun.uucp>, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
writes...

>>>Just wait until Rush can stop saying, "think about what Clinton's
>>>going to do" and start yelling, "Look at what Clinton's doing!"
>>>It'll be business as usual, perhaps even better.

>>Just wait until Limbaugh has to start telling blatant lies instead of
>>carefully composed half truths to be able to sustain his rhetoric.

I think that too many people are focusing on the Clinton things going on. 

Remember, Rush's show is about the hot news of the day. These days its Clinton. 
Next week/month/year it will be someone or something else.

As someone said a while back, Rush is a businessman first and a conservative
second. I believe that as soon as the Clinton things cool down (probably after
the first 100 days), we will see/hear less from Rush about Clinton and more
about the other things going on. 

Heck, we have the action in Somalia, stuff in Bosnia/etc., and a whole lot of
other things going on. Rush is not a POLITICAL comentator, he is a comentator
in which politics is one of the things he comment(ate)s on. 

It is his business to 'go with the flow', keep current and on the hot topics.
If he doesn't, then he'll lose market share and have to either get back on
track or fizzle out. I think he's too smart to let himself fizzle out.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/
From: kyeh@remus.rutgers.edu (Kung-Ching Yeh)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: New news group????
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:51:08 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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!
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10078 talk.politics.misc:64187 alt.politics.bush:14541 alt.president.clinton:1076
From: wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: The Religious Right (was: Somalia
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:19:31 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

>
>In article <1992Dec13.180445.3366@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>|> >
>|> >   We can tell how many Republicans like Pat Buchanan, based on the
>|> >results of his bid for the presidency; he got perhaps 25% of the
>|> >Republicans to vote for him.  As for Pat Robertson, I would guess he
>|> >claims about the same.  The Religious Right, as it is called, does not
>|> >constitute a majority of the party, otherwise we would have seen Pat
>|> >R. come close to nomination at some point.  My personal experience,
>|> >having met a wide variety of Republicans, I can say maybe about 10%
>|> >felt a strong affinity with either man.

As for Pat Buchanan, the numbers he got in the primaries are not very
significant in measuring his popularity.  The polls I saw taken of people
who voted for Buchanan showed that a majority did so to "send a message
to Bush" about dissatisfaction with the economy.  Also, you should realize
that the numbers of people who voted in primaries is much smaller than
the electorate at large.

Also, what do we really mean by Republican?  It has meaning
on different levels.  It can mean someone who voted for Bush, it can mean
a registered Republican, it can mean a person who gave $50 to the RNC,
it can mean party activist, it can mean a candidate for office.  In the 
U.S. Senate in the 1980's you could see Jesse Helms and Lowell Weicker
calling themselves Republicans even though they hardly ever agreed on any
issue.


>|> 
>|> USAToday took a poll at the Republican convention and found that a majority
>|> (I believe ~54%) of the delegates would consider themselves "born-again
>|> Christians."
>|> 
>|> Scary food for thought.

President Carter was a born again Christian.  Did that scare you?  Actually
I am not surprised that USA today would make a big deal out of that stat.
The media likes to scare people about religion.  When was the last time
you saw a television show featuring a outwardly Christian person who wasn't a 
sanctimonious jerk?

William F. Tell
UC Berkeley
From: VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Religious Right (was: Somalia
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:07:15 GMT
    <1992Dec13.050336.20784@athena.cs.uga.edu> 
    <1992Dec13.100940.2620@news.columbia.edu> 
    <1992Dec13.180445.3366@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> 
    <1992Dec15.062920.25179@microunity.com>
Organization: University of Kentucky

In article <1992Dec15.062920.25179@microunity.com>
jeff@MicroUnity.com (Jeff 'Giga-hurts' Kaskey) writes:
>
>                                                                      In
>Dec. of '91, USNews and W.R. published Gallup poll results of American
>religious beliefs.  I don't know the sample size.  They divided people
>up as believing in either:
>
>1. Strict Creationist View (God created man in his present form at one
>    time within the last 10,000 years)
>
>2. Centrist View (Man has developed over millions of years, but God has
>   guided the process)
>
>3. Naturalist View (God had nothing to do with it)
>
>                        1       2       3
>All Americans           47%     40%     9%
>Men                     39%     45%     11.5%
>Women                   53      36      6.6
>College Grads           25      54      16.5
>No High Sch. Diploma    65      23      4.6
>Income above $50K       29      50      17
>Income below $20K       59      28      6.5
>Whites                  46      40      9
>Blacks                  53      41      4
>
>Interpretation is left as an excercise to the student...
 
Oh goody, goody.
 
Looks like if you're college educated, you're a lot less likely to believe
that God created man in the wink of an eye (> 2/3 disagree).  Does this
mean that colleges are an evil influence upon on youth?  Oh yes, I forgot
that they're run by liberals, so they must be the scum of the earth and
instruments of the devil.  (SMILE)
 
Also looks like the well-to-do (> $50K) also disbelieve in the mighty power
of God to build a human in one day (> 2/3 disagree again).  This statistic
is not surprising, because as people become rich, they begin to think that
they are better than everybody else (Why else would they have become rich?).
And as soon as these people start to display a heap of self-confidence,
many will have their religious beliefs watered down or destroyed.
 
With all of the recent discussion of male-bashing, I also have to comment
on the gender gap.  If males are so underserving of bashing, why have
they strayed from the Holy View of Things (over half of them)?  Why
would a sex that has found scriptures in the Word of God to oppress
women want to stray from such a convenient book?
 
Oh well, let's hear from the more conservative Xtians.
 
Rick Marquardt
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion will never be criminalized. (WAS rights and responsibilities)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:28:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.181801.26253@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:

[Davids rambling, bandwidth wasting article with no relevance to
anything aborted]

Since you've come out of hiding David, are you now ready to admit
publically that your "facts" about abortion (supposedly obtained from
the lancet) were either invented by you to serve you propaganda
efforts, or misrepresented by you (for the same reason) or just plain
bogus nonsense?
Or do you plan to continue dodging all questions addressed to you?
Come on David, either back up your claims with some documentable
evidence, or join DODie, DJR, and others in the Professionial Idiots
and Liars Hall of Fame.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:11:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec11.110518.11891@walter.cray.com> paws@spam.cray.com (Daniel Baehr) writes:
>
>    Who is to judge what PARENTS teach their children is right OR wrong.

    This sentence makes no sense.  Please consult a high school grammar
book and try again.

> Society DOES impose a set of "rules" on EVERYBODY.
> But those rules should be interpreted within the frame work of the values
> taught by the family unit.  Society is NOT more important than the  
> family.  FAMILIES make up society NOT the other way around.

    How simplistic.  I assume you supported the Charles Manson "family",
then? 

>    Also.  What is wrong with accepting bigotry?  After all that is THEIR
> "reality".  So then, whos reality are we really talking about here?

    This is so awesomely dense that it's difficult for me to decide if
you're serious.  I am not going to waste my time and net bandwidth
explaining what is wrong with bigotry.  Perhaps someone with more patience
will.

>    All in all the majority is going to win out.  Period.  MANY more
> people are hetrosexual than homosexual and the VAST majority agrees with
> the hetrosexual life style.  (70%+ I think..??)

    Amazing.  For your info, most gays also "agree with" the het lifestyle
(if "agree with" means "accept as something people should be allowed to
follow if that's their orientation").  Fortunately, the percentage of hets
who are homophobic is *ever so slowly* going down.  Too bad you're not one
of the enlightened ones.

>    If you start makeing laws that favor gays then why not make a law
> that favors people into beastiality, s+m, hetrosexuality or any of the
> other sexual life styles?  After all, fair is fair.

    Someone else has already answered this stupidity very well.  Now, think
really hard: can you say "orientation as opposed to choice"?  Didn't think
so.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Disclaimers on TV show
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:25:48 GMT


>bparrish@rose.hp.com (Bill Parrish) writes:
>
>>I'm curious... in Sacramento the Rush Limbaugh TV program is preceeded by
>>a disclaimer... something to the effect that "The Views expressed on the
>>Rush Limbaugh program do not necessarily reflect those of the staff and
>>management of KCRA Channel 3, or its sponsors... etc".  I'm curious if this
>>is done in other parts of the country.  

Living in New York, I have seen Rush's TV show tapings three or four
times, and I can tell you that the disclaimer is put on by the
production crew at the original taping.  From my corner, it seems odd
that any affiliates would edit this out.  I can't imagine any station
wanting to give up a statement designed to protect it...thoughts, O
posters to Rushnet?


David
dnm9@columbia.edu
From: Ed.Sterrett@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Sterrett)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Lef
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:00:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:363/166


 JD> PS:  The technology is not there.  We couldn't go back to 
 JD> the moon right now if we wanted too.  Most of the plans
 JD> were destroyed in a fire at Nasa.  We would need to start
 JD> all over again.
 
 
Let's see..  billions of dollars spent to build a moon rocket, along 
with all the new technology required, and all they had to show for it 
was some scribbled notes that were stored in an area vulnerable to 
fire?  I don't think so..  everything, including even more advanced 
technology, is still there.  Everything, that is, except the launch 
pads and the vehicles themselves (which were built for individual 
missions anyway).
 
 
 
 
...QWKRR128.V2.2 [R] - The child is father of the man..
--  
        Ed Sterrett  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
             UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!166!Ed.Sterrett
             ARPA:  -  Ed.Sterrett@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh