HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units
Date: 4 Jan 1993 15:29 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan4.163611.21601@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes...
| 
|Don't get me wrong here.  I'm pro-choice for society but personally pro-life.
|I dislike abortion and my wife dislikes abortion.  And I *really* don't want
|to support abortion.  But I have no problem with pro-choicers who fund
|clinics themselves (i.e. "putting their money where their mouth is") in order
|to let poor women gain access to abortion.  I guess I'm just consistently pro-
|choice on *everything*.  Sigh...

	In the end, this may be the only way to go.  Since it is possible
that anything taught in a public school may conflict with someone else's
religion (even curricula such as the fundamentals), dismantling the
public school system may be the only way to keep government from 
religiously interfering with people.

	But then, if the legislation of values amounts to religious
imposition, then we will end up dismantling government since all 
legislation is made with the intent of providing a service that is 
deemed valuable by someone.  Others will disagree as to its value or
appropriateness, and we'll have to put an end to government once and for 
all.

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: What Liberals have done to us already, not what they'll do later.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:26:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.211531.6461@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101) writes:
[Lots of great polemic deleted]

>And then, to top off all of this outrage:
>
>                     "I want to FEEL your pain."
>                     - Bill Clinton

Hey, didn't Slick Willie plagarize that great <urp> writer William
Shatner for this one?  Star Trek Five?  Spock's touchee-feelee
brother?  That sure sounds familiar.  (I'm not going to subject myself
to "ST-V: The Abomination" again just to check on the quote, though.)

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Originator: davew@willow03
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:41:48 CST


In article <1993Jan6.222856.27434@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
> 
> We need the ability to prohibit discrimination whatever the basis except in
> the extraordinary situations, which the courts would eventually dilineate
> as they have done with laws prohibiting A&B, murder, free-speech, etc.
> 
Would discrimination based on ability be permited? 

-- 
Dave Wagner                               "Tongue-tied and twisted,
davew@cray.com , uunet!cray!davew          just an earth-bound misfit, I"
(612) 683-5393                                  -- Pink Floyd
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:35:06 GMT

In article <C0EFyp.DyG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>
>  Let me ask you a question about the Constitution.  Who is commander-in-chief
>of the US Armed Forces?  The Prez, right?  So, how can Congress pass a law
>limiting the powers of armies distribution by the President?  Sounds like 
>Reagan should have gone after the law as unconsitutional instead of playing
>spy master.

Article 1, section 8

"Congress shall have the power to

...

To declare war,..., and make rules concerning capture on land and water;

To raise and support armies;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces;

...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof. "


I hope this answers your question.

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie: Promises #2, #3 broken
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:04:04 GMT

>>>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 93 20:09:02 PST, pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete
Bowden) said: 
Pete> Lets not be too hasty...  we shouldn't count
Pete> the eggs before they hatch...  though I will agree... it is
Pete> much more interesting than some of the garbage these days in
Pete> the media...

Pete> I think I'll wait until January 20th at 12 noon, at least...
Pete> of course after that, close attention to April 29th (Slick
Pete> Willies 100th day) should be afforded.

> 
> "I will not raise taxes on the middle class"  (#1)
> "I will help the forgotten middle class"      (#2)
> "I will halve the deficit in four years"      (#3)
> 
>        --   Slick Willie, Nov. 1992
> 

Seems like you can say #1 is broken just as soon as middle class taxes are
raised [by Clinton]. That could well happen in the first 100 days.

But I believe you'll have to wait until November 1996 to absolutely be
able to say #2 and #3 were broken.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
I saw God. He rides a motorcycle. He's coming back soon, and He's real pissed.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: CM Braun
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:28:14 GMT

In article <LiT7wB3w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
[someone attacks Carol Mosely Braun]
# 
# It could be that as bad as she is, she is still 10 times better than the 
# republican she ran against. Enough people thought she was indeed better.  
# Otherwise, they would have not voted for her.

Bzzzt.  Wrong answer.  People voted for her: (A) she was a black woman, and
ran on that, (B) party loyalty, (C) Williamson got zero media exposure and
didn't start his campaign soon enough.

If the election had been a month later, she would probably have lost.

# Obviously nobody cares about your petty,vicious, picayune political 
# complaints, now do they?

So stop posting, oh high and mighty one.

# I'll bet she wins re-election too.

Since it's virtually impossible to lose... but she's trying pretty hard.

# Get a life, kid.

It's obvious that age has nothing to do with it.

-- 
ssc@nwu.edu | "I wasn't even good at the Nintendo of this!"
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:16:34 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan7143149@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1993Jan6.173043.9393@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>
><   Gays aren't calling for the use of the word 'fag' to be made illegal.
> 
>	No? Is Pajerek familiar with the concept of "Speech Codes"?
>

Yup.

First of all, these are not laws. There scope is confined to the
institution (usually a university). This is not to say that the
speech codes are without consequences for those who violate them
within their scope.

Secondly, from what I've heard, the various speech codes were NOT
originated at the urging of the 'protected groups' themselves, but
more at the behest of politically-correct 'unprotected' folks (i.e.,
while males).

Thirdly, I don't support speech codes, and they have recently
been ruled unconstitutional.

><   >Don't get me wrong - I think that most bigots are, basically, stupid
><   >people. But I'm not convinced that passing more laws regulating people's
><   >lives is the solution.
><   >
>
><   For someone who has been denied a job because they were black, or
><   female, or gay, it sure does look like a solution worth trying. 
>
>	Yes, and Draco was a popular dictator in ancient
>	Greece... at first.
>
><Your
><surname suggests Irish ancestry. Did you ever have to contend with
><'No Irish need apply'?  Did any of your grandparents?
>
>	
>	Those signs haven't been seen for years; in fact, they
>	were antiques long before the Civil Rights Act was 
>	passed.
>
>	Can Pajerek explain this? According to him, only
>	Big Brother Government can end discrimination.....

Of course, I never made this claim. YOU think I did, but I didn't.
What I said was, anti-discrimination laws look attractive to those
who have been victims of discrimination. I will go further than that
now, and suggest that anti-discrimination laws have probably helped
some blacks get jobs that they would not otherwise have gotten.

Even lacking proof of this, I don't have much of a problem with
basic anti-discrimination legislation (i.e., that which makes it
illegal to deny a person a job|promotion|apartment|whatever on
grounds of race or gender). What I don't like are AA laws, which
are quite different. AA doesn't deal with cases of individual
discrimination. What is does is force an employer (for example)
to hire certain percentages of blacks, Hispanics, and so on,
whether or not qualified members of these protected groups are
actually available. It also forces the employer, through the
doctrine of 'disparate impact', to forgo the use of various
tools which might establish the technical qualifications of
various applicants. This means that the employer must hire
almost totally on the basis of race and gender, and only
secondarily of the basis of qualifications.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:57:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.174252.10792@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <16B4B8D3.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In <C08L2F.I7F@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>>>I have noticed a definite hypocrisy in the term "Conservative", especially
>>>as applied by Rush...

>>>Has anyone noted that Rush, and most other "Conservatives", support the
>>>measure which passed in Colorado (family values and all that)?

>>>Yet, is not one of the founding principles of conservative thought that the
>>>government should make fewer laws,

>>       Just to make a point, a position that the government should make
>>fewer laws does not mean that you object to every new law which comes
>>down the pike simply because it is a new law.

>>>and leave people more alone (than the liberals)?

>>       Actually, the impression I get is that the problem with the
>>Colorado amendment is that it leaves people *too much* alone.  That
>>the government doesn't step in at the "right" times.

>My impression of the Colorado amendment is that it
>prohibits the creation of laws which forbid discrimination
>based on sexual orientation. In other words, it doesn't say 

No, no, no.  It's *worse* than that.  This might be defendable on
conservative grounds.  But this law doesn't say that.  It only bans laws
protecting *gay* people from being discriminated against based on sexual
orientation.

Thus, Denver can pass a law banning discrimination against straights,
but not against gays.

>explicity that discrimination against gays is legal; what it
>says is that attempts to outlaw discrimination against gays
>is illegal, which in practical terms amounts to the same thing.

>So we now have, in Colorado, for the first time since slavery
>was abolished, a situation in which discrimination against
>a person, on grounds which are extraneous to the situation at hand,
>is now sanctioned by the state, in that the discriminatee is
>explicitly denied the equal protection of the law.

>I wasn't aware that denial of the equal protection of the law, in violation
>of provisions of the U.S. Constitution, was a 'conservative' position.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: What Liberals have done to us already, not what they'll do later.
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:17:55 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101) writes:
>Okay, whether you liberals are humor-impaired or not, this is not the
>humor section anymore. 

    In that case, it sounds to me like maybe you're getting a little 
humor-impaired yourself, Steve. You seem to be taking the Clinton 
presidency awfully hard and it hasn't even started yet. I hate to think 
of what you're going to be like after he's actually been in office for 
a couple of nanoseconds.

[several dozen lines of liberal-bashing snipped]

> Until then, all the injustices Liberals inflict upon society, will
>grow and flourish, unreported, unseen by the media, and covered up
>whenever someone tries to talk about it. THIS is no joke and no list
>of humorous predictions

    Well, suit yourself. I believe that I got the basic gist of what you 
were trying to say. Too bad that you're not able to accept the immediate 
future with a little mor grace, but that's your problem.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I'm Famous!
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:26:09 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <12335423@u.washington.edu> ryanm@u.washington.edu writes:
>In article <22580009@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>>Jesus H. Christ!...
>
>Your choice of vocabulary is lousy!  You offend myself and every other
>Christian on this newsgroup.  I am not one to haul off and hit someone
>but this is pushing it!!!!  --Ryan

Christ on a crutch!  Lighten up!  You are going to hit somebody because they
added an initial "H" to the name of somebody who supposedly said "turn 
the other cheek"?   It would seem that if you were a real devotee of your
sad little eastern god, you'd follow his words rather than use his name as
an excuse to indulge in activities he himself would disclaim.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.limbaugh
From: jws@teal.csn.org (Jon Schenk)
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 1/8/93
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:31:27 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: catstyle@cathouse.aiss.uiuc.edu (Jason R. Heimbaugh)
Subject: Re: Summary Thu 12/31/92
Reply-To: jrh@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:05:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.173424.6259@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)  
writes:
> Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
> for Thursday, December 31, 1992
> by John Switzer

Hey, a full year of Rush transcripts takes up 10 MB of disk space.  What a  
nice round number and complete waste of your time reading this.

FYI, for anyone that doesn't know, John's transcripts are archived at  
cathouse.aiss.uiuc.edu in the /misc/fun/rush.limbaugh/* directories.

They're also available through gopher at cathouse on port 6969, also in  
the rush.limbaugh directory.

--
Jason R. Heimbaugh (CatStyle)
jrh@uiuc.edu
"If I leave here tomorrow, would you still remember me?" --Ronnie Van Zant
From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I'm Famous!
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:00:09 GMT
Organization: Deep Thirteen
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1ia7uiINNohh@shelley.u.washington.edu>, ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
> In article <22580009@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>>Jesus H. Christ!...
> 
> Your choice of vocabulary is lousy!  You offend myself and every other
> Christian on this newsgroup.  I am not one to haul off and hit someone
> but this is pushing it!!!!  --Ryan

         Speak for yourself, Ryan. I'm not offended, and I think Jesus is
    tough enough to take it.

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Slick Willie and the Gas Tax That Won't Die.
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:22:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


Have heard several reports that Prez-elect Slick Willie is starting to
talk about the 50-cent-per-gallon gas tax again, now that the election's
past.

Being used to $1.35/gal gas, and having a new car, I simply find it
amusing that all the folks who voted for Willie in hopes of a big boost
may be gnashing their teeth all the way to the gas pump.

"I won't raise taxes on the middle class" - Pres. Willie, Nov. 1992

"You're lying, Willie, and you know it." - Me, Nov. 1992.

One promise down, 4,276 to go.


--
"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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 07:46:58 PST

In <1993Jan1.204526.7685@hobbes.kzoo.edu>, Jamie R. McCarthy writes:

>[It's hard to be sure, but I believe it's "mike myke schwartz"
> (mykes@shell.portal.com) who writes:]

>>You could take the entire human race and put it in the state of texas, have
>>1/3 the state left over to grow enough food to feed the people, and still
>>have 1/3 of the state left over for natural habitat.

>4.5 billion people in one-third of Texas comes out to 50,500 people per
>square mile.  By comparison, the suburbs I grew up in probably have
>under one thousand.  Detroit/Windsor has 6,700.  NYC has 11,460.  And
>Tokyo/Yokohama, one of the biggest, crowdedest, most polluted places
>you'll ever want to be in, has 23,400.

>I don't think so, Mr. Schwartz.

Try it again, Jamie.  I get 18,000 people per square mile.  Texas is about
250,000 square miles (+/- 20,000 or so), and 4.5E9 / 250,000 = 18,000.

Not that 18,000 per square mile is livable for most people, but it beats the
hell out of 50,000.  If people can tolerate crowding in Tokyo, they could take
"low-density" housing with a density of 18,000.

>(By the way, Hong Kong's the winner, with over five million people in
>twenty square miles.  Several Third World cities top 100,000/sq.mi. as
>well.  But 50,000/sq.mi. is the next best thing to living hell.)

Or next worst.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: CM Braun
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:25:32 GMT
Keywords: Liberals

popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

>>    Several days ago I posted a flame on CMB and no liberals have stepped up
>> to defend Ms. Braun.  Could it be that they realized the mistake they made
>> in electing her?
>> 
>>    Does anyone have a reference on the elections stats for Ms. Braun?  I 
>> understand that she won 95% in Chicago and didn't win a single county, but
>> I don't want to go around quoting wrong numbers.
>> 


>It could be that as bad as she is, she is still 10 times better than the 
>republican she ran against. Enough people thought she was indeed better.  
>Otherwise, they would have not voted for her.

  Are you sure she isn't just 9.5 times better than Rich Williamson (that's
the name you couldn't remember).  


>Obviously nobody cares about your petty,vicious, picayune political 
>complaints, now do they?

  So, if an unqualified person is elected to the SENATE, and they do nothing
from election to swearing in to their office, then this is petty, vicious,
picayune politics?  I understand now.  I expected someone to care about the
quality of their government.  Sorry, I will not post such drivel anymore.

>I'll bet she wins re-election too.

  Considering the reelection rate of Congress, that's a safe bet.  Of course,
no one ever said that performance and reward are linked in Congress nowdays.

>Get a life, kid.

 That was a smart comment.  With intellect like this on the net I guess I should
just stay at home and play with my toys.  Were did you get this KID shit from
anyway?

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh