HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: "Dittos" for John Switzer (was Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92)
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:52:17 GMT

>Helping to spread the Word of Rush will likely do more to increase the number
>of conservatives in the world than mere procreation anyway.
>
> Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then

Those who confuse Mr. Limbaugh with the Second Coming should realize
that he is first a businessman and then a conservative.

Satya Prabhakar

--
______________________________________________________________
I hate sig files, particularly ones that refer to themselves!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures (was: Summary Wed 12/2/92))
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:08:28 GMT

In article <BzEqrr.4uJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>>Ah, yes, but there has still been more money spent on Madonna's book than
>>on Rush's!
>
>...and cocaine is more expensive than aspirin.

Last I heard, Madonna's book had sold about 500,000 copies worldwide, while 
Rush's has sold 1.7 million. At $50 for Madonna, and $22 for Rush, Rush is 
still ahead.
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:12:13 GMT

In <1992Dec8.232119.24317@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <grendel.723788222@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>>You are flat wrong.  Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual any more
>>than you choose to be heterosexual.  

>I have heard this claim bandied about as gospel for too long without 
>substantiation.  Either provide evidence that is substantial (and I'm 
>not talking about the ambiguous stuff that has been strewn around), or 
>shut up.

Better let us know what you consider "ambiguous", Ted.  Wouldn't want to
have to post twice.

>Ted


--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Newspapers screamed for blood...
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     it was the best of times."
Squid Power                              --Sting


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: jackass
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:33:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.011518.25489@rchland.ibm.com>, jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

> This is the difference between Rush and a politician.
> A politician says something and does something else.
> Rush says something and does nothing.
> 
> Remember the old saying, "those who can't do, teach."  
> I think this would apply well to Rush.  He would never 
> make it in politics, so he is trying to "teach"
> americans about conservatism.  UGH.  People who talk
> a lot and do little are very low on my list.

And what more, exactly, as a radio commentator, is he supposed
to "do", hmm??   You obviously have not heard him explain that he 
does not *want* to go into politics for a couple different reasons,
the primary being that the moment he starts to run, he starts
getting tagged with IOUs for expected later paybacks, and he
doesn't want that.  And he has every right as a citizen not
to want that.  *You* obviously have some sort of *problem* 
with his reluctance to "do" that, however.  Tough, too bad....
More *his* personal choice than your preference there, pal....
That still goes with the territory as a private citizen, public
figure or not....

                                              H.R. Holm

*comment my own, standard disclaimers;
 pls post replies to the group only*   



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:36:27 GMT

In article <Bz601o.MCK@andy.bgsu.edu> A.P.K., jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu
writes:

>  <lengthy, eloquent and difficult to summarize post omitted>
>  <Post referred primarily to unfortunate state of sexual repression>
>  <in U.S. and dangers of homosexual rape in the military>

Your argument is well stated.  I think we can all agree on the problems
inherent in sexual repression inherent to our culture.  And I agree that
homosexual rape in the military is not only a potential problem in the
military, but an actual, current one.

However, the problem is actually a broader one, one of rape in general. 
To limit the focus to homosexual rape distorts the reality of the
problem.  Therefore, to make your argument complete and persuasive, a
couple of other things need to be demonstrated.  One, that homosexuals
are more likely to perpetrate a rape than are heterosexuals.  After all,
rape has =always= been a problem with the military, regardless of sexual
orientation.  This was true even before the admission of women.  It has
been true throughout the history of organized combat.

I know of no reason to believe that homosexuals are inherently, or have
any tendency to be, any more sociopathic (i.e. rapists) than
heterosexuals.  If that is true, then the solution is not to try to
supress the symptoms of the problem, but to get to the source of it.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11691 alt.politics.clinton:18659
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:41:54 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec11.210221.28136@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.193907.1831@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec8.203109.22379@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>>Where is any individual guaranteed the right to serve in the military.  
>>>This has nothing to do with equal rights.
>>
>>The military is a tremendous portion of the national budget, paid for through
>>taxpayer money.  It's one of the major opportunities in this country for
>>employment and service.  You want to deny a whole class of people this
>>opportunity for service - I guess you feel that it's only for "your kind",
>>your kind being people you consider "normal".  Well, I have a different
>>definition of normal than you do.  We don't have room in the public sector
>>for the kind of wholesale discrimination you espouse.
>
>Which wholesale discrimination do I espouse?  I have never said that I 
>wanted to keep anyone out of the military except in two cases. 1) Anyone 
>who is not physically strong enough to perform essential tasks should 
>not be allowed, and 2) people who are sexually attracted to foxhole-mates 
>should not be allowed.
>
>Where is any individual guaranteed the right to serve in the military.
>This has nothing to do with equal rights.

I repeat, there's no room in the public budget for unfair discrimination.
If you want to be isolated from gays, then go somewhere and be isolated
from them.  But don't pay for it with taxpayer money.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:24:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.724111933@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Dec8.232119.24317@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>In article <grendel.723788222@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>
>>>You are flat wrong.  Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual any more
>>>than you choose to be heterosexual.  
>
>>I have heard this claim bandied about as gospel for too long without 
>>substantiation.  Either provide evidence that is substantial (and I'm 
>>not talking about the ambiguous stuff that has been strewn around), or 
>>shut up.
>
>Better let us know what you consider "ambiguous", Ted.  Wouldn't want to
>have to post twice.

The report about the different sizes of the hypothalamus of homos and heteros.  
Too many assumptions about when the size changed or what the actual sexual 
preferences of the so-called "heteros" was, and way too much admitted 
sexism (on the part of the researcher).  If you have other material, I will 
be happy to read it.

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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
     <1992Dec14.150008.1040@calmasd.prime.com>
     <YOUNG.92Dec15123638@ssdd475a.erim.org>
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:14:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.155115.15000@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted
Krueger, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>Well, first of all homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle.  It
>>is a sexual orientation.  People with this orientation have as many and
>>as varied lifestyles as do heterosexuals.  The only lifestyle you need
>>to accept and understand is your own.
>
>Oh!  Is that why they are forcing homosexuality down the throats of 
>children in public schools?  Now I understand.  I guess if Christianity 
>was a sexual orientation, then public school instruction in it would 
>be mandatory.

I'd like to know where there is a school that has more nice things to say
about homosexuals than is does about christianity.  In point of fact,
they say damn little about either.

>>As far as accepting and understanding a sexual orientation that is
>>different from yours, that would be a nice goal however it isn't a
>>requirement.  All that is required is that you know that different
>>sexual orientations exist and respect that to each individual their
>>orientation is as valid to them as yours is to you.  Pretty easy, huh?
>
>I disagree.  When gays are having sex on floats in a parade down the 
>middle of Main Street, I believe that gays are attempting to force 
>acceptance down my throat (no pun intended).

Your fantasy life is really running away with you, Ted!  Seeing people
having sex in a parade, now, are we?

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 09:21:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.152119.28003@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.084759.10407@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>
>>Gay families are certainly not "normal" in any
>>statistical sense. If you are implying that "normal" means they are
>
>    You are confusing "normal" with "common".  Gay families are certainly
>not as common as mixed ones (i.e., they occur less often); that does not
>speak at all to their normalcy.
>
No, i'm not confusing the two. I was asking how you define "normal"
(and you've answered that).

>
>>As a Christian I view the sexual behavior of the parents as the central
>>moral issue, not their parenting skills. 
>
>    But the latter is the major affector of the quality of their kids'
>upbringing.  Presumably, few kids witness their parents' sexual behavior.
>
No argument with the former. I would imagine that most children of gay
parents see them exchanging affection (kissing, hugging, etc..) and
thereby conclude that their parents are not like most other kid's
parents.
>
>    There are many ways to gay-bash other than beating someone up.  Many
>Xians might not physically abuse a gay person, but support legislation that
>removes his/her civil rights.
>
Well, there's a lot of controversy over what civil rights homosexuals are
entitled to. Do we need, for example, Gay Affirmative Action? Asking a
special-interest group what "rights" they feel they are entitled to 
could be rather dangerous. I see way too much extremism on both sides of
this issue, lots of hysterical reactions, whiny politicking, and a 
seemingly never-ending recataloging of what constitutes "civil rights".
It's certainly interesting to watch this process from a foreign country
and view Americans as foreigners view them. There is much more of a 
"Live and let live" attitude in Europe (Neo-Nazi stuff nonwithstanding).
What is most interesting is that there seem to be Puritans on *both* 
sides of the issues. What is the "Politically Correct" movement if
not a flip-side of religious intolerance? But that's a discussion for
a different thread.

*******************************************************************************
*"Don't just sit there like a bump on a log...Rock!..ROCK!!! - Daffy Duck     *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Rush to Lobsters...
In-reply-to: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:53:49 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:08:14

In article <105120033@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:

   From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
   Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:53:49 GMT
   Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Path: csd475b!destroyer!caen!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpfcso!patm
   Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
   Lines: 4




>	   does anyone know if rush ever talked about lobsters?

Funny you should bring that up.  A recent poster (who and when escape
me) commplained that the animal rights/environmental whackos only
seemed to be interested in the big cuddly animals.  Why aren't they
concerned about sharks?

Tuesday's Detroit Free Press (a liberal rag, probably trying to
intercept this legitimate complaint :) had a lengthy article
addressing that very issue: the danger of depleting shark stocks.
What's it got to do with lobsters?  I'm glad I asked that question.
When the sharks disappear from an area, the number of squids,
apparently like chocolate to sharks, goes up.  The squids eat the
spiny lobsters, thereby destroying the spiny lobster fishery, thereby
putting fishermen and their bosses out of work.

If Rush isn't talking about them, he should be.  IMNSHO.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11766 alt.politics.clinton:18767
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: It's his party, and he'll sleep if he wants to (?)...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:48:23 GMT

Intersting.....VERY interesting, that Rush showed video clips of
Bill Clinton AND Algore AND Hillary Clinton all dozing off at this
Grandstand Taffy-Pull/Brownie-bake*Fudge-make economic shades-of-
Woodstock "rally" love-fest.  Did *anyone* see this anywhere else
in the media?  I'm real curious to know.  My hunch is that Dan Rather
didn't show it.  Or Tom Brokaw.  Or Peter Jennings.  Or any of the
rest of the rat-pack, either.  Likely only on Rush's show. 

Yes, remember how Reagan's critics used to knife-stab this criticism 
in and twist it for maximum political criticism effect when RR
was reported to sleep through meetings?  Well, YOU Clinton PEOPLE,
it looks as though it's time for a little fair-play turnabout here. 
Now that you and your man are almost on the hot seat, care to start
lining up attempts at excusing this?  I mean, the guy's not even in
office yet, and he's starting in already!  You and the media so like
to brag and rant on about how we now have a President-elect who will
be ever so in-touch, on-the-ball, always paying attention to what's
going on, etc., and here at his most visible event since winning the
election he plays alternating heavy eyelids with his V.P. right next
to him.  Heck, someone should have beaned Algore with a spitwad. HA!..
would have been the best thing to come out of the whole circus! 
As for Hillary, though, hhmmmmmm....actually this does have an 
upside.  Now if she would start getting in the habit of sleeping 
through entire cabinet meetings, *that* will be a *real* plus for the
country's benefit....
                                                H.R. Holm
*standard disclaimers,etc;
 replies to the newsgroup only, por favor*
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rush?
Date: 19 Dec 1992 01:32:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, MAC135@psuvm.psu.edu () says:

>Rush Limbaugh is a f**king a**hole, who isn't smart enough to wake up and take
>a real look at the f**king world.  (flame me, it's winter here)
>                                               -mike-

  Gee, you sure know how to express yourself. Is there something in
particular you dislike about the man or do you dislike common sense 
all together? Please enlighten us since your message really on says
you don't think much of him. (Are we supposed to care whether or not 
you like the man?) At least when he dislikes something he tells you 
why.                             ^^
  There, that ought to piss you off enough to tell us what's really on your
mind.
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12018 alt.politics.clinton:18964 alt.politics.bush:14805 alt.politics.homosexuality:8258 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10520
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:07:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>But of course if the military allows openly gay soldiers, then you would,
>wouldn't you? Isn't that what we are talking about - allowing openly
>gay soldiers?

That may be what YOU are talking about, but it isn't what Clinton has 
been talking about. There is a difference between allowing a person
to join the military and not making him or her swear that they are NOT
gay and allowing them to join and forcing them to be out and in the
open about their homosexuality.


-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 15:16:24 GMT

>So if you don't
>jive with a photograph of Jesus in a jar of piss, or a finger in a penis,
>or a little girl exposing herself, 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Only sick bastards (my opinion of course) believe that CHILDREN exposing 
themselves should be viewed upon as artwork.  That's why I support the NRA,
so that I can shoot the genitals off of such individuals if ever they dare 
cast their eyes upon my young children!

>then do yourself a favor and don't go
>to the museum that day.  If you wish, write a letter to the editor
>explaining how much you hate the defamation of Christ in art.  But don't
>stop people from going and looking at the photographs, or whatever it is,
>if that's what they want to do.  If it's really bad art, no one will care.

I agree with your argument.  Let worthless artists create and display their
worthless trash for the maggots of our society to view with great pleasure,
so long as that artwork is NOT (no way, no how) subsidized through federal
or (my) state dollars.  If the artists can't survive peddling their filth
then let them starve (isn't that what a free market is all about?)!

I have had many an argument with people who use the term "censorship" to 
describe the non-funding of ART (?!?) with government dollars.  If an artist
wants to produce artwork which is funded through government dollars, then I 
(along with every other citizen of the good 'ole USA) have every right to 
dictate what that artwork may or may not be composed of!

>|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|
>|  Alyosha Declan McManus Bourgea  |  "An idea is not responsible for  |
>|  aka Warren Pyecraft, esquire    |   the person who thinks it."      |
>|  aka grendel@camelot.bradley.edu |                  --?              |
>|  Peace to the Death              | (anybody know who said this?????) |
>|vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv|vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv|

Piss on my Lord?
Go ahead, 
Feel free,
Your ass is his for eternity!

Bill Buoni
My opinions are my own and do not represent the views of my employer!
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11846 alt.politics.clinton:18826