HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Different Point
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:23:29 GMT

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

>rocker (cookc@aix.rpi.edu) wrote:
>: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>: >Planting the idea that a fetus is an unviable tissue mass is simply propaganda
>: >aimed at easing peoples' consciences.  In France, they show a woman the
>: >actual remains of an abortion and some change their minds and many don't.
>: 
>: Are these remains age-specific?  You do, of course, realize that the
>: "remains" from a first-tri abortion fit in a teaspoon.

>The remains are from the previous woman's abortion.  The abortions are done
>with the RU487 pill, in clinics there.  The women see the remains of the
>abortion, which are indeed small because RU487 is only allowed in the
>first trimester, and considered dangerous into the 9th week and beyond.

This all seems highly unlikely.  Where did you say you heard this?
I'm under the impression that RU486 takes some time to work.  While
I can see some utility in examining the remains once they have been
passed, I seem to recall that most women were at home by the time they
actually passed any remains.  

What did you say your source for this was?

>The women accept it and do it anyway.  What's the problem?

Problem?  No problem, as long as it's voluntary.  I'd certainly fight
a law that forced me to look at a fresh, bloody abcessed tooth every
time I went in for dental treatment.

                   -rocker
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:58:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1jpa1nINNkva@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.220123.1605@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>I think it's perfectly okay for someone to quote Leviticus about
>>homosexuality, as long as s/he follows it himself/herself.  So has s/he
>>given up:
>
>Evelyn: You are amazing ignorant on the Bible as a whole.  There were 
>people known as Pharisees who attempted to keep the letter of the law
>while missing the intent.  Jesus condemned them for this.  You seem
>surprisingly able to quote a verse without a single iota of 
>understanding about what it means and what the rest of the Bible says about
>these things.

Evelyn is making the point that holding someone-else to the letter of
the law while one picks and chooses which laws he will obey is both
legalistic and hypocritical.  Jesus never condemned homosexuality
(sexual attraction and romantic interest between members of the
same sex [See Jonathan and David.]).  In fact there is some evidence
to suggest that when confronted with it he made no criticism at all.
oreover, with the exception of Romans 1 26-27, every New Testament
passage concerning homosexual practices is mistranslated and that passage
says that God makes heterosexual people homosexual as a punishment for
godlessness.  [Boswell _Chritianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality_]
This is not to imply that this is how all homosexuality arises,
but it does say that God can be the author of homosexuality.

>Even Satan can quote scripture for his own purposes.
>mc

Even fundementalists can quote Shakespeare for their own purposes.

--Frank
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Donna Shalala and Bill's Welfare Promise
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:28:11 GMT

Ok.  Simple question....

On January 19th's Rush Limbaugh show, he mentioned that Donna Shalala
and Bill Clinton do not agree on what is to be done about Welfare.

Specifically, Clinton "promised" to push through reform that requires
welfare recipients that have been sucking of the taxpayers tits for more
than two years to either get a real job, or perform a community service.

According to Rush, Shalala nipped this idea in the bud.

If this is true, does anyone know what her wacky reasoning may be?

I was floored when Clinton first proposed this, and though I didn't vote
for the man, I admired his stance on this issue. 

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & the Press
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:03:57 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1993Jan21.145331.24029@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
tendico@hubcap.clemson.edu (Todd Endicott) writes:

> Hi there. I'm just curious about how the conservatives view the recent
> ragging of Clinton in the press; seems to me this kind of weakens their
> standby complaint about the "liberal media". Comments anyone?
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm no Clinton fan; I voted for Marrou.
> -- 
> Todd Endicott
> tendico@hubcap.clemson.edu					 "Yow!"

As I mentioned in "Elvis has entered the building..." the broadcast
networks (usually what is referred to when talking about "the liberal
media") have begun a "market correction" to compensate for all the
shameless fawning over WJBC they did during the campaign, now that
they've "revived" the economy for his inaugural.

There of course remains some residual "post election glow" among some
political reporters at their success in electing him, so things aren't
all bad from his (the President's) standpoint. Yet.

The most important point about conservatives' complaints against
"liberal media" bias is this: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "OBJECTIVE
JOURNALISM".  Conservatives only wish Dan Rather, et al. would admit
this, and drop the pretense. The print media don't seem to mind being
characterized as "conservative" or "liberal", especially so in Britain.

If I were to rank the broadcast news organizations on their overall
biases, certainly CBS (Evening News) and PBS (McNeil/Lehrer)-NPR
(All Things Considered, Morning Edition) are the most liberally biased,
by far, in terms of their editorial judgement about what the news is,
and why. NBC (Nightly News), CNN, and ABC (World News Tonight), probably in
that order, are the next most biased (or the least biased, depending
on how you choose to look at it), and C-SPAN is the closest thing to
"unbiased" coverage one can find from any perspective, since on straight
news stories there is no one "holding your hand" to "help you" make
sense of it.

I'd be interested to hear how my observations/rankings match up with
others out there across the fruited plain... 

-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com**********************
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15336 talk.abortion:58307 alt.politics.homosexuality:10391
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: Just something I _had_ to ask...
Keywords: abortion, religion, gays, rights, homosexuality, "woof"
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:58:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
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.

In article <1224@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

[I don't hate women.  I'm not a Catholic, or a RCC, or anything of the sort.
 My opisition to abortion is based on non-religious arguments.  It's gone,
 all gone to that great big bit bucket in the sky.]

Tell me something, Steve.

How did you vote on Oregeon Amendment #9?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15401 alt.sex:43438
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 29 Jan 93 10:52:14 NZST
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

cscdc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Dan Carpenter) writes:

> Don't go throwing laws around if I or any other Hetro doesn't want to 
> knowingly work next to you, rent to you, or serve in the military next to
> you.
 
   But Dan, you have a perfect right to refuse to work for a company, refuse
to rent property on the open market, and to refuse to serve in the military
(assuming that there is no draft currently).
   What you want, on the other hand, is to refuse gays the right to work for
a company if you disapprove, to rent if you disapprove, and to serve their
country in the armed forces if you disapprove, based on their sexual
orientation.
   
   But you also said...

> I couldn't care less what the "Queers" do, as long as
> they don't infringe on my right to feel and think the way I want, to
> restrict what I can or can not do separate from them.  Let's respect
> each other as  "Humans" and our funcional needs separate from Sexual
> choice, and you can go your direction and We can go ours.

   It appears to me, despite the noble words in the second quote, you're all
for *your* rights, but don't really give a shit for anyone elses.
   If you get your hands on a dictionary, please look up "hypocrisy".

Tony Q.
-- 
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (Quirke_A@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz)
"Only the free have disposition to be truthful.
 Only the truthful have the interest to be just.
 Only the just possess the willpower to be free." - WH Auden.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Subsidizing porn?
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:22:42 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
: 
: >According to the Jan 23, 1993 issue of _The Advocate_:
: 
: >"Gays and lesbians are pressuring Clinton to...make the following
: >changes
: 
: >-> Appointment of a National Endowment for the Arts director who
: >will provide grants to artists who produce sexually explicit gay-themed
: >works."
: 
: >Comments?
: 
: If my memory serves me correctly, The Advocate is a magazine/newspaper
: produced for Catholic readers.  It also seems to me this publication has
: not been very vocal during the past election, unless they have not been
: widely quoted.
: 
: Regardless, the Director of the National Endowment of the Arts should be
: someone who evaluates each item or works or presentation for its value
: as ART, not its political theme.  
: 
: Any item, work or presentation which is explicit in any reason, be it
: sexual, violent, etc. is NOT entitled to funding by the NEA.  The whole
: policy and procedure of this agency needs to be examined and evaluated.
: 
: 
: -- 
: David De Trolio                     (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
: --------------------------------------------------------------------
: We can have increased revenue in the United States without punishing
: those who have obtained economic success and personal achievement.     
Hmm?  Excuse me?  Bullshit, man.  Either fund art according to
artistic merit, or don't fund it at all, but don't tell me that
nothing may be funded which offends your sensibilities and those
of your friends.  If we start down that route, we're going to 
end up funding a lot of those cute paintings of kitties and duckies
to put on the wall and the Motel 6; except, of course, that those
offend me.  Maybe the poker playing dogs would be OK...

Bill

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson)
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: Portal Communications Company
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:18:08 GMT

I think everyone is missing something very major here. Bigotry is out there, it
isn't just white guys who are bigots. Black guys, women, gays, asians, those
blue people from Omicron Ceti, every culture/race/creed/religon/gender/belief/
ect./ect./ect. can be bigoted against any other group or classification. Any one
can be a bigot, anyone.

Bigotry comes from fear, or stupidty. And once you have someone afraid, you can
control them. As long as whites and blacks are scared of each other or gays and
straights are fighting each other, then you can control all of them, maybe keep
them from worrying about all the crap your dumping on all of them.

Is it really important whether or not "white bashing" exists or not? Does it    make any form of bashing by anybody against anybody morally or ethically right?
Is bigotry ever right?

Ben Gibson
From: mdiehl@triton.unm.edu (J. Michael Diehl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 03:01:12 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

>>What else do you want to trying and dig up, a 12 year affair with Madonna?

RL had an affair with Madonna? I didn't know that!
just kiddin, folks.  ;^)

>The problem, of course, is that even though RL says again and again that he
>is an entertainer and a commodity, a lot of people view him as a spokesman
>for conservative values. The kind of people who didn't smoke dope (ref: Marilyn
>Quayle's 1960's comments) and who didn't dodge the draft are looking for
>conservative leaders. Among others, they have found RL. His history doesn't
>suggest that he's worthy of their attention. Since conservatives still consider

It's not his "history" that makes him appealing; it's his oppinions.

>Clinton's potsmoking an issue, why not Rush's? Since they consider Clinton's

That's not the issue.  The issue is how he handled the question of his smoking
pot.  That's the issue.

>draft-dodging an issue, why not Rush's? Both are in the public eye; both are
>influencing opinion. Both are being considered for 1996.

No way!


+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|  J. Michael Diehl  ;-]  |  I thought I was wrong once.  But, I was mistaken. |
|                         +----------------------------------------------------+
|  mdiehl@hydra.unm.edu   | "I'm just looking for the opportunity to be        |
|  Thunder@forum          |            Politically Incorrect!                  |
|  Thunder@Tiny*          |                               <me>                 |
|  (505) 272-HaHa         |                                                    |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: jtamdor@iastate.edu (Jason T Amdor)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:25:23 GMT

In <1993Jan21.191924.22566@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.185006.21836@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>>
>>Actually, this addresses a question I've been asking all
>>along, which is:  If it's homosexual behavior that you all
>>have big problems with, why are celibate/unpartnered/
>>virginal gay people treated as badly as those who are 
>>sexually active?  

>I have no idea. However, I would suspect that it is
>related to the fact that it is hard to know if someone is
>sexually active or not.

>>
>>Here's an oft-mentioned experiment:  try wearing a t-shirt
>>that implies that you're gay.  Don't commit any homosexual
>>acts, just try to suggest that you might be homosexual.
>>See how you're treated.  Did you get harassed on the street?
>>Did you get beaten up?  Did your coworkers treat you 
>>differently?  Is this difference in treatment due to your
>>having committed any affront against God, or because
>>those around you think that you might have feelings (acted
>>upon or not) towards someone of the same gender?

>Not a very smart experiment (which is weird coming from 
>one of the smartest people on the net: Melinda).
>If you suggest to others that you are X, then, it is
>logic that the other would assume that you also do all
>the things that X's do. 

NOTE: this is not meant to be a flame remark...just want to make a
point..
I am 90% German. Does that mean I kill Jews and homosexuals? No, but I
suppose that people ASSUME that I do.
I am 10% Irish.  Does that mean that I eat a lot of potatoes?  No,
actually I really don't like potatoes.
I am affilated with the local gbl group. Does that mean I'm homosexual?
ASSUME away, folks...

>Now, you should never confuse what some book says with 
>what people who read the book believe the book says.
>Reading a book is an act of creation almost as big as writing
>the book, because everytime you read a book you are
>re-writing it. So, one thing is what the bible says
>and another thing is what everyne who reads the bible sees
>on it. There is no unique word on there.


>>And if you take a look at the material coming from the
>>religious right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and so
>>on), you'll see that they aren't attacking homosexuality,
>>they're attacking homosexuals.

>Well, maybe because homosexuality can exist if
>there are homosexuals. Unless, of course, you believe
>that homosexuality is something like a soul.


>You called me A
>> AAP a buffoon, 


>And do not forget about clown and old something!


>>--
>>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

>Kisses for you,

>AAp

Otherwise, no prob with rest of artice...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:23:14 GMT

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>In article <C1JBBG.3xL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>Oh... I don't seem to remember calling feminists hairy-legged lezzies...
>>The feminist leaders in OUR country DO hate men.  They have repeatedly
>>called marriage slavery to men.  

>The former does not follow from the latter.

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


Huh?
From: stalker@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Scott William Unger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and the Gulf War
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:50:32 GMT
Reply-To: stalker@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: stalker@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1993Jan25.135525.16601@athena.mit.edu>, by gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez):
> 
> Rush on the Gulf War
> 
> I didn't start listening to Rush after the Gulf war.
> I was curious, what was his stance on our inter-
> vention before we sent troops to the Persian Gulf. 
>  Most conservatives were against going there(true 
> conservatives that is).  Did Rush first oppose our 
> going and then support our troops or what?
> 
> 
> 				John R. Gonzalez

What the hell are you talking about?  True conservatives?  A conservative
is someone who basicly believes that the federal government is only needed
for defense purposes.  We use it to keep our national intrests when we can.
Why would conservatives be against going to War in the Gulf more than anyon e
else?  That is what the government was origianally for, to maintain our 
national intrests.  Not for giving handouts.

- Stalker
-- 
|  stalker@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  | University of Wisconsin Milwaukee   |      
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| "If the answer is 'What's the question?', then the question is." |  
|                                     - Paul T.G.E. Britton        |
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Subsidizing porn?
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:30:23 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
: Personally, I agree with Ken Barnes; let's just abolish the NEA. Too often
: we've seen that subsidized art is BAD art, whether sexually explicit or
: not. 
: 
: Sexually explicit art, like every other genre of art, complies with
: Sturgeon's Law; i.e., "90% of everything is crap." The 10% that's NOT crap
: will pay for itself, in ticket sales or whatever; why should we support
: the 90% that IS crap? 
: 
: Ken Mitchell
: kmitche@eis.calstate.ed

I tend to agree with your assertion that 90% of everything is crap;
however, just as the good 10% cannot necessarily be found among 
funded art, it also cannot necessarily be found among popular art.
The government is apt to fund crap, and people are apt to buy crap.
Don't know what the solution to this is, but the Glorious Market 
doesn't, in general, produce better art than government funding.

Bill

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:43:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.161725.24748@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (John Townsend) writes:
>
>>The more interesting question right now is that, since Clinton was fully aware
>>of Baird's hypocritical disregard for the law, but decided it was OK and
>>nominated her anyway, what does that say about his own ethics and respect for
>>the law?  Should he resign too?  It's only the second day of his presidency,
>>and people are already asking "How much did Clinton know?"
>
>No they're not.  The Republican whiners, the poorest damn losers I've
>ever seen, are asking stupid questions like this.  I truly could care
>less.  Why?  Because this is the first Cabinet nomination in this
>century to be voluntarily withdrawn.  Unlike John Tower the drunk being
>defended through a bitter rejection vote by Congress, Clinton felt the
>will of the people and acted immediately.
>
>Besides, Bush violated the law in Iran-Gate (at the very least, lying to
>Congress), yet he took office.  He actually BROKE THE LAW HIMSELF.
>
>Whaddya think of that, John?
>

Well, I think you're missing the point, If Clinton really felt the "will"
of the American people, he would have never nominated her!
He knew about the illegal alien problem beforehand! I guess he just
didn't understand the outrage of the people when someone who makes
$600,000 a year hires a nanny and driver ILLEGALLY because she doesn't
want to pay the going rate.  He sounds a little "out of touch" with
the American people to me....

---------------------------------------------------
J.R. Ordon

Don't blame me, I voted for Bush!!