HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 4 Jan 1993 10:30 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <C0B0H5.F5B@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes...
|rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
| 
|>Either the father, or tax dollars, will provide for the child.
|>Though it may not be fair to always force the fater to pay support,
|>where possible, this is certainly better than forcing you and me to pay 
|>child support.
| 
|Really?  Then you must be opposed to state funding of abortions, since
|it is certainly better not to force "you and me to pay" for it.

	I doubt that he would consider abortion of a foetus to be
child support.  Does he disagree with tax funding in principle, or
just tax-funded child support?

Gadson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13304 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11906 alt.politics.clinton:19852 alt.politics.bush:15694 alt.politics.homosexuality:9184
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:14:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan4.123444.25149@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>Back it up or take it back.  I think you'll find very little religious
>influence in the lives of most of those who wrote the Constitution.

I have forwarded to Greg a collection of 3-4 articles which I have collected 
off the net (mostly annotated) over a few years which indeed do show the 
huge influence of not just religion, but Christianity, in their lives.  
Anyone else who would like this, simply mail me and I will forward it.

There is no question that our founders were extremely Christian.

Ted
ZZ
-- 
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: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Q
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:16:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

CMK>Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics
CMK>lity,alt.rush-limbaugh
CMK>From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
CMK>Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
CMK>Message-ID: <C0Es4B.MHu@cs.uiuc.edu>
CMK>Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
CMK>References: <1993Jan4.152505.22773@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> <C
CMK>.2rx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan5.181236.2245@news.columbia.edu> <C0EF49.DJ
CMK>s.cso.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan05.220654.33157@rchland.ibm.com>
CMK>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:28:59 GMT

CMK>Ironically, it's worse than that, it only prohibits claims of
CMK>discrimination on the basis of *gay* sexual orientation. A straight
CMK>person in person in Aspen, Boulder, or Denver is still protected
CMK>against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Well, technically they're not, since 'sexual orientation' is not
currently part of the law. But you're right, in that under Amendment
2, a city could decide to pass an ordinance giving special rights
or protection from discrimination to +straights+, but not to gays.
(I wonder if bisexuals could slip through the Amendment?)
CMK>To me this, this is like prohibiting Jews from making claims of
CMK>discrimination on the basis of religion while still protecting
CMK>Catholics, athiests, and Protestants.
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . "God created Michigan to train the faithful."
 * KMail 2.94e W-NET HQ, hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-663-4173 or 3959
                                                            
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com (O.P.P)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Reply-To: dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:49:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.181202.14477@leland.Stanford.EDU>, kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan8.185341.14427@b30.ingr.com> dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com writes:
|> 
|> Seems to me you don't care about a good education and/or educational
|> environment, only that we indoctrinate as many of our young people
|> as possible in the secular social agenda of the day.  If a private
|> "religious" school does a better job of training young people for
|> life in the real world, why are you so opposed to it?

As a product of a private "religious" school myself, I am not at all
opposed to it. As was implicit in my previous post, I am opposed to 
taxpayer financed "religious" high schools.

It is a red herring from sore Republican losers (Bill Bennett) who are 
saying Bill Clinton is opposed to school choice by using his own money
to send his daughter to a private school.

They (Bill B. and Rush L.) would have you believe that there are not
 parents who sacrifice to send their kids to a private religious school 
WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. I personally know several. They do without cable-tv, 
manage with 1 car etc, to send their children to the school of their choice.

And as far as a "religious schools training young people for life",
I personally as a parent would not rely on anyone else to do that job. 
That is my responsibility. I would instill my beliefs from birth, and
if for some reason I could not afford to send my child to the school
of my choice, WITH MY OWN MONEY, I would send her to public school,
but you can be sure I wouldn't wait until she was high school age 
to start training her for "life in the real world". Has it occurred 
to you that after school hours, your child does exist in a "secular" 
world? If beliefs are not instilled at home, no amount of vouchers 
to this or that school is going to help. 

And if you don't mind me going on a tangent, how can Rush Limbaugh
be against a national health care plan, "remember the litany, health care is
not a right, Clinton is for socialized medicine" and for school vouchers...


                                   O.P.P
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:07:53 GMT

In article <casivils.726094627@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
#
#Sorry, it doesn't fly, you can only label a person a bigot if they allow
#their actions toward a person to be affected by their belief that homosexuality
#is wrong.

Buy a dictionary.  

Susan
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:25:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1ikjsdINNog7@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> rww@mugwump.cl.msu.edu (Richard W. Wiggins) writes:

>I do think some measure of choice
>is a good thing, but I don't support a voucher system that allows
>taxpayer money to pay for parochial schools.

So, private schools that aren't parochial would be ok?

IMO, if this were really allowed and those with the ability to finance
a new enterprise thought that the next set of politicians wouldn't
simply change their mind and leave them high and bankrupt, new private
schools would appear to compete with the ones that are non-parochial
that were participating.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13318 alt.sex:41329 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11920 alt.politics.correct:6113 alt.politics.equality:38
From: everettm@Cayman.COM (Mark Everett)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:21:16 GMT
	<7JAN199309294308@zeus.tamu.edu> <1993Jan8.082052.1759@anasazi.com>
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: karl@anasazi.com's message of 8 Jan 93 08:20:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.082052.1759@anasazi.com> karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes:
   In article <7JAN199309294308@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
   >| [ cannot we come up with anti-descrimination laws of equal universality? ]
   >
   >	Certainly.  Why not say something like: "No person shall
   >	be deprived of employment, housing, or economic service
   >	simply due to his or her actual or perceived sexual ori-
   >	entation - regardless of what that orientation may be."
   >
   >Any additions or suggestions?  Let me know.

   Seems to me you just gave protected status to pederasts.  Was that your
   intention?  (You might also explain why or why not.)

As long as the pederast doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights, s/he shouldn't
have her/his rights infringed upon.  In the inflammatory case you're proposing, as
long as the pederast only has "nasty thoughts" but does nothing about them, there is
no reason s/he should be treated any differently than anyone else.

--
.................................................................................
Mark J. Everett	    : Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
everettm@cayman.com : Phone 617-494-1999, Fax 617-494-5167, AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 06 Jan 93 21:22:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1993Jan5.230828.29316@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
| In article <1993Jan05.180438.5289@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
| >In article <1992Dec31.181358.17099@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
| >| 
| >| That is the whole problem. Teachers in sex ed. and drug ed. classes are
| >| told not to tell children what is right and wrong, to just present the
| >| facts. This has the opposite effect of what they intend.
| >
| >This assumes that the purpose of sex ed and drug ed classes is the 
| >spread of propoganda rather than information.
| >
| Please read more carefully. I did not say we should not have  those
| types of classes.

You stated "opposite effect of what they intend".  Your implication is
that sex ed ans drug ed classes are supposed to 
cause the students to not use drugs or have sex
rather than have the data to make their own decisions.  

|  They do not say that
| drugs are wrong and instruct the teachers to keep their opinions out
| of any discussions the children are having.

I would not say that "drugs are wrong" either.

|  A paraphrase
| of the description of LSD is something like: a feeling of euphoria,
| a sense of great wisdom and is not habit forming.

That matches my experience with LSD.

|  The child is never
| told of the negative aspects of the drug. The same type
| of garbage is used in sex ed. classes.

What garbage?  You have so far complained that the drug ed class gave
accurate (at least it is accurate in my experience)
data about LSD.

   Fritz
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:08:44 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

In article 4s6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright) writes:
>
>This is absolutely false!  Everywhere in the world where there is sex
>education, children postpone the onset of sexual behavior, and then
>engage in it less often.  STD rates are lowered too.
>
>-Tom Albright

20 and 40 years ago, before widespread public sex ed, teenage sex rates,
illegitimate pregnancies, VD were at a certain level.  Today, after a 
good amount of exposure to sex ed, these rates are much, much higher.
This is all according to US government studies, you can look 'em up.  

Now, you might say that there is no causal relationship from sex ed.  You
might even argue that these rates could be higher without sex ed-- though
illegitimacy among black births is now something like 66%, and I wonder how
much higher it could go-- but the one thing that can't be said is that
there is less and later sex activity, or that VD rates are lower.  If VD rates
are lower,  why is the number of AIDS victims at an all time high, when we knew about AIDS 10 years ago?

Dave
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush's email address at Compu$erve?
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:28:23 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

70277.2502@compuserve.com


-- 
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.
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Ear implants and the deaf community
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:49:28 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

This has been bothering me for a while and I just now am getting
around to posting about it.  I am having a really hard time with
the so-called deaf community's criticism of parents who choose to
have their children implanted with hearing implants.  I have 
watched shows discussing the topic and I can't understand their 
criticism.  The only thing that I can figure is that they are 
buying into the same philosophy that says that they don't have a
problem, they're just different.  I think this type of reasoning
stands in the way of finding ways to remove this impairment.  Just
another example of how we are no longer allowed to call a spade a 
spade.  The deaf community wants to act like there's nothing wrong
with them.  They are deaf.  They can't hear.  They have no sound
responses.  I am not trying to dimish the disability but I think
that their criticism of people who are using technology to overcome
this limitation to better interact in society is wrong.

PS.  I posted this to get away from discussing homosexual's and the're
problems.  Let's find some new topics. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:38:31 GMT

Robert  Johnston (rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec30.212615.9029@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
> >In article <30DEC199214481979@morgul.carleton.edu.> LAMBERTN@CARLETON.EDU writes:
> >>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com>, dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.
> >>com (Doug Dillhoff) writes...
> >>> 
> >>>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
> >>>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
> >>>children.
> >
> >Let me clarify this. I do not think that children should be taught
> >that the homosexual lifestyle is normal. I respect the rights of all
> >human beings, I just believe that the homosexual lifestyle is
> >wrong (IMO).
> >
> Part of living in a society is making compromises. You must put up with
> what you believe is wrong, so long as it does not endanger you. This  is 
> known as civilization.
> 
> I think it is wrong to allow airheads like you to post this shit, but I 
> compromise.
> >>
> >>WHAT?!?!  So I chose to be gay?  Hah!  Just the thought of letting some hairy,
> >.
> >. stuff deleted
> >.
> >>I DON'T FIND MEN ATTRACTIVE.  Tell you what, Doug--if you *choose* to find men
> >>attractive and _succeed_ in doing so, *I'll* become straight.  Deal?
> >
> >What??????????
> >
> >-- 
> >Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
>  I guess that doug has a problem with the english language. The statement 
> and its intent are perfectly clear. Doug must have been watching too
> much Rush; softening of the brain appears to have set in.
	One does not "watch" Rush - one listens to it, as Rush is a musical
group. Of course, in my opinion, one does not "listen" to Rush, but rather
allows them to pollute the airwaves with their silly reactionary pseudo-
genteel pretentious swill...but I think that's an argument best left to 
another newsgroup.
> 
> 

--

"Where imagination is sucked out of children by a cathode ray nipple
 T.V. is the only wet nurse that would create a cripple
 On television, the drug of a nation
 Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation."
				-Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13118 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11682 alt.politics.clinton:19679 alt.politics.bush:15605 alt.politics.homosexuality:9026
From: markm@salem.intel.com (Mark Morrissey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:23:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa

Sorry all, just kind of catching up.

In <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

> [lots of tripe]

Well, Steven, child.  Religious reasoning brought us crusades, jihads,
racial cleansing, and the like.  It brought us religion-based incest
and all sorts of other nifty-neato ideals.  It brought us the sanctimonious
diatribes of the morally bankrupt heterosexual purists.  Frankly, it brought
us all a bunch of shit (not to mention a world war or two).

Tell us, how do you defend this, dear child?  Dear, sweet, uninformed,
malevolent child?  Please step forward and defend *your* history and
place within it before you cast aspersions upon others.

After all, it is only fair.

hmmm?

--mark
-----
Mark Morrissey               markm@ashland.intel.com
#include <disclaimer.h>      PC does NOT mean "Probably Can't"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
From: chesnutt@adobe.com (Stan Chesnutt)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Tuesday Weld Fan Club
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:47:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.181813.27865@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>
>Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for Boycotts.
>

Be careful of logical fallacies here.  One could also state that "tourism
is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the good snowfalls".  Boycotts and
tourism do not a cause-effect relationship make.

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Stan Chesnutt,  Adobe Systems			      chesnutt@mv.us.adobe.com
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:40:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    I'm sure it would go a long way. I would imagine that the gap between 
>>public and private schools would become even more pronounced, and with the 
>>departure from public schools of the last students who really care I would 
>>imagine that the peer group values in public schools would become even 
>>worse than they are now. I certainly can't argue with the fact that it 
>>would result in change, but I'm not sure that I would call it progress.

>  At which point you shut down the public school and make school optional.
>Ever notice what happens when you make something mandatory?  The public
>schools have a captive source of income and a captive audience. What is 
>the incentive to perform?

    The most important incentive to perform is exactly the same in public 
schools as it is in private ones; i.e.- that education forms the most 
fundamental basis for economic success in our society.

    If we make school optional then I have a feeling that school 
participation statistics will effectively parallel voter participation 
statistics. A lot of people will drop out because they don't want to be 
challenged or don't care about their dismal chances of succeeding without 
it. We will have a very large proportion of illiterate and consequently 
unproductive workers. That might help our competitiveness with countries 
like Bangladesh and Zaire, but our competitiveness with Germany or Japan 
would be a thing of the past. You're free to campaign for a change like 
that, but I think I'll pass.

>  The argument that everyone would desert the public schools if given the
>choice is hardly one I would expect to hear from someone who seems to be
>>defending< them!  Damning with >no< praise rather than faint praise!

    My arguments are rarely conventional, but I still stand by my 
predictions. If funding for education is "redirected" from the public 
schools they will cease to function at all and anyone who can will 
desert.

    I'm a little curious at this point to know whether you think that 
people should be required to support the Social Security system or if 
it's ok for anybody who wants to to pull out? Do you have any predictions 
about what would happen to Social Security if that happened?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 JAN 93 20:34:13 GMT

In a previous article, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) wrote:
> 
>The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.  

A woman who is using birth control has clearly hung up a "baby NOT welcome" 
sign.  So if for whatever reason her birth control fails, would you allow 
her to have an abortion?

>It is one of those laws of nature, when women have sex, babies will result.  
>Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the baby would be an intruder, 
>then don't hang out the welcome sign.

If we could just get those fetuses to read the "Baby NOT welcome" signs...


				.... Heather.
From: jsl+@pitt.edu (John S Lundberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Newsgroups on Net
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:06:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Jan.11.18.55.38.1993.24064@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>My site currently receives just alt.rush-limbaugh. 

Weeded out all those pesky comp.* groups, eh?  Good show.
-- 
John Lundberg