HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:34:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
: The problem with the motor voter bill is that it REQUIRES everyone who 
: gets a drivers license, gets food stamps, etc., to be registered to vote.  
: Most people believe that it only gives people the opportunity to be 
: registered.  It does not.  These people WILL BE  AUTOMATICALLY REGISTERED. 
: 
: I am in favor of a bill which would GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY to be registered.
: 
: Ted
: 

So what's the big deal, Ted?  These people are already in The Big
Computer, via their driver's records- and they don't actually have
to *vote*.  I don't understand your objection.
Bill : 
: -- 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11782 alt.politics.clinton:18783 alt.politics.bush:14635 alt.politics.homosexuality:8052 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10273
From: v108jqur@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (ANTHONY PAUL AVERY)
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: 17 Dec 92 00:48:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec14.184223.25697@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes...
>In article <00964F02.484AF800@vms.csd.mu.edu> 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>>
>>Is it written in stone somewhere that recruits HAVE to shower together?
>>Showering seems to be the big problem with having gays in the military.
>>Hasn't anyone thought of putting up curtains?  Most women's locker rooms
>>have them.  This fear of the shower is IMHO given too much emphasis since
>>many persons in the military live off base anyway.  I agree privacy is
>>important and the issue should be dealt, but accommodating privacy can
>>be done without banning gays.
>>
>>Flame away!
> 
>No need for flames.  You simply know very little about the military.  When 
>women were allowed into the military, millions of dollars were spent in 
>order to provide separate facilities for them.  Likewise, dollars will have 
>to be spent to provide separate facilities for gays.  Before you answer, 
>"They can use the same facilities as heteros." let me ask you:  Who will 
>decide that?  So far, gays (and a few simpathizers) want to shower with 
>heteros, and don't think it will be a big deal.  Most heteros (esp. in the 
>active duty now), will think it is a very big deal.  This leads us right 
>back to a point I made about a week ago.  Nobody cares a lick about how 
>the heteros will feel about this.  We are not PC.  We do not matter.
> 
>In addition, you imply that a large percentage of military live off base.  
>You might be surprised to learn that the overwhelming, vast majority of 
>single people in the military live in barracks (or in dorm situations on 
>ships, etc.)
> 
>Ted
> 
>-- 
	I Would like to respond and just say that ted, you have to 
remember that unlike blacks, gays DO NOT usually stand out unless
heterosexuals (and closeted gays) plan on giving us pink triangles to wear in 
the military - sound familar?
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:59:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Most human cells have *46* chromosomes.  Certain individuals who are
undoubtedly human (people with Down syndrome, for example) don't.

Susan
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11647 alt.politics.clinton:18616
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:38:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

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.
: 
: 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 Tree          

Ted, I suspect we're using different definitions of the word chose;
would you mind defining your terms?  I've never heard anyone
seriously suggest that gays ""choose" to be gay, in the way that 
one chooses a college or a brand of peanut butter.  The debate I've
heard has to do with the degree to which sexual preference is due
to 
heredity and environmental influence.  Either way, calling it a
"choice
"choice" is simplistic and fatuous.

Bill
s
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: parrish@ecn.purdue.edu (Stephen L. Parrish)
Subject: Gotta Have it... 12 Days...
Keywords: Change... change... Change... change...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:46:22 GMT

Anyone have the lyrics to the 12 Days of Clinton?  Gotta have it.
Post'em or mail'em, Please.  Thanks.

Dittos

-- 
Stephen Parrish              |          Will Do Core Design for Food 
Purdue University            |       
School of Nuclear Engineering|          
parrish@gn.ecn.purdue.edu    |  KEMP/Powell '96   (If the US survives '92-96)
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A poem about Rush Limpball
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:58:12 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>    Or the way that he pronounces "Cuomo" so that people won't call him 
>a racist. I saw Jackson on some TV segment a while back and I was almost 
>certain that I heard Rev Jackson pronounce Governor Cuomo's name correctly.

In fact, on his TV show Rush explained that he pronounces
"Cuomo" the way he does because Jackson "pronounced it
that way once."   That's right, *once*.

But the best part was that he explained that he pronounced
"Cuomo" as "Coo-mo" not to avoid charges of racism, but
so that nobody could accuse him of making fun of Jackson's
pronounciation.  

David
"I define feminism by what the extremist feminazis do."
        -- Rush Limbaugh, 12/11/92
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11827 alt.politics.clinton:18814 alt.politics.bush:14676 alt.politics.homosexuality:8106 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10361
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
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: 17 Dec 1992 15:23 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec17.202942.21376@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com writes...
| 
|That's nice, but my barracks that I lived in while in the Navy
|had no privacy when sleeping (8 men to a cube that had no door),
|and common showers with no privacy.

	Were you sleeping nude too?

Gadson
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY !!!
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:02:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

For those of you who would like one more reason to laugh at
Steve Chaney...

NARAL-Oregon endorsed Les AuCoin rather than Bob Packwood in
the election, as did various other groups that Chaney/Hall
would no doubt consider liberal.

Susan
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11874 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10417
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:45:45 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Lush Rambo (WKRP lampoon)

In article <BzF8r0.MD6@cda.mrs.umn.edu>, luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu (Joe
Luhman) says:

>Did anyone happen to catch this weeks episode of the new WKRP in Cincinnati?
>I don't normally watch the show, but as I was flipping through the channels,
>I noticed that they were lampooning Rush on the show.  I'm a Rush fan,
>but the lampoon was hilarious!!  I was literally rolling on the floor!
>They didn't really present him as a monster or anything like that, so I
>found it amusing.  If the show is on in your area, I recommend seeing this
>week's episode.

Yeah, I saw it too.  Just imagine the most arrogant act Rush has ever put
on on his show, double that, and imagine a person who's like that pretty
much all the time (on the air and in person).  That's Lush Rambo.  It WAS
funny, though they made WKRP's resident conservatives (i.e., Les and Herb)
look kind of stupid when the entire radio station staff broke out into a
huge argument over whether they should air 'Lash' and/or 'Cop Killer.'

Lash had a funny statement, though, which I never heard from Rush (though he
may have said it):  "If it were up to you environmental wackos, we wouldn't
celebrate St. Patrick's Day today!... what's he famous for?  Driving the
snakes out of Ireland!  Just imagine if he tried that today!... if you
people had been in charge back then, then they would've driven the PEOPLE out
to save the snakes, and today every March 17th people would be wearing pins
saying 'Kiss me, I'm a SNAKE!'"   (Paraphrased, of course... :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11424 alt.politics.clinton:18434 alt.politics.bush:14442 alt.politics.homosexuality:7865 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9938
From: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
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: 11 Dec 1992 23:26:31 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu


Is it written in stone somewhere that recruits HAVE to shower together?
Showering seems to be the big problem with having gays in the military.
Hasn't anyone thought of putting up curtains?  Most women's locker rooms
have them.  This fear of the shower is IMHO given too much emphasis since
many persons in the military live off base anyway.  I agree privacy is
important and the issue should be dealt, but accommodating privacy can
be done without banning gays.

Flame away!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:11:17 GMT

In article <schlegel.724794384@cwis> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
> 
> But the gay lobby thinks that as long nothing physical occurs, no harrassment
> has occurred.
> 
>
Well as long as your fingers never touch the keys of the keyboard no
harrassment has occurred in this newsgroup by yourself.



Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__


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 22:13:56 GMT

In <1992Dec8.233012.24646@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec8.203109.22379@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>In article <grendel.723788680@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>>>Do you see?  It's not about who's PC and who's not.  The same
>>>ethical standards apply to everyone.
>>
>>I hope that I have shown that they do not.

>>
>>Ted

>>Please forgive my following up my own post, but I just realized that my 
>last statement is extremely ambiguous.

>What I mean is that the same ethical standards should apply to everyone, 
>but they do not.
	
Roight.

Actually, the same ethical standards DO apply to everyone.  Sometimes,
however, these standards are not observed.

>Ted


--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Everybody's hands are in their pockets,
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     Everybody wants a box of chocolates
Phred the Happy Mutant          And a long-stemmed rose."
sez "Boop-ola."                               --Leonard Cohen

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11616 alt.politics.correct:5985 alt.activism:19569
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:15:00 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec11.163236.1479@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
]In article <1992Dec9.150848.24614@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>
]>Nice of you to recognize that most folks have the freedom to associate with
]>whom they want. To bad you don't realize that soldiers, whom we pay to
]>little and whom we ask to sacrifice their lives for us, do NOT have that
]>freedom. 
]
]Yes they do.  They have the freedom to not become soldiers.  The only problem
]is for soldiers who are already in the army.  And I said in my posting that I
]think those who are uncomfortable sharing facilities alongside homosexuals
]should be allowed to leave the army.  I will now add that they should be
]allowed to leave in a way that's considered honorable.  I will also add that
]we don't have a draft anymore, and I would oppose any attempt to revive it.

Well, nice of you not to support a draft, but what if we get in another
situation similar to WW-II where we need one? Furthermore, what about those
now in the military? Do you mean that they should abandon their careers
in order to further your social engineering? Why not just have the gays
keep out.... it achieves the same effect without losing a bunch of
already qualified and trained people ?

]>           But you don't mind.... YOU are going to just force the living
]>with gays on those who do join the army. Can't you see that the "forcing"
]>occurs with or without gays in the military? In one case, we force the
]>gays to stay out, while in another case we force the non-gays to
]>sleep and fight with the gays. In either case, there is a violation of
]>preferences. It isn't as simple or as one sided as you would make it!
]
]It is simple!  If you don't want to associate with homosexuals, then DON'T
]JOIN THE ARMY!  What's the problem?
How about.... if you want to be openly gay, DON'T JOIN THE ARMY! Why
change the existing rule?
]
]>By the way, I assume you believe that the government has the right to
]>ban all abortions, since only a "privacy" right has allowed the court
]>to prevent that, and you obviously don't give a damn about privacy.
]
]Privacy is an extremely important right.  When one joins the army, one agrees
]to give up much of one's privacy.  Those who don't want to give up that
]privacy, shouldn't join the army.
Currently, when one joins the army one doesn't give up that right with
regard to living with members of the opposite sex. Why give it up with
regard to gay members of the same sex?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:23:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.172352.362@hsh.com> , paul@hsh.com writes:
>Since when did having religious beliefs become an occupational hazard
for a
>landlord?  Not until this lawsuit, it didn't.  I think you need more
balance 
>between the tenant's rights (antidiscrimination laws) with the
landlord's
>Constitutional rights  specifically freedom of association on *their* 
>property.  Yes, let's bring in property rights, since the state is
coopting 
>them to some degree.

There is a clear legal distinction between commercial and private
property.  If the landlord were renting a portion of her own residence,
then, in all laws that I am aware of, she may discriminate in =any= way
she wishes, even racially.  However, in any other property she owns, she
must abide by antidiscrimination statutes.

>Let's leave religion out of it, and see if you feel the same way.  Would
"the
>state" be within its rights to pass laws that prohibit landlords from
>"discriminating" against tenants that completely offend said landlord? 
Do
>you feel the state has the power to _force_ landlords to rent to
everybody? 

No, they don't.  They can only legislate that a landlord not be able to
discriminate against specific, identifiable groups.

>How about a gang of Hell's Angels?  Charles Manson?  David Duke?  Where
>would you draw the line, if any?  Or in other words, what rights DO you
>accord to landlords  if any?

You draw the line =exactly= where the law is written and passed. 
Landlords have the right to do anything that the law does not expressly
forbid.  Can you really imagine a law prohibiting discrimination against
Hells Angels?  It's totally absurd to suggest that you can't discriminate
against a specific person!

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:11789 alt.politics.clinton:18786
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: How many gays are there anyway?
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:29:23 GMT

gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:

[re: how many gays are there in teh military?]

>From what I understand, this number is supposed to be apx. 10%. 
>However, that "scientific" estimate is probably high. From what the 
>media says on the topic, one is given the impression that the number 
>is close to 50%.

Hmmm, that's strange. I haven't gotten that impression from anything I
have heard from the media, and I watch and read a lot of news.

-- 
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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: "Dittos" for John Switzer (was Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92)
Organization: ILS
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:17:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.130035.27293@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>,
greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
> 
> In article <7DEC199211275395@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> Elliott Mitchell,
> mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu writes:
> >I just want to commend John for his tireless work in this area.
> 
> I can "ditto" that.  Although I find I disagree with Rush far more often
> than I agree, I appreciate being able to keep tabs on him even when I can't
> always listen to the show.


Its also nice to know that John is spending all his free time doing this
rather then going out to meet memebers of the opposite sex,  or other such
activities which migh lead to a net increase in the number of conservatives
in the world.


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11398 alt.politics.clinton:18414 alt.politics.bush:14434 alt.politics.homosexuality:7862 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9929
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
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: 11 Dec 1992 20:46:59 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <11DEC199211232238@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>
> 	What about you?  Have you ever showered "public" with the gender
> to which you're attracted? 

Good question, and one that shows that the whole "shower" argument is
quite bankrupt.

Anyone who is Gay has been showering with people who are *potentially*
sexually attractive most of his or her school and college life, not
to mention any fitness centre or military training they might have
joined later.

If this was a real problem, rather than a hypothetical problem in
what we must, from politeness, refer to as a bigot's "brain", we'd
surely have heard about it before now.

jon. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Children in Same-gender Families
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:28:14 GMT

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>In addition to my wife (and her sister experiences) I can compare my own
>understanding of homosexuality with that of my son's.  When I was his age
>we knew little more than they existed, no one was teaching "tolerence"
>and we gave them little more than a second thought.  My son and his 
>school friends have had this stuff crammed down their throats for years
>already, not only from teachers sympathetic to gay causes, but in 
>everything from music (read MTV) and their television show.  The result 
>is that I have heard 10 year olds in a school yard trying to out do each
>other with ways to "kill fags and lezzies" with a zeal that would make
>Hilter proud.  Further questioning of my sons told me that those aren't
>the exceptions in attitudes amongst his peers, it's the norm.  

Ten-year-olds are by nature reactionary, and usually calm down
a lot in their temperament by the time they reach maturity.  Often
it helps them to have role-models to base their behavior on, but
at the same time, they can want to express their independence by
rebelling against these models they really know are correct.

And sometimes they just need a spanking.

>You can not force or legislate tolerance and the current attempts to 
>do so are building an ugly monster that is going to take you breath away 
>one day.  You need look no further than the rise in gay bashing and
>violence to know what I'm talking about.  You want to see the result
>of allowing gays into the military over the objections of the majority?
>Read the Clarinews article about the gay sailor that was beaten to death
>by his shipmates for being opnely gay. 

In Germany, there are hundreds of thousands of people who aren't
sitting still for the bashing of foreigners.  Yep, people do die,
and it's sad, but if the ones who are intelligent stand up against
injustice, injustice will fall.  One person dies, and you think 
that's reason to concede?


-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11405 alt.politics.clinton:18419