HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Are the Rush Summaries history?
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:04:44 GMT

I've been gone for a bit, but I don't see any summaries
(and saw them slowing down quite a bit in recent weeks).
Are they a thing of the past now?  I never understood how
John Switzer could have kept up for that for as long as
he did!
--
Dave Bakken                               Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu
Dept. of Computer Science; U of Arizona   Voice:    +1 602 621 4098      
Tucson, AZ 85721; USA                     FAX:      +1 602 621 4246
The fact that you're paranoid doesn't prove they're *not* out to get you.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12726 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11135 alt.politics.clinton:19419 alt.politics.bush:15293 alt.politics.homosexuality:8749
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 1 Jan 1993 00:12:17 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
> I've read Kinsey, Pomeroy,
> Klien... I've even read Rutgers and Sanger, and most psychologists don't
> remember who they ARE.

If I look for Kinsey's work in the library, will I find it under "K" author? 
Or would it be under something else?  

Walter
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus and Indians: Whats the point?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:58:24 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Bill Anderson writes:

>Jesus, you guys.  There is a lot of brutality and oppression in
>history; would you prefer to have it ignored?  I spend a lot
>of time arguing with friends on the left who've accepted the
>Western Oppression thing hook line and sinker, and it's very
>frustrating, and then I log on to usenet and see how smug and 
>self-righteous you guys are, and it makes me want to march 
>around chanting "Western Culture's Gotta Go."
>You accuse "PC" types of having a political agenda in their 
>interpretation of history, and they do, and it can be very
>annoying.  The thing you guys don't get is that YOU have an
>agenda as well, and yours has carried a lot more weight that
>theirs...
>BIll   

Nah, Bill, I never even implied, and instead downright admitted that
the Conquistadores were oppressors, and that the US government stole
Indian land.  If I have an agenda, it's just to see a little even-handedness 
here.

	Dave



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12858 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11321 alt.politics.clinton:19500 alt.politics.bush:15402 alt.politics.homosexuality:8839
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 3 Jan 1993 19:57:20 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita17.cs.itc.hp.com

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>      I'd like to see any argument about morality that doesn't
> ultimately devolve into some kind of religious argument.

Maybe you didn't mean it the way the wording came out, 'cause it sounds 
like the logical implication of that is, "those who reject religion 
will have to ultimately reject morality". 

>      But, if you assume that both marriages in question were monogamous
> agreements, then you could make some kind of "breach of contract"
> argument out of it - add "lying" to the list if the other spouses
> aren't aware of the act.  I'm not sure if Walter's original parameters
> specified monogamous (although I expect they did, even if it wasn't
> explicitly stated).

Yes, that was the angle I was getting at...I didn't do a very good job 
at explaining it, and probobly made Howard feel like he was 'set up'. 
Sorry, Howard...

Walter
From: rovero@skye.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's his party, and he'll sleep if he wants to (?)...
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:20:14 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <1992Dec21.132722.17213@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.014823.3812@cbnewse.cb.att.com> harold.r.holm,
>harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com writes:
>>Intersting.....VERY interesting, that Rush showed video clips of
>>Bill Clinton AND Algore AND Hillary Clinton all dozing off at this
>>Grandstand TaffyPull/Browniebake*Fudgemake economic shadesof
>
>Why would anyone =care=.  Only Rush (and, of course, the most mindless of
>his followers), with a driving need to ridicule the Democrats would find
>this even remotely interesting.  After all, he has nothing of =substance= to
>complain about yet.

The reason its important is that even today, on the editorial page, is
an article (author unknown, but a regular columnist) stating that the
"taffy pull" PROVED that Clinton and Gore (unlike their republican
counterparts) were able to stay awake in meetings.

So obviously there is at least ONE influential member of the media who
was taken in by the coverage and thinks CG were awake the whole time.
Rush is very correctly hoisting these folks on their petards.

If you *don't* care, then don't bother to read this newsgroup or post
in it.  Since actions speak louder than words, you care.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 12:56:10 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Actually, at the time Columbus landed, the Caribs, with
their widespread practice of, literally, eating away
at the populations they invaded, were making vast inroads
in the area of the eponymous Sea.  Cannibalism, not 
enslavement, was the future of the populations they
invaded.

Likewise, the Aztecs practiced mass human sacrifice on an
incredible scale, depleting the neighboring, non-Aztec,
Indian populations.  This is one reason Cortez, with only
a hundred or two hundred men, was able to topple the Aztec
empire- support from neighboring tribes, who looked upon
the brutal Conquistadores as saviors.

The PC POV seems to be that it was OK for other Native
Americans to slaughter their fellows, but not for Europeans
to do the same.  I say this because I hear no condemnation
of anyone but Europeans in what was supposedly- in the light
of modern PC revisionism- a bucolic paradise.  If this is
truly the case, then it's just another form of cheap racism,
or historic ignorance.  The Europeans had no monopoly on 
the badness that went down in Central America.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:26:59 GMT

paul@hsh.com wrote:
: In article <1992Dec24.184603.16096@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (M
ike A. McAngus) writes:
: > John Switzer (jrs@netcom.com) wrote:
: > : In article <1992Dec19.195620.6688@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu
(Zac
: > k C. Sessions) writes:
: > : >
: > : >In my local paper (which is owned by the NYT) today there was a story
: > : >which directly contradicts these assertions. The headline was "Transitio
n
: > : >aide says Clinton won't put tax on medical benefits". In the story, Judy
: > : >Feder, who is Clinton's transition team health policy chief, said that
: > : >President-elect Clinton is not planning to seek new taxes on employee
: > : >medical benefits to pay for health care reform. She said, "That was not
: > : >contemplated in the campaign, and there has been no change in that."
: > :
: > : Another example of Clinton talking out of both sides of his mouth, becaus
e
: > : Friday's Wall Street Journal quotes Clinton as saying he is considering e
ndin
: > g
: > : the tax exemption on at least part of a company's health care costs. End
of
: > : exemption translates into more taxes being paid and thus higher taxes. Th
is
: > : translates into a defacto tax on a person's benefits that are above the
: > : basic minimum which Clinton and his advisers have yet to settle on.
:
: >
: > Another example of a consevative putting the worst spin possible on what
: > Clinton says.  Removing tax exemptions for health care costs is a tax incre
ase
: > on businesses not an increase on middle class tax payers.  Thus, the statem
ent
: > by Clinton and the statement by Judy Feder do not contradict each other.
:
: Another example of a liberal who does not understand How Business Works.
: Let's see if Mr. Switzer was paying attention in Economics 101.  Attention,
: class:  When you greatly increase the cost of doing business, most
: companies will A) absorb it, or B) pass on that increase in the form of
: higher prices.  Anyone? Anyone?

John Switzer did not make the "Another example ..." statement, I (Mike McAngus)
did. 

You assume that the elimination of a tax exemption will result in "greatly 
increas[ing] the cost of doing business".  I don't know the figures on this so 
maybe you can show how you arrive at this assumption.

In my response to a previous post, I admit that the cost of losing the tax 
exemption will be passed on to the customers and employees.

I was originally responding to conservatives wanting to cast Bill Clinton as a 
liar and prevaricator in everything he says.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth	 | or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it. | back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:26:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.190050.7745@mis.mi04.zds.com> ryonkers@mis.mi04.zds.com (Russell Yonkers) writes:
>If it is ok for gays and hetero's to shower together then it should be ok
>for males and females to shower together.... opps I forgot that would
>be sexual harrassment for males and females to shower together because
>the males may find the females attractive and lust after them.

Whatever gave you this ludicrous idea?  (I note that you don't seem to
think that the females would lust after the males, but that's another
issue.)

Yes, in the military mixed showering shouldn't be a problem.  I have yet
to see any evidence that mixed showering per se is considered sexual
harassment, so unless you actually have such evidence, please refrain
from assuming it to be the case.  (At which point, of course, your entire
line of reasoning falls apart.)

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12386 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10800 alt.politics.clinton:19169 alt.politics.bush:14979 alt.politics.homosexuality:8486
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Sexuality
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:33:41 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
> 
> My guess is that what is being sought is acceptance, not tolerance.  The 
> problem is that living a gay lifestyle is not OK (my values).  That is not
> to say that homosexuals are inherently evil, but that God did not intend us 
> to function this way.  Nor did he intend for us to be sexually active 
> outside of marriage, indulge in "immoral" behavior, ....  

Which makes me think of something that was said last week about the issue 
of 'sexuality'...I get the impression that the lesbigay posters view the 
majority of straight people as sexually repressed, and that a lot of the 
straight posters feel that lesbigay people are generally more concerned 
with the issue of sex; sex is more 'important' to them than to straight 
people.  Are both of these views just overgeneralizations, or is there 
something to either/both? 

> These are my beliefs.  I don't expect you to adopt them, nor do I expect you to
> accept them.  All I ask in return is that you give me the same respect in
> return.  In my view, teaching my children views which are in direct conflict
> with our (my wife and I) values is a violation of this respect. 

Amen..

Walter
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Courts the FAAAR Right
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:59:56 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> I would say that 
>> Rush was basically correct that religion deals with the subject of the 
>> soul, and I would also agree that religion can serve as a stabilizing, 
>> civilizing influence on society (at least that's been the case throughout 
>> written history; it may have changed in the last couple of years but I 
>> doubt it).

>What are you talking about? Through out history some of the grossest acts
>of inhumanity have been carried out in the name of religion.

    That may be true, however I still maintain that religion is generally  
a stabilizing, civilizing influence. From Mesopotamian agricultural temple 
communities onward, religion has played a major role in maintaining a 
status quo, and of reconciling individuals to their place in society.

>Did the presence of religious faith "stabalize" the Inquisition, the 100 
>years war, Witch Craze, etc etc etc etc?

    To a certain extent, yes it did. Individual acts of cruelty aside, 
the societal role of the church throughout the Renaissance was extremely 
profound. It's concurance with the idea that monarchs were ordained by God 
did a great deal to strengthen the movement towards centralized governments
(And aren't we glad *that* happened?).

    As individual balkanized city states were gathered under the rule of 
fewer and more central governments, the result was an increase in areas 
living under the relatively peaceful rule of law. In response to the peace 
came a corresponding increase in trade, population, and (at least for a 
while) standard of living.

    It's important to bear in mind what was going on in Europe during 
the time that the above atrocities took place. Diseases like plague, 
typhus, and tuberculosis were in the process of wiping out between 50 
and 70 percent of the population of Europe; the survivors appear to 
have suffered from the strain that these inexplicable deaths placed 
on the social order. It's unfortunate but true that their reactions 
were not always of the most rational or compassionate nature, but I 
don't think that it's appropriate to blame religion for the admitted 
problems without also giving it credit for its successes.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:02:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec30.195911.18349@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>Yes, I have heard of that study, but the researcher was a gay with an 
>admitted bias.

    Admitted to whom?

    If you think that a scientific study's results are biased because of
the sexual orientation of the researcher (also please tell us how you know
that they're gay), you condemn the integrity of the investigator with no
cause.
 
>You'll have to try harder.

    I've already done better than your "feeling" that children raised by
gay parents are more likely to become gay.  It's your turn.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: bush should be impeached,for the pardon of the good old boys!!!
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:05:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa



(schaefer)
>The pardon is the biggest screw job done on the american public in
>twenty years.We can only hope bush is the last republican president.
>             happy new year to all
>             Ted Schafer
>p.s. If charactor matters so much,I think we picked the right guy two
>     months ago.


/(krueger)
/NO! NO! NO!

YES! YES! YES!
See; we can all use capital letters and exclamation points.


/(krueger)
/The biggest screw job done on the american public is the $35 million that 
/Walsh has spent on the investigation over the last several years, even 
/though Walsh and all his spies could find no hard evidence.


"Find no hard evidence"?  

[1] Oliver North admitted to deliberately lying to Congress, and was
convicted of such, as well as obstruction of justice and several other
crimes.
In 1990, a federal appeals court overturned ONE conviction only, and sent 
the rest back to federal district court, instructing the court to determine 
whether the testimony of any witness had been influenced by immunized 
testimony that North had given Congress. 
And, what do you know?
Robert McFarlane stated that his testimony had been influenced by North's 
immunized testimony; making it impossible for Walsh to pursue any 
prosecution against North.  Imagine that.

[2] John Poindexter stated under oath that his own purpose had been to 
"provide some future deniability for the president".

[3] Walsh brought successful charges against CIA director Clair George for
lying to members of Congress and to a grand jury.  However, since the 
statute of limitations had run out, the charges could not be pursued.

[4]Casper Weinberger stated under oath that George Bush knew exactly what 
was going on in the arms-for-hostage deal.

[5] George Bush has changed his story on the subject no less than
five times.  

[6] Finally, Bush pardons these folks.  One of the little known things
about a presidential pardon is that in order to accept it, the beneficiary
of the pardon must plead guilty to the offense of  which he / she is 
being pardoned.  That is one of the problems that faced the Nixon 
administration; Nixon at first didn't want to accept the pardon because
it would have been an admission of guilt.  He eventually relented.

Krueger, I am afraid that the only thing we "lack hard evidence for"
is proof of your intellect.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Rush Courts the FAAAR Right
Organization: ILS
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:47:56 GMT

In article <nate.957@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>,
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> 

> 
>     Right, I saw that segment too. Believe it or not he may have had a 
> good point. When kids have nothing for moral guidance but a bunch of Rambo 
> movies it's not particularly surprising that they become acculturated to 
> violence. When was the last time in one of those hacker/slasher movies 
> when you saw anyone express even the slightest feelings of remorse over 
> all the people they've caused to assume room temperature? I would say that 
> Rush was basically correct that religion deals with the subject of the 
> soul, and I would also agree that religion can serve as a stabilizing, 
> civilizing influence on society (at least that's been the case throughout 
> written history; it may have changed in the last couple of years but I 
> doubt it).
> 

What  are you talking about?  Through out history some of the grossest acts
of inhumanity have been carried out in the name of religion.  Did the
presence of religious faith "stabalize" the Inquisition, the 100 years war,
 Witch Craze, etc etc etc etc?




> 

> Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
> Psychology Department               Indiana University
> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 30 Dec 1992 22:10:18 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> But as I was stating in my last posting, why did you bring it up?  We

Oh, I get it...the actual things to be discussed should be left up 
to you, and people who were already involved in the conversation that 
you were a latecomer to should check with you before expanding the 
conversation....thanks for explaining things better, Bil..:-)

> >You have an odd sense of fun..if someone were trying to intentionally 
> >twist what you say, you find that fun?  
> 
> I have already pointed out that you are doing that.....

Yes, so you say...and you find it 'fun'?  Sounds like a bizarre 
thing to derive enjoyment from, but I guess some people *do* love 
manipulation and hostility.   

> It is working for me....I mean I have others around me watching this
> converstation and we are just having a grand time with you!!!!

Glad to hear I'm keeping you entertained..:-) But if I do *too* good 
a job, I may have to start charging you for the entertainment services..:-) 

Walter
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:26:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec30.194545.8342@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.194703.3067@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) 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
>>|>
>>
>>What evidence do you have of this ?  And how do you dismiss the scientific
>>evidence that suggests otherwise ?  I would really like to know.
>>
>
>I have read the evidence that suggests otherwise and it is not at all
>conclusive.

     Do you have conclusive evidence to the contrary?  If not,
why are you so sure that your own opinion is correct?

				-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality