HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:49:58 GMT

In article <LARRY.93Jan8110905@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
| >>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:03:31 GMT, wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) said:
| Will> Well, Miss Chelsea Clinton will avoid going to public school
| Will> this year by virtue of her parents' money and connections.
| Will> As Mr. Limbaugh pointed out today, Gov. Clinton opposes
| Will> school choice for middle and lower class people, but not
| Will> members of his own economic class.
| 
| Hmmm. Did Clinton oppose school choice for anyone? If so, when? 
| 
| I believe he does oppose the idea of having parents send their children to
| a non-public school and receive a voucher to transfer public school funds
| for this purpose.

He therefore opposes school choice.

| There is a big difference between being free to send your children to a
| private school at your own expense (school choice) and doing the same with
| public school funds to subsidize it through vouchers (school choice,
| according to Limbaugh and company).

This is a bogus distinction.

Once the vouchers are transferred to the parents the money is no longer
public funds.  They aren't ``public school funds'' anyway until designated
as such by the appropriate authority.  Now, as an employee of the national 
government, Governor Clinton will pull down a cool $200K paid to him 
directly from the treasury of the United States.  Will these be private 
or public funds?  Do you argue that social security recipients should 
not be permitted to contribute any of their social security money to the 
church of their choice?  Should food stamp recipients be prevented from
using food stamps in church-related grocery stores?  Can welfare recipients 
give any money to their churches?  Drawing the line at ``education'' is
as arbitrary as it is transparent.


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:33:26 GMT

goff@intruder.navo.navy.mil (Victoria Goff) writes:

>The lessons of the bible are clear, when mankind refuses to obey God and
>when man changes wrong to right, at some point in time, God's mercy
>runs out and wrath begins. The time for theology has run out - if you
>do not know God ie you have not prayed and asked Christ to save you,
>then you simply do not know God. If you knew God, you wouldn't question
>what He thinks about abortion and homosexuality, you would know because
>you and He have a relationship with one another.

Strange.  Many people who claim to "know God" have conflicting
opinions about what "He thinks about abortion and homosexuality."  The
question that comes to mind is: Who's right and who's wrong?  I'm
certain that they're all sure of themselves.

>Disclaimer: My opinions are my own.

Thank God. ;)
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
From: Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 7 Jan 1993 19:45:46 GMT
Organization: ASC-Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: asc438.asc.slb.com

In article <tinkess.726424634@cambridge>, tinkess@cambridge (Randall
Tinkess) wrote:
> 
> I see no advantage to putting a member of the first family at risk to
> satisfy conservative whiners. And if you don't think there is any risk 
> I suggest you look closely at the D.C. school system. 
> 
> The school crisis in this country will not be solved nor changed by 
> where Chelsea Clinton studies. 
> -- 
The school crisis will only be solved when parents get INVOLVED in their
children's education by:
  1. volunteering their time and talent to the school (public or private)
  2. stressing to the children that education is their investment in their
     own futures.  I push my own kids to excel in everything they attempt.
     Do they always excel?  No, but they always try their best.
  3. monitoring the school board activities and decisions, offering their
     suggestions for improvement, and demanding measurable results.
  4. joining their local PTA or PTO and getting active in that
organization's
     efforts at improving the conditions for children.

It's very easy to stand on the sidelines and point fingers at the education
system.  Getting involved in the education system takes a lot more energy
and committment, from both educators and parents.  It's not always easy to
gain entry in to a school where the thought process of education excludes
parents.

Here's an idea that we have successfully implemented at a high school in
Austin: I call it Career Night: All Year Long.  It allows for interested
professionals and business people to contribute used trade journals and
business publications to the high school library.  This exposes the
students to the state-of-the-art for a variety of industries and
professions.  The teachers are often so busy working on assignments, they
can't keep current with what's happening in industry.  So these
publications are a precious resource for them.  And it reqires very little
from the giver....

Please consider volunteering in your local schools to make a difference in
the children's lives.  Some kids desperately need a "mentor" to give them
that boost of encouragement to succeed.

So whether it's public education or private schools, only our apathy as
parents can be blamed for the condition it's in today.  GET INVOLVED TODAY!

treble@asc.slb.com "My humble, but accurate, opinion does not necessarily
reflect that of my employer. I get full credit for my insightful and witty
comments!"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13523 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12115 alt.politics.clinton:19993 alt.politics.bush:15772 alt.politics.homosexuality:9290
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: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:07:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan7.190606.16264@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.212615.9029@asl.dl.nec.com>
>dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>>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).
>
>Presumably children should be taught facts, whether or not they should
>be taught values.  According to some definitions of "normal", that
>homosexuality is "normal" is simply a fact.  According to other
>definitions it is not a fact.  Probably it would be best not to use
>such a loaded and confusing term at all, but do you really think it is
>best not to teach factual information to students of an appropriate
>age?

No.  I think that some things should never be addressed in public 
schools.  I do not, for example, think that it is ever correct to 
teach children about having sex with farm animals (which has been 
done in some Planned Parenthood books designed for use in public 
school sex-ed programs).  In addition, I do not feel that students 
should be taught that prostitution is acceptable by their public 
school teachers (this is done in some very widely used sex-ed books).

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13707 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12322 alt.politics.clinton:20141 alt.politics.bush:15831 alt.politics.homosexuality:9398
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:31:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan12.153211.28483@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>I believe there are some references to this in the book ' Why Johnny
>can't tell right from wrong. by Kilpatrick'. Check it out. My copy is
>currently loaned out so I wasn't able to confirm it. 95% certain the
>information you are looking for is in the first 3 or 4 chapters, with
>references in the back.

As the person who is incredulous, I don't feel it incumbent upon me to
go looking in 3 or 4 chapters of another book which might contain
the information I am interested in. Since Krueger is the one
attempting to persuade, then it is incumbant upon him to provide
persuasive evidence.    I don't want to look at Kilpatrick's
book, I want to order a copy of the Planned Parenthood book so that
I can judge for myself if the information is correct, or distorted.
I don't have time to go on wild goose chase (which, since the original
reference is to sex with barnyard animals, is an appropos turn of phrase?).
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:59:45 GMT

In article <1ihlbiINNcq1@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>It's more a matter of how the cycle of life works in nature; sex 
>is the veichle that keeps the cycle of life going.  It is an instinctive, 
>"natural" part of nature.  

So is murder.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:43:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.194233.8290@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.210630.19156@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, 
>>
>>Source please.
>>
>>Ted
>
>When I was in junior high school debating class I found that trick to be
>very useful, especially when I didn't have a good rational arguement
>with which to respond.
>
>But it would be jumping to conclusions to assert that this is what
>Ted is doing (at least in this case).  So I am awaiting Ted's reasoned 
>rational arguement, and the end of rhetorical tricks, with bated breath.

Ah, and I remember on a Get Smart Episode where I knew you thought I
was gonna say what you thought I knew you said I thought, you know?

In short, your tactic is meta-bullshit, even if Ted is guilty as implied.

And itsn't it with 'baited' breath?

At any rate, let's see your sources...

>Gosh this is sooooo exciting!

It's almost as much fun as watching a Jack Wrangler movie!


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Keywords: SEE FOLLOW UP
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:53:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

PLEASE do not continue this discussion in alt.politics.x any longer.  The
more political aspects have dropped out of your discussion for the sake of
religion and morality.  Note the newsgroups to which you are crossposting,
and edit them if you can see that the discussion no longer includes the
interests of those in the other newsgroups.

Thank you.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:02:40 GMT

Note followup-to: This thread doesn't have much to do with sex
or limbaugh anymore (did it ever?). talk.politics.misc and
alt.society.civil-liberty added...

In article <1993Jan05.220654.33157@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <C0EF49.DJz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
>|> Ok, let's say it was written to appeal to bigotry. How does it
>|> legislate bigotry? Does it force anyone to discriminate against
>|> homosexuals? 
>
>No, but it allows them to discriminate.  It prevents any law from
>being passed that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of
>a person's sexual orientation.  It's as simple as that.  So anyone
>charged with discriminating against someone because they are 
>homosexual can get out of it because the state constitution says
>that such laws are not legal.  

This is true. However, it still does not constitute legislating
bigotry any more than, say, re-legalizing drugs legislates
heroin use.

>We have laws preventing murder, rape and theft.  If someone passes
>a law making these laws illegal, instances of these crimes will
>rise.  It obviously ENCOURAGES bigotry.

A specious argument. A law against act Y discourages act Y.
Repealing this law does not encourage act Y. A law requiring or
offering a subsidy for act Y would encourage act Y.

If the sort of logic Jared Dahl uses above is widespread then
it is not surprising that theists who think their god condemns
homosexuality want laws outlawing homosexual acts. Not having
such laws would encourage homosexuality, and as citizens the
theists would be committing a grave offense against their god.

I think a problem with both the right and the left is that they
both see the law as the solution to all problems. Don't like
something? Pass a law!

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Columbus and Indians: Whats the point?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:15:40 GMT

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue) writes:
>: >Why does this subject get debated so much? 
 
>:     I dunno about anybody else, but I get a kick out of debating it 
>: because there are so many outrageous misconceptions on both sides which 
>: can be put to rest by refering to archaeological remains. 

>I have only gripe with the PC crowd...  Presenting archaeological remains
>as evidence is one thing, but the movement is attempting to rewrite history
>where there is no historical record (at least written).  

    I was browsing through a book about the history of art recently and 
one of the prominent artifacts they described was a small stone statue 
known as the "Venus of Wittendorf". It's a short, squat little number, 
obviously intended to depict a female form with very large bazoombas. 

    According to the text of the book this lady is supposed to be a 
depiction of a female fertility goddess (and as such is the equivalent 
of a religious artifact). The date of the statue was given as 25,000 -
30,000 years.

    Now I'm obviously no expert, because the first thing I thought of 
when I looked at their picture was *not* religion. I would have given 
odds that it was the result of some sort of paleolithic NEA grant.

    There are definitely gaps in our picture of history, and I would 
certainly agree that the interpretation of archaeological remains is 
sometimes indistinguishable from trying to spin a good yarn. If the 
archaeological record doesn't give us sufficiently juicy details we can 
make up something that sounds good. 

    That's one of my reservations with historians like Livy or Creasey 
who attempt to use lessons of history for moral instruction. Don't get 
me wrong, there are some great moral lessons to be learned from history, 
but when that's the historian's stated goal you may have to read between 
the lines to get a clear picture of what actually went on (the implication 
being that story-tellers sometimes "spruce up" their stories for dramatic 
effect).

>And when ANYONE tries to rewrite history, there's an alterior motive at
>work :)

    Even when history is written for the first time there are ulterior 
motives. Today's current events are tommorrow's history.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13018 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11531 alt.politics.clinton:19610 alt.politics.bush:15534 alt.politics.homosexuality:8962
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
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: 5 Jan 93 06:24:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
> Historians agree that western science was defined and structured by
> Christian concepts, beliefs, and attitudes.  Without Christianity, western
> science, as such, would simply not exist.  

Um, say what?   Christianity defined and structured concepts such as:

Aristotelian Logic, which was supressed by the church for hundreds of years?

Euclidian Geometry, by that great Christian mathematician, Euclid.

The atomic concept,  by that great Christian thinker, Democritos?

Zero, and the basic methods of calculating with place numbers (al-gorisme)
	by those fun-loving Christian moslems?

What little chemical knowledge that managed to survive the suppression by
	the Church,  known as al-Khemie,  once again those Christian Moslems.


Now I will admit that Galelio was certainly shaped by Christianity, as
was John Hull, and many other scholars of the pre-rennaisence period
who were burned as heretics for daring to try to explore science.
It was only after Luther weakened the hold of the church that scientists
were able to study science without fear of the inquisition and the auto-de-fe.

But you are right, Christianity probably did more structuring of Science
then I like to think about.  Without Christianity, the brief secular flowering
of the 8'th through 10'th centuries wouldn't have been squelched, and we
would have had the rennaisence 600 years earlier.  Gee Thanks a Lot!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:14:00 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) 

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

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

DB>|Dave

No, Dave. You cited the studies.  YOU post them.  "US government
studies" is a little vague, okay?  Which agency? Who commissioned
the study? Exactly what did it find? If you're going to cite these
wonderful studies as proof, please be a little more specific
if you expect anyone to believe you.
---
 . 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: dazlich@erehwon (Don Dazlich)
Subject: Rush in SouthWest US
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:51:24 GMT
Reply-To: dazlich@erehwon.atmos.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

I'm taking a trip and I need a list of the stations in Colorado, New  
Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah that carry Rush, and also  
the times. 

Please e-mail me, Thanks!

Don Dazlich

dazlich@erehwon.atmos.colostate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Gay Marriages (was Re: Your own words, of course != bigot)
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<C07sD3.3w5@NeoSoft.com> <1993Jan2.104939.17682@netcom.com>
	<1993Jan4.125617.21266@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:31:43

Greg Bradt writes:
>The best argument for gay marriages is that such life partners are not
>eligible for benefits that marriage partners get.  The best argument
against
>is that, since marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, to
allow
>marriages contrary to religious morality would be blasphemy.

The law under consideration here in Norway - which as far as i know is
virtually identical to the law already in place in Denmark - gets
around the problem very neatly...  Gay and lesbian couples can enter
into a contract that gives them all the "benefits that marriage
partners get" (except it will not include the right to adopt children,
at least not this time).  Each church can chose for itself whether to
allow a marriage ceremony, or some other form of blessing, for these
couples.  In short, it seperates the legal aspects of marriage from
the religious ones.  Such a seperation already exists, of course:
straight couples can get married at City Hall instead of in a church
if they chose.

Since churches that don't want to marry gay and lesbian couples, don't
have to do so... this law seems to answer your "best argument".

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway