HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:25:54 GMT

In <1992Sep15.174908.23794@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep15.021156.19355@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.170104.6283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Fre writes...
>>>In article <1992Sep14.131935.5875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>In <21510@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>>Yes, but when you look at the whole picture, you will find that one of
>>>>the better things to do with your money is to invest in long-term
>>>>investments,
>>> 
>>>Haugh didn't write "long-term", he wrote "tax-sheltered".  Haugh
>>>currently makes long-term investments because they pay off.  He'll
>>>change to tax-sheltered for the same reason.
>>> 
>>Just some info to chew on. An important part of Clinton's economic
>>plan was to make tax credits for "long-term" investment.

>So?  Bush advocates a "I don't care where you invest it" long-term tax
>preference, called the "capital gains tax", and Clinton disagrees.

You have a flawed premise.  I believe that things like stock
speculation, paper profits from leveraged buy-outs, etc., would all
get favorable tax treatment under Bush's plan to cut ALL capital
gains.  There is no 'long-term' particularly required under Bush's
plan (unless he has changed it since I heard it last).

>Therefore, Clinton is pushing tax preferences for SELECTED long-term
>investment, lying and/or agrees with Bush.  Let's assume the first.

Since your premise is flawed, your conclusion is flawed.  Let's
assume, instead, that Clinton's plan only gives credits to money that
is left in place for over a certain amount of time (like 5 years).
Thus, you could buy stock in U.S. Steel, but you couldn't buy it today
and sell it next week for a nice, healthy paper profit that depressed
the market when the sales started.

>We've tried that; it was the pre-81 tax policy.  Political tax
>preferences are POLITICALLY rational, but Clinton has to argue that
>his long-term preferences will be ECONOMICALLY rational.  Considering
>the record, that's a hard argument to make.  Let's see it.

Since that's not what we're talking about, there's nothing like what
you're asking to see.  But then, what you're asking to see isn't
relevant to what we're talking about, not being able to show it to you
doesn't mean a whole lot.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 15 Sep 1992 21:59:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep15.210730.9905@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>Congress (not by law
>but by practice) uses the Presidential budget proposal as a working 
>draft.

Yeah, right. _Every_ budget Bush proposed was promptly pronounced dead on
arrival at Congress.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Certainly I can comprehend pre-beta.  Translations: 1. Alpha
             2. Microsoft marketing BS." -- Chris Waters
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5011 alt.politics.clinton:4711
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:56:53 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep9.165348.13134@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>I was under the same impression as Ms. Levy.  The Wichita clinic is
>one of the few IN THE COUNTRY which will perform 3rd trimester
>abortions.  Even then, the acceptable grounds for such abortions were
>pretty specific and restrictive.  Note that this apparent scarcity of
>clinics and doctors who will perform 3rd trimested abortions does not
>bode well for the provability of John's (so far) unsubstantiated
>claims that abortions are resulting every day in live babies which are
>subsequently smothered in rags.

Clinics in LA advertise that they perform 3rd trimester abortions
in the newspaper.

Next myth.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Li
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:30:31 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <3508.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)  writes:

>FJM> In <3306.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us
>FJM> (David Brooks)  writes:

>FJM> Uh, aren't "misdemeanors" also 'criminal'?

>   I may be wrong here, I'm certainly no lawyer, but I was under the
>   impression that lawbreaking wasn't considered "criminal" until it
>   constitutes a felony. I believe that misdemeanors are considered
>   "infractions" not "crimes". 

Hmmm, I never really considered the difference.  I just assumed that
anything they arrested you and put you in jail for was a 'crime'.

[I'm not from down here, either.  Is anyone really born in Texas, or
do new people just move in as the old ones dehydrate from the heat and
disappear?  :-)]

>   Any lawyers out there who could clear this up? I'd be really interested
>   to know exactly how "crime" and "criminal" are defined...

I'll try and remember to ask my attorney about this one, if somebody
doesn't clear it up for us.  He's not a criminal lawyer, but I'd think
this is something they'd have to know to get through law school.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5273 alt.politics.clinton:5570
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 23:14:30 GMT
 <Btyo7B.IK1@rice.edu>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <Btyo7B.IK1@rice.edu>, Ben Gamble writes:

> In article <mumble> troth@riceVM1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
> |        I *do* think,  though,  that endorsing or supporting the  family-
> |with-both-natural-parents-never-divorced  is a good idea.
> 
> Go on, don't stop there.  "...both-natural-parents-never-divorced-
> dad-out-paying-the-rent-mom-at-home-raising-the-kids"  We all know
> that's what you mean.  It's not like we haven't heard this song
> before.

So, Ben.  Tell me exactly how it is better for the children to have divorced
parents?  Is it better for the kids to spend more time with a babysitter than
with mom, so she can go be frustrated in workplace?  It is patently obvious to
anyone with a functional brain that the traditional family is the best way.  Why
should the government try to destroy it?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:59:28 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep4.154312.28167@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>It might be worth pointing out here that this whole pointless flamewar
>might never have happened if you, John, had not posted 'Fuck you' to
>Fred's sincere congratulations. Why couldn't you keep it to e-mail, or
>just do the mature thing and keep your mouth (keyboard) shut.

Rick - you just don't get it, do you.  Fred's congratulations WEREN'T
sincere.  It is one thing to disagree, which Jay and John and Peter and
many others do with me.  But Fred is just plain mean-spirited.  Fred
can't just have a difference of opinion.  No, he makes it into some
personal crusade.

For example, the discussion about me having Joe in my KILL file (which
honestly he hasn't been in quite a few months, that's how silly
Fred's protests were recently).  It wasn't enough to just say "Well, you
shouldn't announce that you have him in your KILL file." and be done
with it.  But when Daryl recently put Fred in his KILL file, what was
Fred's response?  Why, let's drag my name through the mud all over
again.

>Do you think you could both be good boys and take this conversation to
>e-mail?  I suspect I speak for many people when I say: I'M TIRED OF
>IT.

That's nice.  Now perhaps you can answer a question I've been trying to
figure out for weeks.  If two Aggies get divorced, does this mean they
are no longer brother and sister?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: adam@owlnet.rice.edu (Adam Justin Thornton)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:24:23 GMT
Organization: Milo's Meadow

Just a thought.

Though I can't find a particularly clear Biblical injunction against pre-
natal abortions (while Job speaks, in Job 10:19, as if he existed as a sentient
being before his birth, he several times also speaks as if his existence began
on "the day of my birth" (Job 3:3) ), there is at least one case in which
post-natal abortions are sanctioned.

To wit, Psalm 137, verses 8-9.  "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us--he who seizes your
infants and dashes them against the rocks" (*)  Whether this applies
specifically to Babylonians or to oppressors of the faithful in general 
(I suspect most modern readings of the text would adopt a position closer to
the latter), this at the very least specifies at least one situation in which
killing a human infant is celebrated as pious action.

* New International Version


Adam
-- 
"Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the
 stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud.  There is _always_
 something." -- Robert Penn Warren | Vote Cthulhu in '92! | adam@rice.edu
If Rice shared my opinions I wouldn't have this disclaimer | 64,928
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Brainwaves & John Haugh II
Keywords: foetus brainwave Gray
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:06:10 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.153327.13599@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>John, this is rather like my opening the hood of a car, showing you
>that there are no spark plugs, no fuel system, no air system, and no
>engine controls, and then you saying I haven't proven that the car
>won't run.  Well, perhaps not, but with that much stuff missing, what
>would YOU think?

Actually, you could pull out the
  * compressor
  * air cleaner (questionable practise)
  * power steering pump
  * second fan for A/C
  * freon radiator (condensor?)
  * headlights
  * windshield wipers
  * wiper fluid reservoir and pump
  * catalytic converter
  * various other p/c devices

and still start it up and drive away.  Just matters which parts you choose.
Now, who knows for sure what parts of the brain you need.  I would think
the most necessary and fundamental ones develop first.

>I thought it was obvious that a good part of HUMAN brainwaves come
>from the higher centers of the brain.  

Is it?  Why is it obvious?  Does this mean that lower animal's brainwaves
are different in some fundamental way?

>Those are the parts that simply
>aren't there at this point.  Hell, at 40 days, we're talking about a
>brain that can't even sustain autonomic nervous function yet, much
>less human brainwave function.  Electrical activity, perhaps, but
>READABLE HUMAN BRAINWAVES (what John Haugh asserted)?  Not hardly.

I think what is missing here is a common definition for READABLE HUMAN 
BRAINWAVES. 

>And that explain's Michael's "terse assertion".  It's simply something
>that's so obviously false that he can't imagine why anyone would
>believe it.

It is certainly not obviously false any more than you are the world's most 
accomplished neurosurgeon.

>Now, you may elect to not consider all this as 'proof', but it seems
>pretty obvious to me that you can't get readable brainwaves from brain
>parts that aren't even there yet.  

Well I'll buy that.  But what about the parts that are there?  I don't
think this thought experiment is very conclusive.

>And that's what you would have to
>do to get readable human brainwaves from a foetus at 40 days.  

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: "Socialized medicine" in Texas
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:18:25 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep15.120119.5350@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep14.143157.26616@novell.com> bboerner@novdpd.uucp (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>

	[stuff deleted]
>
>"Gee, we're sorry Mr. Jones, but we told you that if you continued to
>be gay that we would terminate your medical coverage.  Please check in
>with Graves Registration on your way out.  Thank you, and have a NICE
>day.  NEXT!"  
>
>"Gee, we're sorry Mr. Smith, but we warned you about premarital sex.
>Our tests show you have syphillus, which means you have violated our
>Righteous Health Lifestyle Guidelines.  Your medical coverage has been
>terminated.  Have a nice day, and please check with Graves
>Registration on your way out.  NEXT!"  
>
>"Gee, we're sorry Mr Doe, but our records show that you have been
>purchasing red meat and refined sugar products.  That's a violation of
>our California Holistic Purity Guidelines, so we have terminated your
>medical coverage.  We're sorry you had a heart attack, but you'll have
>to get up now so that we can give the bed to someone who conformed.
>Remember, dying is not allowed in the hallway or parking lot.  Please
>check with Graves Registration on your way out."
>
	These are great, McCall!
	
	[more stuff deleted]
>
>It's tough to tell someone
that you COULD save them, but that it's just too expensive so they
>should go home and die quietly.

	That, McCall, is the point of all the proponents of some
	sort of national health care!

	Lots of people in this country feel they have enough wealth
	to share with the less well off, without judging why they
	are less well off but understanding that we can't all be
	well off because that would be socialism.  These people
	don't love paying taxes; but their sense of fairness compels
	them to want to help. And their sense of reality compels
	them to believe that a reasonable and basic level of health
	care for everyone will improve the human infrastructure 
	of the country.


>		Judy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:53:50 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21494@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.171809.14019@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>It would be?  Why is that?  Jefferson was a Deist, not a 'Christian'
>>(in the way that people who want to dictate moral codes mean it).

>The man who invented Deism was a zealous Christian.

So what?  The woman who 'invented' Planned Parenthood was a
eugenicist.  That has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood today,
just as the ostensible fact that "the man who invented Deism was a
zealous Christian" has anything to do with Jefferson as a Deist.

>Next myth.

That John Haugh can stick to the subject in those cases where he
doesn't agree with what is posted or dislikes the poster, rather than
posting obfuscatory questions and sidetracks.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 23:12:52 GMT
 <16852D8AA.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> <BtyMLn.HtH@rice.edu>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <BtyMLn.HtH@rice.edu>, David E Boyes writes:

> In article <16852D8AA.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
> >>trimester abortions, which I confess I'm uncomfortable with.  But I
> >>don't see any problem with aborting a pregnancy in the first three months.
> >>The fetus is not a child.
> >        But, Joe, where's the line?   Medically it keeps getting
> >pushed back closer to conception.   And no matter where it is between
> >zero and nine months,  it's arbitrary.   Please, please, don't base
> >judgements on such random parameters.
> 
> The line that most of the concerned doctors I know draw is this:
> 
> If the fetus is incapable of surviving independently of the mother *without*
> mechanical assistance or significant medical procedures, it is not yet human.
> 
> To me, this seems to be an intelligent compromise -- admittedly,
> a relatively arbitrary point, but, I think, a reasonable one.

So, do you want to apply this logic to the critically ill?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:50:56 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21493@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.171414.13867@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>And does it show who picked the first one?  Of course not.  Still
>>short of context.

>You are asking me to prove a negative.  In order for me to prove
>that you started the first grammar flame, I'd have to re-post every
>piece of netnews you and I ever exchanged.  This is possible, but
>you could always claim that I was still short of context.  It is
>up to YOU to prove that I started a grammar flame before you.  You
>haven't, therefore I have proven my point.

Oh, I see.  *I* have to prove the negative that you insist it is
unfair for you to prove (and you assume that I keep scads of old news
around for the sheer joy of leafing through it -- I don't; I have a
life, instead).

>Next myth.

Myth Jeanne Frederick

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:06:10 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep15.113359.5005@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <21502@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>According to a piece of KLBJ, 0.1% of all abortions are performed in
>>the third trimester.  With 1,700,000 abortions annually, that's 1,700
>>abortions after week 26.  Viability these days is 1 pound, or 20 weeks.
>>So, add a few more fractions for weeks 20 to 26, and we are up to
>>my "several a day."
>
>And what is the survival rate for 'viable' babies who are born at 1
>pound birthrate?  I suppose that if one didn't arrive at "several a
>day" by putting the 'viable' weight at 1 pound, one could always drop
>it to 15 ounces, right?  

OK.  I have a plane to catch in 45 minutes, so this is going to be
real quick.

One pound is not a third trimester weight.  It is a second trimester
weight.  Based on the survival rates for infants with third trimesters
sizes, etc., those 3 and 4 pound aborted "fetuses" are CHILDREN.

Right now - at 20 weeks into her pregnancy, our child is rapidly
closing in on the one pound mark.  Jeanette still has 20 more weeks
to go.

>Besides which, this is deduction, not 'proof'.  Still awaiting that
>well-documented proof.

Uh, if the facts are sound and the reasoning is sound, a "deduction"
=is= a proof.  Again, Logic 101.

>Ah, I see.  The "smothered in a pile of rags" has now become
>metaphorical.  Why is it that I think contentions like this one will
>become more and more "metaphorical" and more and more easy to 'prove'
>as the insistence for that non-existent documentation of such
>occurances continues?

Some of the children are tossed into heaps of rags.  Others are left
to die in the scrap bucket.  Er, make that "biological waste container".

But see, they all "die".  Whether they actually die in a rag pile or
on the floor in a garbage can ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1992 07:57:47 GMT
 <1992Sep2.210243.3999@pony.Ingres.COM> <1992Sep3.235448.24889@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep3.235448.24889@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806 writes:

> AMA is American Medical Association.
> 
> Rich Doctors.  (That should make your liberal mouth water,) They
> control the number of entries allowed into medical colleges.  Fix
> prices and the supply and demand of medical labor.
> 
> They fix medical labor costs, which are the largest portion of medical

Untrue.  Doctors charge whatever they choose (limited mostly by what they can get
insurance companies and individuals to pay.)

> care costs.  American Doctors make much more than doctors in other
> countries.  They are a powerful political lobby group.

American doctors are better trained than doctors from most other countries.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp