HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 07:40:29 GMT
 <1992Sep06.202709.28349@NeoSoft.com>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep06.202709.28349@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:

> In article <hZ7Dr*7X0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep01.051252.24415@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:
> > > Wrong.  The Constitutional Ammendment proposed by the pro-lifers would
> > > give no such provision for abortion to save the mother.  It's possible
> > > that some courts could interpret it that way, but it clearly on the
> > > face would seem to say that all abortions, for whatever reason, are
> > > illegal.
> > 
> > No, you are wrong.  The pro-life movement definitely does not favor prohibiting
> > abortions when the life of the mother is endangered.  In fact, you probably can't
>  
> Jim, the proposed pro-life ammendment to the Constitution doesn't say
> anything about abortions when the mother's life is endangered.  It's not

It is NOT approved yet.  If it is approved, it is almost certain to contain the
exception for the life of the mother.  Probably it will contain others.

> at all clear how the court would rule, since it would be required to
> consider both the mother and fetus equal.  Whether pro-lifers intend for
> it to be read that way or not, it won't matter once the courts get ahold
> of it.
>  
> Before you accuse me of lying you better learn to read.  I said that the
> Constitutional Ammendment provides no such provision to save the life of
> the mother.  Where is the lie in that statement?

I don't believe that the RNC wrote a proposed amendment, so how could you know
what is in the amendment?

However, my statement is accurate.  It is extremely unlikely that you can find a
majority of the pro-life people who would not make an exception for the life of the
mother.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:01:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep6.123643.12285@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
|> Taxing the rich won't really get much.  There aren't enough of them.
|> Most of the money in this country is in the hands of the middle class.
|> Uncle Sam wants YOU.  Not the rich guy.  He is the rich guy.

Exactly.  So why is Clinton trying to raise taxes on the rich?  Solely
to buy votes from the middle class.  It has nothing to do with the
deficit or the economy.

|> But assume Clinton will really only tax people making over 100k.
|> As soon as his inflation kicks in, it won't be but a few years
|> before every garbage man in town will be making 100k.

"As soon as HIS inflation kicks in"???  Does he have some secret plan
to raise inflation?  Exactly what is Clinton going to do that will
raise inflation?  Or are you just saying that because he's a Democrat?

|> Do you think he'll peg tax brackets to inflation?

HE won't set the tax brackets.  How come "poor George" is never
responsible for anything having to do with taxes, but Clinton, if
elected, is suddenly going to usurp all of Congress's powers?
Double standard anyone?

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (Long)
Summary: Round and round it goes...
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:00:51 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <exuptr.502.716165874@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <BuDH6v.9u0@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>Well, if you don't like the "worldly", you can always go somewhere other
>>than the world, I suppose...:-)
>
>Yes, or do something about it ;-)

Do whatever you want -- but keep it out of the laws of the land...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Brainwaves & John Hau
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:41:37 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <exuptr.522.716246389@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:

>Just what species do you propose a fetus to be?  I thought the life issue
>was the thing.  I didn't think anyone was actually going to try and say a 
>fetus was a different species until developed.

Rephrase this slightly to say that SEPARATE IDENTITY and life is the
issue. 

>I say a fetus is alive and human.  What do you say it is?  I'm not 
>interested in you telling me what it is not.

I say my appendix is alive and human (both true statements).  Does
this mean I can't have it removed?

-- 
"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: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525

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

JFH> The man who invented Deism was a zealous Christian.

   Sure, and the man who invented Christianity was a Jew, the man who
   invented Buddhism was a Hindu. And the man who invented the Ford was an
   American. What does any of this prove?

JFH> Next myth.

   The next myth is: John Haugh II emits human brainwaves...

JFH> --
JFH> John F. Haugh II

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the
Date: 10 Sep 92  2:56:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 


JP> Yeah, right.  That is why the KJV is adamantly AGAINST homosexuality and
JP> fornication.
JP> Did it ever occur to you that he did NOT care about it?  Many things
JP> authorized by
JP> kings never acquire the personal interest of the king.  Can you name
JP> even one
JP> instance of King James changing the translation?


   It would have been impossible for him to do so since the KJV wasn't
   translated from anything. It was no more than an attempt to update the
   laguage of John Wycliffe's English version, which was a translation of
   Martin Luther's German translation of the Bible. (to simplify the
   story...in reallity it passed through more hands than that, drawing
   much of its source material along the path from the Latin Vulgate,
   which was in itself a translation of the Greek versions of both the Old
   and New Testaments. (ie. not a direct translation of the OT, but a
   direct translation of the NT.) Please don't be offended if I recommend
   that you read a history of the English Bible. I suspect that you would
   find it fascinating, and it would rid you of a great deal of blind
   ignorance. (I didn't say STUPID, I said ignorant. It is clear that you
   simply do not know what you are talking about with regards to the KJV,
   since you make so many wild claims for it!)

JP>                                                Jim Pritchett

   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bible
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:56:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:

[Someone asked:]
> >> Who said Paul was divinely inspired?

[To which Chris Winemiller responded:]
> 
> >Well, the apostle Peter ... said:
> 
> >    Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our
> >    dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
> >    He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these
> >    matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
> 						       ^^^^^^^^
> >    understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Look Chris, you missed the most important part!   
> 
> >    the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.  (2 Peter 3:15-16)
> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >So Peter says that Paul's letters are Scripture, just like "the other
> >Scriptures."
> 
> So you are telling us that even though Peter warns against it YOU believe
> you have a full understanding of Paul's letters and are totally convinced 
> that you and only you have this knowledge.

(sigh) I was simply responding to the original poster's question: "Who said
Paul was divinely inspired?"  I gave the apostle Peter as a reference. That
is _all_ I have said.  I said nothing about the interpretation of Paul's
writings.  I said nothing about my own interpretation of Scriptures.

The subject matter was: which authority backed up the divine inspiration of
Paul's writings.  The subject matter was _not_ my interpretation of Paul's
writings or how (in)valid my interpretations are.  You have have made a
major, unwarranted jump in _subject matter_!  You have taken my simple
provision of a historical reference and turned it into "my" statement that I
am The Ultimate Authority on Scriptures.

Someone else responded to the same posting and accused me of using an
unreliable translation of the Bible when quoting the above.  (Actually I
believe he was injecting his personal belief that the Bible is some
corrupted bunch of writings.)  Don't people read what is said?  Or do they
simply wait for a chance to state their own opinions and projections with no
regard to the person with whom they allegedly debate?

Sheesh. I provide the historical evidence of someone else's statements
(Peter's) about the subject (Paul's divine inspiration), and I get blasted
for using faulty evidence and for claiming exclusive knowledge of the One
True Way to interpret the one man's writings.  This is my last posting on
this subject; it belongs in soc.religion.christianity anyway.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Pl
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:27:27 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <3309.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
>   Let's not forget John-boy's favorite SuperChristian and Founding Father
>   Thomas Jefferson, who carried on an extramarital affair with Sally
>   Hemmings, one of his slaves.

Wasn't Jefferson's wife dead at the time?

Oh, and I found this choice piece -

	"  Locke was for a brief period strongly influenced by the
	 conservative political views of Hobbes.  This influence
	 changed, however, after his association with Anthony Ashely
	 Cooper, the earl of Shaftesbury.  In 1667 Locke moved into
	 Shaftesbury's London home, where he served as physician,
	 secretary, and travelling companion.  A zealous Protestant,
	 Shaftesbury was considered by his contempories to be a
	 radical in both religion (he is known as the father of
	 Deism) and politics. "
		-- The Western Heritage (MacMillan Pub.)

Bwhahahhahahahahahahah!  The Father of Deism was a Protestant Christian
Zealot!  John Locke was a buddy of the Father of Deism!  Jefferson's
political and religious views are DIRECTLY tracable to John Locke!  Have
we now put to rest the false rumour that Deism and Protestant Christianity
are mutually incompatible?
-- 
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
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 22:53:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <7270@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep9.161208.11928@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> >More and more, every day in every way, GHWB does things that convince
|> >me that I will vote for a Democrat for President for the first time in
|> >my 20 year voting history.
|> 
|> ...and you will deserve what you get.
|> 
|> Unfortunately, I _don't_ deserve what I will get.
|> 
|> Prediction: In 1995, I'll have a line in my .sig that says, "Don't blame me -
|> I voted for Bush!".
|> 
|> ...that is, if I still have a job.

And what will your Bush vote buy you besides more of the same?  Does
anyone really believe that voting for Bush is going to change
Congress?  Does anyone really think that Bush has suddenly grown a
spine after all these years?  Do you think George Herbert Walker Bush
even gives a damn about your job?

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (Long)
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:50:29 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <jKgEr*aY0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>Yeah, right.  That is why the KJV is adamantly AGAINST homosexuality and fornication.
>Did it ever occur to you that he did NOT care about it?  Many things authorized by
>kings never acquire the personal interest of the king.  Can you name even one
>instance of King James changing the translation?

No, nor does my position require it. King James did not have to explicitly
change the translation in order to have influenced it. The understanding I had
- from an Episcopalian priest - was that James commissioned the translation in
part to support Henry VIII's string of divorces, and to bolster their claim
that the Roman Catholic Church had strayed from the path.
-- 
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.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5080 alt.politics.clinton:4863
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 11 Sep 1992 04:59:26 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <21489@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>Except that you didn't count Carter's last "year" - 1982.

Reagan's 1983 unemploymet was the same as his 82:
ALSO 9.5 %. Basically you just blame
Carter for every year possible. He lost in November 1980. By 1983 
Reagan should be taking the blame.

>Again, Reagan's "High" is 1982.  Sorry, but bills aren't passed through
>Congress and implemented in zero time.  1982 still belongs to Carter.
>As for taking an average, that's bunk.  If someone takes a perfectly
>sound economy and after the end of 4 years turns it into shit (which is
>what Carter did), you don't give him credit for 3 years of good times.

And where would George Bush be under this rule? Heh heh.

andy
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (and Missing Parables)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:58:00 GMT

The UT Arlington types will recognize that the following comes from
a cartoon in the school paper (the Shorthorn, 9-16-92).

From the strip "TyPOS" by Dick Collier (9/10):

	Once upon a time, a minority man married a pregnant
	minority woman. He wasn't the baby's real dad, and
	people probably talked, which isn't unusual. The
	couple eventually had a bouncing baby boy. As the
	boy grew up, he sometime defied his parents. He
	challenged teachers.

	He was probably considered a problem child (which 
	isn't unusual, either).

	In manhood, he surrounded himself with unsavory
	types.

	He had his own gang!

	He hung out with known criminals and prostitutes
	and, well, other people you wouldn't introduce to
	your parents.

	His activities were deemed illegal by the authorities.
	He was condemned by religious and moral experts as
	a subversive. A threat to society.

	The law finally caught up with him. He was arrested.
	Tried and convicted. He was executed.

	"One thing about his life is certain... Although 
	Christ may not be a Democrat, there's noway he
	could ever have been a Republican..."

Amen.

   |
-- J --
   |     Stephen D. Tice   
   |     Arlington Texas
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (Long)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 06:51:31 GMT
 <7260@lib.tmc.edu>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <7260@lib.tmc.edu>, Jay Maynard writes:

> 
> In article <RraDr*fX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >King James was absolutely abominable.  However, he did NOT do the translation,
> >it was simply named after him because the translation was commissioned during
> >his reign.
> 
> I guess it hasn't occurred to you, then, that along with the royal commission
> to do the translation and the royal funds to finance it came royal
> instructions, overt or otherwise, or a royal viewpoint that was to be
> bolstered?

Yeah, right.  That is why the KJV is adamantly AGAINST homosexuality and fornication.
Did it ever occur to you that he did NOT care about it?  Many things authorized by
kings never acquire the personal interest of the king.  Can you name even one
instance of King James changing the translation?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Pl
Date: 10 Sep 92  2:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 

JFH> >   Thomas Jefferson, who carried on an extramarital affair with Sally
JFH> >   Hemmings, one of his slaves.

JFH> Wasn't Jefferson's wife dead at the time?

   Does it really matter where Jefferson's wife was? The point is, that it
   was an extramarital (outside of mariage) affair, not that he was
   cheating on his wife.

JFH> Oh, and I found this choice piece -

JFH>        "  Locke was for a brief period strongly influenced by the
JFH>         conservative political views of Hobbes.  This influence
JFH>         changed, however, after his association with Anthony Ashely
JFH>         Cooper, the earl of Shaftesbury.  In 1667 Locke moved into
JFH>         Shaftesbury's London home, where he served as physician,
JFH>         secretary, and travelling companion.  A zealous Protestant,
JFH>         Shaftesbury was considered by his contempories to be a
JFH>         radical in both religion (he is known as the father of
JFH>         Deism) and politics. "
JFH>                -- The Western Heritage (MacMillan Pub.)

JFH> Bwhahahhahahahahahahah!  The Father of Deism was a Protestant Christian
JFH> Zealot!  John Locke was a buddy of the Father of Deism!  Jefferson's
JFH> political and religious views are DIRECTLY tracable to John Locke!
JFH> Have
JFH> we now put to rest the false rumour that Deism and Protestant
JFH> Christianity
JFH> are mutually incompatible?

   Well, since Deism explicity denies the divinity of Christ, I would
   think that the two would be mutually exclusive. But if you can
   reconcile that fact, with your definition of Protestantism then its no
   sweat off MY nose. Frankly, I respect most Deists as much or more than
   most Protestants, so I don't mind at all if you want to believe that
   they are the same. Perhaps you should look at what Deism is all about
   before you make up your mind though... you might just be horrified at
   what you just claimed!

JFH> John F. Haugh II

   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:52:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <7268@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.160439.11761@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Let me get this straight.  All these ostensibly liberal newspapers are
>>almost perpetually endorsing conservatives for office?  What is there
>>about that 'logic' that just doesn't quite track, Jim?

>Actually, most newspapers' reporters and first-line editors work for different
>folks from those who write the editorials. It's not unusual at all for a
>paper's reporters to disagree with, and privately disavow, stands taken on the
>editorial pages. Given that, it's entirely possible for the paper as a whole
>to show a liberal bias and yet endorse a conservative candidate.

Possible, but I'd tend to consider it rather unlikely.  After all,
it's not those reporters and first-line editors who decide what goes
into print.  It's the folks further up who set editorial policy, and
it seems to me that it would be a great way for an editor to lose his
job; go politically diametrically opposed to the editorial policy of
the people running the paper.

-- 
"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:5164 alt.politics.clinton:5124