HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-Choice
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:55:24 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <1992Aug28.170919.20758@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.142403.1206@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:

>>Just as these people were able to get the Reagan
>>administration to halt funding to the UN for birth control in the third world 
>>they are now working in Mexico to end funding to that contries birth control
>>clinics.  In fact much, not all of course, of this debate should be redirected
>>to birth control in general. 

>Are you talking about real "birth control" clinics or "abortion" clinics?
>If you're talking about the former, would you care to cite a source
>for your information?  

Actually, Mr. Berry is referring to the Reagan administration's
decision to cancel aid funds earmarked for UNESCO, the educational and
scientific arm of the UN.  I don't have a specific source in hand, but
I'm sure the information was published in the _UNESCO Courier_, back
around 1982 or 83. I read it at the time, but I don't own copies.
Apparently, all money given to the UN by the US is kept out of UNESCO.
Probably doesn't affect UNESCO overmuch, since the deficit created by
lack of US funding can be made up by redistributing the funding from
other nations. Mostly a symbolic gesture, I'll warrant.

In point of fact, the Reagan (and subsequently Bush) administrations
have drastically reduced direct aid for population control, and have
withdrawn funds from many government-funded population/birth control
organizations. Again, no printed source handy, but I've been hearing
about the current administration's position over and over again in the
news media for the last several years (20/20 did a story on population
control and policy in Mexico not too long ago, although 20/20 is
rarely a balanced source).

I should point out that 'population control' is not limited to birth
control (it includes sex education, education of females, etc). It
does *not* include abortion, as all workers in the field of population
control know that abortions could not hope to stem the tide of
population growth. Contraception and education are the primary tools
of population control.

I can't really fathom the administration's decision to limit
investment in population control in other countries, but I can
speculate at some reasons.

1) Higher pop. growth rate means bigger market for US products, like
FOOD. Help the family farmer, and all that.

2) Bigger pop. (particularly in Mexico) creates a large, cheap labor
force, so US becomes more competitive in world markets. How about that
free trade agreement?

3) Population control in other countries has gotten a bad rep, and the
administration wants to distance itself from things like India's
mandatory sterlization program (even if the US is not directly
involved).
-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:43:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <21456@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>No, Fred, once again you've been caught lying.  Here is the quote from
>the article I am mocking.

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.

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.

I have spoken.
-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# I am sane. I am perfectly and completely sane. I shouldn't be in here     #
# at all. There's been a terrible mistake.                                  #
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.175818.7351@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep4.000241.22000@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.214809.15810@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>In other words, THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE for all the
>>>deficit spending we're doing.  Either he can control it (via veto and
>>>threatened veto) or he can't.  If he can, then he is responsible for
>>>the deficit.  If he can't, then there's no reason to reelect him.
>
>>Sure there is.  Will Clinton do any better?  If Clinton is actually
>>worse, it doesn't much matter how bad Bush is.
>
>CAN Clinton do any worse?  I'm not sure how.

One easy way is to repeat major mistakes that Bush has made.  Clinton
has chosen a slight variation on that plan.  He's doing more extreme
versions of those mistakes.

>>We've seen Clinton's plan.  It is a vehement version of the 1990 tax
>>increase and spending since then.  
>
>We must not have seen the same plan.

Sure we have.  Tax increase on the rich and increased investment.
That's how Clinton presents his plan.  It happens to be a mild version
of what Bush and Congress have done since 1990.  The 1990 version was
a mistake; the Clinton plan is to go further in that direction.

>>Bush MIGHT go for that if it was
>>proposed, but Clinton WILL.  If you think that more of the same is a
>>good idea, vote for Clinton.  If you think that more of the same is a
>>bad idea, then the only chance you've got is a vote for Bush.
>
>So you're of the opinion that the way to get change is to stay with
>the guy we have now?  In other words, the way to get change is to not
>change?  I don't THINK so . . .

No, my opinion is if that if we don't like the direction Bush took in
1990, we'd be stupid to sign up with someone who wants to go further
in that direction than Bush went.

>Yeah, let's go for the guy who is going around handing out presents
>(we got one here in our area) and who says he'll cut our taxes but
>doesn't want to tell us how it will be paid for.

Change "presents" to "promises" and you have the Clinton campaign.
Bush thinks that he blew it in 1990; Clinton disagrees, he thinks that
Bush didn't go far enough in 1990.

If you liked the 1990 tax increase and spending plan and want more of
the same, to go even further in that direction, Clinton's your obvious
choice.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:51:38 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <AfEAr*tU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.194928.29699@technology.com>, Richard Murphy writes:
>
>> In article <WC+yr*iS0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >
>> >He (Bush) simply did not have enough votes to overcome the
>> >Liberal Democrats who controlled Congress.  
>> >
>> >
>> As usual, Jim, you've swallowed this one hook, line,and sinker. Several
>> articles I've read over the weekend point out that there is NO correlation
>> between the amount of legislation passed and the the fact that the
>> President and Congress are from different parties. Latest examples are
>> Nixon and Reagan....
>
>I wasn't referring to the amount of legislation passed.  Bush and Reagan could
>sign LOTS of legislation as long as they signed what the Democrats passed. 
 Your point is irrelevant.

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

No, Jim, YOU missed the point!  There are leaders and there are whiners.
Which do you think George Bush is?
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:43:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Aug27.163811.63@turtle.fisher.com>, dienstbier@turtle.fisher.com writes:
> In article <BtnIEB.6q1@rice.edu>, evan@is.rice.edu (Evan R. Wetstone) writes:
>> In article <1684FFE26.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>>>
>>>Inspiration?  I take it you're Baptist, then? :-)  Actually, I find
>>>religion a tad ridiculous in matters of multicultural politics.
>>>
>>>An example -- Jewish religious law REQUIRES an abortion in cases where
>>>the health, physical OR psychological, of the mother is endangered.
>>
>> Ahh, but you see, the religious right favors freedom of religion, as
>> long as it's theirs.
> 
> Freedom of religion does not mean that you are free to do as you please,
> whether it is against the law or not. If the society in which you live has
> decided that an action is not legal, you cannot simply claim "my religious
> law mandates this", then cry violation of religious freedom.

	Actually, you can is some cases...

> I'm sure that there are religions in this country which require animal
> and/or human sacrifices be performed.

	Yes, if you can find a human that is honestly willing to be sacrificed,
therefore you would not be violating their rights, and preventing them from
being sacrificed actually *would* be a violation of their religious freedom!
 :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Lottsa smiley's for the humor impaired :-) :-) :-) :-) 

	Okay, if your talking about what could be considered a "lunatic"
fringe religion.  But Evan is right, the religious right doesn't care as long
as it's not their religion!  There are people that try to outlaw "immoral"
acts, but is not immoral in the eyes of those that participate.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:13:04 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug25.224342.24882@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.172229.15958@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>        Hey, sorry for the insinuation. It is discussion, then, when
>you call JFH "little boy", "asshole", or "flea"?

Sorry, I must correct.  It was "total asshole", I believe.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:42:05 GMT
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX

In article <1685513A1C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
> Yeah, I liked to think, too.  I still do.  I presume you don't, thus
> the disapproving quotation marks.  I found it hard to keep logic intact
> when presented with a holy text so riddled with idiocies.

When reading the Bible, and in particular all of the old "laws", it is
insightful to try and figure out WHY the particular "law" was written
and WHAT it is trying to address.

For example, if your brother's wife dies, you have to marry her and raise
your brother's children.  Right?  Well, what if you just help your
sister-in-law and children out and skip the polygamy part?

The proverb goes that you shouldn't patch a threadbare piece of clothing
with new cloth.  Well, what if you use an iron-on patch on the inside of
the garment so that stiches don't pull through the threadbare fabric?

The problem with adultery and many other forms of behavior that were
condemned in the Bible is that the RESULT of that behavior has not been
disposed of, as it has with pork, mixed fiber fabrics, and worker's
rights.  Sleeping around STILL results in diseases, some of which are
relatively new, others which have been around a while longer.  But if
you cook pork thoroughly, mend clothes properly, and obey Federal Fair
Labor Act laws, all of those old Biblical laws can be ignored.  They
were not intended to be "laws" in the sense of "Do not exceed the
speedlimit" so much as "Change your oil regularly so your car will last
longer."

Remember what Christ said - there are only two laws, Love your neighbor
as yourself, and Love your God with all your heart.  Pork and poly-cotton
blends have nothing to do with either.  Not spreading sexually transmitted
diseases does.
-- 
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: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:24:00 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <AfEAr*tU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>I wasn't referring to the amount of legislation passed.  Bush and Reagan could
>sign LOTS of legislation as long as they signed what the Democrats passed.  Your
>point is irrelevant.
>
>
>                                                Jim Pritchett
Nonsense, Jim. Do you think the "liberals" cooked up all the stuff that
Reagan wanted? How DO you explain the fact that both Nixon and Reagan got more
of their bills through Congress than Bush? How do you explain why the
American people seem to keep a good majority of congress on the "liberal"
side of the fence? Fortunately, most folks realize that "liberal" is just
a code word for anyone who disagrees with the Republican ideology...
From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 30 Aug 92 07:04:14 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <16852E3F2.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
 
>        No.   That's not at all correct.   The  "religious right"
>has much the same theology and ideology as the  "founding fathers".
>The latter is weakening because the schools don't teash history like
>they used to.   (actually,  both are weakening because churches don't
>teach theology like they used to)
 
Yes, and the 'founding fathers' were the same ones who didn't give
women the vote, counted blacks as three-fifths of a person, sent the
American Indians on countless 'Trails of Tears' and through countless
broken treaties....  This is meant to reassure me?
 
(By the by, I appreciate the different mores they lived by -- I HAVE
studied history.  But let's not make them out as paragons of virtue.)
 
Joseph L. Lockett
jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4582 houston.general:955
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,houston.general,rice.politics
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:11:48 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug26.235605.16972@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>In article <exuptr.173.714782950@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>>That's a cop-out argument -- the point here
>>>is to prevent that misery, not to fix the blame (more 'pro-life' cant?).
>> 
>> Bull.  My point was clear in the context.  We are quite capable of providing 
>> for children as a society.

>        Bull, yourself.  

That's pretty clever.

>If it were that simple, we would be doing it. 

I never said it was simple, only do-able.

>BUT NO, there are politics involved, religion to consider, racism and 
cultural

>heritage to deal with.  Sure, playing a flute is simple too, just blow into 
one

>end and move your fingers over the holes.  Shit, sometimes I'm not even 
sure

>we are able to provide for *ourselves* as a society, much less 
some fetus,

>what with the current state of affairs...

Cop out # 372.  What people are really saying when they say this is that 
they don't want to miss "MARRIED WITH CHILDREN".

>        You see, there are so many people that insist that they know how to
>do it right differently, that we end up doing much less than is possible.

Kinda like the allies put down the Third Reich?  You see, if you're serious
enough you can get it done.  You're either part of the solution, or part of
the problem.

>This is an imperfect world, and every now and then something will happen that
>just doesn't sit well with you.

Tell me about it.

>> I want to ban them BY CHOICE, not by law.  How about obsolete?  I like that 
>> word.

>        I will agree with that, as long as you agree to put your efforts into
>make the choice unneeded, rather than making it illegal...

It's in there.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Sanger (was Re: Anti-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion)
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:28:02 GMT
Organization: Rice University

Pardon the change in subject line: we seem to have spawned a parallel
thread.  In any case...
 
cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>
>dirk@spacsun.rice.edu (Dirk Valk) writes:
>
>> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>> > My point was that her philosophy still has had significant affect upon the
>> > direction of Planned Parent hood even to this day.
>>
>> Excuse me, but how exactly does a 'philosophy of hate for the poor'
>> translate into a directed effort to provide cheap, available birth control,
>> gynecological services, and free HIV testing?  Not to mention sexual educatio
>> Are you really suggesting that Planned Parenthood exists to carry out some
>> sort of economic genocide?  Get a grip.
>
>I've quoted sources showing under what philosophy Sanger organized Planned
>Parenthood.  It's in your ballpark to refute it. A "philosophy of hate for
>the poor" translates exactly into 'providing services' targeted to the poor
>with the intent of causing those people to limit their progeny.  "Get a
>grip."
 
And I say again, it DOES NOT NECESSARILY MATTER what the founder's views
of an organization were.  The William Marsh Rice Institute was founded
for "white male residents of Harris County, Texas".  That has changed,
as I don't think this University is part of any grand Aryan agenda.
The Democrats and Republicans have dosie-doed around the liberal and
conservative positions for over a century -- Republicans haven't always
been 'conservative' (remember Lincoln).  The United States was founded
on the premise that slavery was acceptable, and Negroes counted as
three-fifths of a person.  As you rightly pointed out, that, too, has
changed -- but you didn't make the obvious cognitive leap to your own
argument.
 
Fine, Sanger may have been a eugenicist (I will listen with interest
to a man who dares to contradict the New York Times (-: ).  Fine, her
original organization may have spawned Planned Parenthood.  But I'm
going to want to see some more evidence that the group is involved
in some grand voodoo-hoodoo Aryan Supremacy Neo-Nazi confabulation
before I believe your charges.  Historicism is interesting, yes,
and perhaps even relevant, but you need to provide some information
about Planned Parenthood's CURRENT Evil Plans to Subvert the World
to fully make your case.
 
The ball is in your court, Mr. Winemiller.
 
Joseph L. Lockett
jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-Choice
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:52:33 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <la552dINN7dr@deimos.cs.utexas.edu> siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian) writes:

>Hmm. Do you have any references on this alleged mandatory
>sterilization program? The only one I know of was a secret program
>during the Emergency era in the 70's which, when it surfaced, was one
>of the main reasons for the collapse of Indira Gandhi's government in
>the 1977 elections. I don't think anyone has tried anything like that
>since then.

Well, the facts on the Indian sterilization program come from a CNN
documentary called (I think), 'The People Bomb'. I didn't pay close
attention to the dates involved. I suspect that the truly mandatory
sterilization ended some time ago (maybe as long ago as 1977, as you
suggest), but India's continued attempts at encouraging voluntary
sterilization were brewing considerable unrest. For example, the death
rate due to surgical complications from poorly administered
sterilizations was staggeringly high (among women), something like 30
per 1000. (I thought was incredibly high too.) You probably have
better information than I do.

As a side note, I was referring to the fact that Reagan and Bush have
been trying to distance their administrations from population control.
Reagan was elected in 1980, so scandals in India in the mid-70s may
have greatly influenced his decisions about population control policy.

>Maybe you meant China?

I don't know enough about China to say what's going there. If you have
more info, please post it.

>Siddarth Subramanian          INTERNET: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu

-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
#                                                                           #
# I am sane. I am perfectly and completely sane. I shouldn't be in here     #
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:39:41 GMT

In <21444@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.220001.2595@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>"Socialist" media? This sounds like the communists are coming.
>>When the election comes around, look at who your local newspaper
>>supports. Look at who it supported in 88'. Time will prove you 
>>wrong.

>Newsweek or some other magazine did a report on which candidates
>the media supports.  The conclusion was that while they support
>both sides, they support the left about 4 to 1, measured in terms
>of dollars.

What does this statement mean?  What are we measuring dollars OF?  Net
worth?  Advertising revenues?  Circulations?  As given, the statement
doesn't mean too much.

[Newsweek *or some other magazine*?  Oh, come now, John!  This is
hardly up to the standards of citation you demand from others.]


-- 
"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.