HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 13 Sep 1992 06:52:54 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

Mr Haugh has informed me by e-mail that he reads 4000 words per minute.
Unfortunately (for him) when I analysed the "documentation" for his tax
fairness argument, I discovered that reading at such a great rate, his
comprehension suffers terribly.

As a review, Haugh claimed that the rich (which was defined for these
purposes as the top 1% of taxpayers) paid 200x what the poor (his
documentation showed this to be the entire bottom half) do in income tax
"per dollar earned". He said "per dollar earned".

As I keep pointing out, this is incredible. It implies that half of the
country pays less than 1/4 CENT ON THE DOLLAR in income tax. Haugh is so
happy about his purported high income, he doesn't stop to see how silly
this is. More accurately, he is so busy fighting the liberal Jewish
homosexual abortionist conspiracy which is taking an unfair
share from him while the undeserving poor get handouts
that he has become nearly deranged. Does anyone else there think that
half of America pays only 1/4 cent on the dollar in income tax? (I got
this figure by dividing the 31% maximum rate by the alleged ratio of
200.)

The number Haugh was trying to state is that PER CAPITA rich pay 200x
what the poor do. Well, that's why they're rich. They have more money.
It has been posted on the net (but I do not have the statistics) that
the ratio
    [*] taxes paid by rich per capita : taxes paid by poor per capita
has risen more slowly under Reagan Bush than
      income of rich per cap : income of poor per cap

Hence, using only ratio [*] as a measure of "tax fairness", as the
Republicans wish to do, is statistical fraud. If you don't believe me,
look at the tax structure of a hypothetical country where one man has
almost all the money and then takes even more. (Say, Zaire.)

andy

PS Haugh also sent me nonsense on my confusing median income with median
household income. None of this makes any significant difference compared
to his dividing statistics which are intended to be per capita
by amount earned. You may as well divide by the nearest zip code.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:34:30 GMT

In <21528@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <00716430161@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>>The way I see it, if a person is willing to work hard and work long, that
>>person should be rewarded for that work with reasonable health care and
>>an adequate diet for that person and her children.

>I believe that, if a person is willing to work hard and work long, that
>person should be rewarded with a new 486/50 DX with a 330MB SCSI, 64MB
>RAM, SVGA monitor and an Exabyte 2.3GB 8mm tape drive.

>Oh.  Health care is a "right".  I keep forgetting that basic liberal
>assumption.  Now, why isn't it that a nice computer isn't a "right"?
>I keep forgetting.

Because lack of health care, like lack of food, water, etc., will kill
you and lack of that computer typically won't?

[Hold out for a bigger disk -- 330 MB isn't enough; mine at home has a
1.2G Panther on it.]

-- 
"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: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:10:38 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep8.232145.21179@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>I have several comments.  First of all, the intent of the founders was
>indeed to stop the interference inherent in the state's meddling in
>church affairs and vice versa.  However, the intent of the founders
>was *not* to remove any semblance of religious belief from public
>officials.  In spite of his deist beliefs, Jefferson clearly articulated
>his opinion that a public candidate's religious beliefs should be
>taken into account when voting (does someone have the exact quote?  It's
>not in my quote file.).  
>
>Daryl
>
It's one thing to say that public officials should be ethical and if they happen
to base their ethics on a certain religion, fine. It's another thing to say there
should be some sort of religious test for politicians. How does one "take into
account" someone else's beliefs? How does one determine what the person believes?
What if it's different than what you believe? I find no basis to give
Christianity the moral high ground over Islam or Hinduism. All may believe in
God (or gods) as a source of moral inspiration. I'd like to see what Jefferson
had to say if anyone can turn up the quote.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Pl
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 23:52:05 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep8.181642.18961@technology.com>, richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:

|>                                                       I think the main point
|> is this: although many of the founders believed in God, they choose to
|> keep government independent of this belief. Hence our constitution makes no
|> mention of scriptures, Jesus, or specific holy persons. So the motto
|> "In God We Trust" applies equally to Christians, Jews, and those who follow
|> the teachings of Mohammed.

That motto has nothing to do with the founding of this country, as it
was created during the Civil War, and has been the official U.S. motto
for less than 40 years.  I take great delight in obliterating it with
a large black marker on most of the paper money that passes through my
hands, because that motto is a LIE.

-- 
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: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:41:38 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Sep7.051110.2316@cactus.org>, hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick) writes:
  
> I knew I had these around somewhere. It just took me a while to find
> them. I do hope they're not too late for all the fun...
 
Those were really amazing quotes.  Thanks for posting them.
-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:59:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

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!".
 
The 1996 election could be exciting if the Repubs can throw off the mantle
of the Christian fundie wing and nominate some interesting,
libertarian-leaning Republicans like William Weld (Gov. of Massachusetts).
Pro-choice with a strong sense of fiscal responsibility.  If he can clean
up Massachusetts, he can do anything.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 10 Sep 1992 14:22:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep09.230151.21511@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>Why should we give incentives for people to choose a particular
>profession?  I don't consider it to be a tragedy if an incompetent
>doctor leaves the profession.

How about if a competent doctor leaves the profesion because a jury that
didn't understand the issues thought he was incompetent?

I get nervous every time I climb aboard the ambulance...
-- 
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:4840 alt.politics.clinton:4159
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 5 Sep 92 16:45:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In <21424@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Every day children survive abortions only to be killed by the doctor after
>being born.  This is a well documented fact.  This is what "pro-choice"
>stands for.  The return of the right of infanticide.

Here's a clue.  You can't write things like this and still expect to be taken
seriously.  People will check to see who wrote this and then forever discount
what you have to say.
-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
From: gajit@owlnet.rice.edu (Ajit Kurian George)
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:04:22 GMT

In article <iyXwqB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
|> Well, the apostle Peter meets the preceding criteria.  He 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
|>     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."

Scriptures which ignorant and unstable people distort.  Even the KJV
Bible went through numerous translations.  Are we to assume these
people were not ignorant and unstable (read: biased)?

How then can one justify living by the literal word?  One has to
interpret and justify the Bible for oneself.  (One should justify and
interpret EVERYTHING for oneself, anyway.)

In any case, this is a circular argument, using words translated by
ignorant and unstable people to prove that they are possibly ignorant
and unstable.

  -Ajit
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:20:41 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <7298@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
>Subject: Re: Church and state again
>Date: 11 Sep 92 03:12:33 GMT

>In article <exuptr.504.716166010@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>>You're not into Scientology, are you?

>Ghod, NO!!! Gack.

>Actually, I agree with Heinlein when it comes to religion: "I don't know Who's
>cranking [the universe]; I'm pleased He doesn't stop."

I was _really_ worried about you for a minute ;-)

>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
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:42:13 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.132551.6046@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Please get a life, John.  You'll sleep better, your digestion will
>improve, and the rest of us won't have to read your continual flames
>and hyperbolic bullshit.
     ^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder if "hyperbole" can be used this way?  Hyperbolic normally means 
relating to a hyperbola, no?

Or are you talking about 1/crap?  ;-)

>-- 
>"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.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4908 alt.politics.clinton:4349
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:06:10 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep05.163911.28100@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>The unemployment rate was 4.9% in 1970, 8.5% in 1975, 6.1% in 1978 and
>7.1% in 1980.  It looks to me like under Carter we had a modest decrease
>in unemployment from 8.5% to 7.1%.  What data are you using?

Which war ended during the period 1970 to 1975?

What was the unemployment rate in 1981 and 1982 when Carter's policies
were still taking their toll?

Which war ended in 1990?

When you can answer those questions, come back and let me know.  Because
either we start another war and crank the economy back up (the oldest
trick in the Democrats handbag), or we grow ourselves out of this mess.

Besides, it would have been Ford's programs which would have led to any
unemployment decline from 1975 to 1978.  Carter was not president during
any portion of 1975, or 1976.  And certainly you aren't going to pretend
that the president has the ability to turn the economy on a dime?  It
usually takes 6 or 9 months for a fiscal or monetary change to even have
any discernable effect.  Witness the large number of monetary easings
and how slowly the economy has responded.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5045 alt.politics.clinton:4801
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:55:35 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep10.161239.34776@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>can conduct their businesses.  The answer to this is to remove the
>controls and let the market forces determine the prices.  Sending the
>bill to Uncle Sam is going to make matters worse, because then people
>will be running to the doctor for every hangnail they get, because
>it's free.

My impression was that health care is not a "normal" market.  You do
not have an informed consumer when you're wheeling a patient into the
emergency room.  It's not like he'll get up, and choose which
procedure he'd rather have, after making a cost-benefit analysis.
Further, you won't have doctors ignoring a gunshot victim, bleeding on
the street.  That person will be treated, whether he can pay or not.
I also believe that someone pointed out that slashing prices is, in
a sense, not competitive.  The doctor advertising cut-rate surgery
is perceived as incompetent, and won't attract business.

This aside, I do agree that we should have a kind of medical
technician that performs routine functions, such as hang nails.
Outside of something like this, free market forces on health care
would be catastrophic.


--
"I wish there was a way I could vote for you a hundred times"
"There is . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 16:01:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep10.000819.9854@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
|> I dare wager that a faw fewer percentage of Canadians have to
|> wait in health care lines in clinics and emergency rooms and 
|> a far greater percentage of Canadians have greater doctor choice
|> than Americans, if you include the uninsured and the underinsured
|> in the American numbers. 

Yes -- by design.  If you can't pay the bill, you're hardly in a
position to complain about waiting in line.  In Canada, EVERYBODY
waits in line.  This is progress?

|> The so-called private American system is as socialized as any in
|> the world...except it is a caste socialism, with immense subsidization
|> of health care for particular elite classes, and hardly any for others.

This is an interesting claim.  In what way is health care for the
elite immensely subsidized in the United States?

|> Canadians are not crossing the border in droves to receive care,
|> and although there are occassionally delays for elective surgery,
|> polls always show Canadians are among the most satisfied people
|> in the world with our health care system.

Sure...especially the people who aren't paying for it.  Why don't you
tell us what the taxes are like in Canada?

-- 
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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:02:03 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <rBhEr*hY0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Sep7.051110.2316@cactus.org>, Henry Velick writes:


>I shouldn't bother to answer this stupid posting, but...

>Ok, so you have 4 quotes against birth control (and a weird one from the fallen
>Rev. Swaggart.)  I suppose that you claim that is what all anti-abortion people
>think?

I doubt that he claims it is what ALL anti-abortion people think, but
I think he's made a pretty convincing argument that your comments
about how none of them think that were quite incorrect.


>> And now for my favorite...
>> 
>> "For those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say
>> just watch me."
>>                                          Joseph Scheidler
>>                                          Executive Director
>>                                          Pro-Life Action League

>Ah, what you fear the most, morality!

No, what I fear most, THE IMPOSITION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S MORALITY ON
EVERYONE.  What if someone thought the 'moral' thing to do was to kill
female babies and eat their parents when they died, and they wanted to
force that on YOU?

>[ moved from above]

>> "I don't think we should punish the criminal [a rapist] by killing
>> his child."
>>                                          Dr. John Willke
>>                                          President
>>                                          National Right to Life Committee

>Poorly worded, but the sentiment is reasonable.  He should have said something
>like "Why kill the child because of his father's crime?"

So you are opposed to abortion in cases of rape?  You would rather
force that woman to bear the rapist's child?  Note that the same
reasoning applies to incest, by the way.  Why 'kill the child' for the
crime of the parents?  Suddenly you're moving a lot closer to that
position you've claimed was never espoused in the Republican Platform. 

-- 
"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: gajit@owlnet.rice.edu (Ajit Kurian George)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:28:08 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <exuptr.483.716148645@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
|> >Some who oppose sex education, or who would change sex education,
|> >propose that:
|> > 
|> >1) Sex education, factual or otherwise, should not be in the purview
|> >of public education.
|> 
|> Maybe.
|> 
|> See the argument, I've heard, is that some (like myself) would like to 
|> teach my own kids on this subject.  But of course, some parents don't
|> do this well enough, and the state must pick up the slack.  Problem is, 
|> when the state picks up the slack for the facts, who gives the kids any
|> moral background?  If their parents have been neglectful of the subject, 
|> they probably won't get any morality information.  What to do about
|> that?
|> 
|> I'd like an option.  I'd like to be able to say "My kids will learn that
|> material at home", sign some paper and voila, they are not in public
|> sex ed class, but something else.  Parents who feel otherwise can do what
|> they like.  Kinda like pro-choice isn't it?

When I was in sex-education (we did it twice, fifth and seventh
grades) our parents had to sign consent forms.  Those children whose
parents didn't choose the school option went to the library.  I saw a
television show the other day where they did the same thing.

  -Ajit
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton