HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evan@is.rice.edu (Evan R. Wetstone)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:42:09 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1684FFE26.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) and I exchange:
>
> [many paragraphs of protracted, pugnacious pugilism deleted]
> 
>>I don't think religion is ridiculous anywhere.  But then again, you do have
>>to APPLY it with common sense, and a little inspiration :-)
> 
>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.  So
>banning abortions would constitute a violation of freedom of religion.
>Whither the religious argument now?

Ahh, but you see, the religious right favors freedom of religion, as
long as it's theirs.  They favor "family values", as long as those
values are representative of *their* families.  Listen to Pat Buchanan
if you doubt this.  Listen to George Bush, who mentioned our
"Judeo-Christian heritage" in his acceptance speech, and critcized the
Democrats for not having "God" in their platform.

George should study American history; the nation's heritage is based
upon escaping religious persecution and State sanctioned religions.
The religious right would have America back in those situations which
our ancestors fought to escape.



-- 
Evan Wetstone			
Network Support		Speaking for myself, and no one else.
Rice University
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4675 alt.politics.clinton:3606
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:22:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <bVcBr*rV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>I'm telling you again.  The deficit is MUCH LOWER than it would have been
>if a Democrat had been President!

This "argument" is as impossible to refute as "The Chicago Cubs would
have won the World Series if a Democrat had been President", but in view
of the fact that Jimmy Carter's deficits weregenerally much LOWER than
Reagan's and Bush's, could you explain again slowly why your claim is
plausible in the least?

>I agree that the deficit should be eliminated immediately.  The ONLY way to do
>that is by cutting spending - anathema to the Democrats (and they are the folks
>who control Congress.)

I am still looking forward to your list of where to cut spending and by
how much. Incidentally, you do recall that the GOP had control of the
Senate for 6 of those high-spending years and a working majority in the
House (counting conservative Democrats) for some of that, don't you?

andy
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Wrong 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:09:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.162922.29228@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Cu writes...
>jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht) writes:
>>>And also a large part of what caused the deficit to boom during the
>>>same period leading up to the weakening of the economy.  Also reduced
>>>investment in domestic economy.
> 
>>This is simply not the case.  In each of those years, tax revenues
>>dramatically increased.  If spending were set back to early Reagan
>>era levels, the current level of tax revenues would create a massive
>>surplus.
> 
This is from the US Treasury Dept., via the World Almanac, via a post 
from last night.

Tax revenue increases from 71-89  8.7%
Tax revenue increases from 81-89  7.6%

Your treasury dept. disagrees with you.

[Lots of meaningless giberish deleted]

-Garrett
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice C
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:00:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

paco@cs.rice.edu (Paul Havlak) writes:

> >In article <ggkXPB5w165w@keys.lonestar.org>
> >cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> >...
> >>Go review the guiding philosophy of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned
> >>Parenthood.  One of the fundamental reasons she founded the organization was
> >>because she hated the poor (and the minorities) who kept having children.
> >>She wanted those vermin to stop having kids.
> 
>     What's your reference on this?

From written notes compiled by a Dallas radio talk show host (with footnoted
references aplenty, only one occuring in this passage):

    In 1916, Margaret [Sanger] opened up her first birth control clinic,
    fashioned after one she had visited in Holland while she was still a
    fugitive from justice [having been indicted on Federal charges].
    ...
    The clinic was located in an impoverished area of Brooklyn, densely
    populated by Italian and Jewish immigrants whom she would later refer to
    as "human weeds" and a "menace to civilization."[1] The location of the
    clinic is important to note, as Margaret was not promoting birth control
    or abortion to white, middle class women, but to those she termed
    "inferior" and poor. This was consistent with the overall world view she
    developed in England...the superiority of white Anglo-Saxons. Today,
    Planned Parenthood still targets their clinics and educational programs
    in lower socio-economic neighborhoods.

    [1] "The Pivot of Civilization," Margaret Sanger, Brenlano's, New York,
    NY, 1922

It was in Sanger's travels in England (prior to the birth control clinic
opening aforementioned) that she was introduced to (and apparently agreed
with) the Malthusians and Eugenicists.  The Malthusians believed that the
survival of Western civilization depended upon the elimination of the
physically unfit, the poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior,
and the mentally incompetent.[2]

[2] "Grand Illusions," George Grant, Wolgemuth and Hyatt Publishers, Inc.,
Brentwood, TN, 1988, p. 52

The notes I have also indicate that in 1917 Sanger produced a magazine
called, "The Birth Control Review" with the slogan, "Creating a Race of
Thoroughbreds."

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy    (was Re: what the hell is HR 4983
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:48:06 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Aug31.200512.23339@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.142812.20723@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>WRT to the WoD, I'm interested in what you've got to say about that.
>>I personally am against it (and other laws outlawing now illicit
>>drugs) because of my r.t.p.
>>
>    What is "WoD"?  I have a devil of a time trying to figure out
>    all these acronyms -- wdytot*? 

Here's a quick list of the abbreviations I use:

BTW = By the Way
IMHO = In my humble opinion
WRT = With respect to
WoD = War on Drugs

Yes, it does get confusing.  Sorry about that.

Later,
Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Printed refs vs. 'I heard it on...'
Date: 29 Aug 92 14:57:57 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Aug29.013040.2193@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>Well, Fred, when you get ready to critically examine arguments and their
>bases, let me know.  In the meantime, into the ol' kill file you go....

	Off with his head! Hey, how's he gonna let you know if he's in
your kill file?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs youSELECT
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:35:25 GMT
Followup-To: tx.politics
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21418@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1171@shrike.com> tmd@austin.lockheed.com (Tom Davis) writes:
>>
>>They aren't made up -- take it from someone who was on the defense lines
>>in Houston last week (me).
> 
> I would encourage you to actually read a newspaper.

	Okay John, I know that you are a real stickler for published sources,
but remember that published sources come from reports from eye witnesses, and
here you have it direct from someone that was there, not third-hand from a
news rag.  Yet, the eye-witness has no credibility???

>                                                                    I do
> hope that you rot in Hell.

	Nice Christian attitude, and shows the love you would show someone
in a crisis that was going into the clinic for counseling...

> -- 
> 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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: reed@rd02waii.com (Michael Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: S&L mess
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:41:16 GMT
Reply-To: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical R&D

In article <1992Aug27.153529.6712@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes|> 
|> And don't forget that it was a few democrats in Congress in a midnight
|> session in a backroom, without a public vote, who changed the insurance
|> limit from 40k to 100k one day.  That raised the taxpayer's bill 250%
|> in all this mess.
|> 
|> Congress made the saftey net over twice as soft.
|> 

Actually, only recently did the Resolution Trust Company (the government
agency responsible for S&L bailouts) even start talking about the
$100,000 limit.  Up until now, they have been insuring EVERY DOLLAR
deposited in every failed S&L.  Not the $100,000 limit per individual,
but every single depositor dollar.  Write a letter to your congressman
about that one.

-- 
The above are my own opinions and mine alone.

*****************************************************************************
Dr. Michael Reed,
Western Geophysical, Research and Development Group
reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
(713) 964-6322                     FAX: (713) 964-6372
*****************************************************************************
From: TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice C
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:20:20 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <BtLs3D.3tB@rice.edu>
dirk@spacsun.rice.edu (Dirk Valk) writes:
 
>                          In order for evil to triumph, it is sufficient
>                          that good men do nothing.
 
        Excellent quote.
 
>                                        DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS
 
        Sorry to pick on you,  Dirk,  but that's the problem.
It should read,  "DEFEND YOUR FREEDOM".
 
        See,  freedom goes beyond rights.   We're so worried about
rights these days that we forget to watch our back door.  Freedom
is hard work.   I like that sig I saw a few days ago,  "Freedom is
eternal vigilence",  or something like that.   Jefferson?
 
        Freedom combines rights with responsibility.   And freedom
must always be defended.   And freedom means that you might have to
set aside rights from time to time,  but you usually take them back
up again and you *always* have Something Better.
 
Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Rice University, I/S VM Systems Support
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon)
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:24:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.222237.27913@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>In <1992Aug26.133703.1395@crd.ge.com> doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.173352.3184@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>>> Someone said:  "Passing out condoms encourages their use."
>>> 	What's wrong with that?
>>I said that, and have grown to regret it.  The words which best express
>>my intent are "passing out condoms encourages sexual activity." 
>>I still stand by that though I haven't had time to run to the library
>>to look up stats to back me up.
>
>It is possible (even likely) that passing out condoms encourages sexual
>activity.  However, not passing out condoms does not prevent sexual activity,
>and I'm willing to bet that passing out condoms creates a net drop in
>the number sexual "problems" that are created by sexual activity.  Things
>like VD, Pregnancy, what have you.
>
>Unless not passing out condoms stopped sexual activity, or unless passing
>them out had 0 impact on the possible ill-effects of sexual activity, I'd
>say passing them out was the better choice.
>-- 
>Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
>                     Life's a sham and every move is wrong
>                  We've examined every move as we move along.

Before we forget, let's take into account HOW the schools are distributing
condoms.  To say the schools are "handing out" condoms is misleading; one
visualizes school administrators standing in the hallways throwing condoms
at students.  We must be mindful that the schools are not distributing condoms
in this manner, from what I understand, the condoms are not "handed out", 
rather, they are only given to those students who ask for them.  Therefore,
we could speculate that the student has already made up his/her mind that
sexual behior is going to occur prior to their receiving the condoms.  I
belive that the condoms will be in the school nurse's office, and when   
students ask for the condoms, they are also given an information packet which
described things such as STDs, pregnancy, etc.  Sexual activity among high
school students occurred prior to free condom distribution and, in all
likelyhood, will occur in the future regardless of free condom distribution.

David L. Leon
dleon@seas.smu.edu
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs youS
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:40:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <21443@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>I do love the people that go into the clinics.  That is why I inform them
>of the spiritual consequences of their actions.  Should I instead say that

	John, those people would probably do happily without your "love"
	and your self-righteous preaching, too.  (I hate election years,
	they bring out this bad characteristic in too many people!)

		Remember, John, virtue is its own punishment.


			Judy
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 06:53:34 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <16852D8AA.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
 
>JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>>                                                          Do you eschew
>>exterminators, Mr. Taylor, lest the cockroaches suffer?
>
>        Cockroaches aren't human.   The pro-life stance endorses the
>sanctity of  *human*  life.   Lower and higher forms must fend for
>themselves or seek a formal alliance.
 
Fetuses aren't human either.  Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.  They are
not, perhaps, so low as cockroaches, but I won't rate them much above a
goldfish. :-)
 
>>               You may well argue with me on third or even second
>>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.
 
Yes, Rick, it's arbitrary.  The day we perfect a faultless artifical
womb, I may be in a spot of philosophical trouble.  But I embrace the
ambiguity, and decide that I *can't* decide -- only the only sentient
one directly affected (the mother) can.  So I leave the choice up to
her.  I know there's a fuzzy point SOMEWHERE in there between when
there's just a goober and a wiggly and when you have a full-blown
squawking infant where I start caring about it, but I don't know where
it is.
 
For those who haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a Darwinian.  Ms. ahemp01
disagrees with me, real life, on animal rights and vegetarianism.  I'm
of the opinion that, if a cow can catch me, skin me, and fricassee me,
it's more than within its rights to do so.  (Ditto for tigers, of course).
I favor legalization of drugs.  If you're idiot enough to fry your brains
out with the stuff, I won't stop you.  I tend to favor the Libertarian
view on things, though with some moderation.  You are allowed to do
whatever you wish, as long as it won't harm someone else.  When a fetus
becomes a 'someone' is a bit of a puzzlement to me, but I'll defend the
mother's obvious, present rights to the end of my breath and typing speed.
 
Joseph L. Lockett
jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4788 alt.politics.clinton:3997
From: root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:10:27 GMT
Reply-To: moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Sep2.162922.29228@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:

[...]

|>> No more government freebies for anyone who makes over 20k.

No more freebies, period.

|>> 
|>> We just can't afford it anymore.
|>> Entitlements have to go.
|>> 
|>> It Is Time For Them To Go.
|>> 
|>> -- 
|>> curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
|>> My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
|>>   Social Security isn't a retirement plan.  It's middle class welfare.

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "Never lie when the truth is more
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   profitable."
possibly represent its position.	|     -- Stanislaw J. Lec

Christian H. L. Moller
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:33:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Aug30.050518.18538@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>[other stuff deleted]
>My answer to this is bullshit.

	You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Richard. (-:

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:12:13 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX

In article <exuptr.171.714781858@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.144203.18388@menudo.uh.edu> moore@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu (Lorra L. Moore) writes:
> >Well, since I am assuming you are trying to compare me to a fetus, or
> >the experience, I am going to have to say never.  But than again,
> >neither have you.  So, since neither of us know what it feels like, and no
> >one on the face of this planet does.  In fact, there is no evidence that
> >the fetus knows what it feels like, this is a pretty mute argument.
> 
> Disagree.  THe fact that there is NO EVIDENCE is exactly the point you
> were trying to make.  You DON'T KNOW, do you?

There is very strong evidence to support the position that a child can
tell it is being aborted, and that it isn't happy about it in the least.

There have been a number of films made with live abortion (meaning,
not still action, as opposed to "live person <-> dead person") footage.
The most famous of these is "Silent Scream", which is known to have
converted quite a few people from their previous "but babies don't
feel anything when you kill them" positions.  The most ardent supporters
of abortion complain that "Silent Scream" is propagandistic.  However,
reality is simply reality - if the pictures really do show (and based on
fuzzy memory, I have not actually seen "Silent Scream", but rather some
other moview whose name has long since been paged out to /dev/null ...)
an abortion in progress (and the pro-abortion forces can simply produce
their own countering version of the movie if that is the case), a child
MOST DEFINITELY is aware that it is being killed by the abortionist, and
MOST DEFINITELY is quite upset.

The "no one knows what it feels like" argument is pretty silly.  No one
knows what it feels like when a dog has its head sawed off with a rusty
hacksaw.  But if you were to conduct an experiment and saw off the head
of a live dog, you would likely find that virtually all of those dogs
did not enjoy the experience.  AND - you would still not know what it
feels like.
-- 
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