HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Summary: George *knows* misrepresentation.
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:08:06 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <BuE2zF.HDt@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>Sorry, I listened very closely.  He was very clear about the fact that they 
>>were not to be excluded.  For what reason are you misrepresenting what was 
>>said?

>He was clear?  Okay, exactly what *did* he say?  (Even if he *did* make some
>effort to include them, it doesn't make much difference -- he says one
>thing, the rest of his loony-tune pals in the RNC say another.  

He talked about the "extended family" of step-mothers/fathers, foster 
children, older persons living alone, and single heads-of-household as being
a "new focus" for economic reform.  Admittedly a little nebulous as to what
the actual plan was, but he was pretty clear that they were on the list to
have something done about...

>That makes
>for a really attractive image -- a party that can't figure out who's running
>the show, being led by someone who'd do *anything* to be re-elected, as he
>himself has stated before...

Well I don't know so much about all that.  Politics is politics.  That kind 
of crap happens on both sides.  Frankly I still don't know who to vote for.  
I've considered running myself (you turn 30 and think you're a big deal ;-)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Re: "Socialized medicine" in Texas
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:39:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.120119.5350@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
...
>Well, this would have to be done (and we do it to some degree now,
>what with 'uncovered conditions' and all), but the problem then
>becomes what to tell the folks whose illness just didn't make the list
>of things that the State was willing to cover.  Recall the big deal
>about the Oregon boy who needed a transplant that the State wouldn't
>pay for because it wasn't on the list?  It's tough to tell someone
>that you COULD save them, but that it's just too expensive so they
>should go home and die quietly.

I guess this is really the question re: the Oregon Plan. While the
cutoff point in the list of medical procedures was pretty arbitrary,
how far do you go (and how much do you spend) with procedures which
cost lotsa $$$ and which have a low success rate? How many people must
be deprived of basic health care to pay for the phenomenallly
expensive cases?

Tough questions, indeed. Anyone have some answers? Personally, I
envision 2 scenarios:

Scenario A: Business as usual. The poor (and particularly ones without
health coverage) fail to get basic care until little problems turn
into big ones, costing local and federal gov't big bucks. The
not-so-poor continue to pay major $$$ for health insurance (either
personally or through their employer), and big tax $$$ to pay for
those poor whose little problems have turned into emergency-room
problems.

Scenario B: Health care rationing. Everyone is guaranteed a minimum
level of 'free' (i.e. tax-supported) health care. Wealthier persons
purchase supplemental insurance to cover more exotic illness, if they
so choose. For the ones stuck with the 'basic' plan, lines get long
and quality goes down (of course, it's better than nothing). Gov't
bureaucracy may still cost just as much $$$ as scenario A, but health
care is better distributed. Some poor left out in the cold with
illnesses not covered by the 'basic' health plan.

Sigh. What's the solution? Arguably, scenario B is a sort of
communistic distribute-the-health-care scenario, but we've already
seen the results of scenario A, and in some cases they're not good.

Anyone have a better plan?

RR
-- 
# 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.                                  #
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 07:27:05 GMT
 <Bu6ADq.FHA@rice.edu>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <Bu6ADq.FHA@rice.edu>, Patrick L Humphrey writes:

> >So, Ben.  Tell me exactly how it is better for the children to have divorced
> >parents?  Is it better for the kids to spend more time with a babysitter than
> >with mom, so she can go be frustrated in workplace?  It is patently obvious to
> >anyone with a functional brain that the traditional family is the best way. Why
> >should the government try to destroy it?
> 
> They shouldn't -- on that much, I agree.  Of course, neither should they
> decide that it's "patently obvious to anyone with a functional brain" that
> the traditional family should be the best way *by force of law* -- and that
> seems to be what your pals at the RNC were doing their best to push for.
> I'd like to see you tell my wife she can't be a good mother, and we can't
> have a traditional family, because she works -- after all she's been through
> in the past five days, she'd *really* appreciate the laugh...

My mother worked.  Ask her, she'll tell you that it would have been better if
she hadn't had to do it.  You don't understand the "Family Values" issue at all.
You are too busy listening to the liberal ideologues' condemnations.  The whole
"Family Values" issue is about getting the government to stop encouraging the
destruction of the family unit.  It has nothing at all to do with preventing
women from working, etc.  There are also complaints about the media's destructive
activities (e.g. ridiculing traditional family values, glorifying adultery, divorce,
promiscuity, etc.)

You probably haven't heard, but there are many government programs that encourage
the destruction of the family.  Welfare is one of the biggest.  The system encourages
fathers to leave the wife and kids.  It encourages women to have more kids to get
more welfare money.  It discourages savings.  It discourages working.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:22:33 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21451@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Patrick Henry was a Virginia legislator who, like Jefferson, Madison,
>etc. stood against King George at the time of the American Revolution.

	Unlike those two, he desired a religious test for those who
aspired to office....

>The simple truth is that most of the Framers believed in God.  Whether
>it was an abstract "first mover" concept (which is part of my belief
>in God) or something more concrete and "hairy thunderer" like.  But,
>by and large, the Framers were "God fearing" men who understood that
>it was Divine Providence which made this Nation, and the Liberty which
>we enjoy today, possible.
	
	Not so divinely provident for the occupants we found here...
perhaps they had the wrong God, though. Why no visit from the Son?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
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, 11 Sep 1992 18:08:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.133547.509@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>Would the free marketeers like to see the SEC abolished?

The SEC is an interesting case.

Our major competitors think the "insider trading" rules are silly;
they don't have them.

Insider trading restrictions try to level the investing knowledge
field, but do they?  More importantly, do they provide any benefits
that we can observe by comparing stock exchanges that use them with
those that don't?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 23:32:57 GMT

In article <SLaDr*hX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> Tell me exactly how it is better for the children to have divorced
>parents?

	Shal we make a list? We shall!
1.Dad rapes the kids.
2.Dad beats the kids.
3.Dad rapes mom.
4.Dad beats mom.
5.Mom rapes dad.
6.Mom beats dad.
7.Mom rapes the kids.
8.Mom beats the kids.
9.Dad fools around with other women, or just one woman.
10.Dad fools around with other men/man.
11.Mom fools around with other men/man.
12.Mom fools around with other women/woman.
13.Mom's joined a Satanist cult.
14.Dad's Jim Pritchett. (just kidding).
 
Ah, but I'm just shooting ducks in a barrel.....

>  Is it better for the kids to spend more time with a babysitter than
>with mom, so she can go be frustrated in workplace?

	Most of the time, for the reasons that cause such a circumstance,
yes.

>  It is patently obvious to
>anyone with a functional brain that the traditional family is the best way.

	If so, how did you come to this conclusion? (-:


	

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Try again 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:46:19 GMT

In article <21499@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. H writes...
>In article <18p93eINNoov@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>>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.
> 
>An economy does not turn on a dime.  You cannot pass laws cutting taxes,
>etc. and expect every company in America to throw open its doors and
>start hiring by the droves. 

When FDR had his first budget passed, the economy started improving
within 4 months and never stopped (except for about 6 months 4 years
later). You are saying it took from fall of 81' to spring of 83' for
Reagan's plan to take effect. Sounds to me like either your reasoning
is faulty, or Reagan's plan was. (I'm betting Reagan's plan)

[lots of stuff deleted]

>The economy is in a mild recovery.  George Bush is paying for the gains
>that were made during the '80s.  Is it his "fault"?  Yes.  Was it all
>that avoidable?  No.  The problem with economic cycles is that, well,
>they are cyclic.  If you have too much growth in one period, you pay for
>it in another. 

Not quite. Bush is paying for the huge deficits that were created
in the 80's, not for the growth.

 -Garrett
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Taxes
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:53:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas

>>Sure we have.  Tax increase on the rich and increased investment.
>>That's how Clinton presents his plan.  

>I really hope you people aren't falling for this.

>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.

Curt I am afraid you are the one being fooled.  To say "there aren't 
enough of them" may be true as far as the number of people but 
look at what has happened since 1978: "Taken together, the pretax 
income of the top 20% of the population will total 2.4 trillion,
more than all the people in the remaining 80 % combined."   
"Comparing 1992 tax revenues under 1977 law, adjusted for inflation,
the overall tax break for the richest 1% fo the population adds up to
almost $84 billion the Treasury won't collect in 1992."  This is 
from an article in Consumers Digest concerning the tax law changes
since 1977.  

>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.

Oh, come on now.  Don't be so silly.  

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

>I don't think so.

Why would you think not?  I find it hard to believe that EVEN 
Washington could be so stupid.

>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
>My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
> FICA doesn't help the poor.  It mostly goes to old people with incomes >$40k.

By the way the C.D. story goes to great lengths in explaining that there
is more than enough fault to go around.  Both parties share equally.
James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com                 
"Sex education in our schools is promoting incest" 
		      The Rev? Jimmy Swaggart
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Pl
Date: 10 Sep 92  2:32:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 


|> "In God We Trust" applies equally to Christians, Jews, and those who
|> follow
|> the teachings of Mohammed.

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

   My theory is that it was a typo that never got corrected. I'm pretty
   sure it should be "In Gold We Trust" since that is nearer the truth for
   this country.

   Also, this motto dates back to at least the war of 1812 since it is
   mentioned by Francis Scott Key in the second verse of The Star Spangled
   Banner, which was written during that war.

JI> John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet:

   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:57:22 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX

In article <exuptr.521.716245956@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
> Hmm...  looking pretty grim.

Yes, it was a stupid thing to say.  I was pretty sure I hadn't said anything
like that since Joe wasn't in my KILL file at the time.  The reason Joe
thinks he is in there is because, well, I don't reply to his postings.  I
could get a June backup file of my KILL file (that is the oldest backup I
have) and post my KILL file as of June.  I added that comment because Joe
needs to think he is in the KILL file.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:27:09 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

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
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?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5179 alt.politics.clinton:5227
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: iraq vanquished
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:17:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep1.211153.7318@tamsun.tamu.edu>, Rick Russell writes:

> However, let me point out that much of the environmental disaster
> predicted by scientists did occur. Perhaps Carl S. didn't make it

What enviornmental disaster?  I saw some scientist on TV that said that the
fires in Kuwait had caused little effect outside the region.  The eruption
of that volcano in the Phillippines has caused big changes (temporary) in
the weather almost worldwide.

> clear enough, but the 'fancy computer models' which Curt seemed so
> impressed with are purely speculative devices. Lots of people use
> different atmospheric models; Carl Sagan is generally seen as an
> authority because he was the first to understand the 'greenhouse'
> mechanism in the Venusian atmosphere.

No, he is seen as an authority because he is on TV more than other scientists.

> Scientists predicted all kinds of other disasters. Marine life in the
> Persian Gulf has suffered absolutely incredible damage. Agriculture
> east of the Gulf is already suffering, and it will continue to suffer,
> possibly for months or years to come.

Yes, but THAT is NOT the catastrophe that Sagan predicted.  Everyone expected
that.


> Of course, none of these events really affect Curt's daily life here
> in the U.S., so they probably don't count as 'global catastrophy'
> [sic]. :-)

No, it doesn't.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Keywords: Communism as a Religion???
Date: 14 Sep 92 05:16:10 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep10.230803.23674@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
- |> >It may be pointless to argue with Robert Heinlein on tx.politics, but
- |> >communism is not a religion.
- |> 
- |> It isn't? Why not? After all, it is essentially the worship of the State and
- |> the People...it's close enough to a religion for me.
- 
- No deity.  Communism is a political and economic system.  It doesn't
- involve the "worship" of anything.

	Since we're talking about Heinlein classing Communism in  
   with religion, I thought I would offer the following from RAH: 

     Communists are most easily understood if you think of them as 
     a fanatical, evangelical religious sect.  I speak here of   
     American Communists; I have no knowledge of Russian Communists,  
     having never met one to my knowledge and having never been to
     Russia. 

     From the standpoint of religion the peculiarities of communists 
     form a recognizable pattern.  They have an outrageously 
     unscientific "bible" which they point to as being the last word 
     in science.  It appears in "authorized" and "forbidden" trans-
     lations.  They have a god -- the idea of the "proletariat" -- a 
     major prophet, a minor prophet, and an apostate saint.  They are 
     absolutist in viewpoint and brook no arguement.  Anything is moral 
     to them which serves to propogate the faith, no matter how 
     offensive to the unbeliever.  Theirs is a "heigher" morality; what 
     we have is a "decadent, bourgeois" morality.  They are indefatig-
     ably zealous.  They are usually sincerely and altruistically
     devoted to their cause.  You will find other such characteristics. 

     [ TAKE BACK YOUR GOVERNMENT! by Heinlein   ISBN: 0-671-72157-7 ]

-- 
Jordan M Kossack  | You're so vain, you probably think this .sig is about you.  
 kossack@qvi.com  | You're so vain, I bet you think this .sig is about you. 
 +1 713 240 2073  | Don't you?  Don't you?  Don't you?      
  
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5249 alt.politics.clinton:5504 alt.politics.bush:5189
From: patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:46:10 GMT
Reply-To: patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Originator: patrick@mozart.convex.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <21513@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
salary chart
>>		Income Tx
>>AGI	#retrns Total	Tax as a  CUM      CUM        CUM TAX CUM % TAX
>>(in $K)	(in $M)	(in $M)	  TX PAID  % TX PAID  RETURNS RETURNS
...
>>75--100 2,043	31,158	18.0      254,121   68.4      105,005  98.1
>>100-200 1,520	43,632	21.7      297,753   80.1      106,525  99.5
>>200-500 432	33,203	26.8      330,956   89.0      106,957  99.9
>
>And I shudder to think that Clinton thinks $66K for a tax paying household
>is "super rich," because that is where the "top 1%" line falls.  Hell,
>$66K is two mediocre paid college graduates with no kids.  $66K is two
>people making $33K each.
>
My reading of this chart shows that the top 1% is between $100,000 AGI
and $200,000 AGI, considerably different from $66K.  Please check your
results, even if they agree with your prejudices.  It just did not make
sense that two college grads with average salaries would be in the
top 1% of income levels.