HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:21:54 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug28.194305.17103@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>I point out, without any judgemental statement, that many animals
>exhibit these behaviours (movement, exercise of muscles, 'sleep' like
>states) prior to birth. Including chimps, apes (of course), as well as
>dogs and marsupials (in fact, I just saw a picture of a fetal kangaroo
>doing much the same thing).

These animals do not exhibit human brainwaves.

For example, a child of about 15 or 16 weeks will grimace and make faces
depending on the noise, etc. going on about the mother.  A child can,
and does, frown and smile well before birth.

Another example - a child eventually begins drinking the amneotic fluid
in the womb.  Depending on the taste, sweet or sour, the child will
drink more or less.

Children display boredom.  If you make repetitive sounds, the child
will become bored.  The rocking motion of a mother walking about will
put the child to sleep.  When the mother stops to lay down and sleep,
the child wakes up.  [ This is Murphy's law in motion ... ]  A child
will turn and move away from a bright light that shines through the
mothers abdomen.  A child will suck its thumb and hold its umbilical
cord, much like the way a child holds a security blanket.  A child
will react in a startled manner if pricked by a needle when a doctor
conducts amneocentesis.  The child also reacts this way to sudden
loud noises and being jarred.

In short, a child of just 3 or 4 months gestation reacts in exactly the
same manners as does a child that has been born and is several months old.
What you are killing isn't a 4 week old puppy fetus or a chicken fetus
that hasn't hatched after its 20 day or so gestation.  After 3 months of
gestation, all of the child's organ are present.  That includes the
brain, heart, central nervous system, sense organs, etc.

>We kill those animals without hesitation.

That's correct.  But a human child is not a sheep child or a cow child.
It is a HUMAN child.  You are KILLING human beings.

>> This is what you are ``Defending'' [sic] the murder of.  I do
>>hope that you rot in Hell.
>
>Hmm. Didn't you say you were going to stop posting?

No, I said that I did not have the time to keep up with the group.
You will notice that my posting volume is greatly reduced.
-- 
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: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: iraq vanquished
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:26:43 GMT
Reply-To: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX

It is unfair for the bush haters out there to claim that Sadaam is
in great shape today, that the war was for naught.

He'd taken Kuwait.
Saudi Arabia was next.
They asked for our help.

Sadaam threatened to blow up all the oil wells if we attacked, (which he did)

Carl Sagan sat there on CNN and said that we would have global cooling
and enlarging ice caps if he did it.  This was not the National Enquirer.
This was not "Geraldo".  This was CNN.  He had all sorts of fancy computer
models to back him up.

Do you remember that?

Alot of people really believed that nonsense
Alot of people thought we couldn't win
Alot of people thought it would be 'another viet nam'
Alot of people were pretty scared.  Of expensive oil.  Of the next Hitler.
Of nuclear weapons.  Of Carl Sagan, who everyone thought was a Real Smart Guy.

George Bush showed true leadership in the gulf.
Noone knew what to do.  George took a stand.  He took a chance.
If he was wrong, the press, the democrats (same thing,) and the American
people would never let him forget it.  And lots of Americans would die.
I doubt he takes that lightly either.

He talked the whole world into it, until they were behind the U.S.

The whole world...

Except the Democratic Congress.
They endorsed the war with just 1 vote to spare.

Over the howls of protest from the democratic leadership and other
wussies like Carl Sagan.

Kuwait is free.  The Saudi's are safe.  Sadaam's chemical and nuclear
weapons a dim memory.  Israel is safe(r).

Where is Carl Sagan now?  Where is the global catastrophy?

Perhaps George could do as much good for this country if the democrats
would stop pandering to the AARP and the unions, and lead, follow or
get out of the way.  But we'll never know will we?

Give credit where it is due.  Be fair.
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |       Austin, TX
        The wages of sin are death, but after taxes are
          taken out it's just sort of a tired feeling.
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Sex Education (was lots of other subjects)
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:23:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

Sorry to mangle the quotations here, Rick, but I wanted to isolate
some of your statements. Any mangling of your ideas is unintentional.

In article <16852DDB1.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
>        But it doesn't work that way.   Sex education doesn't reduce teen
>sexual indulgence any more than HS foreign language reduces the student's
>use of foreign language.   And in the latter case,  we really really do
>want them to indulge.
...
>        That presumes that being taught leads directly to responsible
>application of what we were taught...
...
>        This is quite correct.   Thus we shouldn't tantalize them by
>loading them up with yet more intimate details.

	Frankly, I find this whole attitude rather dangerous. Where do
you draw the lines between 'tantalizing details' and 'hard facts'?
Suppose we get rid of sex ed programs, or adjust them to include a
strong moral message of abstinence.  Do we edit biology books too?
Should a reference book, a source of fact, be edited so that it
doesn't include the facts, or so that it preaches a code of behaviour?
What about literature that includes frank statements about sexuality?
Is it to be banned from the reading list?

	Sex education is there for one reason only: to give kids the
straight facts, pure and simple. No 'message', no preaching. They
could get hearsay, mythology, and lies from their friends, bathroom
walls, or porn mags. If we don't give them the straight facts, no one
will.

>Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Rice University, I/S VM Systems Support
-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #
From: root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Tax suggestion
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:16:53 GMT
Reply-To: moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Aug25.144328.4618@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|>> In <1992Aug23.164957.8198@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:
|>> 
|>> >How about the following:
|>>

[...] [Social Security phase-out notion.]

|>> 
|>> The biggest problem I see is where the money is supposed to come from.
|>> Folks paying in now are not putting money aside for their own
|>> retirements; they are funding the payment of benefits to those
|>> receiving them now.  Where is the money to come from to do the
|>> 'payback', and at what market rates of interest would it be returned?
|>> Where is the money going to come from to continue to pay benefits to
|>> everyone currently drawing them (none of whom are going to quit --
|>> that would be crazy)?

'Tis indeed a problem, one that depends to some extent on how big a pot the SS
system has, a number I don't have.  At worst, continued funding could come from
general revenues -- in effect, simply replacing one tax with another -- but
would at least offer the possibilities that (a) the size of the tax would di-
minish over time, and (b), it would put an end to the system by something other
than what I expect, under the current system, will be catastrophic means such
as bankruptcy.

As to the source of a "payback" fund, the same answer applies.

|>> 
|>> 
|>> -- 
|>> "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.

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "Politicians are the same the 
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   world over:  they promise to 
possibly represent its position.	|   build a bridge even when there
					|   is no river."
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Nikita Khrushchev
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: congress
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:54:20 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug24.141843.24107@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
>From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
>Subject: congress
>Date: 24 Aug 92 14:18:43 GMT

>>How can the man who singlehandedly whipped the evil empire into submission,
>>making the world safe for all, stand there in front of God and everyone and
>>tell us he can't handle the guys in his own Congress?  


>>       Judy.

>I totally agree,  If King George were to use this, and he will try, in one
>of the debates, Bill Clinton should tell him to call his son to ask what he
>does when the team is playing so poorly something has to be done.  This is
>really something new.  The team is not playing well, something has to be     
>done, so "they won't do what I tell them so let's fire the team".  While
>I will agree the Washington crowd seems to be out of touch I don't think we
>should stop with the congress.  Above all Management also needs also to be held
>accountable.  I wonder what the Repulicans in Congress think of all of this?
>James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com                 

Hyperbole.  Good reading, though.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Amy Hemphill)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 29 Aug 1992 08:26:52 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1684FFE26.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
 
>>>No one
>>>can.  Leave the decision to the woman who's going to be affected.
>>
>>And the child.  Who will speak for the effects on her/him?
>
>Reviewing the above argument, why should we give a parasite, a
>primitive lump of cells, equal rights to a full and functioning legal
>human entity?  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.
>
Not only that, but you guys (i.e. the ones arguing the rights of the fetus)
seem to be forgetting that we live in a country whose legal system, especially
the family courts, is based partly on the idea that children have no rights.
So, what gives the fetus more say in its own behalf than a full-born child?
Granted, there are few times when a child is asked whether or not it should
die, but don't go preaching rights in terms of decision making for a set of
cells that is much less developed than a large population, already born, that
possesses NO rights at all, in the legal sense.
>
>Joseph L. Lockett
>jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
 
Amy Hemphill
ahemp01@ricevm1.rice.edu
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: 31 Aug 92 17:48:31 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1685314B1.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>exuptr@exu.ericsson.se and I continue to exchange (him first):
> 
> [more stuff deleted]
>
>>>An example -- Jewish religious law REQUIRES an abortion in cases where
>>>the health, physical OR psychological, of the mother is endangered.
>>>banning abortions would constitute a violation of freedom of religion.
>>
>>Only extremists could possibly want them banned in the above case.  Except
>>that I'm quite certain that Jewish law does not say psychological anything.
> 
>My source for that point was a Jewish acquaintaince of mine, actually, who
>is usually quite up on her information.  So unless you can quote me some
>rabbinical lore, I will believe that that's the current position of the
>Reformed movement -- 'physical OR psychological'.

Please.  It's *Reform* Judaism, not *Reformed*. :-)  The current position
of Reform Judaism is that it is the woman's choice.  Conservative Judaism
apparently is split in regard to psychological health, but both Conservative
and Reform Judaism agree that when the mother's physical health is endangered,
an abortion is required.  (Paraphrased from the book "Jewish & Female".  I
don't have the author's name memorized, but I can get it and ISBN numbers
if necessary.)

> 
>>>Whither the religious argument now?
>>
>>Same place.  They should be entitled to follow their laws.  And we ours.
>>All of it. :-)

But if your laws (like a constitutional amendment banning abortion) get
passed, we are no longer allowed to follow our religious laws.  What then?


-- 
Evan Wetstone			
Network Support		Speaking for myself, and no one else
Rice University
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Tax suggestion
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:25:27 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>at all. My father-in-law has a retirement income of at least
>$100K/y made through real estate speculation and other risky deals.
>He also gets a SS check....welfare for the wealthy it looks like to me.

exactly.
this must end.
socialism is what it is.  we can still have a safety net without having
socialism.

100k is way too much to be getting a government check too.
so is 50k
so is 40k

we need to start means testing SS now.

The AARP is a powerful lobby though.  They are not just a bunch of
chocolate chip cookie baking old grandmas.  They are a powerful force
for evil in the Congress.  They are fucking their grandkids.  It must
stop.

It is inevitable that it will stop eventually since the demographic
trends indicate that this can't go on much longer.  There are not
enough new kids to foot the ever larger bill as the population ages,
and people live longer.

Do we stop it now and avoid an even larger defecit?  Do we avoid the
junkification of Tbills and high inflation and high interest rates and
a dead economy?
-- 
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.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Teachers
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:19:32 GMT
 <1992Aug28.165945.936@digi.lonestar.org> <1992Aug29.171000.11814@seas.smu.edu>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug29.171000.11814@seas.smu.edu>, David Leon writes:

> Judging from what I've seen here, it would follow that if the private school
> were significantly smaller than its public counterpart, the administration
> costs should be significantly reduced. (ie it costs less money per student
> to administer a public school with 4,000 and 100 teachers than a private
> school with 500 students and 20 teachers--the overhead changes)  This was

Logically, it should work exactly the opposite way.  In business, they call it
the... (oops, memory fault - core dump...)  Anyway, you should be able to REDUCE
the per student cost when the number of students is increased.  Of course, the
government can never do anything efficiently...


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: TAXES & the Economy
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:24:51 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Jim Pritchett and John Haugh -- have you two got crystal balls or 
something?  You guys are ALWAYS* arguing about things that you KNOW would
have happened if...  Why don't you try to confine your arguments to 
reality as opposed to speculation? 

   *This is asterisked because I usually avoid the use of expletives such
    as always and never -- words such as those severely reduce the validity
    of an argument.  In this case, however, it seemed to fit!


			Judy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Ab
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:04:06 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <7233@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.174814.26236@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
>>In article <exuptr.410.714853664@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>>|>> BTW, did you know suicide is illegal in Texas?
>>This, and similar statutes in other states, are as asinine as the bill [...]

>Actually, this one serves a purpose: it gives the legal system a way to force
>a suicidal person to get psychiatric help. I agree that someone who has
>successufully committed suicide is beyond the reach of the legal system...but
>someone who does so unsuccessfully needs help, and will get it.

It hardly seems that it is necessary to CRIMINALIZE this in order to
make sure that someone gets help.  After all, isn't the state allowed
to determine that someone is a danger to themself or others and put
them into treatment that way?

Just out of curiousity, what do these kinds of stupid laws mandate in
the way of sentencing?


-- 
"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: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: taxes
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:08:02 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug28.213357.1842@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
>Boy, I'm sure not going to argue with the thought that a speculator 
>deserves to take a lose when they are wrong.  However, the the fact that
>this coverage was higher did not cause the market to go sour.  It would
>appear that the following did in fact have a great deal to do with it:

Actually, the increased limits DID contribute greatly to the problem, as
did (and you mentioned this quite rightly) the changes in the tax laws.

But let's look at the effect that the increase in FDIC insurance had on
the banks.  The usual way in which a bank raises money is through the
issuance of stock, like any other company that wishes to raise capital.
If a bank goes under, the stockholders in that bank take the loss, just
as the stockholders in any other corporation are at risk of losing their
capital.  But with the increased FDIC limit, the banks were able to
raise large amounts of cash by offering a better interest rate on CD's.
And when they did this, people would "shop around" and deposit their
money in that bank.  This permitted the bank to make new loans, using
the freshly deposited money.  Eventually this ponzi scheme had to
collapse - the banks couldn't just keep making newer and riskier loans
trying to 1). bail themselves out if they were in trouble or 2). make
as much money as their greedy little hearts desired.  With the FDIC
willing to take the risk of bank failure, their was no motivation to
act prudently.

The banks need to be brought back in line.  The first thing that needs
to be done is the FDIC limit needs to be lowered.  The current $100K
limit is simply absurd.  With 30 year T-bonds paying 7.4%, and with
shorter bonds paying anywheres down to 4%, you have to ask yourself if
you want the banks playing with money that the federal government is
really on the hook for.  Let the cash-rich investor deposit the money
directly with the agency that is ultimately resposible - the US
Treasury.  And if they STILL insist on playing the bank game, the cash
rich investor can buy stock in the bank.  Eventually the FDIC should
be privatised - make it a private corporation.  Then we will have banks
that can be trusted to make WISE investments, instead of speculating
in land deals and buying fancy office furnishings ...
-- 
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,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:03:43 GMT

pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

>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.

Not to mention premature ejaculation. ;-)
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: George v. Congress
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:18:26 GMT
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug24.181212.29214@technology.com>, Judy McMillin writes:

> Are you telling us that George can't control anything without using force?
> Maybe that's why he's so "gung-ho gun for every nut in the country."

If the President was "gung-ho gun..." he wouldn't have signed the bill restricting
assault weapons.  You really ought to stop listening to the Clinton propaganda
machine and find out the facts.


                                                Jim Pritchett


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