HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 28 Aug 92 02:11:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

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

> In article <Rs93PB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
> Winemiller) writes:
> >My point was that her [Sanger's] philosophy still has had significant
> >affect upon the direction of Planned Parent hood even to this day.  ...
> 
> The NYT Book Review of the recent Sanger biography did point out that
> no organization founded by Sanger survives to this day.

In 1921 Sanger established the American Birth Control League with its
initial funding tied to the Eugenics movement.  After WW II broke out, and
it became evident to all that Sanger had been promoting the euthanasia,
sterilization, and abortion programs of the Third Reich, she changed the
name of her organization to Planned Parenthood.  This was in 1942.  She then
organized it as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the
organization you know of today.  The NYT Book Review was wrong.

> Planned Parenthood
> was founded by others -- and now I'm out on a limb -- probably because
> of disgreement over Sanger's pandering to eugenicists.

Nope.  Founded by Sanger.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4619 alt.politics.clinton:3491
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:31:42 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <cornell.715129897@vivaldi> 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.

What led to the current deficits is the need for Congressmen to 
provide more than $1 of benefit for each $1 of taxation.  As tax
revenues increased, Congress needed to provide increased kickbacks
to the public whose money it had stolen.
-- 
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:4716 alt.politics.clinton:3698
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:28:16 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep01.050430.24193@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>In article <17tv1dINN9pm@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> 
>What we need is someone who can sit this country down and explain,
>in as simple a way as possible, that they can't have all three.  They
>need to choose.  Either they decide they want the benefits they have
>now, in which case they should expect to pay more.  Or they should lose
>some of their benefits, and perhaps, just perhaps, get back some tax
>money if we cut deeply enough.
> 
The problem is that different people want different benefits.

>A president who could get that point across would be, IMHO, the greatest
>president of the 20th century.
>-- 
More likely the 21st or 22nd century.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: reed@owlnet.rice.edu (Kevin Niles Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:19:10 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <16852DDB1.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
>In article <1684FF3BB.AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
>AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Amy Hemphill) writes:
>        This doesn't help your arguement,  because sex ed is *supposed*
>to instill some sense of responsibility.
> 
>>No one can any longer live in a fantasy world in which teenagers just
>>accept abstinence as the only form of birth control.  They must be
>>taught about birth control, disease, and responsibility.
> 
>        That presumes that being taught leads directly to responsible
>application of what we were taught.   I think you'll agree that there
>never was a time when all teenagers accepted abstinence for any birth
>control or other reasons.   But abortion and birth control are two
>different things.
> 
>>                                   Teenagers are naturally curious about
>>sex,   ...
> 
>        This is quite correct.   Thus we shouldn't tantalize them by
>loading them up with yet more intimate details.
> 
>Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Rice University, I/S VM Systems Support

I noted a rather interesting article in my local newspaper over the
summer.  It seems that since the introduction of drug education in 
the local school system, the number of students using drugs regurily
has risen dramatically.  It has increased with each successive class,
with the worst class being the one that has gone through the entire
education system.

I would truly like to believe that humans are rational beings who
look at things, consider the consequences, and then pick the wisiest
choice, but at age 16, peer influence and curiosity far outweigh
those thoughts.  Exposing these students to all this information
has far peaked their curiosity rather then instill them with a sense
of reponsibility.

Kevin Reed
From: skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 28 Aug 1992 16:42:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

>In article <1171@shrike.com> tmd@austin.lockheed.com (Tom Davis) writes:
 >>In article <21408@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>``Defense lines''?  Please, spare me the rhetoric.  Being on the defense
>lines would be defending the children that are killed in the clinics.
>Have you ever seen a 12 week old child?  You see, they look just like a
>child that's been born.  They have fingers, toes, arms, legs, a brain that
>has been working for weeks.  And if you watch the kid flop about on
>ultrasound, you can see a shimmering spot that shows the heartbeat.  If
>you were watching through a scope, you'd see the child making faces, or
>perhaps taking a nap and holding its umbilical cord like a security
>blanket.  This is what you are ``Defending'' [sic] the murder of.  I do
>hope that you rot in Hell.
>-- 
>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

Last time I checked John this was a free country, rather you are pro life 
or pro choice doesn't matter. In this country we have laws and the Roe v
Wade verdict still stands. Therefor it remains legal to have a abortion,
when people "attempt" to shut down a clinic they are violating the patients
rights to conduct a legal activity in this country. So, the term "defense"
is the proper term, we will defend the clinics against the people who
want to infringe the patients legal rights to have access to the clinic without
harassment.

Less than 5 % of the patients at PP are there for abortions, the Lambs of
Christ and OR are "trying" to stop the other 97 % of the women patients
who also use the clinics for yearly checkups and birth control, your kind
will create more pregnant women and probabaly more abortions because of
their illegal tactics (which by the way have failed).   

The OR leaders said "We answer to a higher law" nine of them now answer
to Judge O'Neils law and the laws of this country, if you don't want a 
abortion don't get one, WOW wasn't that simple !!. 

You can scream and yell all you want but YOU WILL NOT make the choice 
for my wife, it's her body and it her dicision to make, not mine and 
not yours. 

If you can't trust a women to make a choice 

How can you trust her with a child ??????  

Not pro-abortion, pro-choice !
tim
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: 26 Aug 92 00:34:50 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) 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.  Lorra might not personally
> >hold the same belief, but at least one significant leader in her camp did.
>  
> Yeah, and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson kept slaves. What's your
> point?

My point was that her philosophy still has had significant affect upon the
direction of Planned Parent hood even to this day.  Washington's and
Jefferson's philosophies of slave ownership wasn't their major influence on
American politics.  (Hmm.. or perhaps one could argue that it did, and that
it reinforced an evil which took a civil war to excise.  In which case, it
supports my point about Sanger.)

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4684 alt.politics.clinton:3625
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Not!
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:00:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <bVcBr*rV0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)   writes...
>In article <1992Aug30.062428.19135@posms.cactus.org>, Randy Kirchhof writes:
> 
>> In article <dpEAr*vU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug25.033348.26856@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
>> >
>> >> I just noticed something. This whole election the Republicans have blamed
>> >> Congress for the deficit and the recession, Bush was just along for the 
>> >> ride. During the 80's, the growth we had was caused by Reagan. Why doesn't
>> >> Congress get credit for that? After all, if someone is going to flack
>> >
>> >Probably because Reagan dragged the liberals (kicking and screaming) all the
>> >way to the tax cuts.  The tax cuts are what made the economy boom.
>> 
>> 'scuse me for butting into a conversation to which I have not been
>> a part, but in my opinion this statement is dead wrong. The

[stuff deleted]
> 
>You've been listening to the socialist media too long.
> 
"Socialist" media? This sounds like the communists are coming.
When the election comes around, look at who your local newspaper
supports. Look at who it supported in 88'. Time will prove you 
wrong.

>I'm telling you again.  The deficit is MUCH LOWER than it would have been
>if a Democrat had been President!
>
I realize that you truelly believe this. But you must also believe
that this is only an opinion. If you can't see that then you have been
listening to Republican dogma far too much.

>[ more deficit stuff deleted...]
>                                                Jim Pritchett
>UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
> or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp

-Garrett
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Ab
Date: 23 Aug 1992 19:38:05 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <272900180@trsvax> cls@trsvax.tandy.com writes:
- in there is between me and God and none of your business.  If I commit a
- sin to my own body, God is the only one who has the right to punish me.
- 
	It's nice to another anti-WoD person on tx.politics.  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack   |   "To use taxes to cure a deficit is like using 
 kossack@rice.edu   |    leeches to cure anemia."    -- Ronald Reagan 
  +1 713 240 2073   |   "Voodoo Economics!"            -- George Bush 
  
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Originator: patrick@mozart.convex.com
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:56:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
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 <1992Sep2.210243.3999@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.161707.28933@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Cu writes...
...
>
>>The solution is deregulation.  Less interference.  And the breaking up of
>>the AMA monopoly labor union.
>> 
>Pray tell, how has the labor union done this? Every study I've seen,
>even the ones who don't want government interference, haven't mentioned
>the EVIL LABOR UNIONS. And please be specific. Thanks you.
>
The basic argument is that the American Medical Association (AMA) functions
as a labor union by making it more difficult for those not part of their
organization to compete with them for work.  Specifically, the AMA has a lot
to say about what it takes to get a license to practice medicine and what is
considered practicing medicine.  Just for comparison, in Mexico, a
pharmacist can prescribe a wide variety of lesser drugs for common
illnesses, whereas a pharmacist in the US would be in big trouble if he
provided these same drugs without a doctor's prescription.  The position of
the AMA is that we need to be protected from frauds and incompetents.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:52:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21404@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.043559.21752@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>I believe our usual response is to say, why didn't Reagan/Bush ever
>>submit a balanced budget, and why did a fair number of Congressional
>>versions of the budget have lower deficits than the ones proposed
>>by Reagan/Bush?

>The presidential version of the budget doesn't matter a single whit.

>Please, if you are going to argue about the budget making process, please
>at least pretend to have read the Constitution.  Here is the relevant part
>in this particular discussion.  In particular, Congress writes legislation.
>The President doesn't.  The Supreme Court doesn't.  Only Congress can write
>a Bill ...

And perhaps you should read it again yourself rather than merely
posting it?  Perhaps you should also study the whole budget process to
see how it works rather than merely looking at the Constitutional
requirements?

As a hint on the first suggestion, you will note whose signature is
required on the budget bills.

As a hint on the second suggestion, you will find that the President
submits a recommendation for the budget (from OMB) first, and Congress
generally starts from there (and changes things rapidly).

Things have changed a bit in the past 200 years, John.  Perhaps you
should catch up?


-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: missing the point 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:38:23 GMT

In article <dpEAr*vU0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)   writes...
>In article <1992Aug25.033348.26856@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
> 
>> I just noticed something. This whole election the Republicans have blamed
>> Congress for the deficit and the recession, Bush was just along for the 
>> ride. During the 80's, the growth we had was caused by Reagan. Why doesn't
>> Congress get credit for that? After all, if someone is going to flack
> 
>Probably because Reagan dragged the liberals (kicking and screaming) all the
>way to the tax cuts.  The tax cuts are what made the economy boom.
> 
It wouldn't have gotten passed if it wasn't for their vote.

>> for when things go bad, why don't they get credit for when things go good?
>> I'm interested in hearing what the conservatives have to say about that.
> 
>Why give credit to the liberal Democrats for something that they opposed?
> 
> 
If you'll remember, they proposed a tax cut of their own that would 
have cut taxes on the middle class instead of the rich.
	But we're getting off the point. If the Republicans get the
credit for any growth in the 80's, why don't they take credit for 
the recession of the 90's? You can't have it both ways.

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

-Garrett
From: lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repulicans
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:05:33 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Radio Amateur k5qwb

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

> In article <1992Aug28.190234.7656@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com
> >No, I think when the company is poorly run, you start replacing with
> >the man at the top.
> 
> In business, this works because the man at the top ie generally expected to
> make personnel changes in those below him. The President cannot make changes
> in Congress.

You seem to miss the reason for voting Democrat for Congress and 
Republican for President. That forces the President to go to the people 
who then tell their Congresspersons how to vote. This assumes the 
President isn't too busy pandering to special interest groups, which 
Bush is.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 
73,            internet     | lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org
Lyn Kennedy    packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA
               pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154

-------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us."  Pogo --------------
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:21:33 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep1.193624.27022@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>All right, John.  Just who is this Patrick Henry person whose word we
>are all supposed to accept as "the ultimate truth?"  He sounds like some
>wacko bible thumper to me.  Did he get liberty or did he get dead?  
>It's just like some old bible thumper to go sullying the name of God
>by dragging it into politics!

I hope this isn't a cruel joke.

Patrick Henry was a Virginia legislator who, like Jefferson, Madison,
etc. stood against King George at the time of the American Revolution.
His line "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" is an American classic.
Virginians, such as Henry, Washington and Jefferson were instrumental
in the founding of this country.

But that's OK.  Not everyone has had Virginia history (I did, I was
in Newport News in the 4th and 5th grades ...).  So, perhaps you've
heard of Thomas Jefferson, that famous "deist"

   "The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty... students perusal
    of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."
			-- Thomas Jefferson

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.
-- 
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: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 28 Aug 92 07:50:46 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Gordon Burditt

>Given the answer to 4), this simply doesn't follow.  Blockading legal
>businesses, yelling in peoples' faces from 1 inch away, crawling under

Well, if they've got their mouths open that close to you, it's
time to throw something in.  How about a banana (unpeeled)?  Golf balls?
Pills from a bottle marked RU-486?  (Depending on your conscience, this 
can be candy, RU-486, vitamin pills, pork (is there any food fundamentalist 
Christians consider bad to eat?), rabbit turds, or LSD.  Of course, some 
of the items on that list are illegal.)

>cars, blocking traffic, etc., are all AGAINST THE LAW and are all
>VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.  Your right to swing your fist

					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 05:04:30 GMT

In article <17tv1dINN9pm@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> 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?
 
I don't think coming up with a list of spending cuts is the problem.  The
problem is that the American people are stupid, they think they can
have all the benefits they have now, with the tax rate they have now, and
at the same time eliminate the deficit.  No wonder politicians are
screwed up, their constituents are screwed up as well.
 
What we need is someone who can sit this country down and explain,
in as simple a way as possible, that they can't have all three.  They
need to choose.  Either they decide they want the benefits they have
now, in which case they should expect to pay more.  Or they should lose
some of their benefits, and perhaps, just perhaps, get back some tax
money if we cut deeply enough.
 
A president who could get that point across would be, IMHO, the greatest
president of the 20th century.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com