HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:40:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21347@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.224152.38512@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>In article <qVmur*iO0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> 
>>|> For example, consider "Slick Willie."  He wants the country to believe that he
>>|> is a "centrist."  He wants us to believe that he is going to bring the Democratic
>>|> party back from it's wild liberalism.  However, the fact is that Slick Willie has
>>|> taken the far left line on almost every issue.
>>
>>Such as . . .?

>Trade and labor.

Hmmm, I thought that Clinton favored the Free Trade Agreement (in
general).  Does that make George Bush 'far left'?


-- 
"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: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:37:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug11.230408.27282@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> landy@bear.austin.ibm.com (Landy Ligon) writes:
>As well as to those who insist on withholding information about fetal
>development, abortion alternatives, and abortion procedures, risks and
>consequences.

Such as? Those folks, whoever they may be, don't speak for me.

>Then it sounds like you would approve of the information given to clients
>of the Austin Crisis Pregnancy Center (which is hopefully typical of the
>CAC affiliated Crisis Pregnancy Centers).  They will not counsel a woman
>to have an abortion or refer for an abortion, but they do give an
>excellent, clinical presentation of what is involved in an abortion
>procedure.  Of course they also provide counseling on alternatives
>and fetal development, all for the low, low price of $0.00.  You get
>the entire picture at the cost of your time.

Sorry, but they _don't_ provide the entire picture: they won't provide the
name of someone who'll perform an abortion. Full information means just that.
Withholding anything at all isn't full information.

I suspect that the "counseling" you talk about is like other so-called
"abortion alternative counseling services": a thinly veiled attempt to scare a
woman into not having an abortion and to convonce her that God will get her if
she does. I only support full, unbiased counseling. Yes, that means without
bias toward having an abortion; the final decision must be the woman's alone, 
supported only by the bare facts. (Yes, John, "bare facts" includes an opinion
from the woman's doctor.)
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
   "This is a network here, right?  How about giving a little thought to
            interoperability?" -- John F. Woods, to Brian Kantor
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:56:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <b1lxr*BQ0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>I wish you guys would quit trying to euphemise babies into "tissue."

No eupehemism is necessary. Until it's a baby, it is just a lump of tissue.

>A fertilized chicken egg has a chicken inside.

No, it has a chicken fetus inside. once hatched, it's a chicken.

>A puppy is a dog.  A baby is a human.

So far, so good; both have been born and are demonstrating a biologically
independent life.

>A fetus is a baby.

Nope. A fetus, once born, is a baby. Not before.

>These are things that everyone knows.

Every fundamentalist Christian and Catholic, perhaps.

>You pro-abortion
>people simply want to change the words so that you can rationalize your pro-murder
>position.

1) I'm not pro-abortion. I'd prefer that no woman feels it necessary to have
an abortion. So long as one woman feels such a choice is the right thing,
though, I will not stand in the way of that choice.

2) You are ignoring the definition of "murder": an illegal killing. Either
capital punishment is murder (and you reject that definition) or abortion
isn't (and you accept the definition). You CANNOT have it both ways.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:08:29 GMT

In <7144@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <21384@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.153324.9399@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>In <21377@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>>Well, Jeanette is now about 4 months pregnant.
>>>Hey, congratulations.
>>Fuck you.

>Hey, John. I honestly think that Fred was serious.

I was.  Unlike John, apparently, I don't categorize people as
'enemies' just because I've disagreed with them or they with me.  That
does, however, explain a lot of his behaviour on here.

>In any case, "fuck you" is hardly an appropriate response to someone's
>congratulatory statement; either it's sincere, and should be appreciated, or
>it's not, in which case treating it like it's serious makes you the good guy,
>instead of a total asshole.

Unfortunately, this is just one in a string of notes from John Haugh
II that seems to indicate that he *IS* a total asshole.  I still
consider that HIS problem, though, and not mine.


-- 
"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: kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Social Security is Neither  (was: Tax suggestion
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:39:18 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
- I'd like to see this tax idea put into practice:
- 
- For the SS part of FICA (Medicare is another issue) do these things:
- 
-                [ ... ]  
- 
- WHat do you all think?

	I think the Federales should admit that 
   SS isn't working and scrap it.  

-- 
  kossack@taronga.com  |  "One has a moral responsibility  
  Jordan M Kossack     |      to disobey unjust laws."    
  +1 713 240 2073      |   -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.    
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: questions that Pritchett doesn't like...
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 16:57:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <pa2vr*2P0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|> John John John (sigh...)  You KNOW what murder is.  Everyone here should.  They
|> don't need the courts or cowardly politicians to tell them what it is.  If you
|> would admit it, you KNOW that convenience abortion is murder.  So why do you
|> continue to play semantic games?

So you're a mind reader now?  Saying that abortion is murder is as
nonsensical to me as saying that abortion is a 3rd degree misdemeanor.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:17:55 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <kkGwr*hQ0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.140835.15067@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

>> How does the convicted murderer kill anyone if you lock him up for
>> life with no parole?  So, why the espousement of so many 'right to
>> life' advocates for killing someone rather than locking them up away
>> from the rest of us?  Sounds like their issue is 'abortion', not
>> 'life'. 

>Convicts commit murder in prisons.  Unless you are planning to keep him in
>solitary, your "solution" still lacks something.  I don't think that the
>liberal judges would allow that.

Nontheless, why call for killing them rather than incarceration away
from everyone else?  Besides, if you're willing to kill them out of
hand, why does the fact that they might occassionally kill each other
mitigate against incarceration and for killing them out of hand?

Face it.  'Pro-life' advocates who call for killing simply aren't
'pro-life'.  Their issue is abortion.


-- 
"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: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Rob Butera)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.galor,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:59:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Aug17.213416.4391@tamsun.tamu.edu>, wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
|> Think again. President Bush has stated publicly that he fully supports
|> the current draft of the Republican Party platform, including the
|> anti-abortion amendment.
|> 

	George Bush has also stated (heard on this morning's news) that
he hasn't even READ the current draft of the Republican platfor!  I think
the interview with Alan Simson (a Republican for choice) summed up how 
people view platforms - NOBODY seems to take them seriously or agree
with them 100% (except those who write it :) )


-- 
Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu
"When God, from whom I have my reason, demands of me to sacrifice it, he 
 becomes a mere juggler that snatches from me what he pretends to give."
                                                            -  Diderot, 1777
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Rob Butera)
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:01:53 GMT

In article <49#n_-+.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
|> In article <BtAx7t.KyF@rice.edu> rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera) writes:
|> >In article <53#n-hh.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
|> >>The richest 5% of the population paid 36.4% of the income taxes collected
|> >>in 1980. By 1990 they were paying 42.9% of the income taxes. Furthermore
|> >>they had an increase of 17.9% in dollars paid. The total tax base increased
|> >>while inflation and interest rates decreased under this pro-growth taxation
|> >>policy. The assertion that the rich got an unfair tax break by shifting the load
|> >>from them to the poor is simply unsupported by fact. These figures came from
|> >>the Wall Street Journal 8/5/92
|> >>
|> >
|> >This quote omits one relevant statistic: we see how the richest 5% are
|> >paying a greater share of the naitions taxes, and that the $$$ that
|> >they paid increased by 17.9%.  BUT ... what was the income of the
|> >richest 5% in 1980 vs. 1990.  Without this as a reference, all of the
|> >above is irrelevant.  Unless that "richest 5%" is not richest 5% of
|> >the people but those who's income/assets add up to the top 5% ...
|> >
|> >
|> 
|> While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I will disagree
|> with your conclusion: I don't understand why it is somehow wrong for
|> people to work and increase their income. I have only stated that the
|> assertion that the rich got an undeserved tax break is unsupported by 
|> fact. 
|> 

WTF?  I really didn't have a conclusion!  My point was this:  we see that
the amount that they paid in taxes increased was 17.9%  We do not see how
much their income has increased.  Without such information, it may be the case
that their income doubled while their taxes only went up 17.9%.  I'm NOT
advocating what you would likely call "liberal propaganda" like wealth is
evil and all that.  Everyone is entitled to make a living, and to make as 
much as they want if they are successful.  I'm simply pointing out that
the above statistics do not tell us if the taxes paid as a % of their income
went up or down, and what percent that is.  IMHO, that IS a relevant thing
to know in such a debate.  IN NO WAY did I state, advocate, or imply that
it is wrong to work and increase one's income.  Unfortunately, some people
of both liberal and conservative persuasions get so caught up looking for
certain kinds of buzzwords and questions that instantly have a kneejerk
answer, like yours.

-- 
Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu

"Boredom is a vital problem for the moralist, since at least half the sins of
 mankind are caused by the fear of it."  - Bertrand Russell (1930)
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: fetus vs. baby
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:20:25 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21292@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>I find it hard to oppose abortion and not oppose so-called "choice".  It
>is, after all, the "choice" which allows the abortion to occur.  That is
>why I try to avoid using "choice" in the abortion debate - either you
>would have an abortion under some set of "convenient" circumstances or
>you wouldn't.  Since "will" and "won't" are the only two options, I see
>no need to cloud the issue with euphemisms like "choice".  "Choice" means
>that "I would have an abortion under ``conventient'' circumstances",
>hence I use "pro-abortion" and cut out the make-believe.

	It simply means that the only choice you'd allow for is that which
you would make, if you were a pregnant woman. That's why you have such a hard
time understanding the term. I'm anti-abortion, and pro-choice. I am not the
moral authority, ergo- choice.

>It is so interesting that this is the one issue where
>liberals DON'T protect the "rights of the individual."  Actually, there
>are NO issues where liberals protect the "rights of the individual."

	?

>Thought so.  You've got yours - you've been born - screw everyone else.

	Be unfair to those that are born, so as to protect your moral
sensibilities. Ignore the fact that every person's moral sensibilities
vary, and many are unlike yours in this area, so as to make the point
that some folks are not obeying your morals, and that those who do so
are "bad" 'cause they got what they wanted- and you didn't. You wanted
to force someone you don't even know to uphold a minority belief, and
if that person doesn't, he/she's "bad". And you're "good". Hard to
swallow. 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:33:02 GMT
 <1992Aug05.223356.10180@NeoSoft.com> <1992Aug12.140843.4414@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug12.140843.4414@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, Jim Huggins         (8-8305 writes:

> In article <1992Aug05.223356.10180@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> >In article <BmZZoB3w164w@k5qwb.lonestar.org>, lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy) writes:
> >> 
> >> That wasn't the question he was asked.
> > 
> >Does anyone have a complete transcript of the interview?
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think that'll really help here. 
> 
> The pure text was something like this:
> 		(after a quick-fire exchange on the subject)
> 	King: If your daughter decided to have an abortion, would you
> 	      support her decision?
> 	Quayle: I would support her.
> 
> But what doesn't come out in the text is the tone of Quayle's response,
> which was something like:
> 	Quayle: I would support *her*.
> 
> The point being that Quayle would not want his daughter to have an
> abortion, but that he would continue to love and care for her.
> 
> Unfortunately, that nuance of tone doesn't come across when reduced
> to 'just the words', which has caused this whole flap.

No, the words didn't cause the flap.  What caused the flap was a hostile media
just waiting for the chance to misconstrue anything that he said.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 18 Aug 1992 23:58:13 GMT
Organization: Rice University

texas.general, rice.general, rice.galor removed from posting line.
Here we go....
 
In article <mumble> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) feebly flames:
 
>>See above.  'Pro-abortion' is a loaded term,
>so is anti-choice, hypocrite.
>>by the way, unless you're
>>attempting (unsuccessfully) to 'subtly' advocate the anti-choice view.
 
Hmmm....  I don't think I ever attempted to be terribly 'subtle' about
my reply.  The original poster insisted on sole use of the term 'pro-
abortion' (a misnomer, since it argues all opponents of the religious
right's fascism favor abortion, when many find it distasteful but
support the rights of the individual over some possibly mythical Deity
to decide).  So I thought I'd try the shoe out on the other foot.
What's the matter, can't stand a taste of your own medicine?
 
>anti-choice and anti-life, that must be it.  Some people just can't see
>how they do what they judge others for...
 
I actually hoped this argument might flush out a cogent 'pro-life'
position advocate.  I've never met one who wasn't Catholic or else
fundamentalist Protestant.  I'd sure like to hear from a 'pro-life'
atheist, to hear the philosophical position stated without religious
overtones and frippery.  But, Mr. Taylor, given your post about God
being on the side of the protestors, I suspect you are one for neither
intelligent argument nor purely philosophical responses.  Good day.
 
Joseph L. Lockett
jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
From: kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Privacy    (was Re: what the hell is HR 4983
Date: 15 Aug 92 18:23:30 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
|> - do you really want to live in a country where you DON'T have a right
|> to privacy?  Suppose you invite me into your house and I start poking
|> through your personal files or whatever.  What are you going to do?

	I'll tell you to leave.  If you do not, I'll call the police and 
   tell them that I have an intruder in my house and would they kindly 
   come and remove him.  Then I would press charges for trespassing and 
   I would never invite you into my home again.  How's that for a solution 
   that requires no new laws nor the invention of implied Constitution 
   rights.  The Tenth Amendment clearly says that the powers not delegated 
   to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the 
   states respectively, or to the people.  Go read it for the exact words.
   
	Back already?  Did you notice the use of the word "respectively?" 
   It seems clear that whereas abortion regulation is not a power delegated 
   to the Federales, and whereas such regulation is not prohibited to the 
   states, it is obvious that, as far as the US Constitution is concerned, 
   the states have the legal power to regulate abortions.  Now, if a state
   constitution probited such regulation, they would not have the power - 
   but that is not a matter for the Federal SC, but rather the state SC. 

|> Does this bother you?  Do you find privacy a desirable thing to
|> have?  If so, how do you maintain it from someone who wants to
|> breach it?
 
	Your question is unclear.  What to do mean?  

	Anyway, if there is, in fact, a constitutional right to privacy, 
   then certainly it is obvious that any and all gun-registration laws 
   are unconstitutional, since such registration would violate the owners' 
   right to privacy.  Since NOW has supported firearm registration and  
   other anti-firearm laws, it would seem that they really don't believe    
   in a right to privacy.  Ipso facto, NOW doesn't believe abortion is 
   protected by that non-existant constitutional right.     
                                                (Or they're hypocrites.)  

|> Anyway, a friend of mine reminded me that this was exactly one of the
|> fears that some of the writers of the Bill of Rights had - that by
|> defining a limited set of rights and leaving others out instead of
|> attempting an exhaustive list, people would attempt to deny that other
|> rights did exist which were not listed.
 
	Right.  That's what the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were all about. 
   However, the Ninth Amendment has no teeth and the Tenth Amendment has 
   been ignored by the Federales since the War of Northern Aggression.  


-- 
  kossack@taronga.com  |  "One has a moral responsibility  
  Jordan M Kossack     |      to disobey unjust laws."    
  +1 713 240 2073      |   -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: To change the subject
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:03:13 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Gosh, I know you all really love this endless abortion debate, but how about
a brief break? Does anyone have a list of bills that Gramm has introduced in
the last couple of years? I'm curious about what his legislative record is.
Same info on Bentson would also be useful.Thanks.