HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Tax suggestion
Date: 20 Aug 1992 06:21:11 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

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:

My response to your suggestions hinges on this question: Is SS supposed to
be a forced retirement "account" solely for the individual contributor, or
is it supposed to be a means to pool all the money and give it only to those
who meet certain criteria (poverty-stricken or whatever)?  In some ways the
gov't tries to tell you it's an individual account ("call the SS Admin and
they'll tell you how much is in _your_ account for retirement purpose"),
though we know good and well that the 2nd interpretation is the correct one.
I, for one, am not at all sure that the correct interpretation is one I wish
to work under.

> a) Do not penalize those who work to suppliment their social security.
> After all, they do pay taxes and perhaps have some health coverage from their
> jobs. Why should someone who makes $100K/year from investments not be
> penalized when someone who WORKS is?

Instead of putting SS tax on investments, let's just lower the SS taxes on
the working (wo)man.

> b) If you do earn more than say, $100K/year from investments or whatever
> and do not have any earned income, then no social security check at all.
> Why would you need it?

"If I'm not contributing to SS, then I don't get the benefits."  Sounds OK. 
But will you include the poor who don't work and thus don't contribute?

> c) Gradually phase in a FICA credit for those who put a certain amount
> into IRAs or other retirement plans. This would start a transition away
> from using the SS system to bailout the rest of teh federal deficit....

Now, this sounds like a good idea.

> d) Finally, institute a lower FICA tax (say 2%) on ALL income (not just the
> 1st $55K) that would provide benefits to those who are unable to work
> or never had a job where they could pay into IRAs or whatever.

So apparently you agree that SS is a social program to spread wealth toward
those who cannot (will not?) contribute to SS.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:09:59 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <00713574111@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>Nice try, John.

Actually, nice try, Eric.

>Here's the actual poll results: It was a multiple choice question. "What
>should the Texas Legislature do on the abortion issue?" was the question.
>And here were the possible answers:
>
>a) Make abortion illegal except to save the mother's life -- 11%
>b) Make abortion illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or saving
>    the mother's life  -- 18%
>c) Enact more restrictions, but still allow adult women the choice
>   of an abortion -- 14%
>d) Leave the decision up to the woman -- 53%
>e) Unsure -- 5%

Part d) is NOT the same as "make abortion illegal" or "make abortion
legal".  It is the pollsters trick of turning "undecided" into an
affirmative answer in favor of abortion.  If the question is "should
abortion be legal", "leave the decision up to the woman" is NOT the
same as agreeing to "abortion should be legal."

>Amongst Republicans:
>a) 12%
>b) 20%
>c) 15%
>d) 50%
>e) 3%
>
>Even amongst Republicans, only 32% wanted to make abortion
>illegal-with-exceptions.

No, because the 50% that answered "let the woman decide" did NOT say
that abortion should be legal or illegal.  Their response is "don't
care."
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Men and the Abortion Issue
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:36:46 GMT
 <lI2ur*VN0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Aug14.000301.5336@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug14.000301.5336@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

> In article <lI2ur*VN0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >I don't think so.  I suspect that the prime motivation for many men to be
> >pro-choice is the idea that women would be more reluctant to have sex if
> >abortions were illegal.
> 
> 	And yours, that sex scares you. Fair?

No, but you knew that when you posted it.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:04:19 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug12.231807.12819@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>What does the election of a pro-life Governor have to do with what
>I said?  Nothing.  The fact is that the people who are single-issue
>voters on abortion are not the type of people who are going to vote
>for a moderate Democrat (if they are pro-life) or a moderate Republican
>(if they are pro-choice). 

No, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.

If conservatives crossed party lines to vote for a pro-life governor,
it is likely that liberals would cross party lines to vote for a
pro-life president.

There is no single "block" of idealogy that is "liberal" or
"conservative".  There are plenty of "liberals" who think that the
life of a child deserves as much protection as the life of an
endangered animal.  Depending on where they rank human life on that
scale, they may very well cross over.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:59:06 GMT

In article <BsuwAq.A84@rice.edu> rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Rob Butera) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.234350.21681@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug11.223945.11956@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
[Jim Pritchett wrote about prominent Femi-Nazis]
>|> >Name one.
>|> 
>|> There was an article in the Village Voice a couple of years ago that
>|> talked about a new trend called Abortion Chic.  Basically, the goal
>
>Great - we have a reference.  While I find the concept pretty repulsive
>and a waste of time as well (gee I'll get pregnant so I can abort just
>because I can), I have to nitpick and question Jim's original point.
>Are thes "prominent" "Femi-Nazis"?  I suspect they're some fringe group,
>even among the militant feminist types.

I don't know who (if anyone) Jim has in mind, but my favorite quotes
from a prominent feminist (Germaine Greer) are (paraphrased, I don't
have my source next to my desk) "Marriage is a handicap, and 
pregnancy is a disease."

I've got others, but that one's from memory.  I'll have to hit the
bookshelf at home for the others.  

Daryl
--
Daryl Biberdorf                 |  Compaq Computer Corporation | standard
darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com |  20555 SH 249  M/S 060701    | disclaimer
dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu         |  Houston, TX 77070           | applies
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: fetus vs. baby
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:58:48 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21375@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.102724.16941@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
> When asked why they had gotten pregnant, one group of women responded
> that they wanted to prove to their parents that they could accomplish
> something.

	Seems like the parents finally just had to talk to her, but of course,
by then it was too late.

>>You need to provide birth control to those that want it.
> 
> You can get a box of condoms from your local HEB for about $4.  This
> wasn't the case 40 years ago.  You can also get a slew of other birth
> control products, many of which are recent inventions.

	Yes, but are you really naive enough to think that some 15-year-old
is just going to walk up to the counter and buy a box of condoms?  Sure a
few have the bravado to get them, but I'll wager a lot more don't.  They
need to be provided in a place so there is no risk of ridicule.

	I'm not agreeing with the idea that the average 15yr-old is going
to have sex, but if I couldn't change his mind or at least take some more
time to think about it, I buy the condom for him myself.  

> -- 
> John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
> UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
> Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4216 alt.politics.clinton:2314
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:17:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <wa#nn5c.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
>public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler
>

Someone else in this room has repeatedly asked you for a source on this quote,
to which I have seen no response. Although the analogy to the armed American
citizen defending against 1990s American military is nothing other than
laughable machismo, I don't doubt Hitler thought that way. But is the quote
authentic? Where did you find it? You've obviously been granted more than
enough time to respond. But all you do is repeat it ... hmmm, begs the 
question, who is really behaving like Hitler around here?
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:22:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21322@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> I don't know the answer to the post-partum biz is, but post-partum
> lasts for a few weeks or months at best.  Post-abortion guilt may
> NEVER go away, and 57% of women having abortions suffer from it.
 
Considering the fact that a Surgeon General with very strong pro-life
credentials came out and said that simply wasn't true, you are going
to have a tough time convincing anyone else.
 
Let's see.  John is pro-life, SG Koop is pro-life.  SG Koop has his
people go out and review the literature and he comes to the conclusion
that the vast majority of women who have abortions don't suffer
psychologically.  John disagrees.   Who is more credible on the issue?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:48:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <q82vr*1P0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>Skeptical aren't you (when it serves your purpose.)  You probably believed 
>Anita Hill.

	Was she lying? I thought this'd been unsolved.....

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Lottery
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:39:56 GMT

In <TBkkPB1w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:

>john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>> In article <2TgFPB3w164w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
>> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>> |> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> |> > Well, you could try to vote out the Governor and her big spending cohort
>> 
>> This comment is perplexing.  What "big spending" has Ann Richards been
>> responsible for?

>She has favored the increased taxation for schooling; she has favored the
>legalized gambling at horsetracks, which I predict will receive greater tax
>subsidies in the future, in the form of decreased taxation of the
>establishments; she has favored a state income tax (spoken through Lt. Gov'r
>Bullock).  Is that enough?

>> You voted for Mr. "Lay back and enjoy it" Blatant Millions?

>Yes; not that it was a really enjoyable alternative, mind you.

Yeah, I know the feeling.  I voted strictly on the basis of Richards
having run a 'slightly' less dirty campaign than Williams did.  I
found myself regretting it on election night, when he showed himself
to be much better in defeat than she was in victory.

When asked my opinion about the governor's race in Texas, my response
would invariably be, "Given the choices, it's fortunate that Texas has
one of the weakest Governorships in the nation."


-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4184 alt.politics.clinton:2268
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 07:03:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug14.184444.9870@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, John Gossman writes:

> 	I suggest you read Robert Reich's book "The Work of Nations".

For the record, Reich is one of Clinton's advisors.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:37:16 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

> I'm pro-choice and I don't deny its [a fetus'] humanity.

I note that you are the only pro-choicer I've read in tx.politics that
recognizes this.  Thank you for being honest.

> I just don't
> place the importance of its humanity quite as high as you do.

Obvious, and also straightforward and honest. Thank you.

...
> There's nothing particularly special about human life.  This is a
> harsh cruel world we live in.  We're just one of the species trying to
> survive and keep our genes going.  And any perspective that assumes a
> definable "moral and ethical fabric of society" IS a religious one.

Interesting...I think I'd say that moral and ethical is derived from
religious beliefs. But rather than believing that human life is
"nothing...special", I find it more plausible to believe that it is
special. The vast majority of human societies (perhaps all of them) have
defined a "moral and ethical fabric of society" for themselves.  Which
means that the vast, vast majority of people are "religious" in some
sense, and that it is totally natural for them to reflect their beliefs
in their laws.  Secondarily, the fact that so many people _are_
religious might be evidence that their _is_ something supernatural,
outside of all of us.  I think your viewpoint, John, is very much the
minority.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:03:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

> In article <TsJur*KO0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug10.222832.22830@watson.ibm.com>, John Iacoletti writes:
> > > Exodus 21:22-25:
> > > 
> > >      22 And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with
> > >         child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further
> > >         injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may
> > >         demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
> > >      23 But if there is any further injury [meaning to the woman],
> > >         then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
> > >      24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
> > >      25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
> > 
> > This is for an accidental death (of the child.)  Therefore it is irrelevent
> > the abortion issue.  There is also a law (cities of refuge) to protect the 
> > who accidently kills an adult.
>  
> It doesn't sound accidental to me at all.  Abortion existed at the time
> the Bible was written, why is it not prohibited?  After all, they
> certainly took a lot of time to detail the law on all sorts of other
> issues.

My first guess would be that the law doesn't speak so much to direct
abortion because the correct response to it was common knowledge and didn't
need further explanation, whereas unusual circumstances as quoted above
required more guidelines.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4271 houston.general:887
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,houston.general,rice.politics
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:23:46 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.105027.16956@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>        You can't instill love through fear and insults.

Damn right.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:08:13 GMT
 <21216@rpp386.lonestar.org> <00713484942@elgamy.sccsi.com> <21336@rpp386.lonestar.org>
 <1992Aug12.150738.16951@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <21371@rpp386.lonestar.org> <1992Aug17.145419.8141@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug17.145419.8141@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> If you had said "broadcast media", you might have a case.  However,
> the claim that 'the news media (including newspapers, magazines, etc.)
> is somehow 'left leaning' is simply not supported by the facts.  The

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.  You probably think that
the New York Times is unbiased.  We don't have time or space to count newspapers,
but an unbiased observer would find that there are many more large liberal
newspapers.

Let's see, there are basicly three important weekly news magazines.  Time and
Newsweek are definitely left of center.  US News is more moderate to conservative.
That is 2/3 left.  So, you are wrong about the weekly news magazines.

Fred, do you come from another planet, or are you simply so liberal that you
think that the media is conservative?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The NAACP (was: Re: HR 4983)
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:42:31 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug13.145713.22315@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>And it's not like they have to 'ferret' very hard, either.  So nice
>that YOU are the definer of "the sole reason for the NAACP's continued
>existence".  And here all this time I thought all they did was FIND
>the racism that already exists.  Somehow, though, I knew that John
>would find some other 'reason'for their existence.  One has to wonder,
>though, just what words he had to redefine/ignore to arrive at THIS
>bit of 'wisdom'.

A man took a painting to an artist to have the painting repaired.  The
painting had been in the man's attict for some number of years and had
mildewed.  The man asked the artist to restore the painting, but when
he was told how impractical that would be, he agreed that the artist
should simply remove the three most offensive mildew stains and that
would be sufficient.  A week later the man returned to claim his
painting.

The man examined the painting and found three large and offensive
mildew stains and asked the artist why these hadn't removed.  The
artist remarked that he had removed three stain marks.  The man
replied that the artist had obviously removed three smaller stains
and that he should re-do the work, this time removing the three
largest stains.

A week later the man returned again.  Once again he examined the
painting and found three very large and offensive stains.  Again he
had the conversation, and again the artist agreed to remove the
three largest and most offensive stains.

This is part of how the NAACP works.  Find something that you think
is racism.  Remove it.  Go back and notice that there is still
something you call racism.  Remove it.  Continue doing this until you
have attacked every noticible piece of racism.  Get out the microscope
and keep looking.

The other part of how the NAACP works is like this.  Find some
difference and attribute it to racism.  Invent a program that is
supposed to fix this difference.  When the program creates additional
racial tension or further imbalance, blame that on racism and create a
new program to fix the problems the first program caused.  Continuing
doing this until you have proven that everything the whites do to
blacks is racist.

Some of us have worked with blacks.  Some of us will wake up tomorrow
morning, throw the power tools into the trunk of the motorcycle,
drive to an all-black neighborhood and fix a broken down house.  Some
of YOU will post to USENET and pretend to know what black culture is
all about.

Those who can, do.  Those who can't, write.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."