HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy    (was Re: what the hell is HR 4983
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:18:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <im05PB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
- >    teeth, not that the teeth don't exist.  The lower courts have the 
- >    power to use those teeth if the SC drops the ball.  The Rock Island 
- >    Armory case is a good recent example. 
- 
- I've not heard of this case.  Would you please summarize for those of us who
- missed it?

	I don't have the decision online, but basically a lower court 
   (state SC?) found the BATF ban on new machineguns to be illegitimate/
   unconstitutional.  Apparently, the court found that while the Feds
   have the power to tax machine guns, they don't have the power to ban. 

	I'll try to dig up the actual decision from tpg or the archives. 

- about interpreting the U.S. Constitution.  IMO we've lost much of the
- balance that comes from enforcing the separation of powers between the
- federal and the various states' governments.)
 
	I agree heartily with this observation.  

-- 
 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
From: root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Ab
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:48:14 GMT
Reply-To: moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

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
apparently introduced into the Tennessee (?) legislature some years ago
that would have, by law, rounded "pi" to 3.00...


[...]

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

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "Advertising may be described as
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   the science of arresting human
possibly represent its position.	|   intelligence long enough to get
					|   money from it."
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Stephen Leacock
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion (was <None>)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:37:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.163811.63@turtle.fisher.com> dienstbier@turtle.fisher.com writes:

>Freedom of religion does not mean that you are free to do as you please,
>whether it is against the law or not. If the society in which you live has
>decided that an action is not legal, you cannot simply claim "my religious
>law mandates this", then cry violation of religious freedom.

If I may quote a document we are all familiar with:

1st Amendment
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.

Now, as I read that paragraph, any law which contravenes religious law
or limits one's freedom to worship is illegal and should be struck
down.

>I'm sure that there are religions in this country which require animal
>and/or human sacrifices be performed. Is it a violation of religious
>freedom if we as a society do not allow this?

Two sections of the constitution seem relevant here:

9th Amendment
   The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment
   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.


As I read it, amendments 9 and 10 allow for the existence of other
rights not specificied in the consitution, to be established by the
states or 'the people'. Since animal rights could not, by any
contortion of language, become rights 'retained by the people', I
suspect it would be extremely hard to ban animal sacrifice in any
legal way.

Certainly, all states tacitly endorse a 'right not to be murdered', at
least without due process of law. So, religious freedom does not allow
human sacrifice. That is not to say that state or local law can
supersede the specific rights in the Constitution all the time, only
when state law 1) doesn't cover a topic the Constitution has already
specifically covered, and 2) can be interpreted as a 'right' retained
by the people (i.e. through interpretation by the SC, I presume).

-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:43:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

I tried not to post, I really did, but my finger just jumped to the
'F' key!

In article <21418@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>``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.

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).

We kill those animals without hesitation.

> 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?

>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
-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: S&L mess
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:35:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <1992Aug21.183038.19525@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>Chris, are you saying that Reagan had no hand in the S&L
>deregulation, that it was all the idea of congress,and he
>signed the bill(s) without protest? I seem to remember that
>he was a big advocate of deregulation and congress, foolish
>as they were, went along with it.

Reagan made a mistake with deregulation of the S+L's.

His mistake was that he didn't go far enough.  He should have
completely deregulated them and banks too.  And he should have taken
away the FDIC insurance for most accounts.  The FDIC should only insure
accounts which stick 100% of the money in Tbills.  That way the bank
owners would be the ones who got hammered by their own incompetence,
instead of the taxpayer.

Reagan took away the ropes that bound the hands of the bankers.  But he
forgot to remove the safety net so as to make them cautious.

And don't forget that it was a few democrats in Congress in a midnight
session in a backroom, without a public vote, who changed the insurance
limit from 40k to 100k one day.  That raised the taxpayer's bill 250%
in all this mess.

Congress made the saftey net over twice as soft.

There is still today no industry so totaly regulated to death by the
government as the banking system, with perhaps the exception of the
airlines.  All this democratic whining for more regulation on both must
makes me cringe.
-- 
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: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Is Congress the problem?
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:41:44 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Sorry to let all of you "congress is the boogey-man" folks down
but the facts don't seem to support Bush's contention that
"it's all the fault of congress." Check out the book "Divided We
Govern" by David Mayhew (Yale U. Press, 1991). 

Another interesting fact: Republicans voted against Bush's budget
bill this past march with a margin of 3 to 1 in the house. Also,
conservative democrats side with the republicans as often as they do
with their own party.
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:12:52 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <16854ECA5.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
>         I'm not Jewish,  so I feel perhaps more objective in seconding
> that.   My understanding of the pro-life stance  (being an advocate and
> having been previously involved)  is that it agrees:  if the mother's
> health  (life at least)  is endangered,  abortion is in order.
 
Wrong.  The Constitutional Ammendment proposed by the pro-lifers would
give no such provision for abortion to save the mother.  It's possible
that some courts could interpret it that way, but it clearly on the
face would seem to say that all abortions, for whatever reason, are
illegal.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Dems and deficits.
Date: 3 Sep 1992 15:34:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

The Democratic leadership could care less about thedeficit.  they wanted 
the tax increases so that  they could embarress the president. It worked!
  Jim Pritchert is dead wrong!
.........................................................................
In Januarry bush presented a budget that called for $13 billion dollars 
in tax increases!  All by himself with no help fronm the Dems!  Then when 
it was obvious that the deficits were skyrocketing and the economy going 
down the tubes, caled for a budget summit. 
  The Democratics were stunned to find Bush Offering to RAISE TAXES!
The did not join him in this because they suspected the usual Reagantype 
dirty tricks.  The Democratic leadership did this repeatedly!  Bush 
Presevered in wanting TO RASISE TAXES!  BUSH!  Not the Dems!
And when Bush got what he wanted, he did not have the backbone to take 
the political heat.
  On Oct 5th 90, he was aying, if you have problems voting for this 
deficit reductiobn plan and with raising Taxes, "Blame Me".
20 days later the bill passed and Bush got scared at the reaction and 
yellow bellied on us!
  He then started blaming the dems, as the Democratic leadership had 
worried  that he would!  Bush is a liar and Pritchett simply does NOT 
KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE IS Prattling about!
  Since Nov. 1990 Bush has been systematically burning every bridge and 
poisoning every well he can when it comes to dealing with congress.  He's 
lost.  No body in Congress can work with a backstabbing wimp like Bush
.....................................................................
I have to go now and catcha plane to chicago.  But in 4 days when I get 
back, I will deal with Pritchett's fantsies and character assasinations 
of the Democrats at lenghth.  I have a huge pile 'o' clippings from that 
period with ton's of juicy quotes form lying George Bush himself on this.
  BUsh indeed started 1990 off with a hefty tax raise, asked the 
Democrats to join him in raising taxes and then, lied and lies totally 
about his actions during the great Defict Reduction Plan fiasco period of 
May 1990 to Oct. 1990.  Lies!
.................................................................
I hereby nickname Bus, Lying George.  He's a bigger Liar than Slick Willy 
can ever aspire to be.
See ya in 4 days, Pritchett

--
popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 in Houston, Texas
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Constitutional Interpretation (was Re: Pro-Choice)
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:08:57 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <P5sZPB4w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>> In article <yaksPB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
>> Winemiller) writes:
>> >The new
>> >scientific discoveries are analogous to newly-passed laws (including
>> >Constitutional amendments).  A judge then makes decisions about how to apply
>> >the new "discoveries" (laws, amendments) to situations at hand.
>> 
>> 	Fair enough analogy; I like it. The doctor's purpose is to preserve
>> the health of the patient, the judge's purpose is justice.
>
>I think I'll elaborate a bit here: I accept the purpose of "justice" as long
>as "justice" is defined as the intent of the law, as stated in its wording,
>as intended by the lawmakers (which intent one can glean from arguments by
>them within and without Congress).  Justice is then what the people, through
>their legislators, desire to be encoded in law.  A judge, then, is prevented
>from enforcing his own personal definition of "justice" which he makes up
>according to his own moral view.

	So, all of our justices know exactly and explicitly what the
FF's meant by "due process", "equal protection", "unreasonable search
and seizure", "cruel and unusual", and can happily leave their own 
personalities at the door, and just go by the letter of the law. If you'd like,
I have more material to present on this topic. I will stop here to point 
out the benefit of claiming "original intent', as has Bork. It's a wolf
(interpretation) in sheep's (non-interpreted, what they _reall_ meant)
clothes. No assessment in our time is truly going to be "original intent".
Still, we each choose to believe one version or the other. I believe our
FF's had faith in people, and lack of faith in iron-clad wording.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:44:53 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <21415@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <exuptr.171.714781858@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug21.144203.18388@menudo.uh.edu> moore@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu (Lorra L. Moore) writes:
>> >Well, since I am assuming you are trying to compare me to a fetus, or
>> >the experience, I am going to have to say never.  But than again,
>> >neither have you.  So, since neither of us know what it feels like, and no
>> >one on the face of this planet does.  In fact, there is no evidence that
>> >the fetus knows what it feels like, this is a pretty mute argument.
>> 
>> Disagree.  THe fact that there is NO EVIDENCE is exactly the point you
>> were trying to make.  You DON'T KNOW, do you?

>There is very strong evidence to support the position that a child can
>tell it is being aborted, and that it isn't happy about it in the least.

Ok, well I haven't seen it.  I think even if it's unknown it's dumb to
take a chance.  That was my point.

>There have been a number of films made with live abortion (meaning,
>not still action, as opposed to "live person <-> dead person") footage.
>The most famous of these is "Silent Scream", 

Where can one observe the film?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:05:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:

> In article <Le2RPB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> >
> > No.  But your point is misdirected.  A vast number of people believe that
> > there is something supernatural.  What they _don't_ agree upon is the natur
> > of that supernatural --- which is the correct parallel to your 'earth is
> > flat' statement.  To deny spiritual reality is to put yourself in a very
> > tiny minority in the history of the world, indeed.
> >
> You've obviously missed my point completely.

Actually, not.  I understood exactly what you meant.  There is further
evidence beyond what I mention above, but that is a discussion for another
news group, not tx.politics.

> And how can anyone deny spiritual reality when there is no spiritual reality,
> but only spiritual beliefs?

How do _you_ know that there is no spiritual reality?  Obviously, you are in
no position to investigate whether or not spiritual reality exists, because
you have already concluded that there _is_ none!

(Sorry tx.politics readers, but I couldn't resist commenting on this :-))

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4470 houston.general:936
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,houston.general,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice C
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:50:27 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Aug24.190130.18755@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <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. 

	I don't have a problem with the poor having more kids, as long as
I am not required to fork out tax dollars to support them.  If you think
I ought to be responsible to my community, then consider that it might be
considered more responsible to not have the kid?  And before some of you
pro-life people rant on me, not-getting-pregnant is also equal to
not-having-kid, the prefered approach.

>>> It's even required for graduation in most places that the student have a clue
> 
>>(chuckle)
> 
> Not anywhere I've ever heard of, either.

	Me either.  I graduated with a degree in C.S., and I *still* don't
know about the "Real World"(tm).

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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:4506 alt.politics.clinton:3146 alt.politics.bush:3078
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:52:54 GMT

In <21450@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:


>No, the economy is currently growing at a 2 to 3% rate, and will continue
>to expand over the next year or two no matter who is elected.

Well, I think this is probably true, but certainly not a foregone
conclusion. 

>The '91 - '92 recession is a direct result of the tax increase of 1990 and
>the growth of the 80's.  In '64, Johnson had taxes cut - unemployment fell,
>the economy grew.  In '68, John had taxes raised.  This left Nixon with an
>inflation nightmare, and screwed the economy up for the next several years
>(Nixon would eventually lower taxes).

>As for the 80's growth, we are much better off than we were in 1981, or
>even 1984 or '85.  Sure, we have to PAY for all of that growth, but then,
>this is the fourth or fifth up-down cycle this country has seen since the
>end of the Great Depression.

>This current down-turn was successfully predicted over 90 years ago.  There
>will be another up-down cycle, followed by another, and another, and so on.

How does this work, that you think you can have it both ways?  Either
taxation and spending and suchlike are affecting the economy or they
are not.  Either the economy is the fault of the actions of Presidents
and Congress or it is not.

Make up your mind, John.

>The best we can do is elect a president that will not "buy into" the
>current crisis by going on a spending binge.  Bill Clinton wants to spend
>$220B in the next four years.  The only problem with George Bush is that he
>isn't Ronald Reagan.  What we need MOST at this time is a president that
>isn't going to set us up for a serious roller-coaster ride in 10 years by
>pumping Federal deficit dollars into the national economy.

Got any ideas where we can find one?  Deficits are BIGGER now than
under Democrats, not smaller, John.  Is it time to ask "Where was
George" again?

>That we will have economic expansion followed by economy contraction is a
>foregone conclusion.  Spending tax dollars to prop up the economy, then
>raising taxes to pay for that stimulus only ratchets up the strain on the
>system.  Right now, we need tax CUTS.  We also need spending CUTS.  We
>need less drag on the economy, not more.

Spending isn't a "drag on the economy".  What do you want to cut to
fix the current deficit?  After that list, tell me what you want to
cut to fix the new deficit from cutting taxes.  If you can come up
with a reasonable explanation for this, you'll be ahead of George
Bush.  He's said he wants to cut taxes, but isn't going to talk about
how he plans to pay for it until January or so.

In other words, he's clueless.


-- 
"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:4774 alt.politics.clinton:3943