HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sid@manning.austin.ibm.com (Sid Manning)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: BOOK BANS ON RISE
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:06:24 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <4655@d75.UUCP> curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072) writes:
>
>*10  CENSORSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM:  BOOK BANS ON RISE
>     Books banned range from classic literature to modern
>stories.  The POST reports that John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and
>Men" was the "most frequently challenged book during the last
>school year."  Other books high on the censorship list include:
>Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath," Mark Twain's "Adventures of
>Huckleberry Finn," J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye,"
>Alice Walker's "The Color Purple" and Madeleine L'Engle's "A
>Wrinkle in Time."

Gee, I had to read most all of these books, and that was in Catholic School!

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sid Manning  -  sid@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com  -  SMANNING@AUSVM6
IBM Austin - AWD Graphics Systems. >-> I don't speak for IBM. <-<
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:12:36 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX

In article <1992Sep10.215505.35927@watson.ibm.com> john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
>Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
>Date: 10 Sep 92 21:55:05 GMT

>In article <21492@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>|> During that discussion, at no time did I state that I had Joe in the
>|> KILL file.  It has always been Joe who assumes he is in the KILL file
>|> because I don't respond to what he writes.
>|> 
>|> Next myth.

>----------
>From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
>Message-Id: <20561@rpp386.cactus.org>
>Date: 27 Mar 92 15:02:02 GMT

>Since it was Joe that ascribed my meaning that we had closed minds to my
>statement that he would do well to not argue with us, you would be correct
>in ignoring what he wrote (it's what I do - that's why I have him in my
>KILL file).
>----------

>-- 
>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


Hmm...  looking pretty grim.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: WELFARE PROPOSAL WOULD HURT YOUNG CHILDREN
Keywords: =====  CHILDREN IN CRISIS  =====
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:21:38 GMT
Reply-To: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX

*6   STANFORD STUDY:  WELFARE PROPOSAL WOULD HURT YOUNG CHILDREN
     A welfare-reform initiative proposed by Calif. Gov. Pete
Wilson (R) would harm thousands of poor infants if enacted,
according to a study released yesterday (Ellis, L.A. TIMES).
Study author Michael Wald of Stanford U:  "This is the only
proposal ever that would force mothers of infants to work without
adequate child care.  Inadequate child care is dangerous to all
children, but it is terrible for babies."
     The initiative would reduce to Aid to Families with
Dependent Children benefits of "able" parents who do not find
work six months after having a baby (See DRC 2/14).  According to
the TIMES, "By reducing welfare benefits even for women who have
newborn babies the study said the initiative will force many
single mothers into the workplace during their children's
critical first year."
     The study adds that "most experts believe that infants
should have either full-time parental care or high-quality child
care, a service poor mothers can ill afford."  And the absence of
such child care may lead mothers to leave their children with a
series of relatives and neighbors, which the authors describe as
"the worst possible situation."
     But Amy Albright, press secretary for the campaign in favor
of the initiative, was skeptical about the study, which was
conducted by Stanford's Center for the Study of Families,
Children and Youth.  Albright described it as a "report out of
liberal academia that says the main problem with our welfare
system is that we're not spending enough money on it." (9/9)

--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |       Austin, TX
FICA is a massive wealth transfer from young middle class to old middle class.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 07:20:58 GMT
 <hZ7Dr*7X0@caleb.UUCP> <Bu6A2x.FCD@rice.edu>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <Bu6A2x.FCD@rice.edu>, Patrick L Humphrey writes:

> Jim, have a clue:  read the paper once in a while.  Did you notice the
> little platform plank rammed through at the RNC?  No exceptions -- not to
> save the mother's life, or in cases of incest or rape, *period*.  It's funny
> how *you* can't seem to find any of your fellow travelers who feel that way,
> but all I have to do is go over to talk.abortion and I can find them without
> any effort at all.  Maybe you'd better ask some of your pro-force friends
> about what they're after -- because you're not exactly parroting the party
> line...:-)

YOU get a clue.  You are simply parroting the liberal line.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:57:01 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <exuptr.504.716166010@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <7290@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
...
>>It isn't? Why not? After all, it is essentially the worship of the State and
>>the People...it's close enough to a religion for me.

>You're not into Scientology, are you?

Huh? What? Communism and Robert Heinlen have nothing to do with the
"Church" of Scientology. Kind of a bizarre reference.

Now you might be think of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology...

-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# I am sane. I am perfectly and completely sane. I shouldn't be in here     #
# at all. There's been a terrible mistake.                                  #
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:43:30 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep11.142213.18247@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>In article <21492@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>During that discussion, at no time did I state that I had Joe in the
>>KILL file.  It has always been Joe who assumes he is in the KILL file
>>because I don't respond to what he writes.

Joe, you were in the KILL file for about a week.  You've not been in the
KILL file since last year.  I'm really sorry to break this news to you.
You've been told this before, but you JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT UNLESS I
REPLY TO YOUR POSTINGS.

>]In article <20692@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>]There is an easy solution for dealing with Joe "I beat my kids even though
>]I don't tell them not to break any rules" Mullany.
>]
>]Put him in your KILL file.
>
>>Next myth.
>
>	Thor makes thunder? (-:

This proves NOTHING.  You need to find a quote from before Fred stated that
I had you in my KILL file and during that discussion when Fred jumped on me
for "having you in my KILL file".  Iacoletti has come the closest, but as I
recall, I made that posting =after= Fred jumped on my case.  During that
entire period you were not in the KILL file.  My statement (which you are
trying to disprove) was that it was Fred who first assumed that you were in
the KILL file.

We already had this discussion a few months back.  I admitted back then that
you weren't in the KILL file, and you STILL kept bleating on about how you
know that I really like you, and how you know that I read your postings by
candlelight, and all that crap.  I don't reply to your postings because they
aren't worth replying to.  I don't want to be lectured to about moral
relativism and how slavery was OK back then because, well, it was done back
then.
-- 
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: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: George v. Congress
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:21:36 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <sP7Dr*6X0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> So far, we have one broken promise by Bush (there is no evidence that he lied, but
> he did break his promise.)
 
Actually, Bush lies each time he repeats the ridiculous "128 tax
increases" phrase his crew thought up.  Some of the "tax increases" are
outright silly.  At least two of them are repeated twice in the same list
(even when there was only one increase).  An increased tax on alcohol was
counted four or five times, since it applied to beer, wine, wine coolers,
hard liquor, etc.  Why didn't they go all out and count each one of the
brands of beer?  Probably the funniest "tax increase" has to do with a
bill that lengthened the period racing tracks in Arkansas were open on the
logic that since increased number of days of gambling meant an increase in
tax revenues, that counted as an increased tax.
 
The fact is, that Bush has not just raised taxes once.  If you do the same
sort of accounting on Bush, he has raised taxes something like 133 times.
For example, there have been dozens of federal excise tax increases.  This
number doesn't even include all sorts of increased user fees, the same
sort of user fees that Bush counts against Clinton in his 128 number. 
Bush has also made all sorts of executive changes that have increased
taxes, for example, changing the interpretation of certain tax codes.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics,rice.galor
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (Long)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 22:53:09 GMT
 <1992Aug20.000853.12407@cactus.org> <1992Aug20.144033.2939@menudo.uh.edu> <exuptr.375.714354030@exu.ericsson.se>
 <1684AFF82.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> <exuptr.173.71Organization <1685513A1C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1685513A1C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Joseph L. Lockett writes:

several deliberate misinterpretations of the Bible and outright falsehoods.

> I have read ALL of John 8.  I see the story of Jesus and the adulteress,

You obviously didn't understand it.

[...]

> prick.  Actually, I think a fair-sized group of Biblical scholars figure
> the man was gay himself, and repressed it in himself and others all his
> life.  No wonder he's so retentive it's amusing.

The group of warped, so-called scholars who would agree with that statement is
both small and irrelevant.

> Elizabethan English of his beloved King James (who was himself gay, by
> the way, according to many interpretations):

King James was absolutely abominable.  However, he did NOT do the translation,
it was simply named after him because the translation was commissioned during
his reign.

[more misinterpretations and ridicule deleted.]

Since you are deliberately perverting the Scriptures, there is little point in
specifically rebutting each point of your ridiculous diatribe.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:20:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep9.161208.11928@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>More and more, every day in every way, GHWB does things that convince
>me that I will vote for a Democrat for President for the first time in
>my 20 year voting history.

...and you will deserve what you get.

Unfortunately, I _don't_ deserve what I will get.

Prediction: In 1995, I'll have a line in my .sig that says, "Don't blame me -
I voted for Bush!".

...that is, if I still have a job.
-- 
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.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 11 Sep 92 06:56:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep10.220006.30831@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>Here is how juries think:
>
>Gee that poor person really suffered a lot--he ought to get something.
>Hey!  It's not really that doctor's fault, but he has a lot of
>malpractice insurance.  It's not really going to hurt the doctor much
>if we give the guy a couple of million.

  I recently saw in the paper that a study had found that Judges typicly
awarded more to the plaintif than Juries do. How do the Judges think?
-- 
Mike Swaim            | Canada will become the next world power
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | and they will work to ENSLAVE all the nations
Disclamer: I lie      | of your planet. -Ricardo
Cthulhu in '92! The stars are right!
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5238 alt.politics.clinton:5480
From: bboerner@novdpd.uucp (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: "Socialized medicine" in Texas
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:31:57 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

Regarding the issue of "socialized medicine" - I was talking about this
with a friend of mine the other night and he suggested this:  suppose
the gov't does get in the business of providing healthcare to all who
can't afford it.  Fine, but in return, anyone taking advantage would be
required to use preventine medicine (regular checkups instead of
waiting until the coronary hits) AND follow their doctor's advice,
"Well, Mr.  Boerner, I want you to quite smoking and lose 20 pounds,
etc..."  If not, no care.  This way we can go about the business of
actually allocating resources to take care of people who are actively
working to take care of themselves rather than spending big bucks for
the folks who don't think about a doctor until they are seriously ill.
Of course, this doesn't apply to catastrophic, unforeseen acts such as
being in a wreck, etc...

Also, if the gov't does provide healthcare, I think it would be a
prerequisite to do what I believe it was Oregon or Washington St.
tried doing recently (60 Minutes did a piece about this a while back
and rebroadcast it within the last month or so) - come up with a list
of procedures, rate them on cost/efficacy and then establish a cut-off
point above which you aren't covered.

Comments?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:25:34 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <Bu4Lp2.GCs@rice.edu> dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.212525.14670@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>In <BtyMLn.HtH@rice.edu> dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes) writes:
>>>The line that most of the concerned doctors I know draw is this:
>>>If the fetus is incapable of surviving independently of the mother *without*
>>>mechanical assistance or significant medical procedures, it is not yet human.

>>Hmmm, I'm not sure just how 'reasonable' you might want to say this
>>is.  By this measure, my oldest sister wasn't 'human'.  Now, I admit
>>to having my doubts upon occasion as we were growing up, but I think
>>that medically she probably should be considered to have been a person
>>at birth.

>That's why I specifically said "fetus". A fetus that survives to
>term is capable of surviving independently of the mother, and no
>longer falls under the criterion I quoted earlier -- once it's
>born, it's no longer a fetus.

I guess you're going to have to define the line between 'fetus' and
'born', then.  I raise this because my sister DIDN'T survive to term.
She was way early.  By your definition, that means she was not human.

>>If you want to draw this kind of line, I think where you need to draw
>>it is between 'normal' and 'heroic' procedures.

>"significant medical procedures" and "mechanical assistance"
>generally imply heroic measures in my mind. My apologies that I
>wasn't clear.

Well, that means she still wasn't human.  They had to work pretty hard
to keep her alive.  I think that human brain function makes a better
line.  Of course, that pretty much eliminates the idea of 3rd
trimester abortions (except in 'self-defense' cases where the life of
the mother is endangered, or in cases where there is sufficient
problem with the foetus that human brain function just doesn't exist). 


-- 
"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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 07:23:34 GMT
 <Bu6A6I.FE1@rice.edu>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <Bu6A6I.FE1@rice.edu>, Patrick L Humphrey writes:

> >> If the fetus is incapable of surviving independently of the mother *without*
> >> mechanical assistance or significant medical procedures, it is not yet human.
> >> 
> >> To me, this seems to be an intelligent compromise -- admittedly,
> >> a relatively arbitrary point, but, I think, a reasonable one.
> >
> >So, do you want to apply this logic to the critically ill?
> 
> So, would you mind pointing out where he said anything about "critically
> ill"?  Looks like YOU'RE the one who got the idea first, to me...

Go read the quote above.  Explain logically how a critically ill person who requires
life support is any different than the fetus.  No, arbitrary definitions of "life"
or "humanity" don't count.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4893 alt.politics.clinton:4267
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Project Athena

In article <1992Sep6.214512.6940@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>In article <PZaDr*jX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.205150.3382@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
>>
>>> Pardon my ignorance, but how does the growth of the 80's cause the 
>>> current recession unless you are saying that we morgaged our future
>>> in the 80's. In that case I agree with you.
>>
>>There are economic cycles.  The economy goes up, then the economy goes down.
>>This has been going on for hundreds of years.  It is hardly a case of "paying
>>for the 80's."
>>
>
>Yes, but there hasn't been a downswing like this since the great depression.

False!!  The debacle of the early seventies was _much_ worse, by many
indicators.  Of course, it depends on which one you use as they are not
constant for all given recessions, but anyone who remembers it can back this
up.

>
>>> Like FDR did when he successfully reduced unemployment.
>>
>>Yeah, he did it by getting us into WWII.
>
>The worst of the depression was over by the late 30's.  By that stage,
>unemployment was already going down.

I'm not sure about this, so I'm only tossing this out for comments, but
hadn't the military buildup already begun in the late thirties, helping
to pull us out of our economic dookie?  As was almost always true 
[until 1991 anyway] there's nothing like a war to boost the economy.


>
>Peter Lauren.
>

Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 04:09:30 GMT

jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep15.013618.14163@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>You must be kidding? The National debt has climbed 57% under Bush.
>>The budget deficit has climbed 157%. This is the man who is going to
>>balence the budget? BTW, if you start going on about Congress being
>>responsible for this, then I will expect you to explain how Congress
>>isn't responsible for any growth in the 80's.

>Please read Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution.
>-- 

OK.  Got it in front of me.  Talks about revenue bills starting in
House and veto power of President and concurrent orders or
resolutions to be passed by President.  Now, I've heard that
Congress hasn't really changed that much over the past thirty years.
Up until 1981, the federal debt as a percent of GDP fell pretty
steadily during that period under both republican and democratic
presidencies.  Then, in 1981, it has been on a steady rise at a rate
that is pretty incredible.  So, if Congress has always had its
problem of wanting to spend so much money during the period.  What
was the difference in the past 11 years.  Perhaps Presidents who
were incompetent when it came to performing their jobs when it came
time to working with Congress?

Perhaps in a few weeks, Bush will make a statement that Cleveland
was the cause of the current deficit and debt growth already 100
years ago because 1) he didn't participate in the Civil War and 2) he
wasn't married ath the time he went into office (family values
issue).

Xref: sparky tx.politics:4827 alt.politics.clinton:4138