HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:33:56 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21418@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> I would encourage you to actually read a newspaper.  The least story
> of violence, whether caused by "good" guys or "bad" guys", makes the
> paper.  The only exceptions to this rule is where the act is so
> common-place that it has long since ceased to be newsworthy.  Abortion
> protests are still rare enough that protests and parades still make
> the news.  If there was violence there, it would have been reported.
> 
 
The facts don't support that.  I've seen some videotapes of pretty brutal
police behavior toward OR people, and I heard very little in the media
about it.  The people I talk to who were at the clinics back up the
fact that there was some "minor" violence like stepping on toes, pushing,
etc.  There's nothing sillier than someone explaining why theoretically
something couldn't have happened or wouldn't have happened, when the
people there are saying "it did happen!".  Show that these people
have a history of lying or stop claiming things you can't back up.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4625 alt.politics.clinton:3502
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: iraq vanquished
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:11:53 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <4651@d75.UUCP> curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072) writes:
...
>Carl Sagan sat there on CNN and said that we would have global cooling
>and enlarging ice caps if he did it.  This was not the National Enquirer.
>This was not "Geraldo".  This was CNN.  He had all sorts of fancy computer
>models to back him up.
...
>Over the howls of protest from the democratic leadership and other
>wussies like Carl Sagan.
...
>Where is Carl Sagan now?  Where is the global catastrophy?

Hmm. This is kind of a bizarre post; I've half a mind to simply ignore
it as some kind of strange joke.

However, let me point out that much of the environmental disaster
predicted by scientists did occur. Perhaps Carl S. didn't make it
clear enough, but the 'fancy computer models' which Curt seemed so
impressed with are purely speculative devices. Lots of people use
different atmospheric models; Carl Sagan is generally seen as an
authority because he was the first to understand the 'greenhouse'
mechanism in the Venusian atmosphere.

Scientists predicted all kinds of other disasters. Marine life in the
Persian Gulf has suffered absolutely incredible damage. Agriculture
east of the Gulf is already suffering, and it will continue to suffer,
possibly for months or years to come.

Of course, none of these events really affect Curt's daily life here
in the U.S., so they probably don't count as 'global catastrophy'
[sic]. :-)


-- 
# 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: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Printed refs vs. 'I heard it on...'
Date: 26 Aug 1992 20:13:31 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <1992Aug26.033046.2113@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>This whole discussion about documentation of postings seems a little
>silly. Sure, it's important not to spread misinformation (or
>disinformation), but Usenet/Internet is a purely informal network for
>discussion, not a journal for publication. If you think somebody is
>propagating false information, you can always kill their postings,
>correct them, or ask them for more information in E-mail.

Well, we've tried the tactics in the last sentence with Fred McCall, but
it hasn't done any good so far.  He still propagates false information
(at least it contradicts everything else we've got).

>What's more subtle about this argument is the suggestion that those
>who don't have "hard documentation" for their statements should not
>even post. This is *not* a professional forum.

The problem is that in a political discussion group (like this one), there
is a real problem with people making statements like "<group a> pays
{more/less} tax money than <group b>," with absolutely no basis
whatsoever.  If people are going to argue their case using specific
facts and data, it's a requirement that the sources of the facts and
data are provided.  Political discussions/debates are not like
the discussions that go on in the comp.sys.* hierarchy, for example.

>Without documentation of any kind, I propose that those people who
>spend a lot of time footnoting/referencing in their Usenet postings
>are spending *way* too much time on the net.

Probably true, but, then again, political discussion without 
substantiated facts and data is just so much noise.

Daryl
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
        "You're not messy.  You're organizationally impaired."
                _Real_Life_Adventures_, July 3, 1992
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:22:46 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <aSQBr*1W0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>>    that the religios dogma is their constitution, Saudi Arabia is one
>>    suggestion, I believe the Koran = their constitution.  Maybe you could
>>    start a new country of your own somewhere that uses the "Bible" as its
>>    Constitution and everyone believes in it.  This country REJECTS that
>>    idea.
>
>No, YOU reject it.  You do NOT speak for the country.  Many of the founding
>fathers of this nation had great respect for the Bible.  Many people still do.
>

They did have great respect, but DID NOT state that the Bible is our
Constitution and everyone believes it.  Jefferson and Franklin were
deists.  Roger Williams and many other early Baptists were staunch
defenders of the religous liberties of others, even if they were not
in theological agreement.  Roger Williams left Massachusetts due to
persecution by the Puritans, and when he started Rhode Island he
welcomed the religious practices of the Indians, Quakers, and 
(well non practive) atheists, even if he didn't like their beliefs.

Unfortunately, too many people today (including a good portion of my 
fellow Baptists) now think its time to make their interpretation of
Christianity into law.  Of course, these issues are actually quite
deep and I fear that the thread could wander off into an inerrancy
discussion, so I'll leave it here ....

(I likely won't read any replies unless you email them, due to rn 
interfering with getting any research done ...)


-- 
Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu
"In the worst case scenario, investigators would find a direct link to
 financing Iraqi military expenditures." - George Bush, February 13, 1990,
 in a memo to his secretary of Agriculture
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:09:55 GMT

In <1992Sep01.134138.894@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>In article <21435@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug30.204914.25070@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>>>JFH, why do you weaken your own arguments by making these pointless
>>>grammar and style flames? 
>>>Mixing otherwise relevant information with petty sniping only makes
>>>you and your opinions look bad.

>>I am imitating the style of Fred J. McCall.  He likes to throw style
>>and grammar flames in for the fun of it.
>>The "and that isn't a complete sentence" is a direct quote from an
>>earlier article of his.
>	
>	Substitute "making these pointless..." above with "imitate
>Fred J. McCall", then. John, why do you weaken your own arguments by
>imitating Fred J. McCall? (-:

Why, Joe, he 'does that' because he got caught using his normal style
and needed an excuse.  So he took the opportunity to take a(nother)
cheap shot.

So John.  So Haugh, too.  So net.ghod.  So what?


-- 
"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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Printed refs vs. 'I heard it on...'
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:32:24 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug29.013040.2193@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.203039.10299@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Aug26.201331.22386@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>>>Probably true, but, then again, political discussion without 
>>>substantiated facts and data is just so much noise.
>>
>>From what I've seen, even WITH substantiated data it is just so much
>>noise (taking into account some of the things I've seen cited here and
>>the behaviour of some people when they elect to disagree with
>>something someone says).  

>Well, Fred, when you get ready to critically examine arguments and their
>bases, let me know.  In the meantime, into the ol' kill file you go....

Ah, I see.  Daryl is so read to examine things that he puts people in
his kill file.  Of course, one of those things people get criticize
for is something called 'abuse of the kill file'; i.e., the difference
between putting someone in your kill file and TELLING someone you're
putting them in your kill file.

Congratulations, Daryl.  You've made it out of the Minors.  You're now
ready to play in the same hypocrisy league with John (net.ghod) Haugh
II. 


-- 
"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: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:46:10 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep2.184440.13142@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Why, he does it because he's such a flaming asshole that he can't help
>it.  I'd have thought that he'd have solidly demonstrated that by now
>(my feed has been messed up since last week, so I don't know what I
>missed -- but I doubt if JFH had anything important to say).

Now, Fred, you make me sound like some kind of saint.  Please, I only
do this to show you how much I =like= you.

Right now, I'd =like= you to provide some support for your economic and
abortion "facts" that you keep presenting.

>Check his information closely.  It tends to be, uh, somewhat
>selective. 

As opposed to yours, which tends to be, uh, somewhat non-existent ...
-- 
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: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 26 Aug 92 03:47:58 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug25.145253.5116@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>As a hint on the first suggestion, you will note whose signature is
>required on the budget bills.

No ones signature is required on budget bills.  The Constitution allows
for the President to veto any (and all) legislation that he or she sees
fit to veto.  That the President does not veto a bill does not indicate
that he or she wholeheartedly supports it either.  Rather, it may simply
mean that the President doesn't care to veto the bill, which is why the
Line Item Veto - a priviledge now enjoyed in 43 states - is so important
for the President to have.  Despite the objections of Congress ...

But quite simply put, the Constitution does not require that the
President sign, or not sign, any piece of legislation.

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

Perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing me at the amendments that I need
to read.  I wasn't aware that Article I was amended to force the
President to submit a budget or that the President was forced to sign
the budget if and only if he or she agreed with it.

Since I =do= have a copy of the Constitution, certainly you won't
be forced to resorting to the tired, old "I saw it on TeeVee" excuse
you usually dredge up.  I'd even be happy to send you a copy so you
can read it yourself ...
-- 
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
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice C
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:04:26 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <BtI9GK.DL9@rice.edu> dirk@spacsun.rice.edu (Dirk Valk) writes:
>Sorry folks, I don't mean to interject a hint of facts into a wonderfully
>vituperative discussion,

	Hint of facts? Hell, you must be a McCall! (-: Just post the
article- or was it actually longer than this post? 

>like many pro-choicers I have heard this week, is that very few people are
>going to cross racial barriers to adopt a baby -- i.e. that a caucasian
>family will not generally adopt a black or hispanic child.  What I *didn't*
>realize is that not only is this behavior unlikely, it is practically
>prohibited!

	Hint of fact, yes. From the Chronicle, Aug.19, 1992, by Kelley
Shannon: "The agency [DHS] does not prohibit ethnically mixed adoptions, 
she [Anne Heiligenstein, state dir. of child protective svcs. for DHS]
said, noting that 27% of state-supervised adoptions were cross-cultural."

This same article does imply that DHS considers ethnicity perhaps too much
a factor, and purports that that serves their agenda.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Republican Candidates
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:25:29 GMT
 <1992Aug24.215954.660@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug24.215954.660@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

> compromise. BTW, Reagan did get much of his program passed through
> Congress- wasn't that part of his magic?

Much of the Reagan program was never passed.  Much of what did pass was done early
in his first term when the liberals were in great fear for their jobs.  (For those
who don't remember, when Reagan won his first term, several supposedly invincible
liberal Democrats were defeated in the same election.  That was how the Republicans
gained temporary control of Senate.  This put a big scare into the Congress for a
short while.)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:19:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525


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

        You raise a very interesting notion here. I would be very
interested in reading that article, could you please post it? or at
least the date and the name of the paper it appeared in...


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

        You are probably right about this. Timing seems to be
everything in such cases. At 16 most kids (and I include myself at
that age) seem to think they are immortal, invincible, and
omniscient. I went through "drug education" in second grade, when I
was still young enough to be impressionable, and the horror stories I
heard there sacared me straight for life. Perhaps sex education
should happen earlier too. I would like to see some sort of impartial
study done to test this idea, although the ethics of such an
experiment are probably questionable. (anything you do with young
children seems to run into ethics questions, and rightly
so...although I recall as an undergraduate that the proceedures I had
to go to to ask a gang of preschoolers how they felt about facial
hair seemed pretty extream.)

        David



KNR> Kevin Reed

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                                                                                     
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4722 alt.politics.clinton:3726
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 1 Sep 1992 18:35:53 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <21444@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.220001.2595@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
^>"Socialist" media? This sounds like the communists are coming.
^>When the election comes around, look at who your local newspaper
^>supports. Look at who it supported in 88'. Time will prove you 
^>wrong.

>Newsweek or some other magazine did a report on which candidates
>the media supports.  The conclusion was that while they support
>both sides, they support the left about 4 to 1, measured in terms
>of dollars.

Dollars? Newspapers don't make contributions, do they?

Over 80 pct of the newspapers endorse the Republican
presidential candidat year in and year out. (Since Goldwater,
who did worse.) Nixon over McGovern, over 90 pct -- remember
Nixon won by a lot, but not by that much!

Adjusting for circulation (i.e., big papers count more),
the figure is closr, but the GOP is still way ahead. I'll be glad to bet
you on the figures--contct me by e-mail.

Still hung up on the Jewish Communist Media Elite Conspiracy, eh?

andy
From: dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:46:34 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <16852D8AA.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
>>trimester abortions, which I confess I'm uncomfortable with.  But I
>>don't see any problem with aborting a pregnancy in the first three months.
>>The fetus is not a child.
>        But, Joe, where's the line?   Medically it keeps getting
>pushed back closer to conception.   And no matter where it is between
>zero and nine months,  it's arbitrary.   Please, please, don't base
>judgements on such random parameters.

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.

To me, this seems to be an intelligent compromise -- admittedly,
a relatively arbitrary point, but, I think, a reasonable one.

-- 
David Boyes
dboyes@rice.edu
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repulicans
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:02:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <exuptr.412.714854553@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.142623.6265@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
>>Oh, I see.  Let me get this straight.  The Repulicans are pro-growth and
>>anti taxes.  Hum, let's see here.  When Mr, I can't remember, Reagan came
>>into power we had just had four years of a Democrat acting with a Democrat 
>>controlled congress and our deficit was around 1 trillion dollars.  And 
>>remember we had gas prices of around 1.50 a gallon and were worried it 
>>would go to 3.00.  Now after 8 years of Reagan, who was given much if not
>>all he wanted from the congress, our deficit was around 3 trillion dollars.

>Why?  Because the democrats continued the spending that got us a 1 trillion 
>budget.

And the Republicans keep agreeing (otherwise all those bills would get
vetoed).  And the Democrats don't do the spending -- they just
AUTHORIZE it.

>>Now after four more years of Bush dealing with a somewhat hostile 
>congress

>exactly

No, I think when the company is poorly run, you start replacing with
the man at the top.

>>the deficit may reach 5 trillion dollars.  Do you really expect 
>anyone
>>who looks at the numbers to believe the last 12 years have been good 
>for
>>this country?  

>No.  But attribute them to the source.  Give us a republican congress!

You think it will make a difference?  That Democratic Congress gave
Reagan practically everything he asked for (the idea at the time being
to give him enough rope to hang himself, which turned out not to
work).  Bush has had somewhat more trouble, but he does keep signing
the bills, doesn't he?

>>We will be paying for this Repulican BS for decades to come. 

>Republican BS from a democrat congress, eh?  That's a good trick.  Congress 
>is the problem.  I was saying it before Bush was :-)

Who's signing the Bills that come up instead of vetoing them?

>>>We need to dump the big-spending Democrat majority in Congress,
>>>and install a progressive pro-growth Republican majority.
>>>*Then* we will end the tax, borrow, and spend binge, and restore
>>>fiscal sanity to the Federal Government.

>>I don't doubt that we need to get throw out much of the stagnation in
>>Washinton.  But an administration that has been in power for 12 years,
>>added a around 5x to the deficit,  

>That administration IS the democratic congress.  The president can't make
>bills.  Get real.

No, he can only VETO them.  Why didn't he?  And of course he can
'make' Bills.  He just has someone from his party in Congress
introduce them.


-- 
"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.