HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:30:15 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <FfhEr*eY0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <Bu6ADq.FHA@rice.edu>, Patrick L Humphrey writes:
>
>> >So, Ben.  Tell me exactly how it is better for the children to have divorced
>> >parents?  Is it better for the kids to spend more time with a babysitter than
>> >with mom, so she can go be frustrated in workplace?  It is patently obvious to
>> >anyone with a functional brain that the traditional family is the best way. Why
>> >should the government try to destroy it?
>> 
>> They shouldn't -- on that much, I agree.  Of course, neither should they
>> decide that it's "patently obvious to anyone with a functional brain" that
>> the traditional family should be the best way *by force of law* -- and that
>> seems to be what your pals at the RNC were doing their best to push for.
>> I'd like to see you tell my wife she can't be a good mother, and we can't
>> have a traditional family, because she works -- after all she's been through
>> in the past five days, she'd *really* appreciate the laugh...
>
>My mother worked.  Ask her, she'll tell you that it would have been better if
>she hadn't had to do it.  You don't understand the "Family Values" issue at all.
>You are too busy listening to the liberal ideologues' condemnations.  The whole
>"Family Values" issue is about getting the government to stop encouraging the
>destruction of the family unit.  It has nothing at all to do with preventing
>women from working, etc.  There are also complaints about the media's destructive
>activities (e.g. ridiculing traditional family values, glorifying adultery, divorce,
>promiscuity, etc.)
>
>You probably haven't heard, but there are many government programs that encourage
>the destruction of the family.  Welfare is one of the biggest.  The system encourages
>fathers to leave the wife and kids.  It encourages women to have more kids to get
>more welfare money.  It discourages savings.  It discourages working.

What do you know?  We agree about welfare.  Unfortunately for you, the 
"Family Values" mantra that your Republican friends are waving makes a pretty
narrow definition of "family", and excludes a *large* chunk of the population
in the process -- and then insists that the only *proper* families are the
ones in conformance with the new standard.  I wonder how long it'd be before
it's written into law, if the Republican brownshirts get their way?


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                  COUGARS     TIGERS     RAVENS     HUSKIES
  OILERS     OWLS             *Any questions?*              ROCKETS     ASTROS
From: kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:30:23 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
> It's one thing to say that public officials should be ethical and if they happen
> to base their ethics on a certain religion, fine. It's another thing to say there
> should be some sort of religious test for politicians. How does one "take into
> account" someone else's beliefs? How does one determine what the person believes?
> What if it's different than what you believe? I find no basis to give
> Christianity the moral high ground over Islam or Hinduism. All may believe in
> God (or gods) as a source of moral inspiration. I'd like to see what Jefferson
> had to say if anyone can turn up the quote.

	I don't know what Jefferson quote you folk are talking about, 
   but I pretty much agree with the following from Robert Heinlein:

	"One should never consider a man's religion in connection 
   with politics."  This is a fine credo, based on the American 
   ideal of freedom of religion.  It happens to be cockeyed and 
   results from mushy thinking.  One should always consider a 
   candidate's religious beliefs; it is one of the most important
   things about him.  Whether a man is a Catholic, a Protestant,
   a Communist, a Mormon, or a Jew has a very strong bearing on
   how he will perform his duties in certain jobs.  The important
   thing to remember is to consider a man's religion objectively,
   in relation to what you expect of him, and not in an attitude
   of blind prejudice. 

	There is nothing discriminatory nor un-American in scrutinizing 
   a man's religious beliefs in connection with politics.  A man's 
   religion is a matter of free choice, even though most people remain 
   in the faiths to which they were born.  A Catholic can become a Jew;
   a Communist can become a Quaker.  A man's religious beliefs offer a 
   strong clue to his attitudes, values, and prejudices and you are 
   entitled to consider them when he is in public life. 


-- 
  kossack@taronga.com  |  "One has a moral responsibility  
  Jordan M Kossack     |      to disobey unjust laws."    
  +1 713 240 2073      |   -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:18:09 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <aemqqB3w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:

>cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer) writes:

>> their opinions in matters of religion.  I know but one code of
>> morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."
>> 
>>   -- Thomas Jefferson (printed on walls of the Jefferson Memorial)

>There is no conflict between the two quotes.  Note that both men acknowledge
>God freely; and (though not explicit here) the "one code of morality" to
>which Jefferson refers would be the morality of the Christian religion. 

It would be?  Why is that?  Jefferson was a Deist, not a 'Christian'
(in the way that people who want to dictate moral codes mean it).

-- 
"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: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality,
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525

AJT> Though I can't find a particularly clear Biblical injunction against
AJT> pre-
AJT> natal abortions (while Job speaks, in Job 10:19, as if he existed as a
AJT> sentient
AJT> being before his birth, he several times also speaks as if his
AJT> existence began
AJT> on "the day of my birth" (Job 3:3) ), there is at least one case in
AJT> which
AJT> post-natal abortions are sanctioned.

AJT> To wit, Psalm 137, verses 8-9.  "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to
AJT> destruction,
AJT> happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us--he who seizes
AJT> your
AJT> infants and dashes them against the rocks" (*)  Whether this applies
AJT> specifically to Babylonians or to oppressors of the faithful in general
AJT> (I suspect most modern readings of the text would adopt a position
AJT> closer to
AJT> the latter), this at the very least specifies at least one situation in
AJT> which
AJT> killing a human infant is celebrated as pious action.

AJT> * New International Version

   Well, I supose you could interpret it that way, David also says
   somewhere in another Psalm (the exact reference escapes me at the
   moment) something to the effect of "make his wife a widow".

   These are usually interpreted as expressions of human anger that make
   their way into David's poetry, not as commandments from God.

   There are really quite a lot of curses thrown around in the Bible by
   the people who's stories are told there. One of my personal favorites
   is from Jeremiah: "May the day I was born be stricken from the
   calendar", in a curse dirrected toward himself during a fit of
   depression. Amos has a few pretty good curses too.

   These are representative of the humans emotions of the men who authored
   the Bible, not the theology or divine wisdom that they are intending to
   communicate.

AJT> Adam

   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                                                        
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5063 alt.politics.clinton:4837
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: KILL THE RICH!
Date: 6 Sep 92 12:36:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>Sure we have.  Tax increase on the rich and increased investment.
>That's how Clinton presents his plan.  

I really hope you people aren't falling for this.

Taxing the rich won't really get much.  There aren't enough of them.
Most of the money in this country is in the hands of the middle class.
Uncle Sam wants YOU.  Not the rich guy.  He is the rich guy.

But assume Clinton will really only tax people making over 100k.
As soon as his inflation kicks in, it won't be but a few years
before every garbage man in town will be making 100k.

Do you think he'll peg tax brackets to inflation?

I don't think so.

This is why the government has a powerful incentive to inflate.
1.  It increases tax revenues dramatically through bracket creep.
2.  It makes the deficit look small.

You have to give Reagan and Bush some credit for sticking with Volcker
and Greenspan, who've kept the money tight and kept inflation down, 
despite these overwhelming incentives to print money.

Will Clinton have the same stamina?

I don't think so.

-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 FICA doesn't help the poor.  It mostly goes to old people with incomes >$40k.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:35:26 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21474@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <3308.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
>>   Isn't it just as hypocritical(note the spelling for future reference!)
>>    for you to withhold references, since you
>>   are the one who keeps insisting on them? You have said before (time and
>>   again) that you ALWAYS provide references. So far you have failed to do
>>   so in regards to the matter of abortion survivors who are smothered in
>>   rags. I, for one, would be fascinated to see how you are going to slide
>>   out of this one... The shoe's on the other foot now John! Are you gonna
>>   provide references or not? (I wonder if YOU are squirming now?)

>Yes and no.  If a person is being beaten with a big stick, and has complained
>for years about being beaten with a big stick and how beating people with
>big sticks is wrong, it is not hipicritical for that same person to decide to
>defend himself with a big stick.

Well, I haven't been posting to this group for 'years'.  Your actions
also have nothing to do with 'defending yourself'.  You are a hypocrite.

>Giving in to Fred and producing references has never resulted in Fred giving
>any support for his arguments.  

Non-sequeter.  If you demand that everything have references,
everything you post should have references.  I only demand them from
you because you make such a federal case out of it whenever anyone
posts anything you disagree with.

>However, in a posting earlier today I did
>some info from an earlier study.  So, once again I've given in.  Fred will
>not change his ways, however, and he will once again squirm away without
>having proven a word he writes.

Ah, yes.  I'm the one with the vendetta, but John is always the one
throwing the first rock.  Funny how that works, isn't it?

You are a liar and a hypocrite, Mr. John (net.ghod) Haugh II.  All the
biased sources, distortions, outright lies, and hypocrisy in the world
won't hide what you are, though.

-- 
"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: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Prove it! (was Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a)
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:26:19 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Sep14.140355.6981@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <21505@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>>In article <3510.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
>No, you have proven no such thing.  All you have proven is that at one
>point in time I flamed you for grammar (if you want to call that mild
>a remark a 'flame').  Your prediction is a quite safe one, since I've
>laready stated that, unlike some people who apparently have no better
>thing to do with their time, I don't go around collecting old netnews
>so that I can 'prove' things like this.

	Fair enough. Is it fair to assess this argrument thusly?:
-Claims are made by both as to who said what, and when.
-JFH backed up his claims with hard facts.
-You condemned his use of hard facts, and provided none.
-You feel you've done enough to prove your assertion.
-You think the group's being too hard on you, if we request _more_ than
 assertion.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1992 05:52:40 GMT
 <21436@rpp386.lonestar.org> <1992Sep1.234416.16983@montagar.com>
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep1.234416.16983@montagar.com>, David L. Cathey writes:

> In article <21436@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> > In article <qucBr*oV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >>Only if he is willing to hold the entire budget hostage.  Remember, it is all or
> >>nothing with the veto.  Do you really want the President and Congress to play
> >>"chicken" with the entire government?  (well, maybe...)
> > 
> > This is exactly what Gov. Pete Wilson is doing right now in California.
> > Except that California continues to spend money it REALLY doesn't have
> > by issuing IOU's ...
> 
> 	That would be fine with me, since I would pay my taxes with those
> same IOU's as do some people in California...

People tried that in California.  The state would NOT accept it's own IOUs.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Veto 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:07:30 GMT

In article <21536@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. H 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.

Congress has yet to over-ride a single Bush veto, doesn't this make 
Bush at least an accomplis to the Deficit? Also, Congress (not by law
but by practice) uses the Presidential budget proposal as a working 
draft. Bush has yet to propose a balenced budget. BTW, you didn't 
explain how Congress shouldn't get credit for the growth of the 80's.  

>John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org

-Garrett
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pritchett's fantasies
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:15:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525



P> "It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need
P> for a package that can be enacted require....tax revenuue increases.
P> President Bush    June 26 1990



P> Actually i have a lot more clippings here that are germane, but I tire of
P> reading 'em and fiding the juiciest bits and typing 'em for this post.
P> maybe a few more later.  Just think of that tho' before you come back and
P> shoot off yer keyboard on this subject.  You don't no horse doody about
P> what went on in 1990 and you might further embarress yerself.


P> **********************************************************************
P> * Pope Charles - Subgenius pope Of Houston & The Golden Triangle Area*
P> *       Laughing at everything in the Universe, including the        *
P> *       concept of laughing at everything in the Universe.           *
P> *               rivdell.sccsi.com    Houston, Texas                  *
P> **********************************************************************

   An excellent and thoroughly researched post here, your Popeliness!
   Better keep those clippings handy, I see major whining and railing from
   Jim in the very near future. (Actually, he'll probably just call you an
   idiot or some such flame and never actually respond to the facts you
   have presented here, but it would be nice if he could produce a few
   clippings of his own.) Keep up the good work, I love to see an
   intelligent post regardless of the position.

   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                        
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:54:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <BuEJAp.p6@rice.edu>, swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
|>   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?

I would be interested in finding out more about this, because I've
always heard the exact opposite.  Personal injury lawyers will always
go for the jury trial, from what I understand.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:31:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525


JFH> Isn't this kinda hipicritical for you to be asking me for references
JFH> on the abortion issue when you yourself REFUSE?

JFH> Please, if you want REFERENCES, start PROVIDING references.  And yes,
JFH> I got some numbers to back this one up with, too ...

   Isn't it just as hypocritical(note the spelling for future reference!)
    for you to withhold references, since you
   are the one who keeps insisting on them? You have said before (time and
   again) that you ALWAYS provide references. So far you have failed to do
   so in regards to the matter of abortion survivors who are smothered in
   rags. I, for one, would be fascinated to see how you are going to slide
   out of this one... The shoe's on the other foot now John! Are you gonna
   provide references or not? (I wonder if YOU are squirming now?)

      David Brooks

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 5 Sep 92 22:07:35 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <aSQBr*1W0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>>    Wow, Jim.  And the Bible is not, NEVER has been, nor EVER WILL BE the
>>    guiding law of this country.  However, if you want to live somewhere
>Really?  Prove it.  You don't know what is going to happen in the future.
>Your knowledge of the past and present sometimes seems questionable, as well.

Ahem. The Bible is not the guiding law of the US, the
Constitution is. The writers of the Constitution were undoubtedly
influenced by the Bible, but they were also influenced by Pascal,
Descartes, Socrates, and a few hundred other significant
thinkers. They also had the good sense to realize that a man with
a functioning brain may elect to follow moral and ethical
precepts that differ from theirs, and that that decision should
be explictly protected in the official law of the land.

I don't know the future either, but I certainly hope that the
freedom to choose *not* to follow the Bible is still as important
now as it was then. After all, didn't Christ tell the disciples
to tap the dust off their sandals and move on if their message
wasn't being received and accepted?

>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.
>                                                Jim Pritchett

Respect, yes. They also respected the human mind and psyche
enough to permit each individual to choose to deny it as well.   
I'm afraid you don't speak for me, or the country, either.
-- 
David Boyes
dboyes@rice.edu