HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:25:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

Jim, you are seriously beginning to annoy me, and I've only been reading
this group for a couple of days.
Not only are virtually all of your "opinions" the unthinking nonsensical
drivel of someone who's been watching and believing the "news reports"
on "the 700 Club" too much, BUT, you cannot even type correctly!
Jim, every once in a while, your cursor comes to the END OF A LINE, but
you're so taken up with your Hitler-style ravings that you don't notice,
you just keep on going, making your messages half-empty spaces and
half-the-empty-space-in-your-head.  

If you insist upon insulting my intelligence, at least do me the courtesy
of hitting your return key at the end of a line.  The bandwidth is being
wasted enough by what you DO say.

					(not Iain Robert Asplin but
					rather Steven Manfred
			return email to Steven.K.Manfred@uwrf.edu
			not the posting's address on top please





I realize that you truelly believe this. But you must also believe
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: The whole story 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:11:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.170104.6283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Fre writes...
>In article <1992Sep14.131935.5875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <21510@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>>Yes, but when you look at the whole picture, you will find that one of
>>the better things to do with your money is to invest in long-term
>>investments,
> 
>Haugh didn't write "long-term", he wrote "tax-sheltered".  Haugh
>currently makes long-term investments because they pay off.  He'll
>change to tax-sheltered for the same reason.
> 
Just some info to chew on. An important part of Clinton's economic
plan was to make tax credits for "long-term" investment.

>-andy

-Garrett
From: root@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Super-User)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: test
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:42:59 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute


test
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5189 alt.politics.clinton:5273
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:21:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <BuKyMy.224@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:

>In article <mumble> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>...I for one do not appreciate your
>veiled and baseless implication that choice activists are in favor of
>compulsory public-school sex ed.

Didn't mean to imply that.  Really.

>|  About as far as I'd go here is giving them
>|some really thorough info and interviews with kids who have had pregnancies, 
>|diseases, abortions.  Real life examples.  No judgements will be necessary, 
>|I think.

>Here you are talking about encouraging abstinence _indirectly_ by
>presenting only one angle.  

Why not?  What's wrong with encouraging abstinence?  Has it given disease?
Has it caused pregnancy?  (Ok, once ;-)

>It's like saying, vote or not, as you
>choose, but rememeber that the last time people voted, it resulted in
>a Bush presidency.  (-:<

Joke aside, I never heard about any personal repercussions directly 
attributable to voting.

Like I said before, there are plenty of pro-sex messages present 
in all facets of society.  IMHO, we need to make sure the kids _really_get_ 
whatcan happen to them.  If you leave a kid with information, but an 
attitude that "It won't happen to me" you have done a disservice, because he/
she will make his/her choice in essential ignorance of the facts.

I know I tend to get passionate about this, but I can't stress enough that 
we are talking about KIDS, not (for the most part) mature adults.  They 
don't think things through (as a rule).  You gotta say it, and say it, and 
say it again (Sam :-).  Just think about how many times kids have to be told 
to clean their room (I'm talking 16 and 17 year olds here).  Then they don't 
do it, and they can't go out.  Next week, the same thing happens.  

My God, you want to trust this person to make a life-changing decision on 
their own, without any "moral" teaching, or at least repetition of 
the dangers?

I'm all for educating kids on the facts.  Let's just remember who and what 
we are talking about here.  

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4834 alt.politics.clinton:4150
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 5 Sep 1992 18:02:42 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <21465@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.175254.6947@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Squirming Fred) writes:

<> 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.

>Which president in the early '60s cut taxes by $10B and raised revenue
>as a direct result $14B?

What were marginal tax rates when Kennedy cut them? (More than double what
they are now.) So there's a strong reason to believe that we would NOT
get the same results as Kennedy. I have already asked in another post
why the conservative governor of Calif asked for an emergency tax
increase to pay for earthquake catastrophe. By your logic, he should ask
for a decrease! It can not be the case that
lower taxes -> more revenue
regardless of tax rate, because that violates boundary conditions.

However, by dreaming that another tax cut will pump up revenue, you did
avoid McCall's question: WHERE WOULD YOU CUT SPENDING? Now that GHHB has
welshed on the 1990 compromise, I'd like to know what spending he would
cut instead of raising taxes (BTW - do you think Democrats would raise
taxes if they really believe it cuts revenue? Surely they want more MORE
$ for their evil social programs.....). We already know your answer:
more voodoo economics gimmickry.

andy
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4918 alt.politics.clinton:4408
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was
Date: 10 Sep 92  2:14:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 


JFH> Giving in to Fred and producing references has never resulted in Fred
JFH> giving
JFH> any support for his arguments.  However, in a posting earlier today I
JFH> did
JFH> some info from an earlier study.  So, once again I've given in.  Fred
JFH> will
JFH> not change his ways, however, and he will once again squirm away
JFH> without
JFH> having proven a word he writes.
JFH> --


   I hate to break this to you John, but you and Fred are not the only
   one's here! I was asking for references primarily because >I< would
   like to see them. It seems to me that what you're saying is that your
   primary reson for posting is to annoy Fred. If that is the case, please
   annoy him in E-mail, and save this newsgroup for legitimate political
   discussion.

   And I still want to see your references regarding rag smothered
   abortion survivors. (The post you refer to was hardly what I would call
   a reference with sources such that I could look them up for further
   study.) I give mine without making a fuss, you make the fuss, but I
   havn't seen your sources. Put your refs where your mouth is! And ignore
   Fred...

JFH> John F. Haugh II

   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:22:13 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

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.

(Relevant clippings):
]In article <20561@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
]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).

]Joe wants sheep to wander aimlessly, seeking their own
]meaning in life.
]
]So, when Joe writes about religion, ignore him.
	
-----------------------------------------------------------------------:
]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? (-:


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:17:04 GMT

In <rqiDr*uX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.235448.24889@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806 writes:

>> care costs.  American Doctors make much more than doctors in other
>> countries.  They are a powerful political lobby group.

>American doctors are better trained than doctors from most other countries.

Nonsense!

Do you think American doctors are "better trained" than doctors from
Germany, Japan, England, Canada, France, etc.?  They make more than
all of them, and by quite a margin.  Now then, what is the reason for
that again?

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Try again 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:43:50 GMT

In article <21489@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. H writes...
>In article <1992Sep09.043421.986@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>It takes 1 or 2 years for a policy decision to work its way into the
>economy.

Do you have any quotes or stats to explain this?

  It takes another 1 or 2 years for the policy decisions which
>are put in place to reverse the earlier damage to work their way into
>the economy. 

Somehow I don't buy this part.

 There are no "magic" pills.  LBJ had Kennedy's tax cuts
>passed in '64.  The economy didn't get overheated from that round of
>stimulus until '68 or so.
> 
FOUR YEARS! Unless you can back this up, I'm going to write this off
as bunk.

>You don't just point at the White House, say "So and so was President,
>look at years <X> through <X + 3>" and say "So and so did such and
>such."  Reagan entered the White House with the economy is bad shape
>and getting worse.  He left the White House with the economy in good
>shape and getting better.
> 
>Except that you didn't count Carter's last "year" - 1982.
> 
Carter's last budget ended in the later part of 81'. How can you 
attribute 82' to him?

>John F. Haugh II                   

-Garrett
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Li
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:40:00 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.123031.4324@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Hmmm, I never really considered the difference.  I just assumed that
>anything they arrested you and put you in jail for was a 'crime'.

>[I'm not from down here, either.  Is anyone really born in Texas, or
>do new people just move in as the old ones dehydrate from the heat and
>disappear?  :-)]

I was born in Texas.  And it's been pretty doggone dry.

>>   Any lawyers out there who could clear this up? I'd be really interested
>>   to know exactly how "crime" and "criminal" are defined...

>I'll try and remember to ask my attorney about this one, if somebody
>doesn't clear it up for us.  He's not a criminal lawyer, but I'd think
>this is something they'd have to know to get through law school.

-----
crime: a violation of the law, esp. a serious one.


_The_New_Lexicon_Webster's_Encycolpedic_Dictionary_of_the_Englisth_Language
(Tom Thumb, $12.95)

Seems like the definition includes misdemeanors if you can consider traffic 
statues to be laws.  But the "especially" part shows exactly what we are 
seeing - most people see minor violations as less of a crime than major ones.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: 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: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 20:04:01 GMT
 <1992Sep01.051252.24415@NeoSoft.com>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep01.051252.24415@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:

> 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.

No, you are wrong.  The pro-life movement definitely does not favor prohibiting
abortions when the life of the mother is endangered.  In fact, you probably can't
find many who would agree to that.  Of course, the pro-death folks like to make up
these lies to try to discredit the pro-life movement.  This is just another red
herring like the accusations about alledged agendas to ban birth control, sex, etc.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:16:23 GMT

In <XPhEr*iY0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Sep7.182509.1265@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, Iain Robert Asplin writes:

>> Jim, every once in a while, your cursor comes to the END OF A LINE, but
>> you're so taken up with your Hitler-style ravings that you don't notice,
>> you just keep on going, making your messages half-empty spaces and
>> half-the-empty-space-in-your-head.  

>Hey, it isn't my fault if your terminal is too stupid to go past 80 columns.

Jim, despite your apparent desire to be an obnoxious shit, it is
generally considered to be common courtesy to put a return after about
every 72 characters or so.  Among other things, it makes replying much
easier (inclusions and such).

-- 
"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:4866 alt.politics.clinton:4208
From: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: MATERNAL SMOKING:   MAY AFFECT KIDS' BEHAVIOR
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:45:28 GMT
Reply-To: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX

*5   MATERNAL SMOKING:   MAY AFFECT KIDS' BEHAVIOR
     Women who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day have children
with "twice the rate of extreme behavior problems -- such as
anxiety, disobedience or conflict with others -- compared with
children of non-smokers," according to researchers (Coleman,
AP/PHILA. INQUIRER).  A new study published in this month's
PEDIATRICS, says children of mothers who abstained from smoking
during pregnancy but resumed their "pack-a-day" habit after the
child's birth had just as many problems as kids of mothers who
did not stop smoking.
     "We are aware of no other study to date that has
investigated the relationship between maternal smoking and
behavior problems in children," said Michael Weitzman, associate
chair of pediatrics at U-Rochester School of Medicine.  Weitzman
and his colleagues based their findings on a Dept. of Labor
survey, which interviewed 2,256 parents of children aged 4 to 11.
     "Smoke exposure rivaled other major stresses on children ...
in being linked with elevated rates of serious behavior
problems," said Weitzman.  He also said problems "cluster
together and multiply each other."  For example, "A boy born
weighing less than 3.3 pounds to a mother who smokes at least a
pack a day was eight times more likely to show extreme behavior
problems than a normal-weight boy of a non-smoking mother."  If
the boy of the smoking mother had asthma, the likelihood of
behavior problems rose to 19 times the level of the boy with the
non-smoking mother (9/4).

         THE NATIONAL UPDATE ON AMERICA'S EDUCATION GOALS
  An APN publication, supported by The Annie E. Casey Foundation
         and the Business Coalition for Education Reform

 _______________________________________________________________
|                                                               |
|     The DAILY REPORT CARD is an update on the six education   |
| goals for America in the year 2000, adopted by the president  |
						     ^^^^^^^^^ (-clf)
| and governors in February 1990.  The goals for the year 2000: |
|     ONE:  All children will start school ready to learn.      |
|     TWO:  The high school graduation rate will be 90%.        |
|   THREE:  Students will leave grades 4, 8, 12 competent in    |
|           English, math, science, history, and geography.     |
|    FOUR:  U.S. students will be first in math and science.    |
|    FIVE:  Every adult will be literate, with the knowledge    |
|           and skills to compete in a global economy.          |
|     SIX:  Every school will be free of drugs and violence.    |
|_______________________________________________________________|


curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |       Austin, TX
    "A little rebellion is a good thing now and then" - Thomas Jefferson
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:34:27 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <3471.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
>   And I still want to see your references regarding rag smothered
>   abortion survivors. (The post you refer to was hardly what I would call
>   a reference with sources such that I could look them up for further
>   study.) I give mine without making a fuss, you make the fuss, but I
>   havn't seen your sources. Put your refs where your mouth is! And ignore
>   Fred...

Posted it a few days ago.  The answer was that 10% of prostaglandin
induced abortions result in a viable fetus.

According to a piece of KLBJ, 0.1% of all abortions are performed in
the third trimester.  With 1,700,000 abortions annually, that's 1,700
abortions after week 26.  Viability these days is 1 pound, or 20 weeks.
So, add a few more fractions for weeks 20 to 26, and we are up to
my "several a day."

Since these children seldom survive the procedure, it is axiomatic
that those which did not survive, died.  Whether they died in a
metaphorical "pile of rags" or were just left on the table to die is
immaterial.  The outcome is the same - a dead child.
-- 
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