HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:56:11 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <SBYRNES.92Aug18224137@rio-grande.rice.edu> sbyrnes@rice.edu (Steven Byrnes) writes:
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:40:12 GMT, Joseph A. Watters said:
>
>> However, there is a bill in Congress, I forget the name, that if passed
>> would make medically safe abortions available by federal law.  The idea
>> is that if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, Congress could immediately
>> keep abortions legal through non-constitutional means.
>
>That wouldn't preclude the Supreme Court from, sooner or later, striking
>down the federal law as unconstitutional, right?

	Regarding the proposal you replied to, Congress would not be passing 
a law, but an amendment to the Constitution, in which case the S.C. would
be obliged to uphold the amendment.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Repulicans
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:26:23 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas

>Republicans have proposed pro-growth initiatives that will 
>keep taxes low while revenues rise (shunned by the Democrats), have
>bravely fought for spending caps and spending reductions (which have been
>demagogued by the Democrats), have pushed budget deficit reduction
>legislation like the Gramm-Rudman bill (which have been gutted by the
>Democrats), and have recently overwhelmingly voted for the Balanced Budget
>Amendment (which the Democrats voted overwhelmingly against).

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.
Now after four more years of Bush dealing with a somewhat hostile congress
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?  We will be paying for this Repulican BS for decades to come. 

>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,  given us such PROGRESSIVE things as
the gag rule and Mr. Thomas to claim that they are the party of change
and will "end the tax, borrow, and spend binge, and restore fiscal sanity 
to the Federal Government" is very strange a best.  Tell us Pat, have you
really thought about this or is it just something you heard?  How can 
the party that has been in power for 12 years suddenly claim to be the 
party of change.  Well that is why do they think people will believe it?
I can only guess that they know how tired people are of what has been
going on in Washington for the last 12 or more years and this maybe the 
only chance they have.   
The idea that the terms progressive and Repulican are somehow
related is simply hilarious.  

>Pat

I agree let's throw the bums in Washington out, They are completed out of 
touch with the rest of the country, and I know, let's START AT THE TOP.   
James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Evil government
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:29:33 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <7173@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>Why not? The US Government has the Midas Muffler touch: everything they touch
>turns to shit.

Hey!  That's .signature material!
-- 
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
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:14:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug20.161727.5659@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>In article <wa#nn5c.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>enough time to respond. But all you do is repeat it ... hmmm, begs the 
>question, who is really behaving like Hitler around here?



Well I have told you all who is behiving like Hitler: it is Clinton
and all of you are behaving like the Brownshirts and Hitler youth in 
you blind following the pied piper.


-- 
Richard Crisp            Cupertino, Ca.             crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk   "I don't brake for liberals"   (408) 253 4541 fax

To say that Bill Clinton's alleged successes as Governor of Arkansas
qualify him to be President of the US is like saying the shoeshine
stand operator in the airport is qualified to be CEO of IBM.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:44:55 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug11.224152.38512@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <qVmur*iO0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
>|> For example, consider "Slick Willie."  He wants the country to believe that he
>|> is a "centrist."  He wants us to believe that he is going to bring the Democratic
>|> party back from it's wild liberalism.  However, the fact is that Slick Willie has
>|> taken the far left line on almost every issue.
>
>Such as . . .?

Trade and labor.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Abortion Clinic potest News
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:56:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <14223@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
> I was at the Clinic on Fannin, the news we heard is that HPD only took 
> the defenders away and the owner was a pro-lifer. Planned Parenthood 
> is providing full legal service to the defenders including lawyers.
> 
> Score:
> 
> Clinics attacked  9, 9 Clinics defended
> 
> We're 9-0
> 
> Our clinics WILL stay open. 

I was at the one on Hillcroft.  It's hard to see how a clinic could be
reasonably defended without going onto the property.  I'm not sure I could
muster up the enthusiasm to do that.  

-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: 22 Aug 92 05:49:07 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <X4VTPB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>The blame for that mess lies at the feet of those who loosened restrictions
>on what S&L institutions could invest in (ie. permitted them to make riskier
>investments) but not restricting the Federal guarantees on such loans.  Who
>was it?  My understanding is that Congress did that one.  Are you saying it
>was some part of the Executive branch that caused those changes?

It was Jimmy Carter.

Back when they started investigating the S&L fiasco, the Democrats wanted
to jump in with both feet.  But certain people in Congress were very quick
to point out that there were Republicans =and= Democrats to blame for the
problems.  And with Congress being dominated by Democrats, the axe would
likely fall more heavily on the side of Democrats.  So it has been a very
slow war of attrition.

But the trouble started with Carter.  He is the one who expanded FDIC
coverage all the way to $100,000.  It was the high interest rates of the
late 70's that forced up mortgage rates (these are the same mortgages
that would be foreclosed on in the 80's).  It was these high interest
rates that caused people to invest in double-digit interest rate CD's
(and CD's can't be called, while mortgages can be pre-paid early).

Had FDIC (and FSLIC) coverage been left at $20,000 or so, the middle
class would have been protected just fine.  Speculators in bank CD's
would have been the only ones injured by bank failures.  And since they
are the ones that reaped the benefits, they are the ones that deserve
to take the losses.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Followup-To: tx.politics
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp 
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:13:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.214428.23922@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>
>Hey Bill, a lot of folks think it was the BORROW and SPEND Republicans
>that got us into the present economic situation.  How about it?

	Bill?  Does Bill Clinton actually respond to this stuff?  

	Anyway, I seem to recall that Article I, Section 7 of the 
   United States Constitution says that all bills for raising 
   revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.  Which 
   Republican-majority House of Representatives is responsible for  
   the present economic situation? 


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  BARKLEY UNIX:  
 kossack@rice.edu  |                 The operating system with an attitude  
  +1 713 240 2073  |
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:34:47 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Aug12.140835.15067@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <R-2ur*YN0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>>> "Every abortion prevented is a human life saved."
>>> 
>>> Every execution prevented is also a human life saved.
> 
>>Not necessarily, as you well know.  One execution prevented can cost many lives.

	One abortion can save lives too!  You might abort the next Manson.
> 
>>Why can't you understand the vast difference between a woman killing her baby
>>because he is inconvenient, and the state killing a convicted murderer so that
>>he can't kill again?
> 
> How does the convicted murderer kill anyone if you lock him up for
> life with no parole?  So, why the espousement of so many 'right to
> life' advocates for killing someone rather than locking them up away
> from the rest of us?  Sounds like their issue is 'abortion', not
> 'life'. 

	Thanks Fred!  Why don't we start calling "executions" by the more
appropriate name:  Retroactive Abortion

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Stalking Bill
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:34:06 GMT
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.


		Stalking Bill under design by
   	Rep. Brian McCall, 60th district, "Plano", 463-0594

78 State Reps are supposedly supporting this.
The Governor's office supports the concept of a Stalking bill.
Supposedly, there are 26 Stalking bills under construction.
Call your rep and voice your opinion.

State Sen. John Montford 463-0128 will be sponsering a bill 
in the Senate.

------------------------------------------------------------
Below is the typed in text of what I received via fax.
Lines 6-24 were underlined on page 1 and lines 1 & 2 were
underlined on page 2.
------------------------------------------------------------

By Brian McCall			_B. No._______

			A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
1			       AN ACT
2 relating to the creation of a stalking offense.
3  	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISTATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
4	SECTION 1. Chapter 22, Penal Code, is amended by adding
5  Section 22.11 to read as follows:
6	Sec 22.11. STALKING. (a) In this section, "harass" means 
7 to engage in conduct that in not legally protected and that is
8 inteded to abuse, alarm, annoy or torment a specific person.
9	(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally:
10		(1) on more than one occasion follows or harrasses
11	another person; and
12		(2) makes a threat with the intent of placing the
13	person in fear of death or serious bodily injury.
14	(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d) of this section, an
15 offense under this section is a Class A misdomeanor.
16	(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third 
17 degree if:
18		(1) there is a court order in effect prohibiting the
19 actor from engaging in conduct described in Subsection (b) of this
20 section against the person or
21		(2) it is shown at trial for the offense that within
22 the last seven years the actor has previously convicted under
23 this title for conduct against the same person.
24	(e) If conduct constituting an offense under this section

				1

1 also constitutes an offense under another seciton of this code, the
2 actor may be prosecuted under either section.
3	SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 1993.
4	SECTION 3. The importance of this legislation and the
5 crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an 
6 emergency and an imperative public necessity that the 
7 constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several
8 days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended.

-- 
Dewey Coffman				ibmpa!dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Consulting @ IBM			Bldg 007, Div 44, Loc 966, Dept 06T
11400 Burnet Rd				Zip 1514, Room 1D-052
Austin, TX 78758-3493			(512) 823-6463
From: elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:04:32 GMT
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <21372@rpp386.lonestar.org>, by jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II):
> In article <00713574111@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>>Here's the actual poll results: It was a multiple choice question. "What
>>should the Texas Legislature do on the abortion issue?" was the question.
>>And here were the possible answers:
>>
>>a) Make abortion illegal except to save the mother's life -- 11%
>>b) Make abortion illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or saving
>>    the mother's life  -- 18%
>>c) Enact more restrictions, but still allow adult women the choice
>>   of an abortion -- 14%
>>d) Leave the decision up to the woman -- 53%
>>e) Unsure -- 5%
>
> Part d) is NOT the same as "make abortion illegal" or "make abortion
> legal".  It is the pollsters trick of turning "undecided" into an
> affirmative answer in favor of abortion.  If the question is "should
> abortion be legal", "leave the decision up to the woman" is NOT the
> same as agreeing to "abortion should be legal."

Huh? Is your first language English? Are you sure?

Oh, I get it. You figure that people who are truly anti-abortion would vote
for a selection "aa)", which would say "Abortion should always be illegal,
no matter what", and that these people voted for part d), "leave the
decision up to the woman" (the pro-choice position). I don't understand the
reasoning that you use, though. I'm "pro-choice" despite being very
undecided about abortion personally... I don't like abortion at all, but I
suspect that if my 14-year-old girl got herself in trouble with the high
school football ace, she'd be in the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic
swifter than you can say "Jack Robinson". The way I figure it, I really
don't like abortion, but on the other hand, I don't know about making it
illegal... leaving the decision to the woman involved is an easy "out". Or
as my mother (a nurse) says, "If the woman can live with herself
afterwards, I'm not the one to tell her differently."

To boil it down:
    1) Abortion is killing
    2) I don't like killing
    3) I don't like abortion
    4) If my 14-year-old girl got pregnant, I suspect 1,2,3 wouldn't matter
    5) I'm not sure about making abortion illegal
    6) Thus I vote for the "easy out" -- let the mother decide.

What's so difficult there? We weren't trying to figure out whether people
liked abortion or not. We were trying to figure out whether the majority of
Americans want to make it illegal or not. The figures consistently show
that they don't want abortion illegal -- even if most of the people ARE in
the "unsure" column like me.

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
 (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"
From: landy@bear.austin.ibm.com (Landy Ligon)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:24:47 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM PSP, Austin

davidc@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
> In article <1992Aug6.170559.6431@dp7up.com>, xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug5.163654.16920@montagar.lonestar.org> davidc@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
> >>> Capital punishment is another issue entirely.
> >>
> >>	Actually, it isn't.  It depends on where you draw the line.  Anything
> >>less that total rejection of capital punishment by a pro-lifer is hypocracy.
> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> > 
> > That statement is a bit less than accurate.  Remember, we are talking about
> > two situations now: 
> 
> 	Sure, the taking of a human life, or the taking of a human life...
> Are you fit to judge who should die and who should live?  If you are pro-life,
> there can't be a difference.  Human life is sacred, but only some...  That is
> the hypocracy.

I don't think he said only some human life is sacred.  I think the point is
if the mother will die as a result of the pregnancy, then her worth out-weighs
that of the child.  Certainly this falls into the realm of opinion, not into
the realm of hypocrisy.  But even if it could be labelled with that most
evil of sins, where can one go.  Surely you don't insist that I become a
pro-choice hypocrite.  The choice belongs to the woman (as long as the womam
in question is the mother and not the child).
> 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Bill Harris - MIS				xmpcwsh@dp7up.com
> > Dr Pepper/The Seven-Up Company			The opinions expressed are my
> > Dallas, Texas  					own. (emphasis on the period)
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.lonestar.org
> Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!texsun!montagar!davidc
> P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
-- 
Landy Ligon (landy@bear.austin.ibm.com)
DISCLAIMER: The content of this posting is independent of official IBM position.
Internal: landy@austin.ibm.com 	VNET: LANDY at AUSTIN  T/L: 678-8188
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values: Where he stands and his background
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:20:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21352@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <7103@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> How do you get there from here? I, for one, would interpret the AP's question
>> as "If the woman decides to have an abortion, and her doctor doesn't tell her
>> that it's medically inadvisable..." There's a huge difference between that and
>> "...and her doctir thinks she medically needs one...", and I think my
>> interpretation is closer to the intent of the question.

>The doctor has no business in a discussion that is about "unrestricted"
>access to abortion.  A doctor's opinion is only relevant when it comes
>to medically required abortions.  Putting the doctor into the sentence
>clounds the issue, as indicated by the old maxim "The doctor knows best."

Nonsense!  By that kind of reasoning, putting the doctor into the
sentence indicates modifying the record, too (as in, 'doctoring the
record').  You've pulled some doozies when it comes to reinterpreting
plain English, John, but this just might be a new high/low for you.

>> That a doctor helps with the decision does not necessarily mean that the
>> abortion is for the mother's health. It's not a bad idea to consult with a
>> doctor before undergoing any surgical procedure. You're reading malicious
>> intent into something that may well be quite innocent.

>According to John Iacoletti, the woman should be able to decide on her
>own, and the only decision the doctor needs to make is if the request isn't
>going to result in a malpractice lawsuit.  Which John would outlaw since
>the patient has an unrestricted right to an abortion anyway ...

If I want to know what is what "according to John Iacoletti", I think
I'll ask him.  Your interpretations of what people say often seem to
be notably lacking in reality.  It seems to me that what John
Iacoletti is saying is exactly what the question asked; if the woman
gets pregnant, consults with her doctor, and decides she wants an
abortion, should she be allowed to have one?


-- 
"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.