HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The NAACP (was: Re: HR 4983)
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:29:39 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <00713652409@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>From article <1992Aug10.164655.1764@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, by jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II):
>> This isn't to say that the NAACP doesn't occassionally do good for
>> blacks in America.  After all, anyone can have a bad day ...
>
>As my friends at Dodson would put it (though they weren't talking
>specifically about you, but, rather, a certain person from Dallas):

Although I feel the need to justify my opions about the NAACP by giving
a long list of credentials detailing my continued social and political
interactions with blacks, I have this feeling that no list of actions
(short of those supported by black racists) will convince you that I do
have the best interests of blacks at heart.

I refuse to support handouts for blacks because handouts create needless
dependency on the part of the recipient.  The NAACP supports increased
wealth re-distribution schemes.  I refuse to accept education solutions
which treat blacks "specially" (that is, race norming of scores to
create the false impression of educational equality) because LOWERING
standards has never produced any result but LOWERED results.  The NAACP
stands by race norming of college enterance exams.  I refuse to accept
racial set-asides and other forms of racial "protectionism" because it
prevents blacks who are capable of performing equally from being taken
seriously, and those who are incapable are never forced to deal with
the reality that the need more and better skills.  [ By the way, this is
the same thing as protectionist trade, and if you want to see a perfect
exmample of how protectionism fails, look at the early 80's auto
industry. ]  The NAACP supports racial set-asides and preference
programs.

>"The man just don't have a clue."

This opinion, that the NAACP works against the genuine interests of the
black community, is not one that only I hold.  It is held by many blacks
who have seen the NAACP drift further and further to the political left.
Black conservatives are continually struggling against charges of Uncle
Tom-ism by groups such as the NAACP.  Yet the average black wants what
the average white wants - a safe neighborhood, good schools, a chance to
make an honest living.  The NAACP acts to undermine each and every one
of these.

That you support the actions of the NAACP is consistent with your
political views, which are pretty far to the left.  You suffer from the
basic delusion that the best white-anglo-christian-male is a dead
white-anglo-christian-male.
-- 
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."
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: RU 486
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:53:32 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp


   Medically, what does RU 486 do?  Does it induce early labor, 
   cause the uterine lining and embryo to slough off, or what? 

   Thanks. 

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  
 kossack@rice.edu  |  "That's not a crime--crimes have victims."   
  +1 713 240 2073  |     -- rsl@well.sf.ca.us (Roy Stuart Levin)     
  
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4085 alt.politics.clinton:2078
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:29:50 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <WVBITL5@taronga.com> kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:

>judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>|> buy imported goods, a number of those dollars go out of the country and they
>|> are not available for Americans here to spend or get paid or save.  Now, 
>|> when a foreign country buys our goods, a number of those dollars come back
>|> here to Americans to spend, get paid, or save or invest. Can you see that
>|> if more dollars go out than come in (a trade deficit), there is less money
>|> here for us? 

>	So ... what you're saying is that a negative trade imbalance 
>   decreases the money supply.  If so, then it is a good thing, as 
>   an increase in the money supply means inflation.  Therefore, the 
>   "trade deficit" reduces inflation.         K00L !!!   :-)   

Well, no.  Increasing the money supply FASTER THAN ECONOMIC GROWTH
*MAY* cause inflation.  Reducing the money supply will rein in the
economy and tend to cause a corresponding economic contraction (a
recession).

The money supply was contracted some 25% going into the Great
Depression.  Most economists think there was some connection there
between money supply and the depth and length of the Great Depression.


[Dollars that don't come back to buy goods tend to come back to buy
real properties, like factories, etc.  Hence we are actually exporting
our wealth when we run a prolonged and large trade deficit.  If all
the Eurodollars ever come home, we will be well and truly screwed.]



-- 
"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
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values: Where he stands and his background
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:26:36 GMT

In <21366@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.232205.12965@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>>Considering the fact that a Surgeon General with very strong pro-life
>>credentials came out and said that simply wasn't true, you are going
>>to have a tough time convincing anyone else.

>This isn't my source, but it agrees with my position.

It agrees with your position by saying that your claims are untrue?
Color me lost.  Or is it more of that selective reading and 'word
redefinition' of yours?


-- 
"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
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:11:47 GMT

In article <Le2RPB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:
>
>> In article <T51iPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
>> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>> 
>> >            ...  Secondarily, the fact that so many people _are_
>> > religious might be evidence that their _is_ something supernatural,
>> > outside of all of us.  ...
>> 
>> Once upon a time a great many people thought the earth was flat, did that
>> make it flat?
>
>No.  But your point is misdirected.  A vast number of people believe that
>there is something supernatural.  What they _don't_ agree upon is the nature
>of that supernatural --- which is the correct parallel to your 'earth is
>flat' statement.  To deny spiritual reality is to put yourself in a very
>tiny minority in the history of the world, indeed.

	This is a moral relativism point. Was their earth flat? Should
they be condemned for believing so? Translate "earth flatness" to any
other "moral" stance. Should they now be condemned? Should we not instead
understand them? Should we not learn from their notion, ergo- is our
earth flat? (Do we ALL accept reality factors that just aren't true?)



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:44:45 GMT
 <q82vr*1P0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Aug12.165227.37097@watson.ibm.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug12.165227.37097@watson.ibm.com>, John Iacoletti writes:

> In article <q82vr*1P0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> |> Skeptical aren't you (when it serves your purpose.)
> 
> I'm skeptical about everything.
> 
> |> You probably believed Anita Hill.
> 
> As a matter of fact I DID believe Anita Hill, but I thought her
> allegations were quite irrelevant to the Supreme Court confirmation
> process.

As I said.  Your skepticism seems to disappear entirely when it might conflict
with your preestablished liberal ideas.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:45:09 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

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

The question was "should a woman be allowed to have an abortion as 
long as a doctor agrees to perform one?"  If no doctor agrees to
perform one, then the question becomes "should a woman be allowed to 
have an abortion performed by a non-doctor?"  Perhaps some people
don't have any problem with abortion but they don't like the idea of
surgical procedures being done by non-doctors.

|> 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.

I wish I had a nickel for everytime you put words in my mouth.  If a
doctor doesn't want to do an abortion, either because he is against
abortion, or he doesn't think the woman has considered all of the
facts, or just because he doesn't like her looks, then he's free to
refuse to perform the procedure.  Doctors are more qualified to make
such judgement calls than are state legislators.

|> Which John would outlaw since
|> the patient has an unrestricted right to an abortion anyway ...

Not at all.  If a doctor causes injury to the woman through 
incompetence or negligence, then she should be able to sue him for
compensation.

-- 
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: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Oxymoron: Electorate's common sense (was Re: HR 4983)
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:06:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

> In article <aFD5oB4w164w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> > [The] attitude ("[generally] the electorate..does not..have enough sense to
> > rule the country well"), if common, will certainly lead this country right
> > toward a dictatorship of some sort, in practice if not on paper.  Because
> > the only alternative is rule by "expert(s)" --- SC judges, a President,
> > Congressional committee chairmen, or whatever.
>  
> The problem is that the "elites" generally have a much higher regard for
> the Constitution than the "average joe/jane".

Yes, perhaps, and no.  The "elites" (by which I assume you mean "those who
hold gov't office") might not have as much true regard as the avg joe/jane. 
Consider, for example, Supreme Court justices.  All (most) would say they
have great respect for the U.S.Constitution; yet many of 20th century
justices hold the opinion that the U.S.Constitution cannot be interpreted
according to its own words in its historical context.  _That_ is a blatant
disregard, even though the one who holds that opinion believes otherwise.

> A sizeable majority of the
> population doesn't understand or respect Constitutional ideas like freedom
> of speech or religion, especially in the cases where it really counts
> ("I'm all for freedom of speech, unless they're talking bad about America").

Sadly, personal dichotomies like this do exist, and in many arenas other
than legal.

> In fact, the founding fathers recognized that the majority could have very
> anti-Constitutional tendencies.  That's why they developed a system that
> had a number of anti-democratic safeguards (the Senate, for one).

Yes; the entire republican nature of the U.S. gov't itself stands as a
safeguard against "total democracy" (by which I mean, pure majority rule,
directly by the voting populace, with no "intervening" government body). 
Our democratic republic is (IMO) the best possible balance.  At least, when
we actually follow what the U.S. Constitution says.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Organization: Only When Necessary
Distribution: tx
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 04:47:59 GMT

In article <T51iPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>
>> There's nothing particularly special about human life.  This is a
>> harsh cruel world we live in.  We're just one of the species trying to
>> survive and keep our genes going.  And any perspective that assumes a
>> definable "moral and ethical fabric of society" IS a religious one.
>
>Interesting...I think I'd say that moral and ethical is derived from
>religious beliefs. But rather than believing that human life is
>"nothing...special", I find it more plausible to believe that it is
>special. The vast majority of human societies (perhaps all of them) have
>defined a "moral and ethical fabric of society" for themselves.  Which
>means that the vast, vast majority of people are "religious" in some
>sense, and that it is totally natural for them to reflect their beliefs
>in their laws.  Secondarily, the fact that so many people _are_
>religious might be evidence that their _is_ something supernatural,
>outside of all of us.  I think your viewpoint, John, is very much the
>minority.
>

Sure, human life is special. To humans. How many other species would
agree? The results aren't in yet on the supernatural question, but even
if there is something out there, what makes you so sure that humanity
-- 
\-- Henry Velick   \  Millions long for immortality, who don't know what   \
 \-- Datalingus     \  to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.   \
  \-- Austin, Texas  \ -----------------------------------      Susan Ertz   \
   \-- 512-459-5770   \ Purveyors of Fine Graphics Software and Consultation  \
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:38:30 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <z6Jur*HO0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.190238.19467@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:
> 
> > In article <21312@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> > > Are you trying to pretend that the only Christian denomination involved
> > > in the pro-life movement is the Catholic church?  I think this is HUGE
> > > mistake ...
> >  
> > No, but it's clear that even though most (if not all) Protestant churches
> > favor birth control of some flavor or another, members of those churches
> > involved in the pro-life movement don't take the same stance.
> 
> Where in the world did you get THAT silly idea?  I don't know ANY Protestant
> who is against birth control.  Not one.
 
Do you know Randall Terry?  How about other leaders in the pro-life 
movement.
 
> I know the passage that you refer to, but that is about an accidental death.
> The Bible is clear about accidental killings.  That is why there were the
> cities of refuge.  The Bible is clear also about murder.  It is punishable by
> death.
 
Actually, I don't think it refers to an accidental death.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:38:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug17.192005.1787@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>Since the most compelling quality Bush claims to have is his outstanding
>foreign policy record [...]

Actually, Bush's most compelling quality to me is that he's the only effective
brake on an amok, Democrat-controlled Congress. Clinton would let Congress
spend this country into oblivion.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: fetus vs. baby
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:58:12 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug13.102724.16941@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>	Okay, birth control wasn't as effective 40 years ago.  But the only
>real effectiveness of any birth control is USAGE.  What is the availablility
>for birth control among teens?  What is the availability of accurate sex 
>information that they receive?  In general, it was probably better then...
>Families would sit down and talk to the children, now both parents work (if
>there are two parents), and there just isn't time.

No, it was probably worse back then.  And education has nothing to do
with it.  Only a terminally stupid 16 year old girl doesn't know that
sex can result in pregnancy.  I remember asking my mother about
menstration 25 years ago.  I think that was the last discussion about
sex that her and I ever had (I'm 30 now, so you figure it out ...)

When asked why they had gotten pregnant, one group of women responded
that they wanted to prove to their parents that they could accomplish
something.

That doesn't sound like not being informed.

>	If you really want to limit abortions, you have GOT to provide
>sex education for children once they start to reach child-bearing age.
>You need to provide birth control to those that want it.  I don't mind
>encouraging abstinence until they are out of school, but you CAN"T make
>them feel ashamed or resentful, or they will just have sex unprotected.

You can get a box of condoms from your local HEB for about $4.  This
wasn't the case 40 years ago.  You can also get a slew of other birth
control products, many of which are recent inventions.
-- 
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."
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:54:42 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21384@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.153324.9399@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <21377@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>Well, Jeanette is now about 4 months pregnant.
>>Hey, congratulations.
> Fuck you.

	Did I miss something?  Unfortunately, it reminds me of the scene from
"The Naken Gun 2-1/2"

	Drebin:	"Hey I hear your wife pregnant. Congratulations!"
	<forget name>: "And if I ever catch the guy..."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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: ldillard@digi.lonestar.org (Lawrenece Dillard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:43:22 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <Bt7pAt.B1o@rice.edu> rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera) writes:
> in the seventies, Barry Goldwater said that Bush was a political
>opportunist who would say whatever it takes to further his career.  What
>foresight ...

That's the same thing I hear about Clinton...say whatever it takes
to get ahead, or elected.

Frankly, there is really not much choice in the two presidential candidates; 
just that one doesn't want to spend *my* money as quickly as the other.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:20:00 GMT
 <1992Aug17.170802.53@turtle.fisher.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug17.170802.53@turtle.fisher.com>, boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:

> In article <T51iPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> 
> >            ...  Secondarily, the fact that so many people _are_
> > religious might be evidence that their _is_ something supernatural,
> > outside of all of us.  ...
> >
> 
> Once upon a time a great many people thought the earth was flat, did that make
> it flat?

Some people believe that there is no God.  Others believe that they can define Him
any way that they choose.  Both groups are very wrong.  When Jesus returns, they
are going to be very shocked!


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:25:32 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug19.142220.8248@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>Amazing, someone congratualates you on your wife being pregnant and you
>tell him "Fuck you?"  Granted you and Fred go at it quite heatedly but
>you seem to be taking it a bit personally.

John Iacoletti (who I name only because we "go at it" quite heatedly as
well) at least respects the loyal opposition.  Fred doesn't.  A compliment
from ones enemy is never something to accept gladly.  That is what the
Battle of Troy and that Trojan Horse thing was all about.
-- 
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