HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:32:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525


RT>        Any many others were "theists".   But either way,  they
RT> acknowledged some kind of responsibility to  "god".   Personally,
RT> I don't follow the creed of any organized religion,  but I think
RT> you can tell that I do embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
RT> (that's not supposed to make me seem better or worse than anyone
RT> else in this thread)

RT>        David,  we could go 'round and 'round on this.
RT> Tell me your source and I'll read it.   (I'll tell you mine,
RT> but it's on loan,  so check back in a couple of days)

        I would recommend reading biographys of the men in question.
Also see their actual writings. Most of them were pretty vocal about
their religious ideas, especially Jefferson and Franklin. Since VERY
few Americans seem to have read it, I would also reccommend "Common
Sense" by Thomas Paine. It is one of the most anarchic writings I
have ever encountered.

        David Brooks.

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Suicide (was Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Ab)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 14:07:06 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <7233@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>Actually, this one serves a purpose: it gives the legal system a way to force
>a suicidal person to get psychiatric help. I agree that someone who has
>successufully committed suicide is beyond the reach of the legal system...

	Depends on the legal system. (-:



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:50:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.203014.24123@seas.smu.edu> dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon) writes:
>Something to note: if Pro-Lifers are so worried about the sensation of pain
>that the fetus allegedly feels, why are they (Pro-Lifers) so adamant about
>banning orally induced abortions (RU486 and Morning After)?  If the Pro-
>Lifers truly stood by their stance that abortion is wrong because it is
>torturous, and the other method of abortion (oral) is not torturous, why are
>they trying so hard to keep RU486 out of this country?

There are many reasons why pro-lifers are opposed to abortion, of which
alpha's(*) pain is only one reason.  Even if abortion were totally
painless, I'd still be against it for the same reason that I'd be
against giving an infant an overdose of sleeping pills.

(Side note: my opinions regarding RU486 are still in flux; I'm still
reading up on exactly how this drug works and when it must be used to
be effective.)


(*)  "Alpha" is the term Dr. Nathanson uses in his book, _Aborting_America_,
to describe the unborn child/fetus.  He chose that term to strip away
some of the connotations and prejudices associated with the other words.
I like it myself.

Daryl
--
Daryl Biberdorf                 |  Compaq Computer Corporation | standard
darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com |  20555 SH 249  M/S 060701    | disclaimer
dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu         |  Houston, TX 77070           | applies

Xref: sparky tx.politics:4468 alt.politics.clinton:3011 alt.politics.bush:2920
From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:37:03 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <1992Aug25.173352.3184@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
> Someone said:  "Passing out condoms encourages their use."
> 
> 	What's wrong with that?

I said that, and have grown to regret it.  The words which best express
my intent are "passing out condoms encourages sexual activity." 
I still stand by that though I haven't had time to run to the library
to look up stats to back me up.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Spend, Spend
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:07:11 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp

In article <rAEAr*wU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
- > 
- > Regarding deficits and taxes -- try Marrou, the other presidential   
- > candidate on your ballot.
- 
- Isn't he the Socialist (Communist) candidate?  What is his advantage 
- over Clinton - that he admits what he really is?
- 

	No.  Marrou is the Capitalist candidate.  Unlike "King George"   
   Bush and "Slick Willie" Clinton, Marrou espouses less taxation, less 
   "Big Government", less statism and more personal & economic freedom. 

	Whereas both Bush and Clinton have expressed a desire for laws 
   that would violated my civil rights, and whereas both Clinton and 
   Bush have a record of "tax and spend", and whereas both campaigns 
   bear a remarkable resemblance to flame wars, I can not, in good 
   conscience vote for either fellow.  Therefore, I will be voting for 
-- 
 Jordan M Kossack   |   "To use taxes to cure a deficit is like using 
 kossack@rice.edu   |    leeches to cure anemia."    -- Ronald Reagan 
  +1 713 240 2073   |   "Voodoo Economics!"            -- George Bush 
  
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4724 alt.politics.clinton:3746
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:10:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <21444@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.220001.2595@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>"Socialist" media? This sounds like the communists are coming.
>>When the election comes around, look at who your local newspaper
>>supports. Look at who it supported in 88'. Time will prove you 
>>wrong.
>
>Newsweek or some other magazine did a report on which candidates
>the media supports.  The conclusion was that while they support
>both sides, they support the left about 4 to 1, measured in terms
>of dollars.

"The media" is a very broad term. I saw a poll that stated many reporters
tend to support the democrats. Perhaps they give money accordingly. But look
who owns the media.....the Hearst family, the Quayle family, etc., etc.
I think then media doesn't support the "left" enough!
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Ab
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:27:44 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <272900180@trsvax> cls@trsvax.tandy.com writes:
>Then either my posts aren't getting out or you have a convenient memory.
>(I seriously wonder if my posts are getting out because all of you men,
>including one here where I work involved in this discussion, seem to
>ignore me.) 

This is the first posting of yours I have noticed.

>There might be a human inside of my belly but what I do in there or have
>in there is between me and God and none of your business.  If I commit a
>sin to my own body, God is the only one who has the right to punish me.

Yes, for the most part.  Except that maybe I consider I have business with 
the unborn child, which is definitely not YOUR body.  Even pro-choicers on 
the whole agree with this, calling it a parasite.

BTW, did you know suicide is illegal in Texas?

>So many of you guys are sitting here, like the Pharisees, passing down
>judgements on a crime you aren't even able to commit.  

Oops, sorry, the Pharasees were not only able, but did commit crimes.

>Meanwhile, most of
>those people who you are judging aren't even listening to you.

Not judging them myself.  I'm only judging an activity, and hoping to make 
alternatives more popular.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:44:16 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

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...

> -- 
> 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:43:27 GMT
Organization: Tennessee Ernie Port Authority

In article <mumble> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
|        Amy's right on target here.   But I honestly believe a lot of
|anti-life/pro-death ppl haven't thought it through that far.

Yaaayyy!  Finally, out of all the idiot labels the pro-life faction
has come up with for pro-choice people, one that fits me!  I'm gonna
die; you're gonna die; everyone in on this discussion is gonna die;
everyone _not_ in on this discussion is gonna die; and that's the way
I feel it should be.

Pro-death now!

|        Actually,  the foundational laws of this country were based on
|English common law,  which was  *heavily*  influenced by the Christian
|Bible.   We've gotten away from it;  we've taken liberty out of balance.

No; to use your own term (cf. Judaism discussion now occurring in
parallel with this one), our current vision of liberty unfettered by
Christianity is the _fulfillment_ of the conception of the Founding
Fathers.

|        Separation of Church and State was supposed to protect the
|churches from the state.   We use it in reverse today.

This sounds like a complaint.  For myself, if things have changed so
much that the state needs protection from the church, then I'm damn
glad it has that protection.  For now, anyway.

|        State and local governments have lost a lot of autonomy.
|I wish that they could get it back.
|        Our laws desperately need to return to a layered structure:
|Fed,  minimal involvement;  state,  a little more detail;  local,
|more specific regulations.

Finally, something on which we agree.  Well, if you ignore the word
"desperately", anyway.  There are things we need more desperately.  An
educated and serious-minded electorate, for one.

And speaking of abuse of federal powers (just to split off YA tangent
here), one of the most disgusting facets of the Republican convention
was Bush grousing about a "gridlock Congress," with teammate Quayle
arguing that the Executive needs a rubber-stamp Congress to match its
rubber-stamp Supreme Court.  Must have been out on the golf course
when their civics classes were discussing things like "separation of
powers" and "checks and balances."

I guess if Americans are willing to let their Executive become a king,
then that's their decision.  As my old friend George Bernard used to
say, "Democracy is a device that insures that the people shall be
governed no better than they deserve."

-- 
Ben Gamble                              B0 f- t+ w- g+ k- s- m- e r-v p
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu 
       Oh ye who go about saying unto each other:  "Hello sailor":
       Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:30:31 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <G-cBr*sV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>


    [stuff omitted]

> >>An example -- Jewish religious law REQUIRES an abortion in cases where
>
>Note:  Rabbinical lore is NOT the Bible.
>
>
>                                                Jim Pritchett
>
>

   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
   that the religios dogma is their constitution, Saudi Arabia is one
   suggestion, I believe the Koran = their constitution.  Maybe you could
   start a new country of your own somewhere that uses the "Bible" as its
   Constitution and everyone believes in it.  This country REJECTS that
   idea.

		Judy
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education (was lots of other subjects)
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:55:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <UwcBr*pV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.032302.23073@tamsun.tamu.edu>, Rick Russell writes:

>> 	Sex education is there for one reason only: to give kids the
>> straight facts, pure and simple. No 'message', no preaching. They
>> could get hearsay, mythology, and lies from their friends, bathroom
>> walls, or porn mags. If we don't give them the straight facts, no one
>> will.

>That job is for the parents.  Parents can supply the necessary moral teaching
>to go along with the 'facts.'

Unfortunately, in the real world, parents just don't get involved. I
know my parents didn't ever talk about sex with me; and most parents I
know are terrified of talking about sex. And I'm not the only one.
Surveys of teenagers (as quoted by Masters & Johnson, e.g.) suggest
that the vast majority of children learn about sex from friends and
siblings, not their parents. Add that to the fact that only 25% of
U.S. households consist of the 'stereotypical' family (husband and
wife with common children), and there's a recipe for disaster. The
parents either aren't there to teach the children, or they don't talk
about it.

Sex education is a response to observed changes in the
teenage/pre-teen population, not an attempt to 'pervert' that
population. Ask any sex ed teacher, and they'll tell you: THE PARENTS
MUST GET INVOLVED. It's the only way to develop a sexual morality; sex
education isn't there to do that part of the job.

-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:06:16 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <Bu1Apy.CCB@rice.edu> rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera) writes:
>They did have great respect, but DID NOT state that the Bible is our
>Constitution and everyone believes it.  Jefferson and Franklin were
>deists.

The great thing about seeing who someone admires is that you can then
go find some of those other peoples words and show them what they ACTUALLY
believed -

     " ... I therefore beg leave to move-- that henceforth prayers
   imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our
   deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before
   we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of
   this city be requested to officiate in that service."
		-- Benjamin Franklin (in a letter to Geo. Washington)


   "The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty... students perusal
    of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."
		-- Thomas Jefferson

There is actually quite a bit to that letter from Franklin.

I think there is a serious misunderstanding about the religioun environment
of the colonies prior to the revolution.  The Church of England is a
political organ.  The head of the Church is, if I recall correctly, the
head of the state.  When the American Revolution was over, and the colonies
became sovereign states, the Church of England ceased to "do business", as
it were, in this country.  Many of the Framers had been British loyalists
earlier in history, and certainly were members of the CoE.  However, as
tensions arose between the colonies and the Crown, no doubt many of those
same individuals distanced themselves from the Church.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4640 alt.politics.clinton:3521
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:05:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21432@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> This is simply not the case.  In each of those years, tax revenues
> dramatically increased.  If spending were set back to early Reagan
> era levels, the current level of tax revenues would create a massive
> surplus.
 
Unfortunately, the facts don't support your assertion.  Here is some
data from the US Treasure Dept, via the World Almanac.
 
         Receipts    Change from
         (billions)   previous year
 
    1970      192 
    1971      187     -2.6%
    1972      207     10.7%
    1973      230     11.1%
    1974      263     14.3%
    1975      279      6.1%
    1976 
    1977      355 
    1978      399     12.4%
    1979      463     16.0%
    1980      517     11.7%
    1981      599     15.9%
    1982      617      3.0%
    1983      600     -2.8%
    1984      666     11.0%
    1985      734     10.2%
    1986      769      4.8%
    1987      854     11.1%
    1988      908      6.3%
    1989      990      9.0%
 
Avg 1971-1989          8.7%
Avg 1981-1989          7.6%
 
1976 (and consequently 1977) are screwed up because there was a 
transitional period to change the fiscal year.  However, I think
it's clear that Reagan's revenue record was slightly below average,
and certainly doesn't merit the term "dramatic".  The average
would be lower if I took out 1981, since it's not clear how much credit a
President should get for the tax returns (which a large percentage are 
collected in April) when they didn't take office until the end of January.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:57:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

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 ...
 
I think it's pretty clear that the American public doesn't respond to
anything except a crisis, and perhaps a crisis is what's needed to get
people to pay attention to the crazy state of government financing.  A
few weeks or months of disruption seems a small price to pay if it wakes
people up.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Spend, Spend
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:38:32 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <rAEAr*wU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>Isn't he the Socialist (Communist) candidate?  What is his advantage over Clinton -
>that he admits what he really is?

	This seems to be the second or third time recently that someone/thing
that Jim didn't agree with, he refered to a "Socialist" or "Communist".
Sounds like it is being used as a knee-jerk adjective to adversity...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Spend, Spend
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:56:00 GMT
 <rAEAr*wU0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Aug31.133540.64@turtle.fisher.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug31.133540.64@turtle.fisher.com>, boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:

> In article <rAEAr*wU0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug26.113152.62@turtle.fisher.com>, boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:
> >
> >> In article <4193PB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> >> >
> >> > Got some other choice better than Bush (regarding deficits and taxes)?
> >> >
> >> Regarding deficits and taxes -- try Marrou, the other presidential candiate on
> >> your ballot.
> >
> > Isn't he the Socialist (Communist) candidate?  What is his advantage over Clinton -
> > that he admits what he really is?
> 
> Marrou is the Libertarian candidate, and his ideas are just the opposite of
> those of the socialists.  Maybe you should look into his ideas a little, you
> may even agree with some of them.

Oops, my apologies to Mr. Marrou.

I know about Libertarian ideas.  Many of them sound appealing.  However, Libertarians
take some things too far (in my opinion.)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp