HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:43:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

> Christ said that =all= the law hinges on two laws - Love your neighbor
> as yourself, and love your God with all your heart.  If Deists follow
> those two laws, and have accepted Christ, then Christian orthodoxy can
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> stamp its feet all it wants ...

Of course, your statement is true, but is dependent upon what one means by
"accepted Christ."  That involves answering 2 questions: 1) Who is Christ? 
(I.e., how does he identify himself, his character, his nature...); 2) How
does Christ define "accepting Him?"  I believe that orthodox Christianity
answers those two questions essentially in one common way, and
"non-orthodox" take-offs answer those questions some other way(s).

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5236 alt.politics.clinton:5477
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:28:33 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <00716430161@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>The way I see it, if a person is willing to work hard and work long, that
>person should be rewarded for that work with reasonable health care and
>an adequate diet for that person and her children.

I believe that, if a person is willing to work hard and work long, that
person should be rewarded with a new 486/50 DX with a 330MB SCSI, 64MB
RAM, SVGA monitor and an Exabyte 2.3GB 8mm tape drive.

Oh.  Health care is a "right".  I keep forgetting that basic liberal
assumption.  Now, why isn't it that a nice computer isn't a "right"?
I keep forgetting.
-- 
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
From: root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy    (was Re: what the hell is HR 4983
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:10:18 GMT
Reply-To: moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Aug31.200512.23339@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
|>>     What is "WoD"?  I have a devil of a time trying to figure out
|>>     all these acronyms -- wdytot*?

"War on Drugs", otherwise known as "WoYRtSUYoBAwYDwP" ("War on Your Right to
Screw Up Your own Bod Any way You Damn well Please".

|>> 
|>>     (*what do you think of that?)
|>> 
|>> 
|>> 		Bye, Judy
|>> 
|>> 	PS:  Remember, virtue is its own punishment.

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "Man is a rational animal who
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   always loses his temper when
possibly represent its position.	|   called upon to act in accordance
					|   with the dictates of reason."
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Orson Welles
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:27:59 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep9.171414.13867@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <21467@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>Oh boy, I misquoted him.
>
>Yeah, you sure did.  Obviously, though, you don't think distortions
>you create by misquoting people are serious.  Otherwise you wouldn't
>do it so often or twist things so much.

I think the difference between "That isn't even a sentence" and "That's
not a complete sentence" is so small as to be absurdly irrelevant.  The
MEANING of both is essentially the same - the subject sentence in
question does not have all of the parts which would make it a
grammatically correct sentence.  Whether it is "even a sentence" or "a
complete sentence" is angels on a pinhead argumentation.

The simple fact remains, you attacked a sentence I wrote because you
found it to be grammatically offensive.  That makes you a twit, and a
hiplycrit.  Twit because grammar flames are off-limits on USENET, and
a hiplycrit because you complain about what you yourself do.

Next myth.
-- 
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
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:59:28 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <7297@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.230803.23674@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>[about why Communism isn't a religion]
>>No deity.  Communism is a political and economic system.  It doesn't
>>involve the "worship" of anything.

>Au contraire. It involves the worship of the State, all-powerful,
>all-providing, all-encompassing, as the benevolent protector of Mankind. The
>State is, in that belief system, God.

Sorry, but that isn't communism.  There is no 'State' in communist
politico-economic theory.  Hence the phrases about "the withering away
of the State".  Hardly sounds like worship, since the purpose of the
system is to do away with the State.

-- 
"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:5106 alt.politics.clinton:4920
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:35:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep8.214556.29784@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
[stuff deleted}
>
>Recessions are ended by reduced government intervention.
>Reduced taxes, (with equally reduced spending.)
>Reduced regulation.
>Reduced trade restraint.
>
>	FDR did none of these.  And the depression went on for YEARS 
>	because of him.
I'm curious as to whether those "free market" republicans out those, Curt
included, can be a little more specific on these points. I asked the
question once before about which regulations were thought to be harmful
and received one example. This turned out to be a point against bureaucracy
rather than regulation, although it's obvious that these are the same
to many people.

Would the free marketeers like to see the SEC abolished? Perhaps a little more
uncertanty in those stock offerings would make the market more interesting.
What about anti-trust laws? The list goes on and on. However, although I'm
a liberal democrat, I do not believe in large government either. I do believe
that government can be made more efficient, which will lower the drag on
the economy. Unfortunately, by putting people off the government payroll,
unemployment will get worse before the private sector can create enough
jobs for these people. Hell, I think the number of people on the government
payroll could be cut by 1/3 and the job still get done. The fact remains that
free marketeers usually want "protection" without "regulation." I say you
can't have it both ways.
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Bible
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:23:44 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas

>> teachings of Jesus, believe that following him is the one true way to
>> salvation, and yet not believe that Paul, or some other prophet, was
>> divinely inspired?  Who said Paul was divinely inspired?  Anyone I
>> can trust to know better than myself?  Anyone (besides Paul) who was
>> there at the time?

>Well, the apostle Peter meets the preceding criteria.  He said:

>    Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our
>    dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
>    He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these
>    matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
						       ^^^^^^^^
>    understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look Chris, you missed the most important part!   

>    the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.  (2 Peter 3:15-16)
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>So Peter says that Paul's letters are Scripture, just like "the other
>Scriptures."

>Chris

So you are telling us that even though Peter warns against it YOU believe
you have a full understanding of Paul's letters and are totally convinced 
that you and only you have this knowledge.  If someone disagrees then THEY
are wrong!  Something like "Jesus loves me but he can't stand you"    
Sounds like the BS we heard in Houston and later in Dallas from Lying George
and his cronies.  
I have to admit it appears he had to tone it down a bit after the United 
Council of Church's and other groups, I don't remember the names, warned
him to keep God out of the election. 

   
James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com                 
"Sex education in our schools is promoting incest" 
		      The Rev? Jimmy Swaggart
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:57:53 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

gajit@owlnet.rice.edu (Ajit Kurian George) writes:

> In article <iyXwqB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> |> Well, the apostle Peter meets the preceding criteria.  He said:
> |> 
> |>     Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our
> |>     dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
> |>     He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these
> |>     matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
> |>     understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do
> |>     the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.  (2 Peter 3:15-16)
> |>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> So Peter says that Paul's letters are Scripture, just like "the other
> |> Scriptures."
> 
...
> In any case, this is a circular argument, using words translated by
> ignorant and unstable people to prove that they are possibly ignorant
> and unstable.

You may choose any translation you wish and you will see the same point:
Peter says that Paul's writings are Scripture.  The preceding quotation was
from the NIV.  I give you the NASB:

    and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also
    our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote
    to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these
    things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the
    untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the
    Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I have not quoted the KJV though you will likely find it saying the same
thing w.r.t Peter's opinions of Paul's writings.  I daresay the same is
true of the Greek.  Know whereof you speak before representing yourself
carelessly on issues like this.  If you wish to disagree with what the
text says, fine.  But please, don't play the game of saying a given
ancient text does not have the words it truly contains.  That is neither
intellectually ethical nor honest.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:12:33 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <exuptr.504.716166010@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>You're not into Scientology, are you?

Ghod, NO!!! Gack.

Actually, I agree with Heinlein when it comes to religion: "I don't know Who's
cranking [the universe]; I'm pleased He doesn't stop."
-- 
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.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:52:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <kBTwqB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>That is my understanding as well.  Interestingly, during Jefferson's
>campaign for the Presidency, the subject of whether or not he was a
>Christian actually came up and was debated by pro- and anti-Jefferson
>people.  (I am assuming the Jefferson himself did not comment on this
>subject, at least during the campaign.)  The extraordinary lesson from this
>is that the _subject_ of a candidate's Christianity was a proper (relevant)
>thing to bring into public consideration.

	Was it? Is any item offered in an election proper, then? And, even
if it was "proper", wasn't slavery "proper" at that time, as well? Two areas
of growth, then, followed.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Li
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 20:14:31 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)  writes:

>    I may be wrong here, I'm certainly no lawyer, but I was under the
>    impression that lawbreaking wasn't considered "criminal" until it
>    constitutes a felony. I believe that misdemeanors are considered
>    "infractions" not "crimes". Or is it a crime to drive 56mph on the
>    Loop? There may also be a bit of difference between the way these terms
>    are used in Texas and in California. I certainly would not claim to
>    understand Texas law in the least....(I live here now, but I ain't from
>    here, and the laws here are quite different from many other states.)
> 
>    Any lawyers out there who could clear this up? I'd be really interested
>    to know exactly how "crime" and "criminal" are defined...
> 
  Actually, the Texas laws very seldom ever use the term "crime". 
In most all cases, the law reads something like "A person commits 
an offense......". 

Sec. 1.07 (20) states..." 'Misdemeanor' means an offense so
designated by law or punishable by fine, by confinement in jail or 
by both fine and confinement in jail."

 Another interesting point is that of all the possible "offenses" 
one might be charged with for causing the death of another person, 
the only one that is a "misdemeanor" is called "criminally 
negligent homicide".

  You almost get the impression that the legislature intentionally 
avioded the use of the word "crime" :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
           the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:31:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.154445.11263@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep4.211527.8826@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>>>>We've seen Clinton's plan.  It is a vehement version of the 1990 tax
>>>>increase and spending since then.  
>>>
>>>We must not have seen the same plan.
>
>>Sure we have.  Tax increase on the rich and increased investment.
>>That's how Clinton presents his plan.  It happens to be a mild version
>>of what Bush and Congress have done since 1990.  The 1990 version was
>>a mistake; the Clinton plan is to go further in that direction.
>
>Well, is it a "vehement version" or a "mild version"?

It's the WILD version.  (Typo, so sue me.)

>Does it "go further" or is it "mild"?  Also, where is the *investment*
>(as opposed to just spending with no investment) in the current budgets?

It's in exactly the same places the post-1990 increase has been.

Maybe the wild version will do better than the mild version, but
you can't ignore the similarities; you have to explain them.

>>No, my opinion is if that if we don't like the direction Bush took in
>>1990, we'd be stupid to sign up with someone who wants to go further
>>in that direction than Bush went.
>
>That's as opposed to going with someone who is promising us all all
>sorts of spending, but doesn't want to get bogged down in the detail
>of how he plans to fund it until after the election?

You mean like Foley's promise to give even more to Florida than Bush
proposed?

>>>Yeah, let's go for the guy who is going around handing out presents
>>>(we got one here in our area) and who says he'll cut our taxes but
>>>doesn't want to tell us how it will be paid for.
>
>>Change "presents" to "promises" and you have the Clinton campaign.
>>Bush thinks that he blew it in 1990; Clinton disagrees, he thinks that
>>Bush didn't go far enough in 1990.
>
>Evidence for that statement of what Clinton thinks?

Clinton's plan is a WILD version of the post-1990 plan, which
Clinton presumably doesn't like (or at least doesn't like as
much as his plan).  That's "bush didn't go far enough", unless
someone wants to argue that Clinton doesn't really support his
own plan.

>>If you liked the 1990 tax increase and spending plan and want more of
>>the same, to go even further in that direction, Clinton's your obvious
>>choice.

>On anything other than the most simplistic level, I simply don't see
>the comparison between the two that you seem to think exists.

What's simplistic about pointing out that the promised tax increases
are right where the tax increases happened in 1990?  What's simplistic
about pointing out that the spending shifts are the same?

I realize that Clinton folks don't want to argue for a WILD version of
the "mild" plan implemented in 1990, but that's their candidate's
position.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Clinton
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:22:41 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas


|> If Clinton is elected, the
|> deficit will be $500B next year, and $800B by the end of his first
|> term.

>What do you base this assumption on?  Clinton plans to raise spending
>by about 70 billion.  That's only 5.5% of the total government
>expenditures.  I don't like it either, but I think you're exaggerating.

70 billion,  This means that if Clinton can get the congress to go along
and roll the tax rates on the wealthy back to 1977 rates he will have a 
surplus of 14 billion.  Now if he can get congress to go along may be 
another story.  

>-- 
>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


James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com                 
"Sex education in our schools is promoting incest" 
		      The Rev? Jimmy Swaggart
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Originator: patrick@mozart.convex.com
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:20:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <21480@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>The simple reality is that the majority of taxes are paid by a very small
>minority of citizens.  We paid about $30,000 last year in FIT.  How many
>"poverty class" households did we make up for?
>
I don't think that this statement is correct.  Based on charts I have read
in various news publications over the years, people who make between $30,000
and $200,000 pay the vast majority of personal income taxes.  That group
of people is not "a very small minority".

I also agree that it is irrelevant whether the rich to pay many times as
much tax per dollar earned as the poor.  The poor could contribute half
their earnings and not make a real difference in revenues.  What matters
is the ratio of the rich to the middle class.  The rich pay a marginal rate
of 31%, while the middle class pay 25%+7% FICA.  [I think my percentages
may be a little off, but the broad concept is right.  If someone really
cares, you can figure it out from your TAX TABLES which the IRS helpfully
sends you every year.  Add $100 to any given income level, and see how much
more tax must be paid.  Don't forget the FICA surcharge.]  The current tax
rate is closer to a flat tax rate that it has been since World War II.  As a
side note, I find it annoying that the rich pay less per additional dollar
earned than the middle class, but that is a minor nit.

Finally, the tax rates before the Kennedy cuts are much different than
those of today.  I remember looking at the rate charts while helping my
mother do her income tax in 1961 (a bit of wishful thinking at the time).
If you made more than $200,000 in 1961 without tax dodges or breaks, you
paid 91%.  That kind of confiscation forced people to look for any sort
of tax dodge.  Dropping the top rate to 70% helped some when combined with a
1/2 price for capital gains tax, the effective rate for long term
investments was 35%, allowing more rational investment policies.
The current rates of approximately 30-35% on all income are low enough to
mean we are far enough down the tax curve so that dropping rates will not
increase revenues.  There is really no justification now for giving capital
gains another break, except for an inflation adjustment clause.

Our problem today is not tax rates, it is the deficit.  It has created
a hidden and delayed pressure for hyperinflation which will take another 10
years and another hard recession in the late 1990's to work out of the
economic system.  The longer we stay hooked on a deficit, the more it will
hurt when we finally get off the addiction.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton