HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:00:10 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <7290@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.161624.41204@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>It may be pointless to argue with Robert Heinlein on tx.politics, but
>>communism is not a religion.

>It isn't? Why not? After all, it is essentially the worship of the State and
>the People...it's close enough to a religion for me.

You're not into Scientology, are you?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Summary: Clear as mud, again.
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:38:39 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <exuptr.520.716245686@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <BuE2zF.HDt@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>Sorry, I listened very closely.  He was very clear about the fact that they 
>>>were not to be excluded.  For what reason are you misrepresenting what was 
>>>said?
>
>>He was clear?  Okay, exactly what *did* he say?  (Even if he *did* make some
>>effort to include them, it doesn't make much difference -- he says one
>>thing, the rest of his loony-tune pals in the RNC say another.  
>
>He talked about the "extended family" of step-mothers/fathers, foster 
>children, older persons living alone, and single heads-of-household as being
>a "new focus" for economic reform.  Admittedly a little nebulous as to what
>the actual plan was, but he was pretty clear that they were on the list to
>have something done about...

...which will make it not too terribly surprising if all those particular
examples are forgotten about as soon as it's convenient, and of course then
George will have the "plausible deniability" he can put to good use...

>>That makes
>>for a really attractive image -- a party that can't figure out who's running
>>the show, being led by someone who'd do *anything* to be re-elected, as he
>>himself has stated before...
>
>Well I don't know so much about all that.  Politics is politics.  That kind 
>of crap happens on both sides.  Frankly I still don't know who to vote for.  
>I've considered running myself (you turn 30 and think you're a big deal ;-)

Not a bad idea, but you should wait until you're 35 to run for the
Presidency...:-)

(It happens on both sides, I agree -- that's part of why I'm voting
Libertarian this year...)


--PLH (Legalize freedom, and do it THIS year...)

--
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:07:02 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep9.171809.14019@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>It would be?  Why is that?  Jefferson was a Deist, not a 'Christian'
>(in the way that people who want to dictate moral codes mean it).

The man who invented Deism was a zealous Christian.

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: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:07:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <21494@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.171809.14019@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Next myth.

I've heard that a myth is a female moth.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: George v. Congress
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 19:53:32 GMT
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug31.215150.23500@technology.com>, Judy McMillin writes:

> In article <idEAr*sU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >
> >assault weapons.  You really ought to stop listening to the Clinton propaganda
> >machine and find out the facts.
> >
> >
> >                                                Jim Pritchett
> >
> >
> 	Jim, the same could be said to you about the "Bush machine" 

I don't hear much from the "Bush machine."  They still aren't nearly as active as
the Slick Willie machine.

> 	and its propaganda; just depends on whose you believe. I
>       prefer to believe the one who hasn't already been caught in lies.

But Slick Willie has already been caught lying!  More than once!  His lies about
his draft dodging are finally coming out now.  He lied about the middle class tax
cut.  He lied about his adulteries.  He lied about his position on Operation Desert
Storm.  He lies about the President almost continuously.

So far, we have one broken promise by Bush (there is no evidence that he lied, but
he did break his promise.)

So, does this mean that you will change your vote to Bush?  Or were you lying when
you wrote "I prefer to believe the one who hasn't already been caught in lies."?



> 		Remember, virtue is its own punishment.

Virtue is not a punishment, it is a joy.

                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (Long)
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:20:46 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <RraDr*fX0@caleb.UUCP>
jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) froths:
 
>In article <1685513A1C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Joseph L. Lockett writes:
>
>> I have read ALL of John 8.  I see the story of Jesus and the adulteress,
>
>You obviously didn't understand it.
 
Um, Jim, I understood it was about heterosexual adultery.  What this has
to do with homosexuality I'm not sure, though I think it's unfortunate
that you confuse the two.  What does your confessor think?  :-)
 
>Since you are deliberately perverting the Scriptures, there is little point in
>specifically rebutting each point of your ridiculous diatribe.
 
Oh, bull, Jim.  You're merely speechless.  I quoted actual pieces from the
Bible, your Revered_Book_of_All_Information,_Without_Which_I_Could_Not_Sort_
My_Socks_In_The_Morning.  Would you prefer I go back and replace all my
quotes from the New Jerusalem Bible with those from the King James?  I
assure you they wouldn't be that different.  Direct quotes FROM the very
source you adulate CANNOT be construed as "perverting".  Get a life and
learn to argue.
 
You realize, of course, that it's difficult to have an argument when your
opponent refuses to discuss the issues?  (Gosh, like George Bush does....)
I'm doing my best to hold up my end of the bargain, but you're failing
miserably.
                                                               v
Oh, here's your medal for your daily Bible-reading, Jim. -->   |
I'm proud of you, but quit frothing about it. We get it.       *
 
Joseph L. Lockett
jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
 
Rice doesn't speak for me, and I don't for Rice. At least not here. :-)
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5248 alt.politics.clinton:5497
From: cnb@cnbisis.lerctr.org (Nelson Baird)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:55:44 CDT
Organization: ISIS, Inc, Ferris TX

john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

> In article <1992Sep6.123643.12285@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.aus
> |> Taxing the rich won't really get much.  There aren't enough of them.
> |> Most of the money in this country is in the hands of the middle class.
> |> Uncle Sam wants YOU.  Not the rich guy.  He is the rich guy.
> Exactly.  So why is Clinton trying to raise taxes on the rich?  Solely
> to buy votes from the middle class.  It has nothing to do with the
> deficit or the economy.
> 
   You might want to check terms.  During the last congressional battle 
over taxation, the statistical definition of "rich" was anyone making in 
excess of 40K for a family of four.   
 
Consider that the "poor" of the US look incredibly rich to the poor of 
the third world.  I am reminded of a protest in New York where the 
"poor" protested the size of their government support by parking their 
cars on the freeways one morning.   In the third world anyone who has 
a car IS rich. 

The problem is we have created a system where there is an increasing 
dis-incentive to producing more or better.  The more productive I am, 
the greater the fraction of MY reward I am required to hand to a system
that clearly fails to do it's job. 


 Thanks,
 C. Nelson Baird
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Opinions expressed are MINE. (not necessarily the company's)
            cnb@cnbisis.lerctr.org    cnb@lerami.lerctr.org
 - - - - - -Intelligent  Solutions In Software, Inc. - - - - - - - - -
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:17:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep8.195840.27697@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
|> Maybe they get more because they do more unnecessary procedures here.
|> Our Caescarian (sp?) rate is very high in this country for example.
|> 
|> Fear of Malpractice (the evil lawyers,) accounts for some of this
|> certainly.  But not for all.

I think fear of malpractice suits is the major reason.  If someone
doesn't have a perfect baby, it must have been the doctor's fault. 
People are so greedy in this country that they expect to get rich if
anything bad happens to them.

The other reason is that doctors are so well trained in what to do
when things go wrong, that they forget that childbirth isn't
pathological.  They want to intervene if anything deviates from
their silly labor charts the slightest bit.

-- 
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: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: "Socialized medicine" in Texas
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:16:43 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep14.143157.26616@novell.com> bboerner@novdpd.uucp (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>
Regarding the issue of "socialized medicine" 
>

		You say the government, if it supplied health care,
		should come up with a list of suggested prices for
		specific procedures, and pay only that amount.

		MOST insurers already do that, and I suspect it represents
		a VERY LARGE PART of their cost of doing business.

		That's my comment, Brendan.


			Bye, Judy
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:49:12 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <00715995645@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>Note that Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. He did not personally
>believe in any organized religion but, rather, believed that religion was a
>personal matter between a man and his maker.

You are ignoring two crucial facts.

1). Deism was invented by a Christian zealot.
2). The Christian Church of that era was the Church of England.

Given these two facts, it isn't very hard to get to

1a). Deism is consistent with some set of Christian beliefs.
2a). Support for the organized Christian Church would have required
     support of the CofE.

And from there, it should be obvious that belief in a religious doctrine
outside of mainstream Christianity would have almost been mandatory for a
man trying to break away from a nation he viewed as an oppressor.  It is
also a fact that the Episcopal Church was viewed with extreme distrust
because of its ties to the Church of Scotland and former association with
the Church of England.  What would you suggest a devote Christian to do
if his church organization is now part of the enemy as he defines it?

This notion that these religious men weren't Christian because they didn't
support the CofE or whatever ignores the painful reality that churches of
the 18th and 19th centuries were state run organizations.  Likewise, some
notion that orthodox Christianity is the only true Christian is similarly
flawed - some of us Christians DON'T believe that poly-cotton blend socks
are evil, or that I should pray for manna from heaven.

I create the "miracles" that occur around me by doing God's will.  Until
God gets in the regular habit of dumping food in the precise areas where
it is needed most, I will continue to believe that God place Man on this
earth to be the instrument of His will.
-- 
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:5062 alt.politics.clinton:4836
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:15:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <exuptr.470.716077270@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <BuBnAG.5p6@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>What do you know?  We agree about welfare.  Unfortunately for you, the 
>>"Family Values" mantra that your Republican friends are waving makes a pretty
>>narrow definition of "family", and excludes a *large* chunk of the population
>>in the process -- and then insists that the only *proper* families are the
>>ones in conformance with the new standard.  I wonder how long it'd be before
>>it's written into law, if the Republican brownshirts get their way?
>
>You obviously didn't listen to Bush's speech very well.  He specifically 
>addressed unwed mothers and extended families.

Yeah -- and managed to exclude them almost as well as his pals Robertson and
that Quayle guy did.  You must not have been paying attention to them, 
either...


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
             The opinions presented herein are *mine*, not Rice's.     
  (Except for this one:  BEAT THE *&^%$#@! OUTTA TEXAS!!! We both share that.)
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: 15 Sep 1992 19:37:46 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <exuptr.605.716582087@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>If the IRS said to you "MR ____, this year you owe $ X in taxes, but we're
>going to let you spend it on anything you want, so long as the things you 
>spend it on are either recognized charities, public works, or national 
>(government) agencies."
>What would you spend your cash on?

I'd allocate .25X to defense, .25X to NASA, and .5X to retiring the national
debt. We still need a strong defense; NASA is nothing less than our future;
and the national debt will kill our economy.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5132 alt.politics.clinton:5012
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:51:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep11.215117.54536@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <18p8dtINNomc@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
| 
||> 		Total	Income Tx
||> AGI	#retrns AGI	Total	Tax as a
||> (in $K)	(in K)	(in $M)	(in $M)	% of AGI
||> 0--1	3,724	-27,104	96	N/A
||> 1--3	7,423	14,861	179	3.9
||> 3--5	6,678	26,670	429	3.5
||> 5--7	6,413	38,360	994	4.1

>I must be missing something here.  I divided 179 by 14861, and I got
>1.2% instead of 3.9%.  I divided 429 by 26670 and I got 1.6% instead
>of 3.5%.  etc. etc. etc.

No, *I* missed somthing. The percentages were based on just the
raw income tax, but the $
total was after credits, alternative, and minimum tax. Being consistent
we have that the super-rich pay 7 times as much per dollar earned as
those making 10K, instead of the 6 I claimed in the previous post.
Haugh, you will recall, claimed 200, later reduced to 32. My other
statistics are unchanged.

>AGI is all make believe anyway.  I would be much more interested in
>tax paid as a percentage of gross income--including people who don't
>file tax returns at all.

This is also in the table for those who filed.
(Most non-filers have full tax or close
withheld anyway.) I will compute that percentage and post it later. It
is not going to be very different from the previous post.

The fact remains that Haugh's claim that those making over $43K pay 97%
of the tax is way way off base. He has taken the salary at which half
total national earnings comes from those who make more (essentially a
mean) and credited them with the tax paid by the richest HALF of the
population (essentially a median). This will not change by going from
AGI to what the table called "Taxable income".

andy
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:04:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <7281@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
 
|> I would much rather have more of the same than what I'll get under Clinton: He
|> thinks I'm rich, so he's gonna find ways to tax the hell out of me.

You mean like George Bush did?

|> He'll give in to Congress' every whim,

You mean like George Bush did?

If you vote for either one of them, you deserve what you get.  Same
crap, different guy.

-- 
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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:33:59 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21502@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

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

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

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

And what is the survival rate for 'viable' babies who are born at 1
pound birthrate?  I suppose that if one didn't arrive at "several a
day" by putting the 'viable' weight at 1 pound, one could always drop
it to 15 ounces, right?  

Besides which, this is deduction, not 'proof'.  Still awaiting that
well-documented proof.

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

Ah, I see.  The "smothered in a pile of rags" has now become
metaphorical.  Why is it that I think contentions like this one will
become more and more "metaphorical" and more and more easy to 'prove'
as the insistence for that non-existent documentation of such
occurances continues?

-- 
"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.
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:39:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

> In <aemqqB3w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
> Winemiller) writes:
> 
> >There is no conflict between the two quotes.  Note that both men acknowledge
> >God freely; and (though not explicit here) the "one code of morality" to
> >which Jefferson refers would be the morality of the Christian religion. 
> 
> It would be?  Why is that?  Jefferson was a Deist, not a 'Christian'
> (in the way that people who want to dictate moral codes mean it).

Yes, Jefferson was a Deist.  But his text for study of morality was
apparently the Bible.  I say this because he specified the Bible as a
significant part of the school curriculum he created for Washington,
D.C., while he was president.  There is probably other evidence to
support my contention, but I have no immediate knowledge at the
"fingertips" in my head :-)

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil