HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:25:25 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <BtyMLn.HtH@rice.edu> dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes) writes:

>In article <16852D8AA.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
>>>trimester abortions, which I confess I'm uncomfortable with.  But I
>>>don't see any problem with aborting a pregnancy in the first three months.
>>>The fetus is not a child.
>>        But, Joe, where's the line?   Medically it keeps getting
>>pushed back closer to conception.   And no matter where it is between
>>zero and nine months,  it's arbitrary.   Please, please, don't base
>>judgements on such random parameters.

>The line that most of the concerned doctors I know draw is this:

>If the fetus is incapable of surviving independently of the mother *without*
>mechanical assistance or significant medical procedures, it is not yet human.

>To me, this seems to be an intelligent compromise -- admittedly,
>a relatively arbitrary point, but, I think, a reasonable one.

Hmmm, I'm not sure just how 'reasonable' you might want to say this
is.  By this measure, my oldest sister wasn't 'human'.  Now, I admit
to having my doubts upon occasion as we were growing up, but I think
that medically she probably should be considered to have been a person
at birth.

If you want to draw this kind of line, I think where you need to draw
it is between 'normal' and 'heroic' procedures.


-- 
"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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education (was lots of other subjects)
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:36:56 GMT
 <16852DDB1.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> <1992Aug30.032302.23073@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug30.032302.23073@tamsun.tamu.edu>, Rick Russell writes:

> Sorry to mangle the quotations here, Rick, but I wanted to isolate
> some of your statements. Any mangling of your ideas is unintentional.
> 
> In article <16852DDB1.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
> >        But it doesn't work that way.   Sex education doesn't reduce teen
> >sexual indulgence any more than HS foreign language reduces the student's
> >use of foreign language.   And in the latter case,  we really really do
> >want them to indulge.
> ...
> >        That presumes that being taught leads directly to responsible
> >application of what we were taught...
> ...
> >        This is quite correct.   Thus we shouldn't tantalize them by
> >loading them up with yet more intimate details.
> 
> 	Frankly, I find this whole attitude rather dangerous. Where do
> you draw the lines between 'tantalizing details' and 'hard facts'?
> Suppose we get rid of sex ed programs, or adjust them to include a
> strong moral message of abstinence.  Do we edit biology books too?
> Should a reference book, a source of fact, be edited so that it
> doesn't include the facts, or so that it preaches a code of behaviour?
> What about literature that includes frank statements about sexuality?
> Is it to be banned from the reading list?
> 
> 	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.'


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:25:24 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21438@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>Now, if some upity nigger can have the offenses against him documented
>by a white-male dominated press, surely the favorite sons of the
>pro-abortion press can have crimes against them documented as well ...

John, we've seen first-hand testimony from someone who was there.  But
of course, that's not believalbe for you.  And of course, if it got
covered and only appeared in the broadcast media, that wouldn't be
enough for you, either.  The problem is that it doesn't agree with
what you want to believe, so any evidence to the contrary just 'is not
quite good enough'.

Typical.


-- 
"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:4532 houston.general:951
From: reed@owlnet.rice.edu (Kevin Niles Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,houston.general,rice.politics
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:34:08 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

-----------------David L. Cathey-----------
In article <exuptr.173.714782950@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patri
ck Taylor) writes:
>>That's a cop-out argument -- the point here
>>is to prevent that misery, not to fix the blame (more 'pro-life' cant?).
>
> Bull.  My point was clear in the context.  We are quite capable of providing
> for children as a society.

        Bull, yourself.  If it were that simple, we would be doing it.  But
-------------------------------------------

Hypothesis:  Abortions will prevent unwanted children thereby preventing
the misery of those children.

Were this Hypothesis true, why are children still suffering despite that
Abortion has been legal for many years?  Sorry, I don't accept that 
arguement.

Kevin Reed
Ungrad at Rice University - I don't represent their views, just mine.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:36:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.235917.29522@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Passing out condoms has resulted in an increased birth rate among
>teenagers at a Colorado high school.  See the article below.

As another side-note, the article says nothing about those women who,
prior to the establishment of of the special services, got pregnant
and *dropped out* of school. Obviously, with child care facilities on
site, more women will choose to stay in school while pregnant. I
suspect that those who dropped out prior to the new services were not
counted in the 'teen pregnancy rate' of the school.

Still, it does give one something to think about. Although 100
pregnancies as opposed to 76 could very well be a statisical outlier
in a group of several thousand female students.

Thanks for the article though.

-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:43:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.172229.15958@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Aug20.234436.26310@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug20.160829.28245@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>I was.  Unlike John, apparently, I don't categorize people as
>>>'enemies' just because I've disagreed with them or they with me.  
>>>Unfortunately, this is just one in a string of notes from John Haugh
>>>II that seems to indicate that he *IS* a total asshole.  I still
>>>consider that HIS problem, though, and not mine.
>
>>	Glad to see you're not enemies. (-: 
>
>I don't have any live enemies, Joe.  In fact, there are only two
>people who even come *close* to being vile enough to make my list of
>potential enemies.  Little loudmouthed fleas like John Haugh II don't
>even make it into the top 100.

	Hey, sorry for the insinuation. It is discussion, then, when
you call JFH "little boy", "asshole", or "flea"?



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:13:09 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep2.210932.4360@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>This is from the US Treasury Dept., via the World Almanac, via a post 
>from last night.
>
>Tax revenue increases from 71-89  8.7%
>Tax revenue increases from 81-89  7.6%
>
>Your treasury dept. disagrees with you.

My treasury department agrees with me.

What was the average inflation rate from 1971 to 1980?
What was the average inflation rate from 1981 to 1990?

Subtract those rates from the rates you get.  That will
give you the REAL ("inflation adjusted") increases in
tax revenues.

Just so you have a clue, in many years during the 70's
the inflation rate was near 10%, plus or minue.  In many
years during the 80's the inflation rate was near 5%,
plus or minus.

Now, do the math.
-- 
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: evan@is.rice.edu (Evan R. Wetstone)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 31 Aug 1992 20:08:24 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <16852E3F2.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
>In article <BtnIEB.6q1@rice.edu>
>evan@is.rice.edu (Evan R. Wetstone) writes:
> 
>>Ahh, but you see, the religious right favors freedom of religion, as
>>long as it's theirs.
> 
>        They need freedom of religion or else their beliefs become
>harder to live-up-to.   (tho most of them would still try;  and have)

  But the rest of American society needs freedom of religion too.  Up to 
and including freedom *from* religion, if they so choose.  The religious
right's right to religious freedom ends where it starts restricting someone
else's.

>>                      They favor "family values", as long as those
>>values are representative of *their* families.
> 
>        They need those family values because private school is expensive.
> 

I wasn't referring to the public schools; I was talking about the claims
that the only family with "value" was a family with both natural parents,
never divorced.  There appears to be no place in their agenda for single
parents, homosexuals, or women who work rather than stay at home with the
kids.

>>                    Listen to George Bush, who mentioned our
>>"Judeo-Christian heritage" in his acceptance speech,   ...
> 
>        And I've heard that that phrase is offensive to many Jews.

The phrase doesn't offend me.  After all, Christianity is just a radical
offshoot of Judaism....:-)   (Better get on that flame-retardant suit now!)


>Sorry about that;  I've used it myself.   But it turns out that either
>some Jews either don't believe their own scriptures or I have a bad copy.
>So I'll try to remember to leave the  "Judeo-"  off in hopes that I
>don't seem to speak for Jews.
> 
>>George should study American history; the nation's heritage is based
>>upon escaping religious persecution and State sanctioned religions.
>>The religious right would have America back in those situations which
>>our ancestors fought to escape.
> 
>        No.   That's not at all correct.   The  "religious right"
>has much the same theology and ideology as the  "founding fathers".
>The latter is weakening because the schools don't teash history like
>they used to.   (actually,  both are weakening because churches don't
>teach theology like they used to)

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  The religious right would have us back in those
situations our ancestors fought to escape.  The only difference being that
their religion would be the State sanctioned one, and they would not be
the persecuted ones.


> 
>Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Rice University, I/S VM Systems Support


-- 
Evan Wetstone			
Network Support		Speaking for myself, and no one else
Rice University
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4554 alt.politics.clinton:3385
From: js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Andrew Smith)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Legalized Theft  (was Re: Trade Imbalance
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:24:41 GMT
Reply-To: js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Andrew Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University


	PLEASE, someone with closer-than-normal access to Clinton,
PLEASE get these messages on the air:

ABORTION
1. A law disallowing abortion is as stupid and cruel as a law
   FORCING abortion -- that's why our stand is pro-CHOICE, NOT "pro-
   abortion", between which Republicans can't tell the difference!

2. The Republicans are simultaneously, hence hypocritically, running
   on a platform of no abortion/no exceptions AND allowing both
   pro-lifers and pro-choicers into the party...??

TAXES
1. As I understand Clinton's plan, those whose taxes will be RAISED
   are the wealthiest TWO PERCENT, whereas the remaining NINETY-EIGHT
   will get LOWER TAXES.  Therefore the label "tax-and-spend liberal"
   is 98% inaccurate.

   a. Taxing and spending is better than spending without taxing,
      i.e., mortgaging our future on future generations!

   b. The tax increase Republicans are complaining about is simply the
      total amount of increase:  again, 98% will get LOWER taxes!

JOBS
1. Anyone who thinks a capital gains tax break translates to more jobs
   knows NOTHING about how to create jobs!

2. WORKFARE!  Put the able homeless (including residents of Florida
   and Louisiana after hurricane Andrew) to work rebuilding roads,
   bridges, dams, railroad tracks, etc.!

3. Tax business well, but give big breaks for being small.  ALSO give
   a break for every employee on the payroll and every dollar in the
   payroll.  This will be a monetary incentive to create MANY jobs and
   DECENT jobs BOTH.

	Dare I say it:  keep hope alive!	-JAS

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|	J. Andrew Smith		js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu		|
| "Against stupidity even the gods fight unvictorious." - Roman proverb	|
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
From: AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Amy Hemphill)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 30 Aug 92 12:00:07 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <168531AA5.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
 
>
>For those who haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a Darwinian.  Ms. ahemp01
>disagrees with me, real life, on animal rights and vegetarianism.
 
That's right, dear. And don't you forget it. :) Though, as much as we
disagree when we talk, we keep repeating each other here....hmmmm...:)
But, folks, he is right.  I guess if you who are trying to figure out some
of the many pro-choice views want to use myself and jlock00 as a guide of
two views, please remember that I am not quite so....he says Darwinian, I say
callous :).....as he is.  Just as there are different views in any given
political party on a given issue, there are many different views within the
pro-choice camp.  Mr. Lockett, by comparing his views and mine, has touched
on one of the major differences in some of the views.  Viva la difference! :)
 
ahemp01@ricevm1.rice.edu
 
>jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 21:30:18 GMT
 <G-cBr*sV0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Aug31.163031.22154@technology.com>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug31.163031.22154@technology.com>, Judy McMillin writes:

> 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

Really?  Prove it.  You don't know what is going to happen in the future.
Your knowledge of the past and present sometimes seems questionable, as well.


>    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.

No, YOU reject it.  You do NOT speak for the country.  Many of the founding
fathers of this nation had great respect for the Bible.  Many people still do.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:31:01 GMT
 <1992Aug25.033348.26856@pony.Ingres.COM> <dpEAr*vU0@caleb.UUCP> <cornell.715129897@vivaldi>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <cornell.715129897@vivaldi>, Cornell Kinderknecht writes:

> >> I just noticed something. This whole election the Republicans have blamed
> >> Congress for the deficit and the recession, Bush was just along for the 
> >> ride. During the 80's, the growth we had was caused by Reagan. Why doesn't
> >> Congress get credit for that? After all, if someone is going to flack
> 
> >Probably because Reagan dragged the liberals (kicking and screaming) all the
> >way to the tax cuts.  The tax cuts are what made the economy boom.
> 
> And also a large part of what caused the deficit to boom during the
> same period leading up to the weakening of the economy.  Also reduced
> investment in domestic economy.

Wrong.  Without the tax cuts, the deficit would have been MUCH bigger!  The economic
boom INCREASED tax revenues in spite of the lower rates.  Unfortunately for us
taxpayers, Congress spent much more than the tax revenues increased.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: ldillard@digi.lonestar.org (Lawrenece Dillard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Teachers
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:59:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Aug27.150054.6072@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
> recently heard that the ratio of administrative personel to total
>school system employees nationwide has increased from 15% to 30% in the
>last 30 years in this country.  I don't remember where I read that,
>maybe "The Economist".  That's where real change is needed.  Fire those
>morons.  Make 'em get a real job.

I read an article last year about some report comparing the NYC public schools
to their closest private counterpart, the Parochial school system.  The study
was done by someone in administration of the public school, so they had 
access to the figures.  Anyway, the study showed a vast difference in where
the $$ was spent.  Especially conspicuous was the large numbers of admin
people in public vs. the small number in the private.

I do not know if I can find this article again.  Hopefully someone can fill
in the details.  I think the study was part of the author's doctrinal thesis,
or something along those lines.

-Tom
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Iraqis
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:09:47 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug24.140820.23955@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, james berry writes:

> 
> >>In article <1992Aug21.043108.19059@cactus.org>, Henry Velick writes:
> >> call itself, good or bad, was made necessary mostly because the U.S.
> >> government armed Iraq to the teeth. Swell, welfare for the arms
> >> manufacturers. They rake in the profits, the taxpayers pay the bills.
> 
> >Why does this lie persist?  The Iraqis had no known American weapons except those
> >acquired indirectly from Vietnam.  Their military hardware is mostly Russian and
> >French.
> 
> >
> >                                                Jim Pritchett
> 
> 
> The real question is why do you have your head buried in the sand?  The
> fact is that THIS administration continued to give the Iraqs "Agriculture"
> lones after they were repeatedly warned this money was being used to buy
> weapons.  If the "liberal" press really did exist they would have had a 
> field day with both this and Iran-gate.  I am sure that in his private 

They did.  That is how you know about it.


                                                Jim Pritchett


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