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: 9 Sep 92 17:50:08 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <dshEr*gY0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Sep06.202709.28349@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:

>>  
>> Jim, the proposed pro-life ammendment to the Constitution doesn't say
>> anything about abortions when the mother's life is endangered.  It's not

>It is NOT approved yet.  If it is approved, it is almost certain to contain the
>exception for the life of the mother.  Probably it will contain others.

The Republican Party Platform plank most certain IS approved, and it
calls for a Constitutional amendment as has been repeatedly described. 

>> Before you accuse me of lying you better learn to read.  I said that the
>> Constitutional Ammendment provides no such provision to save the life of
>> the mother.  Where is the lie in that statement?

>I don't believe that the RNC wrote a proposed amendment, so how could you know
>what is in the amendment?

Their Party Platform *SAYS* what should be in the amendment.  Jim, get
a copy of the Platform and read it for yourself.  There was a big
fight about exactly this issue.  It was WIDELY reported (all three
networks, immediately prior to the Republican Convention, NPR, and God
only knows where else).  I honestly don't see how you could have
missed it, but you apparently did and decline to believe what anyone
tells you about it.

>However, my statement is accurate.  It is extremely unlikely that you can find a
>majority of the pro-life people who would not make an exception for the life of the
>mother.

THAT statement is true, but it's not the statement you've been making.
Note that there has been just a bit of sleight of hand on the other
side, as well, since the plank in the Republican Platform is stronger
than even George Bush wanted (he favors exceptions for rape and
incest, plus endangerment of the mother) and Barbara Bush stated
publicly that she didn't think it was an issue that belonged in the
platform in the first place.

-- 
"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: 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: 9 Sep 92 17:24:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <W9hEr*cY0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <Bu6A2x.FCD@rice.edu>, Patrick L Humphrey writes:
>
>> Jim, have a clue:  read the paper once in a while.  Did you notice the
>> little platform plank rammed through at the RNC?  No exceptions -- not to
>> save the mother's life, or in cases of incest or rape, *period*.  It's funny
>> how *you* can't seem to find any of your fellow travelers who feel that way,
>> but all I have to do is go over to talk.abortion and I can find them without
>> any effort at all.  Maybe you'd better ask some of your pro-force friends
>> about what they're after -- because you're not exactly parroting the party
>> line...:-)
>
>YOU get a clue.  You are simply parroting the liberal line.

You need a whole lot of clues -- you're talking to a libertarian...and the
only thing I'm parroting is what I read in the Houston Post *and* Chronicle,
those two bastions of liberalism.


-- 
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. 
                  COUGARS     TIGERS     RAVENS     HUSKIES
  OILERS     OWLS             *Any questions?*              ROCKETS     ASTROS
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick)
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Followup-To: austin.flame
Organization: Only When Necessary
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:41:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.190955.13842@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep01.134138.894@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>>In article <21435@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug30.204914.25070@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>>>>JFH, why do you weaken your own arguments by making these pointless
>>>>grammar and style flames? 
>>>>Mixing otherwise relevant information with petty sniping only makes
>>>>you and your opinions look bad.
>
>>>I am imitating the style of Fred J. McCall.  He likes to throw style
>>>and grammar flames in for the fun of it.
>>>The "and that isn't a complete sentence" is a direct quote from an
>>>earlier article of his.
>>	
>>	Substitute "making these pointless..." above with "imitate
>>Fred J. McCall", then. John, why do you weaken your own arguments by
>>imitating Fred J. McCall? (-:
>
>Why, Joe, he 'does that' because he got caught using his normal style
>and needed an excuse.  So he took the opportunity to take a(nother)
>cheap shot.
>
>So John.  So Haugh, too.  So net.ghod.  So what?

Surely I'm not the only one reading this group who finds this exchange
even more tedious than the presidential mud-slinging. Take it austin.flame,
guys, which is where followups to this post are directed.

-- 
\-- Henry Velick   \  Millions long for immortality, who don't know what   \
 \-- Datalingus     \  to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.   \
  \-- Austin, Texas  \ -----------------------------------      Susan Ertz   \
   \-- 512-459-5770   \ Purveyors of Fine Graphics Software and Consultation  \
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4933 alt.politics.clinton:4473
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 08:05:47 GMT
 <1992Sep7.182509.1265@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep7.182509.1265@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, Iain Robert Asplin writes:

> Jim, you are seriously beginning to annoy me, and I've only been reading
> this group for a couple of days.

Ain't that a shame.

> Not only are virtually all of your "opinions" the unthinking nonsensical
> drivel of someone who's been watching and believing the "news reports"
> on "the 700 Club" too much, BUT, you cannot even type correctly!

I don't watch the 700 Club.  (I have seen parts of it a very few times.)

> Jim, every once in a while, your cursor comes to the END OF A LINE, but
> you're so taken up with your Hitler-style ravings that you don't notice,
> you just keep on going, making your messages half-empty spaces and
> half-the-empty-space-in-your-head.  

Hey, it isn't my fault if your terminal is too stupid to go past 80 columns.

> If you insist upon insulting my intelligence, at least do me the courtesy
> of hitting your return key at the end of a line.  The bandwidth is being
> wasted enough by what you DO say.

Bandwidth is totally unaffected by the length of my lines.  (Well, actually it
is reduced by 1 character (return) in N lines...)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Try again 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:36:18 GMT

In article <21498@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. H writes...
>In article <BuDHsD.LsK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>>By the same reasoning, the argument could be made that the Republicans
>>are to blame for our current recession.  After all, who's been in the
>>Oval Office, exerting pressure on the Fed and supposedly making
>>policy decisions for the the past 11.67 years?
> 
>Yes, by that same argument, Bush is to blame.  The lessons of the past

>the economy slowed.  There are only two fixes - loosened monetary policy
>(and no, lowered interest rates ARE NOT how you ease monetary policy,
>you have to actually lend the money, and banks aren't doing that ...)
>or lowered taxes.

This is one of those either/or choices. (either you're for me, or
against me) Both of these are capitalist choices. Does anyone have 
have a non-capitalist choice?

>the Federal Deficit before (anyone remember Gramm-Rudman?), but if
>Bush is elected, we may actually see it. 

You must be kidding? The National debt has climbed 57% under Bush.
The budget deficit has climbed 157%. This is the man who is going to
balence the budget? BTW, if you start going on about Congress being
responsible for this, then I will expect you to explain how Congress
isn't responsible for any growth in the 80's.

>>Seems to me it's about time for a change.
> 
>Also correct.  It's time to get us a new Congress.  I will be voting for
>the Elephant party this year.  

Since the Republicans won't be gaining control of Congress this fall
then this argument is moot.

>John F. Haugh II                 

-Garrett

Xref: sparky tx.politics:5009 alt.politics.clinton:4709
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:14:09 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep09.035707.29181@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>The situation is a lot more complicated than that.  The government has
>traditionally given all sorts of breaks for middle-class and upper-class
>citizens.  Tax breaks on mortages, tax breaks on consumer debt (no more),
>tax breaks on IRAs, health insurance from their employers which receive
>tax benefits for that health insurance, eetc.  The system is rife with
>"goodies" for everyone.  That's why no one wants to kill it, even though
>it's killing us.

Oh, please.  Let's not confuse this issue with the facts.

Tax breaks on mortgages -
	* Nope.  You get stopped by the phase-out of deductions.
Tax breaks on IRAs -
	* Nope.  They are just plain not deductible, at about $37K for
	  a married couple.
Health Insurance -
	* Yep, but you still have to get sick in order to use it.
	  Besides, the healthcare provider still pays taxes on the
	  money you give her.  What do you want?  Every dollar to
	  get taxed ten times?

If you are married and have a good income, you'd be surprised what you
DON'T get.

The problem with taxes is that everyone is looking for the kickback and
once they get it, they don't care so much about having 1/3 of their
income stolen.  This is why people willingly go into debt to buy a house
to pay a ton of money in mortgage interest to write it off on their
taxes.  If they'd stop worrying about the 1/3 they are struggling to get
back, and spend more time worrying about the 2/3 that they AREN'T going
to get back, they'd see that a more reasonable mortgage [ combined with
waiting to make other major purchases until they can pay cash ], is a
far more profitable way to buy a house.
-- 
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,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education (was lots of other subjects)
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:18:04 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug30.032302.23073@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@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.

It is a straight fact, is it not, that the best way to avoid pregnancy and 
STD's is abstinance?  Abortion, single mothers, unwanted childred, and nasty 
diseases are all quite factual, and these should also be pointed out as the 
harsh reality of consequences of sex, with or without "protection".
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5067 austin.politics:149
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:43:45 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <18uog6INNnm0@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>As a review, Haugh claimed that the rich (which was defined for these
>purposes as the top 1% of taxpayers) paid 200x what the poor (his
>documentation showed this to be the entire bottom half) do in income tax
>"per dollar earned". He said "per dollar earned".

I have since supplied the text that I was referring to.

>         More accurately, he is so busy fighting the liberal Jewish
>homosexual abortionist conspiracy which is taking an unfair

Don't forget that Queen Elizabeth is acting in collusion with the
Columbian cocaine cartel to pollute our youths' minds with liberal
propaganda.

>PS Haugh also sent me nonsense on my confusing median income with median
>household income. None of this makes any significant difference compared
>to his dividing statistics which are intended to be per capita
>by amount earned. You may as well divide by the nearest zip code.

That's nice.  Now explain why the bottom half of the population pays a
whopping 5% of the total tax burden.  And do this without telling us that
"progressive" taxes are fair.
-- 
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: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 23:09:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep9.191704.18166@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
 
|> Do you think American doctors are "better trained" than doctors from
|> Germany, Japan, England, Canada, France, etc.?  They make more than
|> all of them, and by quite a margin.  Now then, what is the reason for
|> that again?

Because these countries all have socialized medicine, which guarantees
mediocrity.  The "cream of the crop" doctors all want to come to the
United States because they can make a hell of a lot more money here. 
Canadians are crossing the US border in droves so that they can get
medical treatment without waiting in line for 6 months.  Socialism
doesn't work.  That has been proven time and time again.

-- 
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: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (Long)
Date: 6 Sep 1992 18:49:44 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston


In article <RraDr*fX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>King James was absolutely abominable.  However, he did NOT do the translation,
>it was simply named after him because the translation was commissioned during
>his reign.

I guess it hasn't occurred to you, then, that along with the royal commission
to do the translation and the royal funds to finance it came royal
instructions, overt or otherwise, or a royal viewpoint that was to be
bolstered?
-- 
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
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:24:29 GMT
Organization: Dell Computer Co

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?  Realize you have the possibility of 
>choosing only one thing if you want, since you're not spending everyone's 
>tax money, only your own.  Assume that loopholes of self-indulgence are 
>closed - this is an intellectual question, not a con game ;-)

This is a good question.  I'm not how it could be done, but I might be 
inclined to spend a large percentage, if not all, on the national debt.
If the entire country's tax revenue for a single year went to nothing but
this one charity (I *know* it's not realistic, thank you in advance) I
wonder how many years it would take to pay it all off.  Frightening.  

Also, might be worth paying to go after the S&L criminials, and figure out
how to get all that buried cash back out of Swiss bank accounts. :)

I must be dreaming..

-- 
Randy Howard            _o	    @'s: jrh@dell.com
Dell Computer Corp.     \<,	    !'s: ...!uunet!dellunix!jrh
______________________()/ ()______________________________________________
"Univel"... Just Say "NoNIX"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Brainwaves & John Haugh II
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:56:26 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX
Keywords: foetus brainwave Gray

In article <1992Sep10.153327.13599@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> >I assume you meant to write "BRAIN" and not "BEING".
|> 
|> No, I meant "BEING".  If you remove the cerebrum and the cerebellum,
|> what you have left may contain human DNA and have arms and legs, but
|> it's not human.  

OK.  You can define "being" however you want.  From the context it
looked like a typo.  Sorry.

|> John, this is rather like my opening the hood of a car, showing you
|> that there are no spark plugs, no fuel system, no air system, and no
|> engine controls, and then you saying I haven't proven that the car
|> won't run.

It's more like saying that since there are no spark plugs, no fuel 
system, no air system, and no engine controls, that the radio couldn't
possibly work.  I'm not a mechanic or an embryologist.  If one guy has
a book that says "readable brain waves at 40 days", and another guy
speculates "it doesn't seem like you could have brain waves if the
neural tube isn't closed", I'm going to believe the former.  If you
find a book that says "impossible to have readable human brain waves
before the 20th week" or whatever, then you'll be on to something.

|> I thought it was obvious that a good part of HUMAN brainwaves come
|> from the higher centers of the brain.

That's the problem with your assertions--you always think that your
assumptions are "obvious".  They're not.

|> And that explain's Michael's "terse assertion".  It's simply something
|> that's so obviously false that he can't imagine why anyone would
|> believe it.

Well, go ask Michael why it's "hogwash".  By the way, we're still
waiting to hear from Jeanie.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4990 alt.politics.clinton:4660
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:26:25 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep09.230926.25617@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.191704.18166@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
>|> Do you think American doctors are "better trained" than doctors from
>|> Germany, Japan, England, Canada, France, etc.?  They make more than
>|> all of them, and by quite a margin.  Now then, what is the reason for
>|> that again?
>
>Because these countries all have socialized medicine, which guarantees
>mediocrity.  The "cream of the crop" doctors all want to come to the
>United States because they can make a hell of a lot more money here. 
>Canadians are crossing the US border in droves so that they can get
>medical treatment without waiting in line for 6 months.  Socialism
>doesn't work.  That has been proven time and time again.

What do you want?  Preventive care or exotic procedures to repair
damage that could be prevented?  General practioners are more useful
for the former, specialists like those in the US for the latter.
You may ask which doctors are coming to the US.



--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
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: 9 Sep 92 17:26:21 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <mchEr*dY0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <Bu6A6I.FE1@rice.edu>, Patrick L Humphrey writes:
>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >So, do you want to apply this logic to the critically ill?
>> 
>> So, would you mind pointing out where he said anything about "critically
>> ill"?  Looks like YOU'RE the one who got the idea first, to me...
>
>Go read the quote above.  Explain logically how a critically ill person who requires
>life support is any different than the fetus.  No, arbitrary definitions of "life"
>or "humanity" don't count.

I read it -- so, where did anyone say anything about "critically ill" until
YOU threw it in out of left field, eh?

-- 
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. 
                  COUGARS     TIGERS     RAVENS     HUSKIES
  OILERS     OWLS             *Any questions?*              ROCKETS     ASTROS
       (Yeah...what the *&^%$#@! happened to the Oilers last week?!?)