HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:09:53 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX

In article <21495@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.163035.12604@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>I think you better go back through all that old netnews you say you
>>save and take a look at just who threw the first rocks at who, John.
>>I recall quite a few accusations from your direction, so you seem to
>>be the one with the personal crusade.  I simply respond in kind
>>because it's what little immature children like you seem to need.

Forgive me for saying so, but it's also what an immature child would *do*.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Fred vs. JFH (was Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion)
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:49:35 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Sep14.132551.6046@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <21501@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John (net.ghod) Haugh II) writes:

>>NO, you stupid idiot.  I'm asking you to prove YOUR STATEMENT.

>NO, you stupid idiot.  I'm asking you to prove YOUR STATEMENT.

	(Good comeback, Fred). I've perused my saved news. Fred, you 
initiated the insults. If you'd like, I'll post what I've got. There's
damn good reason to save old news, Fred. What is that reason? So, you can
say "John, you said 'X'". When John says "Nuh-uh", you can prove your
assertion. Otherwise, you look pretty goofy, here. After all, you first
say John started it, then when John says he's got old news to prove you wrong,
you assault him for saving news. What, you want it to be a level playing field,
where noone keeps track of what actually happened, like you, where noone
posts references,like you? That's level- we'd all have to post and refer to
hearsay only. 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4923 alt.politics.clinton:4428
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:03:45 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <18j63pINNj8o@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>You're claiming that the rich pay 200 x PER DOLLAR what poor people do??
>The implication of this -- assuming that the rich pay 100%, which is too
>high of course
>-- is that the poor pay only half a cent on the dollar. Whatever
>number is in the documentation by your leg, you aren't explaining it
>correctly. What statistic are you taking about?

OK.

I make $10,000.  I pay about $900 in FIT.  That's 9% as an overall rate.
What if I make $6,000?  I pay about $300, or 5%.  Notice that the overall
rate continues to fall.  But wait - I also get several hundred as a kickback
for the "Earned Income Credit".  My tax rate (the "poor people keep paying
more and more" lie) begins to fall well-below even 1%.  Check out the tables
in the back of those 1040 instructions if you don't understand what I am
getting at.

OK.

I make $150,000.  I pay about $50,000 in FIT.  My total "kickback" from
the government will be about $5,000.  (Which, co-incidentally is the same
as it would be if I were poor ...).  Notice that my overal tax-rate is
quite a bit higher than <1%.  Much more like 30% or so.

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?

>Sure, but you could have found it in the almanac yourself if your brain
>rate. Under Carter, the miltary was excluded from the calculations. Now
>it's included.

Since the military is voluntary and an employer, I'd say that the military
should be included.  Why not?  Aren't civil service jobs included too?

>>Even when "discouraged" workers are included, the current unemployment
>>rate is about 10.5%.  Under Carter and the "old" system, unemployment
>>most certainly exceeded that level.
>
>False. Nice try though. Peaked under Reagan.

Again, peaked WHICH YEAR under Reagan.

You do not turn an economy the size of ours on a dime.

>Why don't you ask some of the older folks -- like 40 -- about 1968.

I don't trust anyone over 40 ;-)
-- 
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: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:28:08 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

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:
>In article <rqiDr*uX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>>American doctors are better trained than doctors from most other countries.
>
>Says who?  Better than France?  Germany?  England?  Canada?  Japan?

My great-grandfather was an MD and was educated in England.  He came
to this country because he saw the writing of WWI on the walls.  When
he got here, the AMA decreed that he wasn't properly educated, so he
became a CPA and made a mint during the Great Depression instead ...

At the turn of this century, America was a back-water hole-in-the-wall
country compared to the United Kingdom.  Americans have always
pretended their doctors were "better trained", even when it WAS utter
nonsense.
-- 
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: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (A Parable)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:41:00 GMT

Seems to me that Jesus made it quite clear what's important to
focus on: (1) Love God with all you heart, soul, mind and body
      and (2) Love your neighbor as yourself (equally).

And I reckon, for the most part that he would ignore sexual
matters as primarily concerns of this world (much as he ignored
the adulteress' accusers).

So homosexuality isn't important, and worrying about it certainly
misses the point.

If that's not sufficient an argument, then I wonder how much more
sinful sex pratices are than any other sins. In other words, is
continuing in a sinful practice something that *any* beliver in
Jesus can say they do not do? All sin, and even the most trivial,
is damning -- except that Jesus Christ embodied the Grace of God
to save us from ourselves. 

And isn't the most common sin hardheartedness?  


    |
 -- J --
    |     Stephen D. Tice      
    |     Arlington Texas


Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:51:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

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.

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.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 06:13:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.164508.16214@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>In <21424@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>Every day children survive abortions only to be killed by the doctor after
>>being born.  This is a well documented fact.  This is what "pro-choice"
>>stands for.  The return of the right of infanticide.
>
>Here's a clue.  You can't write things like this and still expect to be taken
>seriously.  People will check to see who wrote this and then forever discount
>what you have to say.
>-- 

Why, Tom?  This is something I'm kind of interested in and would like to 
learn more about.  I heard something about it in a magazine somewhere.  The 
fact that John included no references and you included no reasons but just
attacked shows you both to be at worst petty and banal and at best rash.

The part about what pro-choice stands for may have been a bit much, but you're
not making it very clear what all is wrong with his post, or which specific
part shows him to be full of beans.  

You trying to stifle his voice rather than issue a rebuttal or counter-
evidence makes you look the fool.


>Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
>tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com


Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu


Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Originator: patrick@mozart.convex.com
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:16:01 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 <21471@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>LBJ refused to listen to his economists.  He was advised at certain
>times in his administration to cut taxes, and he balked.  Then he was
>advised to raise taxes to rein in the inflation that the cut in the
>tax rate produced.  Again, he balked.  He eventually did raise taxes
>and trashed the economy.  Nixon was elected because of high inflation,
>high taxation, and high government spending.  Had LBJ not wanted to
>go down in history as another FDR - "guns and butter" - he would have
>been re-elected.  But he escalated an unpopular war, trashed a growing
>economy, and failed to follow the timely advice of his political
>advisers.
>
You still have this wrong.  The economy was booming in 1968 (primed by
the deficit spending).  The stock market continued to boom until 1969, a
long time after the election.  LBJ lost it totally on the war issue.  Now I
will agree that the runaway inflation leading up to Nixon's price controls
was initiated by the deficit spending of the era (peanuts compared to
the Reagan-Bush budget proposals).

It is time for a constitutional admendment for a balanced budget.
Both parties have shown no ability to control the deficit, and they
have had plenty of time.
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Morality [was Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)]
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:54:01 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <rBhEr*hY0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.051110.2316@cactus.org>, Henry Velick writes:

>> "For those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say
>> just watch me."
>>                                          Joseph Scheidler
>>                                          Executive Director
>>                                          Pro-Life Action League
>
>Ah, what you fear the most, morality!

	Ah, but we're all fearing each others' morality, aren't we? Aren't
you afraid of morality that allows for homosexuality? abortion? slavery?
We all desire to have a choice w.r.t morality. Some feel they know enough
about our purpose in life to dictate their morality. Personally, I think
that's fear-based.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5126 alt.politics.clinton:4997
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:01:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <21499@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>The economy is in a mild recovery.  George Bush is paying for the gains
>that were made during the '80s.  Is it his "fault"?  Yes.  Was it all
>that avoidable?  No.  The problem with economic cycles is that, well,
>they are cyclic.  If you have too much growth in one period, you pay for
>it in another.  What Reagan SHOULD have done by the middle of his second
>term was 1). put a hard freeze on the budget 2). start raising the tax
>rate.  This would have moderated growth and reduced the deficit.  The
>moderation of economic growth would have spared us some of the pain of
>the current recession, and the lowered deficit would have ensured a
>strong, solid recovery.  Reagan didn't do this because he is opposed to
>tax increases.
>
I can't believe this, but I finally found a JFH paragraph that I agree with!
What I can add to this is that Reagan, being ideologically opposed to taxes
and hell-bent to build up the Pentagon, should have done what you stated.
Unfortunately, borrowing is easy if someone else has to deal with paying it
off!

Whether you think we are in a mild recovery or headed for a triple-dip
recession, one thing is true. The economy is unstable. How much more
deficit will it take to produce inflation. How much capital would be invested
here, assuming you cut the capital gains tax, rather than in some
high growth country? Why is no one complaining that the rates banks charge is
pretty high compared to what they borrow for?
From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:54:18 GMT
Organization: Tennessee Ernie Port Authority

In article <mumble> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|In article <1992Sep7.051110.2316@cactus.org>, Henry Velick writes:
|I shouldn't bother to answer this stupid posting, but...

Same here.

|Ok, so you have 4 quotes against birth control (and a weird one from the fallen
|Rev. Swaggart.)  I suppose that you claim that is what all anti-abortion people
|think?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  These are quotes from the
_leaders_ of the "morality" movement.  They are the _leaders_ because
their _followers_ agree with what they think.

|> "For those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say
|> just watch me."
|>                                          Joseph Scheidler
|>                                          Executive Director
|>                                          Pro-Life Action League
|
|Ah, what you fear the most, morality!

No, you total fucking idiot!  What we fear the most, _imposition_!!!
Do you understand the difference at all?

-- 
Ben Gamble                              B0 f- t+ w- g+ k- s- m- e r-v p
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu 
       Oh ye who go about saying unto each other:  "Hello sailor":
       Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: iraq vanquished
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:13:31 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <4651@d75.UUCP> curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072) writes:
>Give credit where it is due.  Be fair.

get real.  you are asking bleeding-hearts to be fair?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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:5143 alt.politics.clinton:5037
From: ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:44:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NC Microproducts, Inc.

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
}johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
}>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
}>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.
}>
}
}I dare wager that a faw fewer percentage of Canadians have to
}wait in health care lines in clinics and emergency rooms and 
}a far greater percentage of Canadians have greater doctor choice
}than Americans, if you include the uninsured and the underinsured
}in the American numbers. 

Just as a datapoint, I've been in one of our local hospitals here
in Dallas, Parkland (the one Kennedy was taken to after the assasination),
and seen the lines the "unwashed" have to wait in to get seen.  If
you are uninsured, you are pretty much treated like so much shit in
our system.  The day I took my friend in, who was uninsured, the line
ran twice around a rather large waiting room (by "rather large", I mean
about the size of your average drugstore), and the wait was about 8
or 9 hours just to get to the desks where they grilled you to see if
there was ANYWHERE they could bill the visit.

At least in this area, there are only one or two hospitals that will
take uninsured...not much choice involved here.  Emergencies are,
at least, taken at any hospital, but as soon as the immediate emergency
is over, they ship you off by quickest route to the "cheap" hospital.

}The so-called private American system is as socialized as any in
}the world...except it is a caste socialism, with immense subsidization
}of health care for particular elite classes, and hardly any for others.

Elite classes?  I don't know about that, unless by elite you mean 
some classes of government workers and retired, but certainly the
entire system is geared towards the insured, with uninsured getting
grudging, second-class care.

}
}Gerald


-- 
Lance T. Franklin            +----------------------------------------------+
(ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org)   | "You want I should bop you with this here    |
NC Microproducts, Inc.       |    Lollipop?!?"                 The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas            +----------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5257 alt.politics.clinton:5523
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:32:21 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep15.013618.14163@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>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.

Please read Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:11:08 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

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.
-- 
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