HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Convention Review
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:53:55 GMT
Reply-To: moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Aug24.184744.29433@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:

[...]

|>> The family values issue is an attempt to *deny* Government responsibility,

It seems to me that "family values" _shouldn't_ be a matter of government
responsibility.  Anytime a government "takes responsibility" for anything,
it also takes the authority to exercise that responsibility.  And, of course,
the more authority governments take, the less authority -- freedom -- is left
to individuals.

There isn't just one possible set of "family values", nor should there be, and
I would find it highly repugnant to have a government dictate what constitutes
acceptable "family values."

[...]

|>> 
|>> 
|>> 	Judy
|>> 
|>>    

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "Never lie when the truth is more
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   profitable."
possibly represent its position.	|     -- Stanislaw J. Lec

Christian H. L. Moller
From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:05:06 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Tennessee Ernie Port Authority

In article <mumble> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|>>It is very unlikely that what you are saying is true.
|> ...
|>>Instead, we are stuck with the likes of you making up stories.
|[and]
|I would encourage you to actually read a newspaper.  The least story
|of violence, whether caused by "good" guys or "bad" guys", makes the
|paper.

"There was a story about violence in this morning's paper; therefore
violence is uniformly reported."  Who taught you logic?

I would encourage you to be an eyewitness if I thought it would do any
good.

|``Defense lines''?  Please, spare me the rhetoric.  Being on the defense
|lines would be defending the children that are killed in the clinics.

Ah, the bias emerges.

|I do hope that you rot in Hell.

Net.newbies:  look for clues like this to tip you off that you're
dealing with a rational mind living in the real world.

-- 
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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Printed refs vs. 'I heard it on...'
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:33:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug29.145757.24362@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>In article <1992Aug29.013040.2193@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>>Well, Fred, when you get ready to critically examine arguments and their
>>bases, let me know.  In the meantime, into the ol' kill file you go....

>	Off with his head! Hey, how's he gonna let you know if he's in
>your kill file?

Or why would I WANT to let him know?  I don't care what he reads.  It
does reflect on all that 'open mindedness' and such he was proclaiming
there, though, wouldn't you say?


-- 
"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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:03:34 GMT

In <21460@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>That's correct.  The economic growth of the '80s was caused by Ronald
>Reagan.  If you would look at the FACTS surrounding the Reagan
>administration, instead of the propaganda, you'd see that he created
>incredible wealth across all spectrums of American society.  The rich
>=did= get richer, and so did the poor, the middle class, blacks,
>immigrants, etc.

Let me get this straight.  You've told us that the current economic
downturn is the direct result of the growth of the 1980's and that it
was predicted 90 yearas ago.  Now you tell us that Reagan was the
reason we had the growth in the 1980s.  Now, let's think about this
for a second.  If the downturn which was the result of growth caused
by Ronald Reagan was predicted 90 years ago, then someone 90 years ago
must have known that we would have Reagan as President for the first
part of the 1980s.

Nostradamus LIVES!  [Well, either that or there is some REAL fuzzy and
misleading thinking being presented here by Mr. Haugh.  Guess which
one I think is the case . . . ]


-- 
"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: boyd@turtle.fisher.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Spend, Spend
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:35:39 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX

In article <rAEAr*wU0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.113152.62@turtle.fisher.com>, boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:
>
>> In article <4193PB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>> >
>> > Got some other choice better than Bush (regarding deficits and taxes)?
>> >
>> Regarding deficits and taxes -- try Marrou, the other presidential candiate on
>> your ballot.
>
> Isn't he the Socialist (Communist) candidate?  What is his advantage over Clinton -
> that he admits what he really is?

Marrou is the Libertarian candidate, and his ideas are just the opposite of
those of the socialists.  Maybe you should look into his ideas a little, you
may even agree with some of them.

--
Tom Boyd     (512)832-3611             "She looked fluffy,
boyd@turtle.fisher.com                       but she struck like a cobra!"
From: dienstbier@turtle.fisher.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: <None>
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:38:10 GMT
Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX

In article <BtnIEB.6q1@rice.edu>, evan@is.rice.edu (Evan R. Wetstone) writes:
> In article <1684FFE26.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>>exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) and I exchange:
>>
>> [many paragraphs of protracted, pugnacious pugilism deleted]
>>
>>>I don't think religion is ridiculous anywhere.  But then again, you do have
>>>to APPLY it with common sense, and a little inspiration :-)
>>
>>Inspiration?  I take it you're Baptist, then? :-)  Actually, I find
>>religion a tad ridiculous in matters of multicultural politics.
>>
>>An example -- Jewish religious law REQUIRES an abortion in cases where
>>the health, physical OR psychological, of the mother is endangered.  So
>>banning abortions would constitute a violation of freedom of religion.
>>Whither the religious argument now?
>
> Ahh, but you see, the religious right favors freedom of religion, as
> long as it's theirs.  They favor "family values", as long as those
> values are representative of *their* families.  Listen to Pat Buchanan
> if you doubt this.  Listen to George Bush, who mentioned our
> "Judeo-Christian heritage" in his acceptance speech, and critcized the
> Democrats for not having "God" in their platform.
>
> 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.
>
>

Freedom of religion does not mean that you are free to do as you please,
whether it is against the law or not. If the society in which you live has
decided that an action is not legal, you cannot simply claim "my religious
law mandates this", then cry violation of religious freedom.

I'm sure that there are religions in this country which require animal
and/or human sacrifices be performed. Is it a violation of religious
freedom if we as a society do not allow this?
From: troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:45:45 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1684FF3BB.AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Amy Hemphill) writes:
 
>>OMYGOD, now there's a thought.  Maybe teenagers shouldn't have
>>so much sex.  Boy that would be a tragedy, wouldn't it?
>
>Then maybe, just maybe, the same people who tout the pro-life view
>shouldn't squawk everytime the words 'sex education' are mentioned.
 
        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.
 
>                                                     One of the reasons
>that teen pregnancy is at such epidemic proportions is that people are
>screaming about the idea of teaching them about responsibility and options.
 
        This doesn't help your arguement,  because sex ed is *supposed*
to instill some sense of responsibility.
 
>No one can any longer live in a fantasy world in which teenagers just
>accept abstinence as the only form of birth control.  They must be
>taught about birth control, disease, and responsibility.
 
        That presumes that being taught leads directly to responsible
application of what we were taught.   I think you'll agree that there
never was a time when all teenagers accepted abstinence for any birth
control or other reasons.   But abortion and birth control are two
different things.
 
>                                   Teenagers are naturally curious about
>sex,   ...
 
        This is quite correct.   Thus we shouldn't tantalize them by
loading them up with yet more intimate details.
 
Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Rice University, I/S VM Systems Support
From: system@korova.uucp (razorback)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 20:01:31 CDT
Organization: VHF void tube of the mind (713) 492-2783

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

> In article <1171@shrike.com> tmd@austin.lockheed.com (Tom Davis) writes:
> >In article <21408@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh 
> >>It is very unlikely that what you are saying is true.
> > ...
> >>Instead, we are stuck with the likes of you making up stories.
> >
> >They aren't made up -- take it from someone who was on the defense lines
> >in Houston last week (me).
> 
> I would encourage you to actually read a newspaper.  The least story
> of violence, whether caused by "good" guys or "bad" guys", makes the
> paper.  The only exceptions to this rule is where the act is so
> common-place that it has long since ceased to be newsworthy.  Abortion
> protests are still rare enough that protests and parades still make
> the news.  If there was violence there, it would have been reported.
> 
> ``Defense lines''?  Please, spare me the rhetoric.  Being on the defense
> lines would be defending the children that are killed in the clinics.
> Have you ever seen a 12 week old child?  You see, they look just like a
> child that's been born.  They have fingers, toes, arms, legs, a brain that
> has been working for weeks.  And if you watch the kid flop about on
> ultrasound, you can see a shimmering spot that shows the heartbeat.  If
> you were watching through a scope, you'd see the child making faces, or
> perhaps taking a nap and holding its umbilical cord like a security
> blanket.  This is what you are ``Defending'' [sic] the murder of.  I do
> hope that you rot in Hell.

gee, what a clever, *original* wit you have, sir!! pray tell, are you a 
believer in jesus or god or any of those vaguely christian dieties?

it seems to me that you are willing to save a life not yet lived, but 
could care less about the ones already living, such as that man you just 
deemed to a supposed eternity in suffering.

should you condem a man for his morals, or simply because he did not 
agree with your perception of the universe?

all things are subjective, and relative at that.

how important is one grain of sand on an infinite beach? 

squid

--
              VHF void tube of the mind (713) 492-2783
        "where you can find the Zeta Greys SAFEWAYING themselves
                into the WONDERBREAD *heart* of America!"
From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Eugenics (was Re: Anti-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion, etc.)
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:37:06 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <m7NBqB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org>
cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>> Why must a belief in eugenics spring from "hate"?
>
>With respect to Sanger: it was recognized, in WW II, that she was espousing
>the same "racial purity" doctrines as the Nazi party!  The belief that poor
>people and minorities are somehow inferior and shouldn't be having children
>is truly loathsome.  How can you even question that it's based on hatred?
>It's frightening to me that you would even hint at assent to this belief.
 
Mr. Winemiller -- stop now, and consult your nearest dictionary.  'Eugenics'
is from the Greek, I believe, and far from meaning "Icky Naziesque Schemes
to Produce a Pure White Aryan Race", as you seem to believe, merely means
the effort to improve the gene pool of the human race.  That may or may not
be an evil purpose, depending on your definition of 'improvements'.
 
Mr. McCall's post contained a reasoned suggestions that he didn't favor,
for example, two people with sickle-celled anemia or other recessive
disorders having children together.  Not that he advocated BANNING them
from having children, or that he'd launch pogroms to kill the poor babes
in the street, just that he thought it was best to consider genetics when
planning offspring.  Don't get your buttons pushed.
 
Pardon me if I'm stepping on your rhetorical toes, Mr. McCall.  Just wanted
to correct that etymological faux pas. :-)
 
Joseph L. Lockett
jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
 
Rice doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for Rice. Not here, at least. :-)
From: root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Tax suggestion
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <21405@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|>> In article <1992Aug23.164957.8198@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
|>> >  3.  People currently receiving SS benefits can also opt to quit as in 2, but
|>> >      may opt to continue to receive benefits.  The SS system will pay these
|>> >      benefits out of the retained employer contributions.
|>> 
|>> Bad idea.  The money that my employers paid on my behalf [sic], is really
|>> my money,  too.  If they didn't have to pay it, I would have been able to
|>> ask for it as part of my salary.
|>> 
|>> Just because the employer paid it, doesn't mean it isn't my money.

I'm not too wild about the notion myself, but given the screaming and ranting
that comes out of AARP and the like every time any politician even says "Social
Security", I'm afraid that any attempt to kill off SS that doesn't include some
means of paying these people to shut up hasn't a chance of succeeding.

I'm willing -- not pleased, but willing -- to forego bucks I never saw in order
to get back the bucks I _did_ see vanishing from my paycheck, and to put an end
to the continued depredations of at least that branch of the government.

|>> -- 
|>> 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

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "There is something about a home
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   aquarium that sets my teeth on edge
possibly represent its position.	|   the moment I see it.  Why anyone
					|   would want to live with a con-
					|   tainer of stagnant water populated
					|   by a half-dead guppy is beyond me."
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- S. J. Perelman
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:55:42 GMT

In article <21437@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>This actually brings up another point, which is the increases in GNP
>that were claimed for Democrats v. Republicans in the paper recently.
>If a 4 year Democratic administration runs 10+% inflation for 4 years,
>that administration had better do more than raise GNP by a measely 20%
>or whatever the papers are claiming - hell, almost 47% (or -27% real
>growth) of that is inflation!

I'm not sure what paper you're refering to, but here's the changes in
real output, divided by Democratic & Republican administrations.  This
is from my econ text (Abel & Bernanke), which cites the Economic
Report of the President (1990) as its source.  The administrations are
from Truman (after the '48 election) through Reagan II.

			Democrats		Republicans

Change in real output:      4.4%		    2.6%

Change in unemployment:    -0.2%		    0.2%

Change in inflation:	    0.3%		   -0.3%

--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
From: paco@cs.rice.edu (Paul Havlak)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Tax suggestion
Date: 25 Aug 1992 23:26:50 GMT
	<1992Aug23.164957.8198@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
	<1992Aug25.144328.4618@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Reply-To: Paul Havlak <paco@cs.rice.edu>
Distribution: tx
Organization: Center for Research on Parallel Computations

In article <1992Aug25.144328.4618@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>	[Refers to plan for phasing out Social Security, continuing benefits 
	for those who've already paid and providing for the feds buying out
	people who want to stop SS withholding.]

>>The net result will be that, in thirty years or so, the gov't will be out of 
>>the retirement insurance/welfare business, which it shouldn't have gotten 
>>into in the first place.

>The biggest problem I see is where the money is supposed to come from.
>Folks paying in now are not putting money aside for their own
>retirements; they are funding the payment of benefits to those
>receiving them now.  Where is the money to come from to do the
>'payback', and at what market rates of interest would it be returned?
>Where is the money going to come from to continue to pay benefits to
>everyone currently drawing them (none of whom are going to quit --
>that would be crazy)?

    Well, where's the money coming from now?  From FICA taxes on the
first $50k/year or so of earned income.  This is a regressive tax,
hitting hardest on the young workers and poor workers.
    The 15 percent FICA tax (is it more?  half employer, half employee
contributions) takes a big bite out of minimum wage salaries.  While a
growing percentage of American workers are going without health
insurance, the elderly (who are on the average better off) get
non-needs tested Medicare and Social Security.
    We should let the poor and the young (well, everyone) off the FICA
hook.  That will effectively raise the minimum wage *and* give
employers a break, perhaps enough to justify requiring them to provide
health insurance.
    We should make up the federal revenue shortfall by an increase in
the graduated income tax.  Once we stop adding to future Social
Security obligations, it's fairest to pay off the old ones (and that
portion of the deficit being hidden by FICA taxes) through a
progressive tax that hits everyone based on ability to pay, not just
the wage-earners.

--paco

P.S.  Despite not believing in Social Security, I remain a socialist
at heart.  We should retain needs-tested assistance for the poor,
preferably workfare, with work exemptions for parents of infant
children, Head-Start-style preschool for older children, and free
school lunches.  Not to mention free birth control and perinatal care.
--
Paul Havlak			Dept. of Computer Science
Graduate Student		Rice University, Houston TX 77251-1892
PFC/ParaScope projects		(713) 527-8101 x2738 	paco@cs.rice.edu
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs youSELECT
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:37:56 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug31.103525.16979@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>	Okay John, I know that you are a real stickler for published sources,
>but remember that published sources come from reports from eye witnesses, and
>here you have it direct from someone that was there, not third-hand from a
>news rag.  Yet, the eye-witness has no credibility???

Then if these "eye-witnesses" have such tremendous credibility, they should
have no difficulty whatsoever convincing a newspaper to publish these
accounts of such physical violence as pulling leg hair, scratching and
headbutting ...

>	Nice Christian attitude, and shows the love you would show someone
>in a crisis that was going into the clinic for counseling...

Yawn.

I do love the people that go into the clinics.  That is why I inform them
of the spiritual consequences of their actions.  Should I instead say that
God wants them to kill their unborn child?  If stealing cars is wrong, I
would hardly coddle the car thief.  It is inconsistent for me to coddle a
woman who is about to kill her child, when I certainly would never coddle
a thief - and the thief isn't even guilty of murder.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: tx.politics