HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: CSPAN Voter Manipulation
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:20:55 GMT

In article <21863@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> With Arkansas ranking 49th in so many areas, it's hard to argue that he
> did any damage.  After all, there is only one place below 49th, and
> Mississippi and Louisiana fight for that one.
 
It's not hard at all John.  Of course you can't prove much if you stick
with rankings.  Pick out some statistics, employment, literacy, poverty,
whatever.  Your choice.  Show that things got worse under Clinton and that
he caused economic damage to Arkansas.
 
> The most interestin' "point" Clinton brought up during the debates was all
> the jobs he created.  One in five of those jobs was in the poultry
> industry.  Said industry contributing greatly to pollution in the state.
> Many of the other jobs were brought in with tax credits.  In both cases
> the inhabitants of Arkansas got to pay - for the cleanup in the first
> case, and in higher taxes overall for the second.
 
I would think a good Republican would favor that.  After all, Quayle spent
a lot of his time trying to get companies exempted from environmental
regulations.  So what if they were bought with tax credits.  Was the value
of the tax credit given greater or less than the economic value that state
gained?  Again, giving tax credits to companies to move into poor areas is
something championed by Republicans like Kemp.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:31:42 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Nov16.184628.42478@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>
>*I* think they're stupid?  Who's the one saying that they don't know enough to
>decide what they want to do for a living?

	Me. Not just them, but all kids. Give them info. Teach the children.
You talk about their making choices, and it sounds okay to think they can,
but you're thinking through your brain, not theirs. You know that a football
choice entails X possibilities for success/failure, as opposed to another
choice. You know it would be wise to learn math while playing football.
There is a line to be drawn between forcing ideology on others, and 
forcing education on them. I despise forced ideology, as you know. Imagine
a mother bear not teaching her kids anything, following your argument
that we should let them choose. The kids'd fail, and die. The mother
would have forced nothing upon them. They made their own choices. Since
we can know this in advance (and I'll gladly accept, and get sources), we
are effectively choosing to eliminate these kids from our world of
choice by allowing them their total choice. I will get sources to prove that a
lack of education equates to a lack of choice. I don't think it even
needs intuition. If you don't know how to add and subtract, is accounting
a possible profession? If you want, I'll garnish this with sources about
what age/learning ability correlation exists.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: TEXAS SCHOOL FINANCE: GRAPPLING WITH FAIR SHARE PLAN
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:29:25 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <21867@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.062330.8496@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>The Rightwing thinks we don't need to have equality of opportunity, and 
>>that's why I don't like them.  The Leftwing thinks we do need to have equality 
>>of conditions, and that's why I don't like them.
>
>Sorry, but this is wrong on both counts ;-).  The right wing wants equality
>of oppurtunity so it can find the best and brightest and exploit them to
>make larges sums of money.  The left wing wants equality of outcome so
>it can collect votes from people who realize they aren't earning what
>they are getting.

If this were true there would be no opposition to fairness in school financing.

The rightwing wants to entrench themselves into their present positions and 
to do that they seek to stack the deck in their favor.  The more successful
they are at this the more talent gets wasted that could have benefited the 
whole society.  If a society gets too conservative than it is really doomed.
History has plenty of examples of this:  the Soviet Union, Manchu China,
the Ottoman Empire, Austria Hungary, etc. 

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 01:00:30 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: You know, the idea of two of the largest posters in this newsgroup
: complaining about MY volume just strikes me as rather funny.

I'm not complaining about your volume.  I just find it hilarious that you
supposedly don't have the time to support your arguments, when you obviously
have the time to post scads of other stuff.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: What is atheism? (was Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 09:18:52 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <Bxxst9.33p@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>In article <7868@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>}That is exactly my position: I do not believe that there is a God [...]
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>In article <7890@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>I do not believe in the sense that is commonly expressed by Christians. There
>>is a difference between "I do not believe that there is" and "I believe that
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>there is not". It is the former that goes with my lack of evidence, and I
                           ^^^^^^
>>cannot find it in my heart to take anything on blind faith.
>	You are changing your position, then?

How is that a change? I'm confused.

>	That's enough for me. If you're sure you're apathetic about the
>label, may I suggest agnostic? 

I am, but it seems that you disagree with Rick Russell, who thinks more or
less the same way I do but calls himself a "soft atheist"...  
-- 
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.
           "Cat: Four legs and an attitude." -- Jim Reese
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:08:55 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <BxvM36.5p6@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.223808.28181@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Pardon me, but I don't believe the plan Clinton is proposing falls
>> under the term 'socialized medicine' (unless they redefined
>> 'socialized' when I wasn't paying attention ;-)).
> 
>What do you call it when the government starts deciding how
>much people can charge for health care?

A command economy and socialism are not the same thing.  Clinton is
trying to have a command economy when it comes to health care.  The
USSR had a command economy and look at where it is ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:04:21 GMT

In article <21887@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.043415.2337@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.225044.39377@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>>>Like it or not, =all= borrowing, spending, and taxing originates in the
>>>House of Representatives.
>>
>>Well, in the same sense that the Electorial College is responsible for 
>>electing the President. 
>
>Correct.  

Then this question is settled permanently.  The House originating spending
is to be equated with the Electorial College electing the President.


>How else would you explain a candidate who receives less than
>50% of the popular vote getting more than 50% of the electoral vote?

No joke.


>The Electoral College is a feature.  

An anachronism, actually.


>That you don't understand how it

Here is proof that when John Haugh knows he can't make his case he pulls out
the flame bait.  This reflects badly upon him, and also blows his credibility.


>works agrees with the fact that you don't understand why the House
>originates all spending and taxing bills.  This can be described in
>three words, which are left as an exercise to the reader to figure out.

And I leave as an exercise to the reader to decide who does and who does not
understand how the government really works, as opposed to how the founding 
fathers intended for it to work.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: GOV. RICHARDS CRITICIZES HOUSE AMENDMENT
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:19:07 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin


                =====  LINE-ITEM LEARNING  =====

*11  FUNDING EQUITY:  GOV. RICHARDS CRITICIZES HOUSE AMENDMENT
     Texas Gov. Ann Richards (D) recently said a constitutional
amendment passed by a House committee will do nothing to end the
state's court battle over school finance (Stutz, DALLAS MORNING
NEWS; See 11/13, #5).  Richards criticized the House amendment
for not setting a standard of equity.  Richards:  "Without a
standard of equity, you're not going to be out of court."
     Richards said she will push instead for an amendment
approved by the Senate last week that sets such a standard.  She
made her comments before the Texas Research League, a business-
funded research organization.
     House committee members deleted the Senate equity provision
-- which states that 95% of all state aid and local property
taxes must be shared evenly among school districts -- "because of
opposition from low-wealth school districts," according to the
NEWS.  The low-wealth districts say the equity standard "could
widen the spending gap between high-wealth and low-wealth
districts," the NEWS writes.
     Richards also predicted that a competing Republican-backed
amendment that would prohibit most lawsuits on school finance
would fail in the House.  The NEWS writes:  "The amendment,
sponsored by Rep. John Culberson (R), has been attacked as racist
by several Democratic lawmakers."
     The full House will take up the committee's proposed
amendment today or tomorrow, according to the newspaper (11/15).

-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
- FICA isn't a retirement plan. Money's spent. It'll be gone when you need it.-
From: moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gore's environmental ideas
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:23:00 GMT
Reply-To: moller@austin.ibm.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Nov7.144714.23178@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <1992Nov06.184335.19963@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:
>

[...]

> 
> >Would you please let me know just what you base your belief on?
> >Am I correct in assuming that you believe taxing cigarettes 
> >decreases cigarette consumption?  Does taxing real estate sales
> >tend to decrease the frequency that people sell real estate?
> >Why then do you not believe that taxing incomes removes some
> >of the incentive for producing more income, and therefore
> >reduces incomes?
> 
> Incomes are not a good.  Those other things are.

Weird, man.  "Incomes are not a good"?

[...]

> constitution that WE forced on them at gunpoint at the end of WWII.

[...]

> 
> how markets fail to people whose political ideology has it as an
> article of faith that they do not.

Of course markets occasionally fail, but your contention seems to be that
the failure of a market may be remedied by government action, by decisions
"forced on [the economy] at gunpoint".  Nothing in recent history suggests
that the US government, or any other government for that matter, has the
wisdom or the integrity to make such decisions.

You make noises like you know something about economics.  If so, you know
that macroeconomics is one of the most unbelievably complex sciences (?)
there is -- forecasting an economy is _much_ more complex than forecasting
the weather -- and determining in more than the coarsest detail the effect
of any given large-scale stimulus to the economy is damn near impossible.
Similarly, trying to determine the precise stimulus necessary to correct
some percieved shortcoming of an economy is highly intractable.

I don't know what the answer is, but I would certainly rather trust market
forces, the "invisible hand", rather than the machinations of bureaucrats
and politicians.

> 
> -- 
> "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.

-- 
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
From: moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:32:31 GMT
Reply-To: moller@austin.ibm.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Nov5.234544.16904@montagar.com>, davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
> In article <1992Nov03.235337.19715@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
> > In article <1992Oct30.091317.16897@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
> > 
> > 1.  You have every right to not have a high-paying job.
> 
> 	Agreed...  But you should be able to make enough to survive on.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it guarantee you the right "to make
enough to survive on."  You certainly _do_ have the "inalienable" right
to _try_ to make enough to survive on, but the rest of us are most cer-
tainly not obligated to ensure your success, or to bail you out if you
fail.  "Freedom" involves not only the freedom to achieve greatness, by
whatever means you choose to measure greatness, but the freedom to starve
to death as well.

> 
> > 2.  If you decide later that you want a high school diploma after all, there's
> >     something called a GED.
> > 
> > Education isn't a window that slams shut once you turn 18.
> 
> 	No, but once you're at a disadvantage to those around you, the window
> is harder to open.

Decisions have consequences, even decisions made in ignorance or in
immaturity.  Dropping out of high-school is generally a fairly dumb idea,
and the GED is a way atoning for the exercise of that option, but no one
ever said that atoning for your past errors was supposed to be easy.

I and, it appears, a lot of the rest of US society, have gotten tired of
perpetually propping up those who have made the "easy" decisions, the
irresponsible decisions: to drop out of high-school instead of working
to achieve an education, to live their lives on public charity rather
than to take "menial" jobs or to try to better their own existances.

[...]

> 
> > -- 
> > John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
> Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
> P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "America is the only nation in
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   history which miraculously has
possibly represent its position.	|   gone directly from barbarism to 
					|   degeneration without the usual 
					|   interval of civilisation."
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Georges Clemenceau
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:21:04 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov16.173847.38222@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>There's no Constitutional prohibition against respecting an establishment
>of chess.  They can "fear God" all they want, but the government isn't going
>to support it.

I apparently haven't posted this often enough -

	Amendment I

	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
	religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
	abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
	right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
	petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which part of "no" don't you understand?  Do you understand the concept
of a conjunction?  Can you explain the role of "or" as it appears before
"prohibiting"?  Are you aware that "respecting" means "with regard to"
and not "supporting"?

The 1st Amendment says that Congress may not make any law with regard to
setting up any religion and it may not prohibit its free exercise.  That
means it may not support religion, and it may not oppose religion.  It
must remain neutral.  No law means NO law.  Any legal theory which says
that students, on their own and with no coercion from any government
official, cannot say some religious muttering when some other muttering
would be appropriate, is in direct contradiction to both the clauses in
that amendment.

Remaining neutral means you don't get in the way and you don't force
something to occur.  Being neutral about condoms in high schools would
mean you treat them as anything else that can be handed out.  You might
be able to give them out during lunch when people hand out flyers for
after school plays, or football games.  A condom is just one of many
things that can be handed out and which the school doesn't pay for.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: TEXAS SCHOOL FINANCE: GRAPPLING WITH FAIR SHARE PLAN
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:45:20 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <21888@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.042925.2262@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>The rightwing wants to entrench themselves into their present positions and 
>>to do that they seek to stack the deck in their favor.  The more successful
>>they are at this the more talent gets wasted that could have benefited the 
>>whole society.  If a society gets too conservative than it is really doomed.
>>History has plenty of examples of this:  the Soviet Union, Manchu China,
>>the Ottoman Empire, Austria Hungary, etc. 
>
>You are comparing apples to oranges.  The American political environment
>is not the same as that in any of the countries which you've named.  For
>that reason, our version of "conservatism" isn't the same as any of those
>countries.  Recall that it our "conservative" movement that resulted in
>the rise of Russia's "liberal" movement - and that we (meaning us
>conservatives) want more support for Russia's liberals.
>-- 
>John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org

What we call conservatism today is very much what in Europe was called
liberalism a century ago.  The original idea of liberalism was to do 
away with paternalistic government and rank and privilege based on 
one's pedigree and increase the freedom of movement and expression 
of the individual.  The conservatives wanted to restore the old regime
and keep the masses "in their place", i.e. massified. Of course they
wanted to keep them there "for their own good" and believed that only
they, the knowing classes, had the wisdom to determine what was best
for them.  This is very similar to what modern American liberals 
who support government regulation of everything also want.  The only
difference is that our government leaders are democratically elected,
but the tendency towards uniformity and absolutism persists and results 
in the same thing, a "conservative" (in the old sense) ruling establishment
that tends to preserve itself as a ruling class.

As a modern "conservative" in the sense that Haugh describes, I would
gladly support a choice experiment that was confined entirely to the
poor and minorities.  For it is there that I feel it would do the most
good.  Once it succeeds, then let it filter up to the middle and
upper classes and shed its blessings on our whole education system. You
might call it the "trickle up" approach.


Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)