HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:41:24 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Apr6.234905.15801@moxie.hou.tx.us>, hackney@moxie.hou.tx.us (Greg Hackney) writes:
> It's strange that you seem to feel the USSR is 'gone' in terms of any
> military threat, when now, more than ever, world leaders have expressed
> concern over the possible use of nuclear weapons by the decentralized
> Soviet military.
 
Don't read outside of the context of my message.  I think the USSR nuclear
weapons are still very much a danger (especially if they end up in
countries like Libya and Iran).  But we were talking about Europe and
Japan paying for defense.  And the US presence was primarily a deterent to
Soviet conventional forces, and secondarily a deterent to Soviet nuclear
forces (as in, you nuke W. Germany you also nuke US soldiers).  It's clear
that neither of those cases apply to Soviet nukes being used by renegade
countries and/or radical Soviet providences.
 
Personally, I'm very much in favor of charging Europe/Japan for defense. 
The only problem is, we've missed our window of opportunity.  Besides I
don't think that ever would have been a money-making activity.  At best it
would have covered some of the costs of keeping those troops there.
 
I think Perot simply doesn't have the guts to tell the American people the
truth.  We aren't going to get rid of the deficit without some degree of
pain.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgement
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:03:20 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <20589@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
 
|> Just so I get to argue with Chris, I'd say that Christianity is
|> very tolerant on every issue but one.  Iacoletti is trying to
|> reserve to himself the right to screw people over.  

I don't know how you fantasized this assertion but since you brought
it up:  I undeniably have the "right" to screw people over.  Unlike
you, I don't choose to exercise it. 

|> Christ would
|> forgive him for this action, but calls him to stop doing so.
|> There is, essentially, one sin and only one sin that sends you
|> to Hell, and that is rejecting Christ.

<YAWN>

-- 
John Iacoletti                      Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
IBM Advanced Workstations Div.    "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his tail
Austin, TX                         on the ground.  Too hypothetical." - G. Bush
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: H. Ross Perot and Civil Rights
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:03:38 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

Someone had earlier challenged Peter da Silva about his charge that
Perot's civil rights record was poor.  Here's some interesting factoids
that might demonstrate Perot's mindset.
 
 During a C-SPAN interview on March 25th, Perot suggests that as part of
his "electronic town hall" that he wants exit polls banned.  When the
interviewer suggest that might be unconstitutional Perot brushes it off.
After all, he's the CEO, he can do what he wants.
 
 How about in 1986 when Perot suggested that in order to stop a Dallas
crime wave they cordon off minority neighborhoods and start door-to-door
searches for guns and drugs.  So much for the fifth amendment.
 
 Or on the Today show in 1989 when Perot suggested that the government
should suspend constitutional rights and declare martial law in order to
fight the war on drugs!
 
 For those of you interested in a little thing called the second
amendment, Perot would like to pass gun controls much stricter than the
Brady bill.
 
 Perot also wants to start compulsory 2-year national service for all
18-year olds.
 
This guy is scarier than Bush or Clinton.  Can you say "big-government
facist"?
 
(Credit to a Post article by Williamson Evers for pointing these out)
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The tax curve (was Re: Ross Perot...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:10:52 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt

>          ~
>  high    |                      xx
>          |                    xx  xx
>          |                  xx   !  xx
>          |                xx     !    xx
> govern't |              xx       !      xx
>   income |            xx         !        xx
>          |          xx           !          xx
>          |        xx             !            xx
>          |      xx               !              xx
>          |    xx                 !                xx
>          |  xx                   !                  xx
>          |xx                     !                    xx
>  low     x_______________________!______________________xx_______
>         0                  tax rate
>                                  !
>                               optimum tax rate

What you have labelled "optimum tax rate" I think should be labelled
"pessimal tax rate".  The optimum tax rate is zero, but unfortunately
it requires a population of saints to approach it.

>   From this graph, we can determine this fact:  there is a maximum
>amount of money that the government can receive.  Given this fact,

Remember that the government can move the curve if it wants to.
Survivors of Nazi-occupied countries are familiar with the tactics.
I don't think I would want to live in a country that tries it.

>it behooves those elected officials to not spend more than that
>amount of money.  (now I suppose we could argue at what point
>that optimum tax rate occurs).
> 
>   What I believe they (congress) should do, is simply not be allowed
>to spend more than it brings in (ie.  a balanced budget ammendment)...

Let me amend that a little.  The government should not be allowed to
spend more than what it has ***ALREADY*** taken in.  That's accrued AND 
collected AND (in the case of checks or similar rubberized instruments) 
cleared.  In order to simplify administration of that a bit, how about 
requiring that they may not spend in any given month more than what was 
collected in the corresponding month of the previous year?  Anyone voting 
for a bill that takes it over the limit gets zapped.  (Senators and
Representatives will replace their seat in Congress with a government-
certified electric chair at their own expense.  They also pay for
the electricity.)

					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1516 tx.general:247
From: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 11 Apr 92 22:49:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Apr11.163949.13566@NeoSoft.com>, hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> use them.  Blame the people who set up this overly generous perk.  But the
> rest of them were just playing within the rules.  I think it's very

	So, it was morally OK to own slaves when it was legal?  

		N   N    OOO    TTTTT    #
		NN  N   O   O     T      #
		N N N   O   O     T      #  
		N  NN   O   O     T         
		N   N    OOO      T      #      

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  My life makes perfect sense 
 kossack@rice.edu  |  Lust and food and violence  
  (713) 270-9056   |                             --  Dire Straits
From: kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:21:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
- > When I hear Perot say "We need to start phasing out Social
- >Security, we need to get rid of farm subsidies, we need to make
- >large cuts in our defense forces, we need to phase out some of the
- >more useless federal departments" then I'll think he has balls.
- 
- OK. Let's start with NSFNet.

	Wimp.  Let's start by repealing the 16th Amendment.   

	Heck, I'm being wimpy.  In addition to repealing the 16th  
   Amendment, let's rewrite Article I, Section 8 and exclude the 
   first three paragraphs.  Further, let's have a government that  
   actually is bound by the Constitution, including the first ten  
   Amendments.  Sigh ... 


-- 
  kossack@taronga.com  |  REMEMBER THE ALAMO!  
  Jordan Kossack       |  Support the right of Texans to   
  (713) 270-9056       |  bear arms against their opressors.
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:22:47 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <27JELYF@taronga.com>, kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:
> 	I'm not suggesting that overdraft protection is immoral.  I am,  
>    however, suggesting that it is immoral for congress to be able to set  
>    themselves above the laws that they pass, that it is immoral for them  
Ok, what laws are you referring to in terms of this "check bouncing"
scandal.  We've established that overdraft protection is not immoral
or illegal.
 
>    to have priviledges that ordinary citizens don't, that it is immoral  
What privileges ordinary citizens don't have?  Lots of organizations
give their employees perks.  My company helps subsidize insurance and
membership to a health club.
 
>    for the government to make me pay income tax when my yearly salary is 
>    less than the pay _raise_ that the congress critters gave themselves, 
>    that it's immoral for congress to raise their pay without the people 
>    why pay the salaries (i.e. the taxpayers) having a veto.  Need I go on?    
I personally don't have any problem with Congresspeople making as much
as they do.  They have a lot of responsibility, and yet they make
less than many middle managers in large organizations.  Whether or not
they deserve that level of pay is another issue.  But that's up to us,
isn't it?
 
> 	Besides, I was responding to the attitude that it was ok for 
>    congressmen to abuse their priviledges if such abuse is legal.  Feh!  
 
No, you gave us an analogy about slavery that made no sense.  I personally
don't think the perks were that horrible.  The overdraft should be cleaned
up so they have to have the money in a related account, and the
non-paying of food bills was silly, but honestly it's not that big of of
deal.  People keep saying "they don't deserve these perks, they're doing a
horrible job."  I certainly agree with that.  But that's up to the people.
 
I repeat, the fact that it takes something like this to get to people 
mad only shows how bad it's gotten.  And yes, it does matter why people
are throwing them out of office.  If your child accidently breaks a cookie
jar and then lies about it, and you turn around and punish the child for
"breaking the cookie jar" are you really getting the desired effect?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1505 tx.general:238 austin.general:1549
From: bolan@sdf.lonestar.org (Bolan Meek)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 11 Apr 92 09:25:23 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access

In article <1992Apr09.054624.1430@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.151154.16814@montagar.lonestar.org>, davidc@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
>Does anyone really think that the "check bouncing" scandal is the
>central problem with Congress?  I mean, "minor" issues like the deficit
>seem to get a fraction of the public attention that this supposed check
>bouncing scandal did.  
> 
>And let's be honest.  This really isn't check bouncing or check kiting, no
>matter how many times the media says it is.  The House bank was set up
>The fact that the public is ready to throw the incumbents out over an
>issue like this check situation, rather than something important,
>just shows how idiotic this country has gotten.
> 
>Yes, we should throw them out of office.  But let's do it for something
>sensible like fiscal irresponsibility, not because they get free haircuts
>and cheap raquetball courts.

on the other hand, perhaps it is that it has taken something like this to clearly
demonstrate the fiscal irresponsibility of the 
representatives we the people have sent to Congress, over and over again,
rewarding them for sending federal dollars our way, while despising the
influence congressmen representing other locales have exercised to send
federal dollars THEIR way?
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1555 tx.general:285
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:10:36 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <20630@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Why of course they're both good points ;-)

So...

In article <8DKEDJ6@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> Does this seem worse than the bogus legislation they pass? Why?
-- 
/F{findfont exch scalefont setfont}def /S{moveto show}def /T{/Times-Roman F}def
6 T (Have you hugged your wolf today?)468 20 S 9 T (Taronga Park BBS)24 35 S 10
/Courier F(`-_-')488 40 S ( 'U` )488 30 S 6 T (+1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1)24 27
S (+1 713 568 1032 Trailblazer)24 20 S 12 T (Peter da Silva)24 45 S showpage
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1514 tx.general:244 austin.general:1559
From: davidc@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 12 Apr 92 11:41:36 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Apr10.000850.12276@NeoSoft.com>, hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>> 
>> 	The average citizen can relate to this. There is no rhetorical
>> answer for this from Congress. The issue is not clouded. That Capone would
>> evade taxes stemmed from his ethical system, it was part of the larger
>> problem. Yes, selfish behavior contributes to the deficit. It also created
>> this scandal. 
>  
> Selfish behavior on whose part?  The deficit was caused by the fact that
> the American public likes to pretend it can spend more than it has without
> any deleterious effects.

	You have an excellent point.  The rally cry is "Cut the budget!", only
as long as it does cut *my* budget.  There are too many people that expect the
goverment to provide them benefits (International as well as domestic).  "You
cut someone else's benefits, but not mine.  I have a right to those benefits!"
Bullsh*t...  JFK had the right idea:  Ask not what your country can do for you,
but what you can do for your country.  As much respect and concern everyone
seems to have about his death, no one seems to care anymore about what he
stood for.  He wasn't perfect, but had some good ideas...

	Perot has the balls to say this, and many people are backing him.
I suspect that many of them don't realize exactly how that will hurt them.
At least in the short run, but maybe they will be better off in the long run?

> -- 
> Doug Andersen
> hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.lonestar.org
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!texsun!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: 0770am01@uhdvx3.dt.uh.edu (AUCLAIR RICHARD)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: John Haugh is a hypocrite!
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:47:00 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: University of Houston-Downtown
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41A
X-Lunar-Date: 5 days, 8 hours, 26 minutes since the first quarter of the moon

>>Being rich has nothing to do with being right. The drug cartel is VERY rich.
> 
>And dealing drugs isn't legal.  Perot made all his money working within
>the law.  I'd say he was very right.

That sounds pretty strange, coming from Mr. John "what's right and what's
legal are two different things" Haugh.  Are the doctors who make *their* money
performing abortions "very right?"

So typical of self-righteous religious boors--they don't even follow their own
rules.  Or in John's case, the ones he says he has.

>-- 
>John F. Haugh II                   | SITUATION WANTED:
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |    Will write device drivers, turn status
>UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |    reports in late, and whine incessantly
>Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |    for food.  Serious inquiries only ;-)

Lightman out.				|Seeking the best in others,   |
					|we seek the best in ourselves.|
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: west@esd.dl.nec.com (Mike West)
Subject: Bill of Rights (was Re: Ross Perot for President Information)
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:42:41 GMT

From article <2747@unisql.UUCP>, by alan@unisql.UUCP (Alan Weiss):
> [lots of stuff about how terrible EDS was to work for -- deleted ...]
> 
>>All of this is a bit (but only a bit) peripheral to whether or not Perot
>>would make a good President.
> 
> Exactly.  Does anyone seriously think that Ross would try to
> abolish the Bill of Rights?  Do you think the Supreme Court,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the Media, or the People would allow such a thing?  Do you
> *really* think this? 

Actually, it seems that the current government is doing a dandy
job of this right now.  Bush has basically walked all over most,
if not all, of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court has
backed him all of the way.

The "People" seem to be swallowing this War on Rights, oops I
mean Drugs, hook, line and sinker.  The "People" don't care in
the least about rights.  All they want is to be promised that
they will be kept safe, fat and happy.

Incidentally, from what I have seen, Perot has been quoted as
saying that he is willing to chuck whatever part of the Bill
of Rights is necessary to "clean things up", whatever that
means.  I don't want a "more efficient" government;  I want
a much *smaller* government.

[P.S.  I like your Texas picture.  I hope you don't mind if I
       keep a copy and change the "Austin" to "Dallas".]

Mike West
west@esd.dl.nec.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1491 tx.general:220 austin.general:1517
From: davidc@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:11:52 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <0S9EZKG@taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> Please note that while Perot is an extremely competant manager, and the
> other people remaining on the playing field are singularly distasteful,
> Perot has shown a remarkable lack of concern for basic civil liberties.
> Please consider this before throwing your support behind this man. I don't
> believe that it's necessary to destroy the United States Constitution to
> save the United States.

	Well, it depends on what you mean by civil liberties.  I feel he
will be least likely to take liberties (check bouncing, etc...) that
politicians have been enjoying.  I signed the petition, not so much that I'd
like to see him on office as much as it is scaring the hell out of Congress :-)

	I also kinda like the idea that he is tired of America pandering to
the whinings of other countries, when we need to be taking better care of our
own.

> -- 
> -- Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1.
> -- `-_-'                                         1032 PEP/2400/n/8/1.
> --  'U`    "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.lonestar.org
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!texsun!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:09:02 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

In article <20635@rpp386.lonestar.org>
    jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
 
>What is it with IBM and suits already?  I've been at IBM (though I've
>never been an IBM employee ...) for three years and I only wear a suit
>when I'm trying to impress someone with the fact that I own a suit.
>
>I can count the number of times that's happened quite easily on my
>fingers and toes.
 
   It was just the example that I choose.  While my example may
have in fact been incorrect, the analogy still holds.  Any any case,
the myth that *all* IBM'rs wear suits upto 24 hours a day
(exageration for effect here) is a fairly common one (and one
that isn't usually disputed by the company's reps that *most*
of us have contact with (who, BTW, are usually the sales types.....).
      ----------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |  "Success is the realization of your
x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |       worthwhile dreams" ---  Dexter Yager
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |  "A goal is a dream being acted upon"
(409) 845-8454 (work)   |                          ---  Don Wilson
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1519 tx.general:250
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:59:21 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Apr11.224937.11146@rice.edu>, kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack) writes:
> In article <1992Apr11.163949.13566@NeoSoft.com>, hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> > use them.  Blame the people who set up this overly generous perk.  But the
> > rest of them were just playing within the rules.  I think it's very
> 
> 	So, it was morally OK to own slaves when it was legal?  
 
Let me get this straight.  You think that overdraft protection is morally
wrong?  I think you would find it hard to find ANYONE who would argue that
overdraft protection is grossly immoral and should be banned.  Before
there were checking accounts that earned interest, overdraft accounts were
very common.  On the other hand, I think it's fairly easy to make an 
argument that slavery is immoral.
 
Now that we agree (I hope) that there is nothing inherently immoral about
the idea of overdraft protection, we can talk about whether it's
appropriate for Congresspeople to have it.  Or probably more importantly,
why they even need their own bank.  
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com