HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alan@unisql.UUCP (Alan Weiss)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:13:58 GMT
Reply-To: alan@unisql.UUCP (Alan Weiss)
Distribution: tx
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1SJEXNM@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>Mister da Silva suggests that Mister Herrick learn a little bit about how
>the news system works.

One can be said for da Silva ... see notice his neat but unreadable
postscipt .signature.

>I've set followups to tx.politics. Setting followups to a group I don't
>get (see above) is a twit's game.
>
>Twit.
>-- 
>/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


Calling other people who disagree with you seems to me a
good criterion for being a twit, eh Peter?

Nice .sig, too.  Can we get back to POLITICAL flames instead
of this mindlessness?

 

 Alan R. Weiss                  #include <std_disclaimer.h>
 UniSQL, Inc.
 9390 Research  II, Suite 200                             +---+
 Austin, Texas, USA  78759-6544                           |   |
 Phone: 512-343-7297    Fax  : 512-343-7383               |   \_________
 Personal Messages:  512-343-7372  x115              _____|             |
 unisql!alan@cs.utexas.edu                           \          Austin  |
                                                       \  ___     *    _/
 NOTE THE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS!                           \/   \      __/
                                                              \_   /
 "I'm not a native Texan, but I got here as                     \_/
 fast as I could!"
From: 0770am01@uhdvx3.dt.uh.edu (AUCLAIR RICHARD)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:38:00 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: University of Houston-Downtown
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41A
X-Lunar-Date: 3 days, 9 hours, 10 minutes since the first quarter of the moon

>>    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.

How many American citizens can afford the kind of health care that Congress
gets?  Statistics say 20% of all Americans have no medical insurance, and many
who do have it have to pay their own costs (no corporate sponsorship)

How many get their mail sent free of charge (franking priviledge)?

>>    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?

NO government body that is this irresponsible with the nation's treasury
deserves the money the U.S. Congress is making.  Why doesn't the President get
a backbone and veto one of these pay raises Congress keeping voting for
themselves.  He, at least, has the authority (though clearly *not* the
courage).

Lightman out.				|Seeking the best in others,   |
					|we seek the best in ourselves.|
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgement
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:41:47 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <20586@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
 
|> Sex
|> carries with it numerous physical and emotional pieces of baggage

Maybe for YOU, but then that explains why you are so anti-sex.

|> Sex is typically used as a tool for ensnarling another individual
|> with instant gratification, rather than gradually building a relation-
|> ship on longer term and more permanent features.

There's nothing wrong with instant gratification.  It's just your
personal value-judgement that a long-term relationship is somehow
better.

|> If you want to
|> have a monogamous and committed homosexual relationship, have at it.

Except you still want it to be illegal.

-- 
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: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgement
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:15:28 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

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

|> Christianity is a pretty well defined set of beliefs, very few of which
|> Joe "I beat my children from time to time" Mullany holds.  You are complaining
|> that a Christian doesn't want to be associated with his beliefs.  So?  I don't
|> want to be associated with the beliefs of Republican-wannabes either.

You are going to have to accept the fact that YOU don't get to decide who gets
to call themselves Christians unless your name is Christ.

I don't see no halo on you, boy.

|> Does
|> this make me "intolerant"?  Or do Republicans have to accept Socialists,
|> Communists, Fascists, and Democrats as welcome brethren?  

If you vote for Republican candidates then you're a Republican.  I don't
recall anything in the RNC platform about having to pass the Haugh screen
first.

|> You've not called
|> me "intolerant" for writing against David Duke, have you?

If you had said that he didn't have the right to call himself a Republican,
then I would've.

-- 
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: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:15:14 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Apr09.054624.1430@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>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.

	It seems to be an issue that many Americans can understand. If
it takes such an issue to awaken Gulliver, so be it. Awake now, let's
hope Gulliver realizes his size and strength.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"All of the things that you used to believe in
Turned out to be true; you're guilty of reason."- Lou Reed
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgement
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:37:56 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Apr6.165315.8733@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>You'd think after all the time Haugh spends insulting you, that he'd
>figure out that your name doesn't have an "n" in it. 

	Hey, I learned a long time ago not to take offense at confusions
as to my last name. Are 4 "l"'s really necessary? Interesting, too, (to me),
is that John's intentional misspelling is a spelling change made by most
Mullallys that came to America. I had a basketball coach w/ Mullany as a last
name, converted by his ancestors.

> He sure
>responds to a lot of your posts considering his claim that you're
>in his kill file (like that's some badge of courage).

	It's funny. I have this image of John reading my posts in the dark,
when noone else is around. As I've stated (too often?), his misuse of kill
files indicates a tendency to not understand purposes for things, and to
misapply tools. You don't use screwdrivers to affix staples to paper; you
don't use morality to control others. He doesn't understand either concept,
as demonstrated by his continued misuse of his kill file privelege. So be
it.



	

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"All of the things that you used to believe in
Turned out to be true; you're guilty of reason."- Lou Reed
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1545 tx.general:273
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:12:07 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: On the Beach, Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten, Nederland Antilles
X-Random-Thought: Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty

In article <8DKEDJ6@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <20626@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
>>And did they pay interest on these interest free loans?  Did they declare
>>these interest free loans on their federal income tax returns?  HELL NO!
>
>Both of them good points. Do they declare their franking privileges or other
>perks as benefits? Does that bother you any less than this particular perk?
>Why? Does this seem worse than the bogus legislation they pass? Why?

Why of course they're both good points ;-)

Hell no, they don't declare their perqs[*] as benefits.  Do you think
the political royalty in this country actually want to hold themselves
to the same rules as us commoners?  Do they declare their political
campaign contributions as income?

[* The word is "perquisite".  "Perk" is what you do to coffee. ]
-- 
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 ...
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:27:56 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: On the Beach, Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten, Nederland Antilles
X-Random-Thought: Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty

In article <1992Apr15.142530.1480@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace4.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
>*This has to be a trick question because the answer is "YES".  An employer
>*MUST be allowed to do anything which is not a violation of the law.  If
>*not hiring people who sleep around isn't a violation of the law, the
>*employer must be allowed to have that policy.
>
>I guess my question/statement would be why is it not the law?  Why do 
>people think they have any right to tell me or anyone else how to live
>their lives.  As long as I perform my job what possible right does anyone
>have to tell me what I can or cannot do on MY own time?  If an employer 
>can dictate my sex life, then it is a short leap to say what social 
>causes I can support ect.  For instance I have been married to the same
>woman FOREVER, (at least it seems so) :-)  and suppose I find that a 
>divorce is indicative of a major character flaw, under your logic I 
>would have a perfect right to either not hire or even to have fired a 
>divorced person.  Not a pretty picture. 

Your employer isn't dictating your life.  You have a choice as to who
you work for, just as I do.  You can choose to work for Perot, or not.
If you work for Perot, you have accepted all the warts that come with
working for the man.  Likewise, I've accepted the warts, or not, and
so on.

We've had this discussion before.  The employer owns the business and
it is theirs to do with as they please.  If they want to require you
to way blue and yellow striped clothes, you wear blue and yellow
striped clothes.  If they want you to not sleep around ...  What?
Well, you don't sleep around.

This is what capitalism is all about.  My property, my rules.

If Perot were wrong, it might stand to reason that his business would
falter or stagnate.  But it didn't - he became incredibly wealthy.
Maybe, just maybe, there is something to all those stupid rules.  But
=you= aren't the person to tell him how to run his business.

>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.
-- 
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 ;-)
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgemen
Date: 11 Apr 92 13:34:09 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

cls@trsvax.tandy.com writes:

> < cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>  
> << pertinent clause and quote it.".  This leads me to ask, if you think that,
> << then do you personally follow every "clause" in the bible?
> <
> <I'll split this into 2 questions:
> <
> <1. Do you personally follow every "clause" in the Bible?
> <   A: No, because I am not personally capable of doing so.  I'm not perfect.
> <
> <2. Do you personally think the Bible is an appropriate standard of conduct
> <   which should be followed?
> <   A: Yes.
> <

  [Chris' explanatory paragraphs deleted for brevity's sake]

> That's about as clear as mud, and not because it's a short answer.  
> 
> Part 2. is not necessary to discuss because we can already tell that you
> think it is an appropriate standard of conduct.

Yes, it was necessary; it (and the subsequent paragraphs) explained Part 1.

> Part 1. is not a clear answer.  Yes, we know no one is perfect.  I just 
> want to know if you "try" to follow every single clause in the Bible complete
> literally, or if your paragraph, the one that begins "The O.T. was written...
> means that you look at a particular "clause" in view of the entire set of
> writings and the time in which each was written.

The gist of my reply was to explain how I followed the O.T. and N.T.  Sorry
you thought it was unclear; I still think it is perfectly clear.

Regards,
Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
                                   texsun!digi!keys!cwinemil
From: cls@trsvax.tandy.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgemen
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:03:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:kesher.UUCP:621:trsvax:272900094:000:1839
Nf-From: trsvax.tandy.com!cls    Apr 10 11:03:00 1992


< ><1. Do you personally follow every "clause" in the Bible?
< ><   A: No, because I am not personally capable of doing so.
< ><      I'm not perfect.
< ><
< > Part 1. is not a clear answer.
<  ...text deleted...
<  ...text reformatted due to excessive line length.....

I'm sorry.  The line length is not excessive when I type it in here.

< > I feel you have not yet answered my question.  I also feel that my
< > question gets to the heart of the cause of most differences of
< > opinion on political matters which are based on religion.  It's
< > like, answering this question gets to a point beyond which there
< > is no more to say if two people do not agree on it.
<  
<  
<    Chris W. did answer your question; quite clearly in fact.
< I think you just didn't like his answer so you want another one....
<  
<       ----------------------------------------------
< 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

I said I didn't think it was clear and I explained why I don't understand
the answer.  I don't understand the answer, Okay!?

Does the answer above mean "I'm trying to follow everything literally." or
"I'm tryig to follow everything in the way I understand that it should
be interpreted.".  It seemed to me when I read his two part answer that
his first part of the answer said the former and his second part said the
latter.  

I can't help it if I can't find the point which, to me, is buried in the
flowery language.

-------------------
Christine Siewert		Domain: cls@trsvax.Tandy.COM
                 		  UUCP: ...!uunet!letni!rwsys!trsvax!cls
				    or: ...!decvax!microsoft!trsvax!cls
From: kossack@screech.owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:38:12 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Apr15.144938.14323@NeoSoft.com>, hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
-Right, if they were in the private sector, they'd be paid hundreds of
-thousands, if not millions of dollars.  The amount of power that goes with
-those jobs is clearly worth executive salary, especially when you consider

	I have to disagree.  If they were working in the private sector, 
   they would be unemployed because their company would have folded for 
   lack of finances.  Maybe it's time to "reorganize" the government. 


- You're worrying about stupid, minor details while our debt load gets
- bigger.  This year we spent over 20% of our budget paying interest on our
- debts!  

	OK.  I'm an idiot.  I just naively thought that there might be 
   a connection between fiscal irresponsibilty in ones personal finances 
   and fiscal irresponsibility wrt the Federal budget.  My apologies for 
   wasting your time with such absurd ideas.  

-- 
 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: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:37:00 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> 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.  

	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  
   to have priviledges that ordinary citizens don't, that it is immoral  
   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?    

	Besides, I was responding to the attitude that it was ok for 
   congressmen to abuse their priviledges if such abuse is legal.  Feh!  


-- 
  kossack@taronga.com  |  REMEMBER THE ALAMO!  
  Jordan Kossack       |  Support the right of Texans to   
  (713) 270-9056       |  bear arms against their opressors.
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The tax curve (was Re: Ross Perot...)
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:21:20 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Apr11.042532.2075@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>Yeah, yeah.  We're all familiar with a Laffer curve.  It's also far more
>complicated than you put.  Besides, you haven't shown that we are to the
>right of the (semi-mythical) optimum tax rate.  Your own theory could
>support a tax increase if the rate was to the left.

Only if you think the Government *needs* to get as much tax money as
possible. That hasn't been shown to be an optimal method of allocating
resources. Whether or not you believe in the Laffer curve.
-- 
/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:1496 tx.general:229 austin.general:1534
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:00:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Apr09.154851.4708@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>The American public can't understand a deficit?  You spend too much, you
>have to borrow.  That's easy to understand.

	Yes.

>It DOES matter why the public is throwing the incumbents out.

	We got Capone on tax evasion. That satisfies me.

>  The message
>seems to be "we won't tolerate people who 'bounce' checks and abuse their
>perks'.

	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. 

>  Great.  So we'll get a bunch of politicians who will be extra
>careful about not bouncing checks or using too many perks.  Does that
>solve our problem?  Not hardly.

	Good point. I'm still glad to see politicians worrying about 
their constituents' votes. I like to think that the recognition of their
power in this case will reawaken the public. On that note, I've wondered
this: If a portion of the community (blacks, for example) were to
exercise it's power to vote to the fullest (maximum turnout), couldn't
they wield a lot of power in elections? If they did, would other groups
respond by getting their folks out to vote? Could "competitive voting"
spur near-100% turnout by all groups? I know that both parties try to get
their people out to vote, but (no real stats, here) each only gets about
50% of their constituents to the polls. It seems that 25,000,000 democrats
that wouldn't normally vote could create quite an upset. Maybe even
McGovern could have won in '72?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"All of the things that you used to believe in
Turned out to be true; you're guilty of reason."- Lou Reed
From: cls@trsvax.tandy.com
Date: 06 Apr 92 11:47 CDT
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgemen
Message-ID: <272900092@trsvax>