HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Organization: Dell UNIX Support
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:37:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.142359.9024@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Raw birth rate in the United States is 15/1000.  Raw death rate is
>9/1000.  So he is quite right.  The growth (6/1000) is due to the
>death rate decreasing more than the birth rate.  The actual
>population growth in the United States (8/1000) makes it pretty plain
>that immigration is a relatively small factor of the population growth
>(actually it amounts to about 25% of the growth, but the growth is
>quite small) and that there would still be population growth due to
>the death rate being significantly lower than the birth rate, whether
>there was immigration or not.

By your own numbers, 25% of the population increase in this country is from
immigration.  You call that a small factor?  Granted, there would still be
popylation growth without immigration, but if the birth and death rates
were the same, there would be population growth also.  I do not call 25% of
the new people in the country an insignificant number.  Of course, a growth
rate of 8/1000 overall, is pretty small.

------------------------------+----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" | MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
| If Liberals interpreted The 1ST Amendment, the way they do  the 2nd,  only |
| print media would be protected! - RID US OF ASSAULT MEDIA LIKE TVs & RADIO |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Lt. Gov Bob Bullock remarks..
Organization: CTC, Inc., Austin, TX. U.S. of A. 78757-3109
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:57:46 GMT

     Official's "Joke" Spurs Uproar, Austin, Texas (AP)

   The lieutenant governor faced an uproar Thursday after he said a
state senator could get any legislation passed if she "cut her skirt
off about six inches and put on some high heels."
   A women's rights group and the state Republican Party criticized
Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock for making the remark about Democratic Sen.
Judith Zaffirini.
   But Ms. Zaffirini, who was present when Bullock made the comment
before more than 100 people at a Texas Chamber of Commerce meeting,
said it was just a joke and that she wasn't offended.
   And she noted that Bullock, also a Democrat and the Senate
president, has appointed her chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human
Services Committee.
   "I know hatred when I see it. I know bigotry. I know chauvinism.
This was not any of those," Ms. Zaffirini said.
   Bullock was participating in a panel discussion on the legislative
session when he said, "I told Senator Zaffirini if she'll cut her
skirt off about six inches and put on some high heels she could pass
anything she wants to."
   Bullock's spokeswoman, Sydney Rubin, said, "One can question the
lieutenant governor's choice of words, but you can't question his
support for women or women's issues."
   Some did.
   "It's absolutely outrageous that someone who claims to be a friend
to women's causes still doesn't quite get it," said Hannah Riddering,
co-chair of the Austin chapter of the National Organization for Women
   "We encourage him to attend a few of our meetings. After all,
they're quick to call us when they're campaigning. Perhaps it's time
they call for a little consciousness-raising," she said.
   She asked how Bullock would feel if someone in his position said
the same thing about any woman in his family.
   Karen Hughes, executive director of the Texas Republican Party,
said Bullock should apologize for the "blatantly sexist" remark.
   If Bullock believes what he said, Ms. Hughes said, "he has no place
in a position of public trust." She speculated that Ms. Zaffirini may
have said she wasn't offended because she has to work with Bullock.
   Bullock's spokeswoman said many men his age make similar comments
in jest. Bullock is 63.
   "As long as he's there supporting women's issues, promoting women
into positions of power, then, you know, I would give him a little
latitude," Ms. Rubin said.
				###
-- 
Dewey Coffman dewey@ctci.com  All opinions expressed are unrelated to reality.
CTC, Inc.			  "That voodoo stuff don't do nothing for me."
"If you fail to plan, plan to fail" 	PANIC: waiting for a good idea.
"He who relies on USENET as their only info source is both a fool, and idiot."
Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Organization: Dell UNIX Support
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:58:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.060410.17827@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
> In article <1993Jan25.172302.25504@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com writes:
> >Claiming he would not raise taxes for the middle-class.  Claiming that he
> >would reduce the deficit 50% by 1997.  Claiming that he could fund all
> >these neat programs.  You do not think this is an action?  It is as much an
> >action as someone claiming they will do bodily harm do another.  The fact
> >that he said he would do these things, and now claims they can't be done is
> >proof that he is either, an incompetant moron who doesn't know what he is
> >talking about (either now or before or both), or a liar who never intended
> >to do these things.  And you and others like you, who wanted change, will
> >find that the only change is the leanings of the Executive branch.  The
> >deficit will rise, taxes will rise!
> 
> Lets see now:
> 
> Reagan said he would reduce the deficit 100% by 1983.
> Bush said READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES.
> 
> You have just stated that both Ronald Reagan and George Bush are either
> 
> >an incompetant moron who doesn't know what he is
> >talking about (either now or before or both), or a liar who never intended
> >to do these things.  
> 
> My view is that Ronald Reagan was the first of these [in regards to the 
> deficit], and George Bush was the second [in regards to taxes].
> 
> One more clue why the Republicans lost the election.

Did I say they were any better?  I am just trying to point out that Clinton
is not to be trusted.  Once I get that into Fred's head, then maybe I can
convince him that NO politician can be trusted!

------------------------------+----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" | MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
| If Liberals interpreted The 1ST Amendment, the way they do  the 2nd,  only |
| print media would be protected! - RID US OF ASSAULT MEDIA LIKE TVs & RADIO |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Subject: Re: The Biased Media
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Organization: Dell UNIX Support
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:50:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.143910.9552@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
> Which was more than George Bush, the sitting President got.  So,
> either you have to either understand that there was a third candidate
> out there or you have to put forward the premise that George Bush got
> TROUNCED, so what we saw must have been an absolute and total
> repudiation of Conservatism in this country.

The way I remember the numbers it was like 43% for Clinton and 34% for
Bush.  That is ONLY 26% more votes than Bush got.  As you have already said
in a previous post, 25% is "Insignificant."  An insignificantly larger
number of people voted for a liberal than voted for a conservative.  As you
noted above, there was a third candidate, but since he got less than 25%,
that was "Insignificant."

------------------------------++----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" || MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------++--------++------------------------------------|
| IF LIBERALS INTERPRETED THE 2ND       || "An armed society is a polite      |
| AMENDMENT, THE WAY THEY DO THE FIRST, ||  society!"  -- Heinlein            |
| CARRYING A GUN WOULD BE MANDATORY!    ||                                    |
|---------------------------------------++-------------------------------------
From: billc@airgun.wg.waii.com (Bill Curtis)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity  (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Summary: Didn't Clinton say change????
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:43:41 GMT
Followup-To: tx.politics
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Western Geophysical, Div. of Western Atlas Int'l, Houston, TX

In article <1993Jan23.155058.17030@montagar.com>, davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
> > I see no reason to think that if you made it affordable, most people
> > wouldn't go to the place that offered decent educations, rather than the
> > closest place.
> 
> 	So you propose subsidizing the transportation as well?  The middle
> class can afford that, but what about the poor?  They still have to take
> what they've got, or what's left...
> 
> 	Gee, not having any kids, what can I do with MY vouchers???
> 

Can't resist jumping in here...

What about the poor.  Indeed, what about the poor?  One of the
obstacles to improving our educational systems and having rational
discussions about public education is to engage in the non-sequitur,
baiting questions such as "what about the poor".  Everyone interested
in improving our nation's school should ask themselves whether or not
the poor genuinely benefit from the depressing, substandard, yes, and
even dangerous, schools we have today.  To ask the question is to
answer it.

Again, do poorer schools help anyone, anyone at all?  Can a positive
response to this question be seriously offered.  Does having no choice
at all, no vouchers, no alternatives, increase or decrease the despair
and alienation from society the stereotypical poor are daily faced
with?  The liberal mindset is such that they are blinded to what is
happening and cannot see a clear path, and they consequently are left
to deny the plain tragedy unfolding before us all.  They won't speak
out lest they endanger the sacred icon of socially engineered public
education except, mind you, to defend the status quo and meekly claim
that enough funding is not provided by our society.

I don't know the answers but I do recognize the philosphies separating
the vouchers-no vouchers camps.  One in contrast to the other wants
more government control, more socialism, more big brother oversight,
less parental influence in our schools, less accountability in the
education establishment, less individualism, less teacher talent.

Clinton comes to office as a self proclaimed change agent: will we see
change here?  I worry, he's against vouchers, yet in the face of his
support for public schools he sends his child to private school.  A
contradiction?  Were he not a democrat wouldn't he be branded rather
harshly for his obvious, shall we say, ambivalence?  He has lots of
markers against him and when the hard decisions are to be made, I fear
the NEA will operate him like a marionette.
-- 
W. C. Curtis, Jr. 
Western Geophysical Co.		Domain address    billc@airgun.wg.waii.com
BOX 2469 Houston, Tx 77252  	UUNET address     uunet!airgun!billc
(713)963-2628  
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Colorado get Caller ID.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:42:27 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <1993Jan20.111851.17016@montagar.com>, davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
|> 	It isn't?  Okay, next time you go shopping, you might be stopped at the
|> door and be asked your drivers license and phone number.  It's their store,
|> they have that right.  Don't like it?  Don't shop there...

That's right.  Are you saying it should work differently?

|> 	But that would discourage customers by being obvious that way.  So
|> they would like to do it in non-obvious ways (credit cards, CLID...).  They
|> don't need my phone number, either outright or covertly.

They may decide they "need" it to run their business more effectively.  They're
just paying for information.  If they wanted, they could hire a PI to write down
your license plate number and go look up your address and phone number in the
public records.  If you don't like them doing that, then patronize businesses
that don't do that.

|> 	Because some people value their privacy, and are not willing to back
|> down on it just because you want them to.

If your privacy has "value" to you then why do you want a business to protect
it for you for free?  Do you have an unlisted phone number?  Is it worth an 
extra couple of bucks a month?

|> 	Because I could dial your number by accident, and not know what 
|> kind of loony you really are.  I don't know who I called, but you know who
|> I am.  Then you could *67 and try to harrass me at 3:00am.

Yep.  That's the risk you take when you sign up for phone service.  I can do
this NOW with Call Return.

|> 	Unless you pay $50 for a box, you don't know who I am anyway.  You are
|> paying for the "privilege" for knowing who (if they allow you) is calling.
|> Those that are blocking, you simply ignore.  If I *really* want to call you,
|> I will unblock.

First of all, you don't know if I have a box or not.  This acts as a deterrent.
Also I could get anonymous call rejection, even without the caller-ID service.
In other words, I wouldn't know what your phone number is, but I could block
you on the basis of whether you were *willing* to provide it or not.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tarred with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Sunbird a la 400ci)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:14:54 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1993Jan17.172507.26087@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
>Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
>Date: 17 Jan 93 17:25:07 GMT

>In article <exuptr.632.0@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan12.132911.6207@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>>The PERSON DRINKING ought to be responsible if they place themselves
>>>behind the wheel of a car.  
>>
>>>Hell, why not hold the auto manufacturer
>>>responsible (for providing the car), the highway department
>>>responsible (for providing the road), etc.?
>>
>>Because the presumption is that they did not see him leaving the bar drunk 
>>with his car keys in his hand.

>And just why is the presumption that the BARTENDER saw him do this?

Well if he didn't, then there is nothing he could've done.  That would just 
have to be taken into account.

>So far as
>I know, this 'presumption' you cite has nothing to do with the legal
>basis for holding bartenders or party givers responsible for people
>who get drunk at their party and then drive.  Do you have a legal
>citation otherwise?

You're so worried about legalities you'll never save anyone, Fred.

 -----------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS 214-596-2915, a Wildcat! BBS--------
 ObQuotes:
 "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand..."
 "Ignorance and prejudice, and fear go hand-in-hand..."

    Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:13:03 GMT
 <16Nis*yz1@caleb.UUCP> <1993Jan19.142931.16131@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1993Jan19.142931.16131@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> Because I prefer to wait until they DO it before I claim they've done

Clinton's intentions are clear from his statements and those of his appointees.
Since you are too slow to figure that out, you'll just have to wait until
enough of the neurons in your "brain" actually fire off so that you figure
it out.

> it, Jim.  It's called 'reality', as opposed to seeing things based on

Gee Fred.  You can use the word 'reality', when are you going to learn what
it means?

I'm tired of wasting time responding to the stupid things you make up about
me, so I think I'll just let you have the last word for now.



                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:23:59 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <1993Jan20.140715.1075@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <C128qn.127w@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>|> This fails to explain why the population of the country continues to
>>|> increase.
>>
>>Because the death rate has decreased even more than the birth rate.
>
>Sigh.

Sigh.

>
>No, because we have had very large amounts of immigration in this country.
>And every but the KKK agrees that immigrants work.

Raw birth rate in the United States is 15/1000.  Raw death rate is
9/1000.  So he is quite right.  The growth (6/1000) is due to the
death rate decreasing more than the birth rate.  The actual
population growth in the United States (8/1000) makes it pretty plain
that immigration is a relatively small factor of the population growth
(actually it amounts to about 25% of the growth, but the growth is
quite small) and that there would still be population growth due to
the death rate being significantly lower than the birth rate, whether
there was immigration or not.

-- 
"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)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The Biased Media
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:39:10 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <C15wGv.1qB4@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Remember Gary Hart?  Remember all the furor
>>during the primaries about Bill Clinton?  You can only play this kind
>>of stuff for so long, and the PEOPLE (remember them?) decided that
>>there wasn't enough to such allegations to lead them to choose George
>>Bush over Bill Clinton.
>
>The PEOPLE had plenty of "help" in making their decision from the
>media.  Once the primaries were over, the media chose their candidate,
>and they didn't let anything get in the way of their hardcore constant
>campaigning for him night and day.  In spite of their overwhelming push
>for Mr.  Clinton, he still only got 4 out of 10 votes.

Which was more than George Bush, the sitting President got.  So,
either you have to either understand that there was a third candidate
out there or you have to put forward the premise that George Bush got
TROUNCED, so what we saw must have been an absolute and total
repudiation of Conservatism in this country.

[Personally, I lean toward the "there were three people running"
theory to explain this.]

>
>And Dan Rather immediatly heralded a "landslide."

Yes, but Dan Rather has been an idiot ever since he breathed all that
Agent Orange in those bars in Saigon during the war.  ;-)

-- 
"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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Media Conspiracy [was Re: Rip Van Winkles (was Re: State Income Tax)]
Date: 23 Jan 93 07:12:05 GMT
 <C18416.9E9@sugar.neosoft.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <C18416.9E9@sugar.neosoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

> In article <035ks*GA1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >In article <C0x64E.1MEL@austin.ibm.com>, John Iacoletti writes:
> >
> >> C-Span and Rush Limbaugh.  In other words, the mainstream media.  His 
> >> complaint seems to be that not every newspaper and television anchor made
> >> it their top story.
> >
> >Rush is NOT mainstream.  Nor is he the "news."  C-Span is only available to
> >cable viewers.  Did ANYONE see it anywhere in the "mainstream" news channels?
> >
> >
> 	Actually, I'm glad you've at least admitted to this point that
> it is only ABC/CBS/NBC that you have a complaint about. Shucks, just
> days ago you'd seemingly painted this nasty media conspiracy theory
> from the paint-by-numbers provided by the ultra-right, idiot wing of
> the Republican party. You've shrunk that conspiracy considerably here,
> no?

You forgot to mention PBS, newspapers like the NY Times, mags like Time (which
actually admitted that it thought the news was too important to allow it to
be reported without their liberal bias.), etc.

So, what are you saying Joe?  That it is ok for the mainstream news media to
be biased since a few folks can watch CSPAN and/or Rush?  And that, therefore,
there is no media bias?  You are starting to sound as silly as a certain other
net.personality.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: State Income Tax
Date: 23 Jan 1993 20:55:57 -0600
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamsun.tamu.edu

In one article, <1V5ls*jC1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim
Pritchett) ranted:

>Ah yes, the ancient liberal tactic of calling anyone who is less liberal a
>fascist.  I didn't suggest changing the Constitution.  I didn't even
>suggest controlling the media.

A very short time later, in article <pV4ls*eC1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) foamed:

>That sounds like "Trickle Down Economics."  Reagan tried it.  It worked beyond
>anyone's expectations.  So the liberal media simply rewrote history using the
>time tested Goebbels technique.  (If you tell a big enough lie, loud enough,
>and long enough, people will start to believe it.)  When the next down

What's the problem Jim? Got Nazis on the brain?

Talk about a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black', eh?

-- 
#      Rick Russell | TAMU Meteorology | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu       # 
#     "Tomorrow! Tomorrow! I'll claw ya, tomorrow!                     #
#      It's only a litter box away!"               - Bill the Cat      #