HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: CHOICE: DEBATE BASED ON COMPETING PHILOSOPHIES
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:54:16 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Fred McCall writes in part, responding to me,

>>I must say that your motto,
>
>>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>
>
>>would have led me more to believe that you were pro-educational choice than
>not.  It's a good motto, whatever side you are on.

>Then I guess you don't quite understand the thrust of it.  Key on the
>word "perfect".

I'm keying, and I just guess you don't quite understand the thrust of it.

Cordially,
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:12:55 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Nov13.010330.15257@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>
>None of these thing are NECESSARY to be an excellent football player.  Some
>of them might make his life a little easier, but shouldn't that be HIS call
>to make?

	Shouldn't he be educated enough to know what he's choosing between?
Like, do you choose what I've got in my left hand, or that in my right?
Should I inform you what each contains, would your sense of choice be
_more_ fulfilled?

>What I propose is that it's up to them to decide what they do.  They're the
>ones who have to live with their choices.

	Make them play a shell game? Not fair. IMO.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:04:15 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Nov23.004106.1@deep-13.gizmo.com>, maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com writes:
> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
> [...]
> 
>> 	But the rhetoric is "not everyone is insured".  Well, so what?  Where
>> does it say that everyone must have insurance?  Hell, I've spend more in the
>> last year or two on insurance that I'd EVER would have spent on medical bills.
>> That includes dentist, optometrist, and even two trips to the emergency room
>> due to a couple of bike crashes.  Most of the time, I pay my insurance bill
>> and still have to pay medical bills, since I didn't spend enough to make the
>> deductible.
> 
> You've spent more on insurance in two years than you could have ever spent in
> medical bills? That is utterly absurd.  Two emergency room trips to have you
> checked out after bicycle accidents is small potatoes.  Imagine how much money
> you'd have spent if you had ... AIDS for example. Or maybe leukemia, or a brain
> tumor... or what if your neck had been broken in one of your bicycle wrecks.

	Okay, I really meant "have ever spent", but still does not mean that
everyone should be required to have insurance.  Even still, with my way of
life and medical history, there is still no reason to think that I would ever
have high medical bills.

	And imagine how much money I could save if I never have AIDS,
leukemia, brain tumors, broken necks...  Millions of people go through life
without suggering from expensive conditions.

	You must remember that the insurance is a gambling game.  You are
betting the insurance company that you are going to run up big medical bills.
The insurance company is betting that you won't if they charge you $xxx.
They are a business, set up to make a profit off winning more bets than
they lose.  I may not want to gamble with them, then again (since I do race
bikes!) maybe I do.

	Now we want to bring in the Fed to "fix" this.  What is broken?
How does it not work?  It is the problem, or is it really somewhere else?

	We need to examine what the actually problem we are trying to solve,
rather than worry about if everyone is "insured" or not.  That is not the real
issue, but a way of providing another entitlement program.

> regards.max
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 00:11:15 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:
: Then they've shown they don't have the discipline necessary to play
: the game at a professional level -- at which point they're going to
: need some of those classes that you want them to not have to take.

Somebody can be very disciplined in football but not in organic chemistry
for example, and vice versa.  It has to do with how much you value the subject.

: Only if the purpose of the public schools was to teach football.  It
: isn't. 

Says you.

--
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: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:27:38 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 <BxtqyH.GCp@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>Right.  And the key word is "originates".  Should we also conclude that
>the Senate is not responsible for the deficit because they can't originate
>spending bills?  Anyone who put their name on that bill (House, Senate and
>President) is responsbile.
 
The President, try as he might like, cannot "originate" any bill.  In a
corporation (more on this in a few lines ...), the president or CEO can
dictate to her underlings what she wants them to do, policy wise.

>If you tried to pull that sort of semantic bullshit in a business
>situation you'd be fired.  "Gee Boss, I didn't actually write that report,
>I just OK'd it". 

I think this is where you are going wrong.

The House of Representitives is not "the Board of Directors" or the
"National Policy Department" with the President as the "Chairman of
the Board" or "Department Head".  The President is the head of the
Executive branch of government.  He (or she, for when Jeanne Kirkpatrick
is elected ;-) does not have any authority for cramming a bill down the
Congress' throat.

The simple truth is that Pete Wilson is the first chief executive in
my lifetime that had the guts to stand up to his legislative branch.
Would it have been better if George Bush had down the same?  Yes.  But
I don't think that prior to Pete Wilson's hold-out that anyone really
thought of just saying "No" and meaning it.
-- 
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: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:30:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.173847.38222@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
>: No one complains that the chess club is pressuring children to play chess
>: because the members talk about how much fun chess is.  It is hypocritical
>: to complain that God-fearing children are pressuring others to believe in
>: God.
>
>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.

There's an idea....

   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
   business, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
   the freedom of the markets, or of the advertisers; or the right of
   the people peaceably to purchase, and to petition the merchant for
   a redress of grievances.

I _like_ it.


thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
I believe all human interactions should be based on mutual consent.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Bush starts unpatriotic trade war.
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:29:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.140405.17957@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In other words, it doesn't matter whether we are playing by the
> 'rules' and they aren't or not.  We shouldn't do or say anything about
> the fact that they aren't.  Sure; makes sense to me.  NOT!
 
I'm saying it's simply the pot calling the kettle black.  We called France
on some of their more outrageous barriers to trade; we also have some
extreme tarrifs on products like sugar and peanuts.
 
> No, but mercantilism implies that your economic system is capitalism
> (mercantilism not being an economic system itself). 
 
No, mercantilism is an economic system.  It's closer to capitalism than
communism, but it's not capitalism.  Didn't you read the definition I
quoted?  It said, in part, "operated...under fully competitive
conditions".  Mercantilism doesn't have any semblance of fully competitive
conditions.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: TEXAS SCHOOL FINANCE: GRAPPLING WITH FAIR SHARE PLAN
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:46:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.144424.19253@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> So let the rich kids do without some of their frills so that the poor
> kids can get stuff to improve their learning envirnoment.  By the way,
> the preceding make a great case AGAINST school choice, since it
> basically says that choice can't help the poor anyway, because they
> will fail no matter what you do.  I don't buy that, but it sure seems
> to be implicit in Doug's argument.  Yes, the "sociology of the school
> and the surrounding community" matters.  So let's move some money and
> improve the "sociology of the school".
 
You're putting words in my mouth.  No one said they would "fail no matter
what you do."  I simply pointed out that pouring money into a poor school
district is not going to magically give you the same results you get in
suburban schools.
 
The amount of money spent on public education has been steadily climbing
for the last 20 years and the test scores have been steadily declining.  I
agree that we should set a minimum standard of funding below which we will
not allow a school district to fall.  But the fact that you think spending
more money is going to change the sociology shows you haven't learned any
lessons from the "Great Society" programs of the late 60s and early 70s.
 
> Sorry, but I don't see how equalizing funding based on the standard
> mil levy takes away local control.  A district is ALWAYS allowed to
> increase their local mil levy if they want to spend more.  And
> frankly, if the rich white breads want to 'flee' the public school
> simply because some poor kid is being given an equal chance, then good
> riddance to them.  They'll still be paying the taxes (unless they get
> some sort of racist school choice law through), so why is their
> 'flight' a problem?
 
Again, that shows you don't understand the situation.  You think that as
long as we have plenty of money the schools will be ok.  Why is it that
the more money we've spent on schools the worse they've gotten?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:03:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Nov19.164721.37405@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
>: 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.
>
>Allowing religious groups to meet on school property is a support of religion.

No, it's not.

If the administration mandates a religious activity, THAT is support (in
the form of active promotion, which is how JFHII was using the word).

If the administration forbids a religious activity, THAT is opposition.

If the administration neither mandates nor forbids a religious activity, THAT
is neutrality.

Allowing religious groups to meet on school property is not an ACTIVE form
of support.

>"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system
> of government"

_I_ wouldn't vote for it  :-) .
--
Griff Miller - miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com - use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:57:48 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 <7868@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <Bxo977.3C3@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>	Are you saying that one could _not_ believe in the existence
>>of the Christian God, for example, without denying He exists?
>
>That is exactly my position: I do not believe that there is a God, in any of
>the molds that the various religions espouse. I recognize, however, that the
>possibility exists. I simply do not have enough evidence to form an opinion
>one way or the other.

If you "do not believe that there is a God", you've formed an opinion.  To
be an agnostic, you must believe that you don't know, one way or another.
As it is, you "do not believe that there is a God".  That makes you an
atheist.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE IN INDIANAPOLIS
Date: 15 Nov 92 03:57:47 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

*10  PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE:  INDIANAPOLIS PROGRAM HAS APPEAL
     Golden Rule Insurance Co. in Indianapolis has started a
scholarship program that allows children from middle- and low-
income families to attend private schools of their choice
(AMERICA 2000 Conference Call; See DRC 8/2/91).  The program, in
it's second year, was created to help students obtain learning
fundamentals needed in the work force.
     Golden Rule Pres. J. Patrick Rooney:  "We were concerned
about the low quality of job applicants that we got ... You know,
if they go to work for us, we teach them everything they need to
know about the insurance business, but they need to be able to
read.  They need to be able to have basic mathematical skills.
They ought to be able to add six and eight and get the right
answer."
     Students must qualify for the federally subsidized lunch
program to be eligible for the voucher program (See DRC 10/21,
#6).  Those students who qualify can attend any private school in
the Indianapolis area that participates in the program.  Golden
Rule covers up to half of $1,600 for tuition.  Parents are
responsible for the other half, according to Rooney.
     Rooney said, "It's obvious that the parents are very pleased
about [the program].  Parents contend their children are safer in
private schools and are better disciplined."
     Tim Ehrgott, exec. director of Golden Rules' Education
Choice Charitable Trust said the appeal of the program is
simplicity.  "I think it appeals to a lot of people because it's
action, it's not a study, not theoretical; it's real-live people
participating; it's families being helped; it's schools that are
involved." (11/12)
     For more information on Golden Rule's Education Choice
Charitable Trust, contact Tim Ehrgott at (317) 293-7600.


-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:00:44 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <BxMHoA.GLK@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.142955.625@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Why would this come as a surprise?  Even with all that, we have fewer
>> barriers to entry into our markets than most developed countries.
> 
>Says who?  We're not as bad as some countries, but we're pretty bad.
> 
>> This one was more politically motivated than anything else, wasn't it?
>> I mean, given that the bulk of the sugar on the world market was
>> coming from Cuba, etc., and we wanted to try and do something with
>> Hawaii?  I can try to look it up in my baby library here, if someone
>> doesn't know.
>> 
>> However, once again, let's keep some perspective here.  Even given all
>> that, we still have fewer supports and barriers to entry than almost
> 
>I think Cuba has lost a lot of the sugar market.  That doesn't explain the
>very high barriers in many areas like textiles and steel.   The US
>government needs to get out of the business of protecting poorly run US
>businesses at the expense of US consumers and competent companies.

Hell, I'll even agree with you, but in a lot of cases that simply
isn't what we're talking about.  We're talking about predatory
practices by foreign competitors who are provided an edge BY THEIR
GOVERNMENTS.  If their government is in the picture, ours should be,
too. 

[I think the sugar stuff is silly, but, oddly enough, we still seem to
manage just fine, don't we?]

-- 
"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.
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: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:40:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.163134.23225@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>Tom Kimball (tom@europa.lonestar.org) wrote:
>: I'll grant you that I was exaggerating on this.  But I have a serious fear
>: that a Libertarian President would not safeguard the national security, in a 
>: way that goes far beyond my concerns that a Republican or Democrat could weaken 
>: the national security.  This one thing is enough to ensure that a Libertarian
>: candidate will never get my vote for President or Congress unless they make 
>: important changes in their platform.
>
>Have you ever even READ the Libertarian platform?  Allow me to quote from the
>1992 platform:

Not the 1992 platform.  Mail me a copy if you have one handy.


>"Any U.S. military  policy  should  have  the  objective  of  providing
>security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in
>the U.S. against  the  risk  of  attack  by  a  foreign  power."
>
>Now tell me again why you think a Libertarian president would not safeguard
>national security.


A Libertarian would make massive defense cuts, withdrawal all our military
forces from foreign bases, and would not use any military force outside U.S. 
territory.  The realities of today are that at least 6 countries have the
capability now to destroy our major cities in about 30 minutes time.  In the
future there could be many more than that.  In such a situation a simple army
to protect US soil that may have worked in the past won't do the job today.
In a unipolar world where we are the pole, that would not be in our or the
world's best interest.  We need an aggressive defense in the nuclear era, 
not a simplistic one.

One of the key parts of this is our network of mutual defense alliances 
built up over time with other democracies.  In the long term the only defense 
we have against nuclear attack is too defend existing democratic countries in 
the world and to assist other nations to become democratic, on the theory that 
a democracy will not initate a nuclear war.  

Now that we are in a New World Order I think we should work with the U.N. 
and other organizations to set up a global collective security system,
because such a system is now feasable for the first time in history.
That system might work like this:  The EEC could send an occupation force 
into Serbia.  The OAU could occupy Somalia.  The OAS could occupy Haiti.
Each continent could police its own area to prevent disasters.  Important
or special jobs might require a multi-continental force.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:04:02 GMT

In article <LFT8TB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>> From "America" magazine, Apr. 28, 1990
>> 	The Equal Access Act "evolved" from a Supreme Court decision, 1981,
>> Widmar v. Vincent, in which the Court held that the Univ. of Missouri @ K.C.
>> couldn't deny a religious group the same access it granted to over 100
>> secular groups.
>
>Joe, you posted this as a rebuttal to Haugh's contention that there is
>discrimination against religion in public schools.  You are correct in
>pointing out that, on paper, the gov't is behind free voluntary
>expression of religious faith, given the circumstances you enumerate
>(which I've elided for brevity).  However, compliance with this law has
>been very grudging.

	True. We look at the mistakes of Christianity, and we must learn
not to force the opposing opinion into submission. Things never seem
to stay in the middle, they swing pendulum-like. I'll agree that
the movement to guard against overbearing Christianity may be
becoming the current over-bearer. That is, the ACLU. They mean well.
I think they go too far. Sorta reminds me of the movie "Extremities".
Ever see that? The dogged becomes the dogger. Rings of "Animal Farm"
a bit, too. And probably lots of other literature. (-:

>  The good news, of course,
>is that the courts are deciding the cases rightly (i.e., supporting the
>law), and students are slowly being able to once again exercise their
>personal religious rights (at least to some extent).

	And I hope that continues.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2