HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: State Income Tax
Date: 23 Jan 93 06:12:09 GMT
 <1993Jan18.134311.6670@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <1993Jan19.232339.17006@montagar.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1993Jan19.232339.17006@montagar.com>, David L. Cathey writes:

> 	Hell, cut out the middle man (the Fed), and let the rich spend, spend,
> spend on products that workers like us provide and put wages into our pockets.
> Joe Employee is more likely to see a cut from a dollar spent on a yacht, than
> from the luxury tax that was placed upon it.

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
cycle came, the media told everyone that it was caused by Reaganomics.  Many
people still believe that nonsense.  (Just wait until they start flaming me
for typing this...)


> 
> 	Something like a "Free Enterprise" system could probably work.

It does - if government stays out of the way.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
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 00:10:23 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 <C12Jwr.1Ky7@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1993Jan16.161009.16481@rpp386>, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>|> The last time I looked this one up it was about an even split.  The drunks
>|> kill about as many as the non-drunks.

>No.  In 1990, there were 46,300 motor vehicle fatalities.  In about 22,083 of
>these, there was an intoxicated or alcohol-impaired (not legally intoxicated)
>driver OR non-occupant.  

Considering that quite a bit LESS than half of the persons on the road at 
any given time are drunk, don't you think it's odd that such a high 
proportion of them find their way into an auto accident?

Anyway, John's right.  He said it was ABOUT an even split.  22,083/46,300
is what, 47.6%.

>It turns out that if anyone dies, it's almost 
>always the intoxicated driver.  

This is a plain falsehood.  Most often the fatalities are not the intox 
driver.  I have heard this from local cops as well as national stats.  The 
word is that drunk drivers tend to put on their seat belt more often, since 
they sense the risk.

>a collision with a vehicle with an intoxicated driver, where the intoxication
>was the primary contributing factor of the accident.  I suspect we'll never
>see this number, because it doesn't fit in with the temperance agenda.

Plano keeps the statistics separate and will give you any breakdown you 
want.  Call them up.

 -----------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"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Media Conspiracy [was Re: Rip Van Winkles (was Re: State Income Tax)]
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:36:40 GMT

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?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"He used to be my boss, and now he's a puppet dancer"- Bowie (David)
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: State Income Tax
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:51:31 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <C1F3Jz.ppK@austin.ibm.com> moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.172836.16481@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> >	Something like a "Free Enterprise" system could probably work.
>> 
>> Well, unfortunately for that plan, the rich can only 'consume' so many
>> products, and it's not enough to keep everyone in jobs that pay a
>> living wage.  See "Industrial Revolution, Abuses During".

>See also "Welfare System, Abuses Of."

Quite right, which is why I also think that that system needs to be
totally reworked.  But you don't fix it by going back to the old days
of Industrial Feudalism.  After all, history shows what the results of
that are.

-- 
"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: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: State Income Tax
Date: 24 Jan 1993 03:15:23 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: tramp.cc.utexas.edu
Originator: mccoy@tramp.cc.utexas.edu


In article <pV4ls*eC1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.232339.17006@montagar.com>, David L. Cathey writes:
> 
> > 	Hell, cut out the middle man (the Fed), and let the rich spend, spend,
> > spend on products that workers like us provide and put wages into our
> > pockets.  Joe Employee is more likely to see a cut from a dollar spent
> > on a yacht, than from the luxury tax that was placed upon it.
> 
> 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 cycle came, the media told everyone that it was caused
> by Reaganomics.  Many people still believe that nonsense.  (Just wait until
> they start flaming me for typing this...)

You have a serious problem with reality.  A serious problem.  It is
impossible to argue this point because it seems that you are so wrapped up
in your own little fantasy world that no amount of reason will do any good.
Anything that is said or proven to refute the beliefs that you cling too
will be rejected as propoganda, lies, and misinterpretation (BTW, nice
touch there calling it the "Goebbels technique", adds the right amount of
foaming-at-the-mouth indignation with a cheap tie in to the Nazi party.
Cute.)  How exactly is it that trickle down economics worked (we'll skip
the "beyond anyone's expectations" bullshit as just a little creative
license on your part) and why is it that during the past 12 years the rich
got richer and the poor descended deeper into poverty?  This is a fact.
Interpret it as you will, but how does it fit into the little fantasy world
you have woven? 

> > 	Something like a "Free Enterprise" system could probably work.
> 
> It does - if government stays out of the way.

How would you know?  There has never been a "Free Enterprise" system on the
face of this planet in it's entire history.  Perhaps you are confusing
private enterprise with free enterprise.  Well, no one seems to be able to
prove anything either way on both systems, but my guess is that neither of
them work as advertised....

Get a grip on reality pal.

jim
-- 
Jim McCoy                |  PGP 2.0 Key md5 hash:
mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  61323c49024cb089337c78a05aafe8c6
j-mccoy@nwu.edu          |  finger mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu for public key


Xref: sparky tx.politics:8568 talk.politics.misc:70274
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity  (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:39:40 GMT
Followup-To: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <C1BzH3.D6K@sdf.lonestar.org>, amn@sdf.lonestar.org (Andrew Noble) writes:
|>   Imagine being assigned where to shop.  Your dollars are only good at Sears.
|>   You must shop there for it is closest to your home and we can't have
|>   everyone going to Penny's now can we.  If Sears was to close, where would 
|>   all of the Sears shoppers go?

Yes, but consider that the government is not held responsible to ensure that
everybody has a minimum level of shopping.  Consider that you are not 
required BY LAW to attend a department store if you are under 17.  Consider
that the government does not tax property in order to provide everyone with
a place to shop.

--
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?"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Rip Van Winkles (was Re: State Income Tax)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:16:10 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <1jkhafINNctg@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy) writes:
|> It hasn't.  His book has been #1 on the NYT list for less than 6 months.
|> His television show is not the third highest rated show.  The late-night
|> ratings are: Tonight Show, David Letterman, Nightline, Arsineo Hall.
|> Nightline and Arsineo Hall trade around a little, but #1 and #2 are
|> Letterman and the Tonight Show.

Source?  He showed the numbers on his TV show about a week ago, and he had 
over a 6 share.  I'm sure the numbers fluctuate from week to week.  Perhaps
your numbers are an average over the entire last year or something.  The
TV show hasn't been on the air all that long.

|> Late night ratings are a whole different ball game than regular ratings.  For
|> example, I think that the Tonight Show has a 5.4 and Letterman a 5.3
|> rating; during prime time these numbers would put a show in jeopardy of
|> getting cancelled.

Yes, but evening news shows get similar ratings.  Most people prefer to watch 
Wheel of Fortune or Cosby reruns.

|> While I would guess that Mr. Limbaugh gets ratings that
|> are probably similar to the evening news shows, I doubt that he tops
|> Rather/Brokaw/Jennings individually in TV ratings and there is little
|> chance for him to top them in combination simply due to his lack of access
|> to the prime time slots.

But remember: Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw don't have 18 million people 
listening to them on the radio every day either.

--
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: landy@austin.ibm.com (Landy Ligon)
Subject: Re: Texas $3.2 Billion Budget short fall
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:04:39 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM PSP, Austin
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Dewey Coffman (dewey@sooner.ctci.com) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan16.135221.16021@sooner.ctci.com> dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
: >======================================================================
: >New Information:
: >----------------
: >#6 Glen Maxey, D-Austin, the only openly Gay member of the House, has said
: >he supports a tax increase to continue funding this [AAS, Jan 16, page A13].
: >House leadership has vowed to write a two-year budget without a tax increase.
: >Estimated cost for this program from information in the aricle, $100 *
: >each patient(3000) == $300,000,  * 12 months == $3,600,000
: >Maxey explains that this saves money because one stay in the hospital for
: >each of these patients for pneumocystis pneumonia is ~8500 * 3000 or is it
: >7800? Sounds like a good investment.....but, bottom line, is we're (you
: > [stuff deleted]
: 
: 	Their claim was that if the state drops the support of the medication,
: 	the cost of treating the dying patients in community hospitals will
: 	be more expensive and fall on local communities. This to me sounds
: 	like Austin is going to get burdened with some extra cost of the
: 	state budget cutting. (cause of the large gay community here)
: 
So are they saying that if we go ahead and spend the money for the medication
then we don't have to spend any more money on them because:
1. they will never die?
2. when they die they won't go to a community hospital?
3. when they die they will have been able to work and save up enough money
   that they'll be able to pay for whatever treatment they need when they are
   dying?

I'm also a bit confused about the 3.6 mil figure.  Why just 12 months?
--
Landy Ligon
DISCLAIMER: The content of this posting is independent of official IBM position.
Internet: landy@austin.ibm.com 	VNET: LANDY at AUSTIN
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The Media (was Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:50:11 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1993Jan27.142731.12645@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>So just what do you think he WAS saying?  Hell, I don't care if he's a
>Christian or a Druid, but when he starts telling me that HE knows the
>truth about everything because of his religion and that makes him
>automatically right, what do YOU call it?

IMHO:

He was saying that he strives for the most effective use of his talents.
Anybody can do that, as he also implies. 

He didn't say that he's automatically right, he said that when he
makes a mistake he will come to recognize it as such. He implies that
anyone can do this, too.

Of course, he worded it in a way that would glorify God rather than himself.
I daresay you objected to this rather than what he actually said. It didn't 
seem like you'd read what he said very closely. *This* is what bugged me. 

Hope this helps, not hinders.
--
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: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:56:24 GMT
Reply-To: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical Research & Development
NNTP-Posting-Host: rd08.wg2.waii.com

Fred keeps claiming that Clinton has not broken any promises.  He promised
the Haitians that he would end the Bush policy of returning them directly
to Haiti when picked up in boats.  The Haitians heard this, and immediately
started building lots of boats.  Right before inauguration, Clinton broke
his promise and decided to continue with the Bush policy.

Fred, this fact was well documented in the press.  An overview of this
broken promise and some other issues Billy Jeff had to backpeddle on
appeared in the NY Times Op-Ed section on Sunday, Jan. 17.  The title
was something like "When You Are President, People Listen to What You
Say".

-- 
The above are my own opinions and mine alone.

*****************************************************************************
Dr. Michael Reed,
Western Geophysical, Research and Development Group
reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
(713) 964-6322                     FAX: (713) 964-6372
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: The Biased Media
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:27:18 GMT

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:
>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.

That's right.  Have we forgotten how, on November 3rd the media started
talking about how great the economy was?

>And Dan Rather immediatly heralded a "landslide."
>
>If I ever again hear anyone in the media laud their own pristine
>objectivity, I think I'll wretch on the spot.

Just keep reminding people that three times as many journalists, by their
own admission, are Democrats, as are Republicans.

And if =I= ever hear "inclusion" ever again, I'll blow chunks.  The only
group which significantly votes for Democrats over Republicans is blacks.
Ninety percent of blacks vote Democratic.  Is it a wonder that Republicans
are view as "not doing enough" for Democrats?  Blacks aren't their
constituents!
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org

The DDT ban has killed more Africans than the AIDS epidemic.  Legalize DDT now.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Lt. Gov Bob Bullock remarks..
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:17:33 GMT


In article <8508@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.135746.3374@sooner.ctci.com> dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
>>   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."
>
>So where are all the liberals who scream bloody murder when a conservative
>makes a similar comment? Bullock should receive the same treatment, but
>outside of the token complaint by the one feminist, I'd be willing to bet the
>whole issue will get swept under the rug.

Surely if _Zaffirini_ didn't raise an objection, _we_ have no right
to... unless you feel the little woman needs to be protected.



thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
By my belief that government should be minimized, I swear to oppose
the unrequested intrusion of government into the lives of individuals
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:50:20 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1993Jan21.153153.3737@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>If prohibition was a FAILURE (your shouting upper case) that increased
>consumption of alcohol, then how do you explain the even higher rates
>of consumption and alcoholism today, now that it is freely available?

Hmmm, could it be because there are _more_ people?  Anyway, I was
reading somewhere that in the last 10 year or so, consumption of beer
and wines has gone up while consumption of hard liquor has gone down.
So it could be that people are drinking more beer and wine which is
raising the numbers.

But anyway, Gerry, what do you care what people drink?  Assuming that
you don't have to deal with the after effects of other people's
drinking (drunk driving, carpet stains, etc...) what is your
objection?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:34:53 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <C19oH8.1481@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>You can count this promise broken if the deficit is not half of what it is
>today on January 20, 1997.  Not until then.

"Hi, John. I'm pointing a gun at you. Now, since I *promised* not to shoot
you, there's no reason to worry, is there?"

While I agree that it's silly to predict that Clinton will fail/swindle/cheat
before the fact, I can't fault anyone upset at a person who has stated
that they are going back on their word.
--
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 
Xref: sparky tx.politics:8564 talk.politics.misc:70175
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:14:11 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1993Jan26.225857.21673@raid.dell.com>, mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:
> 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!

	Agreed.  However, I feel that Perot could be trusted to do what
he said.  However, I'm just not sure I like how much control he was going
to try to wield from the Executive Branch.  This "Ross for Boss" sounded a
little too much like we where voting for a dictator...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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