HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martinn@mksol.dseg.ti.com (niels r martin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:57:06 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <mPVPTB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>Well, Clinton has won.  Time to move more of my salary into the 401k;
>hopefully, after Clinton gets in and raises my taxes (as he surely
>will), I'll end up paying no more than I currently do.
>
>Chris

Here at Texas Instruments, being a part of the defense industry, virtually 
everyone is busy preparing their resumes--we'll need them with Slick Willie
in the White House.

-How long until there will be a woman in the White House?


---About 5 minutes after Hillary leaves to visit Mom and Dad.


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Niels Martin			   |                      
martinn@mksol.dseg.ti.com	   | Quos deus vult perdere prius dementat!
My opinions don't represent	   |
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: ... isn't worth a damn in this town.
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:56:57 GMT
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.

In article <1992Nov9.052055.16871@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
...
|> 
|> But it's all a moot point now anyway since Pickle won with 69% of
|> the vote.  Power of incumbency.  Free mailings.  Name recognition.
|> It's a damn tough combo to beat.  Certainly a genuine interest in 
|> solving our nations problems isn't worth a damn in this town.
|> 
	So much for Think Globally, act locally? ;-)

	Many were upset that Jake "Entitlement" Pickle got re-elected. But
	it's over and he's there for a couple more years. So why not work
	with him or start a campaign to work with him or oust him. Hopefully,
	this election got people interested in working on the problems, not
	just complaining about them.(present company excluded)

---
Dewey Coffman		ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey%ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com
Consulting @ IBM			sooner!dewey
11400 Burnet Rd				All opinions are mine.
Austin, TX 78758-3493, USA		(512) 823-6463
===============================================================================
	"I do hope that you rot in Hell"   -The Christian JFH II
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:38:38 GMT

In article <Bx8D8n.xr@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>Ok.  Now that the elections are over, perhaps one (or more) of the 
>proponents of term limitations could explain this to me.  The term limits
>were very popular and won in a number of areas.
> 
>Yet, incumbents still won in incredible numbers.  If you take out the
>strange cases (re-districting and incumbents in bad shape like the one who
>spend the campaign in a hospital with heart problems) an incredible
>percentage of incubments, perhaps 85% or 90%, won.
> 
>This seems to be a case of "do what I say, not what I do".  I can think
>of a couple of explanations, but none of them quite do the job.  
>-- 
>Doug Andersen
>hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com

"Throw the bums out!!.... but not MY bum!"

Term limit legislation is a gimmick designed to remove a few, specific
congressmen that have (perhaps rightfully so) made a lot of enemies.
The people in their districts have an oportunity to "limit their terms" on
a regular basis and they choose not to.  Term limits simply aren't
needed.  The people in a given state have the right to elect who they
see fit to be their representative, other states should not have the
right to impose restrictions on this process.

Fight for real ethics reform, not gimmicks.  Shame on you George Will.
-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:22:21 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov11.210046.4293@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:

>Clinton was elected on the claim, (among others,) that 

You know, I've heard more people during (and after) this election
trying to explain to me just what Clinton 'meant' by some bit of
campaign rhetoric.  Doesn't it sink in that this kind of negative
distortion (and yes, it is distortion, even if you are quoting what he
said, because it is taken out of context and immediately followed up
with the usual long dissertation on 'what he really said'; you know,
sort of like what the Press used to do after every speech by President
Reagan. 

I didn't buy it when they did it, either.



-- 
"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: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: People Are Nice
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 23:54:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.141628.24945@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <k3uwTB2w165w@tworaven.lonestar.org> bchan@tworaven.lonestar.org (bchan) writes:
>
>>I don't care what anybody says. People are basically GOOD. How'd'ye like 
>>THEM apples, Ayn Rand groupies? That's right, I'm sitting here claiming 
>>that, left to themselves and well-fed, most humans are an amiable enough 
>>lot, content to do their thing and enjoy life in peace and happiness.
>
>If that were true, then I would not be nearly so leery of libertarian
>economic and social philsophy.  However, several thousand years of
>recorded history would seem to indicate that you are wrong.  
>
Well, if people _aren't_ as bchan describes, we've got to be extra
careful of letting them get into positions of power over us.  Two
hundred years of Democracy seems to indicate that those who have
come to be in power are more interested in the good of the few
than the good of the many.

And thanks for posting some of what you believe in this post, 
Fred -- I'm starting to think that I actually understand where
you are coming from.


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: Abstinence from Sex Education?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:19:34 GMT

In article <1620@airgun.wg.waii.com>, miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
> You say that like it's a bad thing :-). Seriously, these Republicans want to 
> teach abstinence as the first line of defense, not as the only form of
> defense. 
 
I don't think that's quite right.  I've never heard anyone, even the most
ardent sex education proponent, say that abstinence shouldn't be brought
up and encouraged.  On the other hand, many of the major groups (and
people) opposing sex education have made it clear that abstinence is the
only acceptable sex education message.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: CHOICE: DEBATE BASED ON COMPETING PHILOSOPHIES
Date: 5 Nov 1992 12:05:33 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov5.030946.16602@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
[in response to my contention that vouchers would help poor as well as
better-off families]
>This doesn't work, for reasons we've gone over and over in this group.
>Is there really any point in going over them again?

Not unless you can make better arguments than you did last time. The poor
would make a good market, but you simply reuse to recognize that.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:43:22 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 <1992Nov9.062220.6644@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>"Only the little people pay taxes".  Where have we heard that one before?  

Ah, now the straw man.

You know, it isn't the fact that I pay taxes that pisses me off, but rather
that I pay so damned much in taxes.  Including property, sales, federal
income, and social security, we will pay about $50,000 in taxes next year.

>Thank you, George Bush and Ronald Reagan, for getting us into deep deep voodoo.

Please, George Bush and Ronald Reagan aren't the ones that have invented
entitlement program after entitlement program.  Had Social Security been
run like a private business instead of a source of Democratic Party votes,
the reforms in Social Security which are only now occuring (now that the
tax rate is 7.55% for workers and over 15% for the self-employed ...)
would have been made at the start of the Reagan administration.  The same
is true for FSLIC, FDIC, DoEd, and so on.  Because House members are
re-elected every 2 years and because their districts cover smaller numbers
of voters, they must demonstrate incredible pork producing skills.

And, like it or not, =all= spending bills originate in the House ...

>There is no way he could tripple the average budget deficit in 4 years like 
>the Republicans did.  I remember the Republicans rightly criticizing those 
>horrible $50 billion deficits of the Carter years.

That's OK since neither Reagan nor Bush did that.  Bush's last (and worst)
deficit was $292B.  Except that Bush didn't have a "deficit".  Because -

Like it or not, =all= borrowing, spending, and taxing originates in the
House.

Which party has been the majority in the House of Representatives since
Harry Truman?

Which party is soon to be in the White House?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: People Are Nice
Date: 11 Nov 1992 03:41:03 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <BAB.92Nov10154547@se39.wg2.waii.com> bab@se39.wg2.waii.com (Brian Button) writes:
>   Bob> "Oh, but there ain't no free lunch", they'll tell you.
>   Bob> Bullshit.  That's a quote from a bad science-fiction novel,
>I disagree with this statement right off the bat. I rather enjoyed
>Nivens's "Tales of Known Space" series :)

I did, too, but I think it appeared in Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress_ first... and I, too, disagree with Bob: that may well be one of
Heinlein's best, and certainly one of the least appreciated.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:49:21 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Nov3.190257.2617@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1596@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>
>>But that's not the same as it being _allowed_. The student would still be
>>breaking the rules. 
>
>WHAT rules?  There are schools that have rules about 'thought crimes',
>now? 

Whoa! That's not the tack I was taking. I was merely taking issue with the
idea that breaking a difficult-to-enforce rule is okay, and that a
difficult-to-enforce rule is inconsequential.
--
Griff Miller - miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com
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: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:24:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.144030.28561@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> The problem is that incumbants have an INCREDIBLE advantage in most
> cases; in name recognition if nothing else.  People obviously thought
 
How is name recognition an advantage if people want to get rid of
incumbents?  If people can easily figure out who the incumbent is, they
should have no problem throwing them out of office.  I think this is one
of those things that people like in theory, but not in practice.  Kind of
like deficit reduction.
 
> that term limits on the Presidency were a good thing.  Why not impose
> them elsewhere, as well?  When this country was started, Congress
> wasn't pictured as being a nest for professional politicians.  Give
> them a maximum of two and a half terms in EACH job -- Assuming they
> get all the way to the Presidency, this gives them 32 years in
> government service (4+12+8+8).  That's more than long enough.  If we
> forced turnover, perhaps Congress would be a bit more in touch with
> reality. 
 
Again, the whole point is that people already have an option to get rid of
career politicians.  And almost across-the-board they've re-elected these
incumbents.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gore's environmental ideas
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:25:44 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <4720@d75.UUCP> curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072) writes:

>>What scares me about Senator Gore is his consistent leaning in the
>>direction of regulation (i.e. fleet eff. standards) over market based
>>incentives (i.e. a carbon tax).  The Republicans usually lean toward
>>the latter approach.  Gore's approach is much more damaging to the
>>economy and much less effective at accomplishing its objectives.
>>That's not just my opinion, it is a fact as proven as any in the
>>science of economics .  Ask any economist.

>If  Gore's approach was as you portray it, I would quite agree.
>However, in the interests of correct information, Senator Gore has
>spoken in favor of just such a carbon tax in SEVERAL nationally

Right, ok.
He's for EVERY TAX AND REGULATION EVER CONSIDERED.
He's for Carbon Taxes.
He's for CAFE standards.

He's for every fucking thing.

What will he really shoot for?  

CAFE standards will be easier to get through Congress so he'll go for
them.  Time will Tell.


-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: What, Me Vote?
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:37:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Nov03.164255.2557@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> 
>And how to you reduce the behavior?  You educate people.  Yet, the
>Republicans have fought sex education (even for adults!) every step of the
>way.

I think many Republicans do want to educate people on this matter. However,
the curriculum is abstinence, not condoms. Many people don't want to even
consider abstinence, so they cry out "see, the Republicans don't care."
 
If I'm not mistaken, abstinence is what Jim meant by reducing the behavior.

>Are you that out of touch?  The number of "hate crimes" (crimes based
>on a person's race, religion, sexual orientation, etc) has skyrocketed in
>recent years.  I don't think the President can do much, but the President
>CAN set a tone of intolerance, something Bush has never strived to do.
 
Actually, Mr. Bush was pretty intolerant of the LA riots when he addressed
the country about them.
--
Griff Miller - miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com
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 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: TEXAS SCHOOL FINANCE: GRAPPLING WITH FAIR SHARE PLAN
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:18:39 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov10.194623.17602@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:


>                              
>HIGH NOON                     
>  The Texas Legislature       
>convenes a special session    
>today to decide the fate of a 
>controversial school finance  
>plan. (#9)                    
>                              

I've always found the line of argument of some of the people who
oppose this sort of thing rather amusing.  The typical discussion I've
seen runs like this.  First they will tell you that it's not
necessary, because money doesn't adversely affect the quality of the
education received by those who have the misfortune to live in the
poor districts.  Given that premise, they then go on to assert that
there's obviously no need to take money from their district and send
it somewhere else.  If pressed, they will revert to saying that the
money belongs to their district and that if the State takes it they
will have to have these huge tax increases, etc., to make up for it.

Now, the question.  *IF*, as they say, the poor districts get the same
quality of education as the wealthy ones and money is irrelevant, WHY
WOULD THEY HAVE TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE?  They will then get
belligerent, of course, because they don't have a good answer that
doesn't invalidate at least one of their premises.

So, I'm curious.  For people who oppose such a plan, just how do they
propose to give the same educational opportunities to the student in a
poor district as are available to one in a wealthy district?  Note
that moving to the wealthy district is generally not an available
option. 

-- 
"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: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Term Limits
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:41:07 GMT

Ok.  Now that the elections are over, perhaps one (or more) of the 
proponents of term limitations could explain this to me.  The term limits
were very popular and won in a number of areas.
 
Yet, incumbents still won in incredible numbers.  If you take out the
strange cases (re-districting and incumbents in bad shape like the one who
spend the campaign in a hospital with heart problems) an incredible
percentage of incubments, perhaps 85% or 90%, won.
 
This seems to be a case of "do what I say, not what I do".  I can think
of a couple of explanations, but none of them quite do the job.  
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Term Limits: We need them NOW
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:45:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.143742.11705@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.aus
> With term limits, all this would change.  Without lifetime carreers to
> protect and preserve, congressmen would be free to debate and discuss
> rather than to just pander to special interest PACs.  Leaders would
> lead; budgets would be balanced; institutional respect restored.
 
You're dreaming.  We'll only get those things when the American public
starts to understand that there are REAL costs associated with the things
they get from government.  Public schools are not "free", we can't get
"free" health care simply by getting the government involved, and the new
23 lane highway your city built with federal funds was not "free".
 
Politicians aren't inherently evil (I can't believe I'm saying that), they
respond to punishments and rewards just like everyone else.  And the
electorate has made it clear that you get rewarded for bringing home the
pork.
 
The charge is often made that Congress isn't responsive to the public. 
Nonsense.  Look at what the American public wants.  Lower taxes and higher
spending.  Cut my taxes, but get the government involved in health care. 
Don't means test my SS benefits, and by the way, we need to spend more
money on education.  What the American public wants CAN'T BE DONE.  
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:48:36 GMT
Reply-To: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical Research & Development

In article <21835@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> 
|> Grant, scholarship, financial aid - who knows.  I was 16 at the time.
|> That would be about 15 years ago (13 if you believe I'm still 29 ;-)
|> 
|> The offer was $5,000 for 2 years, with two more years of the same if
|> some collection of circumstances were met.  I would have had to stay
|> on campus (or something like that) and after I figured out the cost
|> would be a total of >$10,000 per year, I passed on it.
|> 
|> I've had this discussion with someone else and the conclusion was I
|> don't have the slightest idea what the hell it was.  But MIT =did=
|> make "financial aid" available in 1979.
|> 

MIT makes available need-based financial aid for those who can not pay
their own way.  (Sort of like academic welfare.)  Scholarships are
merit based.

|> Since the reports from others of bans on prayer in school are plentiful,
|> it would seem that Michael is arguing out of his ass.
|>

The reports from Reader's Digest were vague at best.  "A handicapped
girl prevented from doing the rosary on the bus"  -- was she doing
it silently, or was she disrupting the bus driver and the other
students.  "Students prevented from bible study during lunch" --
were they individually reading the bible, or were they meeting
as a club, in effect sanctioned by the school and excluding
those who held religious views different from their own.

-- 
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
*****************************************************************************