HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:52:42 GMT

In <21465@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.175254.6947@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Squirming Fred) writes:

Interesting.  John (net.ghod) Haugh claims that *I* am the one who has
a vendetta here, and yet he seems to be the one who initiates the
attacks (as the 'Squirming Fred' remark above).

>> How does this work, that you think you can have it both ways?  Either
>> taxation and spending and suchlike are affecting the economy or they
>> are not.  Either the economy is the fault of the actions of Presidents
>> and Congress or it is not.
> 
>The depth of the troughs and the height of the peaks is alterable.  Think
>of the frequency as being fixed (that is, you can work up the future
>economic turning points from the natural business cycles), but the
>amplitude is variable (that is, how Man interacts with those fixed, natural
>cycles affects how severe a downturn is going to be, or how strong a
>recovery will be).

Well, if the amplitude is variable, doesn't that seem to imply that by
varying they amplitude ENOUGH one can flatten the curve or even
reverse it?  This all sounds to me like simply an interesting ploy to
allow blame to be assigned to people you want to blame, credit to be
given to people you want to give credit to, and yet maintain
'deniability' when something goes sour on someone you DON'T want to
assign blame to.

>> Make up your mind, John.

>I prefer to let you make things up.

Well, sorry you never get your preference, then, since unlike you, I'm
not in the habit of making things up.

>> Spending isn't a "drag on the economy".  What do you want to cut to
>> fix the current deficit?  After that list, tell me what you want to
>> cut to fix the new deficit from cutting taxes.  If you can come up
>> with a reasonable explanation for this, you'll be ahead of George
>> Bush.  He's said he wants to cut taxes, but isn't going to talk about
>> how he plans to pay for it until January or so.

>Which president in the early '60s cut taxes by $10B and raised revenue
>as a direct result $14B?

Examine the marginal rate of taxation at various incomes then and now,
and then tell me that this is even a germane question.  

Also, since you seem to have missed them, let me repeat.  What do you
want to cut to fix the current deficit?  After that list, tell me what
you want to cut to fix the new deficit from cutting taxes.  If you can
come up with a reasonable explanation for this, you'll be ahead of
George Bush.  He's said he wants to cut taxes, but isn't going to talk
about how he plans to pay for it until January or so.


-- 
"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: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: "Socialized medicine" in Texas
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:25:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.120119.5350@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep14.143157.26616@novell.com> bboerner@novdpd.uucp (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

>>Regarding the issue of "socialized medicine" - I was talking about this
>>with a friend of mine the other night and he suggested this:  suppose
>>the gov't does get in the business of providing healthcare to all who
>>can't afford it.  Fine, but in return, anyone taking advantage would be
>>required to use preventine medicine (regular checkups instead of
>>waiting until the coronary hits) AND follow their doctor's advice,
>>"Well, Mr.  Boerner, I want you to quite smoking and lose 20 pounds,
>>etc..."  If not, no care.  

>In other words, everyone but the very rich and the doctors would
>essentially have their lifestyle mandated by the government.  Step out
>of line and they let you die the next time you get ill.  This could be
>quite far reaching, actually.  

Gotta agree with you on this one.

Damn scary.

>Remember, dying is not allowed in the hallway or parking lot.  

I left this line in cause I liked it.

>Well, this would have to be done (and we do it to some degree now,
>what with 'uncovered conditions' and all), but the problem then
>becomes what to tell the folks whose illness just didn't make the list
>of things that the State was willing to cover.  Recall the big deal
>about the Oregon boy who needed a transplant that the State wouldn't
>pay for because it wasn't on the list?  It's tough to tell someone
>that you COULD save them, but that it's just too expensive so they
>should go home and die quietly.

In fact, it really sucks.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality,
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:56:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525


JP> Oh, hogwash.  It is very easy to understand the KJV English with a few
JP> minor
JP> notes in the margins which explain certain drastic changes in meaning.
JP> Most
JP> changes are obvious from the context.  The KJV is best because all the
JP> newer
JP> translations I've read try to "adjust" the translation to suit their
JP> views.

   The "King James Version" of the Bible is NOT a translation! (look in
   any history of the English Bible for documentation.) It is , as I have
   said before, wildly inaccurate. (For more resons than mere "Drastic
   changes in meaning"). The goal of the modern translations is to be
   accurate, not to be "adjusted" (with the exception of the NIV which
   explicity claims a "conservative" bias). C'mon guy, do you honestly
   believe that King James and his cronies had no "views" to adjust
   toward? (gee, I can't imagine why they would, instability and the
   reformation notwithstanding...). Use the KJV if you prefer, but don't
   try to pretend that it is a less slanted verison, or the most
   accurate. It clearly is neither. It is at best an archaic curiosity;
   one which is avoided at all cost by biblical scholars in both
   conservative and liberal schools of thought.




JP>                                                Jim Pritchett


      David Brooks

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Fred's dumb. (was Re: Clinton Policies)
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:42:52 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Sep9.183526.16608@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Non-sequeter.  If you demand that everything have references,
>everything you post should have references.  I only demand them from
>you because you make such a federal case out of it whenever anyone
>posts anything you disagree with.

	I disagree pretty much with ya, Fred. I have been posting to this
group for >1 year, and I know JFH doesn't demand references on everything.
Furthermore, your "I only did it because you did" is tiresome. Use this
group for growth, _not_ to stay as you are, and presume that to be "OK".
What you'll learn, for example, while researching, will more than make up
for the time invested in said research. None of us is "OK" the way we
are, and with our current set of beliefs. Witness slave ownership. (And
I don't mean find someone who owns a slave, and then watch (-: ). Yes,
the reason John asks for references has nothing to do with your personal
growth. But it can.

>You are a liar and a hypocrite, Mr. John (net.ghod) Haugh II.  All the
>biased sources, distortions, outright lies, and hypocrisy in the world
>won't hide what you are, though.

	John is like you and I, Fred. He is trying to do "the right thing"
in _his_ way. I do believe he should be made aware of inconsistencies in
his posts, of hypocritical tendencies. I do know one thing, though-
labelling him a hypocrite will do nothing to change those tendencies;
rather, it will galvanize them. Labels stick. 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:32:00 GMT

jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
: In article <1992Sep9.165348.13134@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
: >I was under the same impression as Ms. Levy.  The Wichita clinic is
: >one of the few IN THE COUNTRY which will perform 3rd trimester
: >abortions.  Even then, the acceptable grounds for such abortions were
: >pretty specific and restrictive.  Note that this apparent scarcity of
: >clinics and doctors who will perform 3rd trimested abortions does not
: >bode well for the provability of John's (so far) unsubstantiated
: >claims that abortions are resulting every day in livSubject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:21:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep4.184119.5018@cactus.org> hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick) writes:

>Surely I'm not the only one reading this group who finds this exchange
>even more tedious than the presidential mud-slinging. Take it austin.flame,
>guys, which is where followups to this post are directed.

But I'm not *IN* Austin.  Hey, come to think of it, that's probably
the PERFECT place for John Haugh to direct his postings to.  A local
group to him that I don't get.

-- 
"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: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: T.J.'s slave [was Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston)]
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:05:02 GMT

In article <B7oZqB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>> In article <kBTwqB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
>> Winemiller) writes:
>[Regarding T. Jefferson's campaign for presidency]
>> >The extraordinary lesson from this
>> >is that the _subject_ of a candidate's Christianity was a proper (relevant)
>> >thing to bring into public consideration.
>> 
>> Was it?
>
>Yes.  Certainly at that time.  Apparently there was no significant objection
>to discussing the religious affiliation of presidential candidates.

	I doubt, but have no proof (yet) to dispute this. If you'd like,
(are you listening, Fred?), I'll research.

>> Is any item offered in an election proper, then?
>
>Probably not.  Objections would be raised by lots of people regarding
>"improper" subjects that were raised by a few.  Personally, I think it's
>proper to consider subject matter that bears significantly upon a
>candidate's character.  (Of course, you might not think that religious
>affiliation (or lack thereof) bears upon character.  Apparently the people
>of Jefferson's time did.)

	I think that if it's obviously beneficial to proclaim a particular
religious affiliation, it's best not to vote based upon same. 

>> And, even if it was "proper", wasn't slavery "proper" at that time, as well?

>In my opinion it would have been quite proper to discuss Jefferson's
>ownership of slaves.  Perhaps they did.  (If not, they should have!)

	You miss my meaning, probably because I poorly worded my point. (-:
It was okay to throw religion into the election; it was okay to own slaves.
Perhaps society considers neither to be okay, today. Perhaps voters vote
against folks that bring it into an election. As you mention, it _can_ be
an indicator of character. But how good an indicator, Chris? Are you
Christian? Is JFH? Chris Barnes? Moi? Now, how similar are our characters?
morals? ethics? How would each of us deal with similar scenarios? Does
religious conviction really answer that? Is Swaggart more electable than
an ethical atheist? Should he be? Character issues might best be 
determined by actions, not pretensions. And, yes, a good % of the
candidates, IMO, "practice" Christianity outwardly. Past experience
might make the public wary of any candidate that introduces him/herself
as superior by religion.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:23:28 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep11.035701.23699@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
>Subject: Re: Church and state again
>Date: 11 Sep 92 03:57:01 GMT

>In article <exuptr.504.716166010@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>>In article <7290@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>...
>>>It isn't? Why not? After all, it is essentially the worship of the State and
>>>the People...it's close enough to a religion for me.

>>You're not into Scientology, are you?

>Huh? What? Communism and Robert Heinlen have nothing to do with the
>"Church" of Scientology. Kind of a bizarre reference.

>Now you might be think of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology...

L Ron talked about Heinlein a lot in his lectures.  Seems he admired him
quite a bit.  He had some story about how Heinlein was in some armed forces 
outfit and considered the expert on space travel and such because he wrote 
sci-fi.

Scientology is kind of a worship-your-administration type affair also, and
I had a brief flashback there.  Sorry for the non-seq.

>-- 
># Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
># I am sane. I am perfectly and completely sane. I shouldn't be in here     #
># at all. There's been a terrible mistake.                                  #
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5104 alt.politics.clinton:4913
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 11 Sep 1992 15:49:56 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep09.230926.25617@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.191704.18166@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

 I'm not a great expert on health care, but I do know that
 
||> Do you think American doctors are "better trained" than doctors from
||> Germany, Japan, England, Canada, France, etc.?  They make more than
||> all of them, and by quite a margin.  Now then, what is the reason for
||> that again?

>Because these countries all have socialized medicine, which guarantees
>mediocrity.  The "cream of the crop" doctors all want to come to the
>United States because they can make a hell of a lot more money here. 
>Canadians are crossing the US border in droves so that they can get
>medical treatment without waiting in line for 6 months.  Socialism
>doesn't work.  That has been proven time and time again.

All of these countries also have better life expectancy and infant
mortality rates than the USA. It would seem that if socialized medicine
is to be blamed for the (alleged!!) problems of the system, then it also
gets to take credit for the successes.

This week's "In These Times", a left-wing magazine, starts off with yet
another anecdote about a working poor person whose sick daughter could
not see a doctor for her earache (no medical insurance at Mom's
low-wage job) until it was bad enough to have to go to the ER. By then
strep had turned into rheumatic fever, result: permanent heart damage.
We already have rationing of health care in the US: we ration by price.

andy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:25:51 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21501@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John (net.ghod) Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.205056.22731@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Squirming Fred) writes:
>> Oh, I see.  *I* have to prove the negative that you insist it is
>> unfair for you to prove (and you assume that I keep scads of old news
>> around for the sheer joy of leafing through it -- I don't; I have a
>> life, instead).
> 
>NO, you stupid idiot.  I'm asking you to prove YOUR STATEMENT.

NO, you stupid idiot.  I'm asking you to prove YOUR STATEMENT.

>YOU claimed that I did the first grammar flame.  I said that you started
>it, and even showed where you did.  

No, you simply showed one example.  However, SOME OF US have better
things to do than save scads of old netnews so we can play your kind
of stupid games.

>You then said that I started it even
>before that.  I can't prove I started it since I would have to post every
>bit of netnews I've ever posted, and even then you could claim I missed
>a piece.  YOU must prove what you are asserting - that I started the
>grammar flame war.  

In other words, as I and others have noted, *I* am supposed to prove
somthing that you claim you can't prove for various reasons.

>You can do this by finding a grammar flame dated
>before mine.  Of course, this isn't even an impossibility, I usually
>respond to grammar flames in kind.  But as I've said before, I make so
>many typos that I don't do spelling flames (unless provoked), and with
>the number of missed words, I don't do grammar flames either (unless
>provoked).

Well, like I said, most of us have better things to do than save old
netnews so we can 'prove' assholes like you wrong.  I could just as
easily have written your preceding paragraph, since I don't do
spelling and grammar flames "unless provoked", either.

Please get a life, John.  You'll sleep better, your digestion will
improve, and the rest of us won't have to read your continual flames
and hyperbolic bullshit.

-- 
"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: hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 13 Sep 92 04:17:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Only When Necessary

In article <exuptr.525.716246810@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.231215.36105@watson.ibm.com> john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>In article <exuptr.483.716148645@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>> 
>>|> I'd like an option.  I'd like to be able to say "My kids will learn that
>>|> material at home", sign some paper and voila, they are not in public
>>|> sex ed class, but something else.  Parents who feel otherwise can do what
>>|> they like.  Kinda like pro-choice isn't it?
>
>>Guess what?  That's what they do in every sex education program that
>>I've ever heard of.  That was easy to resolve.  Next controversy?
>
>Sorry, I was in a program as a child that was mandatory.  
>
>>|>                         About as far as I'd go here is giving them
>>|> some really thorough info and interviews with kids who have had pregnancies, 
>>|> diseases, abortions.  Real life examples.  No judgements will be necessary, 
>>|> I think.
>
>>Sure.  As long as you also bring in kids who have had sex and had no
>>problems with pregnancy, diseases, and abortion.  They can tell the
>>class how much fun it is.  
>
>What for?  You think anybody doesn't get that already from their friends, 
>movies, etc...
>
>>What?  You only want to show the negative
>>side?
>
>Of course.  Do we, in driving class, want to show them films of people
>who drink and drive and get away with it?

No, we show them people who drive responsibly, and arrive at their
destinations safe and sound.

>                                           Our job is to show them the
>possible worst outcomes.  If the outcome is better, they will not suffer.

Show them the worst possible outcomes for risky behavior. Sex can
be such, but doesn't have to be.

-- 
\-- Henry Velick   \  Millions long for immortality, who don't know what   \
 \-- Datalingus     \  to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.   \
  \-- Austin, Texas  \ -----------------------------------      Susan Ertz   \
   \-- 512-459-5770   \ Purveyors of Fine Graphics Software and Consultation  \
Newsgroups: tx.politics