HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 00:33:16 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 <1993Jan23.212843.13291@rpp386>, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> Take money.  Take money from public schools which don't provide shit
|> in the way of an education.  Give money to parent.  Make parent spend
|> money on school they choose.  Watch free market competition improve
|> quality of education.

|> What is this?  Now that Clinton is in office you've forgotten how the
|> free market works?

You can't claim that education is a basic right that the government is 
responsible for providing, and that the student is required by law to attend,
AND expect the free market to apply.  If you don't want the government to 
control education then you must absolve it of the responsibility to educate.
Once you do that, then you can "free market" your ass off -- I'm all for it.

|> I don't.  I oppose giving money to people by force.

Unless the "money" is called a school voucher.

|> I give food to poor
|> people all the time.  I also build housing for poor people all the time.
|> I even give money for poor people to get a better education all the
|> time.

I'm not questioning your private generosity.  I'm wondering why your opinions
on "forced" charity don't apply to education entitlements.

|> Oh.  If the atheists want to spread their atheism around, then the atheiest
|> can kick in a few bucks in the collection plate every week.

That sounds reasonable to me.  I'm not sure how one would "spread atheism 
around" though.  Is that like turning on a "dark" switch, or opening up a 
valve on a tank full of "vacuum"?

|> The opposite of "religious freedom" is NOT "religious exclusion."

I'm not sure what this means, but do I need to remind you again that "free
expression" does NOT mean "free of charge"?

--
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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: State Income Tax
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:24:33 GMT

In article <C16EL5.27y3@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.134311.6670@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> There's a difference between feeling that everyone should be entitled
>|> to some minimum level of something (food, housing, education, etc.)
>|> and feeling that everyone should have a Porsche.
>
>Only because you put education in column "A" and Porsche in column "B".  I
>might put education in column "B" and sex in column "A", and then argue that
>the government should provide everyone with a sex partner.

You might, but if you did I would have to say you were just being
deliberately stupid.  John, do you really believe that access to a
reasonably decent education ISN'T something that people require in
order to get an even chance in life?  Or do you somehow think they are
simply going to immaculately receive one?  Or is it that you simply
can't understand the difference between "everybody should be entitled
to some minimum level of food" and "everyone should be entitled to
steak 5 nights a week"?

>
>If everybody was entitled to free food, housing, and education, why would
>anybody work?  Who would pay for this?  You recently chewed up and spit out
>a guy who came along a while back and made a similar remark about what the
>government "owes" people.

Hardly similar.  The level of similarity was about the same as that
between a Chevette and your Porsche of example (to draw an analogy
that you'll probably misuse a bit later on to complain about my having
said something I never said).
>
>|> My complaint is that
>|> too many of those 'wealthy people' want to change the laws so that
>|> they don't have to chip in to provide those minimums so that other
>|> people have a chance at life.
>
>As it turns out, the wealthiest people are usually the most generous.  They
>just want to control how their generosity is spent, and they know a bad deal
>when they see one.

Yes, they know a bad deal for THEM (in the short run), and recognize
that it's a better deal for them to keep all their money and let
someone else worry about the problems not having these kinds of
programs create.

-- 
"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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: State Income Tax
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:28:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.232339.17006@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.134311.6670@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> There's a difference between feeling that everyone should be entitled
>> to some minimum level of something (food, housing, education, etc.)
>> and feeling that everyone should have a Porsche.  My complaint is that
>> too many of those 'wealthy people' want to change the laws so that
>> they don't have to chip in to provide those minimums so that other
>> people have a chance at life.
>
>	Actually, with the "steal from the rich" basis of taxation, it sounds
>like the rich are a little miffed that they required by law to support all
>those that can't/won't support themselves.  Isn't what entitlments are all
>about?  Isn't that what the "Luxury Tax", Capital Gains taxes, and the 50%
>tax bracket are all about?
>
>	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.
>
>	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".

-- 
"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: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: CFC's and the ozone layer
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:52:57 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <1993Jan19.231149.17005@montagar.com>, davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
|> 	So, since oil and water don't mix, then the oil spills really didn't
|> cause any of the marinelife problems in Alaska.  Okay...

|> 	Just one word, John: Emulsion.  Look it up.  Inability to dissolve
|> in water does not constitute non-toxic.  Actually, its lack of ability to
|> readily dissolve in water makes it more toxic, since it tends to accumulate
|> in fatty tissues and is not leached out through urine/sweat/etc...

You're really out in left field with this one.  All he's saying is that it
was the alcohol and not the DDT that killed the fish.  It would take a real 
idiot to design an experiment that didn't rule out the effect of the alcohol
though.

--
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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: CFC's and the ozone layer
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:35:30 GMT
 <-CNis*Bz1@caleb.UUCP> <1993Jan19.143547.16637@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1993Jan19.143547.16637@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> Might I suggest a brief course in wind patterns, Jim?  Briefly, CFCs
> are relatively stable compounds.  That means they hang around a long
> time.  There is a large cold pool of relatively still air over the
> South Pole, particularly at certain times of the year.  Hence, CFCs
> migrate to that area, breaking down the ozone in that area.  This is
> like asking why, if power plants in the Northeast are the problem, do
> we see the majority of the acid rain in Canada.  One would think you'd
> never heard of WIND, Jim.

Gee Fred, it is cold at the NORTH pole too!  It is cold in Canada and Siberia.

Get a life.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Against the Grain: aka Jaws II
Keywords: Taxes, Fair Share, Cut the Fat
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:59:36 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Jan25.135143.453@sooner.ctci.com> dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:

>	* Save $163,000 by not renaming the Texas Dept of Health to Texas
>		Dept of PUBLIC Health.
>		[ No-op, flush this. In other words, Yes ]

Let them change the name after all the old forms and such are used up.
Or maybe let them change the name on everything new, but not change
it on anything that already exists.  That way the name EVENTUALLY
changes, but it doesn't cost anything to do it.

>	* Allowing Univeristies to charge back high schools for remdial
>		training to bring students up to par.
>		[ Probably a good thing, need more info, see below ]

Looks like a bad thing to me; make up more ways for people to suck
money out of the public school system and then complain about the
public schools.  Why are Universities letting in students who aren't
qualified?  If you don't let in unqualified students, there are no
"remedial training" costs because there is no remedial training.  I
consider simply not letting in unqualified students to be a better
'fix' for both the costs involved and for the quality issue in both
high school and colleges.

>	
>	* Charging state prison guards for their lunches as state teachers
>		are required.(a copayment sort of) Savings: $25 Million over
>		next two years.
>		[ Yes, no free lunch in this day & age, anyone else get a
>		  free lunch from there employer? ]

What are the locations of State Prisons like.  Are they located within
driving distance of a 'Restaurant Row', the way most every other
business is?  If not, then I think you have to keep providing them
with food.  Seems unfair to put them in a work location where they
have no choice but to eat in the cafeteria and then charge them when
they do.  

>	* Have the state use more of its office space instead of paying $92
>		Million a year to lease office space while 1.2 million square
>		feet sits empty.
>		[ Need details, sounds good, but office space for the Governor
>		 does little good if it's in Hondo, Texas. ]

Sure sounds reasonable to me, too, but as you say, location is sort of
meaningful. 

>	* Vocational training for students by consolodating Chamber of
>		Commerce, Employment Commission and parts of Texas Education 
>		Agency(TEA) all under the TEA and Human Services.
>		[ I don't understand this one. ]

Sounds sort of like removing duplications of services between those
agencies by consolidating them, but I'd want a lot more detail, too.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The Biased Media
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:02:48 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Jan25.165023.23403@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:

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

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

Michael, do you understand what it means when a statement is followed
by a parenthetical remark beginning "Actually, " or similar word?
Apparently not.  Ok, your sitting conservative President got barely
1/3 of all votes cast.  That has to be a new low for an incumbent.
There's your repudiation of conservatism (if you take the same sort of
viewpoint toward that that you take toward everything else).

-- 
"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.se.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: The Biased Media
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:14:30 GMT

In article <C16I4H.1uo1@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>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:
>|>                                     In spite of their overwhelming push
>|> for Mr.  Clinton, he still only got 4 out of 10 votes.
>
>It's called the effect of a third candidate.  Look into it.
>
>|> And Dan Rather immediatly heralded a "landslide."
>
>It WAS a landslide electorally.  Where was your indignation when Ronald Reagan
>won in a "landslide" in 1980 with 51% of the vote?

Interestingly enough, in this "landslide victory", Clinton got
fewer votes in winning than Michael Dukakis got in loosing.

And Dukakis _lost_ in an electoral landslide, as well - I don't
remember how many evs he got, but it was double digits, at best.


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: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Lt. Gov Bob Bullock remarks..
Date: 26 Jan 1993 00:53:07 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C19s9A.B6r@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush) writes:
>Surely if _Zaffirini_ didn't raise an objection, _we_ have no right
>to... unless you feel the little woman needs to be protected.

That's never stopped the liberals before; they feel duty-bound to raise hell
regardless of the people involved, as long as they can scream "bigot!!" at a
conservative.
-- 
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.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The Biased Media
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:56:33 GMT

In <8516@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <C1A3KD.LwH@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>What does this have to do with bias?  Bias is what they write and say, not
>>what they ARE.

>What they are inevitably and unavoidably influences what they write.

>>If three-fourths of the journalists were men, would you then
>>conclude that the media is biased against women?

>The feminists think so.

>>If three-fourths of the
>>journalists are white, would you then conclude that they are biased against
>>non-whites?

>The minority activists think so.

And I think Jay's examples illustrate one thing clearly, and one thing
only.  *EXTREMISTS* (radical feminists, minority activitists, Jim
Pritchett and those of his ilk) always blame the system and/or the
press for systematic bias.

-- 
"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: billc@airgun.wg.waii.com (Bill Curtis)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Summary: Smart Willie? Gimme a break
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:13:48 GMT
Followup-To: tx.politics
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical, Div. of Western Atlas Int'l, Houston, TX

In article <1993Jan26.053349.17311@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
> 
> George Bush was just plain dumb to ask voters to READ MY LIPS.  You may
> view Clinton as "Slick" for not doing the same thing.  I view it as a sign
> of intelligence.  
> 
> As Clinton said in the debates:
> 
> "I'm not asking you to read my lips.  And I sure wouldn't want you to read
> George Bush's lips."
> 
> "Slick Willie" == "Smart Willie"
> 

What have our liberal friends come to?  Isn't this the way one
describes the used car salesman who misleads but technically doesn't
lie?  He disclaims everything by saying "I didn't say Simon Says!" or
"I had my fingers crossed" or "You didn't say mother may I".  Yes,
President Bush went back on his Read My Lips promise and he paid the
price along with the rest of us.  Clinton has already broken several
promises with hardly a week passed and there's more to be broken on the
horizon as far at the eye can see.

Now, if my eyes do not deceive me, we have evidence his followers are
telling us that lying is good.  Deceit is smart. "Slick Willie" ==
"Smart Willie".  What kind of Orwellian society has emerged?

The world is turning and I worry.
-- 
W. C. Curtis, Jr. 
Western Geophysical Co.		Domain address    billc@airgun.wg.waii.com
BOX 2469 Houston, Tx 77252  	UUNET address     uunet!airgun!billc
(713)963-2628
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado get Caller ID.
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:45:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <C1EJ6D.4Is@sneaky.lonestar.org> gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:

>>Compare this to the concept of unlisted numbers.  They charge a fee to keep
>>your number unlisted.  Why?  The cost of printing a directory goes DOWN with
>>one less name to print, right?  The reason is that if the default was to not
>>have a listed number, a phone book would be fairly useless.  You have to pay

>Residential directories SHOULD be fairly useless.  In fact, I'd like to
>see them go away entirely, but not by outlawing them.  Business directories
>will stay useful because businesses are willing to pay for an entry in
>the directory.

I understand that this is the way the phone system in Moscow is, for
both individuals and 'businesses'.  I also understand that it's such a
mess because there are no directories that it's virtually impossible
to use.  After all, there ARE times when you want to call people whose
number you don't have, have forgotten or misplaced, etc.  However, I
also think that unlisted numbers should be given on request and
without charge.  Let the people decide if they want to be listed or
not. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:04:39 CDT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1993Jan19.142931.16131@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In article <16Nis*yz1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>>> them about it.  I don't criticize them based on ideological fantasies,
>>> the way you do.
>>
>>Fred, YOU are the one FULL of ideological fantasies.  
> 
> Really, Jim?  Gee, I don't suppose you'd care to explain to me just
> what that ideology you think I have *IS*, would you?

	Hey Fred, didn't you crucify Bush because he broke the "no taxes"
promise while in office?  Slick wasn't even in office yet, and has already
stated that he intends to break/reduce at least 6-7 of his promises.  Well,
starting today, we can hold him accountable I guess.

	I just hope that you use that same critical eye on Slick as you did
on Bush.

>       HE CAN'T BREAK ANY 'PROMISES' UNTIL HE IS IN A POSITION TO DO
> SO.

	Sure he can.  He said vote for me, since I will do these things when
I get in office.  We voted for him.  Now, not even in office yet, he is
saying he is *NOT* keeping certain promises, since we had to "revisit" some
of the issues.  He has already said that he will not be able to reduce the
deficit by 50%.  He is already talking about middle-class tax increases.  He
has the "common man" image, but if the common man lies that much, then I
guess our country is doomed whoever gets in office...

> Because I prefer to wait until they DO it before I claim they've done
> it, Jim.  It's called 'reality', as opposed to seeing things based on
> rhetoric the way you do.

	Hey Fred, you voted for him based on "rhetoric", and now the same
rhetoric (that Clinton himself provides) isn't good enough?

> Jim, lots of things get 'stated' by lots of people, all of whom have
> their own agendas.  

	Sure, and since CLINTON is saying he is not keeping some of his
promises, I look at that based on his agenda...

> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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
Newsgroups: tx.politics