HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:46:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Fred J. McCall writes in part:

>Personally, I think it belongs at 18, if you feel a drinking age is
>necessary at all.  If people are supposed to be adults at 18, why
>should they have this one restriction?  If they're old enough to vote,
>they ought to be old enough to go to a bar and commiserate about the
>resulting mess.  :-)

If adulthood is a legitimate criterion for determining the drinking
age, then at least we agree that there is some age below which it
might be OK to ban it.  You say 18, because at that age you can vote.
(Do you really believe in no limit at all -- that ten year olds should
be allowed to buy and consume alcohol?) Or, Why not 16, because you 
can drive at that age?  There are thirty year olds who are not adults 
(no one in this thread, of course). Maybe we should have a test of 
adult maturity.  Of course not. 

The point is that the setting of the legal drinking age is an arbi-
trary process that is largely determined by social consensus.  This
was demonstrated by the reversal of the 18 year law that prevailed
for a while and then was reversed back to 21 with surprisingly little
resistance.  So, I say, raise it to 55, except on interstate highways
where it should be 65.  Here, let me grin.  :-).  Honest.

By the way, I don't see it as a moral issue, any more than the speed
limit laws.  It is a social issue, and on that I am not 100% certain
what the limits should be.  I am inclined to favor the status quo -
drinking age 21, local dry (or damp) option on sales, and continue
to ban sales of marijuana.  Yes any ban or restriction imposes on
individual rights, but some rights are more important than others.
I would be much more concerned about restrictions on freedom of
speech or intimate behavior between consenting adults in private.
But I can even imagine circumstances, such as war or epidemic (more
severe than AIDS) under which the appropriateness of regulation might be
different than it is now -- independent of the issue of enforceability,
which should be considered separately.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 23 Jan 93 15:21:49 CDT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1993Jan20.141303.1226@rpp386>, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <C1234u.1wM@kidporn.freeside.com> lcypher@kidporn.freeside.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
>>The consumption of alcohol during prohibition increased dramatically, as did
>>alcohol related crime, organized crime, etc...
> 
> Those of you who wonder why marijuana needs to be legalized need to
> think about this one for a very LONG time.

	Damn, I might have to agree with John on this one.  Assuming we could
provide restrictions upon where one may partake (superset of the "Clean Air"
policies), I'd have no problem with it.  I think it would reduce a lot of the
alchohol-related violence (since it is a legal drug).  Insult someone on weed,
and they would be more likely to ask if you have munchies, than get violent.

	I know of a few people that I *strongly* suspect smoke, but are very
normal people.  Think of the new tax base that could be developed here!

> John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Jim Hightower To Launch Radio Show
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:33:09 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.


     	Jim Hightower To Launch Radio Show,  New York (AP)

   Nobody could mistake Jim Hightower for anything but the
dyed-in-the-wool Texas populist that he is.
   But when he talks about President Clinton, the 50-year-old former
Texas agriculture commissioner could be from Missouri, the "Show-Me"
state.
   "I've got my fingers crossed on them, but I've got my eyes open,
too," Hightower, a super-delegate to the Democratic National
Convention last July who supported Clinton, said of the incoming
administration.
   To keep the populist spotlight on the new president, Hightower will
launch a syndicated radio show next month that will take on many of
the issues Clinton emphasized during the campaign: the economy, free
trade, health care and the environment, to name a few.
   Hightower hopes to apply some left-handed torque to the forces
influencing the incoming president and to inspire ordinary citizens to
take action.
   "Hightower will make you chuckle, get you riled up, then send you
on your way to raise hell," his promotional literature promises.
   He also hopes to provide port-side ballast to talk radio, currently
controlled by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh.
   He'll use a story-telling format similar to that of Paul Harvey.
But because he believes "there's nothing in the middle of the road but
yellow stripes and dead armadillos," his stories will draw lessons
decidedly left of Harvey's commentaries.
   And in the tradition of Will Rogers, he promises to be funny. He
is, after all, the man who once quipped that President Bush was "born
on third base and decided that he'd hit a triple."
   Hightower gives no quarter on issues that even President Clinton
during his campaign said will be exceedingly difficult to solve. A
firm application of horse sense usually will get the job done.
   To help more low- and moderate-income people get bank loans,
Hightower supports Clinton's idea to create of a network of small
community banks that can respond to the relatively small borrowing
needs of mom-and-pop customers. High-flying banks that want to "earn a
45-percent return in six months" should not have their deposits
insured by the federal government, Hightower said during a recent
promotional tour through New York.
   Hightower calls the North American Free Trade Agreement, the treaty
that would create the flow of free trade between the United States,
Mexico and Canada, "so ugly it'd rot a cantaloupe at 100 paces." The
pact, which was signed by President Bush but still needs congressional
approval, "officially encourages U.S. companies to shift their
investments and our jobs to Mexico," he said.
			###

	Anyone know what stations will be carrying this?
Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity  (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:28:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.005408.15005@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <1993Jan19.043548.2471@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>>Why do Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese not complain, and push for affirmative
>>action??? Perhaps for the same reason that other ethnic groups such as Irish,
>>German, and Slavic, did not do so in the late 1800's-early 1900's. They decided
>>that they wanted to enter an already existant society, and be assimilated.
>
>Probably because they weren't brought here as slaves, against their will.
>And then had a system of apartheid set up for a couple of hundred years.

Uh, arithmetic check -- we abolished slavery in the 1860's, which
means for there to be "a system of apartheid set up for a couple of
hundred years", we would have to be running it until 2060 or so.  Uh,
I don't think so.  Sounds to me like you're off by a hundred years or
so, there. I'm sorry, but the "My X-Great Grandparents were brought
here as slaves" just doesn't seem a reasonable excuse anymore.  And if
it is, just how far past the event do we have to be before it ceases
to be?  Koreans living in the same neighborhoods as blacks have
managed to better themselves without AA and all that tripe -- why is
it that the blacks aren't doing it?  I'm sorry, but I think there has
been the fostering of an attitude among some segments of the black
population that they are 'owed' something extra simply because they
had relatives who came here as slaves.

Hey, my mother was a foreign national and my father's side of the
family was (we think) probably shipped here as transported prisoners
("incorigible Scots" after one of the Highland rebellions).  Leaves me
wondering what *I* am 'owed'.

-- 
"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: Re: The Biased Media
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:34:31 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.

	Bush ran a horrible campaign. The people believed Clinton was
the best choice for President. This opinion of the majority of American
voters- you claim that media, and media alone, is responsible? Did
Bush utilize the debates to effectively disarm any media misrepresentations?
Did he use them effectively at all? I thought he did well in #3, but 
was a joke in #1, and barely better in #2. The same topics that the 
media represented came up during the debates- was there a media 
distortion of what actually came out of everyone's mouth? Bottom line:
Your complaint about the media may be well-founded (though I think not),
but that complaint is actually directed at the populace. They didn't vote for
the man you wanted them to. If they didn't vote for him because they
"bought in" to what the media told them, that responsibility still lies
with the voters. Your complaint is still about the voters. There are
alternatives to letting the populace vote. You may well be suggesting we
utilize one of them. Since you know better than the media, know that they
did lie and distort their stories to "lead" the voters to the booth,
I suspect you know what the voters should have believed. I suspect you have a
suggestion that would lead them to the "right" conclusions. I suspect
that any suggestion you might have will necessarily be anti-Constitutional.

>If I ever again hear anyone in the media laud their own pristine
>objectivity, I think I'll wretch on the spot.

	Are you saying that you reject such, ahead of time, and
regardless of who in the media makes such a claim? That's a pat
admission that you won't be objective. Do you really mean that?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The Biased Media
Date: 23 Jan 93 06:18:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <C16I4H.1uo1@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?

51% is a whole lot better than 43%.  Reagan had very long coattails.  In 1980,
the Republicans took many seats in Congress from the Democrats.  Clinton couldn't
even help his candidate win in Georgia.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:31:53 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Fred McCall writes, in part:

>Prohibition was a FAILURE that increased the consumption of alcohol
>and also increased all manner of criminal activity.  And I would hate
>to think that a "real historian" would go into such a study with the
>preconceived goal of "try[ing] to make the best case for the success
>of [Prohibition]."


Well, Fred, I guess you have spoken and there is not much more to say. It
would be folly of me to suggest that there was anything else going on in
the world during that era besides Prohibition and that any behavioral 
trends could be attributable to anything besides Prohibition. Certainly 
phenomena like World War I, rapid urbanization and industrialization, 
and other such developments had no influence.  The increase in all kinds 
of crime and the increasing Badness of the American people, clearly demon-
strable from the most casual perusal of the statistics, rests squarely 
on the shoulders of Prohibition, which pushed millions Americans who would
have otherwise lived productive, sober lives over the brink into a life of
sin and self destruction.  "I really had no intention of drinking," they all
said, "But it galled me so much that those hypocritical prohibitionists
had to make it illegal that I had no choice.  Now I am a hopeless drunk,
and it is all Prohibition's fault.  I really didn't care for booze at all, 
but I couldn't resist the sight of a speakeasy."  In countless homes across
our fair land this sad refrain was repeated in an ever increasing chorus
of bitter dispair.  Demon Prohibition, the root of all evil.  Worse than
Reefer Madness.  Had they only never enacted Prohibition Americans today
would be sober as judges, full of the highest respect for the law, 
helpful to old ladies crossing the street, and so scientifically literate
that they would no longer have any need for that other Root of All Evil,
Religion.

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?
Is it because we still have an age limit?  Maybe we should reduce the
drinking age to five?  Or maybe it is because of the Religious Right,
whose unconstitutional oppressive activities drive people to drink.

As for your abhorrence of the "barn door", I look forward to your ideal
society, where there are only blacks and whites and no shades of gray,
and most certainly no color, in between.

Cheers,
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

P.S. Fred, I really appreciate your comprehensive in-depth statistical
analysis of human behavior during the Prohibition era.  It is really 
what I was looking for.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:58:38 GMT

In article <1836@airgun.wg.waii.com> billc@airgun.wg.waii.com (Bill Curtis) writes:
>
>If Clinton decides, like Carter did, to inflate the currency, 
>an option many of his advisors are promoting, then the bankers 
>will again be caught holding 30 year mortgages at below market 
>interest rates.  That, in its own way, is just as bad as 
>falling property values and the devastation and human suffering it created.

Carter never had the power to do this, and Clinton won't have the
power to do this.  What mechanism do you think the President can use
to accomplish this?

[Hint:  The Fed Chairman is the guy who decides this.]

-- 
"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,talk.politics.misc
From: amn@sdf.lonestar.org (Andrew Noble)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: SDF - Public Access Unix - Dallas, Tx..
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:52:45 GMT


"Slick Willie" == "Smart Willie" == "Waffle King"
 
"To be, AND not to be..."  apologies to Rush Limbaugh and crew.
 
amn
-- 
  _     Andrew Noble
 | |__  Dallas, Texas
_|  * | amn@sdf.lonestar.org
\   _/  Compuserve: 71165,412
Newsgroups: tx.politics
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 13:52:26 GMT

In <t-4ls*fC1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <C16I4H.1uo1@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?

>51% is a whole lot better than 43%.  Reagan had very long coattails.  In 1980,
>the Republicans took many seats in Congress from the Democrats.  Clinton couldn't
>even help his candidate win in Georgia.

Jim, we haven't seen anything larger than miniscule 'coattails' since
FDR.  Check it yourself, since I'm sure you won't believe me.  The
coattails effect died with the advent of fast mass communications
(radio and television).  The Press *finally* figured that out this
year.  The other thing that died was the conventional wisdom that you
had to avoid putting to candidates from the same region of the country
on the ticket.  Another one of those things that died with increasing
communications and mobility among the voters.

-- 
"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: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:09:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.220315.11946@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.142931.16131@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>> 
>>>      Sorry, Jim, but I plan on continuing to judge people on what they
>>> DO and DON'T DO; you, no doubt, will continue to judge them based on
>>> some sort of ideological labelling system, using a method of reasoning
>>> (to use the word in its loosest sense) that is comprehensible only to
>>> you. 
>
>So, Fred, If I say I am going to come to your house sometime this year and
>kill your dog, rape you wife/daughter/sister/mother and cut of your cojones
>and stuff them down your throat, you wouldn't call the police?  If I lived
>in the same town with you and called you everyday threatening the same
>thing, you would not take it seriously until I actually did these things?

No, because in that case your speech itself constitutes a violation of
law, and hence is 'doing something'.  However, I certainly wouldn't
claim you had DONE those things if you were talking about them, which
is apparently the standard that Jim (and you) want to hold Clinton to. 

>What a fool!

Yes, you are, but this is Usenet so we suffer your presence anyway.

>
>>> Because I prefer to wait until they DO it before I claim they've done
>>> it, Jim.
>
>So if someone claims they are going to kill a government official, you
>wouldn't tell anyone or do anything about it until they actually did it?
>How callous!

Once again, in this case claiming this is an action in itself.  I
would not claim they had actually killed someone until they did it,
however.  Can you say "stupid an inappropropriate analogy"?  Yeah, I
thought you could.

>
>>> Jim, lots of things get 'stated' by lots of people, all of whom have
>>> their own agendas.  I've found that I arrive at a lot better decisions
>>> if I judge on FACTS rather than relying on claims made by various
>>> people about what the things other people say REALLY mean.
>
>"I've found that I arrive at a lot better decisions...."  I haven't seen
>any evidence that you know what a good decision is, yet.

Well, I haven't seen any evidence that you would know when someone was
making good decisions if the fact of it came up and bit you on the
ass, nor have I seen any reason to care what your opinion is on the
matter. 

-- 
"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,talk.politics.misc
From: amn@sdf.lonestar.org (Andrew Noble)
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity  (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Organization: SDF - Public Access Unix - Dallas, Tx..
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:48:38 GMT


This discussion just might be wandering off into too many directions. 
 
The way that I see it, Vouchers give the choice of education to the individual,
as opposed to removing that choice and relying on an institution to assign
educational decisions, aka where kids go to school.
 
Whether or not someone uses this choice, assuming vouchers or some other form
of choices were placed in the parents hands, is irrelevant.  Lots of people
don't take advantage of opportunities, and it's their own fault for not
seeking them out.  (Now before I get a ton of Flame mail, think about it.)
 
Sure their can be all kinds of problems that arise from having choice, but
the nation is not a bunch of non-thinking robots.  There are plenty of
examples where choice is given, and it actually benefits consumers as a whole.

  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?

Ok, sure it's a pretty simple example, but the basis of the arguement fits.
 
Apologies to all of you spell-checker-punctionation-FLAMERS out there.  I hope
that I didn't ruin my message with some minor typo. (SARCASM=OFF)
 
amn
-- 
  _     Andrew Noble
 | |__  Dallas, Texas
_|  * | amn@sdf.lonestar.org
\   _/  Compuserve: 71165,412