HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:12:22 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21869@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>Besides, you've seen me shoot.  It would be "death caused by MULTIPLE
>gunshot wounds" ;-)

Where I learned to shoot, they told us that if there was only one hole
in the body it should be because you missed with at least one shot.
The standing joke was, "Always shoot them in pairs.  They cost 2.5
cents apiece, you're going to have to pay for the ones you expend, and
Uncle Same won't take anything but exact payment.  Make it come out
even."

[Rapid fire of more than two rounds tends to leave you shooting off
target, unless you're pretty good, plus it's a waste of rounds if you
have already put a couple of .45 slugs into someone.]

-- 
"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: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Practical Atheism (Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 21:41:22 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Jay Maynard (jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu) wrote:
: Hmmmmm. To me, the two cases are separated by a very thin line that may not in
: fact exist. To me, if there is no evidence, then by definition we cannot know.

I think the main difference is that religion is a special case to the agnostic.
He may have no problem making a judgement on the tooth fairy or the Easter
Bunny despite the lack of evidence, but religious deity(ies) are treated 
differently.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:35:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
: Suppose I'm a citizen and I'd rather go into the City Council Chambers and
: scream about how much money Fred wants to spend on football.  Can they
: violate my "freedom of speech?"

I think they can, unless you have followed the appropriate procedures to get
on the agenda, etc.

: If he wants to read Hustler doing his free reading period - a time when
: he isn't being paid to work - that's his business.  It was his free
: reading period, by the way.

I think you're mistaken in assuming that this is his own time.  The school has
instituted a "free" reading period for the students, but the teacher is still
"on the clock", unless he doesn't get paid for this reading time, and has the
option of leaving during this time.

:                              I'd argue this on two levels.  The first is
: that a right to a free press requires the freedom to read what is being
: printed, and the second (more specifically ...) is that the Constitutional
: prohibition against making laws restricting freedom of religion make
: keeping someone from reading the bible illegal.

Maybe so, but your employer doesn't have to pay you a salary to exercise your
Constitutional rights (even if your employer is the government).

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:07:46 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21899@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <BxvM36.5p6@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.223808.28181@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>> Pardon me, but I don't believe the plan Clinton is proposing falls
>>> under the term 'socialized medicine' (unless they redefined
>>> 'socialized' when I wasn't paying attention ;-)).
>> 
>>What do you call it when the government starts deciding how
>>much people can charge for health care?

>A command economy and socialism are not the same thing.  Clinton is
>trying to have a command economy when it comes to health care.  The
>USSR had a command economy and look at where it is ...

Yes, and it's not a command economy for health care, either.  In a
command economy, the PRODUCTION of a good is centrally controlled.
Nowhere have a seen a Clinton plan that specifies how many Drs there
may be, what their specialities may be, how many patients they may
have, etc. 

-- 
"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: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:58:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21897@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.235939.46253@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>>How about the case where a candidate loses the popular vote, but wins the 
>>electoral vote (it happened in 1876 and 1888 and almost happened in 1960)?  
>>Still a feature?  How about the case where a candidate loses the popular vote 
>>AND the electoral vote and still becomes president (it happened in 1824)?  
>>Why have a popular vote at all?  The electors are not obligated to vote the 
>>way their states voted.  Why don't we just let them vote for whoever they feel 
>>like?  We'd save a lot of money anyway.

>My suspicion about where the concept for the Electoral College comes from,
>and this is just a suspicion, so ... is that it was felt a President should
>have roughly the same support as is represented in the House and
>Senate.

I don't think your suspicion here is correct, John.  Keep in mind that
we didn't always get to vote directly for Senators, either.  From the
original document, it looks more like the Founding Fathers were of the
opinion that the larger the area covered, the more indirect the vote
should be.  You might even be able to trace this back to communication
speeds in the days when it was originally laid down.

>If the the majority of Senators and House members are from one party, we'd
>see a majority of electors for that same party.  

Why?  I would think you'd see (on that basis) a distribution that
looked a lot like the House, and the Senate would be irrelevant
(particularly since they weren't directly elected, either).  Of
course, if that's what they had wanted, they wouldn't have allowed the
states to pick the Electors any way they wanted to.  I think this all
stems from the idea that the central government would be a lot weaker
than what we have these days.  There's not even a requirement that the
people be allowed to VOTE for President, is there?  A State could
simply say that the Governor got to name all the electors, and that
would be the end of that.  Even if he had to let the people vote
(don't want to look it up, since it's irrelevant to the gist of the
statement), that vote wouldn't MEAN anything.  It would have zero
influence on who the electors were and who they voted for.

-- 
"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: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:58:10 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 <1992Nov16.173847.38222@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
>: No one complains that the chess club is pressuring children to play chess
>: because the members talk about how much fun chess is.  It is hypocritical
>: to complain that God-fearing children are pressuring others to believe in
>: God.
>
>There's no Constitutional prohibition against respecting an establishment
>of chess.  They can "fear God" all they want, but the government isn't going
>to support it.

But there is a Constitutional restriction against prohibiting the free
exercise of religion.  "Shall make no law" means NO law.  Which part of
NO don't you understand?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
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: 15 Nov 92 22:23:18 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov13.011321.22960@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: 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. 

>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you pay for schools
>by taxing *property*, that areas with high property values are going to 
>collect more money.  What did they expect?  Instead of coming up with clever
>schemes to shift money around, I think the whole process needs to be revisited
>based on what the goals are.

Well, given that one of the goals is EQUAL opportunity to learn and
advance in society, you're going to wind up shifting money around no
matter what you do.

Of course, if your goal is to create permanent class society here in
America, by all means, make sure that the poor get poorer schools.

-- 
"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: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:32:21 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 <1992Nov19.234322.40088@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>To carry your argument to the extreme, what if all he wanted to do was to read
>the bible for 8 hours a day at work?  Do they have to keep paying him?  You
>think our taxes are high now!

This is called a straw man argument, John.  Of course he cannot insist on
reading his bible during his 8 hour work day.  He likewise cannot insist
on reading Hustler or Penthouse or Ladies Home Journal for all 8 hours.

But if he is allowed to read anything he wants for some period of time,
that "anything" =must= include the bible.  From everything that I've read
about the case, that teacher was allowed to read anything BUT the bible.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
[ITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOY]
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:47:21 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
: The 1st Amendment says that Congress may not make any law with regard to
: setting up any religion and it may not prohibit its free exercise.  That
: means it may not support religion, and it may not oppose religion.

Allowing religious groups to meet on school property is a support of religion.

:                                             Any legal theory which says
: that students, on their own and with no coercion from any government
: official, cannot say some religious muttering when some other muttering
: would be appropriate, is in direct contradiction to both the clauses in
: that amendment.

They can "mutter" whatever they want.  The school is not obligated to provide
facilities with which the "muttering" takes place, and in fact is obligated
NOT to, by the establishment clause.

Equal access compromised the establishment clause.  It is no accident that
the establishment clause comes before the free exercise clause in the wording
of the amendment.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system
 of government"
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:50:39 CDT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Nov15.223808.28181@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <1992Nov13.142251.16920@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>	But the quote I heard was "Health care is a right, not a privilege".
>>So just what does he mean?
> 
> It means that we shouldn't just let people die on the streets because
> they can't afford health care.  Is this a problem?

	People dying on the streets because they can't afford health care?
Is this a problem?

	How about giving people all the health care they want (it *is* a
right), even though they can't afford it.  Are you willing to pick up that
bill?  Remember how much of our taxes pays for Medicare and such, and Clinton
is going to add to that.  Clinton is going to "streamline" government? Isn't
that kindof an oxymoron?
	
>>	Much of even what Clinton has said is directed toward socialized
>>medicine.  That means that one way or another, we pay the bill.
> 
> Pardon me, but I don't believe the plan Clinton is proposing falls
> under the term 'socialized medicine' (unless they redefined
> 'socialized' when I wasn't paying attention ;-)).

	Read it again, I didn't saw it was socialized medicine, but it is
HEADING that way.

	How about some of the plans by Bush, like tax refunds for health
insurance?  As I'm self-employed, I sure would appreciate that.  How about
getting rid of this "deep-pockets" trend in American Ligitation?  Does this
benefit the economy?  Or is it a different kind of lottery system?

	I've been reading much of what you have said about Clinton, and I'm
rather suprised at you.  When it comes to polititians, I tend to be a cynic,
whereas you seem to more than willing to take Clinton at his word.  He has
been vague at politically correct times, and at times even sounded
contradictory during the debates.  He is a politician, he should be closely
watched.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 18 Nov 92 07:04:54 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <7887@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.233213.23318@ra.oc.com> tk@pssparc2.mitek.com (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov14.000811.14420@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush) writes:
>>>Of course they don't.  But you can either look back at this post in
>>>four years and laugh at me, or you can think that maybe the 1996
>>>election is where you ought to start voting Libertarian.
>>I don't want Texas to become the 13th province of Cuba in 1997.
>
>Neither do I.
>
>What does that have to do with anything the other Thomas said?

I'll grant you that I was exaggerating on this.  But I have a serious fear
that a Libertarian President would not safeguard the national security, in a 
way that goes far beyond my concerns that a Republican or Democrat could weaken 
the national security.  This one thing is enough to ensure that a Libertarian
candidate will never get my vote for President or Congress unless they make 
important changes in their platform.  I did vote for more than one Libertarian 
Party candidate in 1992, but they were all for local judges.


-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 23:59:39 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
: Correct.  How else would you explain a candidate who receives less than
: 50% of the popular vote getting more than 50% of the electoral vote?
: 
: The Electoral College is a feature.  That you don't understand how it
: works agrees with the fact that you don't understand why the House
: originates all spending and taxing bills.  This can be described in
: three words, which are left as an exercise to the reader to figure out.

How about the case where a candidate loses the popular vote, but wins the 
electoral vote (it happened in 1876 and 1888 and almost happened in 1960)?  
Still a feature?  How about the case where a candidate loses the popular vote 
AND the electoral vote and still becomes president (it happened in 1824)?  
Why have a popular vote at all?  The electors are not obligated to vote the 
way their states voted.  Why don't we just let them vote for whoever they feel 
like?  We'd save a lot of money anyway.  What the electoral college does very 
successfully is make sure that a 3rd party candidate will never be elected
president.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:05:55 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 <7869@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <21879@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>No one complains that the chess club is pressuring children to play chess
>>because the members talk about how much fun chess is.  It is hypocritical
>>to complain that God-fearing children are pressuring others to believe in
>>God.
>
>Sorry, but this doens't wash, for two reasons: 1) No chess grandmaster has
>written a book asking his followers to believe in him as the representative of
>the creator of the universe, and promising eternal life; and 2) believing in
>chess as a recreation and adhering to a religion are two entirely different
>things, and you won't offend a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, by asking him
>to play chess.

It doesn't wash, IYHO.  I've been to religious services, had religious
discussions, and so on, with members of other religions.  Except for
radical kooks, I don't get offended.

On the other hand, people who refuse to grant me the same rights as chess
players, they =do= offend me.

Promises of "eternal life" and claiming to be the creator of the universe
are not in the domain of chess.  It is not surprising that Bobby Fisher
hasn't claimed to be the savior of all Mankind ...

The 1st Amendment is supposed to protect both the religious and non-religious
from the government's meddling.  It should protect me by making sure that
my religious activities aren't treated more restrictively than your
non-religious activities.  It should protect you by making sure that you
are not forced to take part in any religious activities.  As it stands, I
cannot study the bible after school with my buddies, even while you are
free to study chess.  You don't see how offensive this is because religion
has no significance in your life.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 21 Nov 92 14:47:14 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 <1992Nov19.163134.23225@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>"Any U.S. military  policy  should  have  the  objective  of  providing
>security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in
>the U.S. against  the  risk  of  attack  by  a  foreign  power."
>
>Now tell me again why you think a Libertarian president would not safeguard
>national security.

The fear I suspect stems from the belief that a Libertarian regime would
reduce the strenght of our political alliances since Libertarians would
view European security as something that Europeans should care about.

There is a common perception (which I don't share) that Libertarians don't
care about "the big picture" or "the long term".

>"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
> system of government"

Sure it is.  Certainly moreso than dumping tea into Boston Harbor ;-)
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
[ITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOY]