For Those Moderates/Liberals (either party) Voting in Williamson County

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike

unread,
Nov 3, 1994, 9:58:37 AM11/3/94
to
If you were upset with the county commisioners who voted AGAINST
tax breaks for Apple Computer last year, here's your chance to let your
voice on the subject be heard.

Several of these county commisioners are up again for
election this year. Greg Boatright(R), Jerry Mehevec(D), and David Hays(R)
do NOT agree with Apple Computer extending health benefits to the
domestic partners of gay employees. Nor do Dorothy Druckett or Bill Lawson
of the Cedar Park city council.

BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State House of
Representatives. His former ads used to mention that he was a member
of the American Family Association, a Conservative Christian organization.
He is running on the Republican ticket.

Don't Forget to Vote on Election Day!

charles...@amd.com

unread,
Nov 3, 1994, 5:43:10 PM11/3/94
to
In article <1994Nov3.1...@cactus.org> m...@cactus.org (Mike) writes:
..

> BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State House of
> Representatives. His former ads used to mention that he was a member
> of the American Family Association, a Conservative Christian organization.
> He is running on the Republican ticket.

OK, Mister Liberal, right now, list all the actions taken by Mike Krusee which
indicate that he follows/supports/intends to implement a radical Conservative
Christian agenda.

Do it now, and it had better be extensive and documented, because if you can't,
you're guilty of the worst kind of "Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" perpetrated in
the American politic, one which is just sooooo typical of hypocritical Liberals
and their smarmy, disingenuous, nefarious agenda.

This is not to argue that Krusee is the answer to a reasoned electorate's
prayer, by the way.

So, put up now.

FYI, I agree with your assertion that the anti-gay county commissioners ought
to get the boot. In your narrow little Liberal picture of reality, it probably
would never occur to you that an authentic, honest Conservative, who believes
fundamentally in keeping Government both small and out of peoples private
(law-abiding) lives, would never have voted with the Murder County
homophobes... something about consenting adults in privacy being none of the
governments business.

--
contents intended to represent only personal opinions

Clayton Colwell

unread,
Nov 3, 1994, 6:54:39 PM11/3/94
to
charles...@amd.com wrote:

: In article <1994Nov3.1...@cactus.org> m...@cactus.org (Mike) writes:
: ..
: > BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State House of
: > Representatives. His former ads used to mention that he was a member
: > of the American Family Association, a Conservative Christian organization.
: > He is running on the Republican ticket.

: OK, Mister Liberal, right now, list all the actions taken by Mike Krusee which
: indicate that he follows/supports/intends to implement a radical Conservative
: Christian agenda.

: Do it now, and it had better be extensive and documented, because if you can't,
: you're guilty of the worst kind of "Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" perpetrated in
: the American politic, one which is just sooooo typical of hypocritical Liberals
: and their smarmy, disingenuous, nefarious agenda.

Oh my. I hope this last paragraph of yours was satire. If you were really
serious about your "sooooo typical" comment, you've just demonstrated a most
pernicious double standard.

: FYI, I agree with your assertion that the anti-gay county commissioners ought

: to get the boot. In your narrow little Liberal picture of reality, it probably
: would never occur to you that an authentic, honest Conservative, who believes
: fundamentally in keeping Government both small and out of peoples private
: (law-abiding) lives, would never have voted with the Murder County
: homophobes... something about consenting adults in privacy being none of the
: governments business.

Was there a real point to that last paragraph, or were you having too much
fun with the bombast? #1. Republicans, who claim the term "Conservative"
as their sole property, want to keep governemt just as big as you think
Democrats (the classical Liberal party) want to -- just in different areas.
#2. Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code (the one outlawing homosexual
sodomy, despite efforts by lawmakers to either expunge the section or get
it to apply to heterosexual sodomy as well) is still on the books, tech-
nically making most "practicing homosexuals" criminals (at least this is
the argument many self-proclaimed Conservatives use). Do these
technically-non-law-abiding homosexuals have the right to keep the
government out of their private lives, in your opinion?

--
Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf)
er...@bga.com "So *that's* what an invisible barrier
looks like." -- from _Time Bandits_

wharfie

unread,
Nov 3, 1994, 7:20:02 PM11/3/94
to
In article <Cypr4...@txnews.amd.com> charles...@amd.com writes:
>"Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" [...] which is just sooooo typical
>of hypocritical Liberals and their smarmy, disingenuous, nefarious agenda.

Yeah! Like, if a Conservative was running for President against
one 'o them smarmy Liberal fellas from, say, Arkansas or someplace, he'd
*never* stoop to some cheap trick like trying to pretend that a trip
to Moscow as a student is an *obvious* connection to the Red Empire.

None of that kinda stuff from the Conservative element.

David Smith

unread,
Nov 3, 1994, 9:57:12 PM11/3/94
to
charles...@amd.com wrote:

: In article <1994Nov3.1...@cactus.org> m...@cactus.org (Mike) writes:
: ..
: > BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State House of
: > Representatives. His former ads used to mention that he was a member
: > of the American Family Association, a Conservative Christian organization.
: > He is running on the Republican ticket.

: OK, Mister Liberal, right now, list all the actions taken by Mike Krusee which
: indicate that he follows/supports/intends to implement a radical Conservative
: Christian agenda.

Well, it's printed right there that Kruse listed himself in former
advertisements as a member of the American Family Association. That's
pretty substantial in itself, given that the AFA is lead by Reverend
Wildmon, who has repeated called for the censorship/boycotts of
American television, film, and music which don't meet his religious
standards of conduct.

If someone *lists* this affiliation on their political *advertisements*
then why is it such a stretch if someone thinks, hey, I think he wants to
implement a radical conservative Christian agenda? I mean, Kruse was
advertising this affiliation as a political ploy to gain the votes of
conservative Christians, yet liberals are hypocrites if they think the
same thing.

Maybe you know something I don't. Maybe Kruse has since repudiated these
affiliations and associations with these political forces. But even that
doesn't negate the premise that if a political candidate lists
affiliationship and membership in a certain group that they are seeking to
represent the values of said groups.

: Do it now, and it had better be extensive and documented, because if you can't,

: you're guilty of the worst kind of "Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" perpetrated in
: the American politic, one which is just sooooo typical of hypocritical Liberals
: and their smarmy, disingenuous, nefarious agenda.

Are you also asserting that this practice is unique to liberals?

I am sure that we could whip up over a dozen counter-examples by
conservatives, if you'd like, starting with all of the Republican
campaign ads that show the local Democrat candidate juxtaposed with Bill
Clinton. Bush has run this ad against Ann Richards; Jo Baylor has run
this ad against Loyd Doggett.

Where does this hit on the charles herrick outrage meter?

--
thanks, | "The most exciting breakthroughs of the 21st century
| will not occur because of technology but because
David Smith | of an expanding concept of what it means to be human."
bla...@bga.com | -- John Naisbitt / Patricia Aburdene

T. Kelley Boylan

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 1:46:16 AM11/4/94
to
> Where does this hit on the charles herrick outrage meter?

Everything hits everywhere on the CH outrage meter. He is, after all, one
of those smarmy conservatives, and you know how *they* are.

;-)

-Kelley-

Thomas Kelley Boylan |
Technical documentation | kel...@bga.com
System support | Austin, Texas

Matthew Robert Feeney

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 2:16:59 AM11/4/94
to
In article <39bt7v$a...@giga.bga.com>, Clayton Colwell <er...@bga.com> wrote:
>#1. Republicans, who claim the term "Conservative"
>as their sole property, want to keep governemt just as big as you think
>Democrats (the classical Liberal party) want to -- just in different areas.

As with any good post with such a topic as this, please answer: What "different
areas?" When making claims in the political arena, vague generalizations
don't prove much.

I tend to disagree anyway...about the only area that Republicans want a bigger
"government" really isn't the government per se; it's the military, which,
IMO, is the primary role of the Federal government.

The primary missions of the US gov't is to protect the general populace, allow
the economy & businesses run its course, and to provide a framework for fair
and just means of carrying out business. Government really shouldn't be a
major player in business the way it is now.

It's not the role of the gov't to be involved in the daily affairs of the
people. For example, government has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER to provide social
security, health care, and welfare. The gov't has no right to take my hard
earned $$$ and give it to someone else. Why should my sweat provide for
someone else's handout on a MANDATORY basis? subsidize someone's retirement?

I think a proof of the government's over involvement is the budget deficit.
The gov't thinks that it has to provide all these (& more) services and just
keeps shelling out the $$$, without the income $$$ to back it!
______________

>#2. Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code (the one outlawing homosexual
>sodomy, despite efforts by lawmakers to either expunge the section or get
>it to apply to heterosexual sodomy as well) is still on the books, tech-
>nically making most "practicing homosexuals" criminals (at least this is
>the argument many self-proclaimed Conservatives use). Do these
>technically-non-law-abiding homosexuals have the right to keep the
>government out of their private lives, in your opinion?
>--
>Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf)
>er...@bga.com "So *that's* what an invisible barrier
> looks like." -- from _Time Bandits_

I think homosexuality is wrong (Romans 1 is quite conclusive on this issue,
yes, I'm a Christian), and I think the Williamson County Commissioners did
the right thing. The law as it stands is fine with me, for obvious reasons.
BUT, as I'm sure you're thinking...quite a double standard based on the above
arguements. That is, the gov't shouldn't interfere with the daily lives of
people. You're right. If the law is abolished, I'd have no valid argument
to keep the law.

BUT, homosexuals should NOT be considered a minority group. Homosexuality
is a CHOSEN lifestyle (similar to alcoholism), unilike a person's race or
gender. I find it hard to believe that the minority groups out there now
want to be associated with them. (Yes, I'm a white male, AND, I'd like to
hear from minorities on their opinions on this issue.)

Now, before many of you start slamming me for expressing such views, allow me
to say a few things. 1) I simply stated my opinions in an open and honest
format. I didn't do a flame fest on someone else. 2) I have NOTHING against
the homosexual person him/her-self. I'm sure many are hard-working, nice
people. I'm against their sexual oreintation, and their efforts to become
a minority (or, in some cases, a 'victim'). 3) Flaming accomplishes nothing!
Everyone has a right to express their opinions. Let's keep it that way!

- Matthew Feeney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Matthew Feeney, ENS, USN | Today is the first day of the rest of your *
* fee...@cs.utexas.edu | life, make the best of it. *
* Reliv Independent Distributor | Carpe Diem! '93 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benjamin J. Sloan

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 9:47:29 AM11/4/94
to
In article <39cn5b$m...@yoakum.cs.utexas.edu>,

Matthew Robert Feeney <fee...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>I think homosexuality is wrong (Romans 1 is quite conclusive on this issue,
>yes, I'm a Christian), and I think the Williamson County Commissioners did
>the right thing. The law as it stands is fine with me, for obvious reasons.
>BUT, as I'm sure you're thinking...quite a double standard based on the above
>arguements. That is, the gov't shouldn't interfere with the daily lives of
>people. You're right. If the law is abolished, I'd have no valid argument
>to keep the law.

Suppose I told you I thought Christianity is wrong (I'm quite conclusive
on this issue)? Could we deny tax
abatements to Apple based on the fact they give benefits to Christians?
Could I fire you from your job because I disagreed with your lifestyle?
Deny you benefirts? A place to live?

>BUT, homosexuals should NOT be considered a minority group. Homosexuality
>is a CHOSEN lifestyle (similar to alcoholism), unilike a person's race or
>gender. I find it hard to believe that the minority groups out there now
>want to be associated with them. (Yes, I'm a white male, AND, I'd like to
>hear from minorities on their opinions on this issue.)

Christians should NOT be considered a minority group. Christianity is
a CHOSEN religion (similar to poverty), unlike a person's race or
sex. I find it hard to believe the Republicans out there want to be


associated with them. (Yes, I'm a white male, AND, I'd like to hear from

Republicans on this issue.)

>Now, before many of you start slamming me for expressing such views, allow me
>to say a few things. 1) I simply stated my opinions in an open and honest
>format. I didn't do a flame fest on someone else. 2) I have NOTHING against
>the homosexual person him/her-self. I'm sure many are hard-working, nice
>people. I'm against their sexual oreintation, and their efforts to become
>a minority (or, in some cases, a 'victim'). 3) Flaming accomplishes nothing!
>Everyone has a right to express their opinions. Let's keep it that way!

Now, before you disagree and hurt my feelings, allow me to say (1) these
are simply my opinions, (2) I have NOTHING against the Christian person
him/her-self. I'm sure some are hard-working, unbrainwashed,
nonjudgemental peole. I'm against their religion and their status as a
group against which I don't have the right to discriminate in employment,
housing or benefits. 3) Flaming accomplishes nothing! (unless you're a
flamer...)

Ben
--
Benjamin Sloan "Every day is the good old days!"
b...@utig.ig.utexas.edu -Sylvia Smith

charles...@amd.com

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 3:26:51 PM11/4/94
to
In article <39bt7v$a...@giga.bga.com> er...@bga.com (Clayton Colwell) writes:
..

> Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code (the one outlawing homosexual
> sodomy, despite efforts by lawmakers to either expunge the section or get
> it to apply to heterosexual sodomy as well) is still on the books, tech-
> nically making most "practicing homosexuals" criminals (at least this is
> the argument many self-proclaimed Conservatives use). Do these
> technically-non-law-abiding homosexuals have the right to keep the
> government out of their private lives, in your opinion?

yep.

charles...@amd.com

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 3:28:20 PM11/4/94
to
In article <39buni$7...@rambler.unisql.com> wr...@unisql.unisql.com (wharfie)
writes:

> In article <Cypr4...@txnews.amd.com> charles...@amd.com writes:
> >"Guilt By Assertion/Inuendo" [...] which is just sooooo typical
> >of hypocritical Liberals and their smarmy, disingenuous, nefarious agenda.
>
> Yeah! Like, if a Conservative was running for President against
> one 'o them smarmy Liberal fellas from, say, Arkansas or someplace, he'd
> *never* stoop to some cheap trick like trying to pretend that a trip
> to Moscow as a student is an *obvious* connection to the Red Empire.

You mean like when Bill "Slick Willie" was overseas on his
unfinished Rhodes scholarship badmouth-blasting his country,
and then tried like the dickens years later to deny it?

charles...@amd.com

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 3:31:30 PM11/4/94
to
In article <39c7u9$8...@giga.bga.com> bla...@bga.com (David Smith) writes:
..

> all of the Republican
> campaign ads that show the local Democrat candidate juxtaposed with Bill
> Clinton. Bush has run this ad against Ann Richards; Jo Baylor has run
> this ad against Loyd Doggett.
>
> Where does this hit on the charles herrick outrage meter?

Both Richards and Doggett are Clinton toadies, but neither has
the courage to admit their hidden convictions, since both
Clinton and the Liberal agenda are politically alive only
until the election.

charles...@amd.com

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 3:43:56 PM11/4/94
to
In article <39cn5b$m...@yoakum.cs.utexas.edu> fee...@cs.utexas.edu (Matthew
Robert Feeney) writes:
..

> It's not the role of the gov't to be involved in the daily affairs of the
> people. For example, government has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER to provide
..

> >#2. Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code (the one outlawing homosexual
> >sodomy, despite efforts by lawmakers to either expunge the section or get
> >it to apply to heterosexual sodomy as well) is still on the books, tech-
> >nically making most "practicing homosexuals" criminals
..

> The law as it stands is fine with me, for obvious reasons.
..

> You're right. If the law is abolished, I'd have no valid argument
> to keep the law.

Are you purposefully weaving all over the philosophical map here, or what?

I still say if it's
.private
.concensual
..adults
it's not your business

Rick Shank

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 5:07:16 PM11/4/94
to
In article <CyrG9...@txnews.amd.com>, <charles...@amd.com> wrote:
>
>I still say if it's
>.private
>.concensual
>..adults
>it's not your business


Unless you're a Liberal. In which case you belong in jail because Charles
believes everything you do is wrong. This applies even if you are not a
Liberal but maybe have a Liberal thought or two.

Rick Shank

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 5:14:48 PM11/4/94
to


Yeah! And like when "Teflon Ronnie" sold arms to Iran and Iraq and
then tried like the dickens years later to deny it? Slick Willie is
good for the country. He reminds us that you don't have to be a
Republican to be a good liar.

Chuck, didn't your mommy tell you that color doesn't matter? There are
good and bad people everywhere. Well, this applies to politics as well.
There are good liberal ideas and bad liberal ideas. There are good
conservative ideas and there are bad conservative ideas. Your shit is
really old.

charles...@amd.com

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 5:31:05 PM11/4/94
to
In article <CyrKG...@txnews.amd.com> ri...@dvorak.amd.com (Rick Shank)
writes:
..

> There are good liberal ideas and

list 3.

wharfie

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 5:50:08 PM11/4/94
to
In article <CyrF...@txnews.amd.com> charles...@amd.com writes:
>You mean like when Bill "Slick Willie" was overseas on his
>unfinished Rhodes scholarship badmouth-blasting his country,

He protested the Vietnam War. I did too. So what? Does
going to college in England mean that you can't care enough about America
to speak out publicly against mistaken and destructive policies, like
pure pigheadedness disguised as Fighting Communism or electing Republicans?


Rick Shank

unread,
Nov 4, 1994, 6:36:21 PM11/4/94
to


Well, actually our bill of rights is an example of several which were fine
liberal ideas of the time. They now are presented as conservative ideas.
Ex: It was a very liberal idea which gave us the right to bear arms. It
is a very conservative idea to retain the right to bear arms. Liberal is
forward thinking (each idea may be good, may be bad). Conservative is backward
(historically speaking) thinking (each idea may be good, may be bad). Some
things need to change, some things need to stay the same. Liberal is generous
thinking (sometimes to the point of stupidly wasting resources). Conservative
is selfish thinking. This is not necessarily all bad as you can't help others
until you help yourself.
Regardless, with someone like yourself Chuck, this is a no win argument. You
are as opposed to the very concept of liberal as the KKK is opposed to any
dark skinned people darker than a lighter shade of pale. You will label
any one or any idea you don't like - liberal. This is bigotry in pure form.
Look around you Chuck. You are obviously intelligent otherwise (bigotry !=
intelligence). Have you ever found anything which was all bad (or all good
for that matter)?


Somebody once said (and I get the feeling you know who, I don't):

An old Democrat has no sense,
and a young Republican has no heart.

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 2:13:16 PM11/6/94
to
In article <39c7u9$8...@giga.bga.com> bla...@bga.com (David Smith) writes:
>Well, it's printed right there that Kruse listed himself in former
>advertisements as a member of the American Family Association. That's
>pretty substantial in itself, given that the AFA is lead by Reverend
>Wildmon, who has repeated called for the censorship/boycotts of
>American television, film, and music which don't meet his religious
>standards of conduct.

So organizations run by the follow are/were also evil because they
stood for religious values --

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Rev. Malcolm X
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Rev. Al Sharpton

I happen to be a devoted fan of the first two. Please tell me they
were evil conservatives because so many others think they were evil
liberals ...
--
John F. Haugh II [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ] @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 2:16:02 PM11/6/94
to
In article <CyrFo...@txnews.amd.com> charles...@amd.com writes:
>Both Richards and Doggett are Clinton toadies, but neither has
>the courage to admit their hidden convictions, since both
>Clinton and the Liberal agenda are politically alive only
>until the election.

Richards has admitted that she is a Clinton toadie and the current
Bush ad shows the piece of video (or sound-bite -- I forget which).
What's truly amazing is that Fisher is also a Clinton toadie and
has said so, yet Kay is so far ahead against him that no one sees
the need to point out Fisher's allegiances.

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Nov 6, 1994, 2:26:55 PM11/6/94
to
In article <Cyro8...@txnews.amd.com> ri...@dvorak.amd.com (Rick Shank) writes:
>Well, actually our bill of rights is an example of several which were fine
>liberal ideas of the time. They now are presented as conservative ideas.
>Ex: It was a very liberal idea which gave us the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms came from England and was granted to various
groups incrementally since the signing of the Magna Carta. The only
thing "liberal" about the application of this right to all citizens
was that it applied to ALL citizens. But even that idea came from
John Locke who was Jefferson's inspiration. Locke dreamt this idea
up decades before Jefferson, and even Locke got the idea from elsewhere.

Given all of that, the Declaration of Independence and much of the Bill
of Rights were conservative ideas. Even the notion of a democratic
government is a re-tread -- Greece did it long before us.

David Smith

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 9:03:10 AM11/7/94
to
John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386) wrote:

: So organizations run by the follow are/were also evil because they


: stood for religious values --

Huh? The question I responded to was whether Kruse publicly identifying
himself with the American Family Association in his campaign literature
was evidence for Kruse being associated with and wanting to implement the
political views of the so-called Religious Right. I say it does; charles
herrick claims it the height of liberal hypocrisy to smear guilt by
association.

You're losing me on the evil/liberal/conservative continuum here.

: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


: Rev. Malcolm X
: Rev. Jesse Jackson
: Rev. Al Sharpton

: I happen to be a devoted fan of the first two. Please tell me they
: were evil conservatives because so many others think they were evil
: liberals ...
: --
: John F. Haugh II [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
: Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ] @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
: There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
: States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

--

vince

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 11:35:35 AM11/7/94
to
In article <Cypr4...@txnews.amd.com>, <charles...@amd.com> wrote:
>FYI, I agree with your assertion that the anti-gay county commissioners ought
>to get the boot. In your narrow little Liberal picture of reality, it probably
>would never occur to you that an authentic, honest Conservative, who believes
>fundamentally in keeping Government both small and out of peoples private
>(law-abiding) lives, would never have voted with the Murder County
>homophobes... something about consenting adults in privacy being none of the
>governments business.

Perhaps you should read the Republican Party platform before you start
crucifying "Liberals"(whatever that word is supposed to mean these days)
for being narrow-minded. I posted some of this stuff to austin.general
a while back. I don't believe that the Republican party fits your definition
of "authentic, honest" conservatives. BTW, is Ed Meese a conservative?

It seems to me that homosexuals are the communists of the 90's as
far as Republicans are concerned. Well, homosexuals and environmentalists.
The fear doesn't have much of an effect on me.

Followups to austin.politics.

vince

charles...@amd.com

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 11:56:17 AM11/7/94
to
In article <39lc2u$n...@giga.bga.com> bla...@bga.com (David Smith) writes:
..
> The question I responded to was whether Kruse publicly identifying
> himself with the American Family Association in his campaign literature
> was evidence for Kruse being associated with and wanting to implement the
> political views of the so-called Religious Right. I say it does

And I say it doesn't.

Look at a person's voting record and his stand _ON SPECIFIC ISSUES_
and tell me if his record indicates whether or not he is
1. an independently minded legislator who happens to belong to a religious
group or
2. a brain-dead automaton who blindly follows the party-line of some cult.

Krusee is not my candidate for legislator-of-the-year, but I submit that he is
_NOT_ characterized by option #2 above, which is what _YOU_ would like to
insinuate.

My point is that today's Liberals are by far worse in the smarmy department
than McCarthy ever was, and this fact is exacerbated by the hypocrisy
manifested by Liberals who have for years been the first to scream outrage
against what they perceive as inuendo by those they choose to label as
"Conservatives." Interesting how Liberals think nothing of turning around and
indulging in the very activities they're so petulant about, isn't it?

While you're at it, here's another question for all you Liberals. Why is it
Liberals consider it the height of reason for, say, the Feminazi cadre to shove
their agenda down the throat of the Republic, but the very definition of evil
for Christians to want to see their traditional values manifested in actions
taken by the Republic?

Note the Followups:

Frank Fitzpatrick

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 1:56:16 PM11/7/94
to
MI> From: m...@cactus.org (Mike)
MI> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 14:58:37 GMT

MI> If you were upset with the county commisioners who voted AGAINST
MI> tax breaks for Apple Computer last year, here's your chance to
MI> let your voice on the subject be heard.

While I did not agree with the actions taken by the commissioners
with respect to Apple, there are many considerations which I weigh
in my vote.

MI> Several of these county commissioners are up again for
MI> election this year. Greg Boatright(R), Jerry Mehevec(D), and
MI> David Hays(R) do NOT agree with Apple Computer extending health
MI> benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees. Nor do
MI> Dorothy Druckett or Bill Lawson of the Cedar Park city council.

FWIW, I do think the Apple stockholders should be outraged at the
benefits for domestic partners... it is just not an issue for the
county commissioners or other county representatives. Apple is not
breaking any laws.

While I do not agree with Greg Boatrights actions with respect to
Apple, and some other issues as well, at least he had the guts to
respond to an AFA survey stating his position on several issues.
His opponent (Linda Hymans) did not respond. Given a choice, I
will not vote for someone who dodges issues.

FYI... the AFA survey addressed several issues including drug laws,
parole, sex education, term limits, education regulations, and
first amendment rights vs. women's reproductive rights.

MI> BTW, Mike Krusee is running again for election in the State
MI> House of Representatives. His former ads used to mention that
MI> he was a member of the American Family Association, a
MI> Conservative Christian organization. He is running on the
MI> Republican ticket.

I don't believe membership to the AFA and being a conservative
Christian are bad things. The AFA (and many other organizations)
works to make voting records available and polls candidates about
many issues. I believe a conservative Christian has values which
make him or her unlikely to lie, cheat, steal, etc.... (Please
don't twist this around -- I am NOT implying that someone who is
non-Christian is therefore corrupt... I also know that some people
who profess to be Christians have displayed less than exemplary
behavior... that's why I will vote against Ms Hutchison.)

I believe a candidate's record should be a primary consideration.
(I like Mike Krusee's record.)

MI> Don't Forget to Vote on Election Day!

Agreed.
--
Best Regards,
Frank Fitzpatrick -- ff...@bga.com

charles...@amd.com

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 10:01:22 AM11/8/94
to
In article <39ll0n$6...@pentagon.io.com> vi...@pentagon.io.com (vince) writes:
> In article <Cypr4...@txnews.amd.com>, <charles...@amd.com> wrote:
> >FYI, I agree with your assertion that the anti-gay county commissioners
ought
> >to get the boot. In your narrow little Liberal picture of reality, it
probably
> >would never occur to you that an authentic, honest Conservative, who
believes
> >fundamentally in keeping Government both small and out of peoples private
> >(law-abiding) lives, would never have voted with the Murder County
> >homophobes... something about consenting adults in privacy being none of the
> >governments business.
>
> Perhaps you should read the Republican Party platform before you start
> crucifying "Liberals"(whatever that word is supposed to mean these days)
> for being narrow-minded.

There are articles in the platform I don't agree with. On the other hand, I
don't extend my tolerance of other peoples' sexual preference as expressed in
the privacy of their own homes to groups such as the Lesbian recruiters who
recently were arrested while passing out leaflets and propagandizing young
girls on the grounds of their elementary school.

> I posted some of this stuff to austin.general
> a while back. I don't believe that the Republican party fits your definition
> of "authentic, honest" conservatives. BTW, is Ed Meese a conservative?

Nope. Neither is Ollie North. So what's your point? That if you can find even
one Republican who is a butthead, you can condemn the entire Conservative
philosophy? Sounds like pretty selective reasoning to me... perhaps you'd like
to extend your standards to Liberals and Democrats? No?

Gee, just as I thought... YAHL (Yet Another Hypocritical Liberal)

charles...@amd.com

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 10:03:10 AM11/8/94
to
In article <39lt8g$6...@giga.bga.com> ff...@bga.com (Frank Fitzpatrick) writes:
..

> I believe a conservative Christian has values which
> make him or her unlikely to lie, cheat, steal, etc.... (Please
> don't twist this around

Ollie North.

Deborah Kilgore

unread,
Nov 10, 1994, 5:55:06 PM11/10/94
to

>While you're at it, here's another question for all you Liberals. Why is it
>Liberals consider it the height of reason for, say, the Feminazi cadre to shove
>their agenda down the throat of the Republic, but the very definition of evil
>for Christians to want to see their traditional values manifested in actions
>taken by the Republic?

Gee, this doesn't seem at all biased. To which "traditional values" would you
be referring? The God-given right to associate those different than yourself
(who you're obviously afraid of) with SATAN? The right to use every means at
your disposal to take their God-given rights away?

Of course both sides of the political arena have their extremists, and its a
shame that they are by definition the most vocal. It just seems in my
experience that conservatives are particularly adept at falling into that
intolerant, extremist mold. I can tell from your post that you're just one of
a million sleep-walking zombies in a supposed "liberal" city. Not
anymore...it's too clogged with Rush disciples. Now there is a guy who has
everyone else's best interests at heart.

One more food for thought. Growing up as a Methodist, just about every sermon
I can remember centered on main one theme, "Give of yourself. Help your
neighbor and those less fortunate. Look out for others, and don't be
selfish." So my question is this: how did these "Traditional Values" turn
into "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
to starving people!"

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Nov 11, 1994, 11:29:40 PM11/11/94
to
In article <deborahk.2...@admin.stedwards.edu> debo...@admin.stedwards.edu (Deborah Kilgore) writes:
>One more food for thought. Growing up as a Methodist, just about every sermon
>I can remember centered on main one theme, "Give of yourself. Help your
>neighbor and those less fortunate. Look out for others, and don't be
>selfish." So my question is this: how did these "Traditional Values" turn
>into "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
>to starving people!"

My church still preaches this sermon, and some of us still practices
what we hear preached.

When I complain about "Those damn liberals", I'm not complaining about
giving it to truly needy "starving people!", my beef is that they
create new classes of poor starving people out of thin air. The wealth
in this country is concentrated in the elderly, but to hear the liberals
talk, all of the elderly are piss poor broke and living on Alpo. Likewise,
no rational adult in this group would give their child a large allowance,
never expect them to get an education, and never make them work. Yet
this is what we do with welfare and we then wonder why the people who
receive welfare can't get off it.

Sorry, but my Christian perspective was tainted by the Confucian saying
"If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a
man to fish you feed him for life." And that's why I'm opposed to


"Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it

to starving people." -- Those damn liberals are doing everything they
can to make sure those starving people are hungry again tomorrow and
able to get to the polls every two years and vote them back in office!

Matthew Robert Feeney

unread,
Nov 12, 1994, 2:50:33 AM11/12/94
to
In article <39edr1$m...@rambler.unisql.com>,

Wharfie -

You clearly do NOT know the facts. Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton didn't get
his name for nothing. I wish I could elaborate further, but, as you can
see in my signature, President Clinton is my Commander-in-Chief.

If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's
Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
Presidency. It is not very flattering.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Matthew Feeney, ENS, USN | Today is the first day of the rest of your *
* fee...@cs.utexas.edu | life, make the best of it. *
* Reliv Independent Distributor | Carpe Diem! '93 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinions are my own, not of the U.S. Navy or University of Texas.

Duncan Idaho

unread,
Nov 12, 1994, 3:17:21 AM11/12/94
to
In article <1994Nov12.042940.22057@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <deborahk.2...@admin.stedwards.edu> debo...@admin.stedwards.edu (Deborah Kilgore) writes:
>>One more food for thought. Growing up as a Methodist, just about every sermon
>>I can remember centered on main one theme, "Give of yourself. Help your
>>neighbor and those less fortunate. Look out for others, and don't be
>>selfish." So my question is this: how did these "Traditional Values" turn
>>into "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
>>to starving people!"

There are two problems with your post. One is that a very small fraction of
taxes actually get to "the ubiquitous poor." Most of it goes into the
governments own pocket. And so the second problem is that in practise your
sermon gets translated into: "help yourself to your neighbor's pockets and
pretend that you're both helping the poor." They call that "redistribution
of wealth."

ANd if you're not convinced then look at the mdeian incomes of the "poor",
adjusted for inflation, over the entire period of the GReat Soceity. It
flattened out in the 70s that 15% of the population stays below the poverty
line. This despite spending trillions....

Meanwhile parents have to both work to pay for the taxes that otherwise
would go into their house or for their kids.

- D
--
.... (C) 1994 Copyright Duncan Idaho, All Rights Reserved ..................
There are "three absolute rights [sic] the right of personal security, personal
liberty and personal property," Sir William Blackstone. "The protection of
these faculties is the first object of government." Madison, Federalist 10.

Edward Henigin

unread,
Nov 12, 1994, 2:25:00 PM11/12/94
to
Matthew Robert Feeney (fee...@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
:
: Wharfie -

: You clearly do NOT know the facts. Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton didn't get
: his name for nothing. I wish I could elaborate further, but, as you can

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: see in my signature, President Clinton is my Commander-in-Chief.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


hhehhehheh... and your job is to protect freedom? whatta joke.


: If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's


: Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
: Presidency. It is not very flattering.

last time I wanted facts, the LAST place I read anything was in the
Readers Digest.


--
Edward Henigin | Texas Networking Inc.
e...@texas.net ^ San Antonio's Premier ISP
(210) 599-8217 | e-mail in...@texas.net for more info
"He who laughs and runs away, lives to love another day..."

Edward Henigin

unread,
Nov 12, 1994, 2:27:51 PM11/12/94
to
John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386) wrote:
: Sorry, but my Christian perspective was tainted by the Confucian saying

: "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a
: man to fish you feed him for life." And that's why I'm opposed to
: "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
: to starving people." -- Those damn liberals are doing everything they
: can to make sure those starving people are hungry again tomorrow and
: able to get to the polls every two years and vote them back in office!


seems to me.... the conservatives want y'all in jail, and the
democrats want y'all on welfare.

wharfie

unread,
Nov 12, 1994, 3:40:31 PM11/12/94
to
In article <3a1s49$r...@priddy.cs.utexas.edu> fee...@cs.utexas.edu (Matthew Robert Feeney) writes:
>If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's
>Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
>Presidency. It is not very flattering.

Like I'd believe *anything* in a rag like "Reader's Digest",
ick. Anyway, *all* politician's rises to *anywhere* or, at the least,
not very flattering.


John F. Haugh II

unread,
Nov 13, 1994, 12:52:34 PM11/13/94
to
In article <Cz5B0...@tpoint.net> de...@tpoint.net (Duncan Idaho) writes:
>There are two problems with your post. One is that a very small fraction of
>taxes actually get to "the ubiquitous poor." Most of it goes into the
>governments own pocket. And so the second problem is that in practise your
>sermon gets translated into: "help yourself to your neighbor's pockets and
>pretend that you're both helping the poor." They call that "redistribution
>of wealth."

Duncan, I think you are completely off base on this one. Tax assistance
by income level dramatically favors the lower class. If you look at net
taxes paid by income level you will see that sufficiently low income levels
pay a =negative= tax rate because of credits such as EIC.

>ANd if you're not convinced then look at the mdeian incomes of the "poor",
>adjusted for inflation, over the entire period of the GReat Soceity. It
>flattened out in the 70s that 15% of the population stays below the poverty
>line. This despite spending trillions....

This seems to be a non-sequitor. Please show that spending trillions would
even result in the changes you are expecting for having spent trillions.

One thing which is in constant need of pointing out is that the lower income
brackets frequently have significant assets. The elderly frequently have
little "income" because investments and Social Security aren't included.
And other truly poor people don't have the social welfare payments they
receive (whether in cash or subsidised services) included in their "income".

So it just doesn't matter that LBJ sent this country on a $5 trillion
spending binge -- those dollars were never going to show up in the "results"
column anyway.

>Meanwhile parents have to both work to pay for the taxes that otherwise
>would go into their house or for their kids.

I agree that many households pay absurd amounts of tax, but I will not
agree that this is the leading cause of two income households. "Keeping
up with the Joneses" is a more than adequate explanation.

Does anyone remember when one TeeVee and one car was enough for a middle
class household? Does anyone remember when "choice" in TeeVee viewing
meant your community had ABC, CBS, NBC =and= PBS?

I bet that I could transform almost any two wage earner household into a
single wage earner household just by cutting out the increases in "standard
of comfortable living" since the 60's.

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Nov 13, 1994, 12:54:07 PM11/13/94
to
In article <3a34vn$i...@cactus.texas.net> e...@cactus.texas.net (Edward Henigin) writes:
>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386) wrote:
>: Sorry, but my Christian perspective was tainted by the Confucian saying
>: "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a
>: man to fish you feed him for life." And that's why I'm opposed to
>: "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
>: to starving people." -- Those damn liberals are doing everything they
>: can to make sure those starving people are hungry again tomorrow and
>: able to get to the polls every two years and vote them back in office!
>
> seems to me.... the conservatives want y'all in jail, and the
>democrats want y'all on welfare.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. My comment was that I want
those starving people to learn how to fish, or "work" for those of you who
don't work well with literary images. I'll agree with your assessment of
liberals, tho.

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Nov 13, 1994, 1:03:03 PM11/13/94
to
In article <3a34qc$i...@cactus.texas.net> e...@cactus.texas.net (Edward Henigin) writes:
>Matthew Robert Feeney (fee...@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's
>: Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
>: Presidency. It is not very flattering.
>
> last time I wanted facts, the LAST place I read anything was in the
>Readers Digest.

If you don't like what Reader's Digest says, go read the article and then
look up the source article. Reader's Digest is a DIGEST. They don't make
up their own stuff and even when they do produce the occasional odd article,
they footnote the source of their information.

As for "Slick Willie", that is a name given him by his supporters. Only
after everyone else discovered how deceitful he is did his detractors
start using that name.

TBoyum

unread,
Nov 13, 1994, 5:35:05 PM11/13/94
to
In article <1994Nov13.175234.9582@rpp386>, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
writes:

:I agree that many households pay absurd amounts of tax, but I will not


:agree that this is the leading cause of two income households. "Keeping
:up with the Joneses" is a more than adequate explanation.

I can testify to that in my personal experience. My wife and I did that
by having one car, no cable, cutting out the needed child care, and going
out to dinner less. It wasn't easy the first year, but it seems to me
that the people decide to sacrifice their children in favor of their
lifestyle. I am sometimes envious of peple I work with who have
nicer/more items, but I have a better relationship with my family than any
of them and I am confident that it impacts my children.

Both of my parents worked. I now have an 8 year old son that we home
school and who is a well balanced loving happy child. When I was 8, I was
depressed, miserable, a vandel and I already smoked cigarettes. I choose
the kids -- the Jones can create their own hell while dropping their kids
into it.

Before someone attacks that, I don't believe that everyone has to go my
route -- but I think most of us do and all of us should consider the
effect of the alternatives more seriously.

Todd

Edward Henigin

unread,
Nov 13, 1994, 6:12:55 PM11/13/94
to
John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386) wrote:
: > seems to me.... the conservatives want y'all in jail, and the

: >democrats want y'all on welfare.

: I don't know how you reached that conclusion. My comment was that I want
: those starving people to learn how to fish, or "work" for those of you who
: don't work well with literary images. I'll agree with your assessment of
: liberals, tho.


I didn't get the quip about conservatives from what you said, I
got it from what I see on tv and read in the papers and hear from friends
etc, especially wrt drug laws, sex laws, and anything to do with
not being part of the mainstream.

John Iacoletti

unread,
Nov 9, 1994, 7:44:58 PM11/9/94
to
In article <CyyF2...@txnews.amd.com>, charles...@amd.com (charles...@amd.com) writes:
|> On the other hand, I
|> don't extend my tolerance of other peoples' sexual preference as expressed in
|> the privacy of their own homes to groups such as the Lesbian recruiters who
|> recently were arrested while passing out leaflets and propagandizing young
|> girls on the grounds of their elementary school.

What do you think about the Gideons passing out bibles and propagandizing young
children on the grounds of their elementary school?

--
John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Practice senseless acts of randomness"

Rick Shank

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 10:18:41 AM11/14/94
to
In article <1994Nov13.175407.9657@rpp386>,

John F. Haugh II <j...@rpp386.cactus.org> wrote:
>In article <3a34vn$i...@cactus.texas.net> e...@cactus.texas.net (Edward Henigin) writes:
>>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386) wrote:
>>: Sorry, but my Christian perspective was tainted by the Confucian saying
>>: "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a
>>: man to fish you feed him for life." And that's why I'm opposed to
>>: "Those damn liberals are trying to take away all _MY_ money and give it
>>: to starving people." -- Those damn liberals are doing everything they
>>: can to make sure those starving people are hungry again tomorrow and
>>: able to get to the polls every two years and vote them back in office!
>>
>> seems to me.... the conservatives want y'all in jail, and the
>>democrats want y'all on welfare.
>
>I don't know how you reached that conclusion. My comment was that I want
>those starving people to learn how to fish, or "work" for those of you who
>don't work well with literary images. I'll agree with your assessment of
>liberals, tho.


I don't think that's where he was going John. I think he was using the
same argument I have. Some think Liberals (Democrats) are no good, some
think Conservatives (Republicans) are no good. The fact of the matter is
very few politicians are any good. It is a waste of time to get on one
side of the fence or the other and throw rocks the other way. Those of
us who are on the fence actually trying to solve the problems spend too
much of our time dodging rocks from both sides.

Lisa Senner

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 10:57:14 AM11/14/94
to
tbo...@aol.com (TBoyum) writes:
]
]I can testify to that in my personal experience. My wife and I did that

]by having one car, no cable, cutting out the needed child care, and going
]out to dinner less. It wasn't easy the first year, but it seems to me

]that the people decide to sacrifice their children in favor of their
]lifestyle. I am sometimes envious of peple I work with who have
]nicer/more items, but I have a better relationship with my family than any
]of them and I am confident that it impacts my children.

I take great exception to this. My husband and I both work, our 8-year
old is not depressed, nor is he a vandal or a smoker. Our children will
go to college, something I have had to work on for 16 years part-time while
holding down a full-time job to pay for it. My 16-month old adores his
day-care teacher and peers, he is a well-adjusted, well-rounded baby with
socialization skills your home-schooled child may have yet to develop. Our
family unit is strong and loving and we are very committed to one another.
I personally am a much better person for going off to work each day and
fullfilling my need for adult interaction, diversity and personal growth.
I believe this is reflected in the richness of my relationships with my
family. I sometimes wish I could stay at home with our kids, but when I
look at the bigger picture, it's clear to me, for our family at least, this
arrangement works out best for _everyone_.

Don't generalize me, and I won't generalize you.

wharfie

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 5:20:19 PM11/14/94
to
In article <1994Nov13.180303.9958@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>If you don't like what Reader's Digest says, go read the article and then
>look up the source article. Reader's Digest is a DIGEST.

Reader's Digest prints slanted articles already printed in
other rags. They're *still* printing stories about marijuana addicts
driven to suicide by the brain damage inevitably caused by the evil
weed. That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own
propaganda just makes it that much more pathetic.


Barry Chalcroft,2136,x8723,18849,

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 4:50:15 PM11/14/94
to
RE:

>If you want the facts, read the latest issue (November, I think) of Reader's
>Digest. It contains a detailed, blow-by-blow, account of Clinton's rise to
>Presidency. It is not very flattering.

Readers Digest, now thats an unbiased source of information. Next thing
you'll be quoting the "objective" reporting of TV Guide.


CUL,
-barryc

---
Barry D. Chalcroft / N5NWI Tandem Computers ISD, Austin,TX
Work: (512) 244-8723 The Home of "UNIX with Integrity"
EMAIL: bar...@mpd.tandem.com Yes, I'm proud to be a liberal...
76500...@compuserve.com I also support President Clinton!

wharfie

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 5:43:29 PM11/14/94
to
In article <Cz9Jv...@txnews.amd.com> ri...@dvorak.amd.com (Rick Shank) writes:
>It is a waste of time to get on one
>side of the fence or the other and throw rocks the other way. Those of
>us who are on the fence actually trying to solve the problems spend too
>much of our time dodging rocks from both sides.

One time I was at this Allman Brothers concert at a big
racetrack. This racetrack had a big chainlink fence, 18 feet high at
least, going all around the actual paved part where the cars drove. All
the concert people sat inside this big fence, and naturally the ones
all the way in the back couldn't see very much of the stage.

So these people started climbing the big chainlink fence to
see better. Pretty soon the whole fence was lined with hippies and bikers,
sitting up there like swallows on a telephone line. Only thing was, the
concert people had strung all kinds of speaker wires and electrical
cables and stuff along the top of the fence where these guys were sitting.
After a while some guy walks out on stage and takes the microphone from
Duane and says

"Y'all need to get down offa that there fence. There's all
kinds of speaker wires and electrical cables and stuff along the top of
that there fence, and we don't want nobody to get electrocuted so just
climb on down, alright?"

But none of the guys on the fence want to give up their seat
and get down on the ground with the rest of us. The guy on stage says

"Well, look, the concert won't go on until y'all get down offa
that fence. I won't let the band play anymore until everybody is
down offa that fence. If you want attention that bad just take your
clothes off and get up on the stage, but *get* off the fence!"

The rest of the audience got upset at this, and we started
throwing marshmallows and candy and cigarette butts and wads of paper
and whatever else was handy at the guys on the fence. They all gave
us the finger but they did eventually climb down when it was obvious that
we wouldn't run out of ammunition and the show really wouldn't go on
until they cooperated.

About the middle of the second set the left speaker tower went
out. Some electrical guys climbed up on the fence to fix the wires,
but the audience saw them and thought it was the original crew trying
to sneak back up. They started throwing the candy and cigarette butts
and stuff again, and no matter how much the electrical guys tried to
stay up there and fix the wires they couldn't, what with all the
garbage flying through the air. So they flipped us the bird too, and
went away. Never did get those speakers fixed.


I'm not sure if the moral of the story is "if you throw
stuff at the guys on the fence you might never get to hear the
music" or "Don't run your speaker wires and electrical cables and stuff
along the top of the fence 'cause hippies will sit on them".

David Springer

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 6:58:38 PM11/14/94
to
wr...@unisql.unisql.com (wharfie) writes:

>In article <1994Nov13.180303.9958@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

> Reader's Digest prints slanted articles already printed in
>other rags. They're *still* printing stories about marijuana addicts


Oh really ? Perhaps you'd care to cite exactly which Readers Digest
edition this was in ? Just one will do, I won't hold you to the
plurality of articles you claim.


>driven to suicide by the brain damage inevitably caused by the evil
>weed. That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own


Dave Springer
Readers Digest Subscriber since the 60's.


TBoyum

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 8:35:07 PM11/14/94
to
In article <1994Nov14.1...@integrity.uucp>, li...@mpd.tandem.com
(Lisa Senner) writes:

}I take great exception to this.

Lisa,

Speaking of generalizations -- did you care to read the rest of the post
-- I know that it is fine for some people and I am thrilled that it works
for you. My child is very well adjusted socially but it takes a lifetime
to determine how any course of action will work out entirely anyway. Why
is it that everyone wants to be offended???? Every parent should
seriously ponder their own course -- it sounds like you and I have/are
doing that --- I don't believe the majority do -- that was my point -- it
is easier for most to accept things the way they are without really
dealing with the affect it has on children. You're in the minority or so
our culture seems to be pointing to. History and current statistics
prove this without my help. Good luck on your course -- I wish you the
best.

Todd

Big Kahuna

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 10:24:59 PM11/14/94
to
you rule. :)

wharfie (wr...@unisql.unisql.com) wrote:


--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Small Biz Help Net - http://www.fc.net/~kahuna/
Advertise your business the way it should be advertised!
finger kah...@fc.net for more details!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Kevin Langston

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 10:45:59 PM11/14/94
to
wr...@unisql.unisql.com (wharfie) writes:
>In article <1994Nov13.180303.9958@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>If you don't like what Reader's Digest says, go read the article and then
>>look up the source article. Reader's Digest is a DIGEST.
>
> Reader's Digest prints slanted articles already printed in
>other rags. They're *still* printing stories about marijuana addicts
>driven to suicide by the brain damage inevitably caused by the evil
>weed.

Stories, eh? How about naming at least two issues and the titles
of the articles?

>That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own
>propaganda just makes it that much more pathetic.

Have you read the RD issues or are you just repeating someone
else's lines?


--
Kevin Langston
lang...@frontier.lonestar.org

"Envy is a powerful tool in the hand of a tyrant."

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 2:22:50 AM11/15/94
to
In article <1994Nov14.1...@integrity.uucp> li...@mpd.tandem.com writes:
> I sometimes wish I could stay at home with our kids, but when I
>look at the bigger picture, it's clear to me, for our family at least, this
>arrangement works out best for _everyone_.

Make Joe sell the Bimmer then you can stay home with Dillion all day ;-)

John F. Haugh II

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 2:41:09 AM11/15/94
to
In article <3a8nr3$a...@rambler.unisql.com> wr...@unisql.unisql.com (Lou Marco) writes:
> Reader's Digest prints slanted articles already printed in
>other rags. They're *still* printing stories about marijuana addicts
>driven to suicide by the brain damage inevitably caused by the evil
>weed.

Hmmm. Can you provide some examples of issues in which they did
this?

> That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own
>propaganda just makes it that much more pathetic.

Lou, you've been smoking too much dope again -- Reader's Digest is a
DIGEST -- they don't make up any of their own anything. That's why
people buy the magazine -- so they can read the 2,500 word version of
"War and Peace" while taking a crap some morning.

Benjamin J. Sloan

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 3:56:25 AM11/15/94
to
In article <1994Nov15.074109.23928@rpp386>,

John F. Haugh II <j...@rpp386.cactus.org> wrote:
>Lou, you've been smoking too much dope again -- Reader's Digest is a
>DIGEST -- they don't make up any of their own anything. That's why
>people buy the magazine -- so they can read the 2,500 word version of
>"War and Peace" while taking a crap some morning.

Get real. RD is a major piece of right-wing propaganda and the Clinton
expose' is a perfect example of it. Where did they summarize that stuff
from? "The Clinton Files"? Spare me. Reader's Digest is such a smug,
holier-than-thou, conservative instrument I could barely stand it after
the age of 13 or so. I think that's about the time I began skipping
most of the articles and only reading Drama In Real Life. "The stewardess
spilled hot coffee on the pilot, blinding him at 10,000 feet! The
small plane went into a death spiral until Marge Hoover thought to
press her call button, rousing him to life!" Jeez, it was the basis
for "COPS" and "911" and all the rest of that tripe.

You're right about the appropriate "reading room" for RD, though.

Ben
--
Benjamin Sloan "...the Oklahoma City police are a bunch of crazed
b...@utig.ig.utexas.edu no-neck gestapo who don't know nothing about nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and hate anyone who does." -author Bruce Sterling

Franklin Taylor

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 4:33:20 AM11/15/94
to
In <1994Nov15.0...@frontier.lonestar.org> Kevin Langston
<lang...@frontier.lonestar.org> writes:

>
>wr...@unisql.unisql.com (wharfie) writes:
>>In article <1994Nov13.180303.9958@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>If you don't like what Reader's Digest says, go read the article and then
>>>look up the source article. Reader's Digest is a DIGEST.
>>

[snip]

>>That they don't even have the creativity to make up their own
>>propaganda just makes it that much more pathetic.
>
> Have you read the RD issues or are you just repeating someone
> else's lines?
>

> Kevin Langston

Nah...read it on USENET.

Frank

Clayton Colwell

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 9:29:18 AM11/15/94
to
Benjamin J. Sloan (ben@.uucp) wrote:
: In article <1994Nov15.074109.23928@rpp386>,

: John F. Haugh II <j...@rpp386.cactus.org> wrote:
: >Lou, you've been smoking too much dope again -- Reader's Digest is a
: >DIGEST -- they don't make up any of their own anything. That's why
: >people buy the magazine -- so they can read the 2,500 word version of
: >"War and Peace" while taking a crap some morning.

: Get real. RD is a major piece of right-wing propaganda and the Clinton
: expose' is a perfect example of it. Where did they summarize that stuff

I don't think that Reader's Digest and Catholic Digest have the identical
look'n'feel on the front cover for nuthin'.

--
Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf)
er...@bga.com "So *that's* what an invisible barrier
looks like." -- from _Time Bandits_

wharfie

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 10:09:33 AM11/15/94
to
In article <1994Nov15.0...@frontier.lonestar.org> lang...@frontier.lonestar.org (Kevin Langston) writes:
> Stories, eh? How about naming at least two issues and the titles

Shit, like I bother to write this stuff down in case some
Usenet wiseass wants me to do his research for him. If you care that
much about the opinions of the editorial, uh, I mean, "editorial" staff
of Reader's Digest go look it up yourself. That way you can read it
instead of asking me to key it in for you.

Deborah Kilgore

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 7:24:26 AM11/15/94
to
In article <3a938b$s...@newsbf01.news.aol.com> tbo...@aol.com (TBoyum) writes:

>You're in the minority or so
>our culture seems to be pointing to. History and current statistics
>prove this without my help. Good luck on your course -- I wish you the
>best.

>Todd

If you are saying that Lisa's child, as the child of 2 working parents, is in
the minority in that he is a well-adjusted happy little boy, I don't know that
this can be proven. Even with statistics. I submit the hypothesis that
children are more affected by the other aspects of their lives - poverty vs.
no poverty, drugs vs. no drugs, caring parents vs. apathetic parents -
rather than the fact that both their parents work.

Can we separate out the one factor - both parents working vs. one parent
working - and find significant results pointing to children who are better off
in one situation than the other?

Lisa Senner

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 10:44:48 AM11/15/94
to
tbo...@aol.com (TBoyum) writes:
]In article <1994Nov14.1...@integrity.uucp>, li...@mpd.tandem.com
](Lisa Senner) writes:
]
]}I take great exception to this.
]
]Lisa,

]
]Speaking of generalizations -- did you care to read the rest of the post

Todd, I read entire post. I read the part where you said dual-income
families are created simply to keep up with the Jones. I read the part
where you said the worlds problems could probably be solved if more moms
stayed at home with their kids. I don't know where you got your data,
but I personally believe you're full of shit. ok?

David Springer

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 1:44:39 PM11/15/94
to
wr...@unisql.unisql.com (wharfie) writes:

In other words; he either made up his claim or is parroting a source
that he'd rather not associate himself with (probably another
frightened liberal). Maybe he can get the gov't to back his claims ?
God knows he wants the gov't to solve all his other myriad problems.

Dave Springer
Systems Programmer and Usenet Wiseass
Dell Computer Corporation

<standard disclaimers>

David Springer

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 1:56:11 PM11/15/94
to
I see there is still no cite for the RD articles "The Evil Weed Causes
Brain Damaged Addicts to Commit Suicide".

Gee, I wonder why ? ;-)

Rick Saenz

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 3:28:11 PM11/15/94
to
In article <deborahk.7...@admin.stedwards.edu>,
Deborah Kilgore <debo...@admin.stedwards.edu> wrote:

Can we separate out the one factor - both parents working vs. one
parent working - and find significant results pointing to children
who are better off in one situation than the other?

Does it really matter if you can? I have no doubt that any given
individual family could buck the trend, in either direction. We don't
need studies to reassure us that we are part of a social group whose
children do well; we need to take the responsibility to see that our
children get the best possible upbringing.

Rick Saenz

wharfie

unread,
Nov 15, 1994, 4:01:21 PM11/15/94
to
In article <3aavin$6...@uudell.us.dell.com> spri...@dellgate.us.dell.com (David Springer) writes:
>In other words; he either made up his claim or is parroting a source
>that he'd rather not associate himself with

No, dog-breath. It means that I don't xerox the cover of
every Reader's Digest I pick up at the laundromat or the dentist's
office.