HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: a quote for this year
Date: 10 Aug 92  21:25:00 EST

-> How about Red China - they have executions and concentration camps?
-> How about VietNam... they do too, and they also persecute an ethnic Nobody, including myself, is talking about military intervention in China, but even when it comes to tying trade benefits for China to human rights reforms, I think that you'll see some sort of action on China from Bush when it's a cold day in Hell.  Seeing Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Scowcroft toast Deng Xiaoping only a couple of months after Tiananmen Square, and seeing George Bush as one of the first Western leaders to meet with L
i Peng is a craven example to the world.

Let's see:  George Bush is willing to send troops to the Saudi desert to fight Saddam's aggression and, in his words, "defend our way of life", but he's not even willing to use the slightest economic pressure on China after they publicly butchered people seeking the freedoms we have?

As Teddy Roosevelt might have said, George Bush has the backbone of a chocolate eclair!

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

************************************************************************* "Freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorships."
             --Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, citizen of the world,
                   humanist, benefactor of mankind, winner of the
                   Nobel Peace Prize
************************************************************************

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:33:27 GMT

In article <168418104.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>The Bush campaign states that Clinton raised taxes 128 times in Arkansas.
>Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayer's advocacy group says the Rep.'s
>reached this total by counting some taxes twice and including some things like
>raising hunting fees.   But they also noted that Clinton raised the
>sales tax several times,.  They also said that Arkansas' tax system is
>regressive, meaning the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
>income taxpayers.  Note that this is meant as information and not
>as an "our boy" vs. "your boy" type of argument.

You ar correct Clinton did raise sales taxes several times
as well as driver's registration by about $10 (or $15 can't remember)
He raised the  driver's registration in his first term in office
and that was the reason he got booted out. When he raised the 
sales tax however, he did it for education reform, and went to the 
people with his package before asking for the sales tax to 
be raised. Polls at the time showed most people supported this.
(At the time Arkansas had one of the lowest sales taxes
in the country- can[t remember what it was but it was around
3-4% -as opposed to some states such as N.Y. where it's over
7%)  Sales tax also puts the heaviest burden on the poor 
because it tends to raise the price of food etc. 
I'm not surprised the Republicans 
counted taxes twice etc. To be fair however, if you don't
think taxation is legal you're not going to like sales 
tax being raised, but the basic indication is that after
his first term, he had the support of the people, but
he was elected by a reasonably narrow margin last 
election.
:-)
Kristin

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:28:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.205628.29187@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>Wanted: What are the true conservative positions on:
There are different types, so I'll do the "Reagan"-type.
Better yet, I'll do my own opinion:

>1) Foreign Aid?
Can be wasteful, but support if it serves the national interest.
>     a) Economic	
I do not support giving money to Governments for "economic development",
since free enterprise is the best economic development plan devised,
and this would only encourage more statist economic policies.
>     b) Military
Only to serve a valid strategic interest.
>     c) Aiding insurgents/rebels
With communism no longer a threat, probably no need for that.
Better to support democracy through diplomatic and economic methods.

>2) Immigration
Generally favor open immigration.

>3) Minimum Wage
Oppose it since it destroys jobs.

>4) Solution to "racism"
Equality of opportunity and a color-blind society.
Enforce EEOC laws.

>5) the "Buy American" idea
It's bogus. Support free trade as better for the economy and the country.

>6) Workers going to other countries to reduce labor costs and reduce
>   cost per item.
(see immigration :-) )
I think you are talking about companies, though. If trade
and immigration is open, we should realize that campanies too can
go overseas. The solution is to maintain competitiveness at home,
and not try to build walls of protectionism, which will only
make the situation worse over the long run.

NB: A Buchanan conservative might be different on 1,2 and 5.
------------
P.McGuinness
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:38:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.140431.7598@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.214304.12559@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>>	And before you flay me on being a hypocrite on gun control, I
>>do not believe in banning guns. Just in having a nationwide system of
>>gun permits and essentially instant checks on the validity of one when
>>one purchases guns or ammo. The system would be computerized and
>>denials of permits would be open to challenge (to help take care of
>>bureaucratic snafus). The system would be very much like driver's
>>licenses, which no one calls a threat to freedom. Or is it? :-)

That's actually much stricter than drivers' licenses.  One does not
need a license to buy a car, keep a car, or operate a car on private
property.  If you really applied the same principles to guns, you'd be
making a significant reduction in gun control for the vast majority of
the US population.

>   You have just discribed the the Staggers Bill.  The Staggers Bill was
>shot down by a democratically controlled congress.

...and was supported by the NRA.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's bravery
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:45:24 GMT

In article <16842640A.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.182715.25650@news.columbia.edu>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>My impression was that Quayle pulled strings to get himself assigned
>>to a Guard unit that had no chance of being shipped out for some
>>reason.  Given this, Quayle was a hawk who avoided the draft.  Clinton
>>had moral objections to the war, and avoided the draft.  One is a
>>hypocrite in this matter, the other not.
>
>Well, now, Elizabeth, I'd love to see your reference for this
>"pulling strings to get himself assigned to a guard unit that had
>no chance of being shipped out."  It's funny how memory fades into
>whatever shade you predispose it to.  Could it be that you are a
>Denocrat, that you read conjecture of anti-Quayle themes, and now
>it has become firm evidence?

And I usually am able to pull evidence in support of my claims, but,
alas, in this case, no.  I don't have the time or desire at the moment
to look for them.  I suppose I was following this thread, and in the
heat of battle made a stupid, unsupported remark.  Apologies and
retractions.

--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: hulsej@lclark.edu (Jose Hulse)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:11:29 GMT

In article <jc4m6tc.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.045125.14178@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>Finally, there is the argument that's already been cited by others that,
>>if you earn more, you have more of a stake in supporting the structures
>>that allowed you to do so, and therefore you should pay more tax on that
>>additional income.  As an oversimplified example, if you don't earn much
>
>By golly, if I have to pay more, I want my vote to count more! It is only fair!
>

If you're rich, your vote DOES count more, when all the dust settles.  Can
you say lobbying?  Can you say $1000-a-plate dinners with your picture taken
with the candidate for a mere $1000 more?

If you think that these sorts of things (apart from the fact that you're more
likely to vote in the first place as you get more well off) don't magnify
the effects of your vote, you are indeed all wet.
-Jose'

-- 
_______________________________________________
Jose' Hulse  hulsej@lclark.edu | hulsej@agora.rain.com
Clinton/Gore in '92! Put People First!
Bush/Quayl--Just say noe!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@sol.cs.wmich.edu (John Kapenga)
Subject: Electronic Voting?
Keywords: electronic voting tabulation
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:18:34 GMT


Hi;

There may have been some discussion of electronic voting
here recently, I didn't see it and could use some pointers.
I'm trying to collect some opinions on electronic voting,
for someone in the local press.

Here in Michigan we have had a recent stream of real screw-ups
in vote counting software. Some close elections have been
reversed because of software bugs and some real major errors
have also been found (40%). It is of course easier to flag
the really big errors to investigate. :-)

I was asked if I felt that some elections have installed
any current officials in office wrongly because of errors in
computer voting tabulation. I responded "I felt it was almost a
certainty".

Any factual information or opinions are welcome.

Here are some points for discussion:

Electronic Voting software is not available in source form
for (from the commercial vendors) for verification of correctness.

If paper ballots (marked or punched) are not used, then any
program bugs could be uncorrectable.

If paper ballots (marked or punched) are not used, the chance
of intentional undetectable fraud increases.

Some voting tabulation errors come from a mismatch between the
key and the printed ballot. (Note that in many areas the order
candidates appear on a ballot must rotate between precincts,
each requiring a separate key).

Any large computer system has bugs, which no amount of testing
can insure against.

Perhaps the government should take over the electronic voting
system, rather than having independent commercial vendors
provide closed systems.

Perhaps the government should specify a "secure" voting system
standard, with built in self test and verification, which
commercial vendors could supply.

Computer tabulation of ballots may increase voter apathy
(I know at least one person who feels national elections
are not really honestly tabulated now).

Honest errors and fraud are a part in our voting history. Will
electronic voting increase or decrease these events.

-john
-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John A. Kapenga                   Department of Computer Science
Ma Bell:  (616)387-5657           Western Michigan University
Internet: john@cs.wmich.edu       Kalamazoo, MI 49008
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: test
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:21:35 GMT

In article <16842C243.M22614@mwvm.mitre.org> M22614@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>In article <16841C05E.M22614@mwvm.mitre.org>
>M22614@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <16841986A.M22614@mwvm.mitre.org>
>>M22614@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>
>>>
>>>this is just a test
>> still testing
> 
>  last test

Three is a magic number, right?


--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10534 alt.politics.clinton:1890 alt.politics.bush:1494 talk.politics.misc:39550
From: labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 03:22:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: e260-3g.berkeley.edu

In article <19274@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) drivels:
>In article <1992Aug12.034557.4891@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>} In article <19667@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>} >In article <1992Aug11.183249.21977@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>Suppose the tax on a poor person was 10%.  How is it a greater hardship
>on them if a rich person also paid 10%?  How would that poor person's 10%
>be less of a burden on them, if a rich persons tax rate was subsequently
>shoved up to 99% instead?

The answer to this is so obvious and straightforward, and has been re-
iterated so many times here that I have a hard time believing this to
not be a flame-bait statement, but here goes :

Rich people don't NEED their money.  It sits around, it is used to buy
LUXURIES.  Sometime it is invested, which is GOOD.  But that is not
the point here.  The point is to explain why it is more of a hardship
to pay the same tax rate if you are poor...  The rich spend a VERY
small part of their wealth on things you NEED to survive : food,
clothing and shelter, etc. That's how they can afford to buy expensive 
things like JAGUARS.

Poor people NEED their money.  They use their money to buy : food, clothing,
and shelter, which are NECCESSITIES for surivival.  Poor people spend a 
greater PERCENTAGE of their earnings on these things.

If you take away X percent of a poor person's money away, you are taking
away money that would be spent on these neccessities.  So you are making
it harder for them to buy : food, clothing, shelter, etc.  This makes it
harder to LIVE & SURVIVE, which I would definitely call a HARDSHIP.

If you take away X percent of a rich person's money away, do you think
that rich person is going to skimp on basic food, clothing, and shelter ?
The really easy answer is NO.  Their ability to SURVIVE will not be affected.
Since not being able to survive is usually considered by a large percentage
of the population to be a BIGGER HARDSHIP than having to cut back on doing
things that rich people do a lot, like stuffing yourself with caviar, we
can safely conclude that taxing poor and rich people at the same rate puts 
a bigger burden on poor people.

I hope that is clear enough.











-- 
"And do you know what's inside ? A priiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiize !" - Stimpy
"You gave away ... FORTY-SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS ?" - Ren Hoek
Ren & Stimpy: On Nickolodeon,Sunday mornings @ 11 AM.  Watch it, you eediot !
Eric van Bezooijen - eric@soda.berkeley.edu, evb@logrus.eng.sun.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:17:44 GMT

In article <1v4mm3#.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.103221.1442@news.Hawaii.Edu> blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
>>>
>>Bzzt- the issue is that the rich tend to pay a lower *percentage*
>>of their income in taxes than the middle class. It's criminal
>
>If the taxes that we refer to are income taxes, your statement is false.
>If you toss in FICA (the most ludicrous tax ever created, Thanks, FDR)
>then your statement is true. If we also toss in taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco
>and gasoline, your statement is also true. Which one d you mean? I was
>only talking about federal income tax because that had been the topic
>of discussion. If you want to switch discussions, please inform us so
>that we are all talking about the same thing.
>
>>that someone making 20-30 thousand a year pays almost twice the percentage
>>of their income that someone making 1 million. Who do you 
>>think has more disposable income??? You deliberately choose
>>to stick to dollar amounts because you know that in the only 
>>figure that counts- the percentage of an individuals income
>>that goes to taxes, the rich DO pay less. If things were truly
>
>Wait a minute, I said they pay more. The numbers said they pay more
>dollar wise and percentage wise. How about re-reading the original
>posting, and revising your critique?
>
>


Your original post quoted a statistic that refered to the 
*total* dollar amount in taxes that the "rich" payed 
and the *total percentage* of the national income tax
revenue that represented. (If you meant it to
mean that an individual pay X% of their salary
then you clearly specify that and that may be 
the reason you are getting into lots of arguments  If you have sent 
out other posts they haven't made it out to Hawaii yet please
email me a copy- I often get replies to posts 
before I get the original post) This is very different 
that the percentage of an individual's income that a person
pays. Note I am using the word income not *taxable income*
two very different phrases. It is possible for example
for the "rich" to pay a greater percentage of their 
taxable income than the poor and yet pay a smaller percentage
of their total income. My brother earns well over $100,000
a year. Some would consider this rich, I do not. 
FACT:he pays a smaller percentage of his income in income taxes
than I do (who makes around $22,000). WHY? because he
has lots of spare money after paying for essentials 
to put into IRA's, mortages on several places etc. I don't have 
any spare cash to shelter. I don't care whether someone is 
rich or not, I just don't think that I should pay
a larger percentage of my money than someone who
easily makes 10x what I do. Now add your FICA etc
and I'm paying an even higher percentage than he
is. 
:-)
Kristin

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10644 alt.politics.clinton:2016 alt.politics.bush:1706 talk.politics.misc:39944
From: labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Date: 15 Aug 1992 22:59:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: e260-3g.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug13.233833.992@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.214304.12559@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>writes:
>>	And before you flay me on being a hypocrite on gun control, I
>>do not believe in banning guns. Just in having a nationwide system of
>>gun permits and essentially instant checks on the validity of one when
>>one purchases guns or ammo. The system would be computerized and
>>denials of permits would be open to challenge (to help take care of
>>bureaucratic snafus). The system would be very much like driver's
>>licenses, which no one calls a threat to freedom. Or is it? :-)
>
>Sorry, I don't believe that gun "permits" are a good idea.  I don't need
>a permit to execute any of my other rights; why should I need one to own
             ^^^^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a gun?

Not true.  Examples :

Freedom of speech.  In Berkeley, you need a permit to have an amplified 
speaker for the use of speaking.  This is what the religious loonies use
around here to get their word out to the masses.  A good law, in my opinion,
but still a permit.

Freedom to protest.  If you want to start a major protest in a city, you bet
you better get permission/a permit first.  Examples : Gays and lesbians 
joining a parade here in the Bay Area, neo-nazis walking though the city, etc.
Cities are not going to let you start something that needs to be controlled
in order not to cause chaos without you getting permission first.

Freedom of the press.  Do you think you can print anything you like ?  Of
course not.  Examples: Pornography, covering wars, libel.




-- 
"And do you know what's inside ? A priiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiize !" - Stimpy
"You gave away ... FORTY-SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS ?" - Ren Hoek
Ren & Stimpy: On Nickolodeon,Sunday mornings @ 11 AM.  Watch it, you eediot !
Eric van Bezooijen - eric@soda.berkeley.edu, evb@logrus.eng.sun.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: AMERICA: WHAT WENT WRONG?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 23:25:30 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Check out "Who Will Tell The People" and "Sleepwalking Throgh History"
as well.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

It's also hard to tell which group is up to more no-good: cops or
crooks.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10716 alt.politics.clinton:2099 talk.politics.misc:40209 talk.politics.guns:19379
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:18:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.200119.9066@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.163946.14614@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>
>>The positive vision is hope, opportunity, and greater choice and freedom
>>in our lives, and a reduction in the central power of Government.
>>The vision is also one of tolerance and respect for the traditional values
>>of our country and our society, the values that made the country great.
>
>Unfortunately, the 'traditional values' of our country mostly involve
							^^^^^^
>considerable *intolerance* for those who deviate from the dictated norms...

Yes, it is too true that the U.S., along with every society
and culture on earth, has had a history that involves intolerance,
parochialism, and bigotry.  But despite America's failings, we have
historically been more tolerant than other societies.

To tie the whole set of American values to one mast, and especially
use say it "mostly" involves intolerance, is in my view small-minded.
It ignores that we have had many traditions and values, and that some
of these values are largely responsible for our nation's success.
It would be better to draw from that well of experience rather than turn
away from it.

We scoff at the Salem witch-burners, but we go through our own
ritualistic witch-burnings, fashioning our own more modern demons.
Alas, even our own history has itself become "demonized".
To pretend we are better people than they were is IMHO arrogant and false.

>Don Pajerek

------------
P.McGuinness
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10427 talk.politics.misc:39347 sci.econ:6806 alt.individualism:5227