HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen)
Subject: Re: prime theories
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:45:47 GMT

todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET> writes:

>>>>> It is worth to note that millionaires pay NO Social Security taxes
>>>>> on their last income-$75K money.  So I pay more tax in my last $1000
>>>>> income than millionaires pay on theirs.
>>>
>>>>        But they get no more benefits that you do, so what's the point?
>>>
>>>But they might not get more benefit from the general fund than I do
>>>either.  That doesn't mean that they should not pay more than me in
>>>taxes.
>>
>>        Whoa!  SS is a pension plan, not welfare.
>>
>Guess again.  Social Security isn't a trust, it isn't an investment,
>and it hasn't been since at least 1950.  The money we pay into it
>goes, more or less, directly to the geriatrics who abused or ignored
>the abuses of the system that left our generation holding the bag of
>excrement.  SS is welfare for the elderly, and they collect the bread
>whether they need it or not.

It's not just for the elderly.  I had a girlfreind who's husband died two
months before the divorce was final.  He paid into SS for all of 12
quarters.  Their two children now receive benefits totaling
$450.00/mo./child.  They have already collected _FAR MORE_ than their
deceased father ever paid in.

Social Security is no investment.  It is a Ponzi scheme.


Carl Rosen
crosen@world.std.com

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:40:42 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Last comments on "rightism" ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              SMITH" at Dec 17, 92 9:26 pm

While dreaming of sugarplums, VALENTINE M. SMITH sleepily stated:
[most of Val's well written post deleted]

| apparently the list is tilted far enough to the right to
| buy such balderdash, and not offer any refutation to such an absurd claim.
| This historian-to-be finds Caius a totally unreliable source, and like his
| comrades in "rightism," Robert and Travis, only willing to make assertions,
| but not willing to offer proofs.

        Now Val, lets not blame the list here. Most of the list are
working on our friend Dr Pizz, and seems to have left Caius floating
in mid air. Me, I've been attempting to study for Finals, and finish 3
Cosi assignments (which are still not done :(). Basically, I've been
too busy. However, I think the silence you here is not tacit approval
of Caius, rather is tacit approval of you. In fact, the reason your
posts hardly ever become a start of discussions is because they aren't
full of logical flaws, or absurd positions. Lets face it Val, you're too
good for this list, and this list wouldn't have it any other way :)

        However, as far as your assertions about Caius, Robert and
Travis, I agree, and you *might* wish to put Pizz in that catergory
soon.
--
   Cousin It                                 cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
        "Time has changed the seasons, and I go on with
           no reason, I feel my life slipping away"
                     Riot "Bloodstreets"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:18:40 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: NORMAL
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              mcbride" at Dec 16, 92 9:54 pm

james p mcbride pisze:

>> In short, I think we should see Caius' attitude as being mindlessly Catholic,
>> otherwise he may be have been able to define "normal".  This attitude will
>> soften, though it may take some time.

You are wrong! I am not a Catholic, althouth it is true what you have said
about Catholicism in Poland.

I cannot understand why you put everybody, who has different views that you,
into on big bag: Catholic, Conservative, Rightist, Rascist, Nazi.

I think you should know the diferences.

As I said before there is no strict definition of  NORNAL.
If you have one, please tell all of us. Maybe we can learn something new.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:31:58 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It was criminal, just like we said

>        Oh, and why hasn't the press attacked Inouye like they have Packwood?

They have trouble pronouncing his name and don't want to appear stupid?

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:12:35 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL11]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1320
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:12:35 -0500
From:         pwhmds@UNITY.NCSU.EDU
Subject:      Re: A "right to discriminate?"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Concerning the "right to discriminate," I must say that Dr. P.  has a
point of sorts. In fact, the law has always recognized a right to
discriminate (and could hardly do other, really). We all discriminate all
the time, as when you choose to associate with certain people, and choose
not to associate with others (a form of discrimination, no?). In the law,
the question has always been whether the particular form of discrimination
is rational, or not. Thus, age limits for driving, sexual consent, voting,
etc., are, in fact, forms of age discrimination. The key is that there is
at least a seemingly rational explanation for the discrimination. By that
I mean that there does seem to be a logical connection between the
behavior subject to discrimination (driving, sex) and the characteristic
upon which the discrimination is based (age). We may quibble about what
age is right, and some states differ on this. What the court has been
unwilling to allow, however, is discrimination in which there is no
logical connection between the behavior subject to discrimination (say,
access to public education or housing) and the characteristic upon which
the discrimination is based (e.g., skin color). We *do* have a right to
*reasonable* discrimination, and the real debate is over what counts as
reasonable.
Hamlett
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:40:21 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

t.

I was merely pointing out the definition and how it could be applied.
You seem to agree with it being not "typical", which is a negation of
the definition of "normal".  Again, I do not think it matters whether
or not it is normal, as that will always be a value judgment.  The
point is that it can be looked upon as a disorder if it is truly caused
by an underdevelopment of a brain structure (obviously this is
consistent with the "innate"-ness argument).  This could be interpreted
as a disorder then.  The point is that the definitions of normal and
therefore of abnormal can be applied.  The non-typical argument is
clearly applicable.  Again, some will disagree, but that is fine.  The
disorder argument has some physiological merit, and is again debatable
as what does one mean by a "disorder".  All of the definitions are
clearly subject to subjectivity (what an awful phrase that was...), and
thus can be made to fit from anyone's perspective.  I think nothing can
be gained by debating the normalcy of homosexuality.  I will contend
that it is not "normal", since it is not typical, and is a behaviour
shared by a small minority, which is considered offensive by some
(though NOT me).  I again say, do what you want, just don't tell me
about it.  I don't care if you're heterosexual, I don't want to know
the details, in general.

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:23:44 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      progressive tax?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Dec 14, 92 5:04 pm

Andrew Allen pisze:
>>
>> Brett' says:
>>
>> >        I've seen just as much class warfare from those stating that
>> >proportionally more taxes should be taken from the rich simply because "they
>> >have it".  Why is this acceptable when supposedly targetting the poor is
 not?
>>
>> Brett', does a progressive tax structure deprive the wealthy of having
>> the basic necessities? Does it deprive them of a meaningful reward for
>> their labors?
>>

Progressive tax prevents the wealthy from paying their bills to the poor,
saving in the banks, and producing more jobs.

So the poor are the main victims.

I don't think progressive tax can do anything else than harm to the economy.

Caius
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      RE: Diversity of Views at Clinton's Summit?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 13:36 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%92121713504666@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,      
   STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes...
>What did the economic summit achieve?  I thought Clinton said he already an
> economic plan.  Apparently he didn't.  The summit was just an opportunity for
> Clinton to keep campaigning.  -Rich

When Reagan went on television he was called The Great Communicator (without
consulting FDR about the rights to the title).  When Clinton goes on television
he's called a campaigner.  Do please explain your distinction.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:31:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: I'm Baaaaaaaack! ...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Ramon:
>        Well, hello to all the nice and talkative folks at politics. Old timers
>like Jamie, Jimbo, Valentine and even Andy Freeman may remember me. New people
>will get to hate me or love me very soon.

Gary remembers ya too, Ramon.  Libertarian capitalism still rules all over
socialism's sorry ass, too...:)

>        See you around, folks! (I'm adjusted to my addiction to electronic
>drugs again.

Here, try some from my private stash: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Bear with me while I try to regain my lost empire and start to
>gather my hun army to become World Dictator again...)

Well, you know, if you want to oppress people, you could join our virtual
administration as defense secretary...:)

And don't mind Jimbo.  He just impersonates the virtual president to draw the
fire of the virtual snipers.

Gary W. Olson
da virtual vice prez            "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:04:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: racism

Ellen says:

> As for your points about Affirmative Action and other programs, I
> tend not to believe in quotas, and I'm glad our incoming president
> doesn't seem to be too keen on them either.  But they are not
> racist programs, in my view.  They are not about one group of people
> >in power< oppressing a whole other group of people.

Note: I will use Kerry's definitions of "bigotry", "discrimination",
and "racism".

How are these programs not racist?  That the "whole other group
of people" may share the same race as the "one group of people
in power" is beside the point, if the effect: discrimination
based on race, is the same. (I'm assuming Ellen's definition of
racism is the same as Kerry's).

I'm unsure as to what this thread is about, other than to say
racism is wrong, ugly, and, ultimately, stupid. Therefore I ask (nicely,
in a polite and moderate tone :-)):
Is anyone arguing that racism is the official policy of any organization,
public or private, of any importance (i.e., exclude the KKK)?
If not, and given that discrimination is illegal, what is being advocated
to eliminate racism?

I submit that there is no public policy served by using
race/ethnicity classifications, with the exception of law
enforcement/ID purposes. I think such groupings are used as
poor proxies for more important and *individual*
characteristics like education level, health status/risk and
socioeconomic status. Furthermore, I think our attempts to
statistically measure *possible* discrimination have increased
"race conciousness"; leading to remedies and preemptive actions
based on group membership, however ill defined, rather than
actual harm done to an individual.

- David

David "New Jersey" Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet


whip myself bloody over the fact that I'm white and > that
whites have the power in this country even still?   No, I'm >
not going to whip myself bloody. > > Am I going to let other
people, black or white, stomp on me because > I'm white and
whites have the upper hand in this country's institutionalized >
racism?  No. > > Am I going to say that whites and blacks don't
have equal responsibility > to kill racism?    No. > > Am I
going to lie to myself and say that I'm not a member of a racial
> majority that has and continues to oppress a racial minority?
No! > > Am I going to ignore my personal responsibility to help
kill racism? > No. > > The truth is nothing to be afraid of.  I
remember what it's like to > be afraid of it. > > > Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:59:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Home ownership among poor

O'Andy says:

> We use means-testing to determine need, if we appropriate too much money
> for income maintenance, etc. then there will be a budget surplus for
> those areas. If there were such a budget surplus, would it have not
> come to light?

Doubtful. Most govt. program managers avoid budget surpluses
like the plague because it means a reduced budget next year,
thus reducing influence, power, employees managed, etc.  I also
suspect many more "clients" would show up when word spread of
a surplus.

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Norns and other fate-al concepts
Date: 17 Dec 1992 13:14 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GSEJDVXXBKHSJ4MJ@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,       
  waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET> writes...
>Side note: there's a city in Illinois called "Normal."  It's just one of the
>many, many cities, towns, villages, and so forth that populate the state,
>the rest of which have names other than "Normal."  From this, I would
>conclude that "Normal" is a statistical abberation. :)

Of course, in the case of Normal, Ill., it's probably called that because of
the university.  :-)

							Dan, ad nauseum
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: your mail
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:46 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212181513.AA10882@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,        
 Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>If there is a place in the Universe where homosexuals are considered normal
>let's send them there!

Well, let's see...

The major centers do not appear to have a majority.  Therefore, by Caius' 
definition (if I get it right), there probably is no "normal" place.  It is
therefore impossible to send gays anywhere.

Although, personally, I wouldn't mind a few more in Oregon to make certain we
don't have to deal with Measure 9 again.

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:54:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      gin and teutonics
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Caius:
>I am not sure if any strict definition is possible. The only definition  I
>can think of is:
>NORMAL is what has been widely accepted as NORMAL.

Normal is normal.  Uh-huh.  Right.  Gotcha.  That just clears everything up.
(groan)

>>> > Homosexuals cannot have kids.
>>> That is false. In fact, it is very obviously false. Anyone who bothers
>>> to think about it will see that it is false.
>Really? Can they.

Do you think homosexuality leads to infertility, or are you being dense on
purpose?

>Nobody has questioned this definition, so I assume everybody accepts this.

Ah, another proponent of "qui tacit conset".  Somehow, it's extremely
fitting...

The novelty of replying to your...erhm...unique...brand of logic seems to be
wearing off, I'm afraid.  It happens, I guess, like it happened with Robert,
Travis, the Lehigh Boys, T, et. al.  So you probably won't hear much from me in
reply to you any longer.  Not much point, I figure.

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:56:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject: Uncl: Government Secrecy

One may also consider the abuse of power that the "cult of secrecy" allows
the executive branch.  President Reagan signed a NSD in 1984 which directed
several federal police agencies to arrest and incarcerate all individuals on
a list who were known dissenters of his Latin American policies, particularly
in regards to Central America.  These persons sere to be arrested in the
event of a military invasion of Nicaraqua and held, without trial, etc., on
certain designated US military installations.  He did the same thing while
Gov. of CA except in that instance the list was composed of university studentws
who were known radicals.  Nevertheless, the average citizen did not know that
throughout much of the Reagan Presidency we were under a "State of Emergency"
which he had secretly declared.  It goes without saying that the entire
area of national security, classifications and executive powers needs investi-
gation and reform
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:43:00 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: new topic

>From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

>>I have nothing in my existence with which I can relate to your last
>>statement.  Upon reading it, I simply felt sorry.  Humanity hasn't
>>really traveled very far from Auschwitz.
>
>|>Are we to believe that it is typical of Joe Average that when he
>|>can't think of a rational reply, he calls his interlocutor a
>|>Nazi? Are there really more of those people than there are of
>|>us? I wonder.
>|>Jamie
>
>Just what is it about my reply that wasn't rational?

Well, for example:

1. Petitio principii, begging the question. You said that the National
Review article would not be "irrelevant to the victim of the execution."
But precisely the question at issue is whether there WAS and "execution"
or not.

2. I asked why, according to you, it is "undeniable" that the fetus
is the "same person" as the resulting child. You refused to answer.

3. I asked whether there was any actual argument you had that a
fetus is a person at all. You refused to answer.

4. I asked what principle you used to infer from "a damaged
fetus results in a damaged child" the conclusion "the child is
the fetus." You gave no principle.

Um, Jimbo, can I borrow some numbers?

>Does the fact that
>I have compassion for a helpless child strike you as less than rational?
>Perhaps my inability to place self indulgence at the top of my priority
>list is the source of our communication failure.

No, I think it is your failure to place rationality ANYWHERE on
your priority list.

>BTW I did not call you a Nazi.  I was trying to express my sorrow that
>the state of mind which resulted in the Nazi era still thrives.  If you
>somehow sense a personal identification with my comments then perhaps
>you should reconsider your position.

The only response you gave to my position was that in your opinion
the Auschwitz mentality is still with us. That is calling me a Nazi.

So, that about does it for me in this round.
You will have to find someone else to educate you, Robert. Maybe
you can try having conversations with some of those Joe Averages
you keep telling us about. Presumably they won't mind if you
refuse to give any reasons for you claims, if instead of reasons
you call your interlocutors Nazis.

I am moderately more optimistic than Tim or Jimbo. I believe
the Roberts are a small minority.

Clearly, liberals are not in the majority. But it is only the Roberts
who believe that only liberals give rational arguments. Well, perhaps
there are a few liberals who think so, too.

After all, Lupo's in re-opening soon. The world must be a basically
good place after all.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:31:44 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Jimbo,
>   Does infinity count as a number, or do you consider it a concept.
>
> Evelyn

  don't even bother with these bozos on this subject, dear. it's
just a pissing contest, and rationality has nothing to do with it.
far better just to stand back and laugh . . . then dump it.

hugs and kisses
me2
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: What constitutes "proof" for you, telepathy? ...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:37:16 GMT

Val wrote:
>So, my "proof" about Nazis being
>rightists is at this point more reasonable than yours in that I
>offered proofs, not mumbo-jimbo, not rhetoric.

And I congratulate Val on this... everyone on this list should
follow Val's example and offer proofs, not mumbo-jimbo.

--Jimbo



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: VNASMAN
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:38:21 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Ru-486 news
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        RU-486 could be approved for sale in the US w/out further testing if a
company steps forward  to license and distribute the drug, the FDA said.

        In a letter to a leading congressional advocate of the drug, the FDA
said clinical trials already conducted in Europe "may well be sufficient to
permit an adequate review" of the drug.

[Investor's business daily, 1A, 12/17/92]

Brett'