HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djweisberger@amherst.edu (David Weisberger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: How about talk.politics.elections?
Date: 28 Mar 92 03:55:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA.

In article <Mar.27.11.07.21.1992.11237@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
> 
> 
>>What would people think about a group dedicated to discussions of
>>candidates, issues and events related to the elections?  Among other
>>things, people could avoid the gay-bashing and antisemitism that is
>>currently clogging talk.politics.misc; I've noticed that there is very
>>little overlap between the participants in the three discussions.
> 
>>--Scott
> 
> I think thats a good idea.  How do we do that?

I agree with the idea, especially for the reasons Scott gives.  But I have
a though about net guidelines:  Realize that we would be creating a
group which might be basically idle for a year at a time.  Though I suppose
people _could_ compare favorite election memories for months afterward.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 David Weisberger                  INTERNET:  djweisberger@amh.amherst.edu

         "This is not a quote.  No-one ever really said this."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17261 ca.politics:3354 ba.politics:2597 alt.politics.homosexuality:1826 soc.motss:19521
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 15:34:31 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:

> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM:
> > I don't think your 'side' is stupid - I just think they are
> > trying to rationalize mass depravity. That's all.
> 
> i can't understand a SENTENCE you're saying;  you've got that
> *THING* in your mouth!
> -- 

As they say down under: 

'Kiss my pooter mate.'

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 19:36:28 GMT

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>Yes, notice all those "requirings" and "forcings" and "mandatings?"
>Vaccination and child labor are the responsibility of the parents.
>What you do with your own body parts is your own choice.  Whether you
>want to work for someone at their wages is your choice.  Whether you
>help at an accident is your own choice.  Whether you use air-bags or
>seatbelts is your own choice.  Whether you deal with someone else or
>another country is your own choice.

Not that anybody cares why I'm not libertarian, but...

I agree with almost everything up above, with a major exception
being "vaccination... [is] the responsibility of the parents."
We all suffer if people don't vaccinate there kids.  In a "perfect"
libertarian world, we wouldn't have to pay for all of the sick
people's medical care, but we would still suffer the economic
and social repercussions of large percentages of the populace
being sick if vaccination against measles, polio, rhubella, etc.
were not wide-spread.  Further, there is individual risk inherent
in vaccinating - if all parents but a handful vaccinate, that
handful is "cheating" in a very real way (call me petty, but if
I'm risking my child's health for the sake of society, I want
everybody else to do so as well).  Mind you, this is one probably
minor point in the list above, but you get my point - libertarians
seem to have a "purity of view" that I can't agree with (or even
understand).

Another example is pollution legislation.  Ron, in the message from
which I quoted an extract above, went on to suggest that pollution
legislation was useless and currently ignored, and that major corp'ns
can bribe there way around it.  Well, I must disagree - the environment
has improved in many areas of the country, and I believe it is due
to environmental legislation.  Libertarianism seems to revolve around
the notion of individuals taking co's/corp'ns to court and suing if
they feel that the co. in question is polluting too much.  I don't see
how this can possibly work - there is no mechanism for detecting
or measuring the pollution (and I don't think concerned citizens are
going to do the job or have the clout to pull it off), and a corp
can outspend a citizens' group any day of the week.  Yeah, tell me
that gov't *is* a citizens group - sophistry.

If there was a little less "purity" in libertarianism and a little
more interest in taking the current system and, by small modifications,
gradually make it more libertarian, I'd be into it.  Trying to
re-structure society in one fell swoop just doesn't cut it for me
(call me chicken).
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:42:32 GMT

From article <RJC.92Apr8214239@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, by rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley):
> In article <1992Apr7.200154.28014@hal.com>, Minister of Silly Walks (mosw) writes:
> 
> mosw> The problem comes in that there is a lot of conflicting evidence,
> mosw> both ways, as to the effectiveness of vaccination.  
> 
> Hm. Here's some one way, whooping cough epidemics come around regular
> as clockwork each time the proportion of children being vaccinated
> against the disease drops. this causes more parents to get their kids
> vaccinated and that causes the incidence of the disease to drop which
> causes fewer parents to bother to get their kids vaccinated which...
> 
> Anyway, this is pretty strong evidence that whooping cough vaccination
> works. Now it's your turn, please come up with some evidence that
> whooping cough vaccination does not work.

It is not that it does not work.
There is no doubt (at least to you and me) that it almost always works.

That is not the issue.

Both of my children were immunized because I wanted them to.
(not because the school insisted)

BUT, some children/adults have serious reactions - become disabled or die.

It is a value judgement whether the potential value exceeds the risk.
I think it is worth the risk and so do you. But some people object for
religious, medical, or other reasons.

It is this medical judgement that should not be forced on a person.

Anyone who is concerned about getting whooping cough should be allowed to get
the shot and those who do not want should not be forced to get it.


---------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:32:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.133849.11973@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.002351.6896@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>Incidentally, the San Jose Sharks was a good counter-example refutation
>>of my incorrect statement about marketing.  I'll be curious to see
>>whether the franchise can continue its success ten years down the road
>>when the novelty's worn off and the other major professional sports
>>realize what a large market they're ignoring.
>
>We may have the chance to find out.  I heard something about the San
>Francisco Giants thinking about moving to the San Jose area I think.
>I'm not sure about this.  Anyone out there who knows more about thins,
>could you please email me or post.
>
>If it happened, it'd be interesting to see the impact on the Sharks.

There seems to be some confusion about the geography of the Bay Area.  San
Francisco and San Jose are only about 50 miles apart.  The San Francisco
Giants *already* draw a majority of their fan base from the population down
the peninsula to San Jose.  The Sharks currently are playing near San
Francisco, not San Jose (waiting for the arena to be built in San Jose),
but I suspect a demographic analysis of their fan base would reveal a
similar makeup.  

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu>
	<1992Apr9.005720.5461@igor.tamri.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:07:34 GMT


In article <1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
(Greg Frazier) writes:
>If there was a little less "purity" in libertarianism and a little
>more interest in taking the current system and, by small modifications,
>gradually make it more libertarian, I'd be into it.  Trying to
>re-structure society in one fell swoop just doesn't cut it for me
>(call me chicken).

1) No one is proposing changing everything overnight; doing that is
   impossible. It would take years to implement the changes we
   propose.

2) If you really want less "purity", more "compromise", and the like,
   well, go and support a Republocrat. I don't see why we should
   settle for what is less than the BEST solution. If someone came to
   you and said "Well, you have a tumor. There is a risk if we try to
   take it out of the operation killing you, and there is a very real
   risk of you dying if we leave it in, so we are going to take half
   of it out as a compromise", you'd say they were not fit to practice
   medicine -- They've just handed you the WORST of both worlds. That
   is more or less what the current political parties give you.
   Libertarians don't like settling for less than the best possible
   system. I admit that being willing to compromise our ideals would
   get us elected more easily, but our objective is not to be elected
   more easily but to accomplish our goals, and our goals will be lost
   if we sacrifice what you call our insistance on "purity", but what
   we think of as our insistance on doing what's right.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government governs best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16964 alt.activism:7260
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: AGRAN, CLINTON, and Free Speech
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:44:30 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB


I see that not only was it not Agran but "his supporters" -- but in
fact _Fulani_ who disrupted Clinton's speech. My comments about trying
to excuse the black-listing of Agran *were it* Agran supporters, I've
already made here.		-Harel


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: 06 Apr 92 10:38:04 EDT
From: Agran for President <75300.3112@CompuServe.COM>
To: <harelb@math.cornell.edu>
Subject: AGRAN -- re Presidential Candida
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

       Harel, you should point out that Lenora Fulani's disruption of
Clinton's appearance in Harlem was not approved nor sanctioned by Larry
Agran.  We did not know about it in advance, we condemned it after it
happened, and we told NAP afterwards that we did not want them conducting
any protests on our behalf.  We are not associated with the NAP, and our
relationship is restricted solely to the issue of ballot access.
       I'll quote from the Burlington (VT) Free Press, 3/30/92:

       The issue of whether mainstream candidates have excluded Agran from
the presidential campaign erupted Saturday at a speech by Arkansas Gov. Bill
Clinton, also a Democratic presidential candidate, at Harlem Hospital in New
York City.  New Alliance candidate Lenora Fulani stood on a chair and
demanded that Clinton do more to include Agran in debates.
       Gary Chassman of Burlington asked Agran's opinion of the incident.
       "I expressed my opposition to those tactics," Agran said.  But he
also complained about his lack of access to national media.
       "I'm for enlarging free speech rights and giving more people the
opportunity to speak," he said.  "My rights, in that regard, have already
been curtailed."

       Steve
From: aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:34:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <pinky.702593998@milton> pinky@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Burbank) writes:
>aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:
>
>>In article <1692@nic.cerf.net> mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes:
>>>
>>>	On C-SPAN yesterday (Thursday) in a meeting of the Board
>>>of Editors of the New York Post, Jerry Brown indicated that he
>>>was willing to adjust the tax system by upping the VAT 1% in order
>>>to cushion or eliminate income taxes for those making under
>>>$15,000.  Also, note that the VAT is *not* a sales tax, but only
>>>a tax on profits (difference between cost of goods and price at which
>>>goods were sold). 
>
>>Uh, and guess who the VAT gets passed on to?
>>The purchaser.
>
>are you trying to say that taxes companies pay don't already get passed
>on to the consumer?  do you live in some other reality?

Temper, temper.  Why are you personalizing a discussion about taxes?
Ok, I'll pass off your second question as a novice's insult, and answer
your first:
	The answer lies within your own phrasing of the question:
"passed on to the consumer".  Poor people are, as a percentage of their
income, greater consumers than rich people. Thus they pay more VAT as
a percentage of their income. 

There.  Now, shall I add an insult to the end of this, or can we continue
in a civilized manner?



-- 
Andrew P. Berman           |  [campaign spending limits] "make the democratic 
Dept. of Computer Science  |  process less honest, less robust and less open."
University of Washington   |  -- Jerry Brown under oath in California, 1989
aberman@cs.washington.edu  |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal,alt.discrimination
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:02:45 GMT

rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.024846.6240@nuscc.nus.sg>, Ed Ipser (ei) writes:
>ei> The cosmetology board has been hounding Cornrows & Co. because its
>ei> employees are not licensed cosmetologists. In 1989, it slapped owners
>ei> Taalib-Din Uqdah and Pamela Farrell with $1,000 in fines for operating
>ei> a beauty salon and training program without a license.

>Now, I realise that the customs of a foreign country can often seem
>strange, and I realise that the USA leads the world in employment
>protection for lawyers, but... 

>How on earth did anyone get a `cosmetology' board and licenses for
>hairdressers set up? If the references to Washington and dollars were
>removed I'd assume this was an anti-Brussels joke, and a poor one
>because it is so unbelievable. 

It's absowutely twoo!  This is, unlike what it sounds like, yet
another example of our beneficient and efficient liberal governments in
action.   They have realized correctly that production and jobs don't
improve the economy.  Rather, the only meaningful measure of the
output of a civilization is the number of bureaucracies it can set up
and restrictive laws it can pass.  Ms. Uqdah and Ms. Farrell should
keep in mind that this has been done for their benefit, and it's
really quite ungrateful of them not to appreciate the service being
done them here as part of continuing government plans to help
minorities.  After all, they are only part of the stupid unenlightened
masses and should be pleased that they have a government to look after
them lest they do something they might later regret, such as making a
profit.  This is yet another instance in which the ridiculousness of
the antigovernment stance of the libertarians is evident - under their
proposed system, such necessary branches of government would
disappear, causing the collapse of society.

P.S., in this case you can't really blame the lawyers, unless you
count the politicians who just happen to be lawyers.  What you're
seeing here is a combination of the government wanting the increased
revenue and increased control, and giving already established salons a
way to keep new competitors out of the market.
-- 
Man has made his bedlam; let him lie in it.  -- Fred Allen
From: cwinkler@oregon.uoregon.edu (Celia Winkler)
Subject: Re: Social Spending Constitutional?
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Oregon
Date: 16 Apr 1992 18:23 PDT  

In article <35144@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, daj@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes...
>In article <1992Apr12.091843.2210@agora.uucp> robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton) writes:
> 
># >>   Congress shall have the power:
># >>      1.  To collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common
># >>              defense and general welfare of the United States".
># >       .
># >       .
># >
># >       How doesn't urban infrastructure, job training, drug rehab, etc,.
># >       fit under the 'general wlefare [sic] of the United States?'
>#
>#   Whether it "fits" or not is irrelevant, since Congress is not
># given power in those specific areas.
> 
>Ah, I get it.  "General welfare" has some mysterious meaning that
>excludes things that most of us think of as general welfare.  OK.

This was settled a LONG TIME ago, and unless Mr. Barton wishes to overturn
50 years of S.Ct. decisions...  In dicta, U.S. v. Butler 297 US 1 (1936);
Social Security--Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619 (1937).

Basically, these cases say that "general welfare" is anything that Congress 
says it is.  (But see discussions on arbitrariness, burdening fundamental 
rights, and invidious classifications.)

cw
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17861 alt.activism:7567 soc.rights.human:1360
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.rights.human
Subject: Montana Prisoners Brutalized
Date: 11 Apr 92 08:12:18 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB


[From PeaceNet via misc.activism.progressive]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
** Topic: Montana Prisoners Brutalized ** 
** Written 11:41 am  Apr  7, 1992 by newsdesk in cdp:justice.usa ** 
From: News Desk <newsdesk> 
Subject: Montana Prisoners Brutalized 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/* Written  7:51 pm  Apr  7, 1992 by peg:greenleft in cdp:greenleft.news */ 
/* ---------- "Issue 51. April 8, 1992" ---------- */ 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

US prisoners brutalised 

By Steve Painter 

Prisoners in the US state of Montana were stripped naked for four  
days after an alleged riot at the state prison last September,  
says the American Civil Liberties Union. Authorities sent in a  
SWAT squad after an incident described as a riot, but which  
involved only a few inmates. 

An ACLU lawyer has established that the SWAT squad forced the  
prisoners to lie face down on the floor, amid water and broken  
glass, and remove all their clothing. Their hands were cuffed  
behind their backs and they were tear-gassed. 

After about 30 minutes, most of the prisoners suffered cut feet  
when they were forced to run barefoot and still naked down a  
hallway littered with broken glass. Later, they were forced to  
run a gauntlet of up to 100 officers armed with clubs and chains.  
Still handcuffed, the prisoners were slammed to the ground. 

The prisoners were then forced to lie in a field while guards  
continued to brutalise them. Guards broke prisoners' spectacles  
and kicked and taunted them. Most suffered sunburn, and they were  
told to urinate and defecate where they lay. 

Towards evening, the prisoners were given a blanket each and  
ordered to the reception unit, where they were held for 23 days.  
For the first four days they were naked except for their  
blankets, and for 12 days they were not provided with soap,  
toothpaste or towels. They were not permitted to shower and were  
given two sheets of paper towel daily for toilet paper. 

In the unit, prisoners were fed two meals daily, consisting of  
two sandwiches and a biscuit. They had to drink from a tap with  
their hands. Many developed scurvy. 

When the investigation into the riot began, prisoners who refused  
to talk were beaten and tortured with mace. Several who became  
rebellious as a result of this treatment were hogtied, hands  
cuffed behind their backs and ankle cuffs attached to the  
handcuffs. 

The prisoners were isolated from the outside world for four days,  
until an ACLU-assisted lawyer obtained a court order directing  
the Department of Corrections to allow contact. The ACLU's  
National Prison Project says such ``extremely brutal maximum  
security conditions ... breed the exact response they are meant  
to prevent, that is, they contribute to the problem and invite a  
future riot''.
From: chajakis19@DESCI.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU (Emmanuel Chajakis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bill vetoeing and presidential campaign questions.
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:16:27 GMT


Dear friends,

Could someone out there give me an answer to the following
questions?

1) What happened to the issue of President Bush's ban of 
   fiddle tissue for the treatment of some diseases like 
   diabetes etc.? A bill was passed by both the Congress and 
   the House about using them, and it was vetoed by the President.
   What is the status of the veto? Has it been overturned?

2) What is Bill Clinton's position on public financing of 
   congressional elections?

Thank you very much in advance.

Emmanuel Chajakis,
Decision Sciences Department,
The Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania,
chajakis19@desci.wharton.upenn.edu
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Japan could be skirting $30 billon in U.S. taxes annually
Date: 12 Apr 92 10:04:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

In article <54223@hydra.gatech.EDU> ph279sw@prism.gatech.EDU (FR SIGING WEI) writes:
>
>What do you think that "prime time",  is it really a 
>news report (close to ABC news) or a story teller
>(close to current affair)?

Don't let the posting bother you.  The idea that somebody could side with
anything that the U.S. IRS might do borders on the fantastic.

It is the only agency that can circumvent the fundamental laws that govern
the U.S. proclaiming you "guilty" until you prove that you're innocent.

On another one of those "news programs" the story was that the IRS has
billed a woman $116,000 for payroll taxes that a company she _worked
for_ didn't pay.  She didn't own the company she was just an employee.

She even reported the owner to the IRS but they did nothing and as the
statute of limitations was running out and they couldn't locate the owner
they sent her the bill.  Turns out that half of the charges were incurred
after she no longer worked there.

So the IRS can't count among other things.  (this wasn't an isolated case
BTW, the reporter found other people in similar situations)

tom