HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.autos,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Japan could be skirting $30 billon in U.S. taxes annually
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:26:39 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <it1.703321203@Isis.MsState.Edu> it1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Tsai) writes:
>
>  Just goes to show that Japanese businessmen is not unlike any other
>businessmen.  :-)

   I suspect the American businessmen are just jealous because they
   haven't figured out how to do this yet!

   Screwing the IRS is a fine time-honored American tradition.  It
   appears the Japanese have even become better at THAT, too!  

   >:-) for the lipreading set.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:06:45 GMT

In article <allan.702804563@kitscoty> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr8.130714.12076@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Please don't draw any conclusions on the basis of the Shark's current
>success. After all, they are an expansion team, they are new, and
>hockey is a fad in California (Partly due to the presence of 
>Wayne Gretzky in LA). Instead, wait for about 5-10 years, when
>Gretzky is gone, and the California hockey fad is over, THEN you can
>draw conclusions from their attendance. 

No conclusions drawn.  Look at the numbers. True, the Sharks are new.  And, 
perhaps they are a novelty in Southern California and they and the Kings 
are part of your proposed hockey-fad theory.  But how do you explain their 
merchandise being seond in sales throughout North America to the Chicago 
Bulls.  It may be a fad, but I doubt all those T-shirts and hats have sold 
in only California.

When the Caps expanded, one could argue they were new and a novelty in 
Washington.  But they sure as hell didn't sell out their games like the 
Sharks.  They didn't even fill half Capital Centre.  Eight years down the 
road there was a Save the Caps effort.  New management (David Poile) and 
his trades to improve the team on the ice coupled with a 
contemporary marketing plan (momentarily disrupted by a late-night limo 
ride) is why the Caps have done as well as they have.

Looking back, perhaps the Caps should have done some marketing in the early 
going. They couldn't bank on on the novelty theory.

Warren
From: steven@cray.com (Steven Levine)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:46:01 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <9204130449.AA02999@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:

> (Personally, if my dad divorced my mom, 
>then had a live in male lover move in, I'd fucking shit my pants.)

One hopes that your father would not have a similar response
should you do something that he does not immediately understand.

--
Steven Levine
steven@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Why doesn't anyone mention Lawton Chiles?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:38:12 GMT

solomon@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Solomon) writes:
>All of this talk about Brown's $100 limit makes me wonder:  why doesn't
>anyone mention the fact that Lawton Chiles (spelling?) is the one who
>came up with this idea a couple of years ago when he ran for governor
>of Florida?  Chiles did the exact same thing:  he would not accept any
>donation > $100, arguing that he would remain closer to the popular
>electorate that way (and less prone to big money influence).  Chiles
>was _tremendously_ successful with this approach, sweeping him to
>an upset victory over then-governor Martinez (now drug czar).  Why do
>I get the feeling that Brown saw how successful Chiles was with this
>approach and thought, "Wow!  This might be just the gimmick to get
>me the Presidency?" 


Because he was arguing 180 degrees the other way not long ago?
-- 
When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jm602s1066@sycom.mi.org (James Mallory)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Ozone hole farce? (was Re: Ozone problem burns Politically Correct)
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:33:59 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Michigan Information eXchange

I can't believe this made talk.e

-- C-UseNet V0.55c
            Jim Mallory, a CNE and a Randiod (What a Combination!)

  '...I wanted to have real conversations with people with bubbles on their
 heads...I want to sit next to Wookies...jawas...and all kinds of robots." --
   Carrie Fisher on "Star Wars"  (Even though I would of swore that she was
                           referring to the 'net!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.individualism
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Conference Announcement: Liberty in the Americas, Free Trade and Beyond
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:13:13 GMT



  Liberty in the Americas: Free Trade and Beyond

  A hemisphere-wide conference sponsored by the Cato Institute and the
  Centro de Investigaciones Sobre la Libre Empresa (CISLE) in cooperation
  with the Instituto Cultural Ludwig von Mises (ICUMI).

  Mexico City, Camino Real Hotel
  May 19-22, 1992



  The Western Hemisphere is undergoing a revolution -- trade is being
  liberalized and government services are being privatized. In Latin
  America, "trade not aid" is becomming the catch phrase.

  This hemisphere-wide conference will bring together leading market-
  liberal scholars and policymakers from the United States, Canada, and
  Latin America to discuss the future of economic and political 
  liberalization in the hemisphere.

  The conference aims to expand the limits of acceptable reform -- 
  particularly in trade, education, and agriculture -- and to put forth
  the case for individual liberty and choice, not merely national economic
  performance, as the primary goals of economic and political reform.

  Moreover, with virtualy no privatization under way at the federal level
  in the United States and the recent increase in domestic regulation of
  private business, there is much that the United States can learn from
  Latin America's privatization and deregulation efforts.

  The key reference point will be the vision of a free-trade area from the
  Yukon to Tierra del Fuego. Although negotiations on a North American Free
  Trade Agreement are well under way, some of the most threatening aspects
  of official trade policies within the hemisphere require further debate.
  For example, governments' increasingly frequent retaliatory actions
  against "unfair" trade practices have produced a potential "race for the
  bottom" in the use of those trade-dampening devices. The trade sessions
  will also focus on the need for the region's proliferating trade 
  agreements to promote trade creation rather than trade diversion; trade
  liberalization and the environment; and the depoliticization of money and
  trade.

  Other sessions will examine the role of private property in agricultural
  reform, strategies for reforming the state-run educational systems that
  have been indicted throughout the hemisphere, constitutional reform, the
  hemisphere's expanding "war" on drugs, and the merit of old-style foreign
  aid transfers in light of inter-American relations that seek trade, not
  aid, as a base.

  No market liberal should miss this historic conference that will help to
  lay the groundwork for free-market reform throughout the Western
  hemisphere.

  Questions concerning the conference should be directed to:
    Julie Riggs
    Conference Director
    Cato Institute
    224 Second Street, S.E.
    Washington, D.C.  20003
    tel: (202)546-0200
    fax: (202)546-0728
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
From: Stafford@vax2.winona.msus.edu (J Stafford)
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:49:24 -0600
Distribution: NA
Organization: msus

In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>   Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
>   --
>   A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
>   arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
>   is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.

Would the author (June Stevenson) carry out her 'logic' to include the 
specificity of the tax to particular men?  For example, a vast majority of 
inmates in (Chicago's Cook County Jail, for example) are black.  Would she
impose a gender + race tax with maybe a special surcharge based upon their
address?  Actuarial analyses like hers would delight a Natzi.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18351 alt.individualism:2470 sci.econ:3783 misc.legal:9339 alt.discrimination:1620
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:17:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Apr14.145442.11702@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
>In article <rdippold.703198965@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>|> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:

			[Details omitted.]

>This is not typical of the kind of legislation that would be
>considered 'liberal.'  It does not have anything to do with job
>safety.  It does not have anything to do with job security, or
>health benefits.  It looks like the kind of thing that would
>have come from a special interest group (existing cosmetology
>businesses) trying to cut back on competition.

On the contrary, this is exactly the type of legislation favored
by union labor.  It is like requiring barbers to be graduates of
barber's colleges, widely used in the 1930s to keep out qualified
hair cutters who had not taken the requisite courses, and to keep
the prices of haircuts up.

>Further, this kind of legislation is implemented on a state
>level, and is usually agreed to by both parties as a way to
>raise revenues (licensing fees).

Both parties?  The raising of revenues by licensing is minor, 
unless the total number of licenses is restricted, as it is for
taxi drivers in many places.  It is more in the nature of guild
restrictions.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Anti-discrimination (was Re: why don't you just read soc.motss)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 08:09:20 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Keywords: blah blah

In article <1992Apr7.035029.3955@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt) writes:
>In article <10340@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >Finally, I dare say I expect I could fabricate a hypothetical
    >situation wherein an adult could consent to do something in
    >private with another consenting adult and you would jump
    >through flaming rhetorical hoops to explain that the activity
    >should be punished by the government.

This I gotta' see ... I call your bluff, fabricate away .....


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17644 ca.politics:3395 ba.politics:2623 alt.politics.homosexuality:1941 soc.motss:19848
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 18:23:52 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

fellers@utkvx4.utk.edu (Michael Fellers, University of Tennessee) writes:

> 	Pray-tell: exactly what is the difference?  There both "lifestyles." 
> Children of most religious people get absolutely DRILLED in the religious dog
> of their particular church and taught that theirs is the only "correct" one. 
> There are probably about 500 different religions in the world, so shouldn't
> children be un-coerced into a specific one?  
> 	Why are the two subjects different?
> 
> 						Michael Fellers
> 						fellers@utkvx.utk.edu 

Since the original post stated that there was some intrinsic
similarity between homosexuality and religion... I do think
you may be slightly off track.

This entire subject is starting to take on overtones of 'baby'
logic..

You know..... 'If you can do that - I can do this! Nyaah Nyaah!'

I just consider the source.

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17068 sci.econ:3571 alt.individualism:2295
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: John Engler's (MI) Performance on Spending and Tax Issues
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:48:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Apr7.064802.11540
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In <1992Apr7.022103.19055@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser):

>  A Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors

>  John Engler, Republican
>  Legislature: Split
>  Took Office: 1/91
>  Grade: B

>  Engler won a razor-thin victory over incumbent Jim Blanchard in 1990 by
>  pledging reform of Michigan's bloated budget and significant property tax
>  relief. Thus far he has delivered on the first promise but not the
>  second, although it is on his 1992 agenda. In his first-year budget,
>  Engler pruned real state general fund spending by 3 percent, or almost
>  $100 per family. His proposal to eliminate general welfare assistance to
>  employable adults without children has become a national test case. Even
>  with those spending cuts, Engler still faces a substantial deficit (3
>  percent of expenditures) in 1992 thanks to the state's faltering economy.

Or thanks to the fact that welfare isn't a major portion of the state's
budget?  Or of any state's budget?  That despite the Reagan/Duke rhetoric 
about "welfare queens" and the "growing underclass", welfare is a tiny
percent of government spending?  

>  Engler has not raised a single major tax, nor does his second budget
>  propose new taxes, despite revenues that are rapidly declining because of
>  the recession. If Engler can succeed in pushing through a promised 20
>  percent reduction in Michigan's very high property taxes, he will really
>  make a difference in Michigan's economy.

Of course, the difference will be all bad; I can't believe they'd say
(1) There's a substantial deficit (2) He's cutting taxes a huge amount
and call this GOOD?  Quick:  What are the long term effects on the
state's bond ratings?   For a savings of just $100 per family?

>Available from: 
>  Cato Institute >  224 Second Street SE >  Washington, DC  20003

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:53:11 GMT

In article <3697@winnie.fit.edu> la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales (HCX Lab/SU90)) writes:
>Nope. You're wrong.
>
>Make drugs legal, yes.  I'd rather have that than have the cops
>beating up people.
>
>DO NOT MAKE TREATMENT A RESONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT!
>Hey, I didn't force you to smoke that joint!

	This is what scares me about legalization. It's very possible
we'll have Joe Camel and Spuds McKenzie selling crack to our kids.
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: LP, GATT, and Beer (Was: Ross Perot)
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:11:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702605460
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.165021.18118@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>Thanks for the explanation.  While the LP favors any step which
>>increases free trade, what we really believe in in unilateral
>>removal of trade barriers.  Consumers in any country which imposes
>>trade barriers are the ones who suffer.  Even Japanese consumers
>>suffer because of the restrictions placed there on the importation
>>of foreign goods.  We think consumers should not have to pay the
>>price for government power games to protect favored industries.  We
>>would work to eliminate any and all trade barriers any place we can.

>The Japanese consumers suffer from trade barriers now that they're a major
>econimic force. 

Yes, but as June said above, they do so on the backs of the Japanese
people.  The Japanese consumer pays the price for Japanese
protectionism.  There's no doubt that it works if you have a group of
people who you can foist the burden off onto.  Something like that is
a definite LP nono, however.
-- 
"Seattle" is an Indian word meaning "52 degrees and raining."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:00:40 GMT

In article <rdippold.702590624@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
> >In <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
> >>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
> >>political party. Libertarians believe "That government is best which governs
> >>least." The party supports civil liberties, a free market economy, and a
> >>non-interventionist foreign policy.
> 
> >	The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
> >employment, housing, and "service".  
> >	They believe that it is wrong to
> >have laws that require doctors to help at the scene of an accident or
> >an emergency.
> >	They believe in repealing the various neutrality acts that prevent
> >corporations from forming and supporting armies aboard and overthrowing
> >governments abroad.
> >	They believe in repeal of the child labor laws and the minimum wage.
> >They believe in repeal of compulsory vaccination laws and in the establishment
> >of a free market for human body parts.
> >	They oppose laws requiring either air-bags or seat belts to be 
> >provided as standard equipment in cars. 
> >	In regard to the environment they believe that "strict liability, 
> >not government agencies should regulate pollution."  They do not speak of
> >what happens when the liable entity has ceased to exist through bankruptcy,
> >disillusion or lack of funds.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

I agree with you on most of these items but I'm not sure about the
vaccination issue.  While I agree that it is the responsibility of
the parents, unvaccinated children can be a danger to others.  For
example, some children are too young to be vaccinated for certain
diseases, if these children come in contact with an older child
who has the disease because he/she wasn't vaccinated, the younger
child is at risk through no fault of his/her parents.  I therefore
believe that mandatory vaccinations are a necessity.  Before any
vaccination is required, however, there should be strong evidence
that lack of vaccination would represent a public health risk.  If
the risk is only to the child, I would agree that it is the parents
responsibility and the vaccination should not be required.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18236 talk.politics.guns:11694 misc.entrepreneurs:1539 alt.individualism:2454