HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:17:19 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug29.133624.20975@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
> In article <12002@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Homosexuals want the right to be offensive about
# #what they do in private, but then want people to forget about that
# #when they are busy whipping each other naked in the middle of 
# #Market Street.
# 
# I've never whipped anyone naked in the middle of Market
# Street.  I've never been naked in the middle of Market Street.
# I've never been with anyone who was naked in the middle
# of Market Street.

But you identify with a group that does such.  Then you wonder
why you get discriminated against.  Either stop identifying with
them, or encourage them to behave like something other than
confused and spoiled kids.

# BTW, what consenting adults do in private is nobody's
# business but their own.  You're the sorriest damned excuse
# for a libertarian I've ever seen.  
# 
#        Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

INCLUDING HIRING!

If you do something in private I find distasteful, I won't find
out about it, will I?  But when you do in the middle of Market
Street, you cant' really claim that privacy is the goal.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:31:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug25.004219.2174@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>Say inflation is at 5%, my investment returns 10% and the capital
>gains tax is 30%.  
>
>Well, my $1000 becomes $1100.  I pay my tax and I'm down to $1070.
>Look at it in real dollars and it's worth $1019.05.  Don't you love
>1.9% ROI? 

  Your point is perfectly correct but your figures are glowingly
  optimistic.  I'd love to get a real return after taxes on some
  conservative investment!  The current CPI inflation rate is 3.5%.
  If you are a conservative investor (i.e., you wish to avoid capital
  loss risks then the best you can do today without locking up your
  money for > a decade is maybe 3.5% (short term Treasuries or AA
  or better commercial paper) to maybe 5.5% for intermediate-term
  Treasuries or AA or better paper.  (and note that intermediate
  term anything carries the exposure to higher inflation down the
  road, and capital loss, especially at todays low interest rates
  so it's not such a conservative investment)

  Now this is where we see how UNprogressive so called "progressive"
  taxes are.   My wife and I are only software engineers; not "rich"
  by any reasonable (non-Democratic party) definition of the word.
  But already our marginal federal+state tax rate on commercial paper
  is 37%!   It's slightly lower on Treasuries (because they aren't 
  subject to state income tax) but then again, so is their yield.
  Which means that due to these taxes we are guaranteed to LOSE
  value on any short-term investment and the best we can hope for
  on intermediate term investments is to break even if we're willing
  to expose ourselves to risk of locking up our money for, say, 5
  years.

  Think of this in terms of something like retirement planning
  or encouraging savings, two things we are told Americans don't
  do enough of, and then ask yourself whether "progressive" tax 
  rates make any sense at all.


---peter





  


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41418 alt.politics.clinton:2656
From: rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg)
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:37:18 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <17qs7eINNqlb@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
>Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
>Summary: 
>Expires: 
>References: <Btq1vz.9sK@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> <17mtmvINNear@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Aug30.011352.29396@midway.uchicago.edu>
>Sender: 
>Followup-To: 
>Distribution: 
>Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Aug30.011352.29396@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <17mtmvINNear@agate.berkeley.edu>
>>martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>
>>>In addition, the ENTIRE individual is defined at conception.  The mother's 
>>>traits and the father's traits combine to create a new DNA structure
>>>which equates to a new and unique human being.  Abort the unborn and
>>>you will never see that combination again.
>>
>>Oh, please!  Yes, the genetic code of the z/e/f is determined at
>>conception, and yes, if the woman has an abortion there will never be
>>another human with that genetic code (the chances are so low as to be
>>nonexistent for all practical purposes).  But the entire individual is
>>not, *not*, NOT defined by their genetic code.  This is why identical
>>twins are different people.
>>
>
>But practically speaking, the genetic code of the unborn (whether twins
>or not) is UNIQUE and separate from the mother.  So this, hopefully, 
>discounts the 'just an extension of the mother' justification.

No, it doesn't. A baby is (technically speaking) a parasite on the mother.
And since it's connected to the mother, an extension of her (it is part of her,
feeds "off" her, and generally acts as a parasite or other non-functional
appendage.

>Simply put, before abortion there is life.  After, there is death.

Before abortion there's a bunch of cells huddled together in the womb. After
abortion there isn't. Happens all the time - by nature as well as doctors and
I for one don't see the big difference.

Regards,
-- 
Ronald Kunenborg, Ina Boudier-Bakkerlaan 89-3, 3582 XD Utrecht, The Netherlands

        "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom
	      and democracy, but that could change." - Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:32:59 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <81258@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> In article lmB@engin.umich.edu, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
>>In article <80861@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>>|> OK, I'll bite.  Why would anyone reject the idea that the more than double
>>|> rise in gasoline (& don't forget other oil products) caused inflation?
>>
>>You are confusing cause and effect.  Inflation is not caused by a rise
>>in prices, higher prices are the result of inflation.  Inflation is caused
>>by an increase in the supply of money...
> 
> I don't want to split hairs with you (although I have this queasy feeling that
> splitting hairs is what these debates usually devolve into).  One definition of
> inflation is an "an increase in the amount of money and credit in relation
> to the supply of goods and services".  Another, perhaps more general
> view, is that it is an "increase in the general price level...causing a decline
> in purchasing power".  Both quotes are excerpted from my Webster's New World
> Dictionary, 3rd College Edition. 
> 
> Please bear in mind that the inflationary period did not happen because Jimmy 
> Carter one day sat down an mumbled, "Let's increase the money supply and see
> what happens."  

	Well. actually, it did (in part).  During the 70s it was widely
believed that the cure for unemployment was a little inflation.

>It happened because a consortium of foreign nations, who controlled
> the supply of oil, decided to hike prices artificially.  Given the broad impact of

	But we had price hikes (thanx to our own government) for gas and oil in
the 80s, with no such inflationary effects.  High energy prices do not
automatically translate into higher inflation.

> oil on the cost of things in our society, that caused a rise in prices and set
> off inflationary pressures in the economy.  Monetary policy did not *cause* the
> inflation, although it came to be seen as a tool to control inflation.  Bear in
> mind that the US was not the only nation to suffer inflation during that period,
> and it was most certainly not US monetary policy that caused inflation in other 
> countries.  It is really you who is confusing cause and effect.  BTW, the cure
> for inflation was as much political as economic.  The collapse of OPEC, not US
> monetary policy, had much to do with bringing down inflation on an international
> scale.

	Tight money policies reigned in inflation.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42694 alt.politics.elections:11900 alt.politics.clinton:3423 alt.politics.bush:3398
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Taxing capital gains (was: why progressive tax rates)
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:00:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <168518096.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu sez:
> 
>What's your point? The anti-tax argument is based on a couple of assumptions,
>so perhaps you'd be good enough to address each individually:
> 
>1. Unidexed capital gains taxes tax inflation, resulting in exceptionally
>high marginal rates. I've posted sample calculations, so perhaps you'd be
>kind enough to post your calculations and show whay this isn't the case-
>if that's your argument.

I contend that cap. gains aren't any different in this regard from
other kinds of income.  My bank interest is also taxed even though a
portion of it accounts for inflation, and taxed *each year* to boot.

Here are some sample figures for investments A and B as described in
my first article in this thread. My figures are based on 10% annual
return and a 30% tax rate.  Feel free to pick other less convenient
numbers in your own calculations :) Each investment starts with
$1,000.


Income source A: the column for each year shows, in order, starting value,
income, and end value after taxes are subtracted.

  Y1      Y2         Y3         Y4         Y5      

1000    1070       1144.90    1225.04    1310.79
  
 100     107        114.49     122.50     131.08

1070    1144.90    1225.04    1310.79    1402.55


Investment B: appreciates at 10% per annum, with a one-time tax at the end of
five years.

1000 * (1.10)**5  =  1610.51 before tax

   less .3 * 610.51  =   183.15 in tax

      leaves 1427.36 after tax, or $24.81 more than under scheme A.


Your response is "ah, but those 1427-odd dollars are worth less in
year 5."  Right you are.  So are my 1402-odd bank account dollars.  So
why, from a strictly mathematical standpoint (*leaving aside the
policy arguments*), should cap. gains get special tax treatment?


-- 
		   I am of course experienced in teaching
		  and have read the writings of Dana Plato.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43324 talk.abortion:34543 alt.politics.bush:3855 soc.singles:24224
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles
Subject: Tell that to My Woman
Date: 2 Sep 1992 17:03:08 GMT
Organization: i represent myself

In article <1992Sep2.130328.3186@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> 
> 3. Also would You PLEASE esplain to my problem older woman that
> merely as she has not had 'sex' in a week is NO excuse for her
> to Flaunt Herself at me in her Vain Efforts to Force an Orgasm on me.
> 
> 
> ciao
> drieux

aah, if only we all had such problems.

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43398 misc.headlines:6163
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: BUSH: The "Energy President" (I)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:47:05 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In <1992Sep1.203209.23361@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
>In article <1992Sep1.151800.15125@doug.cae.wisc.edu> sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
>>In article <9209011956.AA00623@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>>>
>>>"Prior to the Gulf crisis, the U.S. imported 290 million barrels of 
>>>oil a year from Iraq and Kuwait. Raising auto-efficiency standards by 
>>>a measly 2.75 mpg, says the Silocon Valley Toxics Coalition, could save 
>>>the U.S. the same 290 million barrels...." 
>>>
>>It was the oil in Saudi Arabia that was of particular importance.  
>>What was to have stopped Saddam after taking Kuwait, World
>>Opinion???  
>
>Er, lots of desert and US CVBGs and B-52s in the area?  I also don't
>think Saddam was poised to strike into Saudi Arabia, also.

	None of which would be effective in stopping land forces from occupying
Saudi Arabia.

	Maybe Hilter wouldn't have invaded Czechoslovakia after Austria,
either.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:51:49
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu's message of Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:35:56 GMT

In article <galluzjj.714782156@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck) writes:

> I urge all undecided voters to vote for the President and
> to make the tough change -- vote out Congress!

The problem, of course, is that I do not get a chance to "vote out
Congress."  I don't vote for Congress; I vote for two California
senators, and one representative from an East Bay congressional
district.

As it happens, all three of those seats are up for election this year;
in two of them, the incumbents are running.  I am going to vote for
one of those incumbents and against the other.  In other words: giving
me a reason to vote against "Congress" is useless.  You have to give
me a reason to vote against John Seymour and Ron Dellums.

You will find that most people, when asked, say that "Congress," in
the abstract, is bad, but that their particular incumbent is an
exception, and that they wouldn't dream of voting against that one
particular person---it's always the folks from *other* districts who
are causing the trouble.  Until you understand this very basic
political fact, and its implications, you do not understand American
politics.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43393 sci.econ:7329
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Trust Issue
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:30:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

>>>>> Regarding The Trust Issue; rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) adds:

rwojcik> Now he intends to make the theme of his campaign "Who do you trust?"

Actually, I trust GHWB implicitly. I trust him to increase the debt another
couple of trillion if he gets 4 more years, I trust him to do or say
anything it takes to get elected, I trust him to take credit for any
remotely positive things that happen and blame the democrats (or perhaps
Lyndon Johnson or FDR) for anything bad that happens. I trust him to go into
a coma after the election and wake up just in time to "get into campaign
mode" for Danny in 1996. I trust him to continue appointing ambassadors
who's primary diplomatic credentials consist of having made large
contributions to the Bush campaign. I trust him to continue his unflagging
support for the brutal dictators running China. I trust him to continue his
acts of piracy on the high seas against Hatian refugees.

I have a great deal of trust in George Bush.
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 16:41:08 GMT

> One thing you have to remember is that a fair number of welfare
> receivers are single mothers.  You have to include provisions for
> daycare, or else the children, if they're young, may not be cared for
> during the day.

There are so many volunteer organizations out there, that this wouldn't be
much of a problem.  Many people would be able to "work" at home, making
phone calls, writing letters, etc.  Volunteer organizations can be much
more flexable then regular businesses in working with people to solve these
problems.  

> You may also wish to consider what _kind_ of work they will be
> doing.  Will they learn skills on the job?  If not, they may be
> stuck permanently in a low-skill, low-wage job for the rest
> of their lives.  They will then still require government supports.
> You may want to include worker training, then.

Especially in a volunteer organization, as people learn more about it, they
become more valuable to that organization and gradually learn more and more
skill as they take on more responsibility.  

In a volunteer organization, the competition to "rise to the top" is
greatly reduced, if non-existant, giving more people a greater opportunity
to do more with their lives.

My idea just gives people (and organizations) the incentive to make this
possible.  The volunteer organizations are always looking for more people. 
And most people on welfare claim they want to get off, but can't find a job
and even when they do, it is my understanding that they wind up worse off
then when they were on welfare.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:26:09 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug25.055639.3056@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.015311.4170@brownfield.glv.com> <jbrow@glv.com> writes:
>>
>>I had no idea Canadians were so homogeneous and happy a PEOPLE (what with this  
>>Quebec thing and all :-)).  And I, of course, find your assertions ridiculous.
>
>When the USA was about 100 years old, they had a bloody civil war...and
>everyone spoke the same bloody language.
>
>Well, in Canada, we're just over 100 years old, and we're talking our
>constitutional problems to death, not slaughtering each other like
>the Americans did at a similar point in their history.

Well we did talk for a long time before the Civil War too. When we decided
separation was better than continuing talking, the North took exception
to the idea and the shooting began. We'll wait and watch to see when
the shooting starts in the Great White North. Then we'll come in and
clean up the mess like we always do. Or throughly bollix it up, one 
or the other. Hey! You Canadians *do* have oil don't you? Otherwise
we won't bother.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:31:05 GMT

GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>If you vote for a major party candidate that you like less than a
>third party candidate, just because you are afraid that the other
>major party candidate will then win YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!
>

Hogwash. Is this supposed to be self-evident? If someone is liberal,
say, and there is a difference between the two major candidates in this
regard, but he or she votes for an ideologically-pure third candidate,
then the end result may be that the country becomes LESS liberal.

If the idea is to vote for the candidate closest to one's own views, why
not write in your best buddy's name? Or your own name? Obviously, the
factor of "chance of winning" has to be weighed when supporting a
candidate.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:28:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.173105.6401@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com  
(joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
> >If you vote for a major party candidate that you like less than a
> >third party candidate, just because you are afraid that the other
> >major party candidate will then win YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!
> >
> 
> Hogwash. Is this supposed to be self-evident? If someone is liberal,
> say, and there is a difference between the two major candidates in this
> regard, but he or she votes for an ideologically-pure third candidate,
> then the end result may be that the country becomes LESS liberal.
> 

What you say is true in the short term, but in the long term, in my opinion,  
you are better off to vote the way you truly feel.  If you always play the  
muddled middle ground, the politics of the country will drift away from what  
you believe little by little.  Also, keep in mind that there has never been a  
socialist president (and, I believe, only recently the first socialist  
congressman was elected), but since 1922, the democrats have adopted the 1922  
socialist platform almost in its entirety.  So voting third party can have a  
definite effect.

[deleted]
> ---
> Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com

Jim (I was a Democrat, then a Republican, and now a Libertarian) Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:48:48 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug26.041008.8069@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> I would promptly inform any homosexual who would dare to proposition
>> me that my preference is fisting.  [The traditional kind.]

> Tire-ironing, I heard.

For the record, I have never used a tire iron for any purpose other
than that for which it was designed -- certainly NEVER as a weapon or
as an instrument with which to threaten anyone.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc