HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:02:42 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      RE: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              14, 92 10:36 am

Jamie pisze:
>>
>> Again, why is inflation more of a problem than deflation would be?

There is no much difference for the economy if there is inflation or
deflation, on condition the bussinesses can estimate the speed at which
the incomes paid by the customers will grow(or not).

What I realy dislike is the government and the central bank manipulating the
money supply by the reserve requirements, open market operations by the
central bank, and interest rates charges to the public and institutions
operating through banks.

>> >>> [..]  So when one wants to have growth
>> >>> of the economy, one has to increase the amount of money available at the
 sam
>> >>> rate.
>> >
>> >It is not obvious. Hayek thought that 0 percent monetary growth would
>> >produce the best results in the economy.
>>
>> What is the suggestion here?
>> That the money supply NOT increase according to the amount of goods
>> and services in the economy? I can't see how that's even possible.

Money can increase faster, same, or slower that economy thus producing
inflation, price stability or deflation. The suggestion is that money growth
is NOT necessary for the economic growth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:47:37 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Home ownership among poor

[much of posting mercifully deleted]
Regarding the poverty level vis-a-vis funding levels, Brett' asks:

>        If we are basing our funding of such programs on how many people are
>"poor", should we not count what affect those very programs are having on the
>poor?

If they are still poor after being "aided" or would be so without the aid
(in need of aid in the next funding cycle) then they should be counted;
if they are no longer poor and will remain above the poverty level without
further aid, then they should not be.

>        The system is inefficient, riddled with loopholes, poorly administered,
>open to abuse by politicos, a self-perpetuating bureaucracy, and has had 25
>years to solve the problem but has not.

All of those things are true, though we differ on the degree of the problems;
while we're at it though let's not forget who administered these agencies
for the last 12 years, eh?

>        So let's fix it.

Great, let's.

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:26:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: the operation rainbow thing; or,
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >> Whe  Robert told us not to interfere in Oregon's internal affairs
> >> just recently, some of us knew that it wasn't due to the meddling
> >> that Robert was against, but rather the specific legislation (anti
> >> gay?) that he was for.
> >> KAT
>
> > Just as in Oregon, my position is/was that it was a matter for those
> > involved.  Non-residents of Oregon should have kept their noses out.
> > Likewise, the locally-elected school board should only answer to the
> > local community.  Is this just too hard for you to grasp?

So, then what's your take on the Colorado initiative (serious question)?
Is it a legitimate use of state power to override local gay-rights laws?
Or did you oppose this particular movement?  (The communities that had
the gay-rights laws in effect voted overwhelmingly against the question)

Best,
Peter

> > ---Robert
>
> --KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:24:40 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

In article <POLITICS%92121622163698@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> you write:
>Andy:
>        The "games" we play (supposedly) matter if the employee has to pay
>taxes on the income they have to kickback to the management!

Really?  How do they matter?

Consider the following two jobs.  One pays $30k plus enough to pay
taxes on $30+tax amount.  The other pays $35k plus enough to pay taxes
on $35k+tax amount, but said employee also has to kick-back $5k.
Applicants for both jobs might be able to figure out that the net
salaries are the same, yet Clark thinks that the games matter to said
applicants.  (There is a difference from a taxer's point of view.)

Suppose that we now look at a third job which is like the second job
without the kick-back.  Applicants might be able to figure out that it
pays $5k more - does Clark confuse it with the other two jobs?  How
about a fourth job, which is like the first one, but also has a $5k
kick-back.  Does Clark confuse it with the other jobs?

>came, or maybe your position gets eliminated...if this was a private company,
>are -andy and Dr Pizz saying this would be fine with them - as long as it's
>"up front"?

Since said private company could have funneled the money into the
party, what's Clark's objection to the practice.

>People with marginal views should avoid arguments that bring those already
>stretched views to the extreme;

Does Clark really think that it is "marginal" to point out that $30k
net is $30k net?  That the gyrations used to arrive at the net figure
matter?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:21:46 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Limiting Posts

>From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
>
>The enormous-quote problem I have is that it makes me >want< to skip
>over these posts.  I don't think that facilitates discussion very much,
>do you?

No.
But we have lots of discussion.
Anyone who wants to have a discussion with Ellen E should not
include huge portions of other people's postings. Notice is
now served.

>PS- Another thing I don't understand really, and never have, in all of
>my time of navigating the various nets and online services, is how
>people feel >compelled< to argue with people whom they know aren't
>going to come around to their point of view.  It's rather like
>public masturbation, if you ask me.

So, you have some kind of problem with public masturbation?

More seriously, I don't understand why Ellen thinks the only reason
to engage in a public discussion is that you think your interlocutor
might come around to your point of view.

For example, I can tell Ellen right now that Brett is not going to
come around to her point of view. But I certainly don't think that
proves she is masturbating in public (and even if I did, I would
be too polite to say so).

Here are some reasons I might want to engage in an exchange
with another person who will never "come around":

1. I might come around to his or her point of view.

2. Other readers who are on the fence might be better persuaded
by me than by the other person.

3. I might learn more about why others hold views different
from mine.

4. Others might learn more about why I hold views different from
theirs.

5. I might come to have a better understanding of my own view by
explaining and defending it.

None of these strikes me as much like masturbation. Maybe I could
pick up some tips, though?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:59:12 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Jimbo,

     I do not agree that Rush Limbaugh is racist.  If you think so, you
haven't been paying attention to what he says.  Try reading his book.
Point out the citations from there that demonstrate his racism.  In
that way, I can challenge your accusations since I will be able to
understand the context of anything you might attack him on.  I really
do not think he is at all a racist.  Evidence please...

Pizz
From: EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET (Ellen.Edgerton)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: rush spike racism
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:53:42 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Yes, and I would submit there is no such thing as a racist.  Now we're
getting into semantics again, but I would guess that one of the reasons
people insist on calling other people "racists" is because they're too
afraid to admit that they're all part of a system called "racism."

That's how I feel; I'm sure y'all are going to shoot big semantic and
logical holes in this post.  Go right ahead.   :)

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:11:53 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Tolerance and discrimination are not mutually exclusive

>May I suggest the following line as a resolution: tolerance and discri-
>mination are mutually exclusive.  If it is "permitted"--ie not subject to
>legal sanction--to do X, then at least in principle the law may intervene
>to permit the right to practice X, and to sanction those who attempt to
>abridge that right.

May I suggest that that's a confusion, not a resolution.

For example, I "tolerate" sex between consenting adults.  However I
also "discriminate" against sex between consenting adults.  I won't
let (other) people have sex in my living room, whether or not they
consent.

"Toleration" is NOT "support".  Toleration is "I won't interfere with
what you want to do"; it doesn't imply "I'll help you do what you want
to do".

If it is "permitted"--ie not subject to
>legal sanction--to do X, then at least in principle the law may intervene
>to permit the right to practice X, and to sanction those who attempt to
>abridge that right.  This does not mean that law can or will or should in
>all cases, only that it is a reasonable use of the law, consistent with
>the principles of democratic freedom.

>My right to free speech means little if every time I exercise it the
>law ignores people who throw rocks at me, endangering my safety.

Let me suggest that the problem here isn't interference with freedom
of speech, but endangering safety.  (Would it be okay if they threw
rocks when Morse wasn't trying to speak?  No?  Then speech isn't all
that relevant.)  Given that, we shouldn't be looking at this rock
throwing as a free speech issue.

>Similarly, if you agree that the government has no business in the
>bedrooms of the nation, then you must see the contradiction in
>permitting employers to discriminate against folks of a harmless but
>unpalatable orientation.

No, there isn't a contradiction.

>While I realize that the private rights of employers
>must be respected, since they are part of the same system of principle,
>it is plainly an abuse of those principles if private citizens may take away
>at their whim what the Constitution attempts to safeguard.

Morse is confused.  Said employers aren't taking away anyone's right
to to engage in those activities.  Said employers are merely saying
"go elsewhere".  Your right to have sex with someone who consents to
have sex with you does not obligate ANYONE to consent to have sex with
you.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:49:17 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Recent List History for Ramon
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

Well, here comes the voice of another old-timer - both welcoming Ramon,
the former self-styled Dictator, after his long hiatus away from our charming
"discussions," and to disabuse the demented vagaries of the self-styled
"pretender President," for as *I* recall the virtual elections, it was the
ticket of Johnson/Olson who were victorious, NOT the ticket of Jimbo/liese.
However, I quibble, it mattereth little - the best ticket was DuNcaN/ValeNtiN,
you guys just weren't reasonable enough!@@%%**&&##@@ VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:35:09 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton

>        Maybe Clinton will get a fast track for drugs already approved by
>comparable agencies in other countries.

Considering that the FDA got its "we'll do things ourselves" ethic
during the Kennedy administration, (remember thalidomide (sic?)) will
the Arkansas Elvis really go for a significant change?

I can see a change for drugs used for fatal conditions (although that
may be accompanied by limitations on their use), which would satisfy
the AIDS activists, but where's the push for a more general change?

-andy
--
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 13:18:21 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: vote
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Caius

     I live in NYS, which was a lost cause for Bush from the get go.
He didn't even campaign here, since he knew he would lose it from the
beginning, hence I figured it didn't really matter, and since I really
dislike his style of moderate republicanism, I decided to write in Pat
Buchanan, as a protest vote, since we didn't have the chance to vote
for him in the primaries, since the NYS Republican machine altered the
filing dates this year to keep him off the primary ballots, and thus
there were NO primaries in NYS for the Republicans.

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:09:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Other People's Money

>
>         Majority rule must also be equitable to the minorities involved.
>
> Brett'

<Snort!>  It's amazing how many conservatives are saying that now that
their favorite political party is seemingly the minority in Washington.

Very true, though, Brett'.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:40:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

>-T. says:
>>It is, of course, relevant to note that the news broadcast make it clear
>>that the report about women and earnings concerned equal work!

>but -T. said:
>>Just heard on ABC World News Now that women make $.70 for every $1.00
>>men make in the US; that's _down_ from last year (I think they said it had
>>been $.72).

>  These two statements are not the same.  I wonder which ABC World News
>reported, and which -T. thinks they reported.
>
>                                   -Tim



No, Tim, they are not the same.  This is an {A}.  This is a {B}.  They
are not the same.   Has anyone said they _are_ the same?

The first post was a notation about a story.

The second post was to correct Tim's assumptions - and to clarify
_why_ the first post was important.

Anybody have a copy of a post where I said the two were the same?


Does anybody really believe it's worth anything to broadcast a story about
pay inequalities if it doesn't concern equal work?

We'd have stories every day about lawyers earning more than cashiers.


I'll say it again, Tim: be patient.  I mess up at times.  Your chance at
picky glory will come; don't be greedy and don't jump the gun.

Although I might counsel using your talents in a constructive manner...
but then I have a conflict of interest in the matter, do I not?
Is the cousel any less valuable because of the conflict?


-T.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Date: 19 Dec 1992 15:37 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <CMM.0.90.4.724708848.jdt10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>,       
  Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU> writes...
>What is our purpose on Earth, if not for procreation, and the
>betterment of the future world for our children?

There is no such thing as ultimate cause or ultimate purpose, except as our
societies define them.  I am not convinced that American society has determined
an ultimate purpose.  My personal belief as to my responsibility is a different
matter.
							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:07:16 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Fetal Logic

>   If a damaged X results in a damaged Y, they are the same.

> I'm willing to do either (or even both) of two things. I am willing
> to explain why this principle is completely absurd. (Maybe I could
> hold a Logic Contest to see who can give the cleverest explanation?
> Everyone start thinking of counterexamples as ludicrous as possible.)
> Or, I am willing to discuss whatever principle Robert wants to offer
> in its place as an interpretation of his mysterious statement.

A damaged brain results in Robert's posts.....er... damaged posts....

What is the prize, Jamie? (As if posting this response was not enough!  :-)

> Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:15:39 EST
From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

>
>That's what's relevant; obscuring the issue won't make it go away.
>
>
>-T.

Speaking of obscuring issues...when are we gonna hear you concede on
the historian issue

Jenna:one of the bruces
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:34:51 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: On Rightism,
              A Reply to the Notion that Nazis Aren't Rightists...

On Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:21:55 MET Grzegorz Albinowski said:
>
>VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:
>
>>> Under the rightist regimes of Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini, and
>>> Franco, there was no government intervention? What does one call use
>
>Rightist regimes of Franco and Pinochet OK.
>
>All right, i didnt want to say that, Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin
>LEFTIST regimes.
>
>
>>>
>>> >2) Strong government in for(g?)e?ing relations and in providing
>>> >security to citizens.
>>>
>>> I assume you meant "forging," and I would contend that Hitler, and to
>>> a lesser degree, the other three examples, "forged relations" by terror
>
>foreign
>

Yes, Hitler had a VERY strong foreign policy, didn't he?  I believe he was
especially strong in the Sudetenland, Poland, and, for a time, Vichy.  Val's
point still stands, Hitler conducted his foreign policy by terror.

>
>>>
>>> >Killing people is by no means rightist!!
>>>
>>> No, it is not. But, "rightists" are not excluded from murder, as the
>>> case cited above, as many a history book in the West have damned both
>
>Murder is a criminal not political factor. Let's not try to distinguish
>right-left on the fact if a peson is a murderer.
>
>You are trying to call the Nazis rigthist because they have killed
>somebody.
>
No, he's caling the Nazis rightist because they were authoritarian, and, if
you had actually read the entire post, he has the precedent provided by a
large and varied number of historians.

>>> the Nazis and Communists of doing - all groups, from "Shining Path,"
>>> the Peruvian leftists, to the "rightist" (very conservative)
>>> Hezbollah in Iran and Lebanon. There is a large spectrum on the
>
>You have no my agreement to calling Hezbollah conservative (reason: no support
>for free market)
>

You appear to have very simplistic definitions.  "Conservative" does not
exclusively mean "support for free-market".  Indeed, I would almost prefer to
use the term "Manchester Liberals", because it was a group of Liberal (note:
NOT 'l'iberal economists who developed the free-market theory which Thatcher
and Reagan adopted to their own use during the 1980's.  "Conservatives", until
the 1980's, were defined as those opposed to radical change, who prefer to
retain traditions (eg in Britain, retain the Royalty, with all that goes with
it).  They were rather paternalistic, believing the poor, thick, working
classes didn't really know what was good for them, and that the state should
so decide.
They were NOT ideologically committed to the free market, belief in laissez-
faire economics was based more on the fact that 'it was there', rather than
because it was a wonderful cure-all.  All this new ideological baggage appeared
only comparatively recently.

>Caius.


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:26:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

So, I take it Dr Pizz disagrees with the entire Civil Rights Movement as it
applies to private businesses?

If I don't want to hire blacks, I don't have to.

If I don't want to serve blacks, I don't want to.

If I don't want to treat black employees equally as white employees, I don't
have to.

Anybody else get a feeling we'll start seeing posts about how AA keeps
qualified whites unemployed (Affirmative Action)?  That no one's being
racist, just that whites should have their own country, people of color their
own?  That blacks are just _naturally_ good athletes, dancers, slaves......


Pizz, the laws protect us from people who seem to prefer "Master" to "Mister".


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:08:41 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 70% Human
              17 Dec 1992 13:22:00 PST from <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>

> Just heard on ABC World News Now that women make $.70 for every $1.00
> men make in the US; that's _down_ from last year (I think they said it had
> been $.72).

Wanted to get this in sooner but couldn't.

Say blacks in South Africa are paid 25 cents for every dollar that
whites are paid.  Can we say he following in defense: "but they are
paid more (in absolute dollars, since there are many more of them)
than whites."            Hmmmmm........????

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:30:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Words

>Good grief, what's next, Pope torts? B)

thought that was pop tarts?

-linda

>-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU