HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:41:20 GMT

In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
>Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the woman does not have
>rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
>fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
>assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
>human being.

But should a woman give up her life for the fetus's, given your
assumptions?  After all, it's alive.  Take this to the logical
extreme.  Given that a woman's rights are "subservient to the right to
life of the fetus", shouldn't we strap the woman down for the term of
the pregnancy and anesthetize her, so there would be no danger of the
fetus coming into contact with hazardous substances or various other
accidents?  She'll be free to go after giving birth.  After all, the
woman is the carrying case for the fetus, and no more than that.



--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41135 alt.activism:15233 misc.headlines:5823 sci.econ:7029
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:38:40 GMT
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow

In article <1992Aug21.185837.14611@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:

>The laffer peak is somewhere between 
>Germanys tax rate and that of Sweden(the only country I know of to have
>actually gone over the REAL laffer peak) and WELL above the US rate

Then why is it that the Reagan tax cut increased revenue? If we where
on the near side of a Laffer curve as you claim, revenue would have gone
down.

>What do I have to learn? My views come from having travelled widely
>and seen which countries are most to my liking and the people seem happiest..

As I recall you seemed pretty willing to ignore some nasty abuses
by the Sandinsitas. Maybe you should learn how to read things
you don't like.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------245 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Candidates' Private Lives: WHO CARES (was Philandering George Bush)
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:45:26 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

> > I suspect that both Bush and Clinton did have affairs.

> Do have any _SUBSTANTIVE_ information to lead you to suspect that Bush
> has ever had an extramarital affair?

For starters, certain studies show that better than 50% of men in this
country admit to having had at least one affair.  I'll let experts in
the field tell us just how valid those studies were.  But I suspect
that the infidelity rate among politicians is even higher.  Hence, if
we start talking about any male politician in this country, it seems
at least likely that he has had an affair.

I found the information released by the Post last week to be entirely
believable.  And, along with the longstanding rumors of infidelity
between Bush and his secretary, I think that it is entirely credible
that they did have an affair.

This amounts to suspicion on my part.  Would we find Bush guilty of
adultery in a court of law?  Probably not.  Of course, the same could
be said of Clinton, where the evidence against him consists of a woman
selling a story (for $50K) which has several internal inconsistencies.
We also have evidence that they talked on the telephone.  This amounts
to grounds for suspicion, but probably not conviction.

Of course, the point of my original posting, which seems to have
eluded Ted entirely, was: WHO CARES!  I remain unconvinced that these
alleged affairs have any bearing at all on the real issues facing the
country.  In both cases, the alleged affairs are, by all accounts, in
the past and are a matter for the two couples to sort out on their
own.  If we had convincing evidence of an ongoing affair, that MIGHT
be something else, but that's not what has been alleged by anyone.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:18:57 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug14.130303.24354@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.220329.19178@cco.caltech.edu>
> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> It occurs to me that Ron Echeverri might have concocted this story.
>
> > With the help of most major newspapers in this country, of course.  Try readin
> > one, Doug.
>
> But none of them that I've read have suggested that President Bush supports
> banning "all" abortions, unlike the story above.  Bush supports exceptions
> for rape and incest, and for the life of the mother.  That's why I believe
> the story was concocted by Ron Echeverri.

You're wrong, Doug.

As Ron said, the story was on the Clarinet news feed.

     HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee Monday
overwhelmingly passed a plank calling for the adoption of a
constitutional amendment banning all abortions.
     The subcommittee on individual rights, good homes and safe streets
voted 17-3 to approve the plank, which is essentially the same as the
anti-abortion planks contained in the 1988 and 1984 platforms.
..
     Although the subcommittee included a few members supportive of the
Republicans for Choice, the majority endorsed President Bush's stance
against abortions.
----------------------------

I think you should apologize for accusing Ron of trying to pull a Doug.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40460 alt.politics.elections:10852 alt.politics.clinton:2185 alt.politics.bush:2031
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 18 Aug 1992 22:21:45 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: planecrash.berkeley.edu

In article <16847BCBC.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

Long discussion of capital gains deleted

>Everytime capital gains taxes have been cut in this country there has been
>an *increase* in tax revenue as properties changed hands and profits were
>taken. This is to be expected, as investors have learned from experience

Notice that this is (IN PART) a one-time-only phenomenon. "Taking
profits" is a one-time thing! Suppose the price of any durable
good is cut sharply. Then there will be a one-time sales surge because
of pent-up demand. Then sales will stabilize below this peak (but at a
higher level than before). Whether total revenue goes up is problematic.
The same is true (in reverse) of capital gains. Whether total tax
revenues would stay up or down is difficult to predict and control for.

andy

PS I notice that you like the absence of capital gains taxes in Germany?
Do you also like their taxes to pay for health care? Just checking.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:20:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.221458.7673@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.205057.16540@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
>>b > Brett (Stupendous Man)
>>
>>b > Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>>b > do not automatically translate into more money.
>>
>>da> Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
>>da> economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
>>da> something to do with it.
>>
>>  Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>>  spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.
>>--
>>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
>
>You meean , No I am rolling on the floor now you take the PHTTT! chortle
>chuckle LAFFER CURVE SERIOUSLY!!!!  

Answer this question:
	Do tax rates affect taxpayers' behavior?
	
>Supply side economics?

	"We reduced tax rates and we increased the tax base. ..
We've reduced tax rates and strengthened enforcement, and now we are
getting more revenue out of lower tax rates."
	-President Carlos Salinas, of Mexico
	quoted in Forbes magazine, Aug 17, 1992

The top tax rate was reduced from 60% to 35%. The capital gains tax rate
in Mexico is currently zero.

More revenues out of lower tax rates?  Yes, it happens. Believe it.

[much contentless abuse deleted]
>ALEX
>(the social-democratic secular humanist)

As Peter, Paul and Mary said: "When will they ever learn?"
---
Pat,  bleeding heart supply-side conservative
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush on Abortion (was Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Date: 12 Aug 1992 22:55:06 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <Aug.12.14.43.56.1992.8139@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
|> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
|> 
|> > 	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
|> > ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
|> > tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. 
|> 
|> Does Bush make an exception where the life or health of the mother is
|> in jeopardy?  I know that parliamentary tricks were used to prevent a
|> vote on a plank allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest.
|> 
1	No parlimentary *tricks* were used to prevent the vote by the
	platform committee.

2	Bush makes an exception, but the platform does not.

3	Bush says he supports the platform as is, although it is stronger
	than his own beliefs

4	Bush has a different standard for his family than for your family.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39583 talk.abortion:31637 alt.politics.bush:1507
From: rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 23:13:46 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.usc.edu

In article <BswBy6.ECK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
)In article <1992Aug12.220315.1424@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	They talk about "individual rights" and propose banning
>>abortion?  If that isn't an interference with individual rights, then
>>what is???
>Loren, you miss the point.  It is simple. If one believes that the fetus
>is a human then it has ITS individual rights.  If you don't then it is
>a violation of the woman's rights.  In the former case (consistent with
>a pro-life stance) there is no inconsistency.  In the latter case there
>would be.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

If the fetus has ITS individual rights, why doesn't it take a stroll out of the
womb whenever it so feels like it?  After all, being curled up in a womb,
thrashed to and fro as its mother walks around, it must be a REAL shitty nine
months... 

5150
now THERE'S a trick i'd like to see
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:02:35 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <79895@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@snake.tc-suns writes:
]In article 877@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]>Why the hell SHOULD the rich pay so much more in taxes than the poor?
]>Where is the justice in that? Why should I, who works hard, pay a lot
]>more in taxes than someone who doesn't work hard or isn't as skilled?
]
]One of the goals of government is to provide for the common benefit.  Some of us
]find it unjust to allow people to starve, go homeless, or die of preventable
]diseases, when the means to help them are available.  The rich are taxed more heavily
]because they can afford to pay more than others and still remain wealthy.  The cries
]of pain over taxes are far out of proportion to the pain suffered by the poor and
]the infirm.  Moreover, it is wrong to simply assume that your pay is proportional

Well, then do you have an objection to the following?

  Have a personal exemption of (just making up numbers) $20,000. Anyone
whose AGI is less than that pays no tax. Those that make more than that
all pay at a flat rate. Doesn't that take care of the pain of the poor?
Doesn't it also cause the rich to pay a lot more tax than the poor or
even the middle class? Even so, it would be called very "regressive"
by the "soak the rich" crowd.
]
]>Instead of quibbling about whether the rich paid more or less, why not
]>talk about the fundamental injustice that some people have to pay a whole
]>lot more than others for the same government?
]
]Same government?  The wealthy have far more say in government than the poor do.  One
]could make a good argument that they own it.  Welfare does not exist because liberals
]forced or tricked our representative democracy into cheating rich people.  It exists
]because previous generations of rich people were far more compassionate than the
]some in the present one.  The hand that used to be offered in help is now busy 
]thumbing its owner's nose.

Welfare exists partly because of compassion and partly because it
was a POPULIST thing. One could buy the votes of poor people, while
not losing the votes of the middle class, by convincing the middle class
that only the rich would pay.

If the rich own the government, how do you explain the TEFRA of 1986, which
hurt the rich far more than the poor? How do you explain the taxation of
capital gains? How do you explain the double taxation of corporate profits?


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle Quotes! Special Republican National Convention Issue!
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:48:20 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <66440@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6004a@prism.gatech.EDU (Michael G. Goldsman) writes:

>Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance 
>from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are 
>canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. 
>If oxygen, that means we can breathe.
>		-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/11/89

Is there an 'e' in "Quayl?" 

<Thanks for some serious snickers - it is reassuring to realize that Canada
doesn't have a monopoly on inept, mentally deficient politicians>
-- 
| "I can inform you, however, that San Quentin has not contracted with Fred
| A. Leuchter, Jr. for the installation of a heart monitoring system or for
| any other work."  Signed: DANIEL B. Vasquez, Warden
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41200 alt.activism:15254 misc.headlines:5834 sci.econ:7038
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:13:20 GMT
	<MATT.92Aug21120132@physics2.berkeley.edu> <BtCtG0.514@apollo.hp.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of 21 Aug 92 22:07:12 GMT

In article <BtCtG0.514@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   For me the political biases of economists are really not that interesting,
>   any more, that say the biases of physicists or chemists.  The bottom line 
>   is whether their modesl accurately track the real world.  This is the ONLY
>   measure of an economic theory as far as I'm concerned.  

The difference is that most physicists and chemists don't spend very
much time talking about how atoms and molecules molecules *should*
behave; they normally are content to come up with models that attempt
to describe the way that they *do* behave.

Much of what economists say is (again, either explicitly or
implicitly) not descriptive but prescriptive.  In this case, their
ideological framework is extremely relevant.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE: "Where Was George?" (part 1)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:45:58 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive Auto-Poster) writes:


>   PICK A BUSH, ANY BUSH: Why did candidate Bush disappear from
>   public view for some 20 hours just two weeks prior to what was a
>   very close presidential election? And where did he go?  The Bush
>   administration appears to be working overtime to provide an alibi.
>   But these over-eager efforts have not been coor- dinated. [..] The

>=====================
>So where was George? 
>=====================

>"Was I ever in Paris in 1980? Definitively, definitely no. That's 
>all. Please print it. And let's try to stop this rumormongering 
>that's going on. Stop repeating rumors over and over again," he 
>said in his May 3 executive order. 

The congressional invesitgators dismissed all of the claims about George
Bush, stating that he was in now way involved.  I guess the Congress is
either stupid or in cahoots with him....

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39252 ca.politics:6708 ba.politics:4447
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:52:41 GMT
	<1992Aug20.022259.4028@ncar.ucar.edu> <1992Aug20.065031.18600@s1.gov>
Distribution: na
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug20.065031.18600@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

<	   There is a third option: going by train. Although a train will
<   be in motion longer than an airplane will over the same route, trains
<   are generally cheaper, and often more conveniently accessible. And if
<   they are fast enough, trains can successfully compete with airplanes
<   on relatively short routes. Airline travel has actually declined on
<   some routes served by high-speed trains like the French TGV.

	Strawman alert!

	Given that air travel in Europe is much more restricted
	by government regulations and is MUCH more expensive
	than train travel, it is specious to declare that
	TGV "competes" with air travel. TGV is a government
	owned monopoly, for one thing.


	And I defy any train to "compete" with a 737 from
	Dallas to El Paso, Texas....without a government
	stepping in, that is.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Rats leaving the GOP ship (was: BUSH: Acceptance speech text)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:11:37 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Aug21.110232.10801@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com sez:
>>           Text of President Bush's Acceptance Speech
>[...]
>>     Where does my opponent stand with Congress?  Well, up to New York
>> at their convention, they kept the congressional leaders away from the
>> podium--hid them away.
>
>This is funny considering all the Republicans that stayed away from the
>Republican Convention because they do not want to be associated with Bush.
>
>Rep. Jim Ramstad is home campaigning.  I don't think the Repubs would let
>Sen. Dave Durenburger go to Houston...

It's even worse than that for Bush.  My second favorite senator from
NY :), Al D'Amato, has recently been distancing himself from the
party's rhetoric about "family values".  Today's NYTimes reports
D'Amato saying that "I don't think any party has a corner on family
values, and I don't think that any party should claim that it has
one." (p. B1)

On one hand, this makes a certain amount of sense, given that 
	a) D'Amato faces a tough campaign against one of 3 (count 'em)
possible Democratic nominees (Ferraro, NYAG Abrams, or Liz Holtzman),
all heavy political hitters, and
	b) Bush demonstrated in 1988 that his coattails reach to his
shoulder-blades at best, by being the first president elected with a
Congress in which his party *lost* net seats in the House.

On the other hand, one can also take this a sign that Bush is totally
doomed.  D'Amato hasn't exactly been shy on "family values" issues
like abortion, so the fact that he's backing away from the platform
and the party suggests strongly that he sees ties to Bush as a
substantial liability.


-- 
blah blah Communism blah blah Berlin wall blah blah school prayer blah blah
slick blah blah Communism blah blah Navy flier blah abortion on demand blah
blah Hillary blah blah Communism blah blah thirty million new j -- er, blah
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40725 talk.abortion:32555 alt.politics.bush:2208