HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:47:19 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Socialism in the White House

In article <1992Nov6.010857.20457@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO) says:
>
>If anyone cares to, examine the similarities between Mr. Clinton and Francois
>Mitterand the French Socialistic leader.  It didn't work in France, Britain,
>or the ex-Soviet Union.  What makes Americans think it'll work here?  Everyone

There is little similarity in the "socialism" of Western Europe and the
ex-USSR.  I find it interesting that you excluded Germany (long ruled by
the Social Democrats) from your list of failures. Certainly with its
comprehensive health care and welfare and pro-union laws, you would count that
country as "socialist".  In any case, despite his socialist label, Mitterand
has practices conservative, austerity economics since soon after coming to
power.

>else is imitating us so why should we set America back in history?  If you

Who is imitating you? Most of the new governments in Eastern Europe and the
CIS call themselves social democratic. In any case, the unfettered free market
has not failed in Eastern Europe just as it's currently failing in the US, the
model that is being imitated now is not the American model of laissez-faire
but the Western European model of a mixed economy

>want to send a package across the country overnight would you give it to the
>US Postal Service?  Would you like to be placed on a waiting list for surgery?

Waiting lists in Canada have disappeared with the introduction of a new
computerised system which matches patients with available doctors. In any case
it's better to wait then to be unable to have surgery because you can't afford
it. The days of families being bankrupted by medical bills ended decades ago
in Canada and most of the civilised world. It is a crime that people are dying
of curable ailments simply because they cant afford the cure.

In any case, if your system is more efficient and cost effective, please
explain why you pay a higher share of the GNP for a system which is far
less comprehensive than Canada's

>If you went to a Private University/College why did you do so?  Should we have

Hey, how about Oxford and Cambridge. At least in Canada and most of the
West, people are not denied an education because they cannot afford a tuition
of $20 000 a year.

>more governmental expenditures and increase our debt, or should we trim the
>government so it can act if there is a need, not just for the sake of
>controlling our lives.
>                                Jayce
>
In any case, any socialist or person familiar with socialism would find the
claim that Clinton is a socialist simply laughable. No socialist would pass
legislation allowing people to work in a union workplace without joining
the union.
>
From: ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: my life with the thrill kill cult
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:11:27 GMT
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

someone wanted, in the mass of 400+ messages i just waded through, an
example of any instance in which mass murder was carried out in the name of
christianity.  okay.

1.  the new world was claimed in the name of various kings, queens, and
    also in the name of the god of abraham, isaac and joseph.  they took
    the adminotion from the end of matthew, "go, ye, into all the world,
    and preach my gospel to every creature" to new heights, or depths, or
    whatever...by adding the unwritten coda "...and kill them if they'd
    rather not give up their own gods."

(oops.  editing is bad.  admonition is the word i wanted.)

2.  pick a crusade.  any crusade.  the children's crusade (in the words of
   kurt vonnegut, "marginally more distasteful than the other kinds") is
   my personal favorite.

3.  northern ireland.  this one baffles me even more, 'cause they aren't
    fighting about christianity so much as denominationalism.

4.  ...and the countless thousands of dead who have fallen through the
    historical cracks because they weren't all taken out in one big lump.


there are other examples.  i could go on, and on, and on.  but i'm already
getting a little depressed.  read gil murray's excellent book
"the twentieth century book of the dead" for a better account of such things.

anneliese.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 13:00:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Gender and Sex

Julie:

Thanks for you reply - and I agree.

        The institution for which I work is a leader in [sex] [gender] re-

assignment surgery - it's the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, VA.

Wasn't sure if you knew; would be glad to pass on any info you might want.

Take care -

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:34:07 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject: Re: my life with the thrill kill cult
              12 Nov 1992 11:54:32 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:54:32 -0800 Andy Freeman said:
>
>>>3.  northern ireland.  this one baffles me even more, 'cause they aren't
>>>    fighting about christianity so much as denominationalism.
>>
>>It's not really about denominationalism either, although the
>>denominational labels are generally used. It's about the
>>constitutional status of Northern Ireland - whether it should be part
>>of the Republic of Ireland or the Uhited Kingdom.
>
>A FOAF who had "ran guns" to some of the parties involved claims that
>the IRA isn't interested in reuniting Ireland.  He also says that the
>Irish aren't all that supportive of the IRA; that if they had to
>choose between permanent partition and reuniting Ireland by means of
>IRA action, they'd go with partition.  (In other words, said Irish did
>want to reunite Ireland, but only by certain means.)  Since the IRA
>did have some role in Irish independence, that suggests that they
>think that the IRA has changed.
>
I have no poll results to hand to back this up, but yes, I believe most
Irish people are indeed opposed to the IRA.  Certainly for me, I would far
prefer to retain partition.  Apart from any romantic notions of unity (the
only time Ireland has been a united entity has been under British rule), the
arguments against unity are overwhelming.
The IRA did have a role in independence, but NOT the current incarnation,
which was formed in the late 60s-early 70s.  The original IRA now takes the
form of Irelands main Marxist party, the Workers Party.  The IRA as it is now
is little more than a mafia, running drugs, extorting protection money,
imposing its own rule of law reminiscent of Islamic justice (kneecappings,
murder, etc), and terrorising the citizens.  Do you think they woukd happily
surrender this in a united Ireland.  I doubt it.
Suppose the IRA did give up its arms.  I somehow think the loyalist paramili-
taries would be a little annoyed.  There are a number of such groups, and
would probably cause as many problems as the IRA did.  They have already
set off a few bombs in Dublin, and I am quite sure such actions would
accelerate in intensity if a united Ireland was to occur.

Takea utopian situation, unity by complete agreement.  The costs involved in
unity would be proportionaltely as large as German unity, different postal
system, education system, currency, basic law, commercial practices, etc,
etc.  Ireland is one of the poorest countries in the EC.  Quite apart from
anything else, Irish unity would completely bankrupt the nation.

Irish unity?  Keep it.

>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:38:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Economic View of the Depression
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

A little economic look of the Great Depression.

1.) And lets get this straight, all I said that Hoover's tax increase
in 1932 added to the severity of the depression.  Let me explain this
in full detail.

In 1931, the depression had caused a government deficit.  At this
time, deficits were not common place, so Hoover decided to raise
taxes, in order to balance the budget.  Hoover hoped that this tax
increase would augment revenue by a third.  AND HERE IS THE ECONOMIC PART  What
the tax increase really did was cause a drop in Gross National
Product.  A dropping in GNP leads to several factors, lower
productivity, higher unemployment.  The tax increase ACTUALLY CAUSED
TAX REVENUES TO FALL!!!!

Both Keynesians and supply-siders agree that this tax increase
contributed to the severity of the Depressions.  Keynesians argued
that the tax increase led to massive withdrawl of funds (1932
America's Consumer Personal Savings was negative).  Supply siders
stated that the higher taxes shifted Aggregate Supply.

By examining figures of 1931 to 1932, one can see that the tax
increase had a major effect on the SEVERITY of the Depression.

                                1931            1932
Personal Consumption (bill)    $60.5            48.6
G.P.D.I.                         5.6             1.0
G.N.P.                          75.8            58.0
N.I.                            59.7            42.8
Personal Income                 65.9            50.2
Personal Savings                 0.7            -1.6
Unemployment                    15.9%           23.6%
Gov't. Receipts                  3.1             1.9

I never said that the tax increase caused the Depression, it made
things worse, and yes, this is an economic issue.

-Paul

P.S.  I have yet to receive an answer to my question of when a tax
increase in American history led to prosperity?
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:00:00 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Potatoe

In article <1992Nov6.005520.44095@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO) says:
>
>I must say this:  To anyone out there who has said that we should refrain from
>personal attacks, have you ever poked fun st Vice President Quayle for that
>"potatoe" incident?  Talk about insecure.  This campaign all we heard is how
>"negative" President Bush's commercials were, how about the press that Dan

Despite the obvious temptation, I am unaware of one Clinton commercial which
mocked or attacked Quayle.

>Quayle received over the past couple of years?  He is a good, honorable man
>that I respect for not turning his back on the American he was serving.  I
>hope that I have as much understanding if I'm ever faced with such a
>situation.

Quayle has said some incredibly inane things over the years, from claiming
they speak Latin in Latin America to claiming that the "purpose of the middle
east is to prevent the near east from encroaching upon the far east"

Would it have been responsible for the media to ignore the fact that
the vice-president is a moron and prone to making incredibly stupid
statements?

>                                            Jayce
>                    KEMP/BAKER '96!!!!!!

In any case, you evidently don't think highly enough of Quayle to place him on
your ticket:)
>
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:35:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Oliver North for Senate
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

You all may say what you wish about Iran-Contra and Bush's conduct,
but the Republicans will get the last laugh when Oliver North is
elected to the Senate for Virgina in 1994.

Friends of mine from Virginia say that North looks like a probable
candidate (Buchanan may also run).  Furthermore, the Republicans
should be able to pick up that seat because the current Democratic
holder of the seat (his name escapes my mind at this moment) probably
will not run after his actions against Gov. Wilder.  Virginia is also
basically a Republican state, strengthening North's odds.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:24:00 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 1996
              9 Nov 1992 09:52:07 CST from <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU>

On Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:52:07 CST <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU> said:
>Rush a sensationalist? Hardly. He touches upon subjects in ways noone else
>would dare to (except perhaps SNL). Even though you may disagree with him,
>you gotta love his humor!
>--Steve

Michael Heaton, the Minister of Culture of the Cleveland Plain Dealer,
called Rush "the new Abbie Hoffman."

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 12:37:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Training and Corporations
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Steve:  On CNN just an hour ago a story was brough up about the fact
that many coroporations can not find good workers because they do not
have the proper training to use specialized technology.  Thus people
who are working currently double up and many people stay unemployed.
I think that job training funds from the gov't will help tremendously.
For example, the unemployment office may actually put me through some
classes in C++, a computer language I have yet to learn and which is
blocking me tremendously from finding a job.  I will not be likely to
find computer programming work without learning it, but programming is
my speciality.  Furthermore, the gov't will pay for me to go back to
work during a training period.  I.e., they will pay half the salary
I earn while I am being trained until the company feels I am able to
pick up full time work without training.  Thus, the comapny has less
to lose by hiring me while untrained and will be more willing to put
some of its money into an unsure thing.  I think that will bost em-
ployment and therefore stimulate growth.  I think that education and
training is something this country needs a lot more of in order to
insure its future survival.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:44:16 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Draft Dodger, Adulterer, & Commie Sympathizer
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

...
>>>not to mention his daughter's wedding. Both Clinton and Tsongas ran on highly
>>>comprehensive programmes in the primaries, it was Bush who relied on smears
>>
>>        Don't forget Clinton's last minute smear of Tsongas in Florida that
>>knocked Tsongas out of the race.  (And killed any chance of Tsongas being
>>Clinton's running mate.)
>
>Comparing Clinton's remarks on Tsongas with the very personal
>ad hominem attacks on Clinton's character clearly puts them in different
>categories. Clinton's remarks were politics, the Bush teams (and their
>surrogates) attacks on Clinton were desperate smears.

	Clinton lied about Tsongas' position on Social Security and programs
for older Americans.  Not just fudged the truth, either, but a complete 180
degree reversal.  In a state with the amount of retired people, that kind of a
lie can be quite damaging.  It's not "politics".
	But there seems to be a double standard for Democrats.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:24:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: What a flat tax isn't
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30641

>From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>
>Subject:RE: What a flat tax isn't
>Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:59:45 EDT
>Message-ID:<tfilt380780@drew.edu>

>In article <01GQX2GDNH9S0029JW@drew.drew.edu>, PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET says:
>>
>>X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30617
>>
>>>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
>>>Subject:What a flat tax isn't
>>>Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:25:42 EST
>>>Message-ID:<tfilt380591@drew.edu>
>>
>>>From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
>>>
>>>                    GIVE US A FLAT TAX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>           [stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>>Here is a fair proposal for a flat tax:
>>>
>>>>  All income up to $12,000 -             not taxed
>>>>  income from $12,000 to $20,000         5%
>>>>  income from $20,000 to $50,000         8%
>>>>  income from $50,000 to $75,000        12%
>>>>  income from $75,000 to $200,000       14%
>>>>  income over $200,000                  17%
>>>
>>>What exactly does Paul think the words "flat tax" mean?
>>>
>>>It is logically impossible to have a flat tax with 6 brackets.
>>>
>>>Jamie
>>
>>I was implying a progressive flat tax, without any loopholes, flat tax
>>may not have been the proper term but you understood the point.
>
>There is no such thing as a "progressive flat tax". Flat tax means a common
>tax rate for everyone, it is the antithesis of what you suggest which is a
>"progressive" or "graduated" income tax.  "Progressive flat tax" is an oxymoron
>
 Okay, I will admit that the term progressive flat tax may not be
appropriate, but must we so technical.  I believe that my point came
across.  I want a tax without any loopholes, that you pay a certain
amount, and you cannot deduct a thing.  Furthermore, I make the rates
progresive, in order that the more income that is made, the higher
percentage the gov't. receives.
 Please, comment on the tax idea, not the wording.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:40:09 -0500
From:         "(Agnes Kruchio)" <kruchio@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu" at Nov 7, 92 6:40 pm

>
> In article <01GQTSVEOF348WW2FP@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>,
> JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU
> .EDU (Song Weaver) writes:
> >I have never quite understood the point behind term limits.  It's like
> >we don't trust ourselves to make good decisions so we limit our decisions
> >intentionally.  I'd rather see the massive power base which incumbents
> >establish limited and reduced through more strict rules on lobbying,
> >PAC donations and use of public office for campaigning purposes.
> >
> >--Julie

See the current issue of the _Economist_ making a cogent argument in
this direction.
AK
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flowers and Hill
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:12:09 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              6 Nov 1992 14:33:49 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>> Oh really?  I think people who say they don't care if Clinton served or
>> not, or whether Clinton slept or not but they care whether or he lied are
>> not truthful to themselves.  Look, it is obvious that George Bush lied
>> when he said Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person for the
>> job and lied when he said that Thomas' race was not a factor in his
>> decision.  So how come we are not up and arms about those lies?  Let's

>         They're quite immaterial given the other factors: Thomas'
> unqualifications and the sexual harassment controversy.

I don't quite follow.  The fact that Thomas was "unqualified" is
essential to the claim that Bush was lying.  So please understand
if I don't follow your "They're quite immaterial given......"
statement.

It *seems* (from above and the rest of your post) that you are
claiming that the consequence of lying is more important than the
lying itself.  Well, that is kinda what I said.  The lying itself
is not important, it is what they lied about.  In Clinton's case
is it his alleged draft dodging and martial infidelity.  All I say
is let's be honest about it and not hide our outrage behind
claims that we are upset that he lied.  Anybody who thinks the majority
of politicians don't lie is a bit naive.

> Brett'

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:44:11 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>>   You see, if for some reason I
>> can't transfer money, or I forget - or whatever, and I write a
>> check for more than the amount I have in my checking account,
>> they simply cover the check. The money is called a "loan", and I
>> have the option of paying it automatically from my savings, or
>> paying the amount over time, with interest.

> This would have been a good argument, except for the fact that Congressmen
> didn't have to pay interest, unlike the ordinary citizen.If you followed this
> story,you would have known that the real gripe about the whole check-bouncing
> story was that Congressmen got to float themselves interest-free loans.

Let me get this straight: if -T.'s credit union did not charge
interest, then the Congress's situation would have been OK with
you?

At any rate, the fact that the overdrafts (no checks in question
were ever bounced) were interest free did not cost the tax-payers
(that is you) a penny.  So what is it to you?  Not that I condone
this privilege but it was far from being illegal or abuse of
*public* funds.

>> Now, if I took advantage of this
>> policy at my bank frequently, would this paint me in a bad light?

> Yes.  It would show that you're either too quantitatively incompetent to
> deserve a checking account, or that you're taking advantage of a system meant
> for emergencies.  Especially if you bounced checks 147 times.

Will you define a "bounced" check and then we'll talk.

>> -T.

> Jason

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:21:38 EST
From:         robert v head jr <rhead@S850.MWC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

> the top two candidates in two or three weeks time. Your current system holds
> the possibility that a candidate can get a majority in the Electoral College
> and come in second in the popular vote (it's already happened once, late last
> century). It's a strong possibility in especially close elections.
>
	Actually, three Presidents have won while finishing second in
the popular vote: Adams in 1824, Hayes in 1876, and Harrison in 1888.
It certainly could happen again, especially since we're seeing a rise in
Independant and Third-Party Candidates.  For about the first hour of
returns in this election, Bush was slightly ahead in the popular vote
even though Clinton was winning more states.

						Robert Head
						rhead@s850.mwc.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:52:37 MST
From:         "(Roger)" <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Do I hear a second?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

> I suggest we get back to politics, and off of personalities. VMS

I second that. ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU