HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:46:50 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

>>My comprehension of languages is quite good.  I combine it with
>>a comprehension of algebra.  Unless we IGNORE relative productivity,
>>a ratio cap is an absolute cap.
>
>If the lowest paid person in a company makes 20k per year at a
>10:1 ratio top management can make 200k per year and write it all
>off on taxes, every dollar over that they pay an additional (whatever
>the tax rate on their earnings is, say 28%) .28 to the government.
>
>This doesn't mean that they can't pay their top managers more than the
>ratio (a cap) it means that it will cost them more to do so, but I
>would not suspect that it would stop them.
>
>Given that this would produce a fair amount of revenue, the rates
>could drop substantially for both corporations and individuals, the
>point of my proposal was to redistribute the tax burden such that
>businesses pay a larger share than they currently do. (They currently
>pay about 17% of the total tax pie, down from 39% in the 50's when
>the tax code was set up to build the middle class.)

There are lots of ways to accomplish that goal and it isn't obvious
why O'Andy picked this one.

Suppose one employee is twice as productive as another.  O'Andy thinks
that double-taxing that differential is "good".  Who is it good for?

>>Now, there may be one way for both factories to escape this trap.
>>Instead of hiring janitors, they might be able to get away with
>>contracting out for janitor services.  Will O'Andy allow that?
>
>It has been happening all along anyway, fine, we just raise the
>minimum wage and find some way to provide the health and retirement
>benefits that business doesn't want to pay for directly.

That doesn't reduce the differential at either factory.  Hiking the
minimum wage shoves low-productivity people out of their jobs and
pushes up the wages of everyone else.

>I suppose you must be in favor of socialized medicine since you don't
>want businesses to take on any obligation for something that provides
>a "social good," right?

Huh?  I don't much care what obligations biz choose.  I don't much
care what O'Andy spends his money on either.  If he wants health care,
fine with me.  If he prefers booze, that's fine with me too.

I'm willing to let O'Andy decide what he wants.  Why isn't he willing
to let anyone else decide for themselves?

Of course, if O'Andy wants to play the "we know better than you" game,
I'll be happy to have the thugs/govt come in and implement my wishes
on him.  It's a knife that cuts both ways, and if O'Andy insists on
bringing it, I'm not going to let my "I wish you wouldn't do that"
belief interfere with my efforts to respond in kind.  (Is he really
sure that he's better at that game than I am?)  Do onto others as
they're trying to do onto you and all that.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:42:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bobbie Riconosciuto speaks o

Really, what the hell are they talking about?

It's not like I don't care; it sounds pretty heavy.

Explanation please!


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 11:18:14 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: 1993
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I too, would like to wish everyone, even Robert!, a happy new year!
But since this is a discussion list, I can't resist commenting a
little on Ellen's prognostications!  Hope she doesn't mind!

> And a happy New Year to you too, Linda...
>
> Top Ten Reasons Why 1993 Will Be Better Than 1992...
>
> 1.  It's not an election year!  We won't have to watch David
>     Brinkley sniveling, shriveling and swiveling in his chair
>     until 1996...
I agree.  And look at it this way, Brinkley will probably be dead
by '96 and we'll have to look at Donaldson.  Oh no!  What have we
wished for!
>
> 2.  It's not an Olympic year!  No more overpaid, overhyped
>     athletes engaging in flag abuse in the stadiums and
>     ice rinks of the world...
This wasn't nice.  And it isn't totally accurate either.  Now if you
said "No more overpaid, overhyped US athletes ...", I'd probably agree
with you!
>
> 3.  "1993" has more pleasant curves in it than "1992" --
>     an inherently kinder, gentler year, even if only a
>     little bit...
It will be kinder and gentler because Clinton is in the White House.
>
> 4.  Madonna will be just about out of ideas!
Fat chance!  Hey, there's an idea, maybe she'll get fat gorging on
her $60 million dollar check from whomever.  No, that won't work, she'll
probably pose nude even if she weighs 300 pounds!
>
> 5.  We get to watch Gladiator Fights at the G.O.P.   Should be
>     a blast!  I can't wait to see Pat Buchanan half-naked,
>     oiled and in leather...
I love it.  Me too!
>
> 6.  We'll have a president who can go over to Germany and
>     talk the skinheads to death in their native tongue.
good line!
>
> 7.  Nobody will take the British Royal family seriously any
>     more, therefore relieving all the world from hearing more
>     about their incredibly dull sexcapades.
not a chance.  The British tabloids will splash every thing onto the
their pages.
>
> 8.  Millions more Americans are registered to vote than ever
>     before, and there's not a bloody thing they can do about it!
Wait until Clinton gets in and signs the Motor Voter act which will
register even more millions of Americans who won't vote, ..., especially
in '93!
>
> 9.  That killer comet isn't going to pass so close to the earth
>     after all...
>
> 10.  1993 will be one day shorter than 1992.  Hoorah!
>
>
> Have a happy, wear your seatbelt and don't drive drunk please...
>
>
> Ellen
>

ditto.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:54:44 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      another planet?
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>If there is a place in the Universe where homosexuals are considered normal
>let's send them there!
>
>Caius.

Hey, who says about another planet? What about the Caribeans?
You know, the sun, la playa ...

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:59:44 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Last Note before the holidays
Comments: To: Politics List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Hello List-

        Wish I could have replied to more posts in the past couple o'
weeks, but, alas, Finals killed me. Oh well. I'll be off for a few
days, So I wish you happy holidays... and will be back to wish you a
happy '93.

Brandon Magee                                     cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
           Special Productions Director and Engineer
WBRS 100 FM, Waltham Ma.                   WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
All Genre Music Programming            Free Live Music-4 times weekly

PS: The best Present I've recieved is 2 1/2 yrs (and counting) of
higher education.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 09:41:58 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: back to iraq
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >I heard a report on the news this morning that US planes have shot down
> >an Iraqi fighter in the designated no fly zone. Can someone enlighten
> >me on how the no-fly zone came about? Was it a UN resolution or a
> >condition imposed by the coalition at the end of the war? I think it
> >makes a difference when considering your legal position in such a
> >matter.
>
>         A total of four planes violated the airspace of the no-fly zone that
> day.  Of one of the pairs, one was shot down.  That pair had turned towards
 the
> US fighters (universally accepted as a hostile move).  After repeated warnings
> to get out of the no fly zone, no less.  After the first one was shot down,
 the
> second turned tail and exited the no-fly zone.
>         The no-fly zones are UN actions, I believe.  Also the coalition and UN
> are essentially the same body of power.  The coalition has always acted under
> UN auspices.
Actually, I believe that the no-fly zone that was violated was created by
the US, the British, and the French.  I don't think that the UN was involved.
>
> >The Iraqi's have vowed to retaliate. Will we see US troops in action
> >in two spots soon? It seems that the only possible avenue for the Iraqi's
> >to take would be terrorist attack. I wonder if they have purchased any
>
>         Iraq is merely testing the waters to see what it can get away with.
I agree.
>
> >submarines from the former soviet union? Subs would go a long way toward
> >reducing the air superiority edge but we could still launch long range
> >attacks.
>
>         Subs would be quite ineffective for the Iraqis.  And virtually no
> threat to the US.  They could be easily tracked in the gulf and taken out with
> little effort.  Don't forget that the planes fly out of Turkey and the Gulf
> states as well as from carriers.  I don't think carrier planes make up any of
> the current CAP (combat air patrol) over Iraq.
Not only would subs be useless for the Iraqis - they don't have a port- but
they are pretty useless to the Iranians who have bought 3 from the ex-Soviet
Union.  The subs that were purchased are diesel-powered and can be heard
by our subs long before our subs -who have been playing this game for a
long time- could even be remotely be noticed.
>
> Brett'
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:17:03 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Sun,
              3 Jan 1993 21:10:00 EST from WKIMLER@DREW.DREW.EDU
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: homosexuality and genetics
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/03/93 20:13

From Billy...
       In the year just past there was some scientific discussion as to
whether or not homosexuality was a genetic or physical trait.  I'm not
sure s to the exact details but one of the studies indicated that the
size andor shape of the brains of homosexual men were different than that
of he erosexual men. But as far as I can recall, the studies were still
inconclusive.

        Supposing that homosexuality is a genetic trait (such as having
blue eyes or blonde hair) would you out there, who feel homosexual feelings
and actions are immoral, reconsider your thoughts on the discrimination
laws in Colorado and other places?

From Robert...
There have also been similar studies concerning predisposition to violent
crime.  Should we also reconsider our thoughts on rape, assault and
murder?  Can we have different standards of conduct for different genetic
tendencies?  One of the main purposes of law is to maintain an orderly
society.  I believe that when we begin to bend the rules we simultaneously
degrade the results.  That is one reason I am opposed to laws that would
differentiate between murder for money and murder for race, etc.  The act
is wrong and should be punished in like manner, to do otherwise is to
devalue one of the victims.

An action carries certain results, should it matter *why* the action was
taken?  Granted, some have more trouble than others when trying to not
beat their wife, shoplift, commit incest with their children or kill
innocent bystanders.  The answer is not to be found in diminishing the
punishment for unacceptable actions, but instead in helping these people
to understand the nature of their wrongful desires and thereby overcoming
them.  After the fact, justice demands absolutely equal treatment.

This entire EXCUSE approach defies the existence of absolute right and
wrong.  It also flushes the concept of responsibility right down the
krapper.

From Billy...
        Would religious beliefs and doctrines need to be updated?  Obviously
you cannot call something which is genetic sinful.

From Robert...
Religious beliefs and doctrines that are based upon unaltering truth should
never be updated.  That is not to say that there have never been errors in
man's handling of the Word.

Your genetic makeup is absolutely beyond your personal control, your actions
are not.  Therefore your genetics cannot be sinful but your actions may.

---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:12:20 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: gay cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Jonathan:

>It could be that there aren't any or maybe very few openly gay
>people who are qualified for cabinet positions.

Unfortunately many gays are closeted because of the negative
popular attitude towards homosexuality. But still, there are
enough openly gay public figures who could have been chosen.
Barney Frank and Jerry Studds come to mind as most prominent
openly gay politicians. Surely, there are many openly gay
professionals in other fields as well that I am not aware of.
Surely, many of them are not less qualified than Clinton's
recent appointees. The problem is that the choice of appoin-
tees is a very complex process in which not only qualifications
are taken into consideration. Because of the popular attitude,
it would be very difficult for Clinton to appoint a super-
qualified but openly gay person to the cabinet. Such a choice
would be very controversial.

The fact that Clinton started to slowly backtrack from his
promise to allow uncloseted gays to serve in the army shows
how strong the negative stereotypes still are.

The most depressing thing is that the appointment of an openly
gay person to a highly visible position would most likely have
saved some human lives. How?--you might ask. I'll try to explain.

As you probably know, many teenagers who happened to be gay
commit suicides (percetage-wise they constitute a disproportionate
part of all teenage suiciders). The reason is that the society
tells them constantly that there is something wrong with them,
that they are sick,etc. Gay teenagers need a role model who would
(by mere visibility in public life) tell them that its perfectly
normal to be gay.

Sam.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:36:21 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

>Freeman posts a weird bit about 30K this and 30K that and still manages to say
>little in response to my post; namely, that what the republican party did (does
)
>to Nassau County employees in _wrong_, and would be as wrong for a private
>employer.  Kickbacks - regardless of the "knowledge" of those involved, are
>illegal, by definition.  Freeman ignores this fact, and still goes for the gust
o
>with the "anything goes' schtick.

Clark's comprehension hasn't improved lately.

Yes, those practices are illegal.  I'm pointing out that they don't
have the effects asserted by Clark.  They don't affect the salary
received.  (The employees knew up front what they were earning, so
there's no fraud.)

Where's the "wrong" and who is it done to?  The employees aren't
victimized by agreed on kickbacks.

>Freeman opts for a "complex" analysis of why agreed kickbacks are OK.

Nope - Freeman merely showed that agreed kickbacks don't have the
effect that Clark asserted that they did; that they don't affect
salary received.

Clark may have a good argument against upfront kickbacks, but it isn't
based on salary received or fraud committed against the employee.  (It
may be fraud against the employer or the govt, but that's a separate
issue.)

>Are there stables near this list?  I've been smelling an awfully familiar
>odor from various posts lately...Freeman, you been stepping in something
>and tracking it to the list?  Your last post sure seems like it...

Come on Clark.  Go for it.  You really want to call me "poopy head" so
do it.

>Hey, this Use-their-last-name-incessantly-without-regard-for-whether-or-not-
>they-or-anyont-else-uses-it thing is kinda refreshing....eh, Freeman?

While I do use appropriate forms of address, I don't much care whether
or not other people do.

-andy
--
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:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 11:41:33 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: clinton appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Brett' says: "clinton gave a post to gennifer flowers that was supposed
>to go to a black woman'.
>
>Gee, brett, would you mind giving us a couple small items:
>
>1) Your source for this statement

        Someone posted the excerpts from a magazine on Usenet back in October.
I didn't save it.

>2) The name of the woman who didn't get the appointment? If this is
>true, why didn't she sue clinton for not giving her the appointment?

        How is she going to prove that she was going to get it? :)  I believe
she did sue, though.

>3) The qualifications of the alleged other potential recepient

        Working in that agency for years, performing many of the same tasks
that that job wouild require.

        Of course Gennifer's talents are obvious :).

>I find it interesting that you choose to present this information in the
>manner you did rather than saying GF received an appointment previously
>promised to someone else. Is there a reason for your identifying that
>person as "a black woman"? Wouldn't your opinion be the same if it was
>a straight white male?

        If you hadn't deleted the context of the previous post ("Clinton has
always been fair to minorities") then you wouldn't have to ask that question.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Expires: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:00:00 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:43:11 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Test Message
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Testing how adding an expiration date in the message header affects
our news system. Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:46:14 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject: Re: well, pardon me! Version 3
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >...
> >Brett', let me ask you this.  Let's assume that Clinton wins re-election and
> >then Gore wins election.  Towards the end of Clinton's second term, it
> >gradually becomes clear that Clinton had pursued illegal activities.  I am
> >sure that if I wanted to sit down and think about a scenario that you
 wouldn't
> >like, I could. But I don't, so you are going to have to imagine this!  Not
 only
> >does Clinton actively pursue some illegal activity but it's stupid as well.
> >It gradually comes out that his people lied extensively to congress and that
> >his policy actually hurt the US.  Would you still be defending the upper
> >people in his administration the way you are defending the Reagan/Bush
 people?
> >Jonathan
>
>         My beef is with Walsh's methods and not the targets.  The guilty
 should
> be held accountable, but the powers of the prosecution should not be
 unlimited.
> Are we to have witch hunts or investigations?
>         The way in which Walsh has paraded anyone and everyone (and why didn't
> he *start* with Weinberger if he is such a key player?) in a series of "make
> something stick" show trials horrifies me.  It would even if the target was
> Clinton.  We've regressed to "guilty until proven innocent".
>
OK.  Fair enough.  But since your arguments seem as though they are coming from
Sen. Bob Dole's mouth, you'll have to forgive me if I think that you are being
partisan about this! :-)  I think Jamie answered this last paragraph well, if
you have a series of figures to tackle, you start at the lowest and hope that
they'll "roll over" on the upper figures.  In this case, they didn't.  So Walsh
didn't have testimony from peons, he didn't have needed classified documents,
he didn't have notes that he had asked for.  The only thing that he really had
left was lying to congress.  Again, I believe that if his investigation hadn't
been hampered at every turn, this would have been over sooner, would have cost
less, we would have found out more, and the top people in the administrations
involved would be convicted of what they had to be convicted of.
> Brett'
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:39:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: Re: gay cabinet appointments

Sam says:

> The most depressing thing is that the appointment of an openly
> gay person to a highly visible position would most likely have
> saved some human lives. How?--you might ask. I'll try to explain.
> As you probably know, many teenagers who happened to be gay
> commit suicides (percetage-wise they constitute a disproportionate
> part of all teenage suiciders). The reason is that the society
> tells them constantly that there is something wrong with them,
> that they are sick,etc. Gay teenagers need a role model who would
> (by mere visibility in public life) tell them that its perfectly
> normal to be gay.

So it's up to the government to provide this role model? I think
that's asking too much of govt. A gay teenager, like anyone
else, should be held responsible for his/her own actions.
I think the monolithic "society" you speak of is too much of a
generalization: there are many "societies" in which gays are considered
"normal".

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:28:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      re:re: freedom of speech

Jamie,

I hardly think that people defending free speech is "nauseating."

Would some charts and graphs make you happy?


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU