HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:17:22 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <17pl66INNnip@agate.berkeley.edu>
  <1992Aug30.184048.4782@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
  <17u0j8INNa2o@agate.berkeley.edu>

> What a joke! Freeman started by claiming that Bush left the restrictive
> covenant on his home because it was impossible to remove.
> 
> Bzzzt. Wrong. One can petition the courts to have it removed.

What's the point of removing it?  Don't the courts have better things
to spend their time on?

I know that if I ever buy property that has one of these, I'm not going to
spend any time or money getting it removed.  If you want it gone, you
can pay the attorney fees.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Attention NY GOP's  was Re: Endorsement
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:11:09 GMT

In article <farenebt.714846648@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>I would like to know some info concerning the 1990 NY gubenetorial 
>election. I was curious why the Conservative Party, who almost always
>endorses the Republicans, ran their own candidate (Herb London) instead
>of endorsing the GOP's Pierre Rinfret. Why did the Conservatives not like
>Rinfret? Did they just think he was weak or just not conservative enough?
>This is not a loaded question just an information request.
>
>Whatever the reason, London nearly outpolled Rinfret (they both got low
>20%, I think).

Rinfret was a ridiculous candidate who ran an unserious campaign. The
Conservatives wisely chose not to associate themselves with the Rinfret
circus.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 03:22:46 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <17bu1nINNk27@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
]>You imply that those who make their living by investing (speculating is
]>too strong a word) in stocks are not working. Do you know any of these
]>people? I know several, and they are the hardest working people I know.
]>They are working in the information industry: they are allocating capital
]>in our economy based on profit potential. I see nothing wrong with
]>rewarding these people for their labors, because the work they do is
]>as important as the work that you or I do.
]
]But is it MORE important? ALL taxes in some way impinge on the economy.
]If there weren't any Social Security tax, businesses could hire a few
]more workers for the same rate of pay. If there weren't any income tax,
]I could stimulate the economy by spending more. And so on. But we need
]to pay for government, and the question is: should people who live off
]capital gains have to contribute too? I say yes. After all, if we made a
]rule reducing taxes on the Hearst family, they could pump a lot more
]money into the economy, create jobs, etc. But it wouldn't be fair.

You make a good argument for reducing the size of government. I agree.
However, when you tax capital gains, you are taxing the engine
of growth. Furthermore, capital is already taxed.... if you
invest in a company, that company pays taxes on its income, which
reduce your capital gains. You could reduce the capital gains tax to zero
and these people (who you seem to be afraid might get a free ride)
would still be paying more tax than you and me through their investments.


-- 
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
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:06:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Aug25.104706@wsl.dec.com> by gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil):

> In article <11846@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> |> Question: If these statements do in fact represent the beliefs of the
> |> people, both hetero- and homosexual alike, how can anyone who opposes
> |> child molestation find a way to support NAMBLA - when they refuse to
> |> moderate their position to at least exclude prepubescent children? 
> |> 
> 
> I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of NAMBLA :-)
> 
> I do, however, think that they have the right to exist.
> 
> Period.

As do others have a right to publicly revile and despise them, a position
which I strongly endorse.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42330 misc.legal:16525
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Speaking of the death penalty...
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:32:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug25.150306.14823@chpc.org> rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:

>Interestingly enough, theMassachusetts death penalty was struck down a number of 
>years ago because the defendant could be executed only if convicted in a trial,
>but not if (s)he plead guilty.

Are you sure about this, this sounds like the system that Georgia has
right now.  Our system has already survived several challenges, though
I don't know if this issue was ever brought up.  I would think though
that if there were already precedent on the issue somebody would have
brought it up.

-- 
--Mark
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:42:18 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug29.205234.22551@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> In article <11981@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Straightspace is for straight people only.  Please pay attention
# #when you are told that homosexuals aren't welcome, and stop trying
# #to use your control over California's state government to impose
# #homosexuals into straightspace.
# 
# Since when was talk.politics.misc declared straight space? Perhaps
# you can dig up the charter.

No, the straight space is that which AB 2601 seeks to abolish.

# #If AB 2601 is signed into law, I suppose it be appropriate to send a 
# #contribution to Oregon's Yes on 9 campaign -- a little 'tit for tat'
# #response to oppression imposed here is to let homosexuals experience
# #it on the other end.  (But I'll feel guilty about the contribution.)
# 
# And since religion is already protected in California I suppose I
# should start a campaign to require teachers to teach that Christianity
# is immoral and wrong. 

Why require it in law?  It's already here in practice.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Cultural Elite?
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:08:34 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center


So who are the 'Cultural Elite' Bush & Quayle are so fond of
warning us about anyway?  I *hear* about them all the time,
yet I know so little about them.  I *hear* Vice President
McCarthy...er, uh, I mean Quayle, saying that "I know who they
are, and they know who they are, and the American people know
who they are.", but somehow I never catch the part where he
actually says *who* they are!  Has anyone ever caught this
or am I the only  American who doesn't know "who they are"?

Now, at first I thought they were the people in Hollywood,
or maybe just the people in sitcoms.  But then I saw Major
Dad giving a speach at the GOP Con, and the Terminator rubbing
shoulders with the delegates at same!  So there went my first
theory, now I'm working on a few new ones.  Some are a modification
of the first, others radically new.

     a. The 'Cultural Elite' are people in Hollywood who can outspell
        Vice President McCarthy...er, Quayle?

     b. The 'Cultural Elite' are the people in Hollywood who aren't voting
        the Republican ticket?

     c. The 'Cultural Elite' are people anywhere who use big words that
        Vice President McCarthy...er, Quayle can't understand?

     d. The 'Cultural Elite' are people who don't want big government
        probing in their personal lives?

     e. The 'Cultural Elite' are people who aren't satisfied with our
        stagnant economy and want something better for America?

     f. The 'Cultural Elite' are people who are fed up with record
        unemployment and underemployment in this country and with an
        administration that is oblivious to it all?

     g. All of the above.

Right now I'm leaning toward 'g'.

Seriously now, a man in the position of Vice President of the US should
have a higher regard for that position than to go around using the power
of that office to try to divide and indeed polarize people in this country.
It's very similar to what Hitler did in the 30's to silence and discredit
people who might oppose him.  It's a shame to see McCarthy...er, uh, Quayle,
(I can't imagine why I keep doing that.), following in those footsteps.

Marty Dart.
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: more predictions
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:08:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.223531.20419@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

|> >	In 1988, people said that if I voted for Dukakis, deficit spending
|> >would crush growth, unemployement would rise, the economy would stagnate,
|> >the national debt would skyrocket, etc.
|> >
|> >	Well, what do you know, I voted for Dukakis, and look what happened.
|> 
|> 	And I suppose you are also one of the people who voted for the
|> congress.

	Yup. In fact, I'm just like about 80% of the country in that I
like *my* congress critters just fine, it's *yours* that I want to vote out.
Check out the number of republican congress people who have decided to
campaign as far away from the president as possible, they've figured out
that they have a better chance at reelection then he does.

	A strong president can keep congress in line, look at Ronald Reagans
first term. Bush just doesn't have any direction, so congress does whatever
the hell they want.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41724 ca.politics:7023
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:54:35 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11838@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Nothing's wrong with it -- it just illustrates my point -- that 
>homosexuality isn't just a different sexual preference, but a group
>of pathological problems, not all of which are shared by every
>homosexual.


Many heterosexuals engage in S&M.  Why do you single out homosexuals?


>The current flamefest started when I posted one of Le JoJo's 
>S&M postings from soc.motss.  I made the point that S&M and other
>manifestations of pain, suffering, humiliation, and other types
>of power games, makes me suspect that I'm right about the connection
>between child molestation and adult homosexuality.

There is no connection between these two except in your mind.  If you
can show any correlation between these two behaviors, I might consider
believing you.  However, you cannot, and therefore, this is clearly
another one of your delusions.


FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Taxing capital gains (was: why progressive tax rates)
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:55:38 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <16850B096.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu sez:
>In article <1992Aug27.140342.12810@panix.com>
>eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>
>>Here's the hypo: take two investments with identical returns, the only
>>difference being that A spins out annual dividends and B appreciates.
>>Calculate the value of each at the end of X years, being sure to apply
>>tax annually to A while taxing B exactly once (in year X).  Result:
>>you wind up with more dollars via B than with A.  (Obviously, if you
>>invested in A, your dollars would be just as deflated as if you'd
>>stuck them in B.)


>Both are capital gains, and in the absence of a large number of tax rate
>brackets, both would be taxed identically. I.e., there's no difference
>either in yeild or tax burden.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.  With plan A, you have taxable income
every year; consider it bank interest if that clarifies your thinking.
The tax treatments are entirely different.


>You're making a few errors in your assumption; not least of these is the
>assumption that the dividends paid out are not reinvested (why would you
>keep them in cash?) A more important one is in assuming that apart from
>inflation, $10 today is worth the same as $10 tomorrow, which it is not,
>of course. You have to consider the present discounted value of that $10
>tomorrow. If banks are paying 10% p.s. (for sake of argument and to make
>the math easier) then $10 today is worth $11 next year, before any
>inflation is factored in.

So what?  My non-realized cap. gains aren't just lying there inert;
they compound like anything else.  Your time-value-of-money argument
isn't a principled distinction between A and B.


>What makes a difference in the actual return is the way the tax code
>taxes inflation and disproportionately affects short-term investments.
>We've run the arguments here many times, but you might find it interesting
>and useful to build a spreadsheet and experiment with different tax rates
>and inflation rates and see how an arbitrary marginal tax rate gets shifted
>upward rapidly.

Instead of offering this vague suggestion, why not give a sample
calculation to prove your point?  You fellows are the ones alleging
the supposedly inequitable treatment of CGs.

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

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Runoff elections (Re: Endorsement)
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:57:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.095822.17375@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

:: 	Runoff elections. The two top vote-getters would enter a
:: second election. If one's candidate loses the first time around, one
:: still has a choice of the lesser of two evils :-)

:I can't help but think of the LA Gov race.  They ended up with
:a choice between Duke and Edwards.  (I'd call it a choice of two evils :-)

	I get the picture. The trouble there was that these two were
the only two candidates. If there were more, then one might have had a
chance of choosing between more than a race-baiter and a crook. But
even a third-party candidate might be bad, also.

:Say there was a presidential runoff (instead of the party/primaries).
:Imagine Jerry Brown holding on to the Far Left, with the more moderate
:Dems split between Tsongas, Clinton, Harkin, Kerrey, etc while
:Pat Buchanan holds on to the Far Right, with Bush, Kemp, Grahmm, Dole
:splitting the more moderate Repubs.

	I'm not sure that there's enough of the Far Left and the Far
Right to make much of a difference. And there would probably be
something of a shakeout before the election, anyway. Why do you think
that this would be a typical outcome?

:The result is Jerry Brown vs Pat Buchanan.  Which is the "lesser" of
:the two evils?

	Actually, that would be a very fun race :-)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: johore@auto-trol.com (John Orendt)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:06:49 GMT

katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
: : 
: : In the U.S., you can be asked to leave the bathroom if you don't own
: : it. The conductor can ask you to leave the train. And you can request
: : the return of your toothbrush at any time. However, nobody can tell
: : you to leave your own bathroom without the due process of the law,
: : meaning a court. And nobody can search your property or person with
: : due process, and nobody can take your property without due process (in
: : theory today, though).
: : 
: Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even charging
: you with a crime! Our wonderfule (NOT!) conservative supreme court has
: upheld this. Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court
: believe there is no right to privacy in the U.S. There are also sobriety
: checkpoints, which allow local law enforcement to stop and search people
: without probable cause. In short, while most people in this country have
: been cheering on the Reagan "Revolution," the Republican administrations
: of the last 12 years have been happily taking away our rights.
: 
: 
: 
: Kathy
Kathy I agree with you 100% but what can be done to change this
terrible trend? 
-- 
------Any resemblance to the views of Auto-trol is purely coincidental-----
johore@auto-trol.com
John Orendt          Auto-trol Technology Corporation
(303) 252-2885       12500 North Washington Street, Denver, CO 80241-2404
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:10:45 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson

pn> As a recent poll posted here on Usenet, and plenty of others have shown,
pn> big government programs are what the voters WANT!  They demand that their
pn> elected officials "bring home the bacon" and this alone is the metric by
pn> which they judge and elect them.

  You're half-right. Too many voters want the bacon, but without the pork or
  the *associated costs*. That's why people can say "Yes, I want national
  health insurance, and a strong defense, and welfare for the poor, and a
  secure SS program, &c, but go to hell if you expect me to pay more taxes!"

  It seems everyone wants a big government, but at the other guy's expense.
  Sorry folks, it can't work that way. The libs are going for the "no new
  taxes" part, the Dems and Reps are promising the 1st part, but are really
  hazy and vague about how they're going to pay for it, because they know
  that being realistic will kill them politically. At least libs realize that
  the two goals are incompatible. They don't promise what they know can't be
  delivered. Give them credit for that.

pn> Why can't you guys get this through your thick heads?

  I have it through my thick head, thank you very much. Now get the facts of
  the issue through voter's heads.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:15:00 GMT

Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu) wrote:
>Jim Robinson -- another Canadian -- wants to throw his two cents in.
>The trouble is, here is one Canadian who, because of poorly focused
>U.S. policy regarding citizenship, probably CAN vote demoratic -- in
>OUR elections.  (Jim was once an American.)  This is yet another
>problem that demands the attention of our do-nothing Congress, but
>don't hold your breath.  It is hardly even perceived as a problem.

Actually, as is often the case, Mr K has a number of points wrong. I am in
fact a US citizen (not "was once an American") and have a nifty little
letter from the State Department attesting to this fact.  As well, to
change the laws that allow dual citizens such as myself would require a
Constitutional amendment, and *not* a simple show of hands by Congress;
needless to say, this would require a fair amount of effort. So, it would
appear that Mr K is advocating expending non-trivial resources to effect a
change that, when one gets right down to it, would make little practical
difference. Doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Finally, Mr K says I
can vote demoratic [sic]. Well, yes I can. I can also vote Republican,
Libertarian, etc, or not vote. At any rate, it is simply none of Mr K's
business. However, from all of his other postings we do know that due to
the apparent lack of a real life, Mr K finds nothing more sporting than
involving himself in the business of other people. Oh well, whatever gets
you off, I suppose.

Hmmm, now which adulterer should I vote for? Decisions, decisions. :-)
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43396 alt.politics.elections:12277 alt.politics.clinton:3880 alt.politics.bush:3906
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:27:04 GMT

In article <3463@master.CNA.TEK.COM>, mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
} In article <BtLwqr.MHG@news.cso.uiuc.edu?? daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
} 
} ??I strongly agree with the (most) Republicans in their call for congressional
} ??term limits.  I used to live in Peoria, IL and Rep. Bob Michel (currently
} ??
} 		What do YOU think?
} 
} We already have term limits. It's called the right to vote! Use it! 

Oh really?  There is no item on the ballot that says something like,
"Should Representative Fuddpucker be retained?"  So, without that how
can one go about voting out a congress-critter?

"Vote for their opponent.", you say?  Well, what if they run unopposed?
Or what if there is opposition, but it is, in your view, even worse? 
Or what if you just do not want the office filled, no matter who is
running?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc