HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: One tax, two tax, Red tax, blue tax.  (was Re: "Lies Work")
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:45:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>For instance, regarding a particular liquor tax, there were subregulations
>>for different categories of liquor.  Instead of counting the entire
>>liquor tax increase as one increase, he counted the increase on each
>>category as one.  So he counted, what should have been, 1 tax increase
>>as 5.
>
>If Arkansas is anything like Georgia then each of the alchohol taxes is
>considered independent.  It is quite possible, and not infrequent, to
>raise the tax on liquor without touching the tax on beer.  It is possible
>to raise the tax on wine without disturbing the tax on liquor.

Yup, most states differentiate between wine/beer and liquor, and I think
that some carry it even farther than that, going by proof values.  (Is
Arkansas one of those?  Or does anybody care? :-))

>If congress were to pass a single bill that simply stated that every tax
>you had ever heard of was to be increased by 10%, would this bill qualify
>as only one tax increase, or would it be fair to add up each individual
>tax that the bill caused to be raised [?]

Dunno, and who cares.  There may be technical reasons for having to
split such an increase up within the bill (if one bill were possible),
but I would be tempted to call this a 10% across-the-board increase.
At least that's how *I* would campaign against it.

>I agree that adding up the number of tax increases is silly.  What I want
>to know is by what percentage taxes went up or down while the subject was
>in charge.

The change would be nice, but you'd also want to know the total tax burden,
wouldn't you?

Actually, what I want to know is what percentage >>real disposable
income<< went up or down by while the subject was in charge.  And even
then, I'd want to know whether more/fewer people were working, and what
happened to their benefits, too.  Looking at the world just in terms of
taxes seems misguided to me.

But if you wanted to do that, you could probably look at the total
local tax burden per capita/wage or as a per-capita proportion of
income/GSP or whatever other measure you like.  (GSP would be gross
state product.)  In any case, I've yet to see an honest view of the
data which gives you the impression that taxes are very high in Arkansas,
compared to other places.  Actually, they seem to be really low.

>BTW, why does everyone insist on lumping the Reagan and Bush tax 
>increases together whenever they make these comparisons.  It's not 
>like the VP has veto power or anything.

My guess is that it's because Clinton's been governor for 11 years, and
it would be pretty strange to compare the gross number of increases over
an 11-year term with just those for Bush's 4 years.

Not that these comparisons have *any* merit whatsoever at all.

>--Mark

jking
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Yet another wager for the cowardly
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:49:21 GMT

In article <1xqnf9k.adamsr@netcom.com>
adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
 
>
>        Since you're demanding 5:1 odds, it doesn't sound like you're
>terribly sure of your position, does it?
 
On the contrary. I'm testing your convictions...which obviously aren't
too solid, as you have also failed to take the bet. I made a number of
predictions. If we figured even money on each of three predictions, then
the expected odds for all three would be .5x.5x.5, or .125. That's 8:1.
You're getting the bargain here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Subject: Re: New poll results
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:13:00 GMT

stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
} Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Democrats get
} anywhere near the Presidency.

Guess you've got a bit under four months, then. <grin>

Seriously, It's amazing how divided we have allowed ourselves to become.
This two-party system is tearing the nation in half with finger-pointing and
name-calling over which candidate a person chooses to support and the party
that candidate is a member of. We have been maneuvered into two corners, and
now blindly follow where the parties lead -- "Democrats are liberal anti-
family gay-loving feminist socialists", "Republicans are white conservative
male gay-bashing rich elitists and television evangelists". While there may
be some truth to these sentiments, they can't be indicative of all members
of the respective parties. It is possible for Republicans and Democrats to
get along and work together as PEOPLE (witness the relief efforts in Florida
and Louisiana -- and Hawaii -- by volunteers and neighbors who help others
without care for party affilliation). It is possible for a great president
or congress member or *whatever* to come from either party, or even from
the void betwixt the two.

Just be glad that it's not a race between Dan Quayle and Teddy Kennedy. We'd
all be voting for the other side... <grin> 


 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Help protest exclusionary Senate debates
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:07:21 GMT

The first of a series of debates for the 6 year Senate race is being
held in Long Beach on Saturday, September 12th.  There will be
another in San Francisco on Septemeber 21.  I am being excluded
from both of these debates.

The criteria used was to only include candidates who had received at
least 10% of the primary vote.  Since no third party in California
even has 2% of voter registration this effectively allowed them to
exclude all third party candidates.  If you believe this is unfair I
ask you to join me in a peaceful picket of these events.

I need commitments from people for the Long beach event as soon as
possible.  We're not going to proceed with it unless we can gather a
sizable enough crowd to make it worth while.  You're welcome to
carry a sign specifically condemning my exclusion or a more general
one protesting third party exclusion in general.  The event is at
the First Congregational Church in Long Beach and we need people to
commit to being there from about noon until 5 pm so that we can have
our picket set up before people start arriving for the event.

You can confirm your willingness to participate by sending me email
or calling my campaign headquarters at 1-800-894-JUNE.  You can also
call there to commit to the Sept 21st event in San Francisco, but if
you're local we'd appreciate your calling 415-554-0388 to save cost
of picking up those 800 number call.  Please make sure you leave a
phone number as we may not know for sure if this will fly until
friday.  There may be a sign making party on friday night of you
want help making a sign.  Please let us know if you'd like further
info on that.

I really need your help on this one.  If you believe that articulate
and reasonable third party candidates deserve the chance to be
compared side by side with their major party opponents please join
me next weekend to help make the point that the current format of
these debates is not what voters want.

/June
From: homerk@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu (Kimberley Homer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Virginia politics?
Keywords: Virginia politics elections
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:20:32 GMT
Distribution: alt.politics.elections talk.politics.misc
Organization: Blacksburg Electronic Village/Virginia Tech

I've been asked to locate ftp-able files concerning the national and
Virginia elections.  (What a great job! :-))  I've found tons of stuff	
on Bush, Clinton, and Perot, but I haven't found ANYTHING on politics	
in Virginia, not even a poll to say how Virginians might vote in 
the national election.	

Does anyone have any ideas?  Thanks very much.
Kimberley Homer   homerk@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia		
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:15:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.025629.16982@cs.rose-hulman.edu> brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock) writes:
>> 
>> Those three million people are infected and don't have full blown AIDS.
>> 
>> The main "cost" of AIDS is in the lost productive capacity of all 
>> these people who die young...everyone dies...and most of the cost
>> of the health care people use is in the last few years of life...
>> AIDS really isn't that more costly than other ways of dying...or
>> at least that is what the early indications are in Canada.
>> 
>> The "cost" is the lost wealth the victims would produce...not
>> the health care costs.
>> 
>According to this line of reasoning wouldn't abortion be even more costly.   
>Just curious--

Actually, there is some truth to that, but not as much, since society
hasn't paid for the education and training of all those fetuses like
they have for AIDS victims who die relatively young.  Society has made a huge
public investmest which they don't see returned in a productive
life of AIDS victims who mostly die young.

Gerald
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Reagan Admin. agrees with Hillary (was: Whatever happened to ...)
Date: 12 Sep 92 12:08:49
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1992Sep12.042018.18142@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: eck@panix.com's message of 12 Sep 92 04:20:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.042018.18142@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>Not to encumber the debate on Hillary's legal theories with facts or
>anything, but a letter from today's NYTimes makes a point that will
>give the Hillary-bashers cause for deeper concern.

>"When [minor] Walter Polovchak's Soviet emigre parents sought to
>return to the Soviet Union in 1980, he refused and was granted asylum.
>When they sought police help to take him back to the Soviet Union, the
>Illinois courts deprived the parents of custody.

>"On appeal, the Reagan-Bush Justice Department filed an amicus brief
>supporting Walter Polovchak's right to seek asylum, though he was a
>minor."  [The decision is reported at 774 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1985).]

>I guess this desire to let children assert independent positions in
>intrafamily disputes makes Ronald Reagan and Ed Meese ultra-liberal
>castrating feminist scholars too.  Right?

Right.  And the fact that the ACLU argued against giving Polovchak the
right to control his own life makes them right-wing fundamentalist
fascists, right?

Seriously, I agree with the ACLU most of the time, but their actions
is this case were incredibly perverse for an organization allegedly
devoted to the protection of individual rights.

And although I think Clinton's economic policies would be disastrous
in the long run, I find Hilary's position on children's rights (and
abortion rights) to be one of the few redeeming factors of their :)
candidacy...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Snuff Films
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:23:07 GMT

rf> Richard Foy

rf> Suppose there is a mother who loves her children but is absolutely stone
    broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund for her chil-
    dren if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That is she agrees to
    be killed in a pornographic film. Would this be legal in a libertarian
    world?

  I personally wouldn't care one way or the other. To me, it's not a whole lot
  different than if she insists on driving w/o a seat belt, smoking, or having
  sex with a lot of bisexual IV-drug-using men. At least in your scenario, she
  gets it over with quickly, and $10E6 for her kids to boot.

  Would I work to get a law against "snuff" films passed? Depends on whether
  or not they became a problem. Using extreme cases to determine law is a poor
  idea, as has been pointed out many times before. Does this mean that I *con-
  done* "snuff" films? No. 

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:27:57 GMT

In <ART.92Sep7151900@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep7.181148.22935@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>   I have an alternative suggestion: why not dump both the electoral
>   college and the run-off idea and simply declare the candidate with the
>   most popular votes to be the winner?

	For many reasons, first among them the present trend toward 
democratic tyranny.

>Quite simply because the people of the state of Wyoming would have their
>legitimate interests subordinated to the interests of, say, New Yorkers.
>Some columnist brought up an interesting thought on this a couple weeks
>ago.  (Sorry about the lack of refs)  He showed how 51 votes in the state
>of Alaska could elect the President.

	James J. Kilpatrick


Andrew Aiken
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New Newsweek Poll
Date: 14 Sep 92 03:32:11 EDT

In article <1992Sep13.155755.25329@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>     According to the results of a new Newsweek poll which I heard about on
> the radio last night, Clinton has widened his lead over Bush to a 15 point
> margin, up five points from the previous poll.  The actual numbers were
> 53-38.
  ^^^^^^

LIES! It's more like 68-24 in favor of Bush. I heard that this is reported
among _National Review_ reader poll (if I am correct). It is *amazing* how
people eat up all the LIBERAL LIES and DISTORTIONS.

> 
> Greg
> 


Yeah, right. Liberal fool.

-Garrett
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:08:33 GMT

selliott@cup.portal.com (J Steve Elliott) writes:

>>  Today in a speech defense expert Bill Clinton referred to Patriot
>>missiles as 'being able to go through doors and down chimmenys (?)'.
>>Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
>>thinking of the cruise missiles which were used in the Gulf war.  It's the
>>Dukakis tank ride all over again.

>Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
>thinking of laser guided smart bombs. Quayle was quick to point out that
>he was confused with cruise missiles, which do not go through doors and
>down chimneys.

Not quite true. I've seen published (not classified) photo's of a
sea-launched cruise missle entering the side of a red building
with a four foot diameter circle in the center. It just as
easily could have been set up to enter a window.

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: (none)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:06:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.170625.18104@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>
>	Give up on the Libertarian vote.  In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>got less than 1% of the vote.  The New Freedom Party got almost as many
				                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>votes.  

BZZZZT!  Error trap.

The New Alliance Party's candidate in 1988, Lenora Fulani, got barely HALF
as many votes as the Libertarian candidate, Ron Paul.  

Ron Paul got 432,179 votes.  Fulani got only 217,219.
How is that "almost as many"?
(In California, NAP is now called NFP.)

In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party.  In 1980, Ed Clark
got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).  

In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES 
PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  (I'm not sure about 1984.)

Unlike the other 3rd parties, Libertarians are running candidates for 
President & Vice President in all 50 states (+DC).  Over 500 Libertarian
candidates are running for office this year, and some will win -- adding
to the 100 or so Libertarians now in office (including state Legislators).

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party BY ANY MEASURE.
Comparison with the New Alliance Party in this regard is downright 
ludicrous!
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Educational Spending
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:07:47 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:

>In article <1992Sep8.215738.27113@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>>Roger Collins writes
>>> >William December Starr writes

>The interests of (b) are also not served by allowing a few students to disrupt
>the education of everybody else.  Maybe separate schools should be created to
>deal with the disruptive students.

Schools that can afford to, do this.  My high school had a program for
"problem" students.  The school decided that problem students were 
disruptive because they were bored.  They were bored for one of
two reasons, either:

a) the material was too easy for them
b) the material was too difficult for them

In either case, they were removed and sent to their own school.
The school was called "Stride" and students were given one-on-one
attention and were able to learn at their own pace.

My brother was involved in this program for awhile.  If it weren't
for that program, he probably would have ended up in jail.  It
harnessed his energies and pointed him in a positive direction that
was tailored to his needs.  Otherwise, who knows what sort of trouble
he would have ended up in.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: What you think you know, and what you don't
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:54:56 GMT

Most of the Democrats in this forum think they have Quayle pegged; they've
never heard a speech of his, of course, but they have the collection of
his public misstatements posted over their desk, and they enjoy the
minutia the press report, like how he was set up with the potato incident.
But before Quayle was Bush's running mate, the press gave a different
story.
 
In 1981, the CHicago Tribune stated in a feature articcle that Quayle was
one of a group of six "rising stars" in the US Congress.
 
In 1984, Hedrick Smith wrote in the New York Times that Quayle had "emerged
as a leader of the 16 Republicans elected in 1980"
 
In 1985, the Times listed Quayle as one of "the 12 most underrated members
of Congress". The 12 were listed as having been chosen because "they are
unpretentious, rarely partisan legislative professionals who are candid,
well-informed and not prone to self-promotion."
 
In 1986 the National Journal credited Quayle with a "deft performance" in
office. The article listed only three Senators as potential leaders;
Quayle was one.
 
In 1988, Politics in America wrote "Quayle iss seen as a dilligent
Senator willing to work on complicated defense issues and interested in
reforming Senate procedures to make the chamber function more efficiently."
 
The Almanac of American Politics said in 1988 "Dan Quayle brings to the
Senate...and inclination that many observers found surprising to dig
into issues, do his homework and come up with workmanlike legislative
solutions to problems of government."
 
So, to those of you whose entire knowledge of Quayle is that which the
media brought you: Which story do you believe? The one they gave you
before he was part of the Republican ticket, or the one after he became
a political football?
 
   --mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:17:40 CDT

In article <1685FE58A.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
> 
>3)  Suppose the vouchers drain a large portion of the students (and
>money) from the public schools.  There is a critical mass of students
>(and money) below which the school cannot survive.  If the only
>students left are those who are too poor to afford a private school
>even with the voucher, what do we do?
> 
That is the whole point.  If the local school is soo bad that everyone sends 
their kids to different schools, that school should be closed down.  If I have a
restaurant that serves bad food, and no one buys, I shut down.  Why
should a school be any different.  This presumes that other schools
are around (in all but very small towns).

People vote with their feet now.  They move to neighborhoods with 
good schools.  This leaves inner-city schools in a lurch.  Why should
people in inner cities not hav a chance to get their kids a better
education?


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13009 alt.flame:12807
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Lets not blame Reagan for everything....
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:43:08 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <exuptr.533.716420718@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.171711.25763@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>
>>The Cuban Missile Crisis only served to show just how stable the Cold
>>War was.  The nuclear deterrent was SO strong that the Soviets backed
>>down even though it meant an MONUMENTAL political defeat.
>
>Yeah, stable.  What would have happened had we not spotted the missiles?

Er, probably not a whole lot.  The US had overwhelming nuclear
superiority at that point (the Kennedy "Missile Gap" was fable and
fantasy, remember?), and arguably could have won a nuclear war in
1962.  If you feel that the Soviets would have fired missiles at the
US if they had gotten them nearby, why didn't they do so when the had,
say, SLBMs in the 1970s, when THEY had nuclear superiortiy?



--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections