HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:42:46 GMT

In article <16k282INN4sk@agate.berkeley.edu> labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen) writes:
>Freedom of speech.  In Berkeley, you need a permit to have an amplified 
>speaker for the use of speaking.  This is what the religious loonies use
>around here to get their word out to the masses.  A good law, in my opinion,
>but still a permit.

Note that said permit system isn't supposed to allow the issuing
authorities to discriminate against "those people", for any definition
of "those people".  Gun permits don't have that nice property; they
allow the police to decide who gets a gun.  Interestingly enough, they
only let their friends own.  (There are 10 concealed carry permits in
all of SF; that's how discretion works.  I'm sure that PG&E's chief
security officer likes having one, but if there's anyone North of
LAPD's police chief who doesn't need self-defense, it's said security
officer.  Feinstein, the gun-banner, also has one, and armed guards.)

BTW - What's good about the Berkeley free speech law?

>Freedom to protest.  If you want to start a major protest in a city, you bet
>you better get permission/a permit first.  Examples : Gays and lesbians 
>joining a parade here in the Bay Area, neo-nazis walking though the city, etc.

Yup, neo-nazis can get a parade permit.  Wanna talk about who can
get a gun permit?

>Freedom of the press.  Do you think you can print anything you like ?  Of
>course not.  Examples: Pornography, covering wars, libel.

And none of those have PRIOR restraint.  Some don't even involve criminal
law.

There are acknowledged limits on the restrictions on other rights.
What are the limits on restrictions on gun owners?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: re: liberal v. conser
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:47:30 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <714216322.0@iphase.FidoNet.Org> Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender) writes:
>-> Now don't be silly. The Republicans are the only major party who have
>-> a workable, fundamental solution to the dismal state of education.
>-> The Democrats - ever eager to please the teachers unions - are quite
>-> happy to defend the status quo indefinitely.
>
>Perhaps you would like to enumerate "The Education President"'s "vision" for 
>American education.  One would only hope that it's better than his "vision" 
>for American business and the economy! :->

  Well, if you are seriously interested, rather than just rhetorically,
I'd be willing to dig up a reference or two.

>Seriously, a system of vouchers is yet another ploy to appease Pat "Ayatollah"
>Robertson and his band of crazies.  It plays heavily toward sectarian schools 
>that have been dominated by fundamentalists and charismatics.

  Well, I've never seen how giving people choice is worse than making their
decision for them.  Probably most of the Pat Robertson fanatics can already
afford to make that choice so there would probably be little difference
in that regard.  Bush's plan would give choice to 
inner-city poor that the wealthy (read middle-class) already have.

  If, for some reason, the inner-city poor decide they get a better education
at Pat Robertson school, what business is it of yours?  (Note that I don't
think they would. I just question what gives you the right to make that
choice for them.)

  Besides, if it such a horrible plan, why did Clinton support it until
the teachers' unions got to him?  (Actually, Clinton supported choice 
for public and private schools, not America 2000 specifically.)


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jones@fred.cis.udel.edu (Mark Jones)
Subject: Re: the "l" word and Republicans
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:40:42 GMT

In article <ceYFZ9600h5yEtNpwR@andrew.cmu.edu> Conrad Poelman <conradp+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>No, not the "L" word, but the "l" word, "libertarian" has been mentioned
>several times today.  First on the NBC morning news show, in which a
>member/spokeman/leader of the Log Cabin group, an organization of
>Republican gays, referred to himself as a "fiscal conservative, and
>social libertarian".  Later today I read a Dow Jones news release which
>referred to a battle for control of the Republican party between "the
>religious right" and more libertarian elements.  Of course, it looks
>like the "religious right" is winning right now...

I too was plesently surprised to hear the "l" word used twice within
a half-hour period on, I belive CNN's "capitol gang" (it could have 
been the PBS pundants, I flipped back & forth) .


>So the question is, what is the best way to accomplish this?  Should
>libertarian-leaning Republicans jump ship to the Libertarian party, in
>an effort to increase it's size and influence to a point where it can no
>longer be ignored by the public, by the media, and by the two major
>parties, so that libertarian ideas will be discussed?  Or should they
>(ok, we) try to work within the Republican party to change it?

>What do you think?
>
>--Conrad

That's an easy one.  

I'll take what I can get, but the bolder, more visible act is a shift
of party affiliation.  Such a movement is best served IMHO if the shift
is a visible as possible.  A shift within the party could be ignored
or missed.  Of course I'd welcome the Republicans to internally 
lessen *how much* they want to control other people's lives and invade other
people's privacy. But if the a Republican does not want to invade our
privacy at all, s/he would do the most good to the cause by visibly and
LOUDLY finding a new home in the LP.  A shift in party affiliation puts 
the issues at hand in a stark contrast and in the public arena (where 
more can be attracted to the movement) rather than behind the scenes.

<LP Propaganda alert on>

Consider that neither Republicans nor their Democratic "challengers" 
come out against civil forfeiture.

The Rs can't easily because they are so damn "tough on crime (sic)."
Neither the Rs nor the Ds will until they are sure that it will somehow 
help them get more power.

The Republicans and the Democrats are guided by the same principle.
That is to gain, expand, and maintain *their* power.
The Libertarian party is guided by a different principle: to limit
government power to maximize *our* liberty (what a revolutionary idea ;).

<LP Propaganda alert off>

-Mark (jones@udel.edu)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11265 misc.education:3198
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Republicans bad for Economy?
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:02:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.230530.7762@news.columbia.edu>
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
 
>     [...]
>Yeah, instead we had the largest peacetime military buildup in history.
>Does anyone have comparison between military expenditures during the
>Vietnam war and the Reagan buildup?
 
If you graphthe ratio of military spending to GNP, you see that military
spending as a % of GNP has been steadily falling since WWII. There was
a rather large blip during Johnson's reign (Vietnam) and a much, much
smaller blip during the early Reagan era, which later fell back to the
general trend line.
 
At the same time, entitlements have consumed an increasingly large part of
budget since WWII, and have again exploded under Carter. I mean Bush.
>
>You know, what Reagan did was essentially a Keynsian policy: lower
>taxes, spend lots of money (in defense, not social/infrastructure
>expenditures).
>
Not true. As we see, the military fraction was overall quite low. And
during his second term Reagan did manage to get spending more under
control, particularly in 87-88.
 
It's interesting how many flat-out lies about the economy are repeated
uncritically. by the media. But then, they're not hired because they're
economic geniuses.
 
        --mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:06:16 GMT

In article <8Pb-LJ+@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>You seem to ignore the simple fact that we are currently *spending*
>too much.  Spending should be limited to what citizens can reasonably
>afford to pay.  I think a maximum of 17% is plenty.  You also have
>to remember that high taxes have a dampening effect on the economy.
>A smaller economy will yield fewer tax revenues.  Simplifying the
>tax system will free up an enormous amount of resources that currently
>are spent on tax related activities.

Well, I wasn't ignoring it so much as taking a "one thing at a time"
approach.  Sure, we need to cut spending.  To bring it down enough
so that 17% would be enough would require roughly a 10% cut in spending.

Honestly, I don't think you're going to be able to cut 10% out of the
federal budget just by simplifying the tax codes and laying off some
people down at the IRS.  There are a few ideas about Social Security
reform floating around that sound reasonable to me.  One extreme proposal
is to limit benefits to what a worker pays into the system, with a
reasonable amount of interest.  The average social security recipient
today receives about $1.85 for every $1.00 he or she paid into it.
That's way too much, IMHO.


>FICA (Social Security) is a big problem.  The system should be phased
>out and individuals should be required to invest a fixed percentage
>of their income in reasonable retirement investments.  The investment
>would belong to the taxpayer and the return would be higher than
>what Social Security will be able to pay.  In addition, the investment
>will actually be doing more good for the economy than the 'investment'
>made in SS.

I'd certainly like to see this, since I'm not too happy about FICA
deductions which, in all likelihood, I'll never see again.  But I don't
expect to ever hear a politician propose phasing out social security.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Which states are a MUST for Clinton ?
Organization: NASA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:21:39 GMT

Patrick Sugent writes
>   Clinton and Gore get Arkansas and Tenn.
> 
>   They win the same states as Dukakis in 1988. -Wash, Ore, Minn, Iowa,
> Wis, NY, W. Vir, Mass.
> 
>   For arguments sake, they win the same states that Dukakis lost by
> 5% or less.  Calif, N. Mex, Mo, IL, PA, MD.
                                  **

  This is a minor point, but didn't Dukakis win Illinois in 1988?

Regards,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 AUG 92 16:22:33 GMT


In a previous article, cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) wrote:
>htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes
>> And this right-wing faction seems so much more comfortable fighting
>> social trends (controlling the womb, alienating homosexuals, stagnating
>							       ^^^^^^^^^^
>> public schooling) rather than stressing whatever ideals (if they can
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> be called that) they support.
> 
>Now don't be silly. The Republicans are the only major party who have a  
>workable, fundamental solution to the dismal state of education. The Democrats  
>- ever eager to please the teachers unions - are quite happy to defend the  
>status quo indefinitely.
> 
>	Carl Edman

Is that so? I guess I could be better informed on this, but I was under
the impression that the Republican policy was to increase funding to 
*private* schools, the idea being that this will increase competitiveness
and result in better education overall. I see a darkly ironic parallel 
between this and Reagan's trickle-down economics, if this is indeed a 
good representation of Republican policy. I also think that Head Start 
hasn't received enough funding.


-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Re: Democratic (European?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 07:02:08 GMT

In article <26878@life.ai.mit.edu> benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:
>
>[Stuff about reagan/bush not being responsible for the death of the
>evil empire]
>
>Patrick J. McGuinness replies:
>
>>Not according the Lech Walesa.  His was quite thankful for
>>the aid Reagan gave him, and for Reagan's strong public statements
>>against the "Evil Empire". According to him, Reagan and Bush *did* make a
>>difference. One suspects that he knows better than anybody, for
>>he, more than anybody, had the courage to be working against the
>>Communist system when they still held their iron grip over Eastern
>>Europe.
>
>Have you ever thought that it might, indeed, be possible that Lech
>Valesa and Yeltsin and other E Europe leaders suck up to bush in order
>to get desperatly needed cash? Just imagine what would happen to them
>if they said, "oh well, communism was doomed anyway, we all know it
>here, bush was a mere spectator.." while bush roars that he was busy
>winning the Cold War goddamit, and that now he can work on the us.

Yeah, why don't you imagine that for a second, faw faw faw, and you see
that then they don't get their money, then they go down the tubes without
their desperately needed cash, and, POOF!  They were dependent on that money 
(and other support) all along.  WOW!

I've tried to simplify, considering my audience.




>
>Benjamin.
>benjamin@ai.mit.edu
>
>Is Dan Quayle a failed experiment of biotechnology or a triumph of
>artificial intelligence?

Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Anasazi Inc
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:56:42 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

John Moore = john@anasazi.com
Mike Best = best@anasazi.com

John, Mike (if you are separate people :-), what's this company about?

--
But this is.
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Gore: anti-scientific demagogue
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:24:31 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

Hmm, I am starting to see a real trend in the Gore household.  First Tipper
takes record labelling to the Senate and presents her case to Al Gore.
Surprise.  The ladies get a very warm reception.

Now it appears that Al Gore likes to stack the odds in his favor on matters
of science.  I earlier posted an editorial denouncing the way Gore has tried to
ruin the careers of recognizied scientists whose work does not fit into his
views about the environment.  I just ran across this article from the
Ocean Science News, Vol. 34, #15, May 31, 1992, excerpts of which follow:

"On the eve of the so-called Earth Summit, more scientists than ever before
are challenging the extraordinary media hype behind the concept of global
warming.
Just 10 weeks ago, 46 meteorologists went on the record with their concerns
that global warming has become more of a political thing <<Albert Gore,
are you there?>> than a scientific forecast based on fact (OSN, 23MAR, 92).
Then on 28 April no less a pair of experts than William Nierenberg,
director emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Frederick
Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and past president of
the National Academy of Sciences, briefed just a half dozen reporters
on their most recent findings about global warming.  But no one from the major
media bothered to show up and learn that ' global warming is substantially
exaggerated.'
The just released spring issue of Regulation carries an article by Richard
Lindzen, professor of atmospheric and planetary science at MIT with the
conclusion that 'there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizable
global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons."

Nierenberg cited Senator Al Gore (D TN) as "a big part of the problem of
getting a more balanced point of view before the public".  Meeting with
Gore had been "one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life",
the former Scripps head told reporters.  And in disgust, "Gore started
to lecture me on ice cores".  Nierenberg, of course, is one of the
world's experts on the subject.  He also reported that Lindzen, who had
appeared on one of Gore's teach-ins on global warming and climate change,
had charged later that Gore had misquoted his (Lindzen's) conclusions in
order to build the argument for global warming."
-----end of quote----
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11233 talk.politics.misc:41192 alt.politics.bush:2461
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic (European?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:18:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


[Stuff about reagan/bush not being responsible for the death of the
evil empire]

Patrick J. McGuinness replies:

>Not according the Lech Walesa.  His was quite thankful for
>the aid Reagan gave him, and for Reagan's strong public statements
>against the "Evil Empire". According to him, Reagan and Bush *did* make a
>difference. One suspects that he knows better than anybody, for
>he, more than anybody, had the courage to be working against the
>Communist system when they still held their iron grip over Eastern
>Europe.

Have you ever thought that it might, indeed, be possible that Lech
Valesa and Yeltsin and other E Europe leaders suck up to bush in order
to get desperatly needed cash? Just imagine what would happen to them
if they said, "oh well, communism was doomed anyway, we all know it
here, bush was a mere spectator.." while bush roars that he was busy
winning the Cold War goddamit, and that now he can work on the us.

Benjamin.
benjamin@ai.mit.edu

Is Dan Quayle a failed experiment of biotechnology or a triumph of
artificial intelligence?
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:32:37 EDT

In article <1992Aug19.022432.25397@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <16otk0INNnp9@agate.berkeley.edu> 
> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> 
>>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
>>> President Bush has submitted balanced budgets PLANS, but they've been
>>> rejected by Congress.  It's going to take more than a year to get
>>> the budget balanced. 
> 
>> Neither BUSH nor REAGAN ever submitted a balanced budget proposal to
>> Congress. NOT ONE. 
> 
> What about the 1990 budget summit agreement?  That contained provisions 
> for balancing the budget in 5 years.  
> 
>>> Bush supports the balanced budget amendment, Clinton does not.  And a 
>>> whole bunch of Democrats in the House don't support the amendment either. 
> 
>> Yes, Bush supports it because he knows it is a useful tool to bash the
>> Democrats: the only domestic policy he has ever revealed. 
> 
> President Bush supports the balanced budget amendment because that  
> appears to be the best hope for motivating Congress to work on reducing 
> the deficit.   

Its up to COngress to reduce the deficit? How about the president submitting
a balanced budget?

An interestng corallary:

 Ron Reagan takes credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union [yeah right,
like he was the only one involved]. Well, why deosn't the Congress get
any credit? After all, they obviously voted his $4T budget into law, don't
they get credit? Hmm?

We have a grad student from Moscow in our lab who is somewhat offended
by Reagan's assertion for being responsible for the collapse of the XUSSR.

> 
>> You'll note that Bush would be
>> out of office (even if, God forbid, he wins) by the time the BBA would
>> come into effect.
> 
> So?  Most of the Republicans in the House and the Senate voted for the 
> balanced budget amendment; most of them will be in office in 7 years. 
> 
> 
> Doug Holtsinger
> 

There is nothing more amusing than watching Republicans backed into a corner.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:33:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.045125.14178@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>
>For a flat tax (which is what you're implying) to work, the rate would
>have to be somewhere around 19 or 20 percent, given the ratio of current
>government spending to the gross domestic product.  Households with
>incomes of, say, $20,000 or less are going to have a helluva time coming
>up with $4,000 a year, to say nothing of someone with an income of $10,000
>paying $2,000 in taxes.  So, for one thing, there's a pragmatic issue:
>you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, and you have to make up the
>difference somewhere.

  I only skimmed the rest of your post, but you missed a big point of
flat tax proposals with this statement.  You are correct that the flat
tax would have to be around 19%, but you either ignored/were unaware that
all such reasonable proposals include exclusion of the first $X thousand
dollars earned from any form of taxation. (I believe $X thousand is
usually $20k, but I would have to look it up.)

  So, you see, in both of your examples above the people making less
than $20k would pay $0 in taxes, while everyone else paid 19% on
everything over the first $20k.  Also, flat tax proposals include virtually
no deductions outside of this $20k.  The idea is not only to make taxes
fair, but to eliminate many of the distortive effects that our current
system causes.

  I can look up more of the details on the specifics of flat tax proposals
if you have further interest. 

Pat



-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke