HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 19 Aug 1992 18:42:41 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug18.151018.27120@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|> Keywords: 
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug17.190813.1645@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
|> ]Did someone just say that cutting the capital gains tax would benefit the
|> ]poor because it would lead to jobs?  That's what Reagan said some 12ish
|> ]years ago -- as someone here in San Antonio put it, quite aptly in my 
|> ]opinion, 12 years is long enough for anything to trickle down!
|> 
|> You seem to have forgotten the 30 million new jobs created during those
|> twelve years.
|> 
How could we forget.  The unemployment rate is up and a greater percentage
of the full-time employed is earning sub-poverty level wages.  Thank you
Mr. Reagan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:08:51 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug20.230050.29551@pony.Ingres.COM> reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
>In article <2A941FCC.282@orion.oac.uci.edu> assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site) writes:
>[lots of useless drivel deleted]
>>Bush/Quayle '92!
>>
>>Kris
>>kris@fs2.assist.uci.edu
>
>I wish I could e-mail you a quarter so you could go out and buy a clue!
>
>						reb






Yes, I would tell him to start looking at leadershipp and the
setting of example.  He claimed that sexual harrassment
cant be blamed on the Bush -- but we are talking on the
atmosphere that allows it to happen.  It is condoned, and not
thought serious by Bush, it is not condemend by him, he doesnt
understand it, and he makes no effort to allow legal redress.

That is one small thing, he obviously thinks that nonexistent
leadership for tolerance is OK.  In fact, he supports intolerance
and judmentalism of Bush.  Yes, he says who cares about
the inner cities, I got my freedom (who cares if no one else does)
or abortion rights, or the war of drugs, . . . . 

I am afraid it probably would take more than a quarter for him
to buy a clue that would help him understand. :-(
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:34:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division

In article <1992Aug20.222440.27721@pony.Ingres.COM> reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>>worrying.   Also remember that you don't have to worry about the Soviets 
>>pushing the button in the middle of the night and obliterating the world.
>
>Sure, now we only have to  worry about 3rd  rate countries that bought
>nuclear technology on the open market...

Not just that, but in a sense we still have the same nuclear threat that
existed before "the fall of Communism."  So the weapons may not be fired
at us, but they still exist, their dismantling will still leave radioactive
waste around, much much much more radioactive waste than existed before.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Editorial: Taking over what families used to do
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:40:50 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

harry@netnews.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz) writes:
:EMIL CHUCK (eyc@acpub.duke.edu) writes:
:
:	Walter Williams is an economics professor at George
:	Mason University.  His column is nationally syndicated.
:	This copy is taken from the Washington _Times_.
:
:In this copy, Mr. Williams writes:
:
:	...we ought to start an anti-bureaucratic campaign
:	to abolish state-mandated and state-controlled education,
:	leaving the training and rearing of children up to parents...
:
:
:Why then does Mr. Chuck insist on attending Duke University?
:Couldn't his parents do a better job?
	I appreciate the humor, even though you're incorrect. Duke is a
private university. Though sometimes I wonder.
	By the way, my parents are proud they sent me to Duke, though
living in Louisiana, having a "Duke" sticker on your car that is royal
blue and white (David Duke's campaign colors, but he attended LSU) gets
a bit interesting.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
From: ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:53:15 GMT
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.

In article <36956@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>>Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
>>cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
>>economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates 
>>opportunity for ALL to advance!  
>
>I've always had trouble with this. What else are investors going to do with
>their money?

  Uhhh, I don't know.  Guess they could put it in the bank OR take a 
  risk and buy that fixer-upper down the street.  Yes, they could buy the
  house, hire some plumbers and carpenters.... maybe even do some work
  themself and then sell for a nice little profit.
  But the capital gains tax (read: rich man's tax) will take
  so much of the profit, they could spend better and more 
  profitable time bagging groceries then sanding floors.
  And yes, their decision will cost the carpenter and the 
  plumber.  Sorry, guys.  Class envy got you again.
>
>I suspect this is nothing but Reaganomic brainwashing.
>
  Here's some of brainwashing I received:

  In 1972, assume I bought $10,000 worth of stock.  This year it's worth
  $37,000 and I decide to sell.  Adjusted for inflation, I made
  nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.  The IRS, on the other hand, thinks I
  made a profit of $27,000 and wants $10,000 in capital gains tax!
  That's not a tax on capital gains, that's a tax on capital!
  You can't have capitalism WITHOUT capital.

>-- 
>Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
>	University of California, San Diego
>jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
>

-- 
        --Ernie.Corley@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Candidates' Private Lives: WHO CARES (was Philandering George Bush)
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:06:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <Aug.15.16.45.26.1992.17114@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

>>> I suspect that both Bush and Clinton did have affairs.

>> Do have any _SUBSTANTIVE_ information to lead you to suspect that Bush
>> has ever had an extramarital affair?

> For starters, certain studies show that better than 50% of men in this
> country admit to having had at least one affair.

But George Bush does not.

> I'll let experts in the field tell us just how valid those studies
> were.  But I suspect that the infidelity rate among politicians is
> even higher.

On what basis?

> Hence, if we start talking about any male politician in this country,
> it seems at least likely that he has had an affair.

Or on the other hand perhaps somewhat less likely (if the above
unnamed "studies" are to be believed) that he has not.

> I found the information released by the Post last week to be entirely
> believable.

And I found it to be completely incredible (i.e., lacking in
credibility).

> And, along with the longstanding rumors of infidelity between Bush and
> his secretary,

_WHAT_ long-standing rumors?

> I think that it is entirely credible that they did have an affair.

And pigs can fly.

> This amounts to suspicion on my part.  Would we find Bush guilty of
> adultery in a court of law?  Probably not.  Of course, the same could
> be said of Clinton, where the evidence against him consists of a woman
> selling a story (for $50K) which has several internal inconsistencies.
> We also have evidence that they talked on the telephone.  This amounts
> to grounds for suspicion, but probably not conviction.

I never brought up conviction, nor did I ever say that Clinton is
indeed guilty.  But given the casette tape, allegations concerning
Clinton having had an affair are orders of magnitude more believable
than any such allegations against Bush.

> Of course, the point of my original posting, which seems to have
> eluded Ted entirely, was: WHO CARES!

Concerned voters, that's who.

> I remain unconvinced that these alleged affairs have any bearing at
> all on the real issues facing the country.

The moral character of the chief executive of this country ought to be
an issue of the utmost concern of _EVERY_ citizen -- even those who
lack moral character of their own, I might add (though not to suggest
that any present company might fall into that category).
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:32:21 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bt3EtF.Ct2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
> In article <1992Aug16.191500.30885@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >"Witholding assistance" a serious crime?  What can you be charged with
> >for not applying the Heimlich maneuver to a person that chokes to death?
> >For not rendering CPR to someone who collapses from a heart attack?  For
> >not donating an organ to someone who will die without it?
>
> No, Larry, you can't be charged in the cases you give examples of but
> you certainly can be charged with negligence (even the negligent
> treatment of animals) depending on the circumstances.  For example, when
> parents refuse to provide food for their children they can be (and
> sometimes are) guilty of neglect.

> I think that my example is more in line with the mother/child
> relationship we are talking about.

Are there any cases in which a person can be charged for refusing to
provide bodily resources (e.g., blood, bone marrow, organs) to another?
Even if it's a parent/child relationship?

> >> However, abortion is not witholding assistance but the destruction of
> >> the fetus.  I don't know how the mother could withold assistance unless
> >> she were to starve herself or something similar.  Am I missing
> >> something?
> >
> >Would you then have no objection if the doctor were to detach it without
> >killing it?
>
> My statement was designed to make it clear that abortion is not
> witholding assistance but the killing of the fetus.  Doctors do, in
> fact, detach fetuses.  That is what a Caesaran birth is.  I'm not sure
> what your point is and I prefer not to guess.  Feel free to elaborate.

If the woman decides to withold her bodily resources, and has the fetus
detached before viability, so its death is inevitable, but does *not*
have the fetus killed (i.e., it's allowed to expire on its own), would
you then have no objection to this type of abortion?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:17:46 GMT

In article <FOX.92Aug15120641@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>
>   Here you have a problem.  The argument being considered is predicated on
>   the assumption that the fetus is a human being.  Although as you noted
>   above you do not have contribute to the well being of others (actually
>   there are many cases where you do such as laws against neglect of
>   children but I'll let that go for now because it isn't particularly
>   relevant) abortion is the destruction of the life (again all this is
>   predicated on a specific assumption -  this is not a pro/con abortion
>   debate) therefore the argument remains quite valid.
>
>Since the fetus is not viable until the third trimester, if
>the mother decides not to contribute to the well being of
>the fetus that fetus will die.  Thus, at least until the
>third trimester, abortion is not murder, even if a fetus
>is a human being.

But, David, your argument is based on a different assumption from that
discussed above by me and others.  The assumptions originally considered
were not based on viability but rather the assumption that the fetus is
considered a human being from conception.  Viability is also a
reasonable assumption but it is a different assumption which means that
different conclusions will follow.  All very valid and worthy of
discussion but considerably off the point.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harry@netnews.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz)
Subject: Re: Editorial: Taking over what families used to do
Organization: DEC - Customer Support Center, Alpharetta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:05:55 GMT

In article <4615@news.duke.edu>,
EMIL CHUCK (eyc@acpub.duke.edu) writes:

	Walter Williams is an economics professor at George
	Mason University.  His column is nationally syndicated.
	This copy is taken from the Washington _Times_.

In this copy, Mr. Williams writes:

	...we ought to start an anti-bureaucratic campaign
	to abolish state-mandated and state-controlled education,
	leaving the training and rearing of children up to parents...


Why then does Mr. Chuck insist on attending Duke University?
Couldn't his parents do a better job?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:05:31 CDT

 
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

> Now, how's about those Demo flippers: 
>
> 1) Ted Kennedy (flipped from pro-life to pro-choice)
> 2) Jesse Jackson (yet another flipper on the issue, used to say legal
> abortion over the right to privacy was like legalizing slavery:
> no personhood because the act's done in private) 
> 3) Present VP candidate Al Gore, who used to vote 84% pro-life, is now
> pro-choice totally. 
> 4) That governor of Ohio who got beat badly in the last election.  
> 5) Buddy Roemer, LA. Beat badly. Didn't even make the primary. 
>
> Hey, folks! You can contribute with others, here! 

Don't forget Jerry Sikorski of MN, who apparently swapped his
position in order to position himself to take Durenburgers
seat.  


---
--David C. Adams 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:16:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

>> = (William F. Tell) writes:
>  = steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> I think Mark Russell put it best when he noted that people who
>> are pro-abortion are generally those who have already been
>> born.

> Do tell!

> And it was George Carlin who put it best when he noted that those women
> who are against abortion are those you wouldn't want to fuck anyway.

> (See what happens when you begin quoting comedians?)

As long as we're going down this road, another comedian (name escapes me)
said this:

"You want government to regulate abortion? <rhetorical pause> Government
can't even pave fuckin' roads!"

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Public vs. private transportation
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:01:13 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug20155009@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Aug20.063950.18437@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
><	   Fast enough trains can successfully compete with air travel.
> <  Consider the example of the French TGV, which travels at 180 mph in
> <  some routes, 

>	Name them. 

	The Southeast line and the Atlantic line.

>	I've ridden TGV twice and the train never
>	exceeded 100 mph. I don't believe that train could
>	come close to 180 miles per hour.

	The TGV has to travel more slowly when it is not running on
dedicated track.

	How were you counting the speed (average or maximum), and
where were you traveling to?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40493 talk.politics.theory:3724 alt.politics.elections:10870 alt.politics.marrou:832 alt.politics.bush:2059
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:26:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <l9050rINNm9m@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.202017.17578@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>|> We outspend the Japanese by 2-to-1 on money spent per student, yet their
>|> students are far more educated than ours.
>|> 
>|> On an international basis, we rank last among 13 nations in math/science.
>|> 
>|> Its time do do something - I support school choice.
>|> 
>Interesting.  The Japanese don't agree with you.

Good point. Which are those 12 nations, and which have `school choice' as
currently proposed ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:48:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.110731.3675@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.221458.7673@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug20.205057.16540@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>>da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
>>>b > Brett (Stupendous Man)
>>>b > Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>>>b > do not automatically translate into more money.
>>>da> Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
>>>da> economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
>>>da> something to do with it.
>>>
>>>  Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>>>  spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.
>> 
>> You meean , No I am rolling on the floor now you take the PHTTT! chortle
>> chuckle LAFFER CURVE SERIOUSLY!!!!  
>> Supply side economics?
>> Oh dear guess you do
>> sweet dreams in your trickle down fantasy world!
>> 
>> oh by the way eight years have passed and EVERYONE
>> else can see the ruin this has brought.
>
>	Define "everyone".  Obviously Gary doesn't believe the media
>revisionism.  Nor do I.  Nor do many people.
>
>	The Laffer curve is real, supply side works.  When you examine the
>countries with the most improved economies, they have switched from
>socialist/interventionist economies to supply side economies.

This is simply false. Germany and Japan have highly interventionist
economics and are kicking US butt. The nations with the highest
"quality of life index" all have socialist/interventionist economic
policies. But of course you have the blinkers on and are blind to
what goes on in the rest of the world because examining this would
be "unamerican". Have you seen the posts comparing poverty,health
wellbeing,employment,equity rates, in the USA as compared to countries
with socialist/interventionist economies? (USA#1 for all the wrong
reasons) I think you, Gary and all the other net reaganomicists
should have them mailed directly to you. You still there HAREL?

ALEX
(the social-democratic secular humanist)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,misc.education
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: None
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:48:28 GMT

In article <l9050rINNm9m@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.202017.17578@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Aug6.013932.29133@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>|> >	My solution to the US public schools' problems:
>|> >	Get rid of all the bureaucrats!
>|> I agree 100%

>|> US Public schools have FAR more administrators than private/independent
>|> schools. But US public schools do a much worse job of educating America's
>|> kids.

>|> We outspend the Japanese by 2-to-1 on money spent per student, yet their
>|> students are far more educated than ours.
>|> On an international basis, we rank last among 13 nations in math/science.

>|> Its time do do something - I support school choice.
>|> 
>Interesting.  The Japanese don't agree with you.

What makes you say that?

I obtained the above information from various sources including:
NY Times (Sept 91), US News and World Report (fall '91), Newsweek (various
issues), Wall Street Journal (various issues).

Regarding the Japanese, its been published that the AVERAGE Japanese
student would score in the 90% percentile on US Standardized tests, i.e.
their average student is scores better than 90% of our students.

The SAT board puts out annual reports showing how US students do,
organized in various ways. MY reading shows that good predictors
of student achievement include the following:
 1-Parental Education level
 2-Parental Involvement
 3-Asian descent
 4-Household income

Bad predictors include money spent on education, student/teacher ratio,
 # of Administrators, etc

If I recall correctly, Private schools (i.e. Catholic) send 85% of their
students onto College but do it with far less overhead. For example,
In Washington DC, there is one adminstrator for every 54 kids in their
public schools. In the Catholic schools in the same city, there is
one administrator for every 2500 kids. 

I think about 45-48% of public schools kids go onto College, nationwide.

The best schools are independent schools (i.e. neither public or religious).
They send close to 99% of their students onto College. 

Interestingly, public school teachers make significantly more (on average) 
than non-public schools teachers.

Again, I support school choice - only then will the public schools
feel the pressure to improve (from outside competition). And its only
fair - right now the wealthier folks have school choice since they can afford
to send their kids to tuition-based, nonpublic schools. What about the rest 
of Americans?

Joe Collins
joec@morgan.com
Usual disclaimers apply...


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39961 ca.politics:6840 ba.politics:4550