HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: more info on Perot: 1st article of 2
Date: 13 Apr 1992 11:21:10 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <82A602f5c8ss00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>
>>[Perot on] Deregulation of airlines:
>>
>>  "A sad situation brought on by people who don't understand business.  If
>>and when I"m ever up here, I do understand business and we will not implode
>>whole segments of an industry... The fact is we didn't get cheaper airplane
>>tickets, we got more expensive airplane tickets."

>I believe this is factually incorrect.  Does anyone have the exact figures?

The ticket prices went up, but not as fast as inflation, so if you
adjust figures we're paying less.  Of course there are fewer airlines
to chose from, longer delays, the planes are more crowded... dirty...

Even if the prices didn't go up as fast as inflation (and some have,
BTW...  just not the average), deregulation isn't doing what the
government told us it would do.

Stratocaster

-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
  ** The most important freedom of democracy, is the freedom of CHOICE. **
From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Tax zap cap
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:09:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr6.190940.27233
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept


  In my state of ignorance, it seems to me that the economy of a society is
basically an informational transfer system.  The major problems arise because
of misallocation of resources.  Therefore any particular individual who began
to have a large amount of resources on hand for personal pleasure would
basically be detrimental to society.  So why don't we cap incomes at some
very high number, say 1,000,000 dollars a year.  No person can possibly use
more money than this.

  The cap could be more of some steep curve (whereby the government 
assessed a tax that it found to be most profitable in these very high
brackets)

  Or the cap could be a straight one, with the govt taking anything more
than that in taxes.  The extra money would be kept in the corporation, to
be spent on whatever (research and development, which could burn that
cash fast)

  Maybe use the extra money raised to provide a tax break for R+D.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17253 alt.activism:7342
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: ACLU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:29:40 GMT

In article <ART.92Apr7113917@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.023024.1152@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>
>   In article <rqo3nINN6sl@agate.berkeley.edu> mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl) writes:
>   >Sorry to break the news, but communities DON'T have rights.  Read the
>   >Bill of Rights and I don't think it talks about groups but instead
>   >defines rights for individuals.
>
>   Read the whole Constitution.  Its principle purpose is to grant certain
>   rights to the federal government: the right to declare war, the right
>   to regulate interstate trade, the right to collect taxes, etc.  If you
>   don't want to use the word "rights" for the government's prerogatives,
>   that is fine -- but juggling definitions isn't going to make your
>   argument any stronger.
>
>I suggest you take your own advice and read the whole constitution.  It
>refers to POWERS granted to the gov't, not to rights.  There is a big
>difference here....

Sorry, this difference escapes me and is in any case irrelevant to the
issue under discussion, namely a library's right/power/privilege/prerogative
to exclude the noisome.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18385 alt.society.civil-liberty:3492 alt.individualism:2473
From: Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Hinkle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Richard Boddie for US Senate Reception
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:07:59 GMT


 
       YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED TO A RECEPTION
 
                 IN HONOR OF
 
         RICHARD BODDIE FOR U.S. SENATOR
 
                     AT
 
             L'HORIZON RESTAURANT
 
1250 Aviation Avenue (near the San Jose Airport)
Take the Column Exit off of Hwy. 880 and go north
to Aviation Avenue (a.k.a. San Jose Jet Center)
 
DATE: April 10, 1992 -- TIME: 7:30 to 10 P.M.
COST: $5 to cover hor d'oeuvres and room rental
 
FYI.............Mark Hinkle, mark.hinkle@f6.n143.z1.fidonet.org

--  
Mark Hinkle
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!6!Mark.Hinkle
INTERNET: Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Mark Hinkle only."
From: 00jlrushton@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: HEY THE REAL BSU ELECTION SCORES!
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:19:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr10.161917.6108

BSU LOCAL NEWS


well the woman won in second election because she had big boobs 
well that what some men voted for her...............

women voted for her so bsu could be woman dominant!


poor davodd most people shouted "dont vote for the fag" ............

the results twice show this..........

well i voted for davodd for his policy oh well

dont vote clinton rumor he is gay with aids!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17429 talk.politics.guns:11396
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:52:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

>cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
>>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
>>
>>1)it guarantees your right to own a musket.(that's all thefirearms they had
>>back then)

False.  Easily provable as false...assuming that one has at least
minimal reading ability and access to a small public library.

The British army might have *wished* that a musket was all that
was available back then, but even they had, in addition to to
rifled arms, a few breech-loading rifles, as well.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty,pnw.general
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Larry Agran's Program (II)
Summary: Dreamin' again
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:03:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <9204040500.AA03640@tba.msi.cornell.edu>, harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai) writes:
> 
> 
> The Decline of America: Larry Agran's Program (II)
> 
> Democratic Presidential candidate Larry Agran proposes a fundamental
> change in the American economy to bring us out of the recession.
> 
> Reaping the Peace Dividend
> 
> Larry Agran would reallocate the $150 billion in savings to address
> all the needs of the domestic agenda:
> 
> First, $25 billion a year -- $100 per resident -- for America's
> cities, towns, and counties in a revival of direct revenue sharing, no
> strings attached.  Localities know best what their problems are and
> how to address them; all they need are the resources.
> 
> Second, $15 billion a year -- $375 per student -- for America's
> elementary and secondary public schools.  We could hire new teachers,
> build new schools, upgrade curricula, and provide a learning
> environment safe from crime.
> 
> Third, $40 billion a year for a comprehensive national health care
> program -- including guaranteed protection for every American,
> preventive treatment, adequate nutrition, and affordable medication.
> 
> Fourth, $20 billion a year for a proactive environmental protection
> program, including alternate fuels research, toxic and nuclear waste
> cleanup, reversal of ozone depletion, and creation of an "EcoCorps" to
> advise Third World nations on clean industrial development.
> 
> Fifth, $50 billion a year for honest budget deficit reduction, and the
> funding of a Defense Workers' Bill of Rights as the nation converts to
> a peacetime economy.
> 

Comment:  yeah, haven't we seen these big-spender magic formulas for
the American Utopia before?  Seems this was pretty much espoused by
Sen. Harkin, and look what happened to HIS plans.  Like this ex two-
bit mayor would/could do any better.

                                                H.R. Holm

                             *********************************************
                              Sympathizing with Granny Clampett's philosophy
                              of Citizen/Leviathan-Federal-Government
                              Relations in this time of Congressional
                              Check-kiting and American Gestapo-IRS
                              Operations....
                                    "Revenooooers!!!!!...Get 'm shotgun,
                                                                  
                              *********************************************
**comment my own only, all disclaimers, etc.**
  Please reply to the group, not by e-mail
From: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: GE
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:53:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rsghlINNaoh
Organization: University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: hera.berkeley.edu
Originator: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU

As a matter of fact, Hollywood did not "fawn" over the documentary "Deadly
Deception:  General Electric, Nuclear Weapons and the Environment."
If you watch the Oscars again on videotape, you'll hear a quite audible
(mass) groan during the acceptance speech with on polite clapping at the end.
So, I am in agreement that Hollywood is trendy and goofy...  

At least one of the two articles I've posted to the net, however, stated
that this documentary does not take up the issue of (levels of) military
defense but rather the manner in which General Electric has handled
environmental issues surrounding nuclear weapons production.

INFACT has charged that General Electric knowingly released radioactive
waste into a community without giving any warning over a period of at
least 20 years.

Assuming that you're in favor of nuclear weapons production, wouldn't you
at least want the manufacturers to produce responsibly?  After all,
nuclear weapons are built to serve as a deterrence or, at worst, as a
deadly weapon.  Should we hurt our own people in the process of building
them?  There is no reason that General Electric couldn't have both built
their weapons and have done it safely.

This movie is about deadly pollution.  If the building next door to your
house was putting out toxic substances, do you have a right to know?
Do you want to know?  Or do you wait until your children are born deformed
and you die of a cancer that has never appeared in your family?

Is ignorance bliss?

-------------------------------------
mitja@hera.berkeley.edu
Mitja Che Baumhackl
Berkeley, California
not endorsed by the University of California
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 19:57:05 GMT

In article <01GIHQ0Q3BXS000125@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
>(A) It's misnamed. It should be the "Free Trade for Corporations"" 
>    Agreement. There's no way I'm going to be able to buy cars, 
>    pharmaceuticals, or produce across the border as an individual
>    consumer, and then bring them back. Every federal agreement
>    is a dillution of principle applicable to some and not to
>    others, and in the special interest of the few and not the 
>    rest of us. 

Hunh?!?

>(B) The freedom to trade implies the freedom to boycott. If a 
>    group of us in a region don't want to deal with Mexico or
>    Japan, why should we be made to put up with it? Free trade 
>    cuts both ways in a democratic society. (And no I'm not saying
>    we have a democratic society; I'm saying we should be able to
>    choose by regions.)

So, don't buy anything from Mexico if you don't want.  And I won't
force you to adhere to my personal boycott of Chinese products, either.

>(C) Mexico, and the Mexicans are my neighbors, and in my bloodlines.
>    Where the hell, do folks on the Canadian border or anywhere else
>    get off telling us down here how best to deal with our own neighbors? 
>    Let me put that another way. I have far more in common with the
>    individual Japanese worker than I do anyone who makes over $75K / year.
>    Why should I support an agreement that threatens the Japanese and
>    favors American stock holders?    

Hunh?!?

>You want freer trade
>with Mexico, you've got to free up trade for small business and individuals
>as well -- or allow us to restrict trade locally when it's not in our own
>interest. 

Who's "our"?  What small businesses and individuals won't be allowed
to trade with Mexico?

>The problem is that *selective* cuts, and *selective* trading benefits have
>nothing to do with freedom as a principle. Slice it anyway you want, free
>ain't free if there are *any* conditions. 

The only thing "selective" about the trade agreements I see is that it
only applies to Mexico, and not to Korea or Japan or a dozen other countries.

>So really we're talking about who this misnamed agreement favors most, and
>who it discriminates against. Normally, I'd be enthusiastically in favor of 
>the NAFTA, but it looks like the prime benefit goes to stock speculators,
>rather than any *direct* change on the consumer or small business level. 

What evidence do you have for this?  
-- 
Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: The Nation on Clinton
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:35:21 GMT

In article <Apr.11.12.32.02.1992.16361@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>hhuang@m4-035-15.MIT.EDU (Han-Young Huang) writes:
>
>>   What a Clinton Administration almost certainly will not do, however, is put
>> forward a sweeping health insurance reform.  If anything is clear from the FEC
>> roster of contributors, it is that the Arkansas Governor's lack of clarity
>> about his plans for medical insurance is strategic. 
>
>I can get access to Clinton's position paper on health care.  It runs
>about 12 pages, single-spaced.  If anyone is interested in posting it
>to the net, I will snailmail you a photcopy.
>

	One of my concerns about Clinton's positions are the relevance
to the way he runs Arkansas. He tells us what kind of Health care he
wants in the US. What kind of health care plan does he have in Arkansas?
Does Arkansas have a health care plan? I've heard nothing of it.

	The same concern goes for Public service for college loans. Has
he implemented this in Arkansas?


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17784 ca.politics:3413 ba.politics:2630 alt.politics.homosexuality:1981
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:18:05 GMT
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:

> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
> 
> > Nope.. I don't think that... But if they are running around trading
> > weenies like that - NO WONDER AIDS is so damn prevalent.
> 
> Trading weenies???  hehehe...
> 
> 
> > 
> > "gee all we do is screw anything that moves - whats wrong with it?"
> 
> God dammit, D.K., hold still!!!
> 

HeHeHee...... Be the best one YOU ever had. :-)

-djk
> 
> 
> [] ---
> [] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US -- cerritos.edu!batpad!mike
> [] Long Beach, California
> [] TNG Quote: "You were travelling in close formation at over 80,000 kph, onl
> [] 10 meters from Cadet Albert, and you didn't even know his orientation?!?"


--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
From: karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem!"
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:25:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>> 
>> 
>>   "Reagan Was Right: Government Is the Problem"
>>   by Charlton Heston
>
>	Great another actor who thinks he knows how to fix the gov't! Who's
>next? Tom Sellack?!?
>

Last I heard, Tom "Conservative-with-a-capital-C" Selleck was supporting
Tsongas.  That really freaked me out: me, "Liberal-with-a-capital-L", 
agreeing with someone that appeared on a commercial for "National Review"?

-- 
Leonard Nimoy for President in 1992!
The only Logical candidate!  He'll make America Live Long
and Prosper!
---------- Animesh Karna wuz here! --------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Sydney Sharpe and Don Braid's new book on the Reform Party
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 04:42:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.161534.5836@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>What the Reform Party did in the Manitoba case is probably a lot more
>democratic than the NDP, which requires members take certain ideological
>stands on particular issues regardless of conscience...the NDP is the
>only party which won't let an elected member vote their conscience on
>abortion, or capital punishment, or on a variety of other issues...

That's merely a clean way of avoiding people using the party as a
trojan horse for their own pet ideas, like the pro-lifers in the Liberal
party and the bigots in the Reform party.

If you don't like their stand, try to influence the powers that be to
have a vote of the NDP membership to see whether those basic tenets of
party policy needs review. If not, either join, and sign on the line your
obligation, or simply DON'T join!

The choice is really very simple.

And, no, here in Canada, joining the NDP will probably make you poorer
rather than richer.

    Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What's wrong with America.
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:06:14 GMT
	<1992Apr16.224651.22047@panix.com>
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

In article <1992Apr16.224651.22047@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

   You seem to suggest a different way of life as a solution to (among 
   other things) environmental problems.  That's fine, but how could such a 
   thing ever become prevalent enough to have much effect on society at 
   large?

You are correct, and people *are* working more and enjoying it less.
Those disaffected people will seek ways to change their lives for the
better.  This movement could effect society at large because many
people are finding that they aren't doing better than their parents,
when they expected they would.

By the way, I count the "New Villages" movement as part of this trend.

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17601 alt.society.civil-liberty:3344
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:47:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: qualcom.rdippold.702863239
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>And this is the crux of it.  You seem to believe that if the majority
>>decide something it can't violate personal freedom, and furthermore
>>that use of force by the government to obtain involuntary funding
>>doesn't violate personal freedom either.

>Nonsensical.  Of course the majority violates personal freedoms -
>it does it all the time.  That is the essence of the trade-off
>between individual rights and societal rights.  You want to
>play your stereo as loud as you want, but your neighbors don't
>want to be bothered by the noise - so whose rights supercede?
>In this case, the question is more complicated - society wants
>to raise money to do public works, but you don't like the
>public works and don't want to pay for them.  Right now society
>wins. 

That's what I said.  it's fully sensical when applied to your
following statement.  What if I don't want that particular piece
public work?  The stereo tradeoff is a bit fuzzier, but what gives
other people the right to public works paid for by my money?


>I understand various individuals have come up with
>alternate money-raising schemes to replace taxation.  Wonderful,
>but I have no faith that they'd work (and no, I haven't seen
>them).

And that's why you go for taxes.  Expedience usually wins over ethical
behavior.   Your trouble raising funds does not warrant taking mine.


>> Taxes are at the root of
>>government's belief that it has the authority to do whatever social
>>experimentation it wants to.  I can't work for personal freedom or a
>>more just society without working for tax elimination as well.

>I have no respect for somebody whose primary goal in politics/social
>engineering is to protect their wallet (which is not necessarily
>what you are doing, but is the impression that many libertarians
>convey).

This is _one_ issue, which is not about protecting my wallet, it's
about involuntary servitude and the violation of freedom by the
government. 


>  Taxation is not at the root of anything.

No?  You think we'd continue the slide towards bankruptcy and
socialism without taxes?  Congress can't legislate because it's too
busy figuring out what to do with its ill-gotten gains, and how to get
more of them.
-- 
One family builds a wall, two families enjoy it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc