HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:30:39 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <1992Sep1.185755.17716@auto-trol.com>, katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
|> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
|> : 
|> : In the U.S., you can be asked to leave the bathroom if you don't own
|> : it. The conductor can ask you to leave the train. And you can request
|> : the return of your toothbrush at any time. However, nobody can tell
|> : you to leave your own bathroom without the due process of the law,
|> : meaning a court. And nobody can search your property or person with
|> : due process, and nobody can take your property without due process (in
|> : theory today, though).
|> : 
|> Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even charging
|> you with a crime! Our wonderfule (NOT!) conservative supreme court has
|> upheld this. Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court
|> believe there is no right to privacy in the U.S. There are also sobriety
|> checkpoints, which allow local law enforcement to stop and search people
|> without probable cause. In short, while most people in this country have
|> been cheering on the Reagan "Revolution," the Republican administrations
|> of the last 12 years have been happily taking away our rights.
|> 
You have missed the point.  Republicans only take away our rights to
protect us from bad-people.  (sarcasm off)
-- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Is George running for First Lady?
Keywords: Elections, Candidates, Presidential politics
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:19:15 GMT

In article <BtK8Dt.95n@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  Nor has anything he's said convinced me 
> that he has any new ideas to correct the nation's many problems.
> Just more of the Democrats' tax-and-spend, big government approach to 
> everything.
>

Clinton's basic approach is investment in infrastructure, education, and
training. Much of his economic platform is taken from the work of Robert A.
Reich, whose basic idea is that a country's standard of living is directly
related to the value of the work done in that country. Therefore, we should
be looking for high-value-added types of work, and we should be educating
and training ourselves to do it. This will probably require some government
participation, whether it be incentives or public/private partnerships.

I guess I'd like to know more about specifically what you're looking for;
what a candidate has to say before you'll concede that he or she *does*
have some good (maybe even new) ideas about how to correct our problems.
You mentioned Thurow in one of your earlier postings; Reich and Thurow aren't
very far apart on most things.


>---peter  


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: johore@auto-trol.com (John Orendt)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:13:55 GMT

katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
: : 
: : In the U.S., you can be asked to leave the bathroom if you don't own
: : it. The conductor can ask you to leave the train. And you can request
: : the return of your toothbrush at any time. However, nobody can tell
: : you to leave your own bathroom without the due process of the law,
: : meaning a court. And nobody can search your property or person with
: : due process, and nobody can take your property without due process (in
: : theory today, though).
: : 
: Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even charging
: you with a crime! Our wonderfule (NOT!) conservative supreme court has
: upheld this. Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court
: believe there is no right to privacy in the U.S. There are also sobriety
: checkpoints, which allow local law enforcement to stop and search people
: without probable cause. In short, while most people in this country have
: been cheering on the Reagan "Revolution," the Republican administrations
: of the last 12 years have been happily taking away our rights.
: 
: 
: 
: Kathy
Kathy, I agree with you 100% but what can be done to change this
terrible trend? The Democrats may not take away our rights but they
surely will steel our money!
-- 
------Any resemblance to the views of Auto-trol is purely coincidental-----
johore@auto-trol.com
John Orendt          Auto-trol Technology Corporation
(303) 252-2885       12500 North Washington Street, Denver, CO 80241-2404
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:47:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175807.1727@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
 
>
>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>
      [...]
>>1. Capital gains tax is a tax on inflation. It's very easy- as I showed
>>in a number of examples- to pay an effective tax rate of over 100%. At
>>a minimum, capital gains should be indexed.
>
>so are lots of things.  interest income.  pension income.  SS income.
>the over 100% assumes total unrealism.
 
I assume you were born after 1980 and haven't read about anything that
happened before then ;-). The combination of low interest rates, high
inflation (16%+) and capital gains under Carter made over-100% marginal
rates very real indeed. Not that too many people paid these rates, of course.
What these effctive rates did was to force money out of the economy into
unproductive investments- overseas (go back and re-read the posted figures
on capital flow), underground, into real estate (well documented), and
government securities.  Simply saying the 100% rate "assumes total
unrealism" (sic) doesn't establish anything, does it? Do the math yourself
and see how the figures work out.
>
  [...]
 
>>Every investment is a risk. Since the government doesn't always- and
>>probably should never- insure the downside risk, why should they tax the
>>upside profit at the same rate as a risk-free source like salary?
 
>who has a guaranteed salary?   cap losses are written off against gains.
>how many horse breeders are you trying to help out?
 
You don't work on spec, do you? Does your boss come to you every two weeks
and say "well, we made a profit this quarter so you get paid" or "Sorry, the
company took a loss, so you owe us money" ? Do you understand what is meant
by the risk of an investment? Insured direct deposit accounts are not what
we're talking about here. A house is an investment with a certain amount of
risk. As for "Capital losses are written off against gains", this doesn't
sound like you've thought it through. If you write off all your gains against
losses- and not all losses are deductibel- that means you've made 0% return
on your money for the year. You'd have done better by closing your plant and
putting all your capital in the bank.
 
This is all too common; people don't really have a basic understanding of tax
laws and simple economics, even when it effects them directly. They believe
in a mystical world full of "write offs" that nullify all tax, and that
corporations are strange entities with inifinite wealth that they can spend
forever without worry. At least, that's the impression one gets...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:38:38 GMT

g > Garrett

g > How much money and troops did Western Europe contribute to containing the
g > USSR? I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm willing to bet it was in the 
g > billions.

  The US has had *hundreds of thousands* of troops in Western Europe and has
  spent *hundreds of billions* of dollars (well into the trillions by now) for
  its defense, as its part of NATO.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: diviney@milton.u.washington.edu (Pat Diviney)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:08:17 GMT

Actually, term limits were built in to the constitutions or charters of a 
couple of States just after the American Revolution (the names of the States
escape me at the moment).  Such a concept fits a Jeffersonian, limited 
government philosophy.  

Term limits or not, it isn't only the incumbents that have the advantage
thanks to the almost total lack of media access afforded the political
parties other than the Democrats or Republicans.  There are candidates for
various offices that are every bit as qualified as those running under the 
banner of the "major" parties (which isn't saying much in some cases). 
Unfortunately the people's choice is limited because most of the people
make their decisions based on newspaper articles, advertisements and 
other means of major media utilization (which also says something about us).

Strange that such a clamor was raised over Ross Perot, a man who offered
few substantive policy stances, and almost no attention is paid to those
who offer *true* change.  Makes one wonder whether or not we as a people
*really* want a major change, doesn't it?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:52:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep2.180332.16027@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>We may be able to drastically reduce the number of children living
>below the poverty line if women are able to obtain jobs outside the
>secretarial pool.  The enormous income dispartiy between men and women
>goes a fair distance in accounting for the number of children in
>poverty.

  Could you please document this income disparity?   All of the
  reports I hear about "women making $0.68 for every $1 men" make
  do not account for the differences in work, experience, etc.  
  How big an income disparity exists between men and women when
  you're comparing the same jobs, years of experience, and education?

---peter


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41901 ca.politics:7055 ba.politics:4782
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:04:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug19.211700.21925@amhux2.amherst.edu>, twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <11804@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <Bt0qsG.Gy8@rice.edu>, patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
# ## Okay, one simple question for you -- see if you can answer this one:
# ## are you speaking for the heterosexual community?
# #
# #But if
# 
# No, no.  No "if" -- you're evading the question.  Do you speak for the
# heterosexual community?
# 
# ____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA

In opposition to child molestation, yes.  Now, you can find a few
straights out there who don't have a problem with adults having
sex with children.  But I can say with great certainty that nearly
all heterosexuals agree that child molestation should be a criminal
offense.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43376 alt.politics.elections:12265 alt.politics.clinton:3864 alt.politics.marrou:998 alt.politics.bush:3891
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:38:26 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link

In article <1992Sep1.220833.15566@advtech.uswest.com>,
 steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

  [discussion of various party's attitudes towards taxes, etc.]

>
>The only reason the "libs" are being realistic is, they know they have
>zippo chance of getting elected.  If they had even a fighting chance,
>they'd be circumspect like everyone else.

Not true.  Many (most?) of our currently elected officials (yes, we have
almost 200 in office already) campaigned and got elected on platforms
that featured cutting both taxes and government programs.  It's simply
not true that every voter in America wants the maximum pork and the
minimum taxes -- a large enough percentage want both minimized to make
such a platform viable sometimes.

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: ala@fico.uucp
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Reply-To: ala@fico.UUCP 
Organization: The Fair, Isaac Companies, San Rafael, California
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 16:57:43 GMT

In article <12129@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Do I make myself clear?
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
>prohibition won't work.

I didn't read ba.motss for a year of so, so I am not familiar with what's
going on.  Anybody care to fill me in?  This wouldn't be the same straight
hillbilly who was around a year ago who likes to gay/lesbian/bi bash on
a gay/lesbian/bi newsgroup?  If so, I thought he was run off a long time
ago.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:11:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep1.124643.16441@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>In article <Dhl-2rB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>
>>Check the growth of the money supply.  You will probably find that it
>>increased during the time of high inflation.  The boom was probably
>>fueled by a combination of reduced tax rates, which encouraged increased
>>economic activity, and loose money, which artificially encouraged
>>increased economic activity.  The boom caused by tax cuts would not
>>lead to either inflation or recession.  Increases in the money supply,
>>or artificially low interest rates will cause businesses to expand
>>more than they would otherwise.  The loose money gives a false impression
>>of the state of the economy.  At some point reality clicks in and you
>>have a recession.  Allowing people to keep more of their own money
>>will not lead to inflation or an overheated economy.
>>
>
>It's just that these magical varieties of money which require a leap of faith.
>
>money in the pockets of the wealthy = good money, productive money
>money in the pockets of the poor = bad money, inflationary money

    Here's a better set of equations:

        money paid for being economically productive = good money;
        money paid for giving birth out of wedlock   = bad money.

        money spent by the private, more productive, sector = good money
        money spent by the public, less productive, sector  = bad money

    Shall I explain why?
>
>money from tax cuts = good money

    tax cuts not accompanied by corresponding cuts in goverment spending
    lead to increased goverment borrowing  = little or money for the economy

    money saved through reduction in goverment spending = good money

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41405 talk.politics.theory:3814 soc.culture.usa:6799 alt.conspiracy:10241
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Multiculturalism (was: Re: Kulturkampf)
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:50:53 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.politics.misc, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
> Are people forced to wear daishikis and eat tofu at
>Stanford, or what?

Yes, and no.  Since there is a conservative think-tank,
named after a vacuum cleaner, they have to wear three
piece suits with ties (nothing as smart as wearing
seven layers of cloth around your neck in the summer time),
over their daishikis (sp?) and they must put mayo on
their tofu!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42688 ca.politics:7209
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:54:15 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BtoLC1.GwM@chinet.chi.il.us>, katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
> In article <11896@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <p15h614@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> >> In article <11838@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## #Nothing's wrong with it -- it just illustrates my point -- that 
# ## #homosexuality isn't just a different sexual preference, but a group
# ## #of pathological problems, not all of which are shared by every
# ## #homosexual.
# ## 
# ## Many heterosexuals engage in S&M.  Why do you single out homosexuals?
# ## 
# ## FWA
# #
# #Yeah, I meet straight people all the time who engage in S&M. :-)
# 
# Actually, you probably do. You just don't know it because they don't
# introduce themselves as such. Do you meet people and immediately say
# you're a heterosexual? I didn't think so.

It's rather nice that way.  They want privacy, great.  They don't
make a point of being offensive about their private practices, and
that means that I don't have any idea what they do in private.
Fine with me.  Homosexuals want the right to be offensive about
what they do in private, but then want people to forget about that
when they are busy whipping each other naked in the middle of 
Market Street.

# #Odd, I've never seen a straight S&M bar.  But you can't walk through
# #downtown San Francisco without running into gay S&M bars everywhere.
# 
# I'm sure you make it a point of looking for gay S&M bars, so you see
# them everywhere. When's the last time you went *searching* for a 
# straight S&M bar? It's the Communists-Under-The-Bed syndrome.
# 
# Vickie

I don't search for either -- but they are rather hard to miss in
S.F., what with men running back and forth through the entrances
dressed in leather.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:38:29 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 2433@news.columbia.edu, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>I believe a fair number of people ENLISTED in the army to avoid going
>to Vietnam: the military prefered to send draftees over there, and if
>you entered the army willingly, they'd send you to, say, Europe.

True, up to a point.  Most people enlisted in ROTC to be able to finish
out their college educations.  But then they got whisked away to the 
military, and it was commonly held that "second louies" were cannon fodder
in Vietnam.  I don't think that many thought of ROTC as a way to get to
Europe or Korea, two favored destinations for those who opposed the war
from within the military.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:39:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <f-bnp2_.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.220643.28500@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.191613.23545@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>>>Democratic in the near future.
>>>
>>
>>The international and domestic business community voted on Bush's
>>economic plan this week...taxs cut and vague spending cuts...the
>>bottom has fallen out of the US dollar in international markets...
>>a freefall which may yet force the Fed to begin raising interest 
>>rates.
>>
>
>Of course a weak dollar helps keep jobs in the USA, helps improve the 
>trade deficit and is generally good for political discussions!

Once again Richard, you have impressed me with your total lack of 
understanding of even the most basic of economic concepts.  A weak dollar will
help to keep only certain types of jobs in the US, mainly the low-skilled type
of jobs.  The trade deficit is improved by a weak dollar only in the most 
small minded view possible.  A weak dollar will promote more foreign ownership
of production elements here in the US.  

Just think for a moment Richard, if a Weak dollar was so good, why isn't 
there a world race involving deflating the currencies of the world (other
than treaties preventing this).  Or just another thought to chew on (you
seem to be so starved for thoughts), try to figure out what happens to
technology levels in the face of a weakening currency.

>-- 
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com

Richard, are you by any chance related to D. Quale?

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42687 ca.politics:7207 ba.politics:4872