HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sandy@godzilla.quotron.com (Sanford Zelkovitz)
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Organization: Quotron Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:20:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.134836.19328@lrmsc.loral.com> dboddy@pulsar.lrmsc.loral.com (Dave Boddy 5973) writes:
>Article 23419 of ca.politics:
>From: megana@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Megan Adams)
>Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:34:29 GMT
>Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
>Message-ID: <32620003@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com>
>Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
>Path: orion!wdl1!sgi!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!scd.hp.com!hplextra!hpcc05!hpcuhb!hpcuhe!megana
>Newsgroups: ca.politics
>References: <1992Aug31.035746.18144@nas.nasa.gov>
>Lines: 11
>
>>Another effect of prop 13 is to drive young wage earners out of state. Why?
>>Because why buy a house here when you will pay ten times the property tax
>>of the rich old geezer down the street who bought his house back in the 
>>early 70's. 
>
>>Grossly unfair. 
>
>>(On a call-in radio show I heard several people who were planning to move 
>>make the above argument.)
>
>>megana.
>
>  The disparity in property tax rates is not between young and old.  Its
>  between those who purchase a house and live in it for a long time and
>  those who choose to invest their equity by buying and selling several
>  times.
>
>  Paying several thousand dollars for a 30 year old house that cost $7,000
>  new -- THAT's grossly unfair!
>
> 

I ran into another "property tax" problem with my present house. I paid,
three years ago, $390K for the property; however, today, I would be lucky
to get $350K for it. My tax base for the property, according to Prop 13,
was actually $402K ( this included the air conditioning that I had installed
after I purchased the property ). 

I found out through the grapevine that I could petition the county for
a reassesment based upon the present value. Needless to say, I did and
after a very lengthy period, my property was revalued to $340K. The
county re-embursed me for the difference in taxes for the present tax
year.

If the above is permitted, what else is??????.............


Sanford <sandy> Zelkovitz



-- 
Sanford <sandy> Zelkovitz            XBBS
Voice: (714)821-9670   Data and FAX: (714)821-9671
....uunet!pride386!alphacm!sandy
sandy@smftst.Quotron.com (130.224.26.12)
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 29 Aug 92 09:24:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <11970@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[kane says]
> # We understand that alright. You think that homosexuality cannot be
> # more than just sexual love. You have the problem. And what makes you
> # think the converse is not possible? That two men who love each other
> # deeply will not have sex with each other?
> # 
> # kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
> 
> I discount the idea of homosexuality being more than just sex
> because I read soc.motss, and it's clear that at least with gay
> men, there's nothing more than animal sex involved.  (Excuse
> me, I'm insulting animals -- I've never seen an animal need 
> leather, whips, or instruments of bondage to enjoy sex.  Animals
> are also MUCH less promiscuous than soc.motss members).
> 
> It's also clear from looking at who is dying of AIDS in this
> country that promiscuity is a fundamental part of being homosexual.
> How much love can develop when the relationship takes place
> in five hurried minutes in a gay bar restroom?

This from a man who swears that he never stoops to ad hominem attacks....

There have been readers who have been trying to get the gay community
on Usenet to repudiate NAMBLA just so that Clayton will shut up and go
away.  Do all of you now see that NAMBLA was never the real issue?

Clayton is scared to death of homosexuality and will stoop to anything
to attack it, including the lies posted above which really aren't worth
responding to.

Clayton, get professional counselling; you need it badly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment,ba.politics
From: dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman)
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Organization: Bank of America, Capital Products, RMTG #5906
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:07:04 GMT

In article <p028tt0@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
>Can you think of a single group which could afford to buy the bay who would
>be concerned with the wildlife around the bay, the quality of the water in
>the bay, other people polluting the bay?
>

I'm not sure about the bay itself, but the water flowing into it could
(after a fashion) be privately owned.  How much would you be willing
to pay for an acre-foot of good clean fresh water delivered at the 
northern terminus of the California Aqueduct on Nov 1 92?


-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 Daniel Brockman             tel 415-953-0406, fax 415-622-2892
 Bank of America, Dept 5906, 555 Calif St
 San Francisco 94104 USA    email uunet!odinba!dan dan@BofA.COM
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7301 talk.politics.misc:43067
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Malcolm X (was Re: Gus savage is history)
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:59:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <c0gnjhq.tcox@netcom.com>, tcox@netcom.com (Thomas Cox) writes:
# I was wondering who had picked up the ball that Malcolm X had carried.
# Malcolm is one of my heros, since I read his autobiography.  Malcolm X
# was in favor of:
# 
# 1. self help for blacks
# 2. strong families
# 3. personal spirituality (he was a Black Muslim, and later a Muslim --
#    yes, they are different)
# 4. black separation and sovereignty
# 
# He also described blacks who opposed him as "Uncle Toms".  He despised
# the "nonviolent revolution" rhetoric of M.L.King, and pointed out all
# the successful revolutions that had been violent, including the U.S. War
# of Independence.  (He did not comment on India and Ghandi, as far as I
# could tell. :-)
# 
# Malcolm X appeared (to me, from reading his autobiography) to be a
# sincere black nationalist and basically a conservative and intelligent
# man who felt that black people needed to help themselves, and who felt
# that for blacks to rely on white people to hand them their rights on a
# platter was foolish and passive.

Agreed.  It also doesn't make you dependent on the good will of
another person.

# He said that black people should exercise their Second Amendment rights,
# buy guns, and defend themselves against the KKK.  This upset a lot of
# whites at the time.

I suspect what upset people more was that he indicated that murdering
white people because of their race was morally justified.  He should
have stopped when he argued for self-defense against the KKK.

# Tom Cox      DoD #1776   '91 CB 750 Nighthawk   tcox@netcom.netcom.com



-- 
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: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:50:40 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <1992Sep2.165712.10202@nas.nasa.gov>
 by dbailey@wk49.nas.nasa.gov (David H. Bailey):

: Now we come to the heart of the matter.  Even if one is a die-hard
: libertarian, determined to cut "big government", why pick property
: taxes?

Why NOT pick property taxes?  Especially considering the anger being
generated in 1978.

: In the civilized world (i.e. outside of California), property
: taxes are voted locally by the people and are used for the closest
: thing to real government services that most people see -- neighborhood
: schools and police and fire protection.  They feel that they have
: control of their own community and its services.

That's probably a much better solution.  I agree, ceding things to
higher levels of govt is a bad idea.

: If Californians were so outraged about high taxes in 1978, why didn't
: they first demand cuts at the state level, or even at the federal
: level?  Why didn't they demand reforms in the California penal system?
: For that matter, why didn't they demand of their U.S. congressmen a
: stop to the inexorable growth in entitlements, which with interest on
: the national debt now consume 70% of the federal budget?

I don't know how many people recognized these as problems in 1978.

Again, it was property taxes making folks mad.  I was just out of my
graduate program at that time, and I remember it was the talk of the
older folk where I worked.  These goddammed PROPERTY TAXES is what they
were complaining about, not the state income tax, not the sales tax,
not federal entitlements.

There are other problems for certain, and they're getting worse.  But,
just because there are other serious govt abuses to work on, does not
necessarily detract from the value in setting limits to property taxes.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there 
may be in owning a piece thereof.
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:49:40 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Aug26.185717.24151@jack.sns.com> jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best) writes:
>In article <opdjbtg@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.170114.6707@jack.sns.com> jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best) writes:

>of course see-----+
>                  v 
>>> The point here is if you want to destroy the institution of marriage then
>>> why place any limit on it at all?
>>
>>Why does allowing two men or two women to get married destroy the instituation
>>of marriage?

Why don't you answer the question?


>>> Or do you just wish to press for you own
>>> personal agenda?
>>
>> Open your eyes, bozo, everyone is pushing their own agenda.
>                  ^^^^
>
>        What is it with you! Are you so insecure that you need to make
>        personal attacks on people that disagree with you. I know this may
>        be hard for you but GROW UP. JUST A LITTLE.

Why is it that you ignore the substance of my post, and attack one word?
I, at least, had some substance.


>>I am in a monogmous long term homosexual relationship, why do I differ from a
>> heterosexual couple in the same situation?
>
>        You don't there are many unmarried heterosexual couples in long
>        term relationship, so what, their not trying change the institute
>        of marriage. so why are you?

They CAN get married.  They have the choice to marry or not.  I do not.
I have had a jewish wedding ceremony.  Now, I want the government to 
recognize this.

>> > This is just a another example of an abnormal fringe group trying to get
>> > the rest of society to consider them normal!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> You are full of shit, asshole.
>
>        Well this isn't the most intelligent thing you have ever said,
>        or is it just the lack of vocabulary???

Why have you not addressed any of the points in my posting?


>  You disagree with the above statement I take it, yet all
>        you can talk about in responds is the anus and excrement!!

That is because you are unable to read for content.


>        Then perhaps we could continue with
>        a civilized conversation.


A conversation requires that you address the points that I made.  You ignored
the most important one.  Why was that?


Jeff
-FWA
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7040 ca.environment:818
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:08:26 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <19737@fritz.filenet.com>, asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
|> For one thing, it assumes One Owner, who then would "fuck up the bay."
|> 
|> This may well be true.  It's possible.  But let's ask a couple of
|> questions here.  Why would somebody own the entire bay in the first 
|> place?
|> 
|> Certainly not for use as sewage disposal.  Not much profit in that.
|> So, the answer to this question is obvious: someone owns the bay for
|> profit.  This person wishes to sell/rent/lease access.
|> 
|> So why would someone own the bay, destroy it, then expect to make any
|> money from it?  Answer: in general, they wouldn't.  It would be cutting
|> their own throat.  Most folks don't like doing that.
|> 

If they don't like cutting their own throats then why do lumber companies
clear cut?  Why do companies that want to pollute move to Mexico, Taiwan,
etc. ?

|> Again, why a single group?  Why not parcel it out the way pieces of real
|> estate has historically been parceled out to ranchers in the past?
|> 
Which has done what to the land that the cattle graze on?  Do you understand
the traditional fight between cattle ranchers, and other ranchers?

Later,
George

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:52:02 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Aug26.185717.24151@jack.sns.com>
jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best) writes:

>In article <opdjbtg@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>>I am in a monogmous long term homosexual relationship, why do I differ from a
>> heterosexual couple in the same situation?

>You don't there are many unmarried heterosexual couples in long
>term relationship, so what, their not trying change the institute
>of marriage. so why are you?

Best, you can do better...   <pun-induced groan>

In all seriousness, unmarried heterosexual couples can get married
if they wish, so they have nothing to change anyhow. Allowing ***LEGAL***
marriage and the financial and social responsibility it entails to
every consenting adult regardless of gender will do absolutely NOTHING
to destroy conventional heterosexual marriage.

Open your mind before you open your mouth.

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7094 ca.environment:830
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Hot Young Neutron StarDistribution: world               
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 20:01:07 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
> In article <iJu8PB2w165w@batpad.lgb.ca.us>, mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor) writes:
> # Yup.  Crown Books carries all kinds of historical volumes.  So does
> # the library here in Long Beach.  Nazis, Fascists, Republicans -
> # information on all kinds of oppresive regimes and movements are
> # available to anyone with a buck or two.  I bought _Cyberpunk_ from the
> # Computer Book Club, which describes how Robert Morris and other Evil
> # Hackers perpetrated their crimes.  Does this mean that the Computer
> # Book Club advocates computer crime?
> 
> I see.  _Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_ is in the same category
> as a pamphlet promoting racial hatred.  Right. :-)

We should start calling you Hot Young Neutron Star.  I've never
encountered anything as dense.


> # Walden Books carries _Guns & Ammo_.  Does this mean they have taken an
> # anti-gun control stance?  They also carry _The Whole Earth Review_.
> # Are they now environmental whackos?  Lastly, they also sell the monthly
> # issues of _Soldier of Fortune_, which contains advertisements for all
> # kinds of recipes for mayhem - booby traps, pipe bombs, zip guns.  Does
> # this mean that the Walden Books corporate honchos support and endorse
> # these activities?
> 
> If they carried a magazine that promoted racial hatred and murder,
> yes.

Help! Help!  I'm caught in its gravity well!!!



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Followup-To: ca.politics
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:12:33 GMT

In article <athos-250892094431@athos.apple.com>, Rick Eames writes:
In article <1992Aug21.190731.7429@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido
Marx) wrote:
> Calaveras County - KGO radio reporter Greg Jarett relayed a question to Wilson
> which Jarett said was asked of him by a firefighter.  The question
> was "what are you doing here when there still is no budget ?".

+Um, his job?

Personally, I'd ask that question of the firefighters, and I'd get the same answer that
Rick gave, because the average firefighter in this state has a lot more sense of duty 
to the people of California than do our elected representatives. 

It was brought up on the news yesterday that many of the firefighters risking their
lives up in Shasta are doing so while using up their savings to live and getting paid
in IOUs.  That, to my mind, is a disgrace that should keep Pete Wilson and our 
state legislators awake at night. 

I wouldn't suggest that the firefighters not fight the fire until there is a budget, but
I would get behind them taking a big chunk of a burned tree into Pete's and Willie's
offices and dropping those two big hunks of charcoal right on their desks. 

Then turn the hoses on them. 

JZ
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:19:07 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <11839@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> Romans 1:26-27 is pretty darn clear:
> 
>     For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;
>     for their women exchanged the natural function for that which
>     is unnatural,
>     
>     and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural 
>     function of the woman and burned in their desire towards
>     one another, men with men committing indecent acts and 
>     receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their
>     error.
> 
> Clear enough?  Now, I agree that the section in I Corinthians
> may be somewhat ambiguous, because of the problems with determining
> the precise meaning of "arsenkoitai," but Romans is very clear,
> and consistent with the Old Testament prohibitions on homosexuality.

Check out "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" by John
Boswell, for a refutation of this.  Boswell is a professor of history
at Yale University and the book received the 1981 American Book Award
for History.  The citation is too long to type in here.  Suffice to
say that there is evidence that the Bible is not nearly as condemning of
homosexuality as you would like to believe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Distracted Economic Theory
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 02:14:40 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <l9lc6tINNlat@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
    >...would cost a hell of a lot of money. If, at some point in
    >the past, the powers-that-be had decided to subsidize local
    >rail a little bit more, and local roads a little bit less, we
    >might well have ended up with a superior transportation
    >system (no Phil, brownshirts would not have been necessary --
    >just a gentle tilt in the government subsidies. Doing it now,
    >a heavier hand would be necessary).

No disagreement. But, I have repeatedly said that freedom is NOT
about efficiency -- efficiency and freedom are generally at odds.

Me, I prefer freedom. Efficiency is favored by the brown shirts though ...



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:45:39 GMT
            <17vrhoINN4ep@hal.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <17vrhoINN4ep@hal.com>
 by howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle):

: In article <1992Aug31.154541.27401@morrow.stanford.edu>, GA.JRG@forsythe 
:    (June Genis) writes:
:> Well, I can't say it's a subject I've invested a lot of time
:> thinking about, but on the surface since all parties agree to
:> participate in a duel of their own free will I see no reason that
:> libertarians would forbid such activity as long as it was
:> conducted in a way which prevented innocent third parties from
:> being endangered by the combatants.
:
: Let's not be too hasty!  I suggest a transition period during
: which dueling is limited to politicians and bureaucrats.  :-)

Just let me load up their pistols with explosive charges, so that
*_both_* combatants will "win!"

B-{)

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Even though they raised the rate for first class mail in the United
States we really shouldn't complain -- it's still only 2 cents a day.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: what is Proposition 167?
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Distribution: ca
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:45:45 GMT


I hear viscous anti-167 radio commercials on the radio all the time, but
am unfamilar with this proposal.  I think it has something to with a real
estate transaction charge, but may be wrong.  A well-funded anti-proposition
campaign allways claims that a new law will increase taxes, eliminate jobs,
and destroy family values, but never get very specific.  Part of Calfornia's
so-called "peoples democracy" where any group can get a law on the ballot
if they can get enough signatures.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: george@smartstar.com (George Bush)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Not gonna take it
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:17:43 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: White House, Washington D.C.

Not gonna take it, not gonna do it.  I'm so sick of all of you people
making jokes about Dan Quayle.  Why don't you give him a break.  Sure,
he isn't as good of a vice president as I was, but he's learning.