HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:25:41 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <193820@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
>In article <11846@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:

>> Question: If these statements do in fact represent the beliefs of the
>> people, both hetero- and homosexual alike, how can anyone who opposes
>> child molestation find a way to support NAMBLA - when they refuse to
>> moderate their position to at least exclude prepubescent children? 

>First, there is a difference between "support" and "refusal to condemn".
>When Clayton says that the gay community "supports" NAMBLA, he is really
>referring to "refuses to condemn" NAMBLA.  Actually, he doesn't have
>sufficient evidence to support either claim since there are any number
>of gays who do condemn NAMBLA.

>Second, you can support a group's right to exist, meet, and hold offensive
>viewpoints, without agreeing with any of their views.  I do not support
>NAMBLA's views and will actively campaign to prevent them from abolishing
>age of consent laws.  Nevertheless, until they engage in illegal activities,
>I will support their right to exist and hold these views.

The only remaining question I have regards Jeff Dauber's freedom of
sexual expression statement: "When they came for the NAMBLA members I
did nothing, ..."

In that list he included, along with "vanilla" homosexuals, S&M practitioners,
and transvestities, NAMBLA members. 

We then have to examine the issues of advocacy and activity.  It is
clear that one can be an advocate but not be a practitioner. However,
I imagine that some advocates for, let's pick transvestism, are in
fact transvestites.  I can then boldly proceed to state that some
NAMBLA members not only advocate 'consensual' sex with pre-pubescent
children but actively participate in such practices.  As another
example, I do not doubt that some, maybe even many, of the supporters
of NORML use marijuana.

Question #1. Why am I to believe that NAMBLA is different and that its
             members are just advocates?  

Question #2. Do you disagree that advocacy of an issue gives it a legitimacy
             that could encourage individuals to act?

Question #3. Does it make sense for other groups to ally themselves
             with an extremist group like NAMBLA as is done via
             Jeff Dauber's inclusion in the "When they came for.."
             list?  Are they not instead drawing unwanted fire towards
             themselves as has been displayed by this thread?

--
dave "why, oh why, did I ever respond to this thread?"
manley@optilink.com
From: gquy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: I know which entitlement to cut first
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:00:44 EDT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Cornell University


From todays Wall Street Journal
___________

Congress's pay went up by $4,400 earlier this year to $129,500.  It will
go up again by about as much next January, without a controversial vote
or even much notice.  Stung by the public's reaction to its 40% pay hike
in 1990, Congress has declared itself an entitlement program, with automatic
cost-of-living increases every year.

[...]
_______
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:59:15 GMT

In article <Aug.26.07.39.21.1992.12991@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.220643.28500@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) should have written:
>
>> [Because I'm a Canadian.]
>
>Now shut up and mind your own business.

I'd be more worried if I were in New Jersey, Teddy-boy.



--
"There's one reborn every minute."
		-- Dalai Dan, 153rd Reincarnation of the Lama.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:41:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep1.181045.8108@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>
>pn> As a recent poll posted here on Usenet, and plenty of others have shown,
>pn> big government programs are what the voters WANT!  They demand that their
>pn> elected officials "bring home the bacon" and this alone is the metric by
>pn> which they judge and elect them.
>
>  You're half-right. Too many voters want the bacon, but without the pork or
>  the *associated costs*. That's why people can say "Yes, I want national
>  health insurance, and a strong defense, and welfare for the poor, and a
>  secure SS program, &c, but go to hell if you expect me to pay more taxes!"

  I wasn't trying to leave that part out of the issue; I just took it for
  granted that this was understood (that the nobody wants to pay for these
  things).   


---peter


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:16:11 GMT

mp> Michael Polen
gs> Gary Strand

gs> So far, I've said nothing that isn't obvious, yet somehow, people are 
gs> reacting like I've said something controversial. Why?

mp> Because we all believe that even if your statements about the political
mp> leanings of those that control Hollywood are true, if their approach to 
mp> news and shows where out of the main-stream, people would stop watching.

  Like I pointed out to Peter Nelson, the body politic and those who watch TV
  on a regular basis (and get a lot of their information from it) are not ne-
  cessarily exactly the same group of people. In any case, people have, to an
  extent, stopped watching the Big Three networks, not so much from the po-
  litical viewpoints presented, but because there are other choices readily
  available.

mp> What is controversial is your assertion that their political positions
mp> have any influence,

  Does anyone else recall Meryl Streep testifying before Congress on the dan-
  gers of Alar, or Sissy Spacek testifying about some farm bill? Or the large
  number of well-known Hollywood types who attended a Clinton fundraiser? In
  fact, at that fundraiser, CNN asked Chevy Chase what the meaning of it was,
  and he pulled out a big wad o' bills. Since we already know that Hollywood
  actors, actresses, producers and directors are disproportionaly liberal,
  and are (by and large) among the wealthier Americans, their activities and
  choices of individuals to support do influence the American political pro-
  cess. Same as with all groups of wealthier-than-average people. I don't 
  understand what's so controversial about that. Perhaps liberals like to
  believe that only the conservatives have rich little political clubs, but
  that simply isn't so.

mp> or that their work is out of the main-stream.

  Quite frankly, I really don't care what's on TV, for the most part. This
  whole mess of "family values" tripe coming from the Bush campaign is just
  another irritant to me. In any case, a goodly portion of values presented
  on TV are not in agreement with my own, but that's about all I'll do about
  it, just mention it.

mp> Your assertions are rhetoric intended to divide, not reality intended to
mp> educate or communicate.

  In your *opinion*. Why do you feel the need to maginalize those who point
  out the obvious political bias in Hollywood? 


--
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: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:52:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.172444.27444@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>Ontario and British Columbia are the first and second-largest English
>speaking provinces, comprising ~40% of our population and both having
>New Democratic admistrations.  The B.C. government is waging a political
>dispute with B.C. doctors over their fee schedule by introducing a cap.
>If you paid attention to my FAQ, Canadian doctors are private and paid
>by fee according to a schedule that their guild (College of Physicians
>and Surgeons, effectively provincial arms of the CMA (AMA)) negotiates
>with the public health insurance office -- it is usually a rubber stamp
>process.
>
>What Ken means is that the voting public will determine whether they
>will support the NDP for a second term after they make such a move to
>true socialized medicine (right now, everything is market except for
>basic medical coverage) or whether a more moderate party will take
>over.  As further historical background, B.C. used to be polarized in
>an extreme way such that provincial wings of the federal moderate
>parties (Liberals and Progressive Conservatives) were ineffective
>because their extreme right-wingers joined in a provincial coalition
>called Social Credit while the party moderates were involved solely in
>federal issues.  It was not much of a choice between them and the NDP
>as the few provincial Liberals and Progressive Conservatives always
>managed to neutralize each other, until the Socreds finally imploded
>in scandal to give the NDP a deserved victory.  The happy news is that
>the B.C. Liberals (Churchill/Ashdown) emerged to head the Opposition
>in provincial parliament and would remove this heineous salary cap if
>the NDP ever actually imposes it (I think it's a bluff), by winning
>the next election.
>

The problem in BC, as I understand it, is that the government went
back on a collectively negotiated fee schedule, and unilaterally
imposed a percentage clawback after so many thousands of dollars
of billings, and unilaterally imposed an overall ceiling on billings...
in Ontario, the doctors and the government have collectively agreed
to similar procedures...

It is funny to see a pro-"labour" NDP government in BC bargain in such bad
faith...if the Tories or Liberals had done such a thing to one of
the civil service unions, the NDP would typically be outraged.

Gerald

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42267 alt.politics.elections:11718 alt.politics.clinton:3208 alt.politics.bush:3146
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Taxing capital gains (was: why progressive tax rates)
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:03:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Aug26.175435.20270@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com sez:

> Finally, capital gains taxes today tax imaginary (inflated)
>gains which makes it often confiscatory, and capital losses cannot
>be used to offset the gains in a reasonable manner.

I don't intend to start a flamefest, but there's one thing about this
argument that puzzles me.  What makes capital gains so different from
any other sort of income in this respect?

Here's the hypo: take two investments with identical returns, the only
difference being that A spins out annual dividends and B appreciates.
Calculate the value of each at the end of X years, being sure to apply
tax annually to A while taxing B exactly once (in year X).  Result:
you wind up with more dollars via B than with A.  (Obviously, if you
invested in A, your dollars would be just as deflated as if you'd
stuck them in B.)

Note that I am not asserting that there are no *policy* arguments in
favor of capital gains.  (I'm sure we could spend all day talking
about why it's good to encourage one form of savings/investment over
another.)  Rather, I'm questioning the oft-repeated mathematical
argument that capital gains recipients get the shaft because of
inflation. 

Reasoned rebuttal welcome.  True Believer flames ignored.

-- 
Morally and artistically, Henry Miller had MORE right to free speech than
Walt Disney and [Father] Coughlin because Miller was an honest man whereas
Disney and Coughlin were liars.   - Ed Nilges
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:02:23 GMT

In article <Btyxz8.JAB@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>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?

There are a fair number of details in Susan Faludi's _Backlash_.  She
notes that women with a college diploma earn 59 cents for every dollar
a man earns.

"The pay gap was also getting worse in many occupations, from social
work to screenwriting to real estate management, as US Labor Dept data
detail.  By 1989, the pay gap for women in all full-time managerial
jobs was growing worse again; that year, while the average male
manager enjoyed a four-percent income boost, his average female
counterpart received none.  And the gap was widening most in the very
fields where female employment was growing most...  In public
relations, where women doubled their ranks in the decade, the pay gap
grew so massively that communications professor Elizabeth Lance Toth,
who tracks women's status in this profession, reported, 'In a
forty-year career, a women will lose $1 million on gender alone.'"
(p.364f)

The majority of the pay gap can still be accounted for by the fact
that women tend to be relegated to the secretarial pool instead of
high-pay, high-skill type jobs, but there is still a dispartiy withing
various fields.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:10:39 GMT

perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.192057.29754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.200824.9011@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU 
>>(Eric S. Perlman) asserts:
>>>And E. Jerusalem is *not* occupied territory. 
>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Really? Just because you say so?  For the umpteen time, point of fact is that 
>>the UN and virtually the entire world, excluding the Israeli government and 
>>Perlman (as usual, of course), believe otherwise.   Iraq too claimed that 
>>"Kuwait was *not* occupied territory," but the world didn't seem to 
>>agree with such assertion either.

>The comparison between Kuwait and E. Jerusalem is inapplicable.  Kuwait
>was gained in a war of conquest, E. Jerusalem in a war of defense only.
>Further, let's remember the writings of both Lord Ambassador Caradon and
>Ambassador Goldberg (GB and US respectively), who have written that
>border changes are quite legal under 242, and Goldberg has in fact
>written that 242 was never meant to apply to Jerusalem.  What we're

If Goldberg wrote that, he is an out-and-out liar.  As for Caradon,
nothing I have seen of his writings could in a fit be regarded as
sanctioning the annexation of Jerusalem.

>242 contains a sentence that reaffirms the inadmissibility of border
>changes by force - but both Caradon and Goldberg have commented that
>this refers directly to land gained by conquest not in self-defense.

Given that Caradon himself sought to have the word "the" inserted
before "territories", this is rather lame.

>     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 

Brendan.
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: 25 Aug 1992 22:41:15 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: na
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <4734@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> |Thank you Emil, for explaining that all of your opinions about sex, family,
|> |and abortion are based in your southern baptist religion.  How about
|> |letting some of the rest of us live by the opinions of our religions?
|> 	The only opinions written that I KNOW are based on the
|> congregation I used to attend is written in #3. Number 1 is not a
|> religious statement at all. #2 is my understanding of how marriage is
|> perceived by society, again not religious.
|> 	The Southern Baptists are also quite split, if you didn't
|> already know, between moderates and fundamentalists. I've had one pastor
|> from each camp preach sermons to me back home. We have a doctrine as
|> other religions are also based on their own; what it is, you'll have to
|> look it up in the World Almanac.
|> 	Of course, in some Southern Baptist Churches, dancing and
|> drinking are absolute sins too. If they knew I'd been learning the
|> lambada in the den of the Blue Devils... :)
|> 	I offered my religious opinions to invoke a discussion and a
|> debate, to demonstrate the opinions of others who I know well; I did
|> mention "at least in my church" and "according to my pastor." I am
|> interested to know how "your" religion differs from "my" religion on
|> that last point.
|> 
I am an athiest.  That means that I think that the Bible is a cute
collection of stories, that religion is a crutch people use to avoid
having to take responsibility for their own lives, and that God is
a fiction that prevents people from having to deal with their won
strengths and weaknesses.

As an athiest, I believe in the intent of the golden rule, in the worth
of the individual, and in the importance of getting along as a society.
I view the only real impact of religion as creating differences among
us that prevent us from accomplishing the last item.  Their is nothing
so interesting as the intolerance of those who teach tolerance, the 
hipocracy of those that profess morality, and the claim that any "member
of my religion that is found trespassing isn't really a good member of
my religion."

On the other hand, I hold an open mind on the ability of members of
any religion to join with me in this society.  Kind of like the golden
rule.  You don't want to have to live by all of my standards, and I
don't want to have to live by all of yours.  The difference between 
me and most of the religious, is that they don't accept my right to
live by my standards.
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:08:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Since the many complaints about the subject I have decided to 
accede to the demands that _nothing_ be discussed except bicycles.

Bicycle: The standard of living for people certainly isn't for
_you to determine the level of. Bicycling: social programs that
are designed to tilt the economy towards what one individual or
group believes is good for everyone else is nothing but dictatorship.

Bicycle: to ignore the many decades of proof that the Congress is
incapable of self control related to taxes and to suggest that
any intelligent planning visa vi taxes could take place is pure
fantasy. Bicycle: taxes will either increase or stay level for
a time. Bicycle: any additional change in the tax law will, with
historic proof of _long standing_, increase taxes without any
corresponding change in services to the general community and will 
typically be used to fund special interest groups and pork barrel
projects that are contrary to the public welfare at large.

This entire string was inititated by the call by
members of rec.bicycling that the tax structure be changed to 
give a tax advantage to themselves because they ride bicycles.
They perceive the internal combustion engine to offer additional
costs to them that they do not feel offset by it's advantages, and
all because they are bicyclists.

Since bicycles or bicycling was mentioned in every single
sentence I hope this will stop every comment from suggesting
that any conversation not using the term in every single sentence
be moved to another conference.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: Nazis: Radicals or Conservatives? (was Re: On having a mixed ...)
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 22:16:28 GMT

Dude!  They were radically conservative!

Norm
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Intellectuals and totalitarianism (was Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:49:33 GMT

dq> Doug Quarnstrom
gs> Gary Strand

gs> Sometimes I think your average blue-collar Joe Steelworker has more sense
gs> and wisdom than all the lefty intellectuals infesting academia and the
gs> "elite".

dq> Of course, to some degree, this smacks of an intellectual condescending to
dq> admire those 'beneath' him. The noble savage and all that....

  Well, I'd rather be admired/respected by my "betters" for patronizing rea-
  sons rather than thought of as an idiot who needs to be told when to blow
  his nose and wipe his butt, the attitude I've found most prevalent among
  leftists/academic elites. Do I really need a law to tell me to wear a
  seat belt when I drive? Come on!

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41749 alt.politics.elections:11483 alt.politics.clinton:2910 alt.politics.bush:2790