HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Date: 26 Aug 92 07:28:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug26.004122.19187@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <galluzjj.714782156@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>,
>galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck) writes:
@I have been working this summer as the Field Director for
@Jean T. White, one of only two women running for the US
@Senate in the country.

>Sorry James, but there are a lot more than two of use running for
>the the U.S.  Senate this year.  We have at least 4 in California
>alone (2 Dems, 1 Lib, 1 P&F) I also know of two more from Illinois
>and PA ans I'm sure I've missed some others.

	Well, I'm a Californian too, and I'm to vote on the two open
Senate seats of that state this November.

	I'm in a real dilemma regarding June Genis, because I
seriously dislike Bruce(?) Herschensohn, and I'm afraid of helping him
win by not voting for Barbara Boxer. He's right-wing on social issues
and I don't like that. Barbara Boxer is much better there :-)

	I get the impression that BB's main sin is that she
regards Government money as a credit card with no maximum and no
monthly payments (not that she is alone in this :-).

	I confess I have a lot of respect for JG's calling for no
extra spending without an equivalent reduction somewhere else or else
raising taxes to compensate. Something like proper use of one's credit
card :-).

	I guess that's the trouble with our political system. It
discriminates against third parties. I'm not sure what will change it
except a revolt against the two parties' leaderships and their desire
to keep their monopoly on politics. I wonder how many pols will become
fed up with having to coexist with ideological non-soulmates, as they
currently have to do. Just consider the divisions in the Democratic
and the Republican Parties; if multiple parties were allowed, the two
parties would fragment rather quickly.

	There are a number of routes for making opportunities for
multiple parties:

	Cross-endorsement, currently practiced in New York State. A
party can endorse a candidate from another party.

	Proportional representation, practiced in nearly all of the
rest of the democratic world. Parties would send in legislators in
proportion to how many votes they received.

	Runoff elections. The two top vote-getters would enter a
second election. If one's candidate loses the first time around, one
still has a choice of the lesser of two evils :-)

	Does the Libertarian Party have any position on these?

>/June
>Libertarian for U.S. Senate, California (full term)

	I don't know what to say. Some of the self-proclaimed
Libertarians on this net come off as obnoxious right-wingers.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:11:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch):
>You won't go to jail for owing the IRS one dollar.

Care to verify this assertion with the IRS?  I doubt they'll agree.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:11:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.144529.13477@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Look, this is silly.  There is no comparison between having IRS
>charge you $0.60 per year, or whatever it is, and having the
>government break in your house and send you to jail for years,
>except in the most tortured formalism.

Well, if you think there's a difference, what's the difference?

What do you think _happens_ to you if you don't pay the IRS the $0.60 per year?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: nope
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:18:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.042931.25574@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>This whole discussion has become so bogged down in partial parallels that
>it has become impossibe to decipher what position anyone is taking, other than
>the obvious conservative vs. liberal breakdown.

Wrong.

>To get this clear in my own head, I have to start over again.

When starting over, it's always a good idea to start from some place
that makes sense.  I'm not a conservative.  I'm not making a
conservative argument.  Starting over and assuming otherwise is a
waste of time.

I'm pointing out that "liberals" have adopted behaviors that they
claim are the worst aspects of conservativism.  That isn't a
"conservative" view unless your politics are "if you're not for us,
you're against us".  (That also supports the "liberals are a lot like
conservatives, in mostly the wrong ways" argument.)

"liberals" whine about red-baiting, but engage in Nazi-baiting.  They
whine about using govt to force culture, but not when their culture is
involved.  We see this sort of thing all the time; I'm just pointing
out an example.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42100 talk.politics.theory:3878 alt.politics.elections:11641 alt.politics.marrou:921 alt.politics.bush:3027
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:55:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link

In article <1992Aug26.010643.14418@s1.gov>,
 lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.160002.13154@kadsma.kodak.com>,
 pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>In article <37209@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>,
 cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>>>... A company which consistently lies about its 
>>>products will not be in business very long.
>
>>>				Brad Cote'
>
>>That is the hope, anyway.
>
>>As a mild counter-example, take a look at the persistent difficulty in
>>finding honest, effective auto-repair shops. This has been a problem
>>since the automobile came on the scene, and even in this regulated age
>>is still a problem.

What difficulty?  My experience over the last 15+ years has been that
auto repair people are neither less nor more honest than the
population at large.  As for regulations, they are completely
irrelevant to the question of 'honesty'.  Yes, there is incompetence
in auto repair, yes there is deception, but neither is as rampant as
popular myth would have us believe.  It simply can't be, people tell
eachother about the bad shops and they eventually either go out of
business or end up in court (or both).

I am not an auto mechanic (not even qualified to be one!) and have no
particular reason to defend them.  But I worked in TV and electronics
repair 17 years ago, which has a similar reputation, and can say with
certainty that it's mostly undeserved; that plus my mostly positive
experiences with auto mechanics (yes, I could recount a few horror
stories if I wanted to) lead me to conclude that the reputation is
equally undeserved.

--
 Robert Bickford      "A Hacker is any person who derives joy from
 rab@well.sf.ca.us    discovering ways to circumvent limitations." rab'86
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I recognize that a class of criminals and juvenile delinquents has
taken to calling themselves 'hackers', but I consider them irrelevant
to the true meaning of the word; just as the Mafia calls themselves
'businessmen' but nobody pays that fact any attention."            rab'90
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug23001306@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Aug25.220742.23291@bony1.bony.com>
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:54:33

In article <1992Aug25.220742.23291@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>  [about Israeli confiscation of "Arab" land]
>   I've read about it, too.  One problem among Arabs is that land
>   ownership is often not documented on paper.  Claims are often based 
>   on cries of "But we've ALWAYS owned it!".  There are plenty of 
>   "Arab" houses in Jerusalem and Hebron that still have Jewish Mezuza
>   slots carved into the stone doorposts, attesting to their Jewish 
>   ownership before the Jews were driven out and slaughtered in 1948.
>   And the Arabs there still cry "But it's ALWAYS been our home.  You are
>   stealing our homes!".  And the media just laps it up.

Indeed, the Palestinian Arabs often do not have enough paperwork to
prove to the present Israeli authorities that they legally own the
land that they farm.  The Israelis then deduce that the Palestinians
don't own the land, and that it belongs to Israel.  Tell me, Jake, can
you prove that the money in your pocket is yours?  If not, then hand
it over.

As for the mezuzas, yes, they seem to indicate that the houses were
once occupied by Jews, and that the Arab claim that they "always"
lived there is wrong.  Yet mezuzas do not constitute legal claim to
the property.  It is hypocritical to demand full legal paperwork from
the Arabs, and accept a hole in the wall from the Jews.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42295 alt.politics.bush:3158
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: Christian Coalition
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:06:44 GMT
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <BtLK25.DBw@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>This now from Bush's "coalition partners":
>
>Feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
>The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement
>that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children,
>practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

Isn't this coming from the same people who claimed Hillary Clinton was a
"radical feminist" ? Seems that she didn't practice much of what she is
supposed to preach :-)

Matthias
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43553 talk.abortion:34770
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:28:33 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep1.163020.15993@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.113718.27807@cs.ruu.nl> 
> rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg) writes:
> 
>> A baby is (technically speaking) a parasite on the mother.
>> And since it's connected to the mother, an extension of her (it is part of 
>> her, feeds "off" her, and generally acts as a parasite or other non-functional
>> appendage.
> 
> By this reasoning, a newborn baby sucking on its mother's breast is 
> (technically speaking) a parasite on the mother.  

But I imagine the mother willingly put the baby in that position.
Otherwise, she could give it formula (assuming she could afford it
(also assuming she cared)).  Right?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: yahnke@macc.wisc.edu (Ross Yahnke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Can you flesh out this Nixon quote?
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:06:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center

Can anyone finish and correct this quote from Nixon, made in his farewell
to White House staffers when he resigned?

People may hate you, but if they hate you they don't win, unless you hate
them back....

Thanks! - Ross
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41909 alt.activism:15434 misc.headlines:5952 sci.econ:7145
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment (was Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution)
Date: 26 Aug 92 03:51:38 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Aug25.210555.3635@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.165333.23470@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>
>>The U.S. is the lowest taxed developed nation.  Tax decreases, especially
>>capital gains tax decreases, can spur speculation that neither creates
>>jobs nor utility.  
>
>I challenge this assertion that the US is the lowest taxed developed
>nation. Unlike centralized governments in other countries, the US tax
>burden is distributed among local, state and federal levels. Many different
>kinds of taxes are involved, from personal and corporate income taxes, SS 
>taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes (real and intangible), etc, 
>etc, etc. When all these are summed, I don't think the US will be the lowest 
>taxed industrial nation. According to the Taxpayer's Union, over 3/4 of
>all income winds up as taxes.
>
>Gary

If 3/4 of your income is paid in taxes, you need a new accountant.  Income
taxes are higher in Europe.  Value added taxes more than make up for
sales taxes.  The big unknown to me is what comparison they have to
property taxes?  Anyone else know?
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: budnick@cc.utah.edu
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:18:06 MDT

Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:

> Everyone says that they want to reconstruct the welfare system.  Also,
> everyone complains about all there is to do and no one seems to be doing
> it.  Well, I have an idea.
> 
> Being a student in college, I am very familiar with all types of financial
> aid.  

*All* types of financial aid, or do you mean all types of *student* financial
aid?

> One type of financial aid is call a Work Study Grant.  Basically the
> way it works is that I find a work-study eligable job and the Goverent then
> pays a very significant percentage of my pay check.  

This sounds too good to be true!  Why don't all employers and employees get 
to do this?  Hey, wait a minute....where does the government get all this 
money to give away?  Hmmm.

>I get a great job (the
> only real good jobs (unless you get lucky) are work-study ones) and my
> employer gets a cheap employee.  It's a win-win situation.

I'm not sure how I'm winning in this situation.  

> Now, my idea for the welfare system would be very similiar to the way work
> study works.
> 
> If you're on welfare and can work, you must work in order to receive your
> welfare check.  I would suggest that only non-profit businesses (maybe?) or
> volunteer organizations be allowing to hire people on welfare.  There is
> typically no limit to the number of people these types of organizations can
> use to do what ever they do, also, they are better able to work with
> bizaare schedules, children, etc...  The welfare check would basically
> serve as that persons paycheck.
> 
> What do you think?  I am not sure how well I explained it
> here...

Sarcasm aside, if the government is involved with the administration of 
welfare programs (obviously it is today, but may not always be...), then
it is certainly necessary to provide incentive for recipients to voluntarily
withdraw at some point in the future.  

Peter budnick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:50:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <galluzjj.714782156@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck) writes:
...
>After hearing the speeches,  I have decided to stick with
>my Republican beliefs.  I was raised in the Great State of
>New Hampshire with the belief of family, lower taxes and a
>strong feeling against big government.  It is with this that
>I endorse George Herbert Walker Bush for another four years
>as President of the United States ...

    If you extend your political education beyond hearing
    speeches, you may discover that under GHWB both goverment
    spending and regulatory burden have exploded.  In fact,
    during the last 3.5 years, the size of the goverment has 
    been increasing faster than under any other US President 
    since FDR.



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: M23231@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:10:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.161428.2901@anasazi.com>
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
 
>
>Keywords:
>
>In article <1992Aug20.194135.14255@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>]John, I agree that the situation with capital gains taxes seems unfair
>]and needs to be fixed somehow. However, the fairness issue inplies that
>]those who are wealthy enough to not work but live off investments, do
>]not pay a small tax rate than those who must work. Index the capital
>]gains tax for inflation if you like, but don't give some stock
>]speculator a break that I, a working person, can't get because I can't
>]take all of my income as capital gains.
>
>You imply that those who make their living by investing (speculating is
>too strong a word) in stocks are not working. Do you know any of these
>people? I know several, and they are the hardest working people I know.
>They are working in the information industry: they are allocating capital
>in our economy based on profit potential. I see nothing wrong with
>rewarding these people for their labors, because the work they do is
>as important as the work that you or I do.>
*************
Excuse me, but what does their activity add to the gross domestic product? It
seems to me that the main motivation that drives these people to *work* so
hard is a mixture of greed and fear--hardly a cause for a pat on the back for
a great contribution to American life or a commitment to a strong work ethic.
They may provide working capital which lubricates the economic engine, but it
is *not* done as a public service, so why do they deserve a *reward* in excess
of that offered to the poor laborer for his sweat?
******************
>Sure, there are some leeches in this, but there are leeches at all levels.
>
>We have, however, made the incentives under which these people operate somewhat
>perverse.  The combination of a tax that doesn't discriminate between
>ordinary income, short term gains and long term gains with a lack
>of indexation for inflation creates a strong bias towards short term
>investment in service industries (read: low capital investment and low
>wages).
>
>--
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
>       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
> - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
From: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Keywords: Endorse Bush US Senate female Pro-Choice
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:59:51 GMT
Reply-To: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <galluzjj.714782156@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck) writes:
>After hearing the speeches,  I have decided to stick with
>my Republican beliefs.  I was raised in the Great State of
>New Hampshire with the belief of family, lower taxes and a
>strong feeling against big government.  It is with this that
>I endorse George Herbert Walker Bush for another four years
>as President of the United States and J. Danforth Quayle as
>the Vice-President.
>

You're for lower taxes and against big government and your going to support 
Bush?  Where is the logic in that? 

>I urge all undecided voters to vote for the President and
>to make the tough change -- vote out Congress!  

Both branches of government need a change. There is plenty of blame to go
around.

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,ba.politics,ca.politics,alt.elections
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:58:56 GMT

[Bush]
>>>was expected to slam Slick Willie by bringing up a bunch of rapists
>>>whose life sentences he commuted.
>>
>>>So hey, folks, does anyone know what the deal is?
>>
>>Sure, it's another example of the kinder, gentler nation that 
>>George "pro-LIFE" Bush has in mind.
>>

>     Between this and the constant predictions that George Bush will attack
>Iraq again solely to boost his campaign, I have never seen anybody blasted
>more often based on what people *predict* will do.

I will grant you that this speculation is premature. Until he does slam
Clinton for it, I guess I shouldn't say anything. Since he hasn't done
much of anything resembling a domestic policy, predicting what he may do
is the only way to keep people interested. 1/2 8^)

Nevertheless, Bush DID once say that he would "do anything to get re-elected".
He and other GOP's apparently couldn't find enough on Bill Clinton so they
had to bash his wife. How pathetic is that? Her professional opinions are
certainly up for scrutiny but not in the context of Bill vs George. Bush
has no domestic vision. HIs foreign policy is certainly his strong suit
but even that has shown no vision. Just dealing with individual things with
no moral consistency (like giving Most Favored Nation status to the human-rights
violator, China. But I do admit that Congress was just a stupid for passing 
it)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL				"READ MY LIPS -- NO NEW IDEAS."
CLARKSON '95	     			  ---George Bush's apparent motto	
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
 
What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?
VOTE FOR FAMILY VALUES ACTION, NOT TALK. CLINTON IN '92

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43135 alt.politics.elections:12107 alt.politics.clinton:3703 alt.politics.marrou:971 alt.politics.bush:3717