HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 18 Aug 1992 23:17:27 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug18.213218.5943@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug18.193051.10298@cs.cornell.edu> allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
|> >If we are interested in investment, it seems that long-term investment
|> >is the most likely to be useful and something like the above would
|> >encourage lengthy investment over short-term investment.
|> 
|> It's unclear that there's a useful distinction, especially wrt one
|> of the most common investments, namely stock.  Suppose Allan and
|> I both buy 100 shares of Disney but I sell mine to my sister
|> at some point in time.  Why does it make sense to tax me and
|> my sister differently than Allan?  Our investment really isn't
|> any different.
|> 
|> Also, some projects don't take much time.  Consider investing in a
|> house to fix up and sell.  Is that investment really more socially
|> valuable if I take six years to do it than if I take six weeks, or
|> even six days?  Why should I be taxed differently?  (While there's a
|> lot I can do in six days, there's not much I can do in six hours, but
|> is there really any greater social utility involved with letting it
|> sit a while so that I get the six-day investment tax rate?)
|> 
|> This whole "long-term vs short-term" discussion seems to be about
|> abstract investments.  If kicking money into a real project for a few
|> days results in a significant increase in value, why should that
|> investment be taxed differently than one into a project that has
|> slower return?  What real investments underly this discussion?
|> 
If the purpose of the investment tax credit is to create jobs, then
your fixing up the house doesn't sovle any problems for the economy
at all (maybe your economy, but no one elses).  My understanding of
an investment tax credit is that is only applicable to investments
in a business with long term holding and long term depreciation. 
Houses should not be included, as they are not a business.

If you are discussing capital gains taxes, the purpose of having
a minimum holding time was to withhold a tax reward for short term
speculation -- same reason as for the tax credit.  Your example
of selling to your sister seems to give the impression that the
sale is different than if you buy a stock and sell it 1 day later
because the value went up.  There is no difference, and you have
not invested *your* money in the creation of jobs.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39761 talk.abortion:31751 alt.politics.bush:1610
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Holtsinger: clumsy liar
Date: 14 Aug 1992 20:34:50 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

C.J. Silverio) writes:
|> 
|> ||HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee Monday
|> ||overwhelmingly passed a plank calling for the adoption of a
|> ||constitutional amendment banning all abortions.
|> ||    The subcommittee on individual rights, good homes and safe streets
|> ||voted 17-3 to approve the plank, which is essentially the same as the
|> ||anti-abortion planks contained in the 1988 and 1984 platforms.
|> ||..
|> ||    Although the subcommittee included a few members supportive of the
|> ||Republicans for Choice, the majority endorsed President Bush's stance
|> ||against abortions.
|> |
	[much deleted ...]
|> 
|> ||I think you should apologize for accusing Ron of trying to pull a Doug.
|> |
|> |I think Mr. Echeverri should apologize for deceiving the net about
|> |President Bush's stance on abortion.  
|> 
|> He did no such thing.  He merely reposted part of a Clarinet
|> news article that we'd all seen.  Poor Holtsinger can't accept
|> reality.  Poor Holtsinger is vigorously denying that the
|> Republican Party holds the positions it does.  Poor Holtsinger--
|> reduced to hysterical accusations.  Denial so deep is pathetic
|> to watch, isn't it?
|> 
Actually, it's kind of fun.  The best part of the Bush campaign
is that they have nothing to say about Bush.
From: gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jason Woodward)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for Bush)
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:53:29 GMT
Organization: Politically Incorrect and Proud of It

In <1325@ceylon.gte.com> chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell) writes:

 >I admit to just jumping into this thread.  However, isn't it true that
 >NO known AIDS cases have been traced to legal prostitution?  That
 >seems to be a pretty strong arguement for legalization.

Doesn't the "right to privacy" of Roe v. Wade also apply to
prostitution?  Has this ever been brought before a Federal
court?


-- 
Jason Woodward | EE Graduate Student | Georgia Tech | Go Braves

Reason #461 to not vote for Bill Clinton: Justice Mario Cuomo
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41161 alt.politics.elections:11218 alt.politics.marrou:862
From: dwfraser@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Wally)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:40:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

>with that.  We should also pass out Libertarian pamphlets at rock
>concerts.  These are $5-$10 per 100 and can be orered  by calling
>(202) 543-1988.
>
>
 I'd like to add that I recently attended the Lollapalooza festival in
Saratoga (attendance in excess of 25,000) and the local LP (from Albany NY) was present handing out literature, collecting petition signatures (which I happily signed), and giving the world's smallest political quiz. The reaction seemed positive, and I'd imagine the festival was a large source of votes for the
petitioning requirement.


--
*******************************************************************
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent - Salvador Hardin
                        (Asimov's Foundation)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Family Values
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 03:59:38 GMT

In article <Bsy45t.7un@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.210641.9317@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>>I read an interesting editorial piece in the paper today.   It asserted
>>that 'family values' is a code word for the issue of women's role in
>>today's society.
>
>Reminds me of Reagan's campaigns, where I understood that "traditional 
>values" was a code word for pre-civil-rights "sensibilities".
>
>Scary, indeed.  
>Let's see...   abortion's a no-no, single motherhood (a la Murphy Brown) 
>is a no-no"....
>
>Can you say i_n_c_o_n_s_i_s_t_e_n_t ?  I knew you could. 

While travelling across Kansas recently, I came across a radio station
(107.7fm) which was doing "Focus On The Family".  Their definition of
"Traditional Family Values" is, and I quote...

"Hetrosexual Men And Women Getting Married And Having Children".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:41:03 GMT

In article <11690@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <93268@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <11652@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #The argument advanced for antidiscrimination laws to protect homosexuals
># #is that they can't get decent jobs because of prejudice by employers.
># #Yet the evidence above suggests that there must be a lot of EXTREMELY
># #well-paid gay dishwashers.
># 
># You're still saying, "shut up, because you make more money than the
># rest of us", as if everything would be hunky-dory...
>
>No, I'm saying that the case for antidiscrimination laws is made
>based on supposed large scale discrimination against homosexuals.
>I would expect to see evidence of this discrimination in lower
>wages, wouldn't you?
>

The point that you are _deliberately_ ignoring is the fact that _only_
the higher paid, successful homosexuals can afford to come out, and
admit that they are gay. If you could perform an accurate study, where
all of the homosexuals who aren't out were counted as homosexuals,
you'd get very different results.

But in the current social climate, you can't accurately study the
affect of homosexual discrimination on wages, because the social bias
skews the numbers... the social bias pushes homosexuals to _not_ admit
their sexuality, _unless_ they are members of certain professional
communities which tend to earn more than the average person.

	<MC>

-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"In all seriousness of truth, hear this:
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| without the It, one cannot live. But
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || whoever lives with It alone is not
|| carroll@udel.edu             || human" - _I_and_Thou_, by Martin Buber
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Defending Reaganomics?
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:22:55 GMT

Hello.  I've read opinions from various Republicans at the convention in
the newspaper and something that keeps coming up is Bush's supposed
abandonment of Reagan's economic platform.  These Republicans believe
that if Bush had stayed with Reagan's plan, we wouldn't be in the economic
situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
   insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.
2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a 
monumental deficit in the 90's.

Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?

dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 01:19:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.213828.9337@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>
>Can the Gov't force a woman to raise her child in a certain manner?
>
Certainly, this happens today - they pass out condoms at school as one
example of this.  Seriously, there are limits on behavior wherein the
government will take a child from a parent if they aren't raising the
child properly.
>
>Can the Gov't force a woman to get an adoption?
>
>Can the Gov't punish a woman for being unable to care for a child?
>
>Can the Gov't force a woman to have a child?
>
These three would carry more force if you could state that the government
forces her to have sex.  The liberal concept of rights without duties
is what you are defending.  I can do whatever I want and if I get in 
difficulty, the government will take responsibility.  

>Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
>
This is a supposition and not a fact.

>Can the Federal Gov't allow State Gov'ts to infringe upon Constitutional
>rights?
>
Hmmm, this is like saying, "are you for or against clean water"

>Can the Gov't selectively enforce Laws?
>
I hope not.

>How do you force the Executive to do its duty, to protect and uphold the
>Constitution?
>
The Judiciary.


Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:56:10 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bsy8DI.4xG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
> I really was speaking from the viewpoint
> that most of us in this society hold.  I think most of us are willing to
> make this assumption as in rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness.  Please note that the right to liberty or the pursuit of
> happiness are contingent on the right to life.  The right to life,
> though, is not dependent on liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  They
> modify the right to life.  All three have been described as inalienable.
> But from a logical standpoint the right to life must take precedence and
> always has in this society.  Note that depriving someone of life can get
> you the death penalty

Note that the right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over the right
to life.  E.g., killing a rapist will not get you charged.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Were Nazis socialist? (Was Re: Anti-religious fanatics )
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:11:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.190539.20845@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com  
(Steve Hendricks) writes:
> In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug17180945@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)  
writes:
[stuff deleted]
> 
> >
> >	However, let's continue in this direction: socialism, as
> >	religion, has killed more than all previous religious
> >	crusades.
> >
> >	* The 1920's purges of "kulaks" in the USSR
> >	* The 1930's purge of the Communist Party of the USSR
> >	* The 1930's purge of Communists by the NSDAP in Germany
> >	* The 1930's purge of the Army in the USSR
> >	* War in Europe from 1939 to 1945, instigated by Socialists,
> >	  continued by Socialists.
> 
> Now this is interesting.  It should be noted that "socialism" as
> practiced by the CPSU (Communist Party, Soviet Union) has never been
> the sole example of international socialism.  In fact, much of the 
> international socialist movement has consistently rejected the practices
> Of the CPSU.  You obviously have little understanding of the political
> conflicts that have characterized the international socialist movement
> since the early 19th century.  Suffice to say that most western 
> democracies have included both "socialist" and "communist" parties 
> since at least the late 19th century and that the two groups have 
> rarely been allies.
> 
> Even worse, to lump the Nazis in as examples of socialists simply because
> it was appropriated by the NSDAP as part of the name indicates a woeful
> ignorance of European history. 

This view of European history is shared by a number of people including the  
late Friedrich Hayek (_The Road to Serfdom_) and Paul Johnson (_Modern Times_).   
It is possible that you wish to dismiss the consistent application of  
authoritarianism that acompanies socialism.  By socialism's nature, people will  
not follow an agenda for the "public good" unless they are forced to.  The more  
you believe people must follow the "public good", the more force will be  
necessary.  And usually, the public good is determined by some very small group  
of *people* (using the term politely :)).

Note that Hitler professed that ridding Germany of Jews was for the public  
good, and he was able to get away with it in part because of the tremendous  
public jealousy and hatred towards Jews because of their financial success  
(even though they were heavily discriminated against).  Hitler wanted to rid  
the country of Jews and plunder their wealth.  This is different from Clinton's  
current "tax the rich" theme only in degree, not in philosophy or politics.   
Both views are socialistic, just different degrees of force are required for  
each view.
 
> --
> Steve Hendricks

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 01:42:38 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug16.233652.13536@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu(Doug Holtsinger):
>The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>spending.  

Omigod!  If that happened we might have a recession and the budget deficit
could end up being the worst we've ever had!!  We might end up with riots
in the streets and a mass exodus of american businesses to foriegn soil!!

Oh, you mean that's already happening?  Then what are you worried about?


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'll do anything to be re-elected
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:51:40 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <Aug.14.12.14.39.1992.21786@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
}If he's willing to do anything to be reelected, let me put forward a
}new idea:
}
}CUT THE DAMNED DEFICIT!

Hmmmm.  Didn't Clinton say the same thing, but to GET elected instead of
REelected?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:43:14 GMT

In article <11723@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
>If you [Claytoon] made a similiar statement about blacks based on the same
>evidence I would say you are a racist.  Since you instead
>made the statement about homosexuals what should I deduce
>about your thought processes?
            ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

We all appreciate your tact, Dave, but I really think you're
being overly generous.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40295 ca.politics:6886
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:10:40 GMT

I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 15:00:58 EDT

silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
> >You are the partisan whiner. Fitch's concern *is* general. What
> >are the 'good liberals' doing that compares to Jesse Helms' attempts
> >to police the National Endowment for the Arts?
> >
> >
> 	Mr. Fitch worded his concerns in a general manner, using 
> largely bias-free language. His postings are invariably characterized
> by bias-free language and they commonly take the high ground in terms
> of method and tone; you will never see him opening a post with an
> attack that could be construed as personal, for instance. Nonetheless,
> his _pattern_ of posting is far from bias-free, and the particular post
> which kicked off this thread was _intrinsically_ partisan in nature. 
> 	In the 5-6 months that I've been tapping into s.c.usa, I have
> never seen him direct a posting toward the myriad idiocies and wrongful
> acts committed by groups and individuals who hover on the hazy left side
> of America's political/social spectrum. It is this _pattern_ of omission,
> I suspect, which prompted Andy Freeman to call Fitch a partisan whiner.
> 	Mr. Fitch is not a whiner. He is definitely partisan, and, as
> Freeman indicated, he does commonly cloak this partisanism or bias with
> a false display of even-handedness in language. His posts, actually, are
> commonly even-handed, if taken alone. His pattern of posting is definitely
> _not_ even-handed.
Try Again.  The above example isa government office engaging in biased 
funding as a matter of policy applied legally.  In your example they were 
peopl engaging in frankly illegal acts.
A right wing equivalent would be abortion clinic bombers.

 This is from
     bmb@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40935 talk.politics.drugs:5904
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: United States Condones kidnapping
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:54:55 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

A NJ Grand Jury has indicted Pablo Escobar (a Columbian citizen) for
being a conspirator in an airline bombing that occurred on a Columbian
airliner in Columbian airspace.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

The Drug War is a government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed,
full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths, wannabees and
gonnabees.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39156 alt.politics.elections:10351 talk.politics.theory:3628 alt.postmodern:2317