HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton at Drew University
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:44:37 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:38:00 EST <JCOCURUL@DREW> said:
>    Someone said that the cosponsper of the tax plan set out by Sam
>Nunn was Dennis Deconcini.  Jamie said the other guy was a Republican.
>Dennis is a Democrat, so someone's wrong here.  A sizable post that
>examines the plan in some detail would be helpful.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, too, thought it was Deconcini and mentioned it to Jamie off-line.
I do know the 2nd party was a GOP member and was from New Mexico.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:40:17 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: We, The Persons
              4 Oct 1992 18:52:07 GMT from <larry@DUCKTALES.MED.GE.COM>

From:         Larry Landwehr <larry@DUCKTALES.MED.GE.COM>

>                          We, The Persons

>                          Larry Landwehr
>                          Copyright 1992

Are you sure it isn't "Copyright 1929 ?"     :-)

> At the same time many words that used to be perfectly acceptable
> have fallen into disfavor or have been banned from public speech.
> Such words and phrases as "divorcee", "indian", "unwed mother",
> "lesbian", "Negro", "stewardess", "meter maid", and "waitress" are
> no longer used in public speech.  These words are "sexist",
> "intolerant", "bigoted", "racist", "biased" and they show "cultural
> insensitivity" to boot.  Now we are forced to use the words "native
> american", "single mother", "sexual orientation", "african-
> american", "flight attendant", and "server".  People no longer
> receive welfare, they receive "public assistance" or are
> "recipients" or "clients" of "entitlements".

> Many of the old words had negative connotations.  The new words do
> not.  The reason many of the old words had negative connotations
> was because the behavior associated with them was behavior that the
> majority of the public did not like.  People did not like divorce,
> homosexuality, unwed mothers, and people who would not work.  These
> activities and conditions were not looked upon favorably.  They
> were not in the "public good".

You got the key phrase correct, "...*had* negative connotations."
The problem is that we are moving (ever slowly) towards the point
that most of these behaviors don't have negative connotations and
I for one I am pleased about it.  So you are saying many years
ago these behaviors *had* negative connotations, well, today behaviors
that assign negative connotations to "single mothers" themselves
have negative connotations.  Fair is fair.

Now at this point I usually recommend a nice country in which
unwed mothers, lesbians, divorcee (of course the woman only), etc.
still have negative connotations.  Need directions?    :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:47:48 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: HR 1674
              28 Sep 1992 18:45:20 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

MacPhil:  You need to read "The Puzzle Palace."

*Then* ask me again about the NSA.

BTW, we had a career roundtable here one time, and one of the tables
was NSA.  There were two people there, at one table, which had nothing
on it but a sign that said "National Security Agency."  They were
taking names of people who might be interested in working for them.
I asked if they had any literature about what they did or describing
the agency.

They said no.  It was very weird.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:34:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      U.S Military Intervention

Greetings,]
I need some asssistance on the debate the following resoulution:
That U.S Military Intervention in the Internal Affairs of toerh Countries is
Justified.
I must take the affirmative role, that Intervention is justifiied and the
negative role, that Intervention is unjustified.  I would like to ask the
list what their opinion is on   the resolution: IS it justified that the U.S
deploy troops into a foreign country to solve their internal affairs? Does
the U.S have this right to militarily intervene? What are some historical
examples which might prove that a) intervention was justified and b)intervention
was unjustified?

What type of value should judge whether interventionm is justified.
I understand that this list is full of many people with many opinions, I would
be interested in hearing your opinions. This is an interesting discussion
anyway. Send any statements you may have to me at YONI@BROWNCOG. Also, I'm
post some of your material on the list if it pleases you. But send me a letter
at YONI@BROWNCOG with an opinion of yours.
Thanks in advance.
Lance
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:07:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Japanese saving
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt345884@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
> Sue,
> I don't think anyone has any very good explanation of why Japanese save
> more than we do, except for saying it's a "cultural thing." (As I said,
> no very good explanation.) Japanese save more even when interest is
> lower.

can it have something to do with an unified effort to build their
economy after WWII, since they are more homogenogus and willing to
surrender their individuality for the common good?  After all, our
economic system seems based on the idea that free range captalism and
individualism will bring success; plus from the start, we had a strong
streak of individualism in our culture.  Even though Japan's defeat in
WWII brought many American ways, its culture didn't change so much to
be so individualistic as ours.  Also of note is that in some times in
this country people were willing to save for future generations; the
turn of the century and the 1950s comes to mind.  The first case is
influenced by immigrants settling in this country, while the second
had the Depression as a major influence.  The ideal of freedom in this
country in conclusion arguably can be shown to be a key reason why we
aren't willing to do without for the common good.

    -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:28:57 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Decline of America: Intervention, Militarization,
              and Wars (II)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:10:11 -0400 People Are Like Zits, You Squeeze Too Hard an
>the facts are not valid because the amount of change that went
>on in those 2 years.. particularly in the Soviet Union..
>and it is also obviously a call to create a new state of isolationism...
>which can only exist if the world population goes down tremendously.
>The reason for these interventions is that of any Major Poer

Um, it doesn't do any good to point this out as mentioned over the
weekend...the poster isn't on the list and just is trying to stir
things up unless it's sent directly to their mailbox.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:12:00 MST
From:         "(Roger)" <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Thomas Jefferson - 19th Century Legend
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Hello Tim,
>
>Why not run some with it?  Altered history books are not uncommon like,
>'If the South Had Won the War', and 'If the Third Reich had Won' are fun
>to read.
>
>What would Thomas Jefferson think of the session of the South?
>
>Sue Clark

Session of the South???  Ok, I bite, 3rd session....no 7th session...

Have you ever wondered how Julius Caesar might have run today's postal
service?  I got a postcard from Egypt yesterday that only had two
pyramids on it.

                                          ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:49:54 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Education and money

Dear Jason,
  Forgive my overreaction & misunderstanding; especially as you say
you're planning a career in academia, I'm sure you understand the raw
nerves. These rightwing scumbags cheer themselves hoarse for stupendously
crooked military expenditures, sweetheart government deals, and bailing
out shyster private companies that raid their own workers' pension plans
to make a couple of felonious (pre-1980 definition) executives richer than
the pharoahs, but scream bloody murder at spending money on education;
almost as if they knew the evil nightmare would come to an end, once they
had an educated elctorate on their hands..
Cheers,
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:03:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: FREE-ENERGY technologies

        And the psychiatrists.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:08:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: New tax scheme

From: "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>

>>I haven't read what George Will had to say about it, but it seems bizarre to
>>talk about a "progressive" consumption tax.  You could hypothetically tax
>>consumption at a higher rate as your income rises, but the rates would have to
>>be really varied to account for the fact that lower income people spend a
>>higher proportion of their income than the middle class or rich do.

>Erm, if the more you consume the more tax you pay, I would call that
>progressive.

Aha!  I see Jaime isn't the only person on this list who likes to play the
semantics game!

When the term "progressive" is used in an economic context, it means taking a
larger percentage of income from the wealthy than the poor.  But since you
obviously don't know much economics, I can forgive you for the error.  (Knowing
Jaime and George Will, I'm assuming the term was originally meant in its
economic sense -- correct me if I'm wrong)

>NO, NO, NO. Using taxation to influence human behaviour is exactly
>what *is* needed.

Hmmm.  From your previous posts on other subjects, I thought you were *against*
government control over our lives.  I guess I was wrong.

>Firstly one can load tax onto luxuries - which will only be bought by
>those who can afford them

As the 1990 budget agreement showed, the main effect of such taxes is to reduce
demand for luxuries (which I thought you would have realized given your
supply-demand analysis below), which causes the people who build luxury items
to lose their jobs.  Pretty counterproductive, wouldn't you say?

>Secondly, we can influence consumption patterns by the use of
>taxation. Automobiles in Europe are far more fuel efficient than those
>made in the USA. This is because a gallon of fuel in most European
>countries costs about $3 - 4. If you want to reduce the consumption of
>something, you increase its price.

This is where your ignorance of economics really comes shining through.  You
thouroughly ignore the fact that the demand for gasoline is *far* less elastic
than the demand for luxury items.  A tax on luxuries reduces demand for those
items a lot, and causes a lot of jobs to be lost.  On the other hand, a similar
tax on gas causes gasoline consumption to fall only a little.  In the long run
(5 to 7 years or so) cars might become more fuel efficient.  But all such a tax
would do in the short run is hinder economic growth (particularly for low-
income families -- gas taxes are notoriously regressive).

Also note that gas taxes hinder long-run economic growth as well, although one
might rationally make such a trade-off anyway.

>Dunstan

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:29:45 -0400
From:         "Alexander saw the breath of his domain and wept for there were
              no more worlds to conquer" <STUSTARNES@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      The Morality of Nuclear Deterence

        I thought I would throw this out for discussion. We are discussing this
in one of my classes. I was wanting to get a broader based perspective and
might even use some of your arguements in my paper. The basic question is this:

        Is the mutually assured destruction (MAD) deterence stratgy a morality
                correct/viable one?

        If so, what do base you opinion on?

        If not, what do you base your opinion on?

        Please site the particular philosophical line of think that you are
following.


                                                Richard Ray Starnes
                                                STUSTARNES@EKU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 11:34:49 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      wilson went to old dominion?; or, double-plus ungoodspeak

well, i think that about covers the discussion over the weekend, while i was
a) at home sick as a dog
b) then out looking around for a birthday present which will be unappreciated
c) then at the library working on my gawdamdissertation (registered trademark).

now for the drumroll, please...
i agree with jason (audible gasp from the peanut gallery) about the tax thing
that jamie brought up.  this structure penalizes the poor disproportionately,
as well as various groups which, for various reasons, cannot really save all
that much over the course of a year (say, financially strapped graduate students
   or something.  of course, that's just conjecture:  i wouldn't know about that
   ).

as concerns the larry whoeveritis post (wanted to cite the reference.  you
know what kinda trouble you can get into that way), well, i agree on some
levels, but disagree on others.  i get really irritated at this whole
womyn (wimmin, wymyn, wymmin, blah, blah, blah) thing.  i can't say as it
ever occurred to me that the pronoun of indeterminate gender referred only
to individuals with a y chromosome.  i tend to lean towards jamie's
most excellent criticism of the issue:  no amount of messing around with the
language is going to change underlying perceptions about the respective
roles of men and women or certain groups of "oppressed" peoples.
(c.f. levi-strauss, claude, "linguistics and anthropology", in american
anthropologist, 1967:  also bourdieu, pierre, "the production and
reproduction of legitimate language" and "on symbolic power", in
_language and symbolic power_, j.b. thompson, ed., pp. 41-65 and 163-170.
cambridge:  harvard university press.   god, i love bibliographic one-
upmanship.)

anybody know why wall street dropped 100 points this morning?

***anneliese.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:09:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

On the subject of Perot's Vice Presidential canidates, I would like to know
whatever happened to Gene Kirpatrick. Was Perot thinking of recruitinh her?
Is she still on his list of canidates?
What else do you people know about Perot's canidates for a would-be VP?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:24:00 ZONE
From:         Steve Rife <STEV@MCO.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: perot, perot, perot your boat; or,
              i'm voting for chauncey gar

Make that -2 for Perot.  I too called the number to express dismay at
Perot entering the race.  And was told thanks for my support.  I'd like
a real number if anyone has one to remove my "vote".

Steve Rife
(STEV@MCO)
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: New Tax Structure
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:48:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

George Will reports today on a radical tax restructuring scheme
suggested by Sam Nunn and someone else, I forget who, a Republican.

The new structure would tax consumption rather than earnings, but in an
allegedly progressive way, unlike VAT. In effect, you'd only be taxed on
what you spend, not on what you save. You would deduct all savings from
taxable income.

What do youse think of this scheme?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:13:04 CDT
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: perot

>       Also how many candidates for President come down to a month before
>the election without having a Vice-Presidential candidate. Perot's attitude
>seems to be that it's none of anybody's business. I wonder how many other
>subjects will come under that catagory.

First, I don't have as strong opinions against H. Ross as you do,
considering how nice he is to lend his copy of the Magna Carta to
the National Archives. (I still wouldn't vote for him)

Second, to get on the Maryland ballot, he had to declare a VP candidate,
and he did. I cannot remember his name but he's a former POW.

>                                        Chris Morrison
>                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
In spite of her amputation
She could dance to a rock'n'roll station
It was all right
              --Lou Reed

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:32:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

>Jeanne Kirkpatrick is to(o) smart to be a vice-president.  Or a president,
>for that matter.

>Missy P 2 B (????)

                                        :-)   !!!!!!!!!!!
                                                Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: DENISEW@BROWNVM.BITNET (denisew)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: CLINTON HG ADDRESS?
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:33:56 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

HI, Does anyone have the address for Clinton headquarters in Little Rock?

Thanks,  Denise
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:03:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Federal gun control

On Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:26:23 GMT Virginia Metze <METZE@UIMRLM.MRL.UIUC.EDU> said:
> In <POLITICS%92092915403023@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
> writes:
>
> # If in the manufacture, sale, and ownership of a full-auto Uzi,
> # the Uzi in question does not cross state (or national) lines,
> # does the feral gummint have Constitutional authority to control
> # these guns?  (Also assume that it is never shot across state lines.)
> # -Travis
>
> 	A later amendment (14th)?  applies the first 10 amendments
> to the states...

Excuse me???  What does this have to do with my question??

> ==============================================================================
=
> Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
> metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> "Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
> today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967.
> ==============================================================================
=

Thomas will help save thousands of lives.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:25:40 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              30 Sep 1992 08:05:41 -0400 from <RIGEORGE%VASSAR.B
              ITNET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:05:41 -0400 Rick George said:
>
>Perot has shown that he doesn't react well to the press digging into
>things like this--I wonder if he's grown a thicker skin since July,
>or if he'll be making the same wild accusations about the press setting
>him up if these stories get dragged out again.

I've wondered if but what his leaving the race wasn't intentional
to get some tutoring before reentering the race for real.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:02:52 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Murphy Brown
              29 Sep 1992 12:11:14 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>> Note that none of my claims has anything to do directly with what
>> Quayle actually said.

> Wowsers!

>> He says I am not interested in Quayle's speech.  So now Andy
>> claims he can read my mind.  What next?

> It wasn't mind-reading, it was merely remembering what KAT has
> written.  See above.

"has written?", "merely remembering?", when???  Andy is LYING.
He accused me of not being interested in Quayle's speech BEFORE
I said that.  There was nothing to be "remembered" when Andy
first accused me.  (Not that I agreed that I am not interested
in Quayle's speech.)

> -andy

--KAT

p.s. to other list members:  I would not use the word "lying" this
     casually.  But Andy seems to insist that there is nothing in
     between being factually correct and lying.  So....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU