HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:43:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <adams.714061024@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>>president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>>spending.  
>
>Considering the current situation, I don't see any difference....George
>Bush is NOT a conservative when it comes to govt. spending...or taxes...


   Obviously this assumes a certain definition of "conservative".

   Although we all use these terms, we have to respect their
   inherent limitations.  Adams, here, seems to be using the 
   term "conservative" to imply a kind of libertarian.  But this 
   is only one point of view, and currently not the one in favor
   in the GOP.   In recent decades BOTH the liberals and conservatives
   have been in favor of "big government" -- just in different 
   areas. 

   The simple reality is that our society and culture are just
   too diverse to support a single definition of these terms or
   a single political party to represent them.   As a result both
   the Democrats and the GOP have faced two alternatives in recent
   years:

   1.)  Bloody, divisive factional fights (witness the apparently
   successful efforts by the GOP right-wing to stifle dissent
   on abortion this year, or the unsuccessful attempts by Jesse
   Jackson in 1988, or Jerry Brown this year to put their agendas
   on the platform.   It is hard to imagine how it can be said
   that Paul Tsongas and Jesse Jackson represent the same philsophy
   or constituency and in most other civilized countries they
   would be in different parties.

   2.)  Utterly bland meaninglessness in an attempt to somehow
   appease the various factions of the "same" movement.  Witness
   the current Democratic leadership -- the "slickness" of a Bill
   Clinton is due to his success in appearing to be all things
   to all Democrats.   Ditto with George Bush and the GOP.  Politicians
   who really stand for something -- say, Jack Kemp, Jesse Jackson,
   can only attract narrow constituencies. 

   Had Ross Perot stayed in the race, he too would have faced the
   above problem, above.  Be vague or be divisive.  It's an in-
   evitable result of our pluralistic society.   


---peter

   

   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: forbush@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: <None>
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:05:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.101049.23288@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.224302.2246@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>I understand, and accept, the idea that lower taxes can be an incentive
>>for economic activity.  I am challenging the claim that there will be
>>_enough_ activity to increase revenues.  The activity may increase by
>>a marginal amount and that increase may also be transient, as has been
>>shown for studies for the case of capital gains reductions.  Such a
>>reduction will lead to a short-term increase as people cash in on
>>paper profits, but after the sell-out, the lower tax rate becomes the
>>dominant factor.
> 
> Let's perform a thought experiment. Suppose, just suppose, that the
> tax rate were 100% (taxes have, at various time in this century
> approached that point).  Question: What idiot is going to engage in
> taxable economic activity? Answer: Noone. Question: How much tax
> REVENUE is generated?  Answer: ZILCH!
> 
> Now suppose this socialist paradise decides to reduce the tax rate
> (pick a number less than 100%, say the current tax rate). What
> happens? Taxable economic activity begins to occur. And as taxable
> economic activity increases, tax revenues are created. Now, since any
> revenue generated is going to be more than was collected under the
> 100% tax rate, it follows that, in this instance, a reduction in tax
> rates has generated an increase in tax revenues.
> 
> QED

Not quite, you are ignoring the other endpoint in your thought
experiment. Suppose that the tax rate is 0%. How much REVENUE
is generated? Answer: ZILCH!

This problem is not the simple linear extrapolation that you
are suggesting, but some function with a maximum at some
positive value. This maximum is dependent on the economic
conditions both past and present. 

A very similar problem is happening in the interest rate
cuts that are being done to increase investment. Why doesn't
the fed just move the rate to 0% and be done with it?
Everyone could get free money and the economy would boom.

Sorry, I live in a real world.

			Mike					
> 
> The only real question among serious economists is at what point, not
> whether, lower tax rates stop producing higher revenues. However,
> lower tax rates will ALWAYS generate greater economic activity even
> beyond the point where the increase in economic activity is
> insufficient to offset the loss of tax revenue due to the lower rate.
> 
> That is, lower tax rates are ALWAYS better for the economy and OFTEN
> will be better for the government`s budget (especially in overtaxed
> nations like the US).
From: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: anyone have photographs?
Date: 23 Aug 92 03:12:51 EST
Reply-To: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Executive Networks Information

From Newsweeek's _Perspectives:_Overheard_ -- June 15, 1992

"He has to get down on his hands and knees and grovel on broken glass with 
his mouth open and his tongue hanging out -- and then we'll talk"

        -- Bush campaign spokesman Torie Clarke, on the prospect of a
           prime-time address by Patrick Buchanan to the Republican
           National Convention

Geez, I wish I'd seen this!


---
  WinQwk 2.0 a#299  Four more months! Four more months!
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40832 sci.environment:10764
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Public vs. private transportation
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:02:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>Obviously cars don't pay property taxes, but even allowing for allegory,

>Robert M. Lewis

I believe the poster is refering to ad valorem taxes, which are similar
to property taxes.  They are applied (at least in Georgia) to large ticket
items that are mobile.  (cars, trucks, campers, boats, etc.)
Ad valorem taxes are also roughly related to the value of the taxed item.


-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:08:54 GMT

In article <26538@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@femur.ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>Also explain
>how, if say, your beliefs about life and my beliefs about life differ, why
>both of us should be ruled by yours. 

Well, I believe Human life begins at age 7.  At this age, people 
start to know the difference between right and wrong.  Anything which
does not know the difference between right and wrong cannot be a human.
Human life begins exactly seven years after birth.

Okay, if those are my beliefs, and my beliefs differ from yours,
how can you say your views of life be ruled by your view?  Blobs of
cells up to seven years after birth are not human.  I can do anything
I want with those things including burn them, cut off their limbs, 
throw them like baseballs, etc.  Why care when they aren't humans?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39540 ca.politics:6757 ba.politics:4494
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:53:53 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <2d5m9m+.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <183042@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>>In article <zd4m6jj.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >>In article <183014@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com
>    >>(George Lambert) writes:
>    >>>You have yet to answer the question: Who appointed the US as
>    >>>Global Policeman?
>    >>>
>    >>Well, probably the entity (or non-entity) that say, appointed
>    >>eco-fascist groups such as Greenpeace as world what-evers.
>    >>
>    >BZZZZZZT! Sorry, Phil, but with that non-sequiteur response,
>    >you've proven your inability to respond to this question.
>    >
>    >Greenpeace is funded by contributions from individuals around
>    >the world who concur with their goals and methods. It is not
>    >a nation interfering in other nations' civil wars or
>    >secessionist issues.
>
>Sorry, the world is still round. So, I guess you have no quarrel with,
>say, the Lincoln brigade? Or the Condor legion either, eh?

I've never heard of 'em, so I shan't speak of 'em.
>
>However, the issue is still WHO gives ANYONE/ANYTHING to right to
>act as the world policemann?
>
>Answer - nobody.

This is certainly true when it comes to one country acting as Global Policeman.
>
>A soldier is a Greenpeace is a Soviet occupation army, eh?
>
No.  A soldier works for a government, or a group that wants to depose a 
government.  Members of Greenpeace have no interest in deposing governments
or running the affairs of a given sovereign nation.  The charter of Greenpeace
is to provide a balance in the use of natural resources by people without
damaging the environment so that future generations can live on the planet.

Your analogy doesn't apply; you and I know we diasagree on management of the
environment, and that subject has nothing to do with the original thread.  
Let's try to not further obfuscate the issue, OK?

George Lambert
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40541 ca.politics:6938 ba.politics:4664
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:02:50 GMT
Organization: Cornell Theory Center

In article <c#!nkxp.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.160749.25660@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>>...possible between children and adults.  Any 'support' I've seen
>>for NAMBLA has not been for NAMBLA per se, but of the right
>>to free association (Phool Ronzone's sacred cow) and the right ...

>Well, Melinda, my first name is spelled "Phil". Of course, anyone making
>fun of Freedom Of Association is self-identified as to their, uh, politcal
>& power seeking ways, but, that is another issue.

Try reading the material you quote, Phool.  I realize that there
are actually several sentences there and they contain punctuation,
but I'll bet that if you really, really put your mind to it you
just might be able to understand it.

Actually, now that I think about it that seems unlikely.  Allow
me, then, to spell it out for you.  You and Claytoon are opposed
to antidiscrimination [sorry about having to use a big word, there]
laws protecting gay and lesbian people because you feel that it
would violate your right to freedom of association.  Yet Claytoon
doesn't acknowledge the right of NAMBLA members to freedom of
association.  Claytoon is a lying, hypocritical pig.  Claytoon 
wants to exercise prior restraint.  Claytoon doesn't sound like
any kind of libertarian I've ever heard of.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:25:17 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 19642@plains.NoDak.edu, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>The biggest problem I have with all this discussion on taxing the rich is
>the basic philosophy that we are all equal (the Dems theme song).  Why do
>we tax someone at a higher rate, just because they have more?  The second
>biggest theme of the Dems is fairness, is it fair to take more just because 
>you have more?  Sounds kinda like "from each according to their means to
>each according to their needs", and we all know where that came from.

I would just like to make a couple of points in response:

1)  "Equality" is not a Democratic theme song.  It is the basic principle underlying
    the American system--i.e. that all people are to be treated identically in the
    eyes of the law.  The Democratic theme is more "equality of opportunity".  The
    social programs which Democrats tend to support, and Republicans tend to oppose,
    are designed to reduce those barriers that stand between people of different
    means and backgrounds.  It is not the same as the communist principle that effort
    and ability go unrewarded (an ideal that real-world Communists never implemented).

2)  People tend to forget that it is income levels, not people, that are taxed at
    different rates.  Rich people are taxed at the same rates as everyone else.  It
    is only that portion of their income that exceeds a certain amount which is taxed
    at a higher rate.  You would doubtless find a fair number of poor people who would
    gladly volunteer to be taxed at the 33% level, if, to qualify, they had to receive
    enough money to be taxed at the lower rates first.


-----
    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39431 talk.abortion:31538 alt.politics.bush:1426
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:48:28 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu writes:
|Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that
|the fetus is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right
|to life takes precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the
|woman does not have rights it is that they are subservient to
|the right to life of the fetus.

Keep spelling it out for us.  How would you resolve the various
conflicts of rights which can result in a pregnancy?  Does this
belief of yours mean that:

  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's financial needs?
    (no abortion in cases where the woman can't afford to support
     a child, would lose job, etc.)
  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's mental wellbeing?
    (no abortion in cases where the stress of continued pregnancy
    would impair the mental health of the woman)
  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's health?
    (no abortion in cases of danger to woman's health)
  - The fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's
    right to life?  (no abortion in cases of danger to the
    woman's life)

I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "take
precedence".

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush, Reagan and Deficit cutting (was Bush or Clinton)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:14:34 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <fulton.713631491@copper>, fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
> In <1992Aug11.141243.3364@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>> To get a concept of what happened in the early 80's read David Stockman's
>>	He was in way over his head in the Reagan adminstration, and anything
>>he writes about it is an attempt to cover up his own part in any budget messes
> 
> I can't speak for that, but I thought the proposals that Stockman said he made
> were intelligent and on target.  Did you disagree with his proposals, or
> do you think he didn't make them?

	I think he knew what he wanted to do, and the general way to go about
it (tax cuts, spending cuts) but nothing about how to deal with congress in
order to get it.  Being a congressman from Michigan he should have known Reagan
couldn't just say "for the good of the nation, everyone cut 10%".

	Everyone wanted a kickback for any cuts they helped push through.

	In addition, I don't think Stockman ever realized the true extent of
the bureaucracy until after he got to the white house.  You can never
underestimate the tendency of a bureaucracy to fight against it's own
elimination.

	It was fine to have all these ideals about supply side economics, but
congress made it clear that they only way to a tax cut was through their vested
self-interests.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41364 talk.politics.theory:3809 soc.culture.usa:6792 alt.conspiracy:10236
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 23 Aug 92 12:40:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile

The chocolate-covered woman who allegedly had sex with a
yam is Karen Finley, a performance artist.  In a more recent
performance, she does a reverse strip-tease; she starts her
act naked and winds up fully clothed.  The performances are
not very erotic; the point of covering herself with cholocate
was to project an idea of being a piece of food to be
devoured by men, or the system, or capitalism, or something
along those lines.  Finley, I believe, did not receive any
money directly from the government; the place where she
performed, which did many, many other things, was cut off
because she had once performed there.

The NEA oppresses each citizen to the tune of less than
$1.00 per year, so I hardly think it compares with the sort
of thing Buchanan seems to be suggesting, which is the
active use of violence to regulate culture.  If you think
this sort of thing is not serious -- and apparently many
people think Buchanan is a joke -- I suggest you check out
the interplay between the conservatives and the Nazis that
led to Hitler's regime in _The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Third_
_Reich_, a book which I think is still around, or any
comparable work.  Bush is in many ways reminiscent of
characters like Schleicher and Von Papen.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:25:08 GMT

rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:

>   Note that I'm not claiming that abortion is *not* objectionable.  Just that
>   I find enslaving women a hell of a lot *more* objectionable.  *Even if the
>   fetus were a person*, I would not want to force the woman (who is
>   *unquestionably* a person) to continue a pregnancy against her will.

>The key word that makes the donation analogy fail is "continue".  The
>support has already begun.  Can a kidney donor unilaterally decide to
>take kidney back?

Until such time as the kidney is actually *removed from the donor's body*
yes, the donor has that option.

Lori Kent Rothman 
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
>--
>Roy Johnson, Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
>"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
>and "So I guess even a sex change couldn't solve all his problems."
>			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40837 talk.politics.theory:3758 soc.culture.usa:6704 alt.conspiracy:10165
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:12:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: kadsma.1992Aug20.181232.23398
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <1992Aug20.160827.13408@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>...  Many groups in America currently advocate force to impose
>their culture on others.  Some of them are "good liberals".

Examples, please.

>
>There's nothing wrong with being a partisan whiner, but it is
>deceptive to hide it behind "general" concerns.
>
>-andy

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?



Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:55:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.014713.3298@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:

> Also, does their not appear to a double standard when Bush publicly opposes
> abortion and yet vehemently opposes health care reforms which would reduce
> infant mortality?

That is a lie, President Bush does not oppose health care reforms.  I just
finished watching an interview of President Bush by David Brinkley and
Bush mentioned that his administration did have a health care reform plan.   

On a related note, did anyone read the story about the AIDS disaster in the
French government's national health care system?  Apparently, some French
government health-care officials knowingly gave out AIDS-tainted blood to  
scores of hemophiliacs.  The officials said they were obeying directives
from top government officials. 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:03:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.220329.19178@cco.caltech.edu> 
tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>>> HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>>> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>>> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>>> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>>> platforms.

>> It occurs to me that Ron Echeverri might have concocted this story.

> With the help of most major newspapers in this country, of course.  Try reading
> one, Doug.

But none of them that I've read have suggested that President Bush supports 
banning "all" abortions, unlike the story above.  Bush supports exceptions 
for rape and incest, and for the life of the mother.  That's why I believe
the story was concocted by Ron Echeverri. 
 

>Tim Lynch


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush