HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:15:25 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov15.190249.11564@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Nov14.172226.5605@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	GDP growth rate, 1982-1990: 3.5%  Up 102% from 1980--equivalent to an
>>economy the size of Germany was created.  Even after infation, GDP was up by an
>>astounding 31% from 1982-1990.
> 
> The first number, of course, is meaningless.  As for the second, it's
> a tribute to three trillion dollars of Keynesian deficit spending, no?

	Why is it meaningless?  Especially as the most recent quarter's
estimate of 2.7% is being called "massaged" and "too high".

>>	Captial gains receipts increased every year until the tax was increased
>>(1986) again proving the merit of tax cuts.
> 
> Brett, this canard of yours was refuted last time you brought it forward.

	No, it wasn't.  (How's that for dueling assertions?)

> Receipts went down in 1986 because they were abnormally high in 1985.  They

	Why would they be "abnormally high" in 1985?  They've continued to
decline after the supposed "spike" that was "caused" by the capital gainst tax
hike.

> were abnormally high in 1985 because investors are intelligent enough to
> sell and then rebuy so that their capital gains are taxed at 1985 rates and
> not 1986 rates.

	I demonstrated why holding was wiser than selling and buying (incurring
two commissions along the way.
	I can repost it, if necessary.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
From: junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 03:52:16 GMT

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>>  Let put this very simply so you *might* have a chance of understanding.
>>Molestation of children involves a fundamentally coersed transaction.
>>Young children are not capable of giving consent and as such can never
>>be on equal terms with an adult. Homosexuality between consenting adults
>>is not coersed and therefore the government should have no interest
>>in it, one way or the other.

>True and irrelevant.  

Can you explain why it's irrelevant?
Oh, I get it. It doesn't support your homophobia, so it's irrelevant.

> Since the court would have determined the "child"
>to be a mature decision maker, there is no coercion.  Remember, the idea
>is that a "mature" twelve year old is capable of making choices of where
>s/he wants to live.  The former child has his/her own lawyer.  Of course
>no coercion is involved.  The concept of statutory rape and child 
>molestation becomes increasingly difficult to maintain when 12-year olds
>are deemed "mature" - note the recent case in Florida in which two men
>who had statutorily raped two young girls (albeit with  their "consent")
>were let off.  The whole point behind "child divorce" is that the child
>*IS* on equal terms with the parent.  Sheesh.

Yep, it is just an amazing concept that the interests of the child should
be protected by a party with no vested interest in the situation.

How is "child divorce" related to child molestation, and the two related
to homosexuality? Just maybe this whole thing would make more sense,
if you didn't jump from an issue to issue.

jari
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:42:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.023432.5757@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.050749.28105@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov17.180536.5664@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>	(1982-1990)
>>>> Can you say, "selection bias"??
>>>
>>>	Sure I can say it, but it's not meaningful.  We're discussing
>>>supply-side and Reaganomics.  Which were ineffect from 1982-1990.  Thus the
>>>selection period.  Now if I wanted to talk Keynesian, I would pick a different
>>>time frame.
>
>> dates.  Why does the period begin in 1982 instead of 1981?  If you're
>> arguing that 1981 should be attributed to the residual effect of Carter,
>> then why isn't 1991 attributed to the residual effect of Reagan-Bush?
>
>	1982 is the inflection point for the economy.  

That's not the question.  The question is whether supply-side began in 1981.
Did it or didn't it?  

>Bush killed the
>Reagan expansion in 1990 (the tax hike).  It had been wavering since the 1987
>tax folly.

Brett, it's sounding more and more like your definition is circular.
"Supply-side economics makes the economy grow, therefore any year that the
economy doesn't grow is supply-side economics.  Look!  Supply-side economics
makes the economy grow!"

You have to explain to me why Reagan's tax hike, which was larger than Bush's
both in raw and real numbers, is considered supply-side economics, while
Bush's doesn't.  The only reasoning you've given is that the economy's stopped
growing after Bush's tax hike, in which case your "proof" that what you call
"supply-side economics" is caused by growth is marred by the fact that it
seems by your definition that growth causes supply-side economics. 
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60302 sci.econ:8678
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Why Bother? (Re: FUCK CLINTON, etc.)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:09:22 GMT

[Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to talk.politics.misc.]

In article <92Nov20.172438edt.566@neuron.ai.toronto.edu>, 
steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") said:

> I, for one, am not looking to squash freedom of speech.  I'll defend
> the right of anyone on the net to insult Clinton or anyone else as
> they see fit (and the right of the rest of us to ostracize and
> kill-file the more egregious idiots).  But threats of violence do
> not constitute a legitimate protected area of free speech.

Agreed... but the original posting did not contain any threats of
violence.  It merely contained a request, unaccompanied by promise of
reward, that a certain act of violence be performed by somebody.

> And there is a high, though not perfect, correlation between wackos
> who talk a lot about killing the president and wackos who eventually
> do try to harm the president or other prominent person.  Finally,
> the Secret Service's primary mission w.r.t. the topics discussed in
> this thread is the protection of the President, VP, their families,
> etc.  Is that so terrible?

Not terrible at all, as long as they respect the rights of the people
-- including those people upon whom they look with suspicion -- while
attempting to carry out this mission.  Protecting the lives of
citizens is a laudable goal (though it's unclear just how laudable it
is for the state to allocate specific finite state resources to the
protection of some people while leaving everyone else to fend for
themselves), but not one that is so vital that it should give the
protectors the lawful power to, for example, take actions which have
the clear effect of chilling the free exercise of the right of freedom
of expression.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:38:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <19NOV199221305485@vxcrna.cern.ch> CASPER, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
writes:

>Second, all those weapons are "owned" by people in the army or reserves (part
>of the "wellregulated militia" which the Bill of Rights mentions, but which
>gun control opponents always seem to ignore).

Try looking up what the framers meant by "militia".  You will find that it
has nothing to do with the army or reserves.  It also has nothing to do with
the national gaurd.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 09:10:26 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov18.152559.3051@dg-rtp.dg.com>, crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
|> In article <92Nov16.150720edt.441@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
|>>
|>>  Perhaps I've missed the definitive television, print, or usenet
|>>argument for term limitations, but I remain unconvinced as to
|>>its merits as well as surprised that so many "conservatives"
|>>are backing it.
|>
|>The definitive argument for me is Dan Rostenkowski.  Dan is the Chairman of
|>the House Ways and Means Committee.  As Chairman he has a control of 
|>appropriations which drive tax policy which drives the economy which drives my
|>standard of living.  In short, he represents, not just his own constituents
|>but me as well and I don't like the way he is doing it.  What can I do about
|>it?  Nothing. As long as he uses his position to buy the votes of 150,000
|>people in Chicago he can screw the rest of us to the wall.  The same goes for
|>Robert Byrd of West Virginia who promised to get a billion dollars of Federal
|>spending for West Virginia if he were reelected and did it in less than a year
|>through such things as moving federal agencies from Virginia to West Virginia
|>for no good reason.  Who's paying for his promises?  Nobody who can vote
|>against him.  If there is another way to make these people responsive to the
|>country's needs I'm for it, but term limits is the only one being offered at
|>this point.
|> 

Well put.  One reason that I am in favor of term limits on a national
level is to break up the pockets of power created by the Congressional
seniority system.  Creating locally contestable races is only 
of secondary importance.  The problem with the seniority system is
that it is a creation of Congress and you aren't likely to find members
voting to change it.  It will take an outside force and I think
term limits is an appropriate method.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.polit
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Anwar Mohammed's possibly fraudulen (was Re: Trickle Down Economic
Organization: ILS
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:47:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.133426.21492@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:

>      I don't think either side is lying on this one. Bob is technically 
> correct, but Anwar is correct if you make an inference that is obvious and 
> unavoidable. Now that the election is over, and now that everyone who has 
> something to say about this unfortunate incident has had his say, I think we 
> ought to either leave it in the past or take the discussion to e-mail. Any 
> objections?
> 
>                                        Steve


I have a major onjection,  I think it is very important that an open a free
discussion of the bush-organizations activities be brought to the light of
day.  Most importantly is the fact that information about President
Clintons passport and travels were circulated through the group.  As we all
know that information was obtained unethically and possibly in grossest
violation democracy and limits of the executive branch since Watergate. 
What do members of this group think about the fact that the executive
branch may have obtained this data by abusing its power and going into
Clinton's record?  Are not they also part of the crime by spreading this
information.  If the executive branch can search and distribute our
passprts and other private information in an effort to gain political
power,  and if their are stooges out their who will spread the information
around without think,  then how can we hope to continue to enjoy the
liberty we now have.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60401 alt.politics.elections:23926 alt.politics.clinton:17263 alt.politics.democrats.d:575
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:53:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov13.020626.16654@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:

|>In article <1992Nov12.045708.7546@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...

|>If you think that someone taking a piece of bread from rich man to feed 
|>a starving man is theft then the law must be changed, because to refuse to 
|>spare a man a piece of bread who is starving is morally wrong when you 
|>have plenty.(I believe there is a quote by Jesus that alludes to this.
|>I'm not religious, I just respect the man.)

So you believe that it is allright for you to impose your morality on
others.

|>This is outside of my field, but I believe that you are saying that
|>if poor people weren't being given help through food stamps, WIC and
|>other services then they wouldn't steal more than they are now? This CAN
|>be proven one way or the other. 

We could try looking at a time before such programs existed.  It wouldn't
be hard, that was only about 60 years ago.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:19:31 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <87312@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>In article 18392@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>Hill's conservativism was a convenient lie at the time of the Thomas
>>hearings.  Now that it is no longer necessary it is being dropped.

>What evidence do you have that this was a lie?  The fact is that she was a
>conservative, and that is what got her the job at the EEOC in the first place.
>She became a protege of Thomas.  She might not have been super conservative on
>racial issues, but most black conservatives are not.  Why do you say that it is
>now "being dropped"?  Who is dropping it?

From an WSJ editorial, Nov. 20, 1991.

"Ms. Berry-Myers pointed out that during the hearings it emerged that Anita
Hill went to work for Clarence Thomas in 1981 as a so-called 'schedule-A'
employee-a status given US government civil service bureaucrats to distinguish
them from political appointees, know as 'schedule C's'"

                 . . .

"She was a lot more liberal in her thinking that Clarence Thomas," recalls
Ms. Berry-Myers.  "Anita Hill was a supporter of 'comparable worth'; she
was in favor of quotas; she believed that statistical evidence was enough
to justify a discrimination inquiry."

		 . . .

"Ms. Hill, according to Roger Tuttle, former dean at ORU Law school, was out
of step with the conservative Oral Roberts faculty:  'She was far from a
conservative Republican; she tended to be a liberal and feminist in her
approach to things.'
   The testimony of a number of former students of Ms. Hill's from ORU is
   -in a word- astonishing.  "She was dedicated to militant feminine equality,"
one told me.  He adds, 'She was hypersentive to gender issues.'"

		 . . .

"Still another former studendt says the image of Ms. Hill as a conservative is
far from the truth: 'She'd express opinions that weren't conservative.  she
took a liberal view on civil rights:  She believed past wrongs needed to
be redressed even if it meant some amount of reverse discrimination had to be
practiced.'"

		 . . .

"At the Oklahoma Law School, Ms. Hill was an adviser to a feminist group, the
Organization for the Advancement of Women.  One former member, Susan Stallings,
who likes Ms. Hill personally, says that 'Anita His is a liberal ... she
was for such things as 'comparable worth.'  At our meetings if it wasn't
Reagan bashing, it was Bush bashing."

		  . . .

[End of text]

The effort to portray HIll as a conservative, were just a crude attempt to
give her more credibility.  It appears to have only worked with those who
wanted to believe, or were looking for some kind of cover to justify their
opinions.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60574 ca.politics:9612 misc.legal:20065
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:58:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov14.202602.23939@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> In article <13166@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > In article <1992Nov12.231349.29610@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > NAMBLA provides a justification for molesters; the gay community
> > provides a platform for NAMBLA to spread their crap around.
> 
>   Oh yes, keep dreaming. You, Clayton Cramer, have done more to
> give NAMBLA a platform than anybody else I know of. I guess 
> you should work on your self loathing.

By saying that the homosexual community should shun NAMBLA, I
give them a platform?  I guess Bnai Brith gives neo-Nazis a platform,
too.

> > Take a look at California's laws on child molestation.  It's
> > obvious they are written the way they are to benefit homosexuals.
> 
>   !!! Are you actually suggesting that legislators purposefully wrote
> laws which benefit homosexual molestors? You realize, that would be the

Sure.  Willie Brown, Assemblyman from San Francisco, has been speaker
of the Assembly for many years now.

> scandle of the century and would cause a clean sweep of the legislature 
> if true. I don't suppose you have any proof of this...
> -- 
> 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)

Go read the laws about child molestation in California.  It is
illegal to have intercourse with a female under 18.  It is illegal
to have sex with a boy under 14, but legal if he is 16-18, and the
adult is within 10 years of the boy's age.  It is a misdemeanor
if he is 14-16, and the adult is more than 10 years older than the
boy.  Now, the same law applies if the victim is a female (and
ONLY a female), but if intercourse happens, it is "unlawful sexual 
intercourse" as well.  So we have this weird situation where:

1. Oral sex or sodomy between a 27 year old and a 17 year old, or 26 
year old and a 16 year is legal, but intercourse is not.

2. Oral sex or sodomy is only a misdemeanor between a 24 year old
and a 14 year old.

The law is not gender specific -- but it's clear that by making
sexual intercourse illegal for a girl under 18, but sodomy and
oral sex legal for a boy under 18, that the Legislature sought to
protect the interests of the homosexual community.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
From: andy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Andrew T Hodgkins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:56:58 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <92Nov16.150720edt.441@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>
>  I think it's a dangerous road you're heading down.
>Leave the power in the hands of the electorate, and
>*convince* us to throw the bums out -- don't wield
>"the coercive power of the state" at us to "force"
>us to throw out them out. 
>
>  -- Evan

The electorates in fourteen states have already decided that they want term 
limits imposed on their elected officials.  I suspect that in the next general
elections more states will follow suit.  IMHO, of course.

	--Andy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: talk.politics.model-un
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1992 21:41:16 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    Still on the hunt for addtional support for talk.politics.model-un.
    If in favor, post to news.groups.  For more info, email Matt at
    f36si@cunyvm or f36si@cunyvm.cuny.edu.
                                          Pax
                                             Matt
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Saturday, 14 Nov 1992 00:31:48 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject:    Lonely Wolf


    Occasionally one hears some frightening warnings, you aren't sure,
    yet an alert should be given.....
    We receive various international mail.
    The world is finite, populations are increasing very rapidly.
    The younger generation and their children as yet have not begun to
    provide.   Middle aged folks have skills, and are more hardy.
    If you have not yet begun to think about the future America,
    we would like to ask that you do so.  If you have ever wanted to
    help with junior programs: scouts, church groups, etc.  Please
    consolidate your plans now.
    We just heard a lone wolf howl, the pack is not far behind.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60812 ba.politics:7245 ca.politics:9671
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:54:50 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov17.204739.2001@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <13187@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> #Why?  You don't deny that NAMBLA marches.  Gay Perot supporters,
> #however, were prohibited.
> 
> What proof of this do you have?
> 
> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

It was in the San Francisco Chronicle, covered on the local
San Francisco TV news shows, etc.  The excuse give was that
no political groups were allowed in the parade -- yet NAMBLA
states that its goal is political -- repeal of the age of
consent laws.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf