HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:06:41 GMT

In alt.politics.bush, MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu (Melissa Brown) writes:

> Is it just me, or does all this talk about family values smack of
> McCarthyism?  The political climate is scarey.

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.

Hmmmmm.

You might have hit the nail on the head by calling it 'McCarthyism'...

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
 "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -- Benjamin Disraeli
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40792 talk.politics.theory:3749 soc.culture.usa:6694 alt.conspiracy:10160
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:46:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug20.154646.4980
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug20.110357.26209@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| In article <1992Aug19.174523.22812@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >I understand that Pat Buchanan, speaking to the Republican
>| >Convention, declared that "we" should "take our culture 
>| >back." I assume that by "we" he means people like himself, 
>| >and by "take" he means the use of force, since present 
>| >American culture has come about as a result of voluntary 
>| >actions and relationships.  This proposal is clearly akin to 
>| >the fascist, Communist, and Nazi programs of subordinating
>| >culture to political -- governmental -- control, and of
>| >eliminating free expression. . . .  Or are there
>| >defenders of Buchanan who would like to explain his
>| >statement otherwise?
>
>sechrest@z.eecs.umich.edu (Stuart Sechrest) writes:
>| I think that Pat Buchanan is a jerk, but this is just stupid.
>| 
>| Consider the call of women (feminists) to ``take back the night.''
>| By ``take'' do they mean the use of force?  Does this mean that
>| their ``proposal'' is akin to the army enforced curfews of Fascist
>| coups?
>
>I know what the feminists mean by "take": get out on the
>streets, and reinstitute civil society by your simple
>presence.  Their means are at once plain and legitimate.
>
>What I have asked is what Buchanan means by "take."  He
>can't mean the normal workings of our cultural life,
>because that has produced the culture we have and is
>likely to go on doing more of the same.  So what _does_
>he mean?

That's the beauty of Buchanan's speech. The far right can read into it
everything they want to hear, but Buchanan can't exactly be pinned down.
Taken as a whole, the speech was obvious overt pandering to racists and
fascists, but the best criticism the press could muster was that it
was "unnecessarily divisive." 

Of course he means using government authority to enforce right-wing
social values. Buchanan isn't Hitler, but parallels abound.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Wildly regressive taxes
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:56:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.234414.12306@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the social security tax (FICA) the
>most wildly regressive tax imaginable?  An individual pays ~7-7.5% of
>his/her salary up to some limit after which s/he pays ***0%***.  Wouldn't
>it make more sense to pay 0% up to some limit, and THEN start paying this
>tax?
>
>It seems to me that this accounts for a significant chunk of your average
>low income wage earner's salary.  While virtually none of the Rich (tm)
>person's earnings.
>
>Why is it that we have hoards of people complaining about federal income
>taxes, and no one says $#!+ about FICA?
>
>  bills
>--------
>Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

You are right about FICA, except that some people *have* been talking about
it. I recall distinctly a Michael Kinsley TRB column from years ago in
which he pointed this out, not to mention Sen. Moynihan's proposal to
reduce FICA taxes, which dates from the later years of the Reagan administration,
and which is far from dead.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Schmidling is simply wrong.
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 23:05:48 GMT

In article <YeVwXTG00WB68SNG0a@andrew.cmu.edu> David O Hunt <dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>>>It should be mentioned that Flapan's book is hardly any better than
>>>either Palumbo's or Quigley; he not only has an axe to grind, but most
>>>of what he writes is not credible.
>>>
>>>Flapan is not a reliable source, not by any means.
>>
>>Don't be so severe, Eric.  Hunt is simply telling us that Flapan wrote that
>>the Arabs attacked Israel because Israel TOLD them to.  Some Arab apologists
>>are still saying things like that.  Did you hear the one last week about
>>how Iraq invaded Kuwait because Israel told them to...?

>1)  Please don't put words in my mouth, which seems to be quite common
>these days.  I _never_ said Israel told the arabs to attack.  What I said
>was that there were steps that Israel took that were _deliberate_ snubs
>to the arabs.

Okay, great.  So the Israelis _deliberately snubbed_ the Arabs during
a war.  How awful.

>2)  Why is Flappan not a "reliable source"?  References, please.  Or is
>the fact that he doesn't agree with what you believe enough to make him
>not credible?

Ask Eric; he made the claim.  (It has been hashed out here many times 
before, though.)
-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:40:35 CDT


In article <1992Aug18.014254.3558@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 	Reagan cut taxes for everyone.  Congress re-instated them for that
> portion of society that had income to invest. 

Why is it that when there was a tax cut "Reagan cut taxes" yet when there
was a tax increase "Congress re-instated them"?  What is the basis for
giving the credit to Reagan for the cut but not for re-instating them?

In both cases, congress passed and Reagan signed the legislation.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39618 alt.politics.elections:10553 alt.politics.clinton:1909 alt.politics.bush:1531
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 13:40:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

Oh, how terrible. Poor Donald Trump had to settle for an 80 foot yacht
this year rather than a 100 foot yacht because his taxes went up....

For those of you defending the downtrodden rich, I have one thing to say.
Get some perspective. There are families in this country that are barely
keeping roofs over their heads and food on their tables. The tax burden they
shoulder is coming out of money they need to survive and out of money for
their children's educations.

I am sick to death of being lectured about "family values" by the same people
that have allowed families to live in cars and boxes the last 12 years. I
present a challenge to those folks....put your actions where your mouth is.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: I'm Gonna Vote PEROT.
Date: 21 Aug 92 07:35:00 GMT

Mainly because I can't stand the old good-party/bad-party schtick
used to squeeze taxes out of all the non-partisans.

And =If= Ross has indeed pulled a fast one on the media, the parties,
and all the other crooks in cahoots with DC -- I'll be even more 
impressed. 

No matter. I'm happy just to make the protest vote and try to
knock one party, if not both out of federal campaign funds for '96.

Ross may not want to be President, but he makes a great Monkey-Wrench
for "adjusting" the warped set-up we got now. 

 /                \      |      /                            \
(   Stephen Tice   )  -- S --  (   Remember DeNiro in Brazil  )
 \                /      |      \                            /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:38:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <CNb-Zk_@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <Bsu7zs.I3K@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>|> >A flat tax would have to be on 'net' income not gross income.  You
>|> >need to have deductions which relate to the generation of the
>|> >income.  Otherwise you will simply discourage people from earning
>|> >income in jobs which have high expenses. 
>|> 
>|>   I'm not sure this follows.  Jobs which have high up front 
>|>   expenses typically also have either high pay (e.g., doctors) or
>|>   at least potentially high r.o.i. (e.g., IC's, software, pharm-
>|>   aceuticals).  it is unclear to me that the usual factors 
>|>   which govern risk taking would not still operate, i.e., I
>|>   don't need a government tax incentive to be willing to take 
>|>   higher risks for potentially higher rewards.
>|>  
>
>Imagine a consultant who spends a great deal of time on the road.
>He may earn a high income, but much of that income has to go to
>covering his expenses (gas, car repair, hotel charges, etc.).  Compare
>this to a worker who simply commutes to work everyday and punches
>a time clock.  It doesn't seem reasonable to me to tax the gross
>income of the two.

>|>  The very idea that the government can even identify
>|>  what sorts of activities are "income generating" would seem to run
>|>  counter to such thinking.   I say let the market determine where
>|>  R&D investments should be made.
>
>I agree, and it is not what I said above.  I said that when
>personal income is taxed it should be on 'net' income, not
>gross income.  You must allow for deductions which can be
>directly attributable to the generation of that income.

 A simple solution consistent with this would be for the above 
 consultant to incorporate his consultancy and pay himself a
 salary.  Tax his salary and not the business.  If he uses his 
 private car for business the business can reimburse him like
 most companies do.   I agree that businesses need not be taxed.
 I do think it's reasonable to require record-keeping and
 potentially stiff penalties for evasions, to minimize the 
 problem of people setting up untaxed "businesses" merely as
 tax shelters.


---peter




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41308 talk.abortion:32989 alt.politics.bush:2526 alt.politics.clinton:2605 alt.politics.elections:11300 alt.rush-limbaugh:3854
From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:56:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bt8HE2.6GF
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:


>	Most of the following is taken from _Forbes_, August 17, 1992.  Part
>II includes an article by Arthur Laffer that appeared in the WSJ.

[.... stuff deleted.... ]

>	Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman rockets into San
>Francisco's traffic in his Cadillac Allante convertible, wearing a jaunty
>baseball cap that reads AYAU PRESIDENTE, the souvenir of a Guatemalan ally's
>election campaign.  Can this man really have turned 80 last month?  Well, he's
>just published his 24th book, _Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History_
>(Harcourt Brace).  After a brisk morning spent terrorizing a Mexican TV crew,
>massacring opponents of drug decriminalization over a long distance hookup and
>lunching knowledgeably on dim sum, Friedman talked to FORBES in his Russian
>Hill apartment with its magnificent views over the Golden Gate.  Despite his
>exuberence, his outlook has darkened considerably since our last chat (FORBES,
>Dec. 12, 1988).

Friedman zooms into the stratosphere in his symbol of dominance
mimicry, wearing an ageless symbol of materialism. This man will
never die! We talked to him on the set of his backdrop symbol of
the rewards of capitalism.


>	FORBES: How's the economy?

>	Friedman: If you look closely, and pay attention to the short-term
>money supply movement, it looks very scary.

Agree.

[.... stuff deleted....]

>	Four years ago, when we interviewed you, our cover line was "Why
>liberalism"--in the American sense of interventionist government--"is
>obsolete."  Well, if liberalism is dead, why won't it lie down?

>	There are too many good jobs at stake.  You have this enormous
>bureaucracy in Washington, and also in every city and state, all dependent upon
>the continuation of New Deal and Great Society kinds of programs.
>	Instead of Licoln's government of the people, by the people, for the
>people, we have government of the people, by the bureaucrats, for the
>bureaucrats--including among the bureaucrats the elected bureaucrats.

Agree. Excellent point.

[....stuff deleted....]
A
>        Does this mean that you're disappointed in Bush?

>        [Laughs.]  Disappointed is putting it very mildly.  I believe the Bush
>presidency has been very close to a disaster.

Yes but what did Reagan really do? Under Reagan we went from the
world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor
nation. Reagan just put everything on a charge account and now
he's dying and *we* get to pay. Bush just inherited the mess.

[.... stuff deleted....]

Brian Redman
(bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: antbh@strix.udac.uu.se (Bernhard Helander)
Subject: Somalia: fax-by-email, CORRECTION
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:21:25 GMT

The correct fax/email address should be

	State_Department@f00912026477120.fax.sunet.se

and

	Boutros_Ghali@f00912129634879.fax.sunet.se

A little but significant 'f' was missing in the previous annonuncement!
By the way I am surprised that no fax gateway exists in North America!


-- 
*****************************************************************************
*                                  *                                        *
* Bernhard Helander                * Telephone: +46-18-182289 (office)      *
* Dept of Cultural Anthropology    *            +46-18-303448 (home)        *
* University of Uppsala            *                                        *
* Tradgardsgatan 18                * Fax:       +46-18-151160               *
* S-753 09 Uppsala                 *                                        *
* Sweden                           * E-mail: Bernhard.Helander@antro.uu.se  *                                  
*                                  *                                        *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stoopendous Strategies
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:31:05 EST
 <1992Aug17.135631.3533@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug18.090219.29870@dscomsf.desy.de>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug18.090219.29870@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
> |>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
...
> |>> |>	The Serbs are not united in the war effort.  There have been large
> |>> |>anti-war demonstrations.  Units moving into Serbia are more likely to
> |>> |>be met
> |>> |>with parades than snipers.
> |>> 
> |>> Shear wishful thinking, no people greets an invading army with parades
> |>> after they have blown half of it up. The Serbian opposition will
> |>> disappear overnight the minute anyone starts bombing Serbia.
> |>
> |>	The French greeted the allies with parades, even after being bombed by
> |>them for four years.
> 
> They were aware that the main allied target was the NAZIs, not the French.

	But a lot of French died in those raids.  The Serbian population would
know that [insert country participating] would be intervening to stop the
warfare.

> |>	A sizeable portion of the Serbian population doesn't want war, and
> |>understands that Serbia is behind the agression.
> 
> That is precisely why people are not going to blow the place to smithereens.
> They hope that the opposition will topple Milosevich. They do not want to make
> the Gulf war blunder a second time. Bomb Serbia and Milosevich will be as secure
> as Saddam.

	There's no reason to bomb every square inch of Serbia.  Only combat
forces and supply areas need be attacked.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41314 talk.politics.theory:3799 soc.culture.usa:6782 alt.conspiracy:10228
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:34:40 GMT

In article <11725@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>After reflecting on this, you're right, I am overreacting.

Does this mean you're going to shut up now?

Truly truly, please?

I've been real good all year, Daddy.  Really.  Please?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Bisexual just means you pay for it."
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Rock Hudson
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 15 Aug 1992 02:46:27 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Aug13.180517.27198@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> In article <4501@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> >	Would YOU throw out your daughter if she told you she were
|> >pregnant assuming she's not married? What would you say about George
|> >BASH [sic] if he said he would excommunicate his granddaughter or
|> >daughter? This is the same George Bash, and he shows compassion for his
|> >children and grandchildren.
|> 
|> True, but Bush's policies aim at taking away choice from other people.
|> He seems to advocate a double standard by allowing his progeny to have
|> a choice that he would support, while simultaneously denying other
|> people's choices.

Bush said that if his grandkid had an abortion, he'd love her no less,
and that she'd decide whether or not to have an abortion. At no point 
did he say that he would protect her from the law if it was against the
law to have an abortion, merely that he wouldn't disown her if she did.
If he had been asked the same question about a grandkid who murdered
someone, or robbed a bank, I am sure that his response would have
been the same [i.e. he would still love his grandkid and that the choice
to violate the law would be his/hers]. I wonder if you would label that 
position pro-bank robbery or pro-murder and accuse him of being hypocritical 
since he claims to be tough on crime.

Of course, given that we live at a time when abortion is still the choice
of the woman [and an adult, if she is a minor], Bush's answer that it would
be woman's choice to have an abortion seems like the only logical answer
to give. 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
	<1992Aug17.024519.6289@Princeton.EDU> <Bt4B2F.8E3@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:50:11 GMT

In article <Bt4B2F.8E3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

   In article <1992Aug17.024519.6289@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
   >>However, abortion is not witholding assistance but the destruction of
   >>the fetus.  I don't know how the mother could withold assistance unless
   >>she were to starve herself or something similar.  Am I missing
   >>something?
   >>
   >How about RU 486?  It works by 'withholding assistance'.
   >Paul.

   I'll assume you are correct.  I don't know the ins and outs of how the
   pill works.  But it only changes the argument depending on whether you
   are assuming life begins at conception, viability, or birth.

It is pointless for me to continue refuting the same arguments
over and over again.  Therefore I will refer everyone who is
following up my article quoted above to previous articles in
the same thread.  And I will bid alt.politics.* adieu.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40964 alt.activism:15189 misc.headlines:5798 sci.econ:6979