HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:27:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >Any complaints about the use of poverty figures to justify social
> >welfare spending are valid only of you assume that all of the current
> >needs are being met and any further spending is superfluous.
>
> Wrong.  "Ignore aid" poverty figures tell us NOTHING about the size of
> the unmet need, yet that's how they're being used.
>
> Consider the fallacy in "we still have <x> million poor people, so
> obviously the <y> billion we're spending on them isn't enough".
> If the definition of "poor" ignores the effect of that spending
> on those people ....

Andy's problem is that he thinks everyone argues like he does.  The
real argument goes something like this:  we have X million poor people.
Current spending manages to reach Y of them (where Y < X).  Therefore,
more funds will be needed to make Y approach X, if that is the goal.

What, you don't think poverty agencies count their clients?  Sheesh.

Best anyway,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: UVa PCMail 1.7.1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:16:03 EST
From:         "Scott W. Fischer" <swf7q@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject:      HELP
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
          <POLITICS%ohstvma.BITNET@Virginia.EDU>

I've sent messages to Listserv and it tells me I'm not signed up for the
list.  Any ideas how to convince it that I'm am signed up and want to go
NOMAIL so the University Computer Center doesn't have a fit when I get too
many messages in my mailbox?

Thanks,


  Scott W. Fischer
Mr. Jefferson's Resort                  Mary Washington College
University of Virginia                  Fredericksburg, Virginia

                             Home address:
                         717E Mountainwood Road
                    Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
              (804) 296-4752
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:25:44 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homos having kids

>From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
>
>Jamie pisze:
>
>>> > Homosexuals cannot have kids.
>>>
>>> That is false. In fact, it is very obviously false. Anyone who bothers
>>> to think about it will see that it is false.
>
>Really? Can they.

Yes, really, they can.

I said that anyone who bothers to THINK about it will see that it is
false. I suppose I should have said, Anyone who bothers to think
about it and is not abysmally ignorant.

>What about 2*2=4? Is it also very obviously false?

No, it is obviously true.

I see that Caius is as ignorant of arithmetic as he is of sexual
reproduction.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:51:00 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Re:Bush
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
>
> >> ...  Do not say that Bush's loss is
> >> proof that rightists are out-of-favor, ...
>
> >> --Dr. Pizz--
>
> > Bush's loss is proof that rightists are out-of-favor.
>
> > Jonathan
>
> But he asked you not to say that.
>
> --KAT :-)
>
I'll take my chances! :-)

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:11:21 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              16, 92 4:24 pm

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
>>
>> >> Would you please define "normal."
>>
>> > Homosexuals are not normal. They can do whatever they want in private,
>> > but I don't think we all have to consider they normal.
>>
>> Let me summarize your position.  You are saying that homosexuals
>> are not normal.  And in respond to my request, "please define
>> unnormal," you say unnormal is what homosexuals are.  Right?

No,it is not a definition. I just sent you quick reply to your question.

I am not sure if any strict definition is possible. The only definition  I
can think of is:
NORMAL is what has been widely accepted as NORMAL. Homosexuality has been
not! They are trying to speak of their abberation as normality, but i dont
think other people are accepting it.


>> I would like to use your definition, go to the streets, and see if
>> I can find other unnormal groups.
>>
>> Is a Pole visiting US normal?

No, he/she is a tourist.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.OX.MR; 17 DEC 92 16:18:49 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:13:15 +0000
From:         aldgate@VAX.OX.AC.UK
Subject:      normal

strange how some of you decide that normal is when one doesb't have to concern
oneself with ones taken for granted rights whereas gay people etc., have to be
positively ascribed with rights, pointing out that in the very moment in which
you want to say that they are normal because they have rights in common with
all others, they are not normal because they are the ones, ie., minorities who
have to be positively picked out as having rights. Patronising or what?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:02:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      2 things
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Ron Brown, the head of the Democratic National Committee was chosen as
Commerce Secretary by Bill Clinton.  By what I heard of Brown, I'm not
that comfortable with  him being in this post.  It feels like a
political appointment (obviously it is) that puts an important job
(our infrastructure is a major area of concern and possibility) in the
hands of someone less than well qualified for the role.

For anyone who's interested, I found out why states have so much
control alcohol via the 21st amendment.  The key area is the second
section: "The transportation or importation into any State... of the
United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in
violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."  The purpose of
this clause seems to be that dry states were worried that wet states
would cause problems by bringing alcohol into the state for transport
etc.  Thus, this section was meant to give states power to regulate this
area of interstate commerce even though the federal gov't has the right to
regulate interstate commerce via Art. 1.  An early case gave states
the right to tax out of state beer more than their beer, which under
the commerce clause would be illegal.  Lately this power was stretched
pretty far, including regulating nude dancing in bars -- an
interpretation that the dissent argued was absurd (and I tend to
agree).  It is to be noted that if you sell only state produced
alcohol, this stuff doesn't apply.

   -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:08:46 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re:normal
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Dec 15, 92 3:43 pm

Doctor Pizz pisze:
>>
>> MWM,
>>
>>      You are correct inassuming that I just joined the list yesterday,
>> so I did not see Caius' posting.  However, I must correct your
>> assumptions about the right wing.  I am extremely conservative, and I
>> support the Colorado Amendment 2.  However, I am NOT religious, nor do
>> I believe in imposing my moral beliefs on anyone.  However, I respect
>> the rights of any private business to impose whatever it wants on its
>> employees as a condition of their employment, provided it is made clear
>> to them before they are fired, such that they can have a chance to
>> conform.  I believe that homosexuals or heterosexuals should have the
>> right to keep government out of their bedrooms, and be allowed to do
>> whatever they want in private.  However, I do agree that the society
>> should not be forced to accept it as normal either.  The point is that
>> while I think homosexuality is wrong, and abnormal, I do not believe
>> that we should prevent people from doing it.  We all have the right to
>> do what we want.  However, privately owned businesses and the like
>> should have the right to control what activities can be undertaken on
>> their premises, and to impose whatever they want as long as people are
>> made aware of the restrictions before punitive action is taken.
>>
>> Pizz
>>
You can assume i have the nearly the same opinions.

Caius.
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, 14 Dec 1992 17:09:32 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      damages
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
After a day of local politicking (not to mention grading finals and being
in recovery from grading term papers), this is about all I'm capable of.

A damaged chromosome 23 will cause a damaged child.
A damaged old-growth forest will cause a damaged salmon fishery.
A damaged prairie will cause a damaged buffalo population.
A damaged printer will cause a damaged final exam :)

On a completely unrelated note:  the best excuse this semester for low
grades on late assignments is "because at the end of the semester we have
too many deadlines and we get too stressed."  Ergo, when a student asks to
turn something in late, respond "Oh, I couldn't possibly do that -- it
would put you under too much stress."

I liked it, anyway.

Off to bake banana bread.

Kerry
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: ivory? where?
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:28:17 GMT
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
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
Just adding my $0.02 -- my school ain't no ivory tower.  And I certainly
don't recall taking an oath of liberalism when I signed my contract.

Just out of curiosity -- how, Robert, do you define "Joe Average"?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Some replies...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:28:11 GMT

Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU> writes:
>     First of all, YES, private business should have the right to
>stipulate anything they want to in contracts, as long as they do not
>sign a contract specifying that illegal activities are to be performed.

Pizzaro, my friend, you appear to be seriously confused this evening.

I think that it has been true in every single country throughout the
entire history of mankind that private business has had the legal right
to stipulate whatever they like in contracts, just so long as they do
not sign a contract specifying that illegal activities are to be performed.

> Clearly, the sex at lunch hour or kickbacks of salaries are both
>illegal activities.  The first is prostitution, and the second speaks
>for itself. 

?

Are you opposed to the legalization of prostitution?  After all,
prostitution is just the combination of _sex_ with _free enterprise_.
Which one of those are you against?

And kickbacks of salaries?  What's that?

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:26:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Diversity of Views at Clinton's Summit?

I caught of few minutes (15 or so) of Clinton's Economic Conference last
night.  With the exception of one speaker who said bank regulators were
choking off credit, there seemed to be little disagreement over "what
should be done".  The consensus seemed to be that Clinton's plan was sound.

My question is how diverse were the opinions?
Was there anyone there saying the 16th Amendment should be repealed? that we
should go to a flat tax? a 50% top rate?, etc.

just wondering,

 - David
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:34:56 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: prime theories
              10 Dec 1992 12:21:48 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

> Suppose there was a change in tax policy that would quadruple the
> income of the 100 richest people in the US but would only double the
> amount of taxes we get from them.

> Is this enough information to decide whether or not such a change is
> "good"?  Many of the arguments have assumed that it is (or that "all
> other things are equal"), and that such a change would be "bad".  I'd
> argue that, "all other things being equal", such a change would be
> "good".

I remember a certain person who would not answer the following
hypothetical question:

        "If it can be shown that banning handguns would reduce
         crime, will you agree to it?"

>> Why wouldn't they put their money in those bonds now?

> Tax-free investments tend to have lower interest rates than taxable
> ones because investors get to keep ALL of the return from tax-free
> investments.  (All other things being equal, the appropriate measure
> is after-tax return.)

That is *exactly* what I said, in another post, but Brett' thinks
(I think) there is no relationship.  So . . . when the bracket is
increased the rate of return on tax-free bonds will be adjusted
downwards, thus slowing the flow of new investments in them.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:19:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Other People's Money

> I said:
>
> > Public money is (usually) just private money that has been taken from
> > the person who earned it.
>
> KAT responds:
>
> * And (what you think is) your money is (always) someone els's that was
> * taken away from them.

.my statement of confusion deleted.

KAT continues:

> Well, David, are you saying that being a member of this
> society is not "voluntary?" ... I am assuming
> that you "voluntarily" decided to be a member of this society
> which obligates you to pitch in for its expenses.

Agreed. However, I think there is a clear distinction between
buying a gallon of milk at the corner store; a voluntary,
private transaction, and "buying" government services; which may
be entirely voluntary (on the part of the taxpayer :-)) but the
penalties for not "buying" are severe.

Given the above, I believe our leaders (and I voted for some of them) have
a moral obligation to both limit spending public money and to spend it
wisely, neither of which is being done very well, IMO.

- David (just call me "Hoss")

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:10:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

Some stuff from Pizz:

>From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: Some replies...
>
>T.
>
>Again, government has a responsibility to keep its house in order vis a
>vis discrimination rules.  They also have the responsibility to award
>government contracts in a way that does not benefit those who
>discriminate, and they have the right to refuse to give financial and
>other aid benefits to them.  Whenever federal money is involved, they
>can insist on whatever they want, and they should!

I still can't figure out something: Pizz dislikes discrimination _so much_,
the good Dr wants the government to impose a sort of sanction on private
businesses that discriminate; yet Pizz thinks that businesses should be
allowed to discriminate.

Isn't this like arguing for anti-smoking laws, then saying that if the
smoker can get away with it, then it's OK?  I don't understand.

>                                                       However, if the
>business is completely privately owned, operated, funded, etc., the
>government has no business getting involved.

Pizz: have the terms "sweatshops" & "robber-barons" ever crossed your path?

Now, I know that you'll say something like "I think the govt _should_ step
in if it's something illegal"; that's what I'm afraid of.  You're saying that
businesses should be allowed to discriminate (which is currently illegal), and
the govt has no business interfering; yet, if businesses do something illegal,
then the govt can come in and stop it.  HUH?

>
>Pizz

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:57:04 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)

>> Sure, you got to choose whether or not you made the deal.
>
>I don't follow that.  Can I say we never had a deal so I am not
>gonna pay?  After all, there is no signed or verbal contract.

Sure there is.  We can take it to court if you like.

>> Feel free to point out where I made a deal with govt.
>
>You agreed to the "deal," when you started using the streets or
>leaving your garbage at the curb, or when attended public schools.

I pay for garbage service.

Since I was compelled by law to attend said schools ....

The govt didn't ask me about those streets.  Where's the contract?
(Note that I can use those streets whether or not I paid taxes.)

I note that KAT is ducking the question about my neighbors holding an
election and deciding that they get all my stuff.  I wonder why.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:18:49 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: prime theories
              10 Dec 1992 18:47:59 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

My last post on this topic . . . for now . . . unless . . .      :-)

If someone shows a causal relationship that when top rates are
reduced that we increase incomeXrate I am willing to consider
it.

But for now . . . I don't care what the published rates are.
If I make $50,000 (gross) and pay $10,000 in taxes and the next
typical, average rich guy makes $500,000 (gross) and pays $50,000
in taxes, I call that unfair (I am willing -- but not happily --
to exclude Social Security TAXES -- yes TAXES -- out of the above
calculation).  You can tell me that he is paying MORE taxes than I am
till you are blue in the face, I will not buy it and will still claim
that it is unfair.

I said the above under the assumption that a fair tax system is
a progressive one.  Now if you want to claim that a flat tax or a
head tax is fairer then I was barking the wrong tree.  Maybe
we should argue THAT.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:07:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Tim's "duties"

Ramon:

        One correction (at least, for now - I can't spend _all_ my time
tutoring the kid) for Tim:

        I know it's a question of semantics, actually 'spatial-relational
semantics', if you will; Tim picks _at_ me (action directed upward) rather
than _on_ me (action directed down or across).  He does this often.

        Quite rarely, the kid actually finds something _real_ to pick at!

        Even more rare are the time(s) he scores a hit...


-T.

PS Ramon: have you ever played Ping Pong against an opponent who can barely
return your serves?  Kind of bums you out, right?

Wish they'd have at least Table Tennis 101 up in ol' RI....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:19:53 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      why gold
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

I wrote:
|> Most of the 19th century economies flourished despite (or because
|> of) deflation.

Stephan wrote:
>>Sorry, but we are at the end of the 20th century. The whole situation in
>>the 19th century was completely different. The so called industrial
>>revolution was just really catching on. The productivity per worker
>>increased several times, so it is no wonder why the economies flourished.

I don't think the century number has a significant role in determining how
the economy works. It must be something else. Let'summarize.

In the 19th century:
- the so called industrial revolution was just really catching on
- productivity per worker increased several times
- economies flourished

Now, at the end of the 20th century:
- industries in trouble
- robotics and computers are prefered to human productivity
- economies stagnate

My conclusion is:

It is the whole economic environment which is responsible for bad results of
our ecomomies: absence of hard currency, government regulating every aspect
of our economic life, protectionism, so called "social programmes" which
redistrubute to the lazies, what the hard-workers have produced.

Instead of: stable monetary system based on specie (prefferable gold),
free-market     economy(free from govt intervention), free international trade,
just tax system not discouraging people from working.


Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:46:05 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Dec 17, 92 12:54 pm

Doctor Pizz pisze:
>>  The less government is involved in my life, the happier I'll be!


ME TOO! A couple of my friends too!

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU