HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:56:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12028@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

># Look up "arseno-" in the OED or Webster's Unabridged, and you'll see it
># means "male", not "tail".

>It certainly does, but remember that meanings frequently change.
>For example, *Knabe* in German (boy) and "knave" in English have
>rather different meanings, yet are unquestionably cognates.

This is bullshit...you're backpedaling...can you admit you are wrong,
EVER?

>In any case, even the meaning of "male" doesn't help your case any.

sure does..."arsenokoitai" meant literally, "males who engage in active
sexual intercourse", and in the contemporary context meant "active male
temple prostitutes"...

># No silly, don't sell yourself short. We all have brains. We can determine
[what appears to be true in the Bible and what appears to be false]

>This is a debatable point.

But you can't even debate it unless you concede my point!!!    ...  :)

>Hmmm.  We can?  The Afrikaaners managed to persuade themselves that
>the Bible required segregation of the races -- based on Ham and Shem
>going their separate ways.

As illustrated in Genesis, the power of reasoning must be used wisely,
fairly, and with good intentions.

And when it comes to homosexuality, you have yet to learn these lessons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: summers%sanctum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jim Summers)
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
In-reply-to: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu's message of 2 Sep 1992 16:59:41 GMT
Organization: U of Utah
	<182rttINN4tj@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:36:25

In article <182rttINN4tj@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
   In article <1992Sep1.162745.25211@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
   >
   >In article <17uk8uINNdoo@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
   >]    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
   >                              ^^^^^^^^
   >Berkeley... I was out there a couple of weeks ago. Just as looney as it
   >was the last time I was there (1968).
   >
   >john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.ed
	 ^^^^^^^

       --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

   Home of the Free Speech Movement, tie-dye shirts, the best book
   stores in the USA, and more Nobel Prize winners than any other
   city in the world.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

AHA!! Cultural Elite!! Should have known. (mandatory :).

FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS 
Why all this mudslinging? One would think you are running for office!
Rational discussion of FACTS.  Or is that opposed on the [pick one]
platform?

LostBoy
jim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:28:58 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: more predictions
 <uqcDqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>

In article <uqcDqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) says:
>
>mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Aug28.150841.13262@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu
>(alex)
>> >     A strong president can keep congress in line, look at Ronald Reagans
>> > first term. Bush just doesn't have any direction, so congress does
>whatever
>> > the hell they want.
>> >
>>
>> During Reagan's first term, the Senate was a republican majority.
>
>Only for the first two years.  And the House hasn't been in GOP hands in
>almost
>forty.

God, how many times do we go around on this?  Go get your encyclopedia!
The Republicans gained a majority in the elections of 1980 and lost it
in the elections of 1986 - that's six (6) years.  Much was made of the
fact that the Republicans lost the majority when many "Reagan coat-tail"
Republicans failed to be re-elected.  After losing the majority, they
continued to lose seats in subsequent elections.  I went back and checked
this when it was first called into question.  Look it up!  Or, is this
a Republican's attempt at historical revisionism (The Kremlin would be
so *proud*)?

Senate Population By Congress

         Year    Congress   Democrats  Repros     Others

       1979-1981   96th       58         41          1
       1981-1983   97th       46         53          1
       1983-1985   98th       46         54          0
       1985-1987   99th       47         53          0
       1987-1989   100th      54         46          0
       1989-1991   101st      57         43          0

From the World Almanac Book of Facts, 1990, Page 305

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University            "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                  -Dan Quayle to Ohio farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Is George running for First Lady?
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:13:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: Elections, Candidates, Presidential politics

In article <1992Aug25.204112.14719@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby) writes:
>>                                           I'm confident, however, that
>>the Clinton/Gore camp will make the right moves here too.
>>
>
>It's really amazing that they continue to make all the right moves... I
>mean, they are Democrats, aren't they? I imagine Bush and Quayle as Butch
>Cassidy and the Sundance Kid looking back at their pursuers and saying "who
>ARE those guys?"


 I agree the Democrats are running a much better campaign this year
 than at any time in recent memory.  They have parried every GOP 
 thrust and dirty trick and have done a better job than many past
 Democrats at illuminating the hollwness and hypocrisy of the GOP's
 plans.  

 The problem is that we should not confuse political professionalism
 with leadership or good ideas.  "Slick Willie" is the consumate 
 politician; but despite many terms as governor of Arkansas, his state
 is at the bottom of just about every economic, environmental, and
 educational metric there is.   Nor has anything he's said convinced me 
 that he has any new ideas to correct the nation's many problems.
 Just more of the Democrats' tax-and-spend, big government approach to 
 everything.

 Of course it goes without saying that Bush is clueless and his party
 deserves every bit of its reputation for cynical greed, right wing
 loony-tunes and religious fanaticism.   

 So we're stuck again with that classic American problem of having only
 two viable political parties, and both of them complete horror shows:
 Nighmare on Pennsylvania Avenue, Aliens, and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre
 all rolled into one.   Of course there are tiny fringe parties:  the LP,
 the Socialists, etc.  But it's not just that they're not politically viable; 
 none of their ideas stand up to close scrutiny; all require a degree of
 religious devotion to whatever their underlying premise is.  

 On what possible basis does a thinking person make a decision in this
 swamp?  The lesser of two evils?  Oh, sure.   Stomach cancer or colon 
 cancer?  Lose a leg or poke out an eye?  Die in a plane crash or a car
 accident?   Eat the moldy bread or drink the sour milk?   *I* can't
 decide.   
        

---peter
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Increase in millionaires
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:44:34 GMT
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Aug26.195730.27559@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <ART.92Aug26141414@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>>Wrong, plain wrong.  In 1981 the year Ronald Reagan assumed office the
>>median US income was a little under $27,000.  In 1990 the median US
>>income was slightly over $29,000.  In the case of the mean the figures
>>are: 1981, $31,000; 1990, $35,000.  Source:  Alan Reynolds, "Upstarts and
>>Downstarts".  National Review, Aug 31, 1992, pp25-31.
>>
>>Read it liberals if you dare, you won't like it.  Of course I don't
>>expect to let a little thing like the facts interfere with what the
>>liberals put out for public consumption.
>
>I assume these are in constant dollars, or else your argument is in
>deep doodoo.

Of course they're in constant dollars, silly. 
Slightly different data, with the same basic thrust:
--
(originally posted by Paul Sand)
But here's `Real Median Family Income [1]' over the period in
question:

        1970 29625    1980 31675
        1971 29590    1981 30811
        1972 31045    1982 30394
        1973 31659    1983 30719
        1974 30826    1984 31547
        1975 30270    1985 31962
        1976 31225    1986 33328
        1977 31410    1987 33805
        1978 32405    1988 33742
        1979 32821    1989 34213
[1] From US Dept. of Commerce, Current Population Reports, Series
P-60, No. 172. CPI-U-X1 used to compute constant dollars.
-- 
Note that during Carter's term (77-81), it fell slightly.
During the Reagan years (81-89), it advanced 11%.

>Er, how much of this is attributable to the Baby Boomers reaching
>their peak earning years?

Baby boomers haven't *yet* reached their peak. That is supposed to
happen in the 90's.

---
Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Withholding assistance....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:27:04 GMT

rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:

] pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
]    How about RU 486?  It works by 'withholding assistance'.
]    Paul.
] 
] 
] In much the same way as pulling life-support from a recovering
] patient is 'withholding assistance'.


Can anyone clarify if 'withholding assistance' is
constured as an IkkyYukky, or as a 'doable ok' event?

Or is it one of those Morally relative matters....

ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Canada Has Pneumonia!
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:27:31 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <92Aug20.134342edt.136@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>In article <9208192325.AA23815@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:

>>     I visited Toronto last weekend.  Totally illuminating!
>>     Cool phrases on Canadian news channels like:

>>       " And the Art Museum of Ontario may reopen next year "
>>       " with the petitioning of the Toronto Symphony for
>>         bankruptcy "
>>       " if layoffs continue at their present rate, 1992 will
>>         supersede the 1990 all-time record for layoffs "

>>    11% unemployment!?
>>    $7.40 for two ice teas and fries!?
>>    $10 / hour for PARKING!?

>>     Holy CHRIST!

> 1) There has been, and is, a recession *throughout* North America.

Yes, but our unemployment is under 8%.

> 2) Toronto is a *big* city -- 3.2 million people in the official
>    Metro Toronto entity, and several million more within a 50mile
>    radius.  Big cities are expensive.  Ever try to park in New York?
>    San Francisco?  Buy a dinner for 2 with wine in Washington, DC?

Yes to all.  Parking in Boston costs about $5.00 and hour for short
term.  I've seen as high as $7.50.  Two ice teas and fries is about
$3.00.  If you get it somewhere like an airport it might be $5.00.

> 3) The prices you quote are (probably) in CDN dollars.  Don't forget
>    to multiply by .85 when making your whining and unscientific
>    comparisons.

1.  Multiplying by .85 doesn't help that much.  $8.50 an hour for
parking is pretty pathetic.  And why are his complaints 'whing'?
Because they knock and economic model you like?

>>    The couple I stayed with:

>>       " Our income tax was raised $20 / week this year "
>>       " Our property tax was raised 5% this year, but we were lucky, some
>>         places it went up 14% "
>>       " Well, the General Sales Tax [ Federal government tax on just about
>>   every goddamn thing under the sun ] was raised from 8 % to 15 % last
>>         year "

>  4) Yes, taxes are too high.  Government services however tend to be
>     much better than in major US cities. 

So what if people don't think they are worth the mmoney?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:48:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

   In article <5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:

   >Did the Republican convention look like a large circus of red-necks
   >to anyone else on the net?

	   It sure did to me. It is amazing to see a bunch of fat cats
   and pampered pets claim that hard work is such a virtue, to see
   Marilyn Quayle insinuate that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger when her
   husband was an even bigger one (the worst danger in his National Guard
   training would have been a hunter mistaking him for a deer), and so
   forth.

Oh, a stint at Oxford is less draft dodging than joining the National
Guard for six years, showing up, marching, saluting, digging foxholes
etc?  Yup, sitting at Oxford and not inhaling is much more patriotic.

	   And Marilyn Quayle is something else -- if having a career
   goes against a woman's fundamental nature, then why did she go to law
   school? Why didn't she just drop out of high school?

This is another one of those democratic lies I mentioned in another post.
At no time did anyone criticize Hillary for having a career.  She was
criticized for her political views e.g. kids suing their parents,
marriage=slavery etc.  Since she is politically active her views are
indeed fair game, with all that implies.

The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?  Sorry, they
opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.

I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh and he just said that Hillary
is being considered for Attorney General, possibly even Secretary of
State.  If that proves to be the case, then a very, very careful analysis
of her legal and political positions is in order.

Don't forget Hillary said, "If you get one, you get two of us."  With
that statement she painted a big fat bullseye on herself.   If you can't
stand the heat...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:25:06 GMT

In article <1684ED566.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org>
M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
      [...]
>>You imply that those who make their living by investing (speculating is
>>too strong a word) in stocks are not working. Do you know any of these
>>people? I know several, and they are the hardest working people I know.
>>They are working in the information industry: they are allocating capital
>>in our economy based on profit potential. I see nothing wrong with
>>rewarding these people for their labors, because the work they do is
>>as important as the work that you or I do.>
>*************
>Excuse me, but what does their activity add to the gross domestic product? It
 
Obviously. Not only are they productive, but they're *more* productive than
are laborers. Investors in high-risk bonds created CNN, Sprint and other
new employers in the 80s that employ thousands.
 
>seems to me that the main motivation that drives these people to *work* so
>hard is a mixture of greed and fear--hardly a cause for a pat on the back for
>a great contribution to American life or a commitment to a strong work ethic.
>They may provide working capital which lubricates the economic engine, but it
>is *not* done as a public service, so why do they deserve a *reward* in excess
>of that offered to the poor laborer for his sweat?
 
They provide the working capital that employs you and everyone else, and they
take a risk in doing it. Why should they be taxed *more* than other workers-
which, given the non-indexing of capital gains tax, they are?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Boom Boom Boom Boom :)
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:00:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.083015.42592@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <92239.170834DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>> 
>> So who are the 'Cultural Elite' Bush & Quayle are so fond of
>> warning us about anyway? 
>
>The "cultural elite" are roughly those who have a highly
>disproportionate access to influence on educated public opinion:

Shouldn't the President and Vice-President be included in this group?

> the
>overwhelming majority of academics and a clear majority of media
>people.  Rather obviously, they are predominantly Liberal.  This is
>difficult?
>

I was amused by the comments of Mickey Kaus (a liberal) on C-SPAN's 'Booknotes'
this past Sunday. He was talking about the charge - levelled again in this
posting - that 'the media are liberal-biased'. Kaus's comment was: 'Sure
it is. Most of the people who end up going into the media were liberals
to begin with. There's no point in denying it.'

Keep this point in mind: these are people who were liberal *before* they
chose a media career. I am curious about the cause of this phenomenon;
why is a liberal person more likely to go into a media job than a conservative?
Of course, one could propose a conspiracy theory, that once the media
became liberal, through some natural selection process, they then adopted
a conscious policy of excluding conservatives. I would be skeptical of such
a theory, because I tend to reject conspiracy theories generally. 

>********************************** +.............................+
>*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
>*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
>*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
>********************************** +.............................+
>

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:12:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.171741.7029@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.161759.12965@mcnc.org> ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek) writes:
>>Because of different needs for housing, purchasing patterns, graduated
>>rates, etc, a % tax rate number cannot be achieved.   A better way of
>>approximating one is to look at total government expenditures.  Roughly,
>>the Federal Budget is 25% of GDP, and the sum of state and local
>>spending is ~60% of the Federal, so that the total gov spending is
>>40% of GDP.  But due to the deficit, tax load is 35%.  Whether this is
>>sales tax, property, cigarette or FICA, it has to come out of somebody's
>>income. 

>Very true.  To be fair, are school districts included in this?

Yes, all local spending was included.

>>The highest marginal tax rate?  Including the FICA your employer pays?
>>
>>FICA         15%
>>FED          33%
>>State (HI)   10%
>>Property (1) 10.7%

>First of all, this is deceptive, since you only get 15% FICA if you
>count the matching amounts paid by the employer (the employee only pays
>7.51%)  Second, we should also recall that income above $48,000 is not
>subject to FICA - and that is lower than the low end of the 33% bracket.
>Third, as others have already pointed out, every state in the union
>allows you to deduct the amount of federal income tax paid from your
>state taxable income.  All of these reduce the amount quoted above
>significantly.

Deceptive? It was stated right there. And if the law was changed, I
think most employees would get salary raises equivalent to the new tax
load.  I think you truly earn that money.  Or I can recast the argument
for a self-employed person.

It may no longer be true, but a couple of years ago it was possible for
a couple to be 'on the bubble' when both had incomes under the FICA cap.
Sorry if I'm out of date.

The 1991 Information Please Almanac lists state income taxes, which is
where I searched for the highest state tax rate.  It notes 12 states as
allowing deductions for Federal taxes paid.  I don't know the truth of
this table, or the income level at which the highest tax rate kicks in
in Hawaii.

All of this kind of reinforces the point I was hoping to make, that in
terms of tax rate, the total tax load is an excellent measure.  In
terms of marginal tax rate, it depends to ridiculous extremes on when
and where you earned and spent that last dollar - rates between the
alternative minimum tax (~21%??) and the 90%'s can be 'proven'.

-- 
Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
But I make a profit of 3 1/4 cents an egg by selling them for 4 1/4
cents an egg to the people in Malta I buy them from for 7 cents an egg.
Of course, *I* don't make the profit.          Joseph Heller, Catcha 22
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Marrou and Perrot supporters get together in Studio City
Date: 29 Aug 92 19:45:11 GMT

VIS0005
 Saturday, Aug. 29 
   3 p.m. -- Studio City -- Andre Marrou, the Libertarian Party's 
   candidate for president, will address the National Leadership Conference 
   and speak to a gathering of Ross Perot followers. 
   Sportsmans Lodge Banquet Facility, 12833 Ventura Blvd. 

  Copyright 1992 The United Press International  
	



Distribution:
  Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu
  talk-politics-misc internet:talk-politics-misc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu