HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: the election
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:06:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: klic.1992Nov7.220615.16119
Organization: Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits

In article <1992Nov7.012942.3144@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>
>I love it that the People voted a) to impose term-limits, and b) to
>re-elect Packwood to his ump-teenth consecutive term. It suggests a
>certain scintillating clarity of thought in the collective mind that
>makes me proud to be an Oregonian, and renews faith in the soundness 
>of the democratic system. Yahoo!!

The choice was between incumbent Packwood and incumbent (albeit in a different
office) AuCoin.  If Zippy the Pinhead had been on the ballot, he would 
have got a lot of votes.

I have dealt with AuCoin before.  He could give lessons to pond scum.  
I'm glad he is "retired", though I bet he will find a sinecure under 
Clinton. Perhaps in '98, the deposed Packwood can get a job from President
Kemp.

The reason we voted for term limits, my cynical friend, was because an
incumbent finds it frighteningly easy to peddle enough favors to get
all the money he needs to get re-elected.  People vote for who they hear
about, and who they hear about depends on the money available to promote
them.  As a libertarian, whose candidate DIDN'T have a lot of money this
time around, I got awfully tired of hearing about "the 3 candidates" 
from the media.  What "the 3 candidates" means is those candidates who
command enough billions of dollars to get the media's attention.  Term 
limits is one way to restrict the money flow a bit.

The major parties will still peddle influence, but some will get lost in
the handoff from the trained crooks to the untrained ones.  A marginal
gain for those of us who would like to get the government out of our faces,
even if it does cost our regions some pork for a few years.

-- 
Keith Lofstrom         keithl@klic.rain.com       Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Power ICs
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:59:36 GMT

In article <BxFFzL.BMr@slipknot.rain.com> robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed) writes:
>|>So, if I stick my money in a mattress, or give a dollar to the homeless man on
>|>the corner, I'd have to pay a consumption tax on it?  

>|You currently pay income tax on it. Since the proposal is to replace the
>|income tax, there would be no change in this regard.

>WAIT A MINUTE!  You're major point has been tax fairness.  You're one of the
>people proposing consumption taxes as "fairer."  I'm not consuming with this
>money, I'm saving it.  Where's the fairness in that?

I'm not sure I'm in favor of a consumption based tax (I'm certainly 
in favor of fairer tax codes...) However, the key point if "fairer"
not "completely fair to everyone." In this case (sticking money under
the mattress) the proposed consumption tax doesn't seem to be
either more or less fair than the current system. A tax code that's
fairer in some cases and no different in others would still be "fairer."

>|Actually, I believe they do. Alot [sic] of people get in trouble for
>|unreported income (for sums well under $10,000). _Somehow_ the IRS is finding
>|out about deposits...

>Speculation, hyperbole, or just plain lies?

As the phrasing implies (or should imply), speculation based on facts.
Someone has since posted that the banks provide the IRS with the
above mentioned information, but only on request. As a matter of
privacy (in which context the matter came up), I don't see any difference
between banks providing the information regularly or on demand.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Xref: sparky or.politics:458 talk.politics.misc:58525
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM
Newsgroups: or.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: News media liberal bias. Consider the mind-numbing alternative!
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:21:12 GMT
Followup-To: or.politics
Distribution: or
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

Consider if the news media had a CONSERVATIVE bias, you'd get:

   *interminable SCRIPTURE RECITALS,
   *vapid lectures about FAMILY VALUES,
   *heart-rendering solicitations for CASH, 
   *anchors who look like TAMMY FAY BAKER (yikes!),
   *anchor desks garlanded with BRIC-A-BRAC and garish KITSCH,
   *an exponential increase in PROSTITUTES taking over CHEAP MOTEL ROOMS!

    
Now, anyone for an aging DAN RATHER?


Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: the election
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:32:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: tvnews.1992Nov9.183242.6158
Organization: Tektronix TV Products

In article <1992Nov9.064006.26904@reed.edu>, "V Headshape" (sharvy@reed.edu)
wrote:

> Term-limits are flatly antithetical to Libertarian principles.

It should be obvious by now, even to the most myopic of Libertarians,
that the vast majority of Americans do not subscribe to "Libertarian
principles."

					Steve Rice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! *
stever@tv.tv.Tek.com                                   [phone (503) 627-1320]
From: scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: the election
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:42:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvca.1992Nov9.224209.2315
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom) writes:
: 
: I have dealt with AuCoin before.  He could give lessons to pond scum.

But, Packwood IS pond scum.

Scott Linn
scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com
Xref: sparky or.politics:460 alt.politics.clinton:16132 alt.politics.democrats.d:338 alt.politics.elections:22911 ba.politics:6831 co.politics:1625 ne.politics:2755 nj.politics:560 ny.politics:87 talk.politics.misc:58534
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:49:58 GMT
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan

In article <BxAB0J.5Dr@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
|> <JTURNER.92Nov5105638@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> <1j==Zm=@engin.umich.edu>
|> Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
|> Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
|> 
|> In article <1j==Zm=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> |There was a brief description of such a plan in the WSJ a couple
|> |of weeks ago.  Such a plan properly rewards saving and investment
|> |and still prevents the regressive nature of a simple consumption
|> |tax that most people would be against.
|> 
|> It might be more helpful if you would inform us non-regular readers of the Wall
|> Street Journal what the details of such a plan might be.  The IRS already finds
|> income verification a daunting task and discourages consultants so as to
|> minimize the number of individual 1099s they must crosscheck.  How would they
|> ever be able to verify each taxpayer's individual expenditures?  How many
|> people even keep such records?

Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the article.  If I remember correctly,
his point was that you wouldn't need to necessarily track expenditures,
only income savings and investment (which is currently done).  The
difference between what you earn and what you save would be your
consumption level.  In other words Consumption = Income - Savings.
You only need to track two items in order to determine the third.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:30:36 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Nov7.183308.14033@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>The interest on the debt benefits no one, rich or poor (and is more than
>15%...)

The interest on the debt benefits those who are wealthy enough to hold a
sufficiently large amount of government bonds.  Those who can save enough
tens of thousands of dollars in government bonds to exceed what they pay in
taxes to pay that interest greatly benefit from that interest.  In fact,
since we don't have a balanced budget, it would be fair to say that we're
not even paying the interest yet, and those who hold bonds are benefitting
from it.  But in the end, the working poor and the middle class pay for the
interest in taxes, but don't have the kind of savings to enable them to
benefit from it.  It amounts to a transfer of wealth from the working poor
and the middle class to the wealthy.
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics
From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:13:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.192824.4500@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
|In article <BZS.92Nov11050702@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
|
|>Since something like $500B per year is going to just pay the interest
|>on the debt you may well be wrong. Unless you just suggest we default
|>on the debt.
|
|This figure is way too high.  I don't know what the actual figure is,
|but if we figure a $4 trillion debt, and an average rate of 7% (that
|is probably too high), then the cost to finance this years debt would
|be $280 billion.  A lot, but quite a bit less than $500 billion.

Sorry, Barry, but Guido's right.  As I've posted in this newsgroup before, OMB
Mid-Session Review places mandatory spending this year (which includes both
national debt interest and federal deposit insurance) at $210 billion.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

I like my dental hygienist.  I think she's very pretty.  
So whenever I go to get my teeth cleaned, while I'm in the waiting room, I
eat an entire box of Oreo cookies.
Sometimes they have to cancel all the appointments for the rest of the day.
--Steve Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
From: batie@agora.rain.com (Alan Batie)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: the election
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:57:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: agora.BxCv4J.1n0
Organization: Open Communications Forum

sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>I love it that the People voted a) to impose term-limits, and b) to
>re-elect Packwood to his ump-teenth consecutive term.

Makes perfect sense: consider if you're a Republican who doesn't like
Packwood, but like the Democratic platform even less.  By voting for
term limits, you ensure that you get more of a choice next time.  I
don't believe you'll get a strong competitor to an incumbent during
the primaries because they would be afraid of offending the party
powers-that-be (in general).  Often you get no competition at all.

Also the term limits only apply to the state legistators, not the
federal ones due to Consitutional problems.  Since it applies to the
whole state, you don't have to worry about getting aced out because
you voted for term limits on your rep and no one else did on theirs.
-- 
Alan Batie                               \        What does it say about a
batie@agora.rain.com                      \       state when almost half of
+1 503 452-0960                          / \      the voters think it's
45 28 59 N / 122 43 20 W / 440' MSL     /   \     okay to discriminate?
Xref: sparky or.politics:417 talk.politics.misc:58088 alt.politics.libertarian:1606
From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: the election
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:29:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov7.012942.3144
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon


I love it that the People voted a) to impose term-limits, and b) to
re-elect Packwood to his ump-teenth consecutive term. It suggests a
certain scintillating clarity of thought in the collective mind that
makes me proud to be an Oregonian, and renews faith in the soundness 
of the democratic system. Yahoo!!
-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Newsgroups: or.politics
From: dise@decoy.uoregon.edu (David Casti)
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriage (was: The Difference Between Cs and Ls)
Reply-To: dise@oregon.uoregon.edu
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 18:54:56 GMT

In article <1110@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

> I'm guessing that what you really meant, but did not say, was that people
> should not be discriminated against for factors beyond their control which
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> aren't relevant to the position or subject at hand.

This is the critical mistake that every single anti-gay hatemonger (no, I'm  
not implying you are one such person, but you are co-opting their language)  
makes.

If antidiscrimination protection is only for people who have no control over  
their conditions, I want veteran status, religion and (especially relevant to  
this discussion) marital status struck from every antidiscrimination law.

Every one of those characteristics is the CHOICE of the individual, and that  
individual could have chosen differently.

Yet, for some unfathomable reason, we protect them too...
Xref: sparky or.politics:530 alt.politics.clinton:16605 alt.politics.democrats.d:404 alt.politics.elections:23277 ba.politics:6927 co.politics:1722 ne.politics:2837 nj.politics:621 ny.politics:144 talk.politics.misc:59213
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:05:06 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov9.051550.27787@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>Actually, I believe they do. Alot of people get in trouble for unreported
>>income (for sums well under $10,000). _Somehow_ the IRS is finding
>>out about deposits...

>  Where did this guy come from?  Banks do NOT report account balances to
>  the IRS as a matter of course, although they will disclose that 
>  information if requested to be the IRS as a routine matter of audit      
>  investigation.

It's hard to understand how you can, in the same sentence, claim I'm
wrong, and then repeat what I said. Currently, banks give the IRS
this information after only a routine request. How different, factually,
is that from, "_Somehow_ the IRS is finding out about deposits"? Therefore
the privacy issue I was addressing isn't reasonable: There is no loss
of privacy if banks automatically send the IRS this information
as opposed to doing so on request.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:05:20 GMT

In article <BxFDvr.BEE@slipknot.rain.com> robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP
(Robert Reed) writes:
>After this exposition, I can only suggest that before you shoot off in the
>future, that you check your facts.  I may make some statements that you find
>less than truthful, but I at least make SOME effort to speak the truth.  That
>does not appear to be the case with you.

While I agree with you on the facts of this matter, that comment was
uncalled for.  Frank may have been wrong, but in general he is accurate
and helpful.  I think in this case he was repeating something he had taken
for granted for a long time, which is why he didn't check it.  He SHOULD
review his tax records -- if he has significant capital gains he could have
quite a refund coming if he files amended returns!

Jens

>
>I've been put on jury duty for a rather insane case.  6000 ants dressed up
>as rice had robbed a chinese grocery.  I don't think they did it.  I know
>a few of them and they wouldn't do anything like that
>--Steve Wright
(usually I quote only relevant portions, but I couldn't resist leaving this
sig in)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: bud@kentrox.uucp (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: More info on New 3rd Party in Oregon
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Distribution: or
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:38:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.221314.24551@qiclab.scn.rain.com> al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman) writes:
>Actually this will be the 4th or 5th party.  There are other registered
>parties like the Libertarians...
>
>Amazing how a couple of billion bucks makes some folks forget the true
>predecessors!  I really wonder if Marrou would have gotten more
>votes than Ross if he'd spent the same amount.  
>
If he would have had the same *potential* to spend money as HRP, he would 
have gotten more publicity (and therefore more votes) that he did. If you
remember, HRP was getting ink (and ERP) before he started really spending 
cash. The papers and the networks could see the $ for campaign spending 
available, if he (HRP) was encouraged to run. 
-- 
  Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox    | That which does not kill me makes me strong.  |
 If my employer only knew... |                              -Nietzsche       |
   standard BS applies	     | ... but why risk it?  - me                    |
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriage (was: The Difference Between Cs and Ls)
Summary: The purpose of marriage.
Keywords: marriage, homosexuals, rights.
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:05:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: bug.1114
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: HALF, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Nov3.014838.2809@sequent.com> mikep@sequent.com
(Michael A. Prescott) writes:
>I guess I still have to disagree with you, and maybe throw a little
>different slant on this.  My understanding of the `real' LEGAL purpose
>of marriage has more to do with women as chattel, than it had to do
>with procreation.  We (hopefully) have come a long way since then,

That was never the purpose of our laws.

>but I think ym> will find on some deeper investigation that the majority
>of the `for the sake of the children' laws are based on religious views.

Even if this were true, so what?  It isn't my view (I'm not a Christian or
religious), and it is a fact that the marriage laws benefit children, and
thus society.  Isn't that a worth while purpose?

>This is not to say that I believe women are chattel; in fact, my wife
>could probably make the case that I'm a lot closer to chattel in value...

So why bring it up?

>The point I was trying to make in my first follow up is that there
>are more reasons and more rights that mixed-gender (?) couples seem
>to enjoy than same-gender couples.  This, as stated many times, is
>discrimination.

So what?  As I have stated, I see nothing wrong with discriminating between
traditional marriages and other arrangements.  In fact, it is demonstrably
good for children.  The question is whether it is legitimate and legal for
states to do that.  I say yes (and so do the courts, state legislatures,
and I'm sure, the majority of the people).  So far, no one has made a
convincing case that it isn't.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: the election
Summary: "Less obnoxious" is NOT equal to "better"!!
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:28:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: tvnews.1992Nov9.182807.6064
Organization: Tektronix TV Products

In article <1992Nov7.044022.21895@tvnews.tv.tek.com>, I said our best
chance of getting rid of both Les AuCoin and Bob Packwood was to dump
good ol' boy Les first.  In article <BxDA4v.97w@slipknot.rain.com>, Robert
Reed (robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP) responded:

> Well, that certainly clarifies things.  So the purpose of term limits
> is to dump politicians regardless of how you feel about their record
> ("less obnoxious" equates to "higher approval")?

My answer wasn't directed toward term limits, but to why someone who
voted for term limits would also vote for Packwood.  I certainly didn't
intend anyone to believe that I felt good ol' boy Les had a "better"
record in Congress than good ol' boy Bob!!  They are both skunks, but
the smell emanating from Les AuCoin is quite a bit stronger than the
smell that hangs around Packwood.

The reason for getting rid of Les AuCoin first is that he appears
to be young, personable, and energetic (I say "appears," because he
is 50 years old!).  Because of his looks and his ingratiating manner,
he is able to win people over more easily than Bob Packwood.
Therefore, Les is the more dangerous.

As many of you noticed during the campaign, Bob Packwood has all
the charisma of the log saws in a sawmill.  Cross him, and he'll
cut you to sawdust.

> And if we take your position at face value, what makes you think you
> can get rid of Packwood in 6 years . . .  It wouldn't surprise to find
> Packwood running again in 6 years.

I'm sure he will.  If Oregonians are smart enough, this time they'll
nominate a real person to run against him, instead of a political
robot.  Although Les AuCoin seems "different" than Bob Packwood,
under the skin they are clones.

I'm no political seer, but I believe Harry Lonsdale, as questionable
as he is, would have defeated Bob Packwood.  With any luck, Bob will
be knocked off in the primary six years hence, and we'll have a real
choice.

> If that was truly your intention, you probably just shot yourself in
> the foot.

If Les AuCoin had been elected, the shot would have been placed
somewhat higher than the foot!

					Steve Rice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! *
stever@tv.tv.Tek.com                                   [phone (503) 627-1320]
Newsgroups: or.politics