HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:12:00 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject: re: income tax

 *** Resending note of 08/31/92 16:57

 >  What Satanist was responsible for perpetrating the lie that wages are
 >  somehow income, when in fact they are an equal exchange with no profit
 >  derived by anyone.

 >>Satanist??  You're kidding, right??
 >>What do you think income is??  You could think of profit as the income
 >>for the work done by the store owner in trying to sell his goods.
 >>The 16th amendment says "income from whatever sources derived" and does
 >>not limit itself to profit.

 Yes, I was kidding about the Satanist, but not about the motivation behind
 the *lie*.  The 16th Amendment rests on the conclusion that each dollar
 you receive carries with it an added ability to purchase goods or services.
 This would be true in the case of *real* income, profit, but not in a case
 of equal trade.

 If I trade one of my hours for one of your dollars we have made an agreed
 upon trade.  We may each have something we want, but no profit has as yet
 been derived.  I could have just as easily traded my hour for a hamburger
 or a pair of shoes.  Still, no profit has necessarily occurred.  Both of
 these scenarios are identical.

 If each dollar can erroneously be considered as income "regardless of source",
 because of its implied purchasing power, then why not apply the same logic to
 my *hours*.  Perhaps you advocate a *waking hours tax*.

 A logical, and accurate, definition of income would be:
   Value over and above original investment, i.e. interest earned (profit)

 The 16th Amendment was also quite hastily ratified.  Although I have not
 looked into the process, many claim that the required number of states was
 never reached and that the amendment was illegally declared as ratified.

 >  Where is the IRS mentioned in the Constitution?

 >>Implicitly in the elastic clause.

 Whips, leather and chains clause would be more accurate.

 >  Where is the Constitutionally required "Gold or silver coin" with which
 >  we are required to pay our State taxes?

 >>There is none.  The Constitution says that states can not coin money.
 >>They can still accept gold or silver, and even make it legal tender in
 >>the state.  I don't think that provision was ever intended or taken to
 >>mean that we had to pay state taxes in gold or silver.

 You are WRONG on this count.  Don't feel too badly, Jamie never figured this
 out either.

 Article 1 section 10 U.S. Constitution

  "No State shall ... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender
   in payment of debts..."

 They were certainly explicit about something didn't really intend.

 ---Robert
 >Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:46:28 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Youthful punks
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:47:00 EST Tyrone Slothrop said:
>sure, toddddd, a lot of countries have/had  mandatory military service:
>the soviet union, yugoslavia, to name a few.  don't you think that
>we in the us should have more sense than to copy these countries?
>

How 'bout W. Germany, who is current sitting on 2% inflation and p*ssing
off the other European countries because the d mark is doing so well?

I had a college teammate from soccer who received a deferrment to attend
college here in the states.  He accepted what would amount to a job
of charity in this country afterwards despite German citizenship.  After
going home one last time to say goodbye, he was detained @ the border
and told his deferrment was up:  welcome to the W. German army!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:13:33 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Human Life Amendment

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> I was watching one of the Sunday newstalk shows, and Dan Quayle was
> being interviewed.  The interviewer was asking about the administration's
> position on abortion.  Quayle kept saying that he and Bush want
> people to think about abortion, to reflect on it, to come to terms
> with the importance of the action.  The interviewer kept saying,
> "but you support a Human Life Amendment."

I watched the same program and came out with a somewhat
different impression.  It is true that the reporter asked
about the human life amendment, but it was only after several
attempts at getting Quayle to say whether or not he agreed with:

      1.  the republican platform -- one which does not allow
          for exception in the cases of rape and incest.
          In fact he kept telling that it is the woman's
          choice.  That word "choice."  I guess now I know
          why some pro-lifers do not like the label "anti-choice."

      2.  a constitutional amendment that outlaws abortion.

Has anybody seen either Bush or Quayle recently saying that
they want to make abortion illegal?  The new spin is that
it is the woman's choice but meanwhile they are hoping that
a national debate would emerge as a result of the Republicans'
position.

> I don't understand why anyone has problems with the idea of a Human
> Life Amendment.  Part of the design of the amendment process is to
> make it very very difficult to get one actually passed.  In the
> process, the national debate is engaged, the people have an
> opportunity to voice their opinions, and the will of the majority
> eventually becomes the law of the land.

First Robert says he really isn't for allowing for exceptions in
the cases of rape and incest but agrees to such position because
it is expedient/politically possible/practical.  Now missy says,
the reason to go after an amendment which is difficult to be passed
is not the aim/hope that it will be passed but that it would
cause people to discuss the issue.

> What's wrong with that?

Well, three things:

      1.  It borders dishonesty, and makes the issue of life
          and death a political ploy.

      2.  Then how come you don't understand the position of
          people who advocate abortion on demand and for any
          purpose?  What if they say they are assuming that
          position ONLY in order to stimulate discussion.  And
          I guess jews should be grateful to KKK, since their
          extreme position stimulated discussion of the treatment
          jews.  (No compraison betwen KKK and pro-lifers is
          meant here, rather the logic seems similar.)

      3.  What if I tell my friend that his wife is sleeping
          around with the hope that as a result of the discussion
          between the two she would stop flirting with her
          co-workers?

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:37:07 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jamie's Response to my Deadly Force post

From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>>    Your response to my post was assinine.  I will repond to your dribble
>> in the very near future.
>
>> Carl-------+

> Good job, Carl. You are continuing in Jay's finest tradition.

> Name-calling instead of argument, well done. And to top it off,
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> you have misspelled "asinine."


Were you able to read in between the lines, Carl?  Jamie
is saying that your name calling is less insignificant than
your misspelling.

> Jamie

--KAT  poor Carl... he was born with Jamie's foot is his mouth   :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:28:23 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      take a powder

 liese,

 Don't blow a gasket.  It's just a figure of speech.  Do you react as
 virulently when you hear "fetal tissue" or "by-product of conception"?

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: morals
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:34:46 GMT

Robert SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET writes:
> Someone, maybe you, asked about atheists adopting.  My choice is NO.

Thanks for the information, Robert.  I would like to see if we can
spell this out in more detail.

Do you think that if my wife and I (both atheists and both egoists)
decide to adopt a child, the law ought to be such that we will not
be allowed to do so?

Be very careful with your answer.  Note well that I am (as I have
pointed out) the most moral man alive.  Note well that I will provide
a home that is healthy and safe and supportive for a child.

You know those 'family values' that the Republicans like to talk about?
Well, I can outclass the Republicans any day on each of them.

In short, I am astoundingly fit to be a parent.  

Will you send men with guns to stop me?

What if I arrange the adoption by contacting an abortion clinic which
gives counseling and letting them know that in the event they have a
potential patient who feels serious moral doubts about abortion I will
stand ready to pay all medical bills and room and board and some money
for (say) a college education in exchange for the right to adopt the
child?

Will you deny me?

Because I don't believe in your religion?

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 14:54:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

On Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:43:21 GMT jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.ED
U> said:
> In the stupidity sweepstakes, I was pulling hard for Robert.  But
> unless he comes up with a couple more real whoppers, I'm going to
> have to cast my vote for Travis.  Take a look at this!
>
> >I do not believe that
> >raping a woman is a violation of their bodies.
>
> Didja know that I dropped in on Clemson a couple of weeks ago?  My
Nice of you to drop by.

> wife was with me, and she walked into a grocery store unattended.
> Had I known about Travis then, I would have gone with her, as protection.
Ahhhh, your wife probably wouldn't be worth it.

> >Divorces should be illegal except in extreme circumstances.
>
> Why?
So that children don't have to live in torn families because "it just
didn't work out."  I mean, if divorce is easy to get, marriage loses
its meaning.  There should be strong proponderance of the evidence of
an act (such as adultery, if I had my druthers) that would, if proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, result in someone going to jail before a
divorce would be granted.

> Warning: snide ad hominem follows
>
> You know, my general impression of Clemson was that it was a
> marginally ugly campus with mediocre students.  That big fountain
> is o.k., although the general lack of upkeep makes the place look
> like the set from some post-apocalyptic movie.
Well gee, you must not have too bad an impression of the apocalypse.

>
> --Jimbo

Nice to know we don't have personal attacks on this list, ain't it?
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:30:06 EDT
From:         CSWGIBSO@ECUVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: two questions
              25 Aug 1992 20:21:32 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Although not an entirely political reply (come to think of it, it's in NO way
political).

Concerning question on why Homestead AFB planes not evac'd:

ALL air bases have evacuation plans for disasters such as the hurricane and do
execute them. The planes you're referring to (as seen on TV) were planes that
were down for maintenance and were unable to fly to safe haven.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  SCOTT GIBSON             *
*  CSWGIBSO@ECUVM1.BITNET   *
*  EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:24:21 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      propaganda

 Kerry,

 party platform please.

 No, not a big stage to dance on.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 07:41:26 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Are Quayles Pro-Choice?

 ( brilliant stuff deleted :) )

See, this time she was not talking about whether she would support
her or not.  This time she was saying under what circumstances
her daughter should bring the pregnancy to term.  She explicitly
excluded the cases where the woman's health (physical OR mental)
is in danger.

There is no question in *my* mind that there is something fishy
here.  The Quayles are dancing to the public opinion tune in order
to win votes.  What they really are -- pro-choice or pro-life --
cannot be determined by their answers, but their level of sincerity
and conviction can.

--KAT

   uh, KAT, maybe she was considering what happens if their daughter
  is raped and becomes pregnant as a result. this is rare, but it
  does happen. consider the effect on a young woman (13 or 14, i think)
  if she is not only raped, but is forced to remember the rape every
  minute of the day for 9 months. not to mention how she would feel
  about the child once it is born. would *any* compassionate parent
  force a child to go thru this?

  rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:30:54 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER
              28 Aug 1992 15:46:09 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

All you sickos trying to solve the rape problem:

Castration does *not* discourage rape, either physiologically or
psychologically.  Rape can be performed with a variety of
objects, and an angry psychotic man who can't have an erection is
highly likely to be twice as dangerous after castration than
before. That is not to say that castration prevents erection
(however, it may cause psychological impotence--another stunningly
bad idea for men who hate women.)

Rape is not about sex.  It is about power and violence.

I know.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:27:53 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Ross Perot and the Energizer Rabbit

On Wednesday, Ross Perot sent a letter to California officials to keep
his name on the California ballot.  Here in New York, Perot volunteers have
scheduled a rally in Albany today where they will present state officials
enough signatures to get Perot on this state's ballot.

It will be interesting to see how voters react to this--will they vote
for him?  My personal opinion is they won't:  You're either a candidate
or you're not and his sudden drop-out revealed a lot about him that I
suspect people don't like.  If people do vote for him, it seems to me
that Clinton has more to lose.  Polls I've seen say that Clinton has
a 30 point lead over Bush in California.  Perot was doing well in
California before he dropped out.  It seems far-fetched, though, that
Perot could get enough support to either win California or throw it
to Bush.  And, unless I'm missing something (which does happen), there
isn't any ground-swelling of support for Perot in this neck of the woods.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:15:03 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      quick response - vote for me everybody

 Jamie,

 I didn't go along with the logic because it wasn't exactly what I said.
 Had I given absolute approval of his little equation, I was going to
 take a major onslaught about perversion.  I don't see anything wrong
 with the answer I gave.

 If you want to know where I stand on something, ASK.  Don't try to
 manipulate me.

 At the risk of loosing the election, I do think rape is a violation of
 one's body, male or female.  I also think it should be considered a
 capital offense.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:43:13 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      chipmunks
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Sat, 29 Aug 1992 09:29:00 EDT the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar said:
>
>The Elvis-impersonator following Clinton around was, I think, hired by the
>Republican Victory Committee (or Coalition, or Congolomeration, or Cabaret,

It was the Republicans.  I see this as nothing more than satire on Clinton
trying to shake the "slick willie" name when it was assigned by declaring
his moniker to be "Elvis" instead.

>Since Andy insists that the Democrats are intent on behaving like their
>caricatures of Republicans, it occurs to me to wonder who some Democrats have
>hired to follow Bush around.  Could it be the Invisible Man, handing out
>invisible copies of Bush's domestic agenda?  Could it be a Harry Truman

You are way, way too late.  This idea was already taken by the National
Enquirer a couple of years ago /c a cover story that read "invisible agents
guard the president" and Truman's daughter has already been in the press
this week saying it's fortunate for George that her father wasn't alive
to straighten him out...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:10:07 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: meaningless phrases
              31 Aug 1992 15:37:44 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

Since we're talking about education (sort of):

Some friends and I were talking about college and an interesting question
came up.

Can you list 3 specific things your learned in college (in the classes,
not in the "atmosphere") that had a real value to you later in real life?

Second question:  Is your current job or area of study closely connected
to your undergraduate degree?

Please note:  only people who have actually graduated from college are allowed
to answer this question.

Thanks.

--Missy P 2 B
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Exposed For Lying About Lying--CNN
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:11:44 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Kerry Stephenson writes:
> Excuse me:
> 
> Bush did not say that Clinton's plan would raise taxes on everyone
> who had a job.  [*Deletion*]  Bush was, in fact, making
> a rhetorical point.  What he said was:
> "[Clinton] says he only wants to raise taxes on the rich.  But who
> does he think is rich? [pause for effect] Anybody who has a job."
[*Deletion*] 
> This is politics, folks.  A political speech is not supposed to contain
> too many facts.  Nor is it expected to avoid insults, hyperbole, and
> rhetoric.  If it does, it is boring, and nobody sticks around to watch.

I suppose if Clinton was to give a speech in which he said:  "Bush wants to
execute drug dealers.  But who does he think is a drug dealer?  [pause for
effect]  Anybody without a job who isn't White."  That then would not really be
a lie, but merely a "rhetorical point?"

I can agree that political speeches tend unfortunately to be filled with
emotional rhetoric and attacks on the other guy, and weak in facts and specific
proposals and such, but to expect lies from candidates is akin to expecting
Presidential corruption and criminal activity, and that can help to explain the
Reagan and Bush Presidencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
"A friend of the Devil is a friend of mine."        |     Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:53:34 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Poorly Dollar and the ERM
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Are any of the American readers of this list concerned about the state
of the dollar. Yesterday it fell below $2.00 to the pound, and is at
an all time low to the DM. Now, the DM is buoyed up by the Bundesbank
raising their interest rates in a pre-emptive strike on possible
inflation after re-unification. This has put strain on the whole ERM
with the result that Sterling, although pretty damned high against the
dollar, is languishing against the DM, as is the Lira.

What do other list members think about fixed exchange rates ?

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:21:02 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Boing

A good day for us hard-nosed, historical materialist election
prognosticators.

The Post-Convention Bounce has bounced back again, as our theory says it
must, though it happened faster than I expected.

The latest CBS poll shows the spread between Clinton and Bush almost
back where it was before the GOP convention.

I'm really looking forward to seeing Sue Clark's explanation. What
does her "ordinary person" friend say? Have all those ordinary
folk forgotten already how resonant Pat Buchanan's family values
were? Have they soured on the culture war so soon?

Jamie

p.s.

Great posting, Carl. We've now seen two consecutive postings
from you about how you are in too much of a hurry to respond.

Thanks to Andy F. for the info on the legal justification for
the use of deadly force. By and large, it isn't far from what
I thought it was, though the "castle doctrine" seems a bit
obscure to me.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:06:32 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cleaning off the desk on a Friday

Roger:

What makes you think I would consider 49% a landslide?

And why doesn't an almost even split qualify as a cultural
divide?

I think you're inhaling.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:43:00 EDT
From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      Smoking

Linda's post is precisely the reason why cigarettes should be
banned.

On a contrary note--I heard today that nicotine helps memory
by stimulating proper nerve cells.  I think what they're
saying is that the patch may be used to treat Alzheimer's.
This could be used in college too...can't remember your
physics formulae, just buy a pack of Winston's|

-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU