HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:02:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Economic Summit
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

I agree with Ellen on the purpose behind the Economic Summit of Bill
Clinton -- it was set up with the purpose of sending a message.  The
message was that the economy is in trouble, the Clinton administration
is out there struggling for a solution (a long term one with no easy
solutions), and is open to advice/debate.  It was said by some Clinton
insider (source: NYT) that Clinton basically knows his plans (I would
hope so) for the economy, but wanted the public to see that he is
working on it.  It is a nice message, a very optimistic and let's get
down to work idea, but time will tell if it means something.  I think
however that the attempt itself for reform will do us some good, a
belief that people could work with the gov't for economic and social
change instead of seeing the gov't that is supposed to represent you
as useless in this regard appeals to me.

One thing seems to be clear: economic discussion is hot on this
newsgroup.  As I await my economics final tommorrow, I glance at them
with a blank expression -- just not my cup of tea. I think I'm rather
normal in this regard and the people won't know exactly what these
guys are talking about 'cept on a broad scale.  That may not be
enough, but it will have to be since it's what is happening now.
People will pass C-SPAN to try to get to their movie channels and see
Bill play with his glasses and look secure, and decide what this
means. Democracy at work.

       -Joe

P.S. David Broder had a column how weird Clinton's cabinet picks are
i.e. each person seems to be better suited for another position.
Comments?
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:48:53 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: I screwed up, this is the REAL "On Rightism, ..."
Distribution: world
 <19DEC199215330889@oregon.uoregon.edu>

In article <19DEC199215330889@oregon.uoregon.edu>, dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu
(Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) says:
>
>In article <9212181700.AA12777@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,
>  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>>First based on socialism (a belief that the poor should fight the rich - in
>>1930 Germany those rich were Jews)
>
>I beg your pardon!  Tell me truly that European Jews in the WWII period were
>uniformly rich or that the rich were uniformly Jewish.  Do the words shtetl
>and
>pogrom mean anything?
>
>Mumble grumble.  And he tells me MY generalizations are racist.
>
>                                                Dan, ad nauseum

Most Jews in Germany were middle class. Most Jews in Eastern Europe were
peasants. Fascists tried to transform anti-wealthy sentiment into
anti-semitic sentiment by ignoring that. The reasons Jews made great
targets is while there were a few wealty ones you could single out and
get people to hate while there were a whole bunch of really poor ones
or at least common ones who you could easily go and beat up.
(though a small minority of industrialists and capitalsts were and are
Jews, so trying to blame Jewish wealth for capitalism or bad economic times
is unrealistic to say the least)

Has Albinowski been learning his history and economics from Pidulski or
something?
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 15:00:48 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

What is our purpose on Earth, if not for procreation, and the
betterment of the future world for our children?
From: UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU (Peter J. Schledorn)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Home ownership among the poor es
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:47:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >We've seen the numbers about home and property ownership and O'Andy
> >didn't like them, but it's nice to see him try to deflect things with
> >the "stock ownership" red-herring.
>
> No we haven't seen numbers on home and property ownership of those
> receiving government income maintenance assistance. What we have
> seen is a chart that shows income and outlays by quintile.

I don't have any numbers either (if anybody does please post them), but
do recall a statement that most of the home-owning poor are located in
rural areas (no surprise there), and that most of the houses they own
are considered substandard and worth very little.

Here in North Carolina, where we have a whole lot of substandard
housing, poverty activists often start projects designed to bring these
places up to a more livable condition (indoor plumbing, insulation,
storm windows and the like).

Best,
Peter

> >-andy
>
> -other Andy
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 02:02:44 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

T.

My whole point is that as abhorrent as discrimination is, it is only
our business when it is done in the public sector.  Private citizens
have the right to discriminate.  Why is it that when a group of
citizens get together to start a business, they LOSE some of their
civil rights?

Pizz
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:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:34:22 -0400
From:         RICK GEORGE <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Spike Lee and Racism

>Rick, if you mean to say that racism means a belief in the superiority
>of one's race, then why should Maxine Waters be allowed to publicly
>call Bush a racist at the Dem. Nat. Convention?  Clearly no one has
>accused Bush reasonably of thinking Whites are superior to minorities.
>They accuse him of establishing policies which do not benefit Blacks
>(i.e. refusal, pre-1991, to sign quota bills...).
>
>Pizz

If you ask why someone should be "allowed to publicly call Bush a
racist," I would say because of the First Amendment, wouldn't you?

If you mean to ask why Waters did it, since I am not Maxine Waters,
I can only speculate.  Perhaps she, like many others have, misused
the term?  If you are really curious as to why Waters called Bush
racist, I encourage you to drop her a note asking her.  Or maybe
you could track down the text of her remarks to which you refer
and glean her reasoning from that.

...Rick
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 17:43:34 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: Employment Law (inter alia)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "Dunstan_Vavasour" at Dec 18, 92 12:20 pm

Dunstan_Vavasour pisze:
>>
>> This all boils down to one's view of society. If you believe that
>> government has a role in forming social policy, then it is perfectly
>> legitimate and indeed necessary that government enact legislation
>> restricting the freedoms of employers.

I do not accept the government manipulating the economy.

>> Participation in any society results in a loss of personal liberty (and
>> in most cases welath via the taxation system). If you confer
>> legitimacy on a government to take away my money through taxation,
>> then you should also confer legitimacy on them to influence my
>> behaviour as an employer.
>>
>> What's the problem ?

The problem is : the taxation is necessary to pay for the army and police.
Manipulating the economy is not, what's more it is harmful

>> Dunstan

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 20:09:37 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: Last comments on "rightism"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              SMITH" at Dec 17, 92 9:26 pm

VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:
>>
>> Caius' claim that Hitler and Mussolini were "LEFTIST" is totally without
>> substantiation, nor does he offer a shred of evidence to buttress his
>> alleged "case."

1) Government intervention in economy (look at the economic law Hitler and
Mussolini have offered to the businesses) is enough to consider them
LEFTIST;

>> I cannot discuss an issue where an irrational position is
>> taken, and only rhetoric is offered to defend it.

You cannot discuss an issue, bacause you have nothing to say. You have no
proofs.

And you still support slogans like "nazi=rightist". And *YOU* offer nothing
but volume of trash.

>> There is not enough time to debate with a person who refuses to accept terms
>> that most of the scholarly world agrees upon. VMS


Give us proofs, not words!

Caius
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:46:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

Still being nitpicky, Jamie, your definition referred to the POPES of the
RC Church.  "Oh, you're so Popish."  The term was used disparagingly -
so how could one use "anti-popish" to mean "anti-pope" or "anti-papacy" or
"anti-Roman Catholic"?

When you said you didn't wish to be considered "anti-popish", did you mean that
you are in agreement with all those things disparaged by the term "popish"?

I think it's time for concession, Jame.

Yes, "popish" is a term used disparagingly (although your handy dictionary
hasn't enlightened us as to whether or not the term disparaged Popes, Roman
Catholics, or simply people who were likened to the Popes.

I do not believe your original post had anything to do with the definition
you posted; rather, you wished not to be considered "anti-the-Pope" and/or
"anti-the-Papacy" and/or "anti-Roman-Catholics", not "anti-a-term-used-dis-
paragingly-against-Roman-Catholic-Popes".

You should have used "anti-papist", the antithesis of one who is pro-papacy.

'fess up, now, and help begin to change my opinion of y'all Browners
(Brownies? Brownanisters?  Brownnunists?  Brownaramans?)....


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:33:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl ad infinitum

>I live and work in an ivory tower.  It is very nice, but we have
>a lot of trouble these days with the animal rights activists moaning
>about the poor elephants.


i've heard that there's a real problem with drafts when the winds pick up.
(or is that draughts?)

>--Jimbo

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 15:09:31 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
              18 Dec 1992 10:57:04 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

> 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.

What??!!  ANDY wants ME to answer hypothetical questions?  Well if
I answer that then Andy is gonna ask me to consider making laws
against neighbors ganging on each other.    :-)

It seems that Andy is particularly proud of his what-if-couple-of-
my-neighbors.... argument.

Let's see....there are many other occasions that I leave out some
of Andy's points from my responses.  Why Andy is inquiring about
this one?  Could it be that Andy thinks his other arguments were
not worthy of reposes?  I wonder.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:56:23 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the "rivet-heads"

>Brett', does a progressive tax structure deprive the wealthy of having
>the basic necessities? Does it deprive them of a meaningful reward for
>their labors?

So?

>Don't forget that .30 of every tax dollar collected is transferred into
>the hands of the wealthy as interest payment on the debt, effectively
>lowering their rate. In other words, progressivity is an attempt to
>cause the wealthy to pay the same real rate that everyone else does.
>The attempt usually fails.

Giggle.  The payment of interest on the debt goes only to those
wealthy who have loaned money to govt.  They've allowed the "rest of
us" to benefit from THEIR money.

>>        Just wondering about double standards....
>
>Let's create a reasonable standard of living that everyone can reasonably
>attain, then we'll worry about double standards.

What defines this reasonable standard of living?  Is it relative (read
class-warfare), or absolute?  (Hint: O'Andy's salary ratio limit is
relevant only for class-warfare.)

BTW - is O'Andy claiming that double-standards are necessary to get us
to utopia, that we have to break a few legs, I mean eggs?

The means PRODUCE the ends.  The intentions are largely irrelevant.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:21:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

Pizz:

        Private citizens' civil rights end where they infringe on the public's
interest.  Private businesses are only private in relation to their owners;
if they do business with the _public_, then they are quite different than just
"a bunch of private citizens".

        If you want to only hire white men to cut your lawn at your private
residence, it is a private matter (although some may make the case that you are
depriving people of color), it has no impact upon the public interest.

        If you want to only hire white men to cut other people's lawns as part
of your Lawn Care business, then it certainly impacts (negatively) upon the
public interest.  In all the recent talk about the "economy", people often lose
sight of the fact that the basis of our economy is not the CPI, the GNP, the
GDP - it's _jobs_.  Perhaps in other areas of the world they view things
differently, but here "equal opportunity" (at least, in word) i a basic
freedom.  By restricting a person's access to such opportunity based upon
irrelevant, non-job related criteria, you destroy this basic tenet.

        The local private hospital _may_ discriminate against me for a job
as a physician, because I have received no credentials/training as such.
However, the local private medical school may _not_ discriminate against me
for a seat in the school if I have fulfilled the admission requirements
because of the color of my skin or my sexual preference or my marital status!

        I still have no clear idea how you support your claim (other than you
just think businesses should be allowed to discriminate).


-T.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: I screwed up, this is the REAL "On Rightism, ..."
Date: 19 Dec 1992 15:33 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212181700.AA12777@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,       
  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>First based on socialism (a belief that the poor should fight the rich - in
>1930 Germany those rich were Jews)

I beg your pardon!  Tell me truly that European Jews in the WWII period were
uniformly rich or that the rich were uniformly Jewish.  Do the words shtetl and
pogrom mean anything?

Mumble grumble.  And he tells me MY generalizations are racist.

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:23:09 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton
              11 Dec 1992 15:11:03 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Any chance the FDA will do it?  It does happen to be a conservative
agency.

Evelyn Duncan
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 18:00:54 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: I screwed up, this is the REAL "On Rightism, ..."
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Dec 17, 92 9:38 am

James Sheldon pisze:

>> It strikes me this whole discussion on right vs left neglects the fundamental
 p
>> oint that these are relative, as opposed to fixed concepts.

Yes, thank you for pointing this out.

>> The Nazis clearly
>> fell within the scope of the political philosophy of fascism, i.e. a
 dictatoria
>> l regime based on extreme nationalism and racism.

First based on socialism (a belief that the poor should fight the rich - in
1930 Germany those rich were Jews)


>> This was opposed to communism
>> which had an economically based, egalitarian, supranational ideology.

This opposition was always on paper, not in reality

Hitler has offerd to his supporters very similar ideology as Lenin and
Stalin:

- Stalin : let's kill all the rich (here and abroad )
  and the better world will come automatically;

- Hitler : let's kill all the rich Jews ( here and abroad )
  and the better world will come automatically;


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:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:30:00 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Home ownership among poor

>        The figures I posted earlier show that about 4% of the current
>recipients* are not "needy" wrt the poverty line.  Not that they are
>fantastically wealthy, either.  The idea is that we need:

Considering that the largest part of the payments for entitlements
is Social Security, does that mean that you want to means-test
SS? Other significant parts of what you are carping about here
are things like federal employee retirements, veteran's benefits,
unemployment insurance and worker's compensation.

>        a) a better yardstick to determine need
>        b) a better way to get aid to the needy

I agree whole-heartedly. B)

>        If we are going to use the poverty level to determine need, we should
>count all entitlements as income for that purpose.

We use means-testing to determine need, if we appropriate too much money
for income maintenance, etc. then there will be a budget surplus for
those areas. If there were such a budget surplus, would it have not
come to light?

>Brett'

-other Andy
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 21:09:03 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              16, 92 12:17 pm

Jamie pisze:
>>
>> I'm satisfied that I understand most of the mechanisms reasonably
>> well. And it seems to me that a gold standard would not produce
>> any of the advertized benefits. Indeed, if it includes a government-
>> mandated price for gold, I think it would produce some fairly
>> serious problems.

Who speaks about government still putting his hands into gold?

>> Jamie

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:02:26 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Words

From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>Still being nitpicky, Jamie, your definition referred to the POPES
>of the RC Church.  "Oh, you're so Popish."  The term was used
>disparagingly - so how could one use "anti-popish" to mean
>"anti-pope" or "anti-papacy" or "anti-Roman Catholic"?

Huh?

It didn't refer to popes OF the Roman Catholic Church.
It referred to popes OR the Roman Catholic Church.

As for the rest, I'm not quite sure I understand. But I think
that T is suggesting that since "Popish" is disparaging of
Roman Catholics, to be "ANTI-Popish" must be to be PRO-Catholic.

But that's obviously wrong. If someone is "ANTI-KIKE," he
is against Jews, even though "Kike" is disparaging of Jews.

>I think it's time for concession, Jame.

So do I. Only we disagree about who should issue it.

>Yes, "popish" is a term used disparagingly (although your handy
>dictionary hasn't enlightened us as to whether or not the term
>disparaged Popes, Roman Catholics, or simply people who were
>likened to the Popes.

It did enlighten anyone who bothered to read it carefully.
I will post it again, exactly as I posted it the first time.

  Popish, adj., Of or pertaining to the popes or the Roman Catholic
  Church. Used disparagingly.

>I do not believe your original post had anything to do with the
>definition you posted; rather, you wished not to be considered
>"anti-the-Pope" and/or "anti-the-Papacy" and/or
>"anti-Roman-Catholics", not "anti-a-term-used-disparagingly-
>against-Roman-Catholic-Popes".

I did wish not to be considered "anti-Roman-Catholics."

And that is what the definition of "Popish" shows "anti-Popish"
to mean.

I did not say nor mean anything about being against some TERM.

>'fess up, now, and help begin to change my opinion of y'all Browners
>(Brownies? Brownanisters?  Brownnunists?  Brownaramans?)....

I'm happy to let your opinion of whoever you have opinions about
be whatever you want.

I think I will now post some fun quotations.

Latimer, 1549, "He wyl kepe his possession quyetly as he dyed in
the popyshe dayes."

Blackstone, 1769, "A short summary of the laws against the
papists, under their three several classes, of persons professing
the popish religion, popish recusants, convict, and popish
priests." (I don't understand it, and I don't know why
"convict" isn't plural, but that's the quotation.)

Carlyle, 1840, "See, Protestantism is dead; Popeism is more
alive that it, will be alive after it."

Finally, I now wish I had originally written "anti-popery."
It means the same thing, but I like the way it sounds better.

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