HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 18:15:49 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Definition
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU" at Dec 17, 92 10:23 am

JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU pisze:

>> Personally I think, "rightist" is being abused the same
>> way.  People are spending long posts on saying "nazis are/are not
>> rightists" either by references or fiat, but don't dwell on the
>> definition of what a "rightist" means.  Not very helpful.


In one of my firsts posting I have defined the rightist:

1) supporter of free market economy ( free = no government intervention)

2) supporter of superiority of national interest over "international peace"
  "disarmament movements" etc.

Nobody has questioned this definition, so I assume everybody accepts this.

Caius.

PS. in case of conflicts 1) is more important. You can called be a rightist
if you support free international trade. You are not a rightist if you
support protectionism or subventions for "national" industries.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Brandon's statement on alcohol/drugs
Date: 10 Dec 1992 18:55 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%92120919474862@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,       
  CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET writes...
>And actually, the muslim chaplain would be more qualified than a jewish
>chaplain; the muslims accept jesus as one of god's holy messengers, and
>appreciate the contribution of jesus to world theology and spirituality.
>The same cannot be said of judaism.

AHEM!!!  Do please be careful.  I think that a rabbi who attempted to discuss
the subject of Jesus' contributions in the exercise of pastoral duties (as
opposed to liturgy or theology) would be met rather harshly by most Jews,  
myself included.  All clergy have their place working as chaplains.


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:16:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      outa here !

All this political talk is cool ...

   but, I'm off to Florida !!!       :-)

           best wishes to Ellen, Jimbo, Tim, and all.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:07:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      rush, wwf, "sport"

Andy,
     Before we dialogue on the meaning of "sport" ...

     let us first agree on basic principle recognized by all civiliz-
     persons - bolwing is NOT a "sport."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:52:37 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: clear definitions
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Dec 15, 92 8:27 am

Robert Moss pisze:
>>
>> >Homosexuals have the same right to have a life and property, and to defend
>> >those rights in the court. But they are NOT normal, and I think that should
 be
>> >cleary stated.
>> >Caius
>>
>> Well, now you've done it!  Get ready for the onslaught.  You will now be
>> literally pelted with word games designed to confuse the issue.  Rather than
>> address the topic at hand, the defenders of the homosexual lifestyle choice,
>> will climb aboard the merry-go-round of "how about these types?" and "what
>> if it was those guys?".  They can also display an extremely hateful tone
>> when they sense attack upon their *open* minds.

It is our duty to clear out the definitions of normality that have been
messed up by the "open minds".

>> I'm sorry that you'll experience their hate but I'm proud that you have
>> shown strength of character in your remarks.  Full power to the shields.

Thank you for support. I'm glad you have similar views. The world is not
lost.

>> ---Robert

Caius



signoff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 08:31:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      <None>
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt427123@drew.edu>, Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:

> Actually, I haven't offered personal distaste at all.  I also haven't

the person you are replying to probably is talking about another
person who posted on the subject, and did offer personal distaste

> advocated "restricting the ability of gays to live and work where they
> please".  I've merely said that no owner is obligated to provide it to
> them.

this is a form of restricting, is it not?  If I'm gay and qualified to
work in a car plant, allowing the owner to discriminate against me is
restricting my employment.  You may feel it is ok (ex. I'm not
qualified or dress shabby on the interview, I'm restricted by the
employer and the gov't lets him do so), but it's still restricting.

>  (I'd like to have a Ferrari.  Is the local Ferrari dealership
> "restricting" my ability to have one by refusing to give one to me for
> the price I can afford?)

apparently not getting a job because of sexual orientation or race is
equal to not getting a car because you don't have enough money.  The
former case is _not_ discrimination in the legal sense or the sense we
as a nation are trying to avoid.  It is obvious that if you can't pay
for something or aren't qualified that you can be refused.  It is
completely different to discriminate bace on race, sexual orientation,
or the like.  It belittles your argument not to recognize this fact.

> I want other people to have the "right" to pick and choose on whatever
> basis they pick because I want that right for myself.  I have many
> "minority" interests and I don't want society interfering with them.
>
> Does Peter really believe that only "good" interests will be
> protected?
>
> -andy

apparently.  He's not alone in his apparent naiviete since many people
support the Civil Rights Act that prevents private discrimination
based on race, creed, national origin, and sex.  They don't seem to
think that such laws will require them to give away cars to people who
can't afford them.

    -Joe

Happy Holidays
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:22:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Packwood, Inouye, Thomas, etc....

>         So as long as he maintains his innocence, everything is ok?  LIke I
>said, Mr. Thomas has maintained his version of what happened (or didn't) with
>Ms. Hill, yet the press continues to BBQ him.

        However, Bush has maintained a similar "innocence" regarding his
infidelities....what's the point?  It can't work both ways....

(regarding those accusations against Bush, Brett' says:)

>        As soon as 10 women step forward, they will :).

So, if the person denies it, and there's only a charge about _one_ woman
, and it was consentual adultery, not forced sexual harrassment, then it's
OK that the press has laid down and died on the story?  HUH?

>
>>It's not all a big giant liberal conspiracy!
>>Jonathan
>
>        Of course not.  It's reporters and editors looking the other way while
>one of their own is caught with a hand in the cookie jar.
>
>Brett'

Brett' demonstrates that, in fact, he knows little about newspaper and tele-
vision news editors.  If there's a more conservative group out there, I'd sure
like to know (the only ones that come _close_ are the publishers and owners of
said media!).

Many reporters profess a personal liberal ideology.

Few, if any, editors profess a personal liberal ideology.

Few, if any, publishers/media owners profess a personal liberal ideology.

Any reporter worth their salt professes _NO_ ideology within the context of
their byline.

Any ideology expressed within such a context is summarily edited out.

If a charge of unprofessionalism (ie allowing personal bias to influence
story content) may be leveled, it must be leveled at the editorial level,
which, surprisingly, is most often conservative.

The one place (besides the editorial page) where it is permitted for a
journalist to profess personal opinion is in a syndicated column (and in
a local one, I guess....but who reads those? :) ).

Most columnists, by recent study, who profess an ideology within the
context of their column are quite clearly conservative.


I'm having trouble finding this "liberal media"....anyone care to point me
in the right direction?



-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:27:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: your mail

>Do you suppose if we took up a collection and sent them there they would
>staighten the place out? B)

oh, i certainly hope not....i'd rather hope they'd get a little bent instead.
-linda
>-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:52:44 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: prime theories

>> Considering that he did, he probably would.  Why does KAT ask if I
>> agree with something I've said?
>
>Well, maybe it is "an" argument against progressive rates (I think
>that it would be a strange one though) but it certainly is not one
>based on the notion that SOMEHOW progressive rates are unfavorable
>to poor people.

Huh?  I've point out a way that progressive marginal rates FAVOR rich
people, say that that's an argument against progressive marginal, and
KAT comes up with the above.

-andy

--
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:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:21:25 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Home ownership among the poor es

Brett' notes regarding non-means-tested gov't cash transfers:

>        Note that method 9 "nonmeans-tested" government cash transfers produces
>a whopping reduction in the poverty rate.

>        Government money transfers change the aggregate income drastically,
>with nonmeans-tested cash transfers changing the share by 2.3%, once again at
>the expense of the highest quintile.

>        More than a little support for the supposition that non-wage/salary
>income distorts the poverty picture.  Home equity doesn't change income share
>as much as the poverty rate.

So, Brett', are you saying that Social Security, Federal Employee and
Railroad retirements, Unemployment Insurance and Worker's Compensation
are bad things because they "distort" the poverty statistics? Are
you saying that they're bad because the wealthy don't benefit from
them? (a false assumption)

What's your real beef?

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:38:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl ad infinitum

> From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
> Don't you mean to say, it's not always pleasant to be confronted with the
> truth?  It appears that a great many participants on Politics-L are
> students and faculty of higher education, in other words, active
> participants or captives to the great and noble agenda of liberalism.
> That is precisely why you don't like to hear from me.  Although I am
> in higher education, I am not a faculty type.  I am more a Joe Average.
> When you swing open the doors of your ivory towers of academia and come
> out to play in the real world you're going to find a heck of a lot more
> of me than of you.
>
> ---Robert

I love how you assume we're all in ivory towers, Robert.  You seem to
think you're the only person with Internet access who's not a "faculty
type."

I'm a secretary.  One of the grubbies.  How does that fit in with
your comfy little world view of people with liberal leanings being
only in ivory towers?

Before you assume that all of us down in the gutter are of your same
mind, Robert, you'd better make sure we all really are.

Just because you're an Average Joe doesn't exempt you from the possibility
of being arrogant, overassumptive and blind.

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the "rivet-heads"
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:11:43 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>>The "climate of fear" comes from the fact that US "rivet-heads" cost
>>more than other rivet-heads.  Chrysler would love to shut out that
>>competition, but has failed.
>
>Gee andy, isn't the first step in warfare creating in the mind of the
>public and the military a sense that the "enemy" is not really fully
>human? I seem to remember it involving the use of derogatory
>terminology... krauts, commies, zipper-heads...hmmm, that last one
>sounds a lot like "rivet-heads" doesn't it?
>>-andy
>-other Andy

        I've seen just as much class warfare from those stating that
proportionally more taxes should be taken from the rich simply because "they
have it".  Why is this acceptable when supposedly targetting the poor is not?

        Just wondering about double standards....

Brett'
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court?
Date: 12 Dec 1992 22:30 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec12.100849.13900@netcom.com>,
 rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes...
>     What do you think will happen to the Supreme Court?

Up to five justices are possible retirees over the next four years.  The most
probable are Blackmun, White, and Rehnquist.  O'Connor and Stevens are less
likely.  As for appointees, at least one of the judges who was recently floated
for Atty. General may be picked, Laurence Tribe and Gov. Cuomo are second or
third seat choices, and there is a professor at Duke whose name I can't recall
offhand who was floated at one point.  In general, the first pick will be a
more moderate one than the second or third; by the time number four comes
around, the Senate will be prepared to scrutinize very closely.

Of course, I am not studying precognition, so anyone who relies on my advice
does so at their own risk.

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:09:06 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: laffer
              15 Dec 1992 07:39:53 EST from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

Well, Laffer's curve looked suspiciously symmetrical.  So I
assume it was more of Caius's creation than Laffer.  If *I*
were to plot it I would have done it this way (see below).  Of
course the horizontal access in both curves is a bit skewed
towards higher percentages, unless Caius thinks that today's
(average, single) rate is at about 75%.

(If someone had told me, "KAT, someday you would draw curves
in e-mail and send to POLITICS," I would have not believed
it.  God, I feel sorry for me. :-)

--KAT

                                            _____
                                          /      - :
                                      - /           |
                                   /                |
budget                         /                     |
income                     /            KAT Curve ==> |
 ^                      /                              |
 |                   / ______________    <==  Laffer   |
 |                /----               -----   Curve     |
 |              /                           \           |
 |           / |                             |  \        |
 |         /   |                             |   \       |
 |       /     |                             |      \     |
 |     /       |                             |       \    |
 |   /         |                             |          \  |
 | /           |                             |           \ |
 --------------------------------------------------------------->
 0%          suggested                     today         100%  tax rate
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:22:31 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hate Speech is back

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>
>>The Court seemed extremely disinclined to allow this sort of law
>>in its opinions in a recent Minnesota case. My prediction is that
>>the members will show at least a moderate change of heart.
>
>        For good reason (they should frown upon it).  "Hate motivated" means
>the court would have to delve into the thoughts of the perpetrator.  As far as
>I'm concerned thought crimes are double-plus ungood.

Hold on there.

The Supreme Court would NOT have to delve into anyone's thoughts. The
SC doesn't have to decide on the FACTS of the case. It only has to
decide on a matter of LAW, namely, whether statutory add-on penalties
for hate crimes are barred by the first amendment (I don't think the
defendant has given any argument other than a first amendment one, though
there might be a "vagueness" or "overbreadth" argument that taps the
first amendment).

So Brett doesn't have to decide whether thought crimes are good. He
only has to decide whether they are constitutional. Right?

It should also be abundantly clear that courts (the lower kind, and
especially juries) VERY OFTEN have to make findings about the state
of mind of a criminal. Don't argue that any penalty that requires
a finding about a state of mind is unconstitutional. That will be
a very bad argument.

>        In addition, how would the court(s) decide whether the crime was
>initiated by "hate" or the person only yelled politically incorrect things
>after the incident started?

You mean how would a jury decide what time the things were yelled??

I don't get the question.

And "political correctness" is a red herring, too, Brett. I think
you are making a false assumption about the facts of the case.

Jamie
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:11:26 GMT

Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU> writes:

>     I do not agree that Rush Limbaugh is racist.  If you think so, you
>haven't been paying attention to what he says.  Try reading his book.
>Point out the citations from there that demonstrate his racism.  In
>that way, I can challenge your accusations since I will be able to
>understand the context of anything you might attack him on.  I really
>do not think he is at all a racist.  Evidence please...
>
>Pizz

I've seen his television program.  He refers to black politicians as
'bro' in a sneering and mocking manner.  The (not so subtle) implication
is that black politicians should not be afforded the same respect as
other politicians, and should be referred to in the terms of inner
city slang.

But I've got a better proposition for you.  Since you appear to HAVE
his book, and I don't intend to LOOK at his book, why don't you just
post some quotes in which Rush clears himself of my uninformed charges?

--Jimbo
 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:39:53 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: laffer

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

                        Laffer curve
budget
income
 ^
 |                         _______
 |                  ___---         ---___
 |                -                       -
 |              /                           \
 |            / ----------------------------- \
 |          /  |                             |  \
 |         /   |                             |   \
 |       /     |                             |     \
 |      /      |                             |      \
 |     /       |                             |       \
 |   /         |                             |         \
 |  /          |                             |          \
 | /           |                             |           \
 |/            |                             |            \
 --------------------------------------------------------------->
 0%          suggested                     today         100%  tax rate
                                  taxes                        taxes


> Explanation:

> Let's imagine there is one tax : a percentage of something (incomes or
> spending, that's doesn't matter)

> At the 0% rate the budget receives nothing. (obviuos maths fact)
> At the 100% rate the budget receives nothng - people close or hide their
> businesses. (obvious economic fact)

Agreed.

> 1st Fact: The govt budget tends to request all money possible.

Fine.

> 2nd Fact: Increasing taxes can result in lower budget incomes.

"Can" as in "could possibly, under certain conditions?"  Again,
fine.

> 3rd Fact: Todays budget income can be achieved at a lower rate.

Whoa, hold your horses.  That is not so obvious to me.  The fact
that you put "today" at the right of the maximum is a non-fact
to me.  Could you please prove/show THAT.

> Conclusion:

>  ----  LOWER TAXES!  ----

Since your third fact above was not proven, I cannot take your
conclusions seriously, yet.

EVEN IF you are correct and we are to the right of the maxima, it
still does speak to the *distribution* of taxes.  Say, I agree with
you that if we halve taxes across the board, the total revenue would
actually be increased.  So today, I make $50,000 and pay $10,000 in
taxes and a typical rich guy makes $500,000 and pay $50,000 in taxes.
Tomorrow we make my taxes $5,000 and his $25,000.  THAT is still
unfair.

> Caius.

--KAT