HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:16:55 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

In article <l9leemINNdk@news.bbn.com> ingria@BBN.COM writes:

>Wasn't Buchanan one of the advisers who convinced Reagan that it was
>perfectly fine to visit Bitburg?

Following are five quotes from an opinion piece by Alan Dershowitz:

**    Alan M. Dershowitz, "Pat Buchanan: a Viper in the Grass Roots",
**    Los Angeles Times, Sunday, November 24, 1991, p. M5, col. 1.

1.  "The New Republic ... concluded that `much of the material on which
     Buchanan bases his columns is sent to him by pro-Nazi,
     anti-Semitic cranks.'"

2.  "[Buchanan] - who never supports the rights of defendants in
     ordinary criminal cases - has championed the rights of such mass
     murderers as Klaus Barbie, Karl Linnas, John Demjanjuk and the SS
     killers buried at Bitburg."

3.  "Buchanan has allowed his column to be featured in Spotlight, a
     patently anti-Semitic and anti-black publication that championed
     David Duke."

4.  "About gay bashing, [Buchanan] once wrote: `Amidst the moral crud
     of the Weimar Republic, the Nazi bullies must have had a certain
     appeal.'"

5.  "[Buchanan] has ... referred admiringly to [Adolf Hitler] as `an
     individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War,
     a political organizer of the first rank.'"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42746 ca.politics:7231
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:53:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Jim Robinson -- another Canadian -- wants to throw his two cents in.
The trouble is, here is one Canadian who, because of poorly focused
U.S. policy regarding citizenship, probably CAN vote demoratic -- in
OUR elections.  (Jim was once an American.)  This is yet another
problem that demands the attention of our do-nothing Congress, but
don't hold your breath.  It is hardly even perceived as a problem.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 01:41:20 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug23.235014.27149@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
]Hey, John Moore in Scottsdale!  I bet you also voted for that guy
]who thought space aliens were spying on him with laser beams???
]
]	Bye, Judy.

yeah, I did, but that was before I knew what a loon he was. By the way,
he didn't think it was space aliens, he thought it was political opponents,
of whom he had many. Ev Mecham isn't crazy, he's just: egotistical,
racist, abrasive, naive and slimy. He is currently threatening to
disrupt our senate race by running as an independent.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:39:41 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>               ...at least Clinton can go down there and help build somethng
>> like he did in Atlanta for that project of Carter's.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> |Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
>> |Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
>> |3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
>> |Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
>
>     It was funny watching the video-bite of Clinton "helping" to build
>the house.  Did anyone else notice that Clinton was hammering away, but
>hitting the head of the nail only about 50% of the time?  More importantly,
>does this indicate what kind of President he would be (he can't hit the
>nail on the head with the issues either...)?
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:19:06 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1684EE54B.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>[Guilty name ommitted]
>>>
>>>> The paper (Sacramento Bee) reported that the 1990 US Census reported that the
>>>> average wage in the USA had declined since the 1980.  This average wage is
>>>> in real numbers, not adjusted for COL, inflation, taxes, military in/exclu-
>>>> sion, or any other voodoo.  That means that regardless of the numbers of
>>>> people who lost jobs, or who found them, or who used to work part-time and
>>>> now works full-time, or vice-versa, THE AVERAGE WAGE HAS DROPPED during the
>>>> Reagan-Bush era.
>>>
>Excuse me? Adjusting for inflation is "voodoo"? Tell me, if your income
>goes up 20%, and inflation is 30%, will you be out celebrating your raise?

And if my income goes up 0% (as it did), it doesn't matter what level infla-
tion is at, my wage has not increased.  If my income goes up -5%, or whatever
the average wage did since 1980, then it doesn't matter what level inflation
is at, my wage has declined.  I'm out celebrating because, unlike the national
average, my income did not go up a negative percentage.

>You can't look at dollar amounts exclusive of the worth of a dollar!  You
>have to consider what a dollar will buy. A realistic analysis shows that
>average wage earner did better under Reagan.

My bank doesn't look at my paycheck and say, "here, the level of inflation is
10%, so we'll just add 10% to your paycheck and put that into your account."
The grocery store doesn't look at the cash I give it and say, "today's level
of inflation is 10%, so the $40 you give us will cover $44 of your food bill
today".

I'm talking about the numbers on the paycheck and the bills in the pay envel-
ope.  The US Census is talking about the numbers on the paycheck and the
bills in the pay envelope.  It says that for the average wage earner, the
numbers on the paycheck DECREASED in value, that the bills in the pay envel-
ope added up to a SMALLER total, during the past ten years.  What's real:
abstract numbers that have been calculated using other abstract numbers, or
the digits on the paycheck?

If you lose one job paying you $1000 a month, and get a second job that pays
you $800 a month, do you go out and celebrate your raise because the level
of inflation is 30%?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:37:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Sep2.161828.10529@waikato.ac.nz> by spt@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia):

> > 
> > How long HAD she had the machete before she decided to kill people with it?
> > 
> Yeah!

In other words you don't know.

> Notice how they've conveniently forgotten to mention that.
> I bet she had a whole collection of machette's in her wardrobe!

Irrelevant.  The one was sufficient.

> I mean, let's put this in perspective, MACHETTEs don't kill people, guns do!

I don't think you'd like Haiti.

> Sheesh!  And they call these people stable!  There's probably hundreds of
> them out there, all of them with illegal machettes

I don't like people who try to murder others whether it's with a machete or
a 4.2" mortar.  Obviously you have a fondness for murderers with edged weapons.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Bush's acceptance speech -- @Clinton's taxes
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:13:25 GMT

In his acceptance speech Bush said that Clinton would raise taxes on the
rich with the rich being defined (by Clinton) as anyone who has a job.

Besides the fact that Clinton wants only to raise taxes on people making
over $200,000:

With the state of the economy at present, he is right. Anyone who
has a job is rich, at least compared to a LOT of Americans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95	FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						 
What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?		
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: speed, police, crime, hell
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:30:54 GMT

scaruffi@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Piero Scaruffi) writes:

[much deleted]
#
#     The traffic code certainly lends itself to abuses. Why  must  the
#     U.S.  have  such  a  low  speed limit? 

I think that the original reason for the speed limit was to save gasoline.
If a car drives from point A to point B at a constant speed of 55 mph,
it burns less gasoline than if it would go 85 mph. This is a result of
the old F=0.5*m*v^2 rule, as well as certain properties of internal
combustion engines.

Anyway, if its real bad for you, move to Maine - at some highways
there the limit is 65.

-Danny Keren.
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:58:21 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Sep3.085725.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>     It was funny watching the video-bite of Clinton "helping" to build
>the house.  Did anyone else notice that Clinton was hammering away, but
>hitting the head of the nail only about 50% of the time?  More importantly,
>does this indicate what kind of President he would be (he can't hit the
>nail on the head with the issues either...)?

It was even more noticeable that Bush was hitting the nail on the head a
perfect 0%.  Helping a little is better than not helping at all; getting it
right occasionally is better than never getting it right at all.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "There is no smaller package than a man wrapped up in himself" -- Anon.   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: A booming economy will do that, you know :)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:33:02 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In Message-ID: <9209012041.AA03641@poly.math.cornell.edu>
harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) crossposts to
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
about Subject: BUSH: The "Energy President" (II)
>
>******************************************************************  
> Kilograms of motor gasoline eonsumed per capita, 1989; and  
>average annual percentage growth of oil imports, 1982 to 1988:  
>******************************************************************  
>                    GASOLINE CONSUMED    GROWTH OF OIL  
>COUNTRY                 PER CAPITA       IMPORTS (%)  
>
>United States               1,272            7.2  
>
	A booming economy will do that for you.  Cheap resources should be
imported.  That certain people think this is "bad" is indicative of their
faulty logic.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:28:09 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug24.224136.21362@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.225503.7283@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>Glancing through my econ text, "we emphasize again that the changes in
>>labor supply that occurred were small.  For example, one study [Jerry
>>A. Hausman and James M. Poterba, "Household Behavior and the Tax
>>Reform Act of 1986, _Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer 1987]
>>estimated that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 increase labor supply of men
>>by 0.9% and the 1981 ERTA increased the labor supply of men by only
>>0.4%.  This small response of labor supply contradicts the
>>supply-siders' claim that the tax changes would have a dramatic effect
>>on economic behavior."  (Macroeconomics, Abel/Bernanke)
>
>Elizabeth,
>
>Can you explain the paragraph above?  On its face it seems totally
>nonsensical, but maybe I'm missing something.
>
>You seem to be saying that the change in the tax law had little or no
>effect on the labor supply.  Well, unless it makes people more willing
>to work longer hours I hardly see how it could.  After all, the labor
>supply is the total number of hours that employable people are willing
>to work, no?  

My impression was that an increase in the average tax rate would make
people feel poorer.  Labor supply would then increase, as people work
harder to maintain their standard of living.

>
>Weren't the tax law changes aimed at increasing labor demand, not labor
>supply?


An increase in labor demand would reduce unemployment fairly quickly.
I believe unemployment remained relatively high through most of the
1980s.  Given that labor supply did not increase dramatically, doesn't
this imply that labor demand did not increase as quickly as
supply-siders assumed that it will?





--
"There's one reborn every minute."
		-- Dalai Dan, 153rd Reincarnation of the Lama.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613))
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:39:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.213137.12672@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.180037.28472@clpd.kodak.com> fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613)) writes:
>>>Finally, it would be useful to re-iterate the fact that Social Security
>>>is currently not only paying its way with no deficit, but also *making*
>>>money for the government.  Indeed, this is seen in the current deficit
>>
>>This doesn't effect that fact that I will probably not see a penny
>>of SS.  Therefore it goes into the great government spending machine as
>>far as I am concerned.
>
>Hmm?  In case you hadn't heard, Social Security is making about 80-100
>Billion / yr.  That's a *profit* of about 25%.  If the government
>treated it like the insurance premiums or trust funds they are they
>would be socked away into a bank account - long term - and earn some
>interest.  Further, Social Security probably won't go into a deficit for
>at least a quarter century.  Not according to data I've seen.
>

You really believe that SS will be around in 50 years?  Yes it has a 
surplus now, but it wasn't so long ago that Wang Computers was making
a profit.  Things change.  The demographics work heavily against SS starting
in 2007.

>>>rates, which are about $80B/yr lower than actual because of the fact
>>>that FICA tax collected is counted in with *general revenues* instead of
>>>being counted as the trust fund and insurance policy that it is in fact.
>>>
>>>>Sum .687/1.075= 64% (to normalize for FICA you never see, paid directly)
>>
>>Nothing needs normalizing.  If the govt. did not take 7.65% from my
>>employer, I could be getting that money.  It is a stealth pay cut.
>
>No, it's not.  It's an insurance premium.  Employers *can* opt not to
>participate in FICA (I've been employed by one of those).
>

The only employer that I am aware of that can opt out is the government,
could you explain this?  I would love to talk my employer into opting
me out.

>>But most of what I buy also covers the taxes paid by the companys
>>I buy from, and the parts that they buy also has taxes built into 
>>them.
>
>Granted.  That's part of the cost of doing business, no?  
>

My point is that there are more percentage points that get into the
government's grubby little hands then are obvious.


-- 
Chris Fischer (fischer@serum.clpd.KODAK.com)
They never even listen to my opinion, why would they make it policy?
"The healthy gum tissue of our liberties are being eaten away by the 
 periodontal disease of government regulation." - D.Barry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Mr. Kaldis's "misogyny"
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 07:13:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: na

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes ...
>But I would like, at this point, to comment on an example of true
>misogyny that is all too prevalent (and too overlooked) within our
>society -- one that is, moreover, applauded by those who would like to
>portray me as a misogynist.  I am talking, of course, about the
>aberrant practice of homosexuality.

1) Misogyny means _hatred_ of women.  To be a homosexual means to 
   be sexually attracted to the same sex.  The two are not related.
2) You assume, without supporting evidence, that everyone should just
   accept your opinion that homosexuality is aberrant.  I don't.

>What has brought this to mind is a recent posting by Clayton Cramer
>where he pointed out that the drag queens who march in so-called "gay
>pride" parades are basically an insulting parody of femininity.  Now I

Parody need not be insulting.  And since neither you nor Cramer are female,
why are you insulted?

Hmmm?

>don't mean to suggest here that male homosexuality in all of its
>facets is an expression of misogyny, but it does indeed represent a
>profound failure on the part of some "men" to properly relate to
>women, particularly in the most intimate ways.  The homosexual is

Utter crap.  Homosexuality does not represent any failure to relate
to women, "properly" or otherwise.  It means that homosexuals are 
attracted sexually to members of their own sex.  Period.  I've known
some homosexual women with whom I had no trouble relating.  I don't
doubt that women would also report the same about homosexual men.

>essentially a person who, for some reason, cannot come to terms with
>his own sexuality, and has turn to an aberrant behavior in an attempt
>to repudiate it.  Integral to such behavior, to either a greater or
>lesser extent, is misogyny.

Also utter crap.

You can spew your bigotry and enjoy mutual mental masturbation with
similar bigots like Cramer, but please spare us the dime-store 
psychology and stick to something you know something about.

>The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
>my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>this would hold such views???       ||

I'm amazed that anyone associated in any way with a university such
as Rutgers could be so ignorant.  But you probably believe (as do all
bigots) that you are correct and have the true (if unpopular) perspective 
on human sexuality.  Putz.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines