HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:59:49 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
# Lee Story (lee@wang.com) writes:

# | Let's take one other example---the dress code that EDS was famous for.
# | This is indeed important in projecting a certain image to EDS's big
# | corporate customers, and may have been an essential part of Perot's
# | accumulation of billions of dollars; but what does it say about the
# | man:  once again that he was more than willing to kowtow to bigwig
# | prejudice, and to convention, and to think nothing of unnecessarily
# | taking personal choices away as a condition of employment, all to make
# | a buck.
# 
# John Locke (jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil) writes:
# | They never made this complaint about Eisenhower, and his organization
# | had to have had a stricter dress code than EDS. I'll bet at EDS they
# | at least let you pick your own ties.
# 
#   EDS has had a bad reputation among computer professionals for a
#   long time.  In many ways, EDS is stricter than even the Eisenhower
#   administration.  Jews have been fired for refusing to shave off 
#   their beards.

Actually, I was referring to the U.S. Army, the organization Eisenhower
ran in WWII. Why? Did the Eisenhower administration have a Draconian
dress code? I made the analogy to point that the military has by far the
strictest dress codes, but even at that they are not alone. Burger King
has a strict dress code. Many fine hotels make their doormen wear funny
coats and hats. Train conductors function under a dress code. As do
cocktail waitresses. How about the NFL? They make those macho pigs wear
the pansy ballet knickers. When you get right down to it, most working
people are functioning under a dress code. It's a non-issue.

John
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism
From: sike@athena.mit.edu (Michael G Sheldon)
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:57:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.223541.2704@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@m4-035-4.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
|> ...  Drugs should be legalized.  The illegality of drugs
|> creates crime, not the drugs.

Then murder should be legalized?  By your reasoning, the illegality of murder
creates crime, not the murder.

--Michael G. Sheldon
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17411 alt.politics.elections:580 misc.taxes:2166 alt.society.civil-liberty:3311
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:24:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Apr8.152341.21613@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes...
>>
>That sounds good as far as it goes but my concern is that determining
>cause and effect in pollution cases is much more difficult than with
>a mugger or a burglar.  The difficulties that nuclear test victims

There are multiple solutions that would be "ok" with libertarians.  The
most "libertarian" involves insurance companies and private security firms
taking the place of government and is a discussion that should probably
have a more narrow distribution amongst people who really want to talk
about a radical way to restructure society.

The most obvious one, and a reasonable step from the current situation,
is that the government role changes from setting arbitrary standards and
punishing companies for violating those standards (NOTE: the current
government function is not to help individuals who are injured, it is to
punish violators of government rules) to helping individuals gather the
evidence to prove their civil action for damages.  Today the government
doesn't really care that you got cancer from living next to some chemical
plant.  They care that company X is putting 600PPM of chemical Y into the
environment and will fine the company if it puts out 601PPM.  But, if the
company puts out 599PPM and you get cancer then its your tough luck
because the government said 600PPM was safe.  Even if they put out
601PPM, the government's current role is to fine the company for the
violation, not to help you gather the evidence to prove that the company
caused your illness.  So, you aren't any worse off than if the government
wasn't involved at all.

.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Tax rate on poor > Tax rate on rich
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:24:12 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Apr12.163658.26179@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
> 
> Here is a graph of incremental tax rates for incomes from $0 to $150,000.
> Poor people pay over 40% tax rate.  The current system in the USA is 
> regressive.

	If your definition of "poor" is 20-25K a year then your graph supports
your statement.
	However, this is in reality the lower end of the middle class.  Welcome
to reality.  The middle class always gets nailed because that's where most of
the tax revenue comes from.

>...[graph deleted]...
 
> The following are plots of the marginal tax rates for each of the 
> components of the federal tax bill-Social security tax, earned income credit,
> and income tax.  The marginal rate for the total federal tax is above. 
> Social Security tax is the dominant component of federal taxes for 
> middle and low income wage earners.  This regressive tax makes the current 
> system regressive as a whole.  The effect of loop-holes, available only to 
> people in greater income brackets, is not included in these plots.  These 
> loop-holes make the system even more regressive.
>...[graph deleted]... 

	You fail to mention that payments from social security are also indexed
this way for payouts (the more you make the less you get).  SS is a pyramid
scheme, of course the people paying into it are going to get burned.

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 17 Apr 92 11:52:38 GMT
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

wells@cs.hw.ac.uk (Francis Wells) writes:

> Coo-eee, Danny-boy ?? I'm here! And you are right I've got a problem...
> ...How to get you into my bed for a night of Fulsome Passion...
> 
> Frankums.
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>         This pink triangle was drawn \bi/ Francis Joseph Wells
> B4 f t g++ k+(+) s+ p                 \/                    wells@hci.hw.ac.u

You could not handle it sweetie. I am WAY too much for you.

-djk

----
Daniel J. Karnes - djk@CtEdge.COM  / ..netcom!ctedge!djk
NMS&Systems Engineering, Lake Elsinore, CA. 92530
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17256 rec.sport.hockey:9167
From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:16:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsk.1992Apr8.021605.28906
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr7.232217.14448@cs.dal.ca> johnston@ug.cs.dal.ca (geoff) writes:
>>Tell me an owner who have paid the consequences in millions of dollars.
>All of them.  The playoffs are cancelled.  
But the 1992 playoffs wasn't your original argument. Your argument was 

  "they have to weigh risks and pay the consequences in millions of dollars.
  Whereas the players, well, play hockey. And they are very well paid for it."
                                                                          ^^

This "it" means playing hockey in general, not the 1992 playoffs. 

Of course, if the owners could have forseen years ago that the 1992 playoffs 
would have been cancelled, then you have your point. Sure, then
this business is losing big money, and thus the players are entitled to 
lower salaries. You may as well count part of the 1993 season out, and
count that as more lost revenue.

>>Get real. If (a big IF) the revenue increases, why are the owners the only 
>>party entitled to the increased profit?
>
>They aren't.  Who said this?  
Because the owners from big American markets (McNall, Wirtz, Jacobs) are 
making big money, why aren't the players entitled to salaries proportional
to the revenue?

Of course, the small market Canadians teams are a different story.

>>And we haven't talked about the capital appreciation of the franchise yet.
>Or depreciation.
Tell me a franchise acquired before the Tampa Bay/Ottawa fiasco that
has depreciated.

You are talking about ~$1 million expansion fee in the early 70s, to
$35 million expansion fee in 1991. That's Appreciation, better than
the real estate in <your favorite city>.

>>Whereas the owners, well, just own. And they are much better paid for it.
>Not compared to any other investment of $50M+.
But before the Tampa/Ottawa dummies, nobody has ever invested $35M+ 
in an NHL franchise. Abe Pollin might have invested $1-2 millions for 
Capitals. McNall might have invested $10-20 million for the Kings 4 years 
ago.  The Kings worth much more than the current expansion fees
since Gretzky joined.

You are confusing the current worth of the franchise with the investment
principal.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:43:52 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <rdippold.702727830@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

+>visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
+>>	A "company town" involves the company owning the property that the
+>>town is on.  There is also nothing in liberatarianism to pervent employers
+>>from forcing people to buy only at the company store and to live in 
+>>company housing as a condition of employment.  The company is the employer
+>>and the property owner.  The only "right" under libertarianism that such
+>>people would have would be to quit the job.

+>Horrors!  If you're in my house you follow my rules or leave.  If
+>you're in a company town, you play by their rules or leave.  It's not
+>the only right you have, however.  If they shot you that might
+>_possibly_ be viewed as a rights violation.  


	No it would not.  If they shoot at you, you are undoubtibly a 
"trespasser" on company property.  The second the company fires you, 
you will of course become a "trespasser".  They have a right to defend their
property with deadly force.  If you choose to leave company property, the
company and its "agents" have a "right" to recover whatever company property
you may have "stolen" when you left.  (Company property includes all material
purchased at company stores).  people in company towns will of course 
be paid in company currency redeemable only at the company store and all
excess currency will be forfet on termination of employment.  

	Company towns and the rules by which they were ruled are not
some abstract idea, they are part of history.  The Liberitarians wish to 
bring back all the "bad" of the late 1800's without offering any solutions
for the problems which created the system they hate so much in the first 
place.  If it failed in the late 1800's, why should it work now?







Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17236 alt.drugs:7301 misc.legal:8969
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:28:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom._jqj3=n.feustel
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Civil Forfeiture has already been ruled constitutional. That's why I
call for another constitutional amendment that abolishes civil
forfeiture permanenently.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: Institute for Pure and Applied Eschatology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 02:36:40 GMT

In article <gPiRiB4w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>Sure did.. So normal couples with dysfunctional reproductive
>systems could bear children.. Not so that un-natural sexual
>practices could be 'legitimized' by faking a process that is
>impossible under NORMAL circumstances.

You know, every once in a while somebody astounds me with his or her
stupidity. This is one of those moments. I can just see biologists
saying `You know, I'm going to invent in-vitro fertilization, but it's
for heterosexuals only.'

I think we should have djk frozen in a block of Lucite, and placed on
permanent exhibition. Idiocy on this scale really deserves publicity. 
--
\    Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca>      "There is no law that vulgarity and
 \   Department of Computer Science      literary excellence cannot coexist."
 /\  University of British Columbia                        -- A. Trevor Hodge
/  \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:57:22 GMT

In article <bblF02VMbfsK00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>,
fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>  Again, another Libertarian bashing Perot; what gives???  My theory
>still holds... :-)

Of course we Libertarians are out to discredit Perot, or more
accurately I think, expose him.  There are people out there that we
know would have voted for Marrou who are now thinking of voting
for Perot just because "he has a chance" which Marrou is not
perceived as having.  We believe that these people would not really
be happy with their choice if they actually got him and we think it
is perfectly appropriate to tell them why.

>  You have obviously read/heard nothing about Perot.  Why don't you read
>the Larry King interview that has already been posted here twice?

Yes, by all means do -- very carefully.  Then go back and check the
things from that interview that Bill Evers refers to in his article
in today's Christian Science Monitor (which I will post later today
after all you eager beavers have already rushed out to buy a copy
:-) and see if he isn't correct in the concerns he expresses about
what Perot is really saying.

>  Doug

/June
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A flat tax is too progressive (was Jerry's Tax)
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:21:28 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Apr6.042437.29349@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
]forbearers.  Since you must have inheritance (else there'd be little
]motive to accumulate property), doesn't a rich heir gain disproportiate
]power?  Can't he use this power to deny others their rights?

He can gain disproportionate economic power, but translating that into denying
other's rights is, in general, pretty difficult. 

]Do the present Rockefellers or Gettys work hard to make all their money?
]Didn't they start off with far more advantages than, say, a kid in
]a ghetto, or you and I?

Yes... what would you do about it? Abolish inheritance (and hence, much 
incentive)? Furthermore, wealth tends to NOT stay in families more than
a few generations.

]>And, perhaps surprisingly to you, I don't disagree with goals 1 and 3.
]>I do, however, have a strong opinion that property rights are fundamental
]>to civil rights (thanks,  Friedrich Hyek), and that messing around with
]>them to achieve social goals is the road to tyranny.
]
]Isn't it spelled Hayek?  I don't remember.  Anyway, I feel that
]a purely Lockean notion of property rights only leads to perpetual
]misery for the underprivilaged.

Well, experience does not bear that out (yes, I miseditted the name).
Most wealthy people in this country earned it, not inheritted it.
Wealthy heirs who do not continue to work for their money tend to
lose it.

In the US, we have many examples of underpriviledged, or lower middle class,
that "made good." My own family is an example... I can go back a couple of
generations and find mostly poor ancestors, but I am not poor, and my
parents are not (not "rich" either).


-- 
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
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18364 misc.legal:9345
From: mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega
Keywords: extraterritoriality, sham, trial
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:44:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <kubnfbINNk6j@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:

>Yesterday, Manuel Noriega [was screwed...]
>Now if the U.S. can do this, then the following must be perfectly fine too:

[Some really good examples of turned tables that 'murika would find 
 unacceptable.]

>Someone tell me the difference.

Only one. The United States' collective penis is much larger than the
collective penises of other countries, and ours is nuclear tipped.

								   MPA
From: timlee@public.btr.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Politically Correct" -- A Quote
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:41:50 GMT
Reply-To: timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

conib@peri.gvg.tek.com (Coni Britten) writes:
|In article <6196@public.BTR.COM> timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee) writes:
|
|>"Politically correct" was fashionable as a self descriptive among
|>some leftist student activists who used it as a way of quickly
|>sorting people's political views.  That was before rightists started
|>using the term as a way of bashing others.
|
|Could you please give some citations of the use of the term "Politically
|Correct" (*with* its current definition of referring to non-right-wing
|political views, please) by "leftist student activists" which occur PRIOR
|to George Will's first use of this term in this way? 

Certainly.  A leftist student politician at Berkeley, discussing
possible candidates for student government elections, used the
term "PC" rather frequently as a means of describing the desirability
of possible candidates for her party.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:49:17 GMT

ty
Organization: The Ohio State University


In article <1992Apr13.005652.16242@amhux2.amheherst.edu> you write.

>I do not know how you can extrapolate from a single example to the
>rest of society.  Because you once saw a mother who appeared to be a
>lesbian who you thought was raising her child inappropriately, you
>conclude that no homosexual should have children?  You still seem to
>think that it is all right for women to have children.  Growing up in
>Brooklyn, I was mugged several times by young black men who lived in
>our area.  I was intelligent enough, however, to realize that this
>kind of behavior was not in any way representative of black people.

>
>--

Wan't to bet?  Have you ever read the readings of Malcom X, the oh so popular 
black activist who was killed by another black?  Have you ever seen our 
prisons?  Have you ever heard of the "stop the violence" campaign by 
responsible members of the black community?  The unfortunate fact is that 
violence is a significant part of the black community.  I won't comment on the 
homosexuality issue, although I will say that the truth probably lies in 
between both of your points of view.  (Personally, if my dad divorced my mom, 
then had a live in male lover move in, I'd fucking shit my pants.)

R. Scharfy
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18418 talk.politics.theory:2024
From: ph600fdd@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew B Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Information about the Libertarians wanted...
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:44:10 GMT
Followup-To: poster

I was wondering if there was a newsgroup about Libertarianism,
or if anyone had info about what they stand for, etc...
Maybe someone has made a file up on them.

Anyway, please respond via email if you can point me in the
right direction.

					Matt Harrington

-- 
Matthew B. Harrington
University of California at San Diego
P.O. Box 2832
La Jolla, CA 92038
From: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (John Morgan Morris)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: List of unions??
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:41:55 GMT
Organization: Georgia State University


Does anyone have a listing of names, addresses, etc. of the
major unions?

Thanks,
Morgan


-- 
John Morgan Morris
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083
matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
(404) 651-2253
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18211 alt.politics.elections:915