HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: NY Libertarian gets some recent press
Date: 29 Aug 92 19:44:33 GMT

VIS000
daybook-ny UPI Western US
daybook-ny

ALBANY 
   2 p.m. -- Libertarian Party U.S. Senate candidate Norma Segal holds 
   news conference to announce getting on ballot. 
   LCA Press Room, Legislative Office Building. 
   Contact: Bill McMillen, 518-475-1618. 
  
Copyright 1992 The United Press International  
date of this unknown



Distribution:
  Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu
  talk-politics-misc internet:talk-politics-misc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Beth Gets Close to the Truth
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:18:58 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
] In article <azdy5xj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
] >
] >Like being a man or a post-menopausal woman?
] 
] But didn'tcha know, Rocker...
] 
] The Y chromosome clearly confers unsurpassed wisdom and knowledge.
] That's why we should listen and obey our men sans questions.
] Similarly, all those female hormones that wash through pre-menopausal
] women interferes with her clear thinking and right judgement.

Beth,

{I can call you beth?}

Just to clear up the ambiguity here, it is NOT the Y chrome
that Give Manly Men their Masculine Malenesss.

It is the Throbbing Wand of Wonderment, that Tumultuous
Totem of Truth, The Divine Discriminator of Domination,
The Most Heavenly Extension, The Pulsating Piston Of Piety,
The Enhanced Enlongation of Excellence, etc, etc, etc,
Which Affords unto those Endowed by Our Creator the 
Capability to Correctly Perceive and Understand all things.

ciao
drieux

ObPeeve: that women muddy up a simple understanding
with frivilous things like science....


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43488 ca.politics:7405 ba.politics:5012 talk.bizarre:28677
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: ROSEBUD"S LAST WORDS (was Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Cha
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 92 04:17:34 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ca

look all rosebud was trying to say is
that it's ok to ingest lots of chemicals which go directly
into your brain if you don't harm anybody (EXcluding yourself)
and to love everybody as well.

i may have been born in the 80s but i'm damned sure
what the sixties were all about
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant |  just om it                                     |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:19:53 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <183365@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
> In article <thompson.715376796@kiyotaki.econ.umn.edu>,
> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:
> |> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |>  
> |> >	Of course not.  But cutting taxes is a start.  As is reducing
> |> spending.
> |> [remainder of post deleted]
> |> 
> |> Without more solid evidence that tax cuts actually do what you claim
> |> these are simply assertions of belief.  The advise might be good,
> |> since there are certainly good theoretical reasons for using economic
> |> incentives to achieve economic (and even noneconomic) goals.  But the
> |> evidence that other forces are unimportant or counterproductive simply
> |> isn't there.  And clearly some disagree with the implicit goal of
> |> stable economic growth.  Scientific inquiry can not tell us what our
> |> goals should be.
> 
> Most, I think, might even agree that stable economic growth was in fact a
> desirable goal, and that supply-side system-tuning creates more ways to manage
> it, but most definitions of "stable economic growth" are 
> certainly more robust than the glib wall chart of ever-increasing GDP
> proposed by Brett.  Such a view of the world, to me, seems both superficial and
> wrong-headed. It is superficial in that it does not perceive that recessing GDP
> may be to economic growth what winter is to spring, and it is wrong-headed to
> focus on the wall chart possibly at the expense of the underlying economy.

	Had I professed any such animal as "ever-incresing GDP" you'd have a
debate.

> To interpret the 80's as a "resounding success" simply because GDP climbed
> linearly is neither accurate nor complete.  I for one am not sure that it
> is worth trying to imitate.

	It was a success because a majority of the people grew more
economically secure.  They earned more, the economy was expanding and twice
affirmed that they were better off than they had been four years previously.

> |> If economics is ever to achieve any kind of scientific respectability
> |> then those claiming to be economic experts must resist the temptation
> |> to overinterpret the available data.
> 
> Politicize the data, to be more precise.  Its not a good idea to "train"
> politicians to hide behind increasing GDP growth.  There are a number of
> things that they need to concentrate on.  Which ones change constantly.

	Okay, let's debate about what we should debate about instead of what
needs to be done.  Then we can call ourselves "candidates" :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43205 alt.politics.clinton:3754 alt.politics.bush:3778
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:44:38 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Distribution: na
 <1992Aug12.144139.10259@cs.cornell.edu>
 <1992Aug12.155801.7917@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
 <1992Aug12.170300.28190@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> <1992Sep1.161920.5289@cos.com>

>(Marc Mueller) writes:
>
>>If we want a health care system like Canada's, we would need to:
>
>>       Install a national 10% health care sales tax

Why?

>
>>       Cut doctor's salaries in half.

Hmm.  In 1982, the average U.S. physician earned 99,500, the average
Canadian physician earned $91,000.  Adjust for purchasing parity and you'll
find that physicians in the U.S. don't earn twice as much as in Canada.
Yes, U.S. physicians wwould earn less, but they, like physicians in other
NHI schemes, would have lower "hassle factors".  Just think, no longer
would they have to know how to fill out 3,000 different insurance forms.

>>       Reform tort laws to protect doctors from malpractice.

No big deal.

>
>>       Establish a rationing system to limit costs.

No big deal.

>
>>The last violates the new disabilities laws, the third would never get past
No, it doesn't according to a recent private meeting between Oregon officials
and the HCFA, who admitted that politics, not the ADA was the reason for the
rejection.

>>Congress, the second would require the AMA's cooperation (ie, let more
Why not?    Nonsense.  The U.S. is estimated to have a physician surplus
already.  Physician prices and incomes are not high because of a shortage
of physicians.

>doctors
>>graduate from med schools, etc ), the first would be political suicide.
                                    As well as completely unnecessary.


>>Therefore, a Canadian health care system is impossible to implement in this
>country.

Well, according to your logic, at least.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: See George Whine...
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 11:47:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.050643.14992@ads.com> jtn@ADS.COM (John T. Nelson) writes:
>
>Its ironic. Wasn't it Harry Truman who had the plaque on his desk that said
>"The Buck Stops Here"? George Bush likes to portray himself as the
>"come from behind" presidential candidate. A latter day Harry Truman. Yet,
>unlike Harry Truman, George Bush has passed the buck of blame onto
>Congress and garnered the victories of the past 4 years for himself (most
>notably Desert Storm). Yes Desert Storm WAS mostly his doing. But hardly a
>political or military victory now in retrospect.
>

Bush, Baker, and Cheney were all part of the Nixon/Ford adminstration which
were primarily responsible for the deterioration of America's military
might which was finally reversed in the final two years of the Carter
Administration, and accelerated by Reagan.  Why should the same gang
be trusted with the downsizing of American forces?

>Wah Wah WAH!  It's those big-spending Democrats!  Their welfare and social
>programs are all to blame for the budget deficit!  Funny.  He doesn't seem
>to realize that these massive budget deficits were racked up during the Reagan
>and Bush administrations of the past 12 years and its the President who submits
>the budget to Congress for approval.
>

Many of the entitlement programs causing the budget crisis today were
put in place by the same Nixon/Ford adminstration.  Baker was primarily
responsible for the current Social Security deal in the early eighties
which has regressive FICA taxes on the poor, and overtaxes the middle
class and created a slush fund to mask the size of the deficit.
Baker was at Treasury when the S&L scandal was allowed to be ignored
and become a multi-billion dollar drain on the public treasury.
And Baker was Secretary of State during the Bush Administration when
in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War, the US continued to financially
assist the Iraq military buildup even in the face of chemical warfare
against the Kurds.

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: [X] -- Put 10% of my Taxes to Paying on the National Debt.
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:21:52 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <01GNTTBS9IC0002O0Q@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
>`10%' ???  What the Heck?

>We already paid = 14% = of each '91 tax-dollar for National Debt.

That's interest.  The 10% additional would be principal.

>So what's the deal? Is Bush sounding the-bugle-call-of-retreat 
>from-fiscal-responsibility?? You made a real clear clarion call 
>there George.

Actually, it's the opposite - this would be fiscal responsibility.

>How about cutting back defense, space stations, supercolliders, and 
>other non-essential projects until such a time as =no= taxes need be 
>paid for federal-debt. And if you think these things are essential,
>then explain to me how the heck spending can be cut. Credit don't
>cut it, either. 

I don't think you understand the plan.  It would do this.

Let's take it nice and slow.

Everyone checks off up to 10% of their return to retire the debt.
Every penny they check off gets removed from general revenue and
applied towards the debt.  Expenditures are cut accross the board by
this amount unless congress and the president can agree on a better
way to do it.  Best of all, the new level of spending becomes the base
level for next year.  

The result?  The nation's tax payers get to cut spending by up to 10%
of income tax revenues every year.  It all goes to retire to debt.
According to the WSJ, 100% participation would pay off the debt in
under a decade.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:48:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.163341.16290@nwnexus.WA.COM> 
jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes to Martin Guerrero:

> Gee, you're still equating slavery with abortion?  Haven't you learned
> that FORCED CHILDBIRTH EQUATES WITH SLAVERY.  And neither is right.


Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
Millions of couples are being ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into 
having FORCED ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual 
intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms against their
will!!  The passion which enslaves them is the principal reason
why there are over a MILLION ABORTIONS performed each year!  
Forced orgasms are not right!  We must allow people to take back
control of their bodies!  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:25:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.010359.16604@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>>>	d> Only US citizens and US corportions may invest in any
>>>	   dept incurred by the federal government. 
>>
>>Why?  Also, please define a US corporation.  How much foreign
>>ownership is allowed?  How do you plan to prevent a foreigner from
>>buying one last share?
>
>now in a prvious posting i claraified this but what i mean is new debt
>aquired 10 years after the adoptions of this program which would be quite 
>small if all things work out.  however, you are correct one woudl have to
>define what is a "US corporatioon". and as for controlling who can aquire
>the debt that can be done buy the treasury department not selling it
>to those that do not qualify.  as well as enact laws which prevents others
>from reselling to non-US parties
>

The national debt is almost continually refinanced...it is impossible
to distinguish "new" debt from "old" debt...debt is debt.  The US
economy would collapse if foreigners stopped financing US government
debt...there just isn't enough savings in America to do the job...
there is a credit crunch as it is already.

Gerald
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Bias
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:17:28 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.


    demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|>  pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
|> >
|> > 
|> > Libertarians clearly have a bias and a morality.  Let them be honest about
|> > it and say so.
|> 
|> 	Bias towards less government, of course.  Just as some have a bias
|> towards more government or higher taxes.
|> 


This is easier for you to see apparently but 'bias' and 'morality' are
indistinguishable in behavior.  


|> 	A "morality"?  Everyone has a different one, to some degree.  But
|> almost all agree that one person's morality should not be made to influence
                                               ^^^^^^
|> another's.  If you want to base your economic system on morality, I'd be
|> against it on principle.  Not the ends which you are trying to
achieve, but the
|> means by which you propose to do it.
|>                         
|> Brett                                                   

I would re-write this as a statement of your personal morals in which
its 'important to you' that:

        one person's morality should not be made to influence another's,
&(2)    you are opposed to economic system's based on morality,
&       you deem the means relevant to achieving an end.

In my opinion, your prior paragraph is simply chock full of morality.
Hardly value neutral -- it contains lots of personal judgements.
I seek not to judge them, I share your values, but I do want to point them
out for what they are.

I'm tempted to re-phrase (2) above and say that you think "morality-based 
economic systems are 'wrong.'"  You can see the contradiction.  I do this, 
not to put words in your mouth, but to show that covert anti-morality is
a morality and can't be disguised (from me at least) by the seeming
'value-neutral' language of libertarianism.  Notice that I
underlined your use of the word "should."  Saying you're against it "on
principal" is not a very effective distraction.

There is a difference between being "non-attached" to morality and being
attached to non-morality.  In my opinion, being non-attached to morality is
a true moral neutrality in which one can simply assume ANY moral view without
inner resistance.  Notice how it could give rise to a total compassion since
you might be able to empathize, sincerely, with literally everone -- therefore,
it actually could be neutral.  Being attached to non-morality is, in my
opinion, only a pretense of moral neutrality. It might be uncomfortable
to be with
those seeking to export their morality.

Those well versed in Jungian psychology might begin to recognize 'morality' 
as a libertarian "shadow."								  
 


Paul Collacchi

        
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43075 talk.bizarre:28292 ba.politics:4941 ca.politics:7308
From: spt@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:48:09 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato Computer Centre

In article <12032@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.191904.10455@waikato.ac.nz>, spt@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia) writes:
>> In article <11996@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> > 
>> > This is what I expect though from liberals -- trying to justify
>> > a clearly crazy person with a deadly weapon.
>> 
>> Which crazy person with the gun do you mean.  The Chancellor, the Activist, or
>> yourself?
> 
> The crazy person with a deadly weapon had a machete, not a gun.
> 

I see.  If we had a 10 day standoff on buying machetes this sort of thing
might not happen.

> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
> Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
> prohibition won't work.

..but it's a good start


              /\                                                             
   /\    /\/\/  \/\/\      /\  /\/\        /\                /\            /\  
__/  \/\/            \/\/\/  \/    \/\/\/\/  \  /\/\/\/\/\/\/  \/\      /\/  \ 
A 117 part secret message from Simon Travaglia\/spt@waikato.ac.nz \/\/\/
  /\          /\University of Waikato, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
\/  \    /\/\/  \/\/\      /\  /\/\Ph: 064-7-838-4008/\  /\  /\    /\      /\ 
     \/\/            \/\/\/  \/    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/  \/  \/  \/\/  \/\/\/  \ 
An exception TESTS a rule; it NEVER proves it.
                                        -- Edmund C. Berkeley
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Remarks by William Bennett (text)
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:04:01 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <185rqrINNnlq@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu  
(Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
> >>Remarks by William Bennett, former Secretary of Education
> >>
> 
> Yes the former Secretary of Education, where he was a whiner and
> a complainer and did nothing to improve education in our nation
> in any measurable way.
[...] 
> What is this guy's claim to fame, anyway?  Henry Kissinger
> award for most respected intellectual with absolutely no
> accomplishments?   Most appearances on MacNeil-Lehrer by a
> cabinet-level official? (I will admit that compared to Quayle
> he's the second coming of Aristotle.)

He once dated Janis Joplin.

Anyway, he did do a good job as secretary of education.  Education moved  
way up the priority list as he argued about educational standards and the  
state of US schools.  Since he wasn't actually responsible for running any  
schools, he can't really be blamed for lack of improvement.  School  
funding went up, without much improvement in scores, but then he said that  
would happen.

Like anyone is going to solve the drug problem.

He was an academic before going into government--philosophy.  University  
of Texas, I think, or maybe that was just where he did his grad work.

And HAK with "no acomplishments?"  He was a full professor at Haavud  
before he moved to the NSC, former advisor to the Kennedy administration,  
and had a string of books and articles on foreign and military policy.  He  
was moving in nuclear strategy circles for a while in the late 50's early  
60's.  Not to mention the practical initiatives while NSC advisor and  
secretary of state, and the Nobel Peace Prize.

--
Don McGregor
drm@esl.com
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sex education at home Re: Abortion story
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:21:18 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>When a child
>does something wrong (i.e., against the law), the parents are (or should
>be) aggrieved.

Ooooh. Couldn't "wrong" and "unlawful" be distinct concepts? Do you
really believe that there's never been a state in the world with laws
that it would be "right" to disobey? And are you really saying that
parents "should" always be aggrieved when their son or daughter breaks
such a law?

I'm all for anything that enables kids to decide for themselves what's
right and wrong. I'd be skeptical that it had been acheived though, if
they equated this with what's "lawful" and "unlawful".

>Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)

FoFP
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41953 ca.politics:7060 ba.politics:4787