HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:29:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits

In article <19778@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <3463@master.CNA.TEK.COM>, mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>} In article <BtLwqr.MHG@news.cso.uiuc.edu?? daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
>} 
>} ??I strongly agree with the (most) Republicans in their call for congressional
>} ??term limits.  I used to live in Peoria, IL and Rep. Bob Michel (currently
>} ??

>"Vote for their opponent.", you say?  Well, what if they run unopposed? 

  How often are Congressional seats uncontested?  (Ans: almost never)

>Or what if there is opposition, but it is, in your view, even worse? 

  This would still be an issue with term limits.

>Or what if you just do not want the office filled, no matter who is
>running?

   This is irrelevant to the question of Congressional term limits. 

---peter
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Not Voting & proud of it?  Woodbury the wooden-headed
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:33:01 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <94872@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <7ydnrlm.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Telling people I don't vote often elicits a strong reaction
    >>
    >Seems to me that someone who doesn't vote shouldn't bother
    >paying taxes, either. And once you stop paying taxes, you
    >shouldn't expect to be able to use public utilities like
    >highways.

That's rather irrational. It is, alas, only rational to surrender to the
largest protection racket around. If the racket gets too obnoxious, a thing
called a revolution happens. The good thing about democracy is that it
tends to keep the obnoxious level just below that point.


    >>Nobody, but nobody has ever answered this question.
    >>
    >That's because everyone recognizes that no form of government
    >is completely coercion-free. And if you eliminate government
    >entirely, people will revert to their own individual forms of
    >coercion...

No, "everyone" nevers recognizes anything. Coercion is not possible
nor desirable to eliminate. Initiation of coercion is the worthy goal.
When Joe Criminal breaks into my house, I want lots and lots of coercion
to direct at him.

    >>The great thing about not voting is the very message it
    >>sends.
    >>
    >Except that it doesn't send any message at all. As measured
    >by its practical effect, not voting because of protest of the
    >system is entirely equvalent to not voting out of apathy.
    >
    >If you want your voice to be heard, but you don't think the
    >present system (voting) is anything more than corrupt
    >coercion, think of some other way to do it. That would sure
    >beat doing nothing.
    >
    >No pain, no gain.

Oh yeah? Let's get the voter turnout to less than 5% and watch what
happens. In the myriad, semi-fascist European countries, they maintain the
facade of legitimacy by requiring people to vote under pain of
law. Think about it. They resort to FORCING people to choose. Seems kind of
not freedom-like to me ...




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: pjs@world.std.com (Paul J Schmidt)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:11:47 GMT

pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
: In article <37209@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
: >... A company which consistently lies about its 
: >products will not be in business very long.
: >
: >				Brad Cote'
: 
: That is the hope, anyway.
: 
: As a mild counter-example, take a look at the persistent difficulty in
: finding honest, effective auto-repair shops. This has been a problem
: since the automobile came on the scene, and even in this regulated age
: is still a problem.
: 
: - Don Pajerek
: 
: Standard disclaimers apply.
: 
I have found two in our town.  And I have found good and bad teachers in
our schools.  But unfortunately the government monopoly makes it almost
impossible for me to take my child elsewhere.  I still can choose to
take my car to the garage I trust.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Education (was why progressive tax rates )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:07:56 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug20.145241.5284@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
]> Also, we
]>did see large increases in funding to education in the 80s, so maybe
]>it wasn't terribly clear until very recently that more funding would not
]>be sufficient to solve the problem and that we really needed
]>more fundamental reform.   What do you think?
]
]I wish I had statistics, but my impression is that funding is rather recent
](last 2-3 years, not really in the '80s).  Additionally, as was pointed out
]to me by Alan Carroll the education funding remains less than 3% of the 
]budget.  Furthermore, most of the education funding comes from the states.

Better to use statistics of spending per pupil than spending per GNP.
The US has the largest spending per pupil of any country in the world except
a few minor rich arab countries. Money is not the problem with education.

]Maybe I don't follow here.  What was the population (From 1980 to 1990)?
]Say the number is 130 million, just for argument.  10% growth implies that
]there will be 13 million more, of which a large percentage will be babies.
]Say that percent is 50%.  That means 6.5 million immigrants which would

This is nonsense. The population in 1980 was 226 million. 1990 was
around 250 million.
-- 
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
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: The Morality of Minimal Requirements on Health Insurance Payments (was: National Health Care)
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:29:09 GMT

In article <l9o92lINN6g5@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)  
writes:

[my arguments against taxation for nationalized medical care]

> |> 
> Have you considered the possibility that the reason we have the most  
expensive
> health care system (per covered person) and the largest number of uncovered
> citizens may be due to the fact we are the only industrialized country  
without
> a national health care system of some kind?  What if a nationalized system
> would actually take the per/person cost down and cover more people?  Would
> that be a good use of taxation?

Maybe the fact that we have the *best* health care system in the world is  
because we *don't* have a national health care system.

If I hold a gun to your head and take all your money, I have a "more efficient"  
system of survival.  However, you are left with a "less efficient" system of  
survival.  How do you intend to pay for a national health care system?  Oh, I  
forgot, by taxing the rich (shhhhhhh -- you see, they don't have enough *votes*  
to keep us from taking it ;-| ).  People may think, somehow, that the "ends  
justifies the means," but this is a formula for tyranny.  And if they're going  
to steal things for satisfy their own personal morality, they may just regret  
the day when the producers quit building things to steal. 

I have lived in places where it would be argued (seriously) that being a  
christian would improve your health (no offense to christians -- I'm just  
making a point).  Do we legislate christianity?  This would offend most  
American liberals, yet they consistently move to legislate *their* morality on  
other people (and at least American conservatives just tell you they're going  
to force you do do what they think is right -- it brings it out in the open).

In other words, "NO," it wouldn't be a good use of taxation :-)

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 22:07:42 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug23001306@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

>I've read how this "fairness" operates.  A typical scheme is as
>follows: A Palestinian farmer is denied the right to till his soil for
                                                           ^^^

I've read about it, too.  One problem among Arabs is that land
ownership is often not documented on paper.  Claims are often based 
on cries of "But we've ALWAYS owned it!".  There are plenty of 
"Arab" houses in Jerusalem and Hebron that still have Jewish Mezuza
slots carved into the stone doorposts, attesting to their Jewish 
ownership before the Jews were driven out and slaughtered in 1948.
And the Arabs there still cry "But it's ALWAYS been our home.  You are
stealing our homes!".  And the media just laps it up.

>All of this is, of course, under the complete scrutiny of Israeli
>judges and Israeli lawyers and Israeli bureaucrats.  Legal it is, but
>hardly fair.

Arab theft of Jewish property was neither legal nor fair.  But your
postings have been neither factual nor logical.  It's no wonder that
you've chosen to argue one particular point of view.

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: GOP headquarters burned!
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 05:25:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <12018@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.170410.3037@odin.corp.sgi.com>, zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:

>> In article <11937@optilink.UUCP>, Clayton Cramer writes:

># #What next?  Are the gay activists going to organize something called
># #the Lavender Shirts, and see how much blood they can spill by 
># #attacking their political opponents with clubs?
># 
># Aside from the fact that the account you read was in soc.motss, is 
># there any reasonable proof (yes, folks, I realize I'm talking to Clayton) 
># that this arson was commited by homosexual activists?

>Which other groups in America are noted for equating the Republican
>Party to Nazis, and have recently shown a willingness to engage
>in wanton vandalism and destruction when they don't get their way?

I'm sure there are many examples, but two that I can think of are the
RCYB (the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade) and the Weathermen.
A case that the arson was committed by organized homosexuals is
-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Multiculturalism (was: Re: Kulturkampf)
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:21:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
| >>...  Many groups in America currently advocate force to impose
| >>their culture on others.  Some of them are "good liberals".

pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
| >Examples, please.

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
| - the multicultural requirements that have been inserted into the curricula
| of high schools and colleges, from the New York City school system
| to Stanford University. ...

Okay, so what _is_ multiculturalism?  And how is it imposed
by force, in the sense that Buchanan apparently wants to impose
_his_ culture by force?  I'd like to know what we're talking
about.  Are people forced to wear daishikis and eat tofu at
Stanford, or what?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42168 talk.abortion:33628 alt.politics.bush:3070
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 27 Aug 1992 00:32:34 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
|> >>
|> >
|> >I don't see why having an abortion is not a responsible action. My working
|> >definition of responsibility includes accepting a problem and coming up with
|> >the most workable solution to it. If the problem is unwanted pregnancy, the
|> >most workable and effective solution is abortion. How is it irresponsible?
|> >It's not as if, in the case of pregnancy, you can opt to do nothing. You may
|> >not like what a woman does, but that doesn't mean it's irresponsible.
|> >
|> Perhaps you forget that the unborn may, in fact, be human life?  Or are
|> the unborn just a parasite sucking things out from the mother and therefore,
|> we should be allowed to 'exterminate' that pesty parasite?
|> 
|> Please, let's not get into it again.  Consult other threads for the 
|> abortion debate.
|> 
Hit & Run moralizing?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43030 ca.politics:7281 ba.politics:4928
From: bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Working for change?
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:09:03 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <q0dnf5q.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <p57r000@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>    >>But then again, very few people really think about the
>    >>morality of their actions.
>    >>
>    >Do you do something about it?
>
>Yep. These postings are an example. I consistently strive, when the
>issue comes up, to assert that coercive democracy is immoral. The first
>step is make a stand -- to show people that their cherished myths are
>indeed myths.
>

Just out of curiosity, Phil, at what point would you consider
yourself successful enough in the first step to move on to the
second step? And, what would the second step be?

-------------------------------------------------
Bruce Overby
Stratus Computer, Inc.
San Jose, CA


"Get at dem beans!"  -- Hoss Cartwright

My opinions may not reflect those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42954 talk.abortion:34115
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:17:24 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
[followups to talk.abortion, where this topic belongs]

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|#c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
|#|So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
|#|a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
|#|be held accountable for your actions. 

|#And, of course, getting an abortion is a legal, responsible
|#way of discharging that accountability.

|But before Martin goes, can you [not Martin] tell me how 
|abortion is "responsible"?

I can give you some examples of situations where obtaining
an abortion is probably the most responsible response to 
unwanted pregnancy.  Put yourself in these shoes:

1. A teenager (say, a 14-year-old) finds out she's pregnant.
   Should she abort, stay in school, and go on to college?
   Or should she drop out?

2. A married couple has two children already.  He's just been
   laid off.  She discovers that she's pregnant, even though
   they've been using birth control.  They depend on her
   paycheck, and are barely getting by now.

3. A couple are delighted by the prospect of a child, until
   their doctor tells them that the pregnancy is ectopic.
   Unless the woman gets an abortion, she will die.

I'll stop with three.

Abortion is a responsible choice in all of the scenarios I
describe above.  I'd say it's probably the *only* responsible
choice in the third.  There are other possibilities in the
first two.  I leave the choice to the woman involved, though--
she's the only person able to assess her circumstances and
decide what's best for her.

I prefer to keep government OUT of private lives.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: QUAYLE: Acceptance speech text
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:26:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.151545.10894@cc.gatech.edu>, barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu
(James Barrett) writes:

|>            Text of Vice President Quayle's Speech

|>    The gap between us and our opponents is a cultural divide.  It is
|>not just a difference between conservative and liberal; it is a
|>difference between fighting for what is right and refusing to see
|>what is wrong.

Quayle and Bush refusing to see that a 4 trillion budget deficita nd a bankrupt
ecconomy aree wrong *IS* a major difference.

|>    Families can also be strengthened by empowering our people--with
|>low taxes, home ownership, parental choice in education, job
|>training, safe streets, a clean environment, and affordable health
|>care.  In all of these areas, we have a reform agenda, and it is time
|>for Congress to get of the way and pass the president's plan.

And in all the twelve years the Republicans have been in the whitehouse they
have done everything in their power to prevent these goals from being realsied,

|>    The Democratic nominee calls America "the mockery of the world,"
|>but he and his running mate are the only ones who believe that.  To
|>Governor Clinton, I say this:  America is the greatest nation in the
|>world, and that's one thing you're not going to change.

Regan and Bush changed this one. They took the worlds most powerful ecconomy and
destroyed it.


Amazing, change the names about and any Democrat could have given the same
speach.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42603 alt.politics.bush:3334
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Call for transcripts Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 06:31:54 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

> Remember the scene from _All the President's Men_ where Donald Segretti
> (Nixon's Mary Matalin) is talking to Bernstein? When Bernstein charged
> that Segretti cooked up a rumor about Hubert Humphrey using call girls,
> Segretti said that if anything, the story helped HHH's image. Different
> times, I guess.
>

That's not fair.  Segretti actually felt remorse for what he did later on.  He
also had a lot more to work with in Nixon.  You shouldn't compare him to
someone as cynical and ignorant as Matalin.




|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|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jot@teak09.cray.com (Otto Tennant)
Subject: Re: Taxing capital gains (was: why progressive tax rates)
In-reply-to: eck@panix.com's message of 27 Aug 92 14:03:42 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
	<1992Aug25.182451.15307@kadsma.kodak.com>
	<1992Aug26.175435.20270@anasazi.com> <1992Aug27.140342.12810@panix.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:21:35 CDT

In article <1992Aug27.140342.12810@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

> Here's the hypo: take two investments with identical returns, the only
> difference being that A spins out annual dividends and B appreciates.
> Calculate the value of each at the end of X years, being sure to apply
> tax annually to A while taxing B exactly once (in year X).  Result:
> you wind up with more dollars via B than with A.  (Obviously, if you
> invested in A, your dollars would be just as deflated as if you'd
> stuck them in B.)

The dividend dollar received in year N-1 was worth more than the
dividend dollar received in year N.

However, it is unclear to me in what sense A and B have "identical
returns."  One of them is riskier.  Investments like A or B have
different purposes in an individual's financial plan.
--
===============================================================================
J.Otto Tennant      Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.         jot@cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.              Virgil                          (612) 683-5872
665 Lone Oak Drive                                                
Eagan, MN 55121
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc