HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:11:31 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1% Tax Cut
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              12 Sep 1992 08:37:34 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU >

On Sat, 12 Sep 1992 08:37:34 EDT K=A*T said:
>Just a quick note that Bush's 1% tax cut is much less
>progressive (I know some of you are saying, "so?") than
>his earlier proposal to give a tax rebate (yes, rebate)
>of $300 per child (or was it per person?).
[...]
>I told you so.   :-)

*If* Clinton is elected, remember your concern about how stingy
Bush's tax "break" is and I'll wager we can return the favour of
"I told you so" during his term when he raises your taxes even more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:56:45 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

Robert is right.

The definitions of "morality" that have obtained on this list do not
define morality, but only individual and corporate selfishness.

Sex with children?  "If it doesn't harm the child?"  How can it not?
I suppose now we can argue that, if a child doesn't show an "aversion"
to sex, it must be "good."  I suppose we will ignore the fact that there
are millions and millions (thank you Carl Sagan) of people in this
country spending huge amount of money on therapy and trying to explain
why they are miserable rotten slimeballs--and that 9 times out of 10
they have premature sexual experiences in their backgrounds.  I suppose now
we can engage in a spirited discussion of whether the "age of consent"
should be 16--or 6--or 6 months (suppose the baby doesn't cry--what then?)

I do not like the idea of a morality czar.  People ought to be able to
control their own base impulses (not to do as they like) and be left
alone to do so.  When they do not, however, something else must.

And I would feel a *lot* safer in a society run by Robert's rules of
morality than by this laissez-faire, add-up-the-aversions-and-see
who-wins swamp of immorality and license.  (Not to mention which
society I would rather my children were raised in.)

Robert is right.  When you abandon the morality of common sense and
virtue, you will accept anything.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:14:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Not Registered To Vote? Read This Post.

I am myself registered to vote, and I have forms for my mother and brother.
I have filled those forms out for them, but I can't get either to sign
them.  Mind you they both express opinions about politics quite often.
Now, can you imagine how I could get them down to the polling station even
if they did sign the forms?

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:41:25 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New York Senate Race

I won't re-cap the debate--there's plenty of coverage in the New York
Times today if you're interested.  The big winner, I thought, was Bob
Abrams.  He came off calm and assured, even when throwing mud at Ferraro.
His strategy was to portray the contest as a two person race--most of his
answers had lines like "How I differ from Gerry on this issue..." as
openers.  He wrote of Holtzman and Sharpton.

And this incarnation of Al Sharpton is very interesting.  He's gone from
FBI informant to Al D'Amato toady to running around Poghkeepsie during
the Tawana Brawley case (days when he called Bobby Abrams Hitler and
talked of KKK activity in the Attorney General's office) to maintream
African-American political candidate.  He did have the best lines last
night:  "As the only non-millionaire sitting around this table..." and
saying he was the true environmentalist because he was trying to keep
the political garbage to a minimum.  And of course, he brought a bucket
of mud into the studio and said he'd use it if things got nasty.

When asked if they would pledge unconditionally to support the winner
of the primary in the general election, Ferraro and Holtzman said yes,
whereas Abrams and Sharpton said no.  This is interesting, of course,
because Abrams is guaranteed a spot on the November ballot on the
Liberal Party line.

Best ugly moment:  the incredible eye contact between Ferraro and
Holtzman as Holtzman repeated the child pornography charges on Ferraro.

Red ribbon count:  Ferraro and Holtzman wore them.  I didn't see them
on Abrams and Sharpton.

Round 2 is Sunday morning at 11:30 a.m.

...Rick
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: KAT is bad if and only if Jimbo is harmful
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:22:23 GMT


Jamie writes:
>I have a couple of little comments that I hope will be helpful.
>
>First, I think that Jimbo was asserting an equivalence between bad and
>harmful. 

I was asserting the equivalence, yes.  But I'm about to take it back.
I hadn't thought of a certain ex post/ex ante distinction.

>Richard seems to be right when he says that "harmful" is value-laden.

I believe that Richard is surely right about that.  I mean, I don't
see what we could coherently mean by the word 'harmful', were it not
in relation to some standard of value.

Jamie gives a handy example: criminal trespass.  I would like to
modify the example (for now, anyway) to simply 'trespass', without
the 'criminal' modifier.  I want to make this modification to avoid
questions about whether or not I am harmed just because someone is
breaking the law.  (After all, to tie this back to politics, our
key mission here is to decide what the law ought to be in the first
place!)

So let's just ignore the legal aspects.

So then, the way the example is otherwise constructed, I must conclude
that the trespass did me no harm.  But I also claim that it is bad.
Why?

Let's distinguish carefully between 'ex post harm' and 'ex ante harm'.
(I just made these terms up, so I guess I had better explain them.)
I am ex post harmed whenever some action actually harmed me.  For
example, if you put poison in my coffee and I drink it, then I am
actually harmed.  

I am ex ante harmed whenver some action might reasonably be expected
to harm me.  (With the 'reasonably be expected' operation varying
depending on the specific factors of the case.)  For example, if you
put poison in my coffee but I just happened to pour it out (and I
never ever found out about it or anything like that) then surely
I was not ACTUALLY harmed.  Hell, I don't even know it happened.

But I was harmed in the ex ante sense.  You put my life in serious
danger.  Only luck saved me.

I claim now that it is possible that some action might not actually
have harmed me, but that action is still bad.  When?  Precisely when
the action harmed me in the ex ante (as opposed to ex post or 'actual)
sense.

The equivalence I postulated only applies to the combination of ex post
and ex ante harm.  The two together are the same as bad.

As for the swimming pool example... I was ex ante harmed in the
sense that the trespasser could easily have broken something, or
drowned in my pool (thus leaving a big mess for me to clean up),
or...  but surely this ex ante harm isn't _very_ serious.  I mean,
there are far worse ways a person might endanger me.

How's that?

>I'm trying not to take sides, you'll notice.

Jamie, Logic Czar and Discussion Facilitator
:)

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:11:26 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: economic policy debate

>Anyway, aside from wondering whether staying vague is a good idea for the
>Bushmaster, I find an interesting phenomenon.  One of the strategies the
>Republicans are using is to pick on the term "investment", used in the
>Clinton proposal.  The word, they say, is just a code word for raising
>taxes and increasing spending.  They apparently refuse to acknowledge that
>one can spend some money now in order to save/raise revenues later.

Nice spin, but they're actually claiming that the spending proposed
won't have that effect, that it is an investment in name only.

>But I must say it sounds good, and probably plays very well in Peoria.

Given previous promises about govt spending, it does play well.
It's probably even true.  We've been trying that approach since 1990.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:54:55 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>>>Or is it just *your* religion that gets to play? In which case, why should th
e
>>>numerous Jews, Moslems, Buddhists et al. in this country subsidize the
>>>dissemination of your scripture with their hard-earned quarter-cent?
>>
>>Bingo!
>>
>>Notice how the $0.64/taxpayer is nothing, when we're talking about the
>>NEA, but $0.0025/taxpayer is extreme when we're talking about the
>>NEB/R.  The principles are obvious.
>
>    Bingo?  This is not an analogy.

Sure it is.  We're talking about principles, not the constitution.
I've shown that the principle involved is "you pay for my stuff and
your stuff" elitism.  People who don't like that position don't take
it.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:18:25 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Legal Standing/Homosexual

Good Morning all,

Oops, my goof, of course the SC does not 'create the laws', I should have
said judge cases based on them.  Sorry about that.

As concering litmus tests...

How far would Mr. Clinton's litmus test extend in nominating judge
appointees in this case?

Given Bill Clinton's promise of using an acid test to judge the views of
his appointees with  the example of the RvW question, would he also extend
this test to future cases in other matters?   Of course, the public bend now-
adays to decide whether a judge is liberal or conservative should not play
a part in the clarifing of laws in a case, however, that does seem to be
the bottom line or foundation on 'how' the laws will be interpreted in any
case anymore.  I believe this is how the public 'judges the judges' rather
than the what the law really says.  Perhaps it would not hurt the public
or especially in schools to take a course or a least a couple of semesters
of Constitutional law, nothing complicated, but enough to at least know
some of the basics of how to read the law. (From what I saw recently when
people on the streets of Omaha were asked to name three articles of the
Constitution,<out of 25 people only 5 could name even three and the ones
chosen were generally the second part of Article I, Article II, and Article
XIX>, not enough even knew about their laws that govern the land.  Maybe
a course in the Constitution should be mandatory anymore.  I am wondering if
Mr. Clinton sees the 'judging of judges' in the same light as the public, as
it sounds like Mr. Bush did also.  It looks as though Mr. Clinton's 'acid test'
is whether how liberal or conservative the views of the appointee would be in
judging cases.

Yet...

How did the Senate Committee approve or disapprove an appointee, i.e,
what kind of standards do they use to accept or reject Clarence Thomas?
How can we be sure that the Committee was not influenced by a liberal or
conservative bias in their questioning of Thomas, when the whole affair
became such a fiasco?  I could be that Thomas would use more 'conservatism'
in judging cases than Kennedy or Souter.

And how was Clarence Thomas lucky to be appointed?  Just curious.
He certainly appeared to be as controversial in the eyes of the Senate
Committee as Mr. Bork, and yet he was approved.

Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:01:17 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>

>>> ..................  Does Jerry Falwell represent the majority?

>> No, quite the contrary.  He represents the "moral majority."

>        Maybe Falwell represents the majority of the moral.

And the rest of us are not immoral/liberal/unpatriotic/sexually
permissive people, we are only "moral minority."

>       j.b.

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:42:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: rest rooms

Yes, you did use the term correctly.  I was just a little nervous, but
then the people I have been around are minimally functional.  You should
be happy yours are only minimally disfunctional.

I'm glad I made somebody's day.

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:51:34 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

> How about if each taxpayer contributes 1/4 of 1 cent toward the purchase of
> Bibles for use in the public schools?
>
I have no problem with contributing .0025 dollars for purchase of the Koran
for public schools.  Or would that be the writings of Confusius?  How
'bout the Kama Sutra?

Ohhh..... You mean the "Good Book".  That shouldn't cost a dime.  Just
snag them from hotel rooms and let the Gideons replace them.
    todddddddd
> ---Robert

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "The church saves sinners...
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   science seeks to stop their
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    manufacture." - E. HUBBARD
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:48:09 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates

>From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>

>>The discount rate is set by the federal reserve board, whose chief
>>was appointed by Bush. Congress has nothing to do with it.
>
>But now that the Fed Chief is in place, it's out of Bush's hands as well, no?

Well, yes and no.
Technically, the Chairman of the Fed serves at the president's pleasure.
Bush can replace the Chairman whenever he wants to. But it might
look really bad to do it about now. Fed Reserve Chairmen have
substantial de facto power, because presidents are reluctant
to replace them. That's how Volcker wielded power for ages,
despite his butting heads with Reagan (or probably with Reaganauts
who were more influential with Ronnie, I doubt Reagan himself
had strong views about interest rates).

But in any case, KAT is right that Bush wants interest rates
to be really low. By now maybe he's given up, but low interest
rates looked to be one way to give the economy a shove. Conventional
wisdom says that in the long run, a shove like that will be worse
than the recession, but on the other hand conventional wisdom in
economics said the recession would be over now.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:31:33 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      i walked 46 miles of red tape

i got an aa's guts for a necktie
i got an office near dupont circle yeah
upholstered with intern hide
I got a wonderful fiction goin' on
sayin i'm upper crust
come on baby go and vote for me, chile
tell me, who do you trust?

(end to bo diddley beat)  *ahem*

as for myself, i might not trust clinton to hold my wallet while
i go play basketball, but i trust him with the keys to the white
house more than i would george bush. clinton's lies have not been
about policy or about bush's record, while bush's lies have been
about his involvement with iran-contra, his looking into the jfk
investigation (maybe the actual assassination) and quite possibly
the way his sons didn't get hit by the s&l investigation when
all that turned to dust.

to tell the truth, i'd trust george more than any of his kids.
the family values the record shows that he taught was "if you
do something bad, it's ok because your dad is connected and
rich."

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:52:06 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              12 Sep 1992 16:37:03 EDT from <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDE IS.EDU>

On Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:37:03 EDT Brandon Magee said:
>
>	B) Private Schools teach to the test, Public Schools don't
>	C) Private Schools have better students, because they have the
>right to refuse a student. (Many private schools have admission
>testing)

>the 10th grade, and has yet to receive an equivalence diploma. What's
>the difference in the scenarios? Same parents, same school, same
>teachers, etc. The difference is that I thought (and still think) that
>the key to my life is education. He didn't. Most of the kids in my
>school didn't/don't care about education. We have to show kids what education
>does, and get them excited about it. The only way to do that is to get
>parents excited about it. Education reform has to start at the home.
>With this, we have to keep schools in the EDUCATION business, not in
>the moral dilemmas of today's society.

The declining power of unions certainly won't hurt.  I can just see
Joe Sixpack working on the assembly line, making a considerable sum
on a high school education( if that ), working forty minutes an hour watching
his son sitting down to do his homework:  "Billy Bob, don't you do know
you don't need none of that there education?  Come on down to the plant
and I'll get you on there...you can start making real money now."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:15:03 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

Reading the comments on sexual morality, made me remember
something that someone said in one of my classes.  They
said that sexual morality was a purely bourgeois fiction.
The upper classes(traditionally and otherwise) have always
had affairs, liasons, etc and the lower classes have always
screwed whomever they wished.

It is only the middle-class people who ever took the Bible
literally when it came to sex.  I believe that this friend
suggested that it had something to do with the necessity
of maintaining a family unit or something in a society(industrial),
where the family unit was becoming less and less utilitarian.

I don't remember this person's arguments very well and can't
carry them much further without more time, but does anyone
have any comments on this idea?

j.b.

"Power is a great aphrodisiac.

And I'm a very powerful person."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:00:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: who(M) do you trust

Bill Clinton came by his opinions honestly.  In any case, how many people,
if they were going to college on the sort of scholarship Clinton had, would
actually go back, give it all up, just to fight in a war they thought was
unjust?  Now, I was alive in the Vietnam war and I was out on the streets
demonstrating against it from the days of the first demonstrations in 1964.
In those days I thought people like Clinton who were trying to keep their
noses clean, or for that matter anybody who was interested in running
for political office, was an asshole without any integrity at all.

Having read how Clinton came by his opinions on the war, I have more
respect for him.  I don't know the facts about Cheney, but I am familiar
with the case of Dan Quail, who according to Bush is perfectly capable
of becoming President, and perfectly trustworthy.  He supported the war
and he wormed his way out of it in a way which shows him to be much more
lacking in integrity than Clinton.

Finally I would like to point out that Bush is now throwing overboard
every one of his principles that he can jetison in order to just get
himself reelected.  A perfect example is the sale of fighters to Taiwan,
another is the aid to the farmers which are trashing his attempts at
curbing the international arms trade on the one hand and eliminating
government supports for agriculture that conflict with free trade on the
other.

                                     Chris Morrison
                                      CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:05:30 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform
              8 Sep 1992 07:38:34 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

You didn't get the last word.  Hah.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU