HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:36:54 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <1993Jan19.183705.29526@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <WILLOCH.93Jan19171019@geos114.geos01.sinet.slb.com> willoch@geos01.sinet.slb.com (thorbjorn willoch) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan19.140407.20741@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> >>   Yes.  Not a single US debt holder has ever gone unpaid.
> >
> >Well, many US debt holders bought long term papers with low nominal
> >interest that was then reduced much in value by inflation. So at least
> >many US debt holders has gone underpaid. 
> 
> That risk was accounted for ex ante in the original interest rate.  Some
> investors guessed wrong.  That just gives a better incentive to guess
> right.  That's the free market, no?

No.  Government is the only entity responsible for inflation in any significant
way.  When we have high inflation, it's a failure of our government to keep the
money supply sufficiently tight.  During the seventies, under Nixon, Ford and for
the earlier part of his term, Carter, inflation spiralled up to a much much
greater rate than it had been at previously.  This had the effect of transferring
wealth from creditors to debtors, the biggest debtor being the federal government.

> >Adam Smith noticed that goverment debt has sometimed been paid back
> >with a pretended payment, but never with a real one.
> 
> That's empirically false.  People holding T-Bills can expect about 2-3%
> real interest rates.

Now they can.  We've been pretty stable for awhile.  But it happened before, and
it can happen again.  Besides, paying interest doesn't amount to paying debt
back, if that money is just borrowed again from someone else.

    - Dave Borden
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Judiciary Committee, Please Get a clue!
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:45:12 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <93026.161952MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) writes:

>>        Sure, felons often are good at being cops, right?
>
>Naw. Ed Meese, for example, was terrible.

Just what is it that Ed Meese is supposed to have done, anyway?  As I recall
he was never convicted of anything.

- db


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:68900 talk.politics.theory:5697 talk.philosophy.misc:3397 sci.philosophy.tech:4898 sci.econ:9762 sci.philosophy.meta:3106
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: My money's on BILL!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:24:51 GMT

>Come on, Stephanopoulous,  come on, come ON!  Override
>congress and make that military ban-lifting an EXECUTIVE
>ORDER!   Come on, come on.  Show those bastards who's
>boss.  Do it, do it, DO IT!
>
>YEEEEHHAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, does Slim Pickens have net access now?

(remember a certain 1964 Kubrik film-one of my all-time favorites!)
:-)


Simon

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70212 alt.atheism:27146 talk.religion.misc:27731
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:27:28 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> Much like what the upper-crust English (and even some not so upper-
> crust) have to say about the frogs, eh?

Been reading The Sun again, have you?


mathew
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Phil H-B's delusions (Was: "New Right" Libertarians?)
Date: 26 Jan 93 03:58:05 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

> ...the self christened "Libertarian" party need a more descriptive name.
> They sit quite happily in with the Pat Buchannans etc as a sort of
> militant agnostic wing but wanting essentialy the same thing, a retreat
> to the old world parochial certitudes of never never land.

Man, where do you get these wild fantasies of yours?  Have you ever
even been to a meeting of the Libertarian party?  Have you even read
the program or our newsletter?  I have yet to meet one who wouldn't
puke at the very thought of associating with Pat Buchanan or any other
Right-wing Wacko like him.

Do we want the same things?  Get a clue.  Does Buchanan want a world
where all races and nationalities are free to travel across borders,
immigrate, intermarry, and trade?  Does he want a world where drugs
are cheap and safe and available to anyone who wants them?  Does he
want a world where the activities of two or more consenting adults in
their own home are of no one's concern but their own?  Does he want
a world where the lowliest farmer can hold onto his 4 acres of land
no matter how many outsiders want to sacrifice it to the "public"?

Just for the record, BTW, I am a Zen Buddhist, and I support the
Libertarian party because it is the only one consistent with my
religious dedication to non-violence.  Is that the "old world
parochial certitudes" you had in mind?

It is a common misconception among political circles that Libs are
just "Republicans into drugs".  I think of myself more as a Democrat
who passed Econ 101.  I would no sooner associate with the radical
right than I would with Stalin. 
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:17:01 GMT

One thing I have to add that the "necessary and proper" clause itself is 
unnecessary and redundant.  If one is to establish a body (Congress) and give
it areas of jurisdiction (the enumerated powers), then it follows naturally
that it _must_ have the means to achieve the enumerated ends.  Even without
the clause, it must logically follow that it exists for the government to have
any power whatsoever.

But my question, and I'll put it to Ted and anyone else who wants to play with
it, is this: Is the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" at the 
beginning of I,8 a _separate_ enumerated power of Congress, or does it merely
serve as a preamble to the enumerated powers listed below?

I finished writing recently a 12-page paper on the subject,in terms of original
intent and common sense, and if there's interest in the topic, I'd be glad
to put it up.  But I'd like to see what some of you think first.

-adam
----
Adam Bonin '94
Amherst College
acbonin@amherst.edu

"He who accepts evil without fighting against
 it is really cooperating with it."
                   -MLK




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70295 talk.politics.medicine:754 soc.culture.usa:10240 soc.culture.african.american:14441 sci.med:24575
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:15:37 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <2B6617C2.153@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
|In article <1993Jan27.044626.19510@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
|>In article <1993Jan26.201607.4782@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:

|>>May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying penicillin,
|>>despite having worked since age 13.

|>A theft is still a theft, no matter what the purpose is.

|>Dov


|Are you so frigging bitbrained that you are incapable of distinguishing
|things on the basis of motive?  The legal system in this country does it
|all the time.

So you believe that the end justifies the means?
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: libercommunism the new quick fix
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:05:02 GMT

In article <C1Brw4.8Mr@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
}In article <1993Jan21.191543.28998@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
}rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
}
}|>}I have several internal documents from the Monday Club including a list of
}|>}candidates for election, this list contains several members who are members
}|>of
}|>}the Libertarian faction.
}|>}
}|>
}|>Perhaps I'm misreading you, Phill, but based on the above you seem to be
}|>equating Libertarians with Conservatives and racists, yet in another post,
}|>to which I just replied, you correctly define a Libertarian as one who is
}|>active in the defense of liberty.  Which is it?  If you assert the former,
}|>we disagree.  If you assert the latter, we are in agreement.
}
}I am asserting that many of those representing themselves as Libertarians are
}humbugs and frauds.
}
}This is especialy true of the British Tory party, an organisation that could
}supply a large confectioners with a millenial supply of humbugs.
}

This is an interesting response but it doesn't answer my question.  Are
Libertarians racist Conservatives or are they active in the defense of
liberty?  To allege hypocrisy by "many of those representing themselves as
Libertarians", then cite your opinion of the British Tory party as an
example is obfuscation and an attempt at guilt by innuendo. 

Without knowing any of the principles or policies of either the Monday Club
or the British Tory party, I cannot address your charges against them.
However, If you wish to charge the Libertarian Party of the United States,
or any of its members, with being hypocritical and racist as opposed to being
defenders of liberty, make the charge and prove it.  Don't offer vagueries,
innuendo, or strawmen.
 
Again, are Libertarians conservative racists or are they defenders of
liberty?  You have characterized us both ways.

}
}--
}
}Phill Hallam-Baker


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69821 ca.politics:10664 ba.politics:8308 alt.sex:43182
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:23:01 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan22.174346.4717@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <13954@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In <1993Jan16.052356.28532@Princeton.EDU>, (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> >> In article <13911@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >> >In <1993Jan12.093713.5445@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
# ## ## He doesn't defend child molestation at all.  He says that sex with
# ## ## children under a certain arbitrary age limit may not be child molestation.
# 
# ## ## But literacy never was your strong point...
# 
# ## #I see.  If we redefine you as as "subhuman" then concentration camps
# ## #aren't committing murder, are they?  More typical liberalism.
# 
# ## Ah, so you agree with PETA that those veal farms are really Nazi
# ## camps?  Wow, Clayton is now a vegetarian tree-hugging liberal.  Wow.
# ## Otherwise, you're just redefining terms so that those people are called
# ## "animals."
# 
# #I'm pointing out the problems of arbitrarily redefining words to
# #make them mean what you want them to.  A cow is not a human being,
# #contrary to the oft-repeated claim made by Ms. Feral of PETA: "A boy
# #is a pig is a dog is a rat."
# 
# It works both ways.  A 17 year old isn't a child, contrary to your (and 
# some legislatures') oft-repeated claim.  

But an 8 year old is.  Mr. Brack and the rest of NAMBLA want it to
be legal for an adult to sodomize an eight year old.  And apparently,
so does Mr. Nieporent.

# ## Child molestation means molesting people too young to consent.  But what
# ## that age is is NOT intrinsic to people.  It's being arbitrarily defined
# ## by *YOU* to be 18 years of age.  Amazingly enough, all over the world
# ## it's defined differently.  
# 
# #Mr. Brack, NAMBLA, and many other homosexuals insist that there should
# #be NO line.  Clear enough?  That's NOT the same thing, and you know
# #it.  (Or should.)
# 
# But not having a line is not necessarily the same thing as saying
# "anyone can have sex with anyone," and you know it.  Or should.

You mean, if someone advocates repeal of the law against murder, 
and the organization is called the North American Man-Man Killing
Association, we shouldn't suspect something?

# David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Judiciary Committee, Please Get a clue!
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:33:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <147628@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:

|In article <TOM.93Jan22080858@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:
|>This reminds me of the case last year in which the supreme court was
|>deciding if executing an innocent man was "cruel and unusual". Only lawyers
|>with years of special training can get their heads in a state where
|>questions like this don't have immediately obvious answers.

|Apparently, the Supreme Court decided today that executing a possibly
|innocent man is NOT cruel and unusual!  What the opinion said, basically,
|was this:  "Sure the guy might be innocent.  But it's too late for him
|now.  He should have brought this up years ago.  The courts can do nothing
|for him.  Maybe the governor will give him clemency.  That would be the
|only remedy in a case like this."

Actually the supreme court said that asking the governor for clemency was
the proper avenue to take.

I don't know any of the details of the case or of the legal wranglings
surrounding it.  But it seems to me that if the trouble is being caused
by a stupid law, then change the law, don't just ignore it.  The reason
governors and presidents were given clemency powers was to correct this
sort of miscarriage of justice.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<Jan.26.07.01.37.1993.7507@romulus.rutgers.edu>
	<930127.112728.7u0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:18:27

mathew queries:
>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> Much like what the upper-crust English (and even some not so upper-
>> crust) have to say about the frogs, eh?
>
>Been reading The Sun again, have you?

Ted?  Read _The Sun_?  Not likely, for two reasons.  First, we've seen
how British spelling affects him - it's like an allergic reaction.
One page of any British newspaper and he'd probably have a skin rash.
Second, since it exists outside his little corner of the world, i
doubt he's aware of its existance.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:07:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1k6elnINNlre@titan.ucs.umass.edu> jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only) writes:
>In article <C1It7I.LEo@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>>
>>    Perhaps, but we are talking about a public policy issue here,
>>    not a military operation.  Colin Powell happens to be an expert
>>    on the issue, Bill Clinton does not.  In fact, Clinton has yet
>>    to tell the public why he wants to allow gays serve in the military.
>>
>
>Oh, give me a break!  Nobody has ever told the public why we should
>allow, say, redheads, or people who are exactly 5'8-1/2" tall, into
>the military, and there really is no need to.  Anybody who wants
>to defend our country has a right to do so. ...
...

    The existing policy bans certain categories (homosexuals,
    drug users, etc.) from being able to serve in the military,
    but it says nothing about redheads.

    If Bill Clinton believes that "anybody who wants to defend our 
    country has a right to do so", he say so publicly, and start 
    drafting a legislation 
    that codifying his new policies.

  
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69224 alt.activism:21194 alt.conspiracy:14478 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13500
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:21:36 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan22.080224.26329@mcc.com> amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes in response to the claim that the USA is the most privatized country
in the world:
>Electric:  where I live, at least, the city runs the power plant.

But it's subject to the exact same regulations as a private electric
company.

Furthermore, given the small service area of the city's power plant,
it is in effect competition with other local regional electric companies.

>Phone:  Although not officially part of the government, each privately
>owned regional telephone company is granted prtected monopoly status
>by the government (i.e., it is illegal to try to provide competing
>service).

1) Only in the narrowest definition of the market is local phone service
   a monopoly.  You're forgetting cellular phone service, for example.

2) They're deregulating local phones in the next few years anyway.

3) We're still much more privatized than the rest of the world, hence
   the original claim is correct. 

>Air travel:  the only one you've mentioned that I would call private.
>
>Remember that the Nazis scheme was private ownership of property put
>to uses directed (or dictated, take your pick) by the government.

Thank you for your cogent demonstration of Godwin's Law.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69023 talk.politics.theory:5707 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13359
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:13:49 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1993Jan19.183705.29526@midway.uchicago.edu>,
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <WILLOCH.93Jan19171019@geos114.geos01.sinet.slb.com>
willoch@geos01.sinet.slb.com (thorbjorn willoch) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan19.140407.20741@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> >>   Yes.  Not a single US debt holder has ever gone unpaid.
|> >
|> >Well, many US debt holders bought long term papers with low nominal
|> >interest that was then reduced much in value by inflation. So at least
|> >many US debt holders has gone underpaid. 
|> 
|> That risk was accounted for ex ante in the original interest rate.  Some
|> investors guessed wrong.  That just gives a better incentive to guess
|> right.  That's the free market, no?
|> 

There's more.  The implication is that one buys a long term bond and takes 
ones' chance over the long term.  Not really true.  There is a fluid
secondary market in long-term paper that allows buyers to get in and out
at their option, so it's always possible to update a decision and cut
one's losses.

One thing that few mention is that there is considerable cost in the
the government subsidizing, or indirectly guaranteeing certain forms of
investment which is supposed to have the effect of "stabilizing" 
secondary markets.  This cost for example covers loan defaults for FNMA
secured mortgage-backed securities and student loans.

Those who frequently bemoan the welfare state and social spending are
usually quick to forget these subsidies which go to capitalists to save
them the trouble of having to intelligently qualify their investments.
What we get as a result are lazier investors and larger deficits, though
If I recall correctly, these "handouts" appear "off-budget."  How 
convenient for investors to hide their handouts and point the fingers
at others.

Paul Collacchi
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Big Three Begs Big Government (again)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:27:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan28.031702.3811@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1k78maINNgvv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>    Protectism is coming.  
>
>Not necessarily, given the appointments Clinton made.
>
>>besides, it's okay now, Karl.  These guys
>>    still don't get it.  Clinton has two choices:
>>
>>         i)    Wipe all the people who bet on inflation.  Probably
>>               about 60% of the middle class.
>
>Actually, the middle class would benefit from inflation in the short
>run at least, as they're net debtors.  It's creditors and folks on
>fixed pensions who lose out.

    That was the idea behind Carter's domestic policies.

    Now the Democrats are back at it again: putting pressure on 
    the Fed to keep short term interest rates low in hope that
    the resulting economic growth will neutralize whatever negative
    effect on the economy the upcoming massive tax hikes will have.

    If anything, Clintonites are trying to wipe out all
    the people who bet on DEFLATION.  However, with the
    national debt four times higher then it was twelve
    years ago, whipping up inflation is not going to
    be easy.

    Don't forget that Ross Perot with his $1.3B bond portfolio 
    is betting on deflation too...


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69802 alt.sex:43179 talk.religion.misc:27568 soc.college:6055 alt.peeves:19595