HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.autos,sci.econ
Subject: Japan could be skirting $30 billon in U.S. taxes annually
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: fierro@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


  Well, first there was the Frontline documentary exposing the predatory
trade practices of the Matsushita cartel, and now just last night, 
Primetime on ABC had a piece on international companies that evade U.S.
taxes, and targeted Japan in particular.

  Apparently, Japan declares about $0.46 to the IRS for every $10 in
revenue it receives from U.S. sales.  Japan says that %75 of its sales
occur in the U.S., but only about %25 of their total tax fees are from
U.S. sales.

   Japan uses countries like Singapore, which do not levy taxes, as
middlemen to ship their products to the U.S.  The idea is that the price
mark-up occurs in a country outside of the U.S., so when the final product
is sold in the U.S., very little profit margin is realized- hence little
or no taxes paid to the U.S.  Japan also has another scheme which doesn't
involve an intermediate country, but I didn't catch all of it (towards
the beginning of the story).

  The IRS director (forget her name) states that no proof has been offered
of such activity, and an accountant that Primetime interviewed said that
it is very difficult to prove such actions.   About 46,000 international
companies do business in the U.S, but only 2,000 or so are audited each
year.  Furthermore, the IRS only has about 6 auditors that speak fluent
Japanese.  Auditing such a company is further complicated by the fact that 
Japanese companies' tax records are kept in Japan, and their U.S. records
may not coincide with the documents back home.

  Senator Pickle (sp?) from Texas who is chair of some investigative 
committee believes that up to $30 billion a year
is not collected from such international companies.  He believes that 
money not collected by Japanese companies in U.S. taxes is used for Japanese
research and development to further damage U.S. industries.   It was
also implied that the IRS has not cracked down on such Japanese companies
because the U.S. Treasury does not want to upset Japan, so that they will
continue to finance the U.S. Debt (with a capital 'D' :-) ) by purchasing
U.S. bonds and bills.

   Food for thought.  Corrections and/or additons welcome.

   Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: chajakis19@DESCI.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU (Emmanuel Chajakis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bill vetoeing and presidential campaign questions.
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:45:36 GMT


Dear friends,

Could someone out there give me an answer to the following
questions?

1) What happened to the issue of President Bush's ban of 
   fetal tissue for the treatment of some diseases like 
   diabetes etc.? A bill was passed by both the Congress and 
   the House about using them, and it was vetoed by the President.
   What is the status of the veto? Has it been overturned?

2) What is Bill Clinton's position on public financing of 
   congressional elections?

Thank you very much in advance.

Emmanuel Chajakis,
Decision Sciences Department,
The Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania,
chajakis19@desci.wharton.upenn.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17169 ca.politics:3344 ba.politics:2591 alt.politics.homosexuality:1811 soc.motss:19460
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 10:34:22 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:

> what vince or I or anyone elese on this fucking net says to you is of no
> coonsequence.. What you say, is.
> 
> Now if you are serious about what you say, and want to talk, my net address i
> owen@autodesk.com. 
> 
> 
> LUX .. owen

Thank you for that great shot of ego-juice.. Think I'll go back
into the other office and fry some yuppies with it. ;)

Please tell us more.

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Vaccination (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<visser.702539448@convex.convex.com> <rdippold.702590624@cancun>
	<1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:27:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:

   I agree with almost everything up above, with a major exception
   being "vaccination... [is] the responsibility of the parents."
   We all suffer if people don't vaccinate there kids.  In a "perfect"
   libertarian world, we wouldn't have to pay for all of the sick
   people's medical care, but we would still suffer the economic
   and social repercussions of large percentages of the populace
   being sick if vaccination against measles, polio, rhubella, etc.
   were not wide-spread.

Who says it would not be wide spread?

My parents had me vaccinated for good reasons. They cared about me and
wanted me healthy. Most parents want their children healthy, and the
evidence is strong that the vast bulk of parents will voluntarily
vaccinate their children because vaccination is in one's own interest.

We forget that diseases like polio are terrifying, and that when the
first vaccines became available, people rushed to have their children
vaccinated without any external impulse needed.

The small number unlikely to vaccinate their children are unlikely to
do it even given mandatory laws on vaccination -- they are parents who
either do not care about their children, or parents who have a strong
belief against vaccination and will defy the law.

Is it really worth our while to invoke awesome power of the state to
stop what is essentially a non problem? Do we need to trash the whole
concept of a free society to fix what isn't really broken in the first
place?

I, for one, do not think so.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government is best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: ACLU
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Apr8.085320.3477@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<ART.92Apr8232340@world.std.com>
	<1992Apr9.072119.23338@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:03:53 GMT


In article <1992Apr9.072119.23338@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:

   >Again, read the constitution, if you can, and you'll see it NOWHERE
   >mentions the gov't as having rights.  Powers yes, rights no.

   If you refer to a dictionary, you might note:

     2 right n (bef. 12c)
      [ME, fr. OE riht, fr. riht, adj.] ...
	 2a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled ...
		 -----

     1 pow.er \'pa<u.>(-<e>)r\ n, often attrib (13c)
      [ME, fr. OF poeir, fr. poeir to be able, fr. (assumed) L pot<e^->re to 
     be powerful -- more at POTENT] ...
	 2b: legal or official authority, capacity, or right ...
						       -----

   Your obfuscatory quibbling has now been exposed for what it is.  My
   original point stands.

This is ludicrous.  You claim that because one word appears in a lengthy
definition of another makes them synonyms.  The dictionary I used,
Webster's Ninth, lists no less than nine principal definitions for power
and eight for right.  The first for power, and, by usage, the preferred,
refers to government power.  Clearly this what the framers had in mind.
Why else would they be so careful to use powers when referring to things
the gov't could do and rights when referring to things the citizens had?
Grow up kid.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17946 ca.politics:3436 ba.politics:2644 alt.politics.homosexuality:2029 soc.motss:20109
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 04:02:16 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:

> We both know that you have never in your entire life seen a "hunted looking 
> little child being dragged around like a prize puppy dog by a swaggering, 
> snorting 'queer lady'."

Heh.. Wish I had a photo of that BITCH. I'd post a .GIF for all
to see the truth.

> More important, what kind of parent are you going to make?  Are you going
> to teach your child to sneer, judge and hate as well and as freely as you
> do?  Will you be proud of increasing the sum total of hatred in the universe?
> 

I certainly will not teach the TRASH certain elements of society
are accepting because they are afraid to stand for the truth.

> We need to protect children from the haters like you , not the women who 
> love too much.

I do not know how you can call that living hell 'love'.

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dofflemyer Lecture Series at Stanford
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:22:33 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <2280.29EC2ABB@kennel.FIDONET.ORG>, Mark Hinkle (mh) writes:


mh> 2. "The CIA's War Against the War on Drugs" by Jonathon Marshall, San
mh> Francisco Chronicle

Hey, sounds like the CIA aren't all bad after all. :-)

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,misc.taxes,alt.politics.elections
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Employee vs. Employer rights (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:25:07 GMT

From article <1992Apr10.152445.8551@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, by kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie):

> The Libertarian Party's position on taxes is very attractive (e.g. I
> won't have to pay any). I find some of their other positions less
> attractive.
> 
> One position with which some may disagree concerns employee vs.
> employer rights.
> 
> Should it be legal or illegal for an employer to fire an employee because ...
>    the employee won't have sex with his or her boss?
>    the employee is African-American?
[...]

The LP says "Yes!".

mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:

>Should it be legal or illegal for you (an employee) to quit your job if:
>    the employer won't have sex with his or her employee?
>    the employer is African-American?
[...]

Yes, it should be legal.

I think the difference is power. Being fired by an employer who
requires sex is likely create great hardship for the employee
(especially if blacklists are allowed.) Quitting a employer who will
not provide sex seems unlikely to cause the same relative amount of
damage.

History, in my opinion, is on the side of at least some limitations on
employer action and against the Libertarian philosophy. The LP offers
theoretical arguments about how employers who don't discriminate or
demand sexual favors will do better will than those who do. But there
are also theoretical and *historical* arguments that it was to
employers' (short term) advantage to keep, for example,
African-Americans working for lower wages. Any African-American who
refuses to work for less found him or herself unemployed and
blacklisted. Any employer who defected by offering equal pay for equal
work, found him or herself boycotted by the other employers.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:56:52 GMT

In article <HmF6iB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
>
>> We need to protect children from the haters like you , not the women who 
>> love too much.
>
>I do not know how you can call that living hell 'love'.

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

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:23:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.043925.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu> kupixel@oread.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>why do we all believe war is inevitable?  go read the federalist papers
>(number 6 i think) and see what they have to say.  it has to do with 
>nations compete, and competition inevitably leads to the tensions that
>cause wars.

Not a good argument, though if you have a general definition of war
as conflict, well, then....
(but then it's a tautology, no?)

The Federalist Papers were written when the military was the main
way to settle conflicts.

The US Navy thought like this back during WWI (following Mahanian
naval doctrine).  It didn't release it's destroyers to protect
troop ships going to Europe because they were needed to protect US
battleships.  By Mahan, the US would go to war against Britain
sometime after Germany was defeated, so the Navy wanted to keep
the battleships safe.

Do you think we'll go to war (military) against Japan any time
in the near future to stop the flow of autos?

This does not mean that I believe they'll be an end to war
in the near future.  People aren't necessarily rational.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:54:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.130714.12076@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>And marketing has nothing to do with it -- to get a big TV contract,
>it has to be sold to a *national* audience, and over half of the
>country has no interest in ever seeing a hockey game.  The first
>three sports mentioned are all sports that that anybody can play
>any time, but hockey requires ice, and there's a solid chunk of the
>television market that sees icy weather maybe once every three years.

I disagree strongly, Ted.  Marketing *does* have a lot to do with it.  I
don't believe that it is a requirement that you live in an icy clime to
have a successful hockey team.  The San Jose Sharks are in an area where
ice is unheard of, and they sold every game this season.  

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Want Tsongas back in the race?  Call (617)422-0100
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:55:42 GMT

In <2729@master.CNA.TEK.COM> judyd@pendragon.CNA.TEK.COM (Judy E. Drake) writes:
>In article <ku64k6INN37q@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:

>>Tired of mud-slinging?  Want the campaign to get back to
>>a discussion of issues?

>>Then call Paul Tsongas' headquarters, (617) 422-0100, and say that
>>you'd like him to return to the race.  He says he's going to
>>wait another day or two before making his decision.

>You can also call (800) 881-TEAM, or (508) 441-9191.

I agree.  Tcitizens for Tsongas.

>Can anyone confirm or deny the rumor that a woman
>claiming to be another Clinton mistress will be featured
>in the May issue of _Playboy_ magazine?

I can deny it.  A woman *rumored* to be a Clinton mistress will be
featured in Playboy, but she denied it.

>Judy Drake

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,talk.politics.drugs
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:33:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.192135.415@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour) writes:
>               .  Furthermore, Perot doesn't want dictatorial powers, he
>wants to educate the public so they can make informed, rational decisions
>about the issues that face our government - note the electronic town
>hall concept.

Fujimora did not express interest in dictatorial powers when
running for president of Peru either.  In fact, the more I think
about it the more similarities I realize there are between the
Fujimora scenario and the Perot scenario.  Both basically appealed
to a public desperate to revive a failing economy because of their
personal business skills plus some other attribute that was useful.
For Fujimora it was his Japanese heritage which voters thought
would bring in a lot of new Japanese investment.  For Perot it is
his personal fortune which makes people believe he can compete
against Dempublcan machine politics.

Food for thought.

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18180 alt.individualism:2446 sci.econ:3736 misc.legal:9271 alt.discrimination:1573
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:54:42 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <rdippold.703198965@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr13.024846.6240@nuscc.nus.sg>, Ed Ipser (ei) writes:
|> >ei> The cosmetology board has been hounding Cornrows & Co. because its
|> >ei> employees are not licensed cosmetologists. In 1989, it slapped owners
|> >ei> Taalib-Din Uqdah and Pamela Farrell with $1,000 in fines for operating
|> >ei> a beauty salon and training program without a license.
|> 
|> >Now, I realise that the customs of a foreign country can often seem
|> >strange, and I realise that the USA leads the world in employment
|> >protection for lawyers, but... 
|> 
|> >How on earth did anyone get a `cosmetology' board and licenses for
|> >hairdressers set up? If the references to Washington and dollars were
|> >removed I'd assume this was an anti-Brussels joke, and a poor one
|> >because it is so unbelievable. 
|> 
|> It's absowutely twoo!  This is, unlike what it sounds like, yet
|> another example of our beneficient and efficient liberal governments in
|> action.   They have realized correctly that production and jobs don't
|> improve the economy.  Rather, the only meaningful measure of the
|> output of a civilization is the number of bureaucracies it can set up
|> and restrictive laws it can pass.


This is not typical of the kind of legislation that would be
considered 'liberal.'  It does not have anything to do with job
safety.  It does not have anything to do with job security, or
health benefits.  It looks like the kind of thing that would
have come from a special interest group (existing cosmetology
businesses) trying to cut back on competition.

Further, this kind of legislation is implemented on a state
level, and is usually agreed to by both parties as a way to
raise revenues (licensing fees).


Dan