HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounc
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:46:47 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Paul, I've heard about those polls too -- clean out the Congress, they're
really the problem. However, every constituency(?) wants its representative
to remain.  How else can they get the pork?  

President Bush does not seem able to know when to compromise nor does he
seem to be able to develop any sort of working relationship with the
Congress.  It's easy to get along with those who support your ideas and
goals -- it takes a real leader to develop good working relationships
with those (who are presently the majority) who have different ideas and
goals to pursue.  We've had 12 years of this Executive-Congressional
impasse, and it has not been good for the country.  I believe the USA
is the best place in the world to live, and i want it to stay that way
for my kids (4) and grandkids (8).  Also, many of the people in this
country don't feel they have any leadership because we have been made
told we are unamerican just because we disagree with those in power.

One last note -- I don't dislike Barbara Bush for her political 
opinions.  I dislike very much that, while Pres Bush is letting her
stand up for him exposing her to all the potshots that come, the 
Repubs try to make Hillary Clinton look like some kind of horrible
person if she does the same thing for her husband.

	Bye, Judy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: What's libertarianism?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:08:11 GMT

lf> Lawrence C. Foard

lf> I tend toward the libertarian side but unfortunitly in my experience the
lf> libertarians on the net are the most homophobic of anyone.

  Name names, and proof that they're homophobic. Cramer doesn't count, since
  he's not a libertarian. Ask him if he is, if you don't believe me.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: The buck stops where?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:56:49 GMT


In article <PA146008.251.714248455@utkvm1.utk.edu>, 
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) said:

> It is not the President of the United States job to force the
> Congress to do anything.  If it's anyone's job, its yours and mine.
> His job is to run the government and execute the orders of Congress
> (We have an Executive Branch, not a Leadership Branch.)  The
> President's job description doesn't include making jobs, fixing the
> economy, educating children, or any of the thousand other things
> everybody wants to head at his feet.

Of course, the "everybody" who wants to include making jobs, fixing
the economy and educating children in the President George Bush's job
description includes 1988 Candidate George Bush...

How _anyone_ can take seriously anything this man says today is beyond me.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:43:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.164120.1727@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
>Just to let you know I am pro-life after eight weeks and believe
>in this for non-religious reasons.  I believe the pro-life stance
>meaning the belief that life has intrinsic value of its own, even
>in the womb (human life at that), is logically consistent and 
>DOES NOT require a religious theology.
>
>Wes
>

Thanks you very much for your comment!  Life is special, and 
religious or not, female or male, short or tall, fat or thin, blonde
hair or black hair, we need to stand together after all the attempts
to divide.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40423 talk.abortion:32310 alt.politics.bush:2000
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:13:05 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug18.131040.6159@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
>I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
>wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.

A newborn is independent of its mother the way a fetus is not.

>orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!

To paraphrase Garth, when Bugs was dressed up as a girl bunny? :-)


--
But this is.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canada Has Pneumonia!
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:15:57 GMT

In article <BtAqq6.8KH@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>   Just out of curiosity, do you expect Canada to ratify NAFTA?  I 
>   saw a poll recently suggesting that a strong plurality of
>   Canadian citizens are opposed to it, since they feel they already
>   came out on the short end of the earlier agreement with the US.
>

The Conservatives have a majority government in a parliamentary
system...it will certainly pass if the government doesn't collapse for
other domestic reasons before then.  However, it has to call an
election next year and the NDP has threatened to rip up both
agreements, and the Liberals are divided on trade so hedge their
position by saying they want to renegotiate both.  The Liberals
are the likely opposition party to win...although it is conceivable
that the Conservatives could have a miraculous comeback since the
leaders of both the NDP and the Liberals leave something to be
desired.  It could also be extremely confused, because we could
end up with a minority parliament with five parties after the
next election.

Free trade has been good for Canada, but the recession hit at
the wrong time, and the government was pursuing monetary policy
at odds with the trade agreement, and the US is not living up
to the spirit of agreement with a lot of frivolous trade harassment,
all of which have thoroughly hidden the benefits of free trade,
and mostly make it look like a disaster to the typical relatively
uninformed lay person.  Typical frivolous US harassment of Canadian
industry...claiming
Honda engines cast in Ohio do not quality for North American content
when put into Honda cars assembled in Ontario...it sounds stupid, but
that is typical of a lot of the nonsense that is coming out of the
US with respect to trade because it is an election year in Washington...
and it is undermining the agreement.  There are about ten current
frivolous US trade actions against Canadian industry right now
where Canada will almost certainly ultimately prevail through GATT
or FTA dispute resolution, but it is enormously costly and time 
consuming.  As a trade partner, the US is basically acts like
a schoolyard bully.

Gerald
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 08:02:01 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Social Security (Was: I'm still a republican, but not a happy one)
 <JTURNER.92Aug8133801@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
 <Bssxrw.5Lp@well.sf.ca.us>

In article <Bssxrw.5Lp@well.sf.ca.us>, rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) says:
>
>In article <JTURNER.92Aug8133801@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>,
> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>>In article <o84mor0@zola.esd.sgi.com>,
> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>>
>>>     "Not only that" declared Marrou, "but a survey by Insight
>>> magazine showed that the average recipient has a retirement
>>> income, exclusive of Social Security payments, of $1500 - $3500
>>> per month.
>>
>>Insight magazine is owned by the Unification Church (The Moonies)
>>
>
>This is called an "ad hominem" argument.  We're supposed to infer,
>based on your claim about it's ownership, that the magazine's figures
>are suspect.  Now, I personally have no idea if what you claim is
>true, but even if it were there would remain the slight problem that
>you haven't presented any evidence of error in the figures quoted.
>
>Since I've seen similar figures elsewhere, I'm inclined to think that
>the weirdos at Insight magazine managed to write the truth in spite of
>being right-wing rabid anti-communists (to use your words).  Hey, once
>in awhile even the bad guys will repeat the truth, even if purely by
>accident.
>
>If you have some evidence that most SS recipients are *not* fairly
>wealthy (I'd call an income of $18,000 to $42,000 fairly wealthy) then
>perhaps you'd care to present it.  Anecdotes about the occasional poor
>elderly person won't cut it, btw.

Census Bureau data indicate that more than 47% of persons over age 65
would be below the poverty line (approx. $7,500 whent he study was done)
in the absence of Social Security income.

Joe Quinn of Boston University once wrote a wonderful argument called
"Beware the Mean" in talking about the elderly.  Income is very unequally
distributed about the elderly (Gini ratio of about .46; almost half of
all income received by the top 20% of the population).  Marrou's
numbers may be correct.  But, it's not very good evidence that "most
SS recipients are farily wealthy".  It's evidence that a few VERY wealthy
people get SS.


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.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State (was: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:47:45 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>Here is the relevant part of the 1st Amendment:

>"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting
>the free exercise thereof..."

>I don't see any hedges in there, such as the one regarding militias in the 2nd 
>Amendment, which would allow you to argue for ambiguity of interpretation.  Government
>simply cannot legally support religious activity of any kind.  Fred is absolutely
>right on this one.  It is true that the courts have gotten around the restriction by

Wrong, the courts have ruled that Congress, and be extension the states
may make no law that explicitly aids or hinders religious activity.

A law whose primary purpose, but which incidently also aids a religious
group, is permissible.

This is why churches can receive tax deductible donations.  The law was
written specifically to aid charitable organizations, it just so happened
that most religious groups managed to qualify as charitable orginizations
as designated by that law.

There was a case out west recently about a couple of state employees who
were using peyote (a mildly hallucinogenic plant).  I don't remember
many of the details, they tried to get a religious exemption to the laws
and or regulations and were denied.

The government can and does support religious activities of all kinds.


>-----
>    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:32:47 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <l8lb20INNllb@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

> So the fact that he died, makes his earlier statements unreliable?

No, it makes them at the very least questionable -- and at the most
unverifiable.  And since there is no established pattern of conduct on
the part of George Bush consistent with such allegations, there is
substantial reason to call into question whether such statements were
even ever made in the first place.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: When in Doubt, Throw them Out (was Bush/Congressional Record)
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:39:55 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) says:

>dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>
>> Vote OUT your incumbants, _all_ of them!  If you insist on voting
>> for the "lesser of two evils" rather than for those (regardless of
>> party) who best represent your beliefs, at least consider the
>> "evil" of the current crowd.  Can a completely new set be any
>> worse?
>
>A very few politicians have made a real effort to push the types of
>reform that we need to see.  Them we should keep.  But if your
>incumbent doesn't fit this description, throw the bum out.
>
>--Scott
>
I am here reminded of a line from "Stranger in a Strange Land" by
Robert Heinlien:

"Make sure you know what the new rascels are about befor you turn
out the old rascels...."
		
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:41:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.205057.16540@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
>b > Brett (Stupendous Man)
>
>b > Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>b > do not automatically translate into more money.
>
>da> Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
>da> economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
>da> something to do with it.
>
>  Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>  spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.

And these two aren't related?  Maybe revenue increases were caused by
spending - you know, priming the pump.  My guess is that revenues would
decrease with tax decreases, just not as fast as the tax decreases.
>
>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40745 alt.individualism:5280
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:50:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug20.022259.4028@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
:js: Jim Stiver

:js: It is theoretically possible to be legally ignored to death under a lib-
:js: ertarian government.

:  ...and we know that we can be "helped" to death by a non-libertarian gov-
:  ernment. For example, the new FAA rules that states that young children
:  must be in a child seat on the plane. Therefore, the parents must go to
:  the expense of another ticket, since airlines are not going to give away
:  seats for free, generally. This can be expensive. Ergo, the parents choose
:  to go a cheaper route, say, driving. Driving is much more dangerous than
:  flying, ergo, more kids will be in cars than in planes. Ergo, more kids
:  will die in auto accidents. Net result: more kids' deaths. 

:  What a helpful rule!

	But where would the little kids go if not in a special seat?
If the plane starts hitting some turbulence or has a rough landing,
the poor tyke can get quite a bounce. Now is _that_ very safe?

	And where would the child seat go on an airplane, anyway?

	Yup. You got it. One of the regular seats.

	There is a third option: going by train. Although a train will
be in motion longer than an airplane will over the same route, trains
are generally cheaper, and often more conveniently accessible. And if
they are fast enough, trains can successfully compete with airplanes
on relatively short routes. Airline travel has actually declined on
some routes served by high-speed trains like the French TGV.

	But I doubt that Gary Strand would have a very high opinion of
Amtrak...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:45:19 GMT

In article <Bt23ov.CA3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
>I think that you are correct.  It can be a serious crime but I doubt
>that it would be considered murder (at least not first degree).
>However, abortion is not witholding assistance but the destruction of
>the fetus.  I don't know how the mother could withold assistance unless
>she were to starve herself or something similar.  Am I missing
>something?
>
How about RU 486?  It works by 'withholding assistance'.
Paul.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40654 alt.activism:15102 misc.headlines:5751 sci.econ:6938
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:49:55 GMT
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA

In article <Bt8p51.DEv@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
writes:
|>In article <1992Aug19.093945.9023@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes:

|>    The budget deficit by itself is not a problem.  Goverment borrowing
|>    increases real interest rates and, in that sense, has had the same 
|>    (detrimental) effect on the economy as a tax on interest rates would 
|>    have.

If the government is consuming a certain quanitiy of value then that value is
not avaliable to the rest of the population. At any rate not if the forms of
value are comutable, governments compete for slightly different resources to the
general population. However there is obviously a very large overlap, to the
extent of the overlap the deficit has to push through into inflation one way or
another.

It is important to distinguish short and long term borrowing though, 


|>>It's not unusual for men of 80 to be entirely disconnected from reality and
|>>unable to accept a flaw in their pet theories. ...
|>
|>    To the contrary, Milton Friedman's theories are well supported by
|>    the economic realities throughout the world.

Where? Even Thatcher trashed Monetarism after it took the ecconomy into a
nosedive in 1980. Friedman had to resort to the theory of rational expectations
(a wrongly stated version of Russel's paradox) to explain why his theories
suddenly stopped predicitng.


|>    Compare that, for example, to a theory of economic productivity
|>    that another Nobel Prize Winner Paul Samuelson was advancing.
|>    He once stated that "people in Eastern Europe and the SU are more
|>    productive, because they spend more time working [don't go on strike]"
|>    He must have gotten his NB from the same "entirely bogus enterprise 
|>    set up to honour right wing looney tunes" (I wish they had taken
|>    his high school diploma away instead:).

OK I'll modify the statement :

An entirely bogus enterprise set up to honour right wing looney tunes and
discredit the left wing by honouring left wing obvious looney tunes.

I don't have that much respect for the some holders of the genuine Nobel prize.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40922 alt.activism:15182 misc.headlines:5792 sci.econ:6972
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:19:35 GMT

jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>In article <Bsu7zs.I3K@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>|> In article <Y!b-WHC@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>|> >In article <BstxFJ.C8z@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> I'd settle for a flat tax as long as there were no deductions.
>|> >|> [...]
>|> >|> 
>|> >
>|> >A flat tax would have to be on 'net' income not gross income.  You
>|> >need to have deductions which relate to the generation of the
>|> >income.  Otherwise you will simply discourage people from earning
>|> >income in jobs which have high expenses. 
>|> 
>|>   I'm not sure this follows.  Jobs which have high up front 
>|>   expenses typically also have either high pay (e.g., doctors) or
>|>   at least potentially high r.o.i. (e.g., IC's, software, pharm-
>|>   aceuticals).  it is unclear to me that the usual factors 
>|>   which govern risk taking would not still operate, i.e., I
>|>   don't need a government tax incentive to be willing to take 
>|>   higher risks for potentially higher rewards.
>|>  

>Imagine a consultant who spends a great deal of time on the road.
>He may earn a high income, but much of that income has to go to
>covering his expenses (gas, car repair, hotel charges, etc.).  Compare
>this to a worker who simply commutes to work everyday and punches
>a time clock.  It doesn't seem reasonable to me to tax the gross
>income of the two.

why should other tax payers subsidize this person's stay at 
the hilton and big steak dinners?  if that person has high 
expenses, they should work them into their fees (or prices) or
learn to spend money wisely!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ppessi@vipunen.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:54:23 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Aug19.174523.22812@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>The Nazis called the program _Kulturkampf_.  Is there any way in
>which the Buchanan proposal differs from the _Kulturkampf_?  Or are
>there defenders of Buchanan who would like to explain his statement
>otherwise?

	I doubt that Pat Buchanan is planning any exhibition of
	decadent art. Nor I think he wants to make any Landskirche,
	but he might be obsessed with an idea to use catholic priests
	as guinea pigs of the cosmetic industry.

--
Pekka Pessi	/	ppessi@niksula.hut.fi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush