HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Subject: Re: FW: Plain text version of World's Smallest Political Quiz
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:04:58
	<1992Apr9.231751.5008@wdl.loral.com>


(James Woodyatt) writes:

   80 on the PERSONAL
   60 on the ECONOMIC

   This puts *me* in the `Libertarian' camp.

   Yeah, right. Next you'll be telling me Michael Kinsley is a liberal.

It seems from the positions he's taken in net debates (and his your
answers in this "quiz") that Mr.Woodyatt is closer than most to the
Lib'ian camp.  (And I agree with most of his choices here.)
Unfortunately, the Lib'ian leaders seem to insist on a few odd notions
which limit their appeal without doing much for their principles, like
the claim that taxation can be replaced with pay-for-use arrangements
in ALL cases.  (Though this could be done in MANY or MOST situations,
a blanket "end taxes" does sound like lunacy, or at least very strained
wishful thinking.)
--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Let your mind go, and your body will follow.
                   _L.A._Story_
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     (^^above part of .sig stolen, but heck, it's my name^^)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17401 alt.politics.elections:573 misc.taxes:2165 alt.society.civil-liberty:3309
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:42:39 GMT
	<1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> <1992Apr7.200154.28014@hal.com>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr7.200154.28014@hal.com>, Minister of Silly Walks (mosw) writes:

mosw> The problem comes in that there is a lot of conflicting evidence,
mosw> both ways, as to the effectiveness of vaccination.  

Hm. Here's some one way, whooping cough epidemics come around regular
as clockwork each time the proportion of children being vaccinated
against the disease drops. this causes more parents to get their kids
vaccinated and that causes the incidence of the disease to drop which
causes fewer parents to bother to get their kids vaccinated which...

Anyway, this is pretty strong evidence that whooping cough vaccination
works. Now it's your turn, please come up with some evidence that
whooping cough vaccination does not work.


mosw> In light of this, I have a lot of trouble with the idea of forced
mosw> vaccination - you're mandating that people have something that is
mosw> not fully understood [...] done to them.

Nothing is fully understood. 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Foreign Tax Cheats?
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:54:38 GMT

Anyone catch the piece on Prime Time last night (Apr. 10 show) on how
foreign corporations avoid paying vast amounts of U.S. income taxes by
shifting revenues?  Here's the scam:  A foreign corporation produces an
item for $100.  It sells it to a subsidiary in a country that has granted
a tax concession for $200.  That subsidiary sells it to the U.S. subsidiary
for $201 so the U.S. subsidiary only shows $1 in profit.  So, they don't
pay nearly the amount of taxes warranted by the profits they make from
sales in the U.S.  It gives them a huge unfair advantage over U.S. companies.
And, the rest of us are subsidizing their ability to operate in this
country.  

I just thought I'd add this the the list of ways foreign corporations (the
Prime Time segment specifically sited the Japanese as particularly bad
offenders) are sticking it to all of us.  Is this protectionist?  You're
damned right it is.  I fully expect my government to protect me from this
kind of abuse, but of course we have to have the Japanese in particular
to buy our debt.  Isn't that ironic?  They rip us off for income taxes
and then we go begging with our hand out hoping to borrow back the money
they ripped off.  

-- 

	Jim Burke				
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ
From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Increases in Social Security Taxes Caused the Wage Bust
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:28:29 GMT

Context: 

Round 1: Mr. Shea posted an assertion, in support of some argument or
other, that "Census Bureau data show before tax family income
dropping". I replied with Census Bureau data that showed the opposite.

Round 2: Mr. Shea asserted that the Census Bureau data did not adjust
the data for family size. I responded that was even more devastating
to his argument, since average family size had decreased over the
time period in question.

Round 3: Mr. Shea posted (with no checkable source) numbers from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics on individual (not family) earnings.  I
observed (a) that wasn't even close to what he originally asserted, and
(b) the numbers he posted looked suspiciously like after-tax numbers.

Now, in Round 4, Mr. Shea tries posting yet another table of numbers,
from the Census Bureau this time, on male and female median yearly
earnings over time. And *now* says that (I think) his argument is
supported by "slow growth [not decline] in pre-tax earnings [not
incomes] of males [not families]". Previous assertions seem to be
relegated to the memory hole.

At which point, I say... ah, fine. 'Tis a truly marvelous argument
that adapts itself so well to such wildly divergent evidence.

To illustrate the point using Mr. Shea's numbers (all dollar figures
are 1988 dollars): consider Mel, a mythical median male worker. He made
$21291 in 1972. The FICA tax rate was 4.5%, give or take a few tenths
of a percent, which made Mel's "employee contribution" about $958. In
1988, Mel is earning $20612, about $600 less than in 1972. But Social
Security was at a 7.51% rate in 1988, and that came to $1548 that Mel
has to "contribute". So in addition to being about $600 worse off
before-tax, Mel gets an additional $600 kick in the teeth *solely*
due to employee-contribution Social Security. (Things get worse when
you consider the employer's contribution, as an astute poster pointed
out.)

So Social Security takes a not-so-hot situation and makes it worse.
This is, I believe, what Mr. Ipser's article originally claimed.  In
short, once Mr. Shea posts real, live, checkable numbers, they start
making the case for his opponents.
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand                | We regret the inconvenience.  We're doing 
-- University of New Hampshire | everything we can, which is nothing.
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu          |     (Paul Vixie)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:16940 talk.politics.guns:11248 misc.entrepreneurs:1475 alt.individualism:2281
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,misc.entrepreneurs,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:47:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sike@athena.mit.edu (Michael G Sheldon) writes:

>In article <1992Apr3.223541.2704@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@m4-035-4.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>|> ...  Drugs should be legalized.  The illegality of drugs
>|> creates crime, not the drugs.

>Then murder should be legalized?  By your reasoning, the illegality of murder
>creates crime, not the murder.

Then you obviously don't understand his reasoning.  The crime that the
illegality of drugs creates is not the crime of taking drugs, it is the
whole underground crime world that is created in order to fill the 
demand for the illegal drugs.  Legalizing recreational drugs would
do away with the organized crime that makes is living off the sale
of these drugs.  

Its just like prohibition folks.  The gang wars of today are no 
different from the gang wars during prohibition.  The drug smugglers
are no different from the rum-runners.  

Comparing the illegality of drugs and murder is like comparing
apples and oranges. Murder is illegal in order to protect a person's 
right to live. Why are recreational drugs illegal?  What right is that
law protecting?

I think we should legalize recreational drugs and treat them the
way we treat the alcohol and tobacco industries.  Tax them.  The
government is missing out on a great source of revenue here.

The citizens of this country have the right to choose for themselves
what they will and will not consume.  Just because its bad for you
is not enough for the government to ban it.  Do they ban tobacco?
Do they ban animal fat? 

I agree that there should be laws to protect minors, but adults have
to be allowed to make there own choices and mistakes.  The government
is not our parent, it is our servant.  Unfortunately, so many people
have forgotten that that the government is getting away with enforcing
more rules than they have a right to.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17254 talk.politics.guns:11346
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:13:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rtkseINNgcd
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr8.001747.14679@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m11-113-3.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
>>>1)it guarantees your right to own a musket.(that's all thefirearms they had
>>>back then)
>Wrong.  They also had flintlock concealable pistols and cannons.
>Besides, it would be the right to own and carry a musket even by your
>twisted interpretation.

As a historic note (since the "that's all they had back then" argument is
so clearly bogus, it isn't worth the effort to debate), they had quite a
bit more that muskets in 1791. They had in common and frequent use, muzzel
loading rifles, which had _much_ better accuracy and range than muskets, 
even if they did take a bit longer to load... There were also breach loading
rifles capable (I think) of limited, rapid fire: Patrick Ferguson, of the
British Army, invented a breach loading rifle which I believe had a feed
mechanism similar to a single action revolver. The British army (which was
still using muskets, and wouldn't field so advanced a gun for over 100 years)
decieded to manufacture only 200 of the rifles on a test basis. The test
was a failure, but not due to any failure of the rifles. Ferguson's command
was outnumbered, isolated and destroyed at Kings Mountain, by unorganized
militias from the Carolinas and Virginia.

						   Frank Crary
						   UC Berkeley
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Polling Fraud?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:42:32 GMT

In article <kula97INN12u@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> you write:
>In article 11329@midway.uchicago.edu, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writ
es:
>> In article <1992Apr14.004624.15558@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff
) writes:
>> >In article <1992Apr13.214146.3820@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago
.edu writes:
>> >>Do you have any examples of the "many" instances of polling fraud?
>> The fact that when the poll is constantly demonstrated to be wrong, they'll
>> cease to have credibility.  There are too many poll-takers out there for
>> someone to engage in "fraud."
>Well, this is true of _electoral polls_, but not of many other kinds of polls.
>
>Still, what I think is more common than polling fraud is "polling hysteria".
>People who make polls have a fair degree of cultural commonality. Sometimes, t
hey
>all go off on a tangent together(i.e. they have a common emotional reaction ab
out
>how to phrase a particular type of question). Now eventually, these type of ph
enomena
>get corrected. Still, that doesn't mean that they aren't influential.
>

Hey, is it too late to talk about all the dead people who voted Kennedy, in the
1960 election?
>
>> As for people using polls to further their own agenda, it happens all the
>> time.  The secret is education --
>This is a good point.

How does education reduce "poll fraud"?  Most people would find it hard to 
discern a fraudulant (sp?) poll that is slanted a few points, from a real one.

R. Scharfy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.news-media,soc.rights.human
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:29:08 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr9.014232.4438@esd.dl.nec.com>, Michael Lee (ml) writes:

ml> It is a value judgement whether the potential value exceeds the risk.
ml> I think it is worth the risk and so do you. But some people object for
ml> religious, medical, or other reasons.

Well, religious reasons are not interesting (people can always
fatasise up a new religion to excuse their actions, this is not to say
we should prevent them from having their beliefs, just that deciding
that driving at 150mph on the wrong side of the road is God's Will
doesn't make me less in favour of convicting you :-)).

Medical reasons? I have nevber heard of any medical arguemnt against
whooping cough vaccination. The differewnce between the risks and the
benefits are so extreme that it is like trying to find a doctor who
says that breathing is bad because you might breath in some smoke and
get cancer.

Others? Well, I suppose ther is sloth... but appart from that I can't
think of any.

ml> Anyone who is concerned about getting whooping cough should be
ml> allowed to get the shot and those who do not want should not be
ml> forced to get it.

This is fine for adults who never want to leave the house. Children
can not make such a decision and it is, to say the least, unclear that
the parents should have the right to deny the child basic medical
treatment.

Also, while I don't know the details for whooping cough, in many cases
(eg influenza I think) not being vaccinated would make someone who
caught it more infectious for longer. In such cases, not being
vaccinated is like driving a car without functioning brakes.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: B-CPU Mail Path
Summary: Note on ".com" addresses
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:01:48 GMT

In article <9204081825.AA29373@hardy.u.washington.edu> dild@exmus.fabersham.com (Jonny Handsome) writes:
>>So, if you want to bounce Ralphie's articles back at him (not that I recommend>it, no, never! :-)), don't use the "Reply" feature of your news reader - it
>>won't work.  Instead, mail the words of wisdom to:
>
>'Twould be naughty to send him unsolicited 'opinions'.
>
>>       agora.rain.com!b-cpu!ralphw        or
>>       b-cpu!ralphw@agora.rain.com        or
>>       b-cpu!maynard@agora.rain.com
>
>But...but...
>
>        % ping agora.rain.com
>        ping: unknown host agora.rain.com
>
>Ralpharella, what is your internet number? You didn't pluck your name
>out of the server did you???
>*************

Note that it is completely possible that agora.rain.com is a MX only site,
and has no direct Internet path.

Like ddsw1.mcs.com, for example.  No direct connection, but we're quite a
legal MX-record holder.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18582 ca.politics:3563 ba.politics:2691 alt.politics.homosexuality:2356 soc.motss:20629
From: lkoh@elman.austin.ibm.com (Lisa Koh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: One vote made a difference (stories needed)
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:25:14 GMT
Organization: IBM Austin, TX

We all have heard about how one vote from a Kansas Senator
saved President Johnson from being found guilty of impeachment...

Does anyone know of other similar situations in which a single
vote made historic results?  Please post them!

Thanks,
Lisa

Hook 'em Horns!
~\/~
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Employee vs. Employer rights
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:45:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

ling@watson.ibm.com (David Ling) writes:
>I've looked at the e-mail addresses of those who write these posts
>and have discovered that they are usually either students at,
>faculty at or employees of University or University related institutions.

Three of the respondents were from .com sites.  Two were from .edu.
2/5 != usually, you're not off to a good start.  And you don't know
whether or not they ever worked in the "real world."


>To these people I say, you haven't the foggiest idea what you are
>talking about or about how the real labor market works. You are not
>part of the real labor market. Your ideas are as useful to the rest
>of us as a Catholic priest's advice to a bride and bridegroom before 
>their wedding night.

Our .edu site would hire almost exclusively those who _had_ had
experience in the market, and no .edu site that I know of would
consider real experience a negative.  You're making unwarranted
assumptions.


>with anger when I see the way she has been treated and it really burns
>me up to hear these head-in-the-clouds, safe-in-the-University types
>pontificate about how people in the real labor market should behave.
>Go get a real job and see if things are quite so neat as you think.

So what about the majority of the posters, posting from .com sites?

-- 
Nothing is ever a complete failure; it can always serve as a bad example.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18333 alt.politics.homosexuality:2195
From: levin@oakland.bbn.com (Joel B Levin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 15 Apr 1992 16:00:05 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: levin@BBN.COM (Joel B Levin)
NNTP-Posting-Host: powell.bbn.com

In article <8wF9iB5w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
|
|BTW: You should not put soc.motss in your Newsgroups line.. They
|get real weird over there when they see my name...

From your header:

>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss

Practice what you preach.

	/J
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:08:06 GMT

frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>Mugging?  No, taxes.  You don't like taxes - tough nookies.
>I have little respect for libertarians who make tax elimination
>their top priority.  Work for personal freedom, a more just
>society, etc. - leave the tax elimination for the last step
>in the evolution.


And this is the crux of it.  You seem to believe that if the majority
decide something it can't violate personal freedom, and furthermore
that use of force by the government to obtain involuntary funding
doesn't violate personal freedom either.  Taxes are at the root of
government's belief that it has the authority to do whatever social
experimentation it wants to.  I can't work for personal freedom or a
more just society without working for tax elimination as well.
-- 
For 40 years I have analyzed stocks and other money markets.  Now I have made
a remarkable discovery.  The Confederate dollar has risen in value 7.4 percent
a year since 1965.  It has outperformed the German mark, the Japanese yen and
the Swiss franc.    -- Vincent W. Allen
From: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: creating an election group
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:54:21 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: hera.berkeley.edu
Originator: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU

I don't really think that a new group focussing on the elections is necessary
considering that all the bantering about Clinton vs. Brown vs. Perot etc.
will be over except for sore losers.  :-)

Besides, creating a new group will not shield us from bigots and bashers.
I can just see a discussion in the new group about the candidates'
positions on gay and lesbians rights, or talks about Jesse Jackson and
Jewish groups or...

In any case, just keep hitting that N button once you tire of the
revisionist stuff or whatever turns you off.  Besides, preaching to the
converted gets boring awful fast.

I would, however, like to second the motion suggested before that people
back up their assertations with citable facts when possible.  I think
that arguing based on gut reactions has some purpose, but if you feel
really strong about your position(s) and what me to learn, I need to have
something a little substantive.

(And on that note, I'll go home and dig up my ACLU article on the library
case so that I can adequately explain the reasoning behind the ACLU's
siding against the library...)

------------------------
Mitja Che Baumhackl
Berkeley, California
mitja@hera.berkeley.edu, not endorsed by the University of California
Member, American Civil Liberties Union
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party Chair to speak at Stanford University
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:40:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.063355.16561@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>,
gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>Mark.Hinkle@f6.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Hinkle) writes:
>>>
>>>U.S. Senate Candidate, June Genis, who is running for the 6 year term
>>    This is the same June Genis that reads this group?
>>  ...explains the previous biased postings against Perot :-)
>
>This is the same June Genis who asked what GATT was???  Sounds like
>our pick for chairing Senate Foreign Relations or Trade & Commerce.
>
>(-; (-; (-; (-; (-;
>
>gld

It is the same June Genis who while wearing her computerist hat has
always objected to IBM trying to reduce the world to a set of
meaningless acronymns :-)

And I'd really much rather be on some committees dealing with civil
liberties issues :-)

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy and the terrible 22
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:27:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr03.214749.43126@yuma.acns.colostate.edu>
cummingc@CS.ColoState.EDU (christopher cummings) writes:
 
>Well, well, seems as if Arkansas has its share of slicksters.
>
>Rep. Bill Alexander D-Ark., 487 bad checks and 19 months of
>negative balances > next month's paycheck.
>:-) Momma always told me never trust a man with two first names :-)
>
>Rep. Tommy Robinson R-Ark. (former Dem. - but how many as a Dem?)
>996 bad checks ***A HOUSE RECORD FOLKS*** 16 months > paycheck.
>Has he Rep.ented?
>
>Folks, I wonder, is it really wise to elect a President from a
>state that seems to breed deficit spending??  I know I don't
>want Willy doin the hand jive on my books.
>--
>Chris Cummings
>cummingc@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu
 
I wonder if Mr. Cummings grasp of reality is always this skewed.
 
What in *HELL* do the bounced checks of two Arkansas congressmen have
to do with Bill Clinton?
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty