HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:01:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.131935.5875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <21510@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>It's based on what happens when you raise tax rates on the upper class
>>and other such tricks that Clinton is proposing.  If my tax rates go up,
>>I will be investing every spare dollar in the nearest tax-sheltered
>>investment I can find.  Millions of other upper-class taxpayers are
>>going to be doing the same exact thing.  That will reduce tax revenue,
>>not raise it.
>
>Yes, but when you look at the whole picture, you will find that one of
>the better things to do with your money is to invest in long-term
>investments,

Haugh didn't write "long-term", he wrote "tax-sheltered".  Haugh
currently makes long-term investments because they pay off.  He'll
change to tax-sheltered for the same reason.

>due to the targeted capital gains tax in the Clinton plan

Right.  We've tried that.  It was the pre-1980 policy.  It didn't work
as promised.  It was a subsidy program for various political
interests.

We're going to bring back the buggy-whip industry.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:52:46 GMT

In <21522@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.131935.5875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Yes, but when you look at the whole picture, you will find that one of
>>the better things to do with your money is to invest in long-term
>>investments, due to the targeted capital gains tax in the Clinton plan
>>(as opposed to the one in Bush's plan, which simply spurs more paper
>>profits rather than real investment in the economy).  This creates a
>>larger capital pool, which spurs the economy and raises tax revenues.

>No, many investments won't ever be made.  New technologies, which are
>far more "valuable" from a long term perspective, are also far more
>risky.  With higher marginal rates and the higher risk, investors are
>likely to stick the money in T-bills.  New technologies will go begging
>for credit and we'll wind up losing still more industries to the rest
>of the world.  Sure, you can argue that all of the money rushing into
>banks for CD's is going to make borrowing easier, but who is going to
>lend money to a brand new company with some whacky idea?

The same person who does it now.  And if he doesn't realize his return
(cash out the investment) until after he is over the time limit for
the 'long-term investment tax credit' he will get a MORE favorable tax
rate than he gets now.  He will have the same chance to win or lose
that he always had -- the only difference is that he can't make a
bundle by investing in short term speculative paper, the way he can
under Bush's plan.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:56:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.004843.17356@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>By federal law (USC Title X) the militia includes all males age 17 to 45, and
>>all members of state militias (many states have more inclusive militia laws,
>>that include women in this age range as well.) By Supreme COurt ruling
>>in US v. Miller, the militia includes everyone "physically capable of
>>acting in concert for the common defense." Since I fit both of these legal
>>definintions of "militia", do you agree that my right to keep and bear
>>arms can not constitutionally be infringed by the goverment?

>You forgot the "well-regulated" part. 

The Supreme Court was talking about the Second Amendment, and what the
term ment there. If "well-regulated" had, to the Court, implied additional
restrictions, it would have been extremely relevant to the ruling and
would have been mentioned.

As for US Title X, the "unorganized militia" is defined as _part_
of congressional militia laws. Since Congress specifies no more
stringent regulations, one can only assume that they consider that
militia sufficiently well regulated (regardless of the interpertation
of "well regulated") 

>And the "necessary to the security of a
>free state" part.

Is English your native language? The verb "being" ("to be", present 
progressive tense, if I remember the term correctly) is between
"well regulated militia" and "necessary to the securtiy..."
This means that "necesasary to the security..." does _not_ modify
"well regulated militia." Rather, the clause is a statement that
a "well regulated militia" _is_ (by declaration) "necessary..."

> You also forget that USC Title X does NOT override the 
>Constitution, and is therefore irrelevant, since the 2nd Amendment does not
>empower Congress to modify the operative definition of "militia" at will.

If Congress had ever used any other definition of "militia", certainly.
But federal militia laws have used essentially this same definition
of "militia" since the first militia laws in 1792 (one phrasing or
another of "all able-bodied males.")

It is well recognized that "The United States Supreme Court has made
clear that considerable weight is to be given to an unbroken practice,
which has prevailed since the inception of our nation and was acquiesed
in by the Framers of the Constitution when they were participating in
public affairs..." (United States v. Woodley, 751 F.2d 1008, 1985 US
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: Jay Stein <jaystein@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 04 Sep 92 17:28 PDT
Subject: Democratic Congress & Bush
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1588800010:000:497
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jaystein    Sep  4 17:28:00 1992



An open letter from Jack Wolpert, of Boulder, CO, to Bill Clinton
and AL Gore:

Dear Bill and Al,

Here's a quick note on a campaign idea that seems like a natural:

	George Bush says he can't work with a Democratic
Congress.

	There will certainly be a Democratic Congress for the next
four years.

	It's time to elect a president who can work with a
Democratic Congress.

	P.S.:  Dan Quayle says its time to end divided government
and we have to agree.

Keep up the good work and best of luck.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4362 alt.politics.homosexuality:5775
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:07:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <AWERLING.92Sep7182057@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.154642.12539@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>
>- "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done
>- what is detestable"
>-	   --Leviticus 18:22
>
>You left out the death penalty part.
>
>- "In the same way [as women who had turned to lesbianism] the men also 
>- abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
>- another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in them-
>- selves the due penalty for their perversion."
>-	   --Romans 1:27
>
>- "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
>- Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
>- adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor
>- the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
>- kingdom of God." 
>-	   --I Corinthians 6:9-10
>


I've been thinking about this lately, and the only New Testament Christian
Bile^H^Hble references condemning homosexuality seem to have been written
by Paul (Saul of Tarsus, taxman) IS this correct? You know what they say
about Paul :)

I'd really like to know, I suppose...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:12:59 GMT

n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:

Well, I guess it's a race between a draft dodger and an issue dodger 
(or a responsibility dodger, if you will). A lot of people don't trust
Clinton because of something he did when he was 18, I don't trust Bush
because of things he DIDN'T do when he was in his 60's. Guess which one's
actions has affected me more?

Flames to:
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: On the Cover of the Rolling Stone
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:52:02 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <BuKs6D.774@ora.com>, ellie@ora.com (Ellie Cutler) writes:
> Besides being endorsed by a member of the ever-so-Brahmin (and devoutly
> Republican) Cabot family, Clinton has also picked up the nod from
> Rolling Stone magazine.

	Gosh, I guess the election is all but done, eh?

> The article was very straightforward and right on the money.  I plan to
> pick it up for my roomate's 18-year-old son, who needs a clue about
> who to vote for.

	Give him the number of the Libertarian Party instead.  He'll appreciate
it when he actually has money to retire on.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:13:58 GMT

In article <BuIxL2.27x@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>: A history lesson:
>: 
>: In October 1990, the Democratic Congressional leadership and the Bush
>: administration brokered a budget deal with small tax increases and some
>: (substantial) budget cuts. This deal failed to pass the House, when
>: conservative Republicans rebelled at a tax increase, and liberal
>: Democrats rebelled at spending cuts. After this failure,
>: the House Democrats rewrote the bill more to their liking. They
>: raised the tax increases, and watered down the spending caps.
>: The revised bill passed the House and Senate and was
>: signed by President Bush.
>
>Bush could have not signed it.  He could have let it pass without
>signing it ("I'm not going to sign my name to that piece of cow
>droppings!"), or (*gasp*) he could have vetoed it.

Well I wish he had vetoed it.

The only poblem was that the Gov't was running on "continuing resolutions",
and a veto would have ended the Federal Government in a situation akin
to California's 'no budget' situation of the last few months.
Bush apparently saved his resolve for the Gulf situation.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Originator: cs911461@a03.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:06:18 GMT


In article <1992Sep15.222210.28812@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep15.183928.10922@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>> >
>> >I'm not a cocaine addict because:
>> >	a) it costs too much
>> >	b) it destroys the brain
>> >	c) it counter-productive
>> >	d) it's something the lower-classes do
>> >	e) it could land me in jail
>> >	f) it could get me fired
>> >
>> >Granted, the threat of criminal prosecution is a lesser concern, but
>> >it is still a concern.  If one person feels this way, then (I guess by
>> >some form of mathematical induction), there are others who would too.
>> 
>> Try again; it isn't enough that you consider it enough to list it.  It
>> has to make a difference.  If we removed e, or if e wasn't a factor,
>> would you be an addict?  Are you addicted to anything else?  (Why
>> aren't you addicted to alcohol?)

I am addicted to cigarettes, a non mind-altering drug.  Smoking does
not impair my ability to study, to program, to perform as a productive
member of society.  I'm not addicted to alcohol because I have epilepsy
and alcohol is strictly forbidden.  Besides, I'm not advocating a "War"
on drugs.  I want to see a system which would legalize drugs in such a
way that crime would be eliminated, the quality of the substance would
be monitored by the FDA and new users would have to come to government
agencies for a license.  They could then pick up their favorite narcotic
at the pharmacist or at a government outlet.  The accent here is on
control, not eradication.

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:20:25 GMT


What exactly are Bush's "family values"?  He has promised to veto a bill to
mandate UNPAID family parental or emergency leave.  He has also vetoed a bill
to prevent convicted child-molesters continuing to work at day-care centers in
another state.   

I heard of a case where a father was fired from his job because he went to
the hospital where his son was having open heart surgery.  The family leave
bill is intended to stop this sort of thing from happening and Bush has
promised to veto it.  

Peter Lauren.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4664 talk.politics.misc:44466 alt.rush-limbaugh:4476 alt.politics.bush:4561 alt.politics.elections:12728
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:53:37 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>
>My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
>station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
>have expected them to.
>
>Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
>He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
>he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
>flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
>for president!".
>
>The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
>I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
>
>I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
>paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
>go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
>imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
>you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.
>
>How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
>know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
>this knowledge?
>
>Jim Del Vecchio
I saw parts of this on CNN, including the airplane part. Of course, I find this
whole "draft dodger" issue a bunch of bullshit. I don't see any difference between
what Clinton and Quayle did in this regard. The whole issue revolves around
stories about what he said he did or said back then. Who cares? I've been through
the same crap. Back in 1971 they tried to draft me, but I was given a 4F for
being nearly deaf. However, I refused to talk about it because a) it was nobody's
business and b) people would claim that I looked too healthy so someone must
have "fixed" things with the draft board....This pissed me off, since I knew people
who DID get things fixed with the draft board...most wealthy kids.

There are those that claim Clinton lies and ONLY Clinton lies. Hell, we already
have a guy who's President that I don't trust. Trust was an issue with Bush
way before it was one with Clinton!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:48:43 GMT

In article <17bu4mINNk2f@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.054118.8801@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>You mistate the question. It's not "is the RKBA an individual or collective
>>right?". Rather, it's "what individuals (as opposed to the government) have
>>this right?". IMO, the answer is clearly "those in the well-regulated militia".
>
>By federal law (USC Title X) the militia includes all males age 17 to 45, and
>all members of state militias (many states have more inclusive militia laws,
>that include women in this age range as well.) By Supreme COurt ruling
>in US v. Miller, the militia includes everyone "physically capable of
>acting in concert for the common defense." Since I fit both of these legal
>definintions of "militia", do you agree that my right to keep and bear
>arms can not constitutionally be infringed by the goverment?

You forgot the "well-regulated" part. And the "necessary to the security of a
free state" part. You also forget that USC Title X does NOT override the 
Constitution, and is therefore irrelevant, since the 2nd Amendment does not
empower Congress to modify the operative definition of "militia" at will.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4211 tx.politics:4870
From: tertium@milton.u.washington.edu (l boyd)
Subject: Re: Quayle Now Expert on Homosexuality
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:03:21 GMT

rjwill6@pbsdts.sdcrc.pacbell.com (Rod Williams) writes:

>From The New York Times (9/14/92) without permission:


>In the clearest statement yet of his own beliefs on
>homosexuality, Mr. Quayle said, "My viewpoint is that it's
>more of a choice than a biological situation."


Goodie!  This means that JDQ *himself* might "make the choice" to become gay.
Terrific -- I have always thought it such a waste that he was a breeder.  Now
if he could just find the right man.

(-;

Loren
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: solms@mtholyoke.edu (Sharon Solms)
Subject: Clinton speeches
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:05:57 GMT

Someone told me that Clinton's speechs are available on the net.
Does anyone know if there is a specific place to access them or
should I just read through this newsgroup regularly?  Thanks.
 solms@sophia.smith.edu (sharon solms)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:06:02 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: The answer is more supply-side, less tax-n-spend

In article <1992Sep9.155242.11519@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <21465@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
...
>>> Spending isn't a "drag on the economy".  What do you want to cut to
>>> fix the current deficit?  After that list, tell me what you want to
>>> cut to fix the new deficit from cutting taxes.  If you can come up
>>> with a reasonable explanation for this, you'll be ahead of George
>>> Bush.  He's said he wants to cut taxes, but isn't going to talk about
>>> how he plans to pay for it until January or so.
> 
>>Which president in the early '60s cut taxes by $10B and raised revenue
>>as a direct result $14B?
> 
> Examine the marginal rate of taxation at various incomes then and now,
> and then tell me that this is even a germane question.  

	The exact marginal rates don't matter, just that they were in the
prohibitive zone, and were brought down, increasing economic activity.
	It will always work that way when tax rates are on the wrong side of
the Laffer curve.

> Also, since you seem to have missed them, let me repeat.  What do you
> want to cut to fix the current deficit?  After that list, tell me what

	Cutting taxes at this point will raise revenues.  Apply those new
revenues towards the debt.  Decrease current spending until the budget is
balanced.  Make it equal cuts in defense and entitlements/pork projects.

> you want to cut to fix the new deficit from cutting taxes.  If you can

	Cutting taxes at this point will not create a deficit.  Revenues will
increase to make up the "paper shortfall".

> come up with a reasonable explanation for this, you'll be ahead of
> George Bush.  He's said he wants to cut taxes, but isn't going to talk
> about how he plans to pay for it until January or so.

	That's because it doesn't need "paid for".  (That's not the reason he
isn't saying anything, though. :)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties