HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:56:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.164004.19295@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.101506.3858@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>I invite you, and every reader who wants a party that defends _all_ 
>>of the Bill of Rights, over to alt.politics.marrou.   Those who want 
>
>Please think about this scenario:
>
>You vote for Marrou. Bush loses and Clinton wins. The democrats then
>stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges.
>
>In this case, I AM voting for the lesser of two evils.
>
 
I'm not really a Libretarian (yet anyway :-), but I feel I must point
out that George Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court aren't
necessarily pro-RKBA or pro personal rights at all. Look at the
decision for the Thompson-Center case earlier this year. Who brought
the case to the court & why? It was the Executive Branch &
they claimed that letting Thompson-Center off on Constitutional
grounds would endanger the previous executive orders restricting
firearms importation & conversion (back to hideously dangerous bayonet 
lugs, original stocks, pistol grips, 'n such :-). They also claimed
it would endanger & impede the WOD. Fortunately, Thompson-Center
won, but please do read the thinking of the various judges on this
decision (hint: Sandra Day O'Connor is no big friend of RBKAers).
The reasoning given by the majoority opinion was in two pieces,
neither one was steadfastly pro-RBKA that I could interpret &
one of them was well nigh on to incomprehensible (I think it was
Souder's (maybe Kennedy) and Thomas joined him in it).

IMHO *both* parties want to control things as completely as possible,
they just disagree (fortunately!) on how to go about it. Look at all
the Constitutional violations happening in the name of the WOD.
The Court so far hasn't has much to say in favor of Constitutional
rights when the WOD is involved. The choice seems to be more &
more whether one wants to live in a right wing totalitarian style
state or a socialistic totalitarian state. Maybe it is time to
consider another option like the Libretarians. (Although I don't
mind admitting that the thought of both houses of Congress &
the Presidency being controlled by the same party certainly scares
me a lot, but that may happen in any case). 

Besides, what makes you think that most votes lost to Marrou will
necessarily come from the Bush camp? A lot of "conservatives"
go into cold sweats when they see the planks of the Libretarian
Partys' platform.

-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:738 alt.politics.elections:9148
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:48:18 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>My concern is to stop, if not all, a big chunk of gun purchases by minors,

Phil removed "and criminals", much more my concern.  I of course didn't state
percentages.  One is too many.

>If gun purchases by minors is not an issue, then why did
>you bring it up?

Just to piss you off :).  Let's see, how many 21-year-old gang members do you
think go in and buy guns for their younger friends?  Totally zero?  Get real.
Possibly even a significant number, seeing all the Junior Rambos running
around with semi-autos in the big cities.

So, to _me_ (can I have an opinion?), it _is_ an issue.

Dear Mr. Gun Worshipper, and nothing in the world is wrong with them: buzz
off.  I'll correspond with your compatriots, thanks; the ones that don't act
like I'm kicking them in the head just because I don't agree with their stance
on gun purchasing.  Which has been nearly every one but you that posted
replies or e-mailed me.

I've removed talk.abortion from the header.                   

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:44:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.095705.21029@imag.fr> turk@imag.fr (Matthew Turk) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>>[...]
>>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people:
>
>Can you back this figure up with a reference?  Sounds like folklore to
>me.
>
>	Matthew Turk

    I read it in todays Columbus Dispatch containing the same statement , that
the top 1% of the nation now have more wealth than the bottom 90%, and in 1980,
America was #1 in wages an average person made, now it's #13 in the world. 
 
   I don't know the figures. But I do know America has the largest number of 
billionares in the world, and the largest  number of people below poverty
line. 
  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: 1% has 90%? (was Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:28:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.051939.726@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Sorry, but this doesn't seem to be the case.  Now, for the first time,
>the top 1% have more than the bottom 90% (NPR earlier this evening).
>Now, if we also buy that the top 1 % have 90% of everything, that says
>that the bottom 90% must also have something close to 90% of
>everything (since the two groups just crossed over each other).

In article <1992Jul26.063813.13000@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Go back to the note I was responding to and follow the thread back, Dave.

I've followed the thread from Justin Boyan's original article on this thread,
which contained the following:

In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>[...]
>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people...

Which is similar to, but not the same as, your "top 1 % have 90% of
everything".  If your intent was to disprove Boyan's statement, you need only
have indicated that that was the case, and present the "for the first time
the top 1% have more than the bottom 90%" statistic from NPR--the two are
cleary contradictory.

Anyway, it seems we all agree now that the top 1% have significantly less
than 90% of either the wealth or everything.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:824 alt.politics.perot:1095 talk.politics.misc:36055 alt.politics.bush:274
From: busuioc@acsu.buffalo.edu (Anca I. Busuioc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Irreverent Thoughts on '92
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:28:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>Why do people cling to these conspiracy theories that Perot was forced out?

ok, i can't resist:

	 Q: why did perot suddenly quit ?
	 A: because bob guccione had nude pictures of him.

(heard on the dave letterman show; the malice is all his. i rather
liked the fellow... until he quit. too bad.)

anca
innocent abroad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar)
Subject: HRP Cartoon
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.  Louisville, CO
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:10:50 GMT


A political cartoon (of my imagining)...

Picture a steamroller with the words "POLITICAL MACHINERY" printed on
the side.  Big banners are waving from it with the word "CHANGE" on
them -- driving the steamroller we see Bush and Clinton.  Underneath,
all crumpled up (Beetle Bailey style) is H. Ross Perot...

It may be that HRP really did have good intentions but the good old boys
got to him and convinced him to pull out "for his own good."  Now
they're talking about "change" like it was their idea.  Our only real
choice for change is now history.  Funny, though, how GB and BC all of a
sudden got religion.

I think a press release today (I wrote the above a couple of days ago)
supports my assertions...
 
                           --------------
   Perot spoke bitterly about a "brutal and intrusive" political
process that, he said, deters well-qualified people from seeking
public office.  
   "We've lost sight of what's good for the country," he said. "I
marvel that anybody would put up with it -- and certainly anybody that
loves his family."  
   He defended his decision to drop his bid for the presidency. "I can
now, maybe, make the issues the center of attention -- as opposed to
me being the center of attention, and this intense desire to destroy
any person that threatens the two-party system," he said. 
                           ---------------

We may never know what really went on with HRP's decision to pull out. 
But I don't like the smell of it.
 
-- 
Vince Dugar                 |
Boulder, Colorado           | "Engage brain before mouth."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Who owns what? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:52:33 GMT

>>America was #1 in wages an average person made, now it's #13 in the world.
>Also misleading. Measuring wages is open to interpertation due to fluxuations
>in currency. In 1980 for example, the $$ was stronger than it is now.
>
>However if you measure labor vs buying power the USA is still number one.
>This means that, for example, the average worker in the US needs to work
>fewer hours to earn the money to buy a produce than anywhere else.

We might still be number one, but is the economic position of the "average
worker" stronger or weaker today than in 1980?


>
>>   I don't know the figures. But I do know America has the largest number of
>>billionares in the world, and the largest  number of people below poverty
>>line.
>
>Hold on a second here. Are you actually telling me that there are more
>people living in poverty in the USA than in India or China or some other
>third world nation? You can't possible be serious!

I think he means among the 15-20 so-called "highly industrialized" nations.


>
>Does the average person actually believe this? I guess that's why
>Clinton is ahead in the polls.

Did you read Timothy Smith's posting a few spots back?  Most of us believe that
the nation's in serious shape.  The remedy is being argued--Bush, Clinton,
Perot, None of the Above... Do you believe everything is peachy in the U.S. of
A?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: Voter Registration (WAS: George Bush opposes democracy.)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 03:12:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <l6tv2mINNqrm@girtab.usc.edu> rmurphy@girtab.usc.edu (rmurphy@girtab.usc.edu) writes:
>In article <gdtxrmr@rpi.edu> jacksonk@fs4.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.000551.23131@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul22.201815.16435@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>>>>Why aren't people registered?
>>
>>>I suspect a major reason, especially for the self-employed (such
>>>as farmers), is the increased risk of jury duty. And, no, I don't
>>>have any evidence.
>>
>I recently served on a jury in Los Angeles and found out that in L.A.
>there are two avenues by which they obtain jurors.  Prospective jurors
>used to be picked at random from a list of those registered to vote.
>Now they are also picked at random from those who have a driver's license.
>Being registered to vote AND owning a driver's license DOES NOT make you
>twice as likely to be called as long as your name appears exactly the
>same for both of these.  But, for example, if I used the name
>"Robert Murphy" on my license and "Bob Murphy" for my voter registration
>I would in fact double my chances of being called.


So, now I understand.  That's why the fucking idiots are sending
us sommons to jury duty when we aren't even permanent residents in the
US, and then, the fucking idiots ot the post office can't read the
note on the envelope and have the summons followed-up to our
new address in Canada...

I wonder whether next time I go to California, they are going to
charge me a fine for not showing up...

I wonder, if I would have showed up and not told about not being
a US citizen, and then waited until the whole thing be over, and
told to the loosing party, what would have happened...   (I must
say, it was hard resisting the temptation...).

LB
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:37:59 GMT

>In article <1992Jul23.101506.3858@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>I invite you, and every reader who wants a party that defends _all_ 
>>of the Bill of Rights, over to alt.politics.marrou.  

In article <1992Jul24.164004.19295@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>Please think about this scenario:
>
>You vote for Marrou. Bush loses and Clinton wins. The democrats then
>stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges.

Note that the original poster was considering defection from _Clinton_
to Marrou.  My analysis of polling data indicates that Clinton
has very soft support from his deceptive convention rhetoric, in
which he did his best to look like a libertarian.   Bush has kept
a consistent 30% support all along.  This suggests that growing support 
for Marrou will hurt Clinton more than Bush.  

More importantly, a Libertarian vote sends a strong message that the Bill 
of Rights needs to be enforced in its whole; neither Republicans or 
Democrats are principled on that issue.  Your vote is more likely to
send a message than to make the difference in the Presidential
election.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:59:45 GMT

In article <s4dmt!f.jmoody@netcom.com>, jmoody@netcom.com (Jim Moody) writes:
|> Ah, I see, a line item veto is the new answer.  Would we give the President
|> this little boon before or after the Coronation.  Imagine a set up like the
|> one we have now where the Republicans are in the minority, but the 
|> Democrats don't have a sufficient majority to override the Presidential veto.
|> The President could then selectively pick any items he was not personally in
|> favor of and eliminate them from consideration, regardless of the will of 
|> the elected majority.  And if the opposition sought to hold up similar
|> spending items...i.e. defence spending...to bargain with, imagine the 
|> political field day that the White House would have.

Then, I suppose, you feel the same way about the majority of governors who
have this ability.

Given this ability, the president (whoever it is) can look at some items,
like the "Lawrence Welk Museum" and veto the spending on that.  (Lawrence
Welk should have an exhibit in the Smithsonian... that's it.)

And speaking of giving lots of power to the Repubilicans, you have to realize
that the Democrats have had more power for the last 30 years.  Congress is FAR
more powerful than the President.  How many Presidential proposals have they
sat on (and are currently sitting on, too!) just to keep the Republicans from
passing something that just might work?  Congress sits around and won't budge.
The President can propose out the a$$, and won't budge.  Why?  The whole
reason this country is in the shape it's in:  PARTY POLITICS.  Perot is not
the right independent.  Given the right person running as an independent, I'd
sooner vote for him or her than a party politician.

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:58:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.175800.9650@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>>Really?  I'd like to see everybody voting.
>>>>
>>>>    - Dave Borden
>>>>      borden@m5.harvard.edu
>>>
>>>Does this include children?
>>>
>>Does Quayle count?
>
>Only on his fingers and toes.

Nah, too much brainpower required.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:20:50 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul22132948@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu
(Nosy) writes:

|><   Well lets take a look at the British. 
|>
|>	You are aware that we are not British, do not have the British
|>	culture and have not had that culture for more than 200 years?

Nor any other as far as anyone can tell.


|>< I beleieve that they don't even
|><   allow their police to carry guns, 
|>
|>	Yes and no.

Police carry guns if they are essential. Most police do not have the
certificates of competency etc. The idea is that the police carrying
guns are an elite bunch of highly trained specialists. The police very
rarely make mistakes and shoot the wrong person as a result.


|><and is't next to impossible for a
|><   civilian (if not impossible) to obtain a gun.  
|>
|>	This is false; it is possible for a civilian to obtain 
|>	a gun. There is a capricious licensing process.

Shotgun licences are quite easy to get provided you have a reasonable
explanation of what you are going to use it for. The rule for handguns
is much tougher, basicaly forget it unless you are a member of a gun
club.

We don't like the idea of loonies with guns. Greg McLaren would not be
in with a chance of getting a gun in the UK.


|>	Note that criminals who use guns rarely have licences.

But the idea is noit to stop hard core hardened criminals but psychos
and casual criminals out to rob grocery stores. Armed robbery is actualy
quite rare, most incidents turn out to have involved a dummy.


|>	Mexican gun laws are STRICTER than British gun laws, yet
|>	by any measure you choose, crime in the Republic of Mexico
|>	is worse than in the U.S.
|>
|>	If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico 
|>	safer than the U.S.?

Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is little
chance of gun control laws working?


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:58:30 GMT

jobo@jobo.austin.ibm.com (Joe Bowen) writes:

>In article <1992Jul24.014557.23458@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>>And you get more dead wives.  Even the gun controllers acknowledge
>>that strict gun control, if it would affect dosmestic violence at
>>all, would reduce the number of murderous husbands being justifiably
>>killed at the expense of greater wife fatalities.
>>

>The actual statistics show a handgun in the home is most likely used 
>against the occupants by an intruder.  The usage of a family member 
>against another in defence is quite low.  And, I doubt that the gun
>controllers acknowledge what you say they acknowledge.

There have never been any statistics to show that.  If they exist, show
them.  If they do not, then forever keep your peace.

Jim Del Vecchio

>Joe Bowen
>personal replies may be sent to 72520,3156@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:20:00 GMT

In article <1492@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>I think a more typical example is that your sister marries an abusive
>man who beats her, is arrested and charged, makes bail, buys a
>shotgun, shoots her and then himself.  Domestic violence is a big,

Of course, we know that if he couldn't buy a shotgun (which I have
never seen proposed as the subject of ANY gun restrictions), he'd
be totally unable to do her any harm. Women are so much stronger
than men, as long as it's a "fair", "no guns allowed", kind of
fight, aren't they?

>serious problem in this country, but I don't see how a lack of some
>reasonable waiting period is costing us more lives than it could save.

Try these ideas:

Women almost never initiate violence.
Men already have all the "ARMS" they need to commit violence
against women.

>(Which doesn't mean that many times, the guns are already in the
>house, ready to be used against against some friend or family member.)

Typical victim of HCI propaganda, doesn't understand the true category
is "family, friends, and acquaintances", where acquaintances include
people like rival drug dealers. Also probably doesn't realize that
violent criminals have families and friends too, but just because they
kill their f&f doesn't mean JKING would any more than JKING is likely
to rob a bank.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:58:00 GMT

>>>Really?  I'd like to see everybody voting.
>>>
>>>    - Dave Borden
>>>      borden@m5.harvard.edu
>>
>>Does this include children?
>>
>Does Quayle count?

Only on his fingers and toes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections