HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 20:13:54 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>
	<1682EC8E0.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>
	<1992Jul25.065454.27678@panix.com>
	<168318A82.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> <nr99a54@zola.esd.sgi.com>
	<168327B27.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <168327B27.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:

   I don't
   want my kids sleeping in a firetrap because the builder could save a
   few dollars on the electrical system, while charging me for more
   expensive parts.

Regulations won't keep your kids safe in this case.  The builder can
lie to the regulator as easily as he can lie to you.

   >The alternate premise is that certain people have a right to decide
   >for others against their will what is best for them.  Is that what
   >you really believe?
   >
   In some cases, yes.  I want regulations that say a manufacturer cannot
   dump poisons into my drinking water supply.  If that makes the
   customers of that plant pay more because the manufacturer has to cover
   the costs of proper disposal "against their will", then tah's just too
   bad.

You seem to be able to imagine only one way to get anything done.  If
the manufacturer dumps poisons into the water, then the owner of the
water would be able to sue if the libertarians had their way.  (Right
now he can't.)  The manufacturer wouldn't dump the poisons haphazardly
because he'd lose his plant in the court system fairly quickly.

Tim
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Nomination for LP Mascot
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:55:18 GMT


In article <1992Jul26.183042.21231@cas.org>, gag65@cas.org writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.155847.10114@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul24.000715.19211@microsoft.com> chrispi@microsoft.com (Chris Pirih) writes:
> >>;>> Do the Libertarians have a mascot?  Is anybody using the
> >>;>> bull moose?
> >
> >How about the "Don't tread on me" copperhead?
> >
> >                                Nancy Lebovitz
> >                                  calligraphic button catalogue available
> >                                        by email
> >                                nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
> >
> Here's another vote for the "Don't Tread On Me" Copperhead for LP Mascot.  If I
> remember correctly, one of the reasons it was chosen by revolutionaries from
> the Southern colonies was due to its virtue of striking humans only when
> attacked--hence the "Don't Tread on Me" warning to Britain.  If this is true,
> I'd say an animal that has a "Live and Let Live" policy but is ready and able to
> defend itself against agression would be a worthy mascot for the Libertarian
> Party.
> 
> (Plus, you can get a bright yellow flag with the emblem on it at any flag
> store--I don't think you can find too many turtle flags in stock.)
> 
> 
> Gary Gorka
> gag65@cas.org

I like it, I LIKE it!  Ok,  I hereby withdraw my nomination for the
tortoise and "third" the nomination for the Copperhead snake.


-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party  
  Andre Marrou    Nancy Lord for  | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
  for President   Vice-President  | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:46:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.115843.29130@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.155053.14891@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
>>The last time there was a balanced budget was I believe 1969.
>>Why was it possible that year? The economy is certainly larger
>>now. So where did the money go? My guess is the top 1% of the
>>income group.
>
>Guess again.  Ever hear the phrase 'entitlements'?  You might want to
>research some of the numbers and stop guessing.

Oh, yes. I also gather that the people who turn out to vote the most
are the retirees. By 2015, the baby boomers are going to retire
(granted that they made their contributions during their working life),
by then not only the budget is going to burst, so will the ballot box.
However, entitlements are not the problem right now. The major part is
the social security which is in the black. It is the rest of the budget
that borrows from the social security trust fund.
Have you ever heard the phrase `S&L bailout'? Do you know that the top
rate went from 70% to 31% while the budget deficit went from 65billion
to 340billion?
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:30:06 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
	<1992Jul21.195725.9314@leland.Stanford.EDU>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 21-Jul-92 Re: Wealth
Distribution (Wa.. Godfather of Soul@leland (2762)

> Top income tax rate (federal)
> 	1977:  70 percent					1992:  31 precent

> Proportion of federal income taxes paid by wealthiest 1 percent
> 	1977:  13.6 percent					1989:  15.4 percent

> Proportion of federal income taxes paid by poorest 40 percent
> 	1977:  9.2 percent of taxes			1989:  7.9 percent of taxes

> Source:  Policy Review, Number 61, Summer 1992, pp 86-88.

> Note that, although the tax rate on the wealthy is much lower than in 1977,
> they still pay the same percentage of tax--amazing how that works, isn't it?

Fun, fun, fun!  We can find millions of interpretations for these statistics!

It supports the notion that if you tax the wealthiest 1% more, they will
earn (gross!) less.  In other words, not only do their after-tax
earnings decrease, but their pre-tax earnings also decreases.  Sounds
like they've lost incentive to work harder.

Of course, the poorest 40% also grossed more, so perhaps nothing was
lost, but the wealth was merely redistributed to the poor?

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:15:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.214308.27457@m.cs.uiuc.edu> barbehen@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Michael Barbehenn) writes:
>
>Taxing the wealthy is Normal Progressive taxation.  Flat taxes are
>regressive (even flat percentages) because taxes cut into the survival
>of the poor but don't change the ability to exist for the rich.

No, flat taxes are not regressive.  Flat taxes are FLAT.  Please find
a good economics text and check out the definition of 'regressive tax'
and 'progressive tax'.  Flat SALES TAXES are regressive, but that is
because of the relationship between income and consumption not being
flat.  Flat income taxes are neither progressive nor regressive, by
definition. 

-- 
"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.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:29:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.020257.9150@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?

I would say that he is at the back of the "trojan horse", not the bus.
As is the Democratic Congressional leadership.

Their proximity to a horse's rear in this election cycle is not 
coincidental.
>
>Is it because the Democrats have finally tired of his socialist rhetoric?
>
>Or do they actually agree with him but realize that the country cannot afford
>any new welfare programs at this time?
>
>Of is it, as George Will has suggested, merely a tactical decision; feign
>a repudiation of socialism to get elected.

The Democrats are desparate to win.  They've been 1 for 6 from '68
to '88, and they will do anything to find amdinistrative jobs for
their hungry policy wonks and activists.   
Painting a zebra to look like a leopard is not beyond their capabilities.

Example: In his Houston speech, Clinton said that he supported the right
to keep and bear arms - and then launched into rhetoric about how
great the Brady Bill was because it would  get "Uzis and AK-47s"
off the streets, etc.  Expect to see similar cognitive dissonance
in the weeks ahead.
-------
P.McGuinness
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:31:11 GMT

<LGOLD.92Jul20132648@cds8952.Cadence.COM> (Lynn Gold) writes:
>> If Bush gets re-elected, he'll be able to topple a woman's right to
>> have a safe and legal abortion.  

<1992Jul21.222917.14944@nevada.edu> (TIM TIERNEY) writes:
> On the matter of "a womans right" or "a mans right" to anything, the
> whole debate over these types of issues is ludicrous.  The framers of
> the constitution discussed only certain "natural" rights by which all
> other issues would be held up to.  This is abundantly clear as well if
> you read the Federalist Papers and take note of the way the thinking of
> the framers was elaborated by Publius.  The National Government was never
> supposed to issue laws and rules governing individuals unless it was in
> support of one of the powers provided for by the constitution.  Even the
> bill of rights was originally intended only to deal with how the national
> government would deal with individuals.  The individual states were not
> to be directly bound by the bill of rights, i.e. you had freedom of
> speech in dealings with the national government but your own state might
> have laws restricting your freedom of speech in other dealings.
>
> My point is this: The national government was only supposed to rule and
> make laws on the powers granted it by the constitution.  Individual states
> were to determine rules/laws/etc for their own citizens provided that
> such didn't violate the "natural" rights provided for by the constitution.
> Arguments as to whether someone has a right to an abortion, or a right to
> to make the choice to have an abortion should never have become national
> issues involving either the congress or the supreme court.  This debate
> as well as so many others the court has ruled on in recent (30-40) years
> should have been dealt with at the individual state level as they have
> absolutely nothing to do with the powers allowed and prevented in the
> original constitution.

This is all well and good, but if you check, you will notice that
our government no longer operates under "the original constitution".
It operates under an amended constitution.  The important amendment
here is the 14th which added new restrictions to the powers of the
several states.  It is in this 14th amendment that the Courts
have rooted the right to privacy/abortion.

There are good legal arguments against the existence of a constitutional
right to abortion, but I don't think yours is one of them.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,alt.fan.gooley,alt.politics.gooley,alt.flame,alt.fan.warlord,alt.religion.kibology,alt.politics.kibo,alt.sex
From: Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi
Subject: Re: MARKIAN GOOLEY --STATESMAN SELECTED BY PEROT
Organization: The Royal Imperial Mutual Alliance Consolidated Insurance Co Ltd
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:47:43

In article <1992Jul21.205055.14792@athena.cs.uga.edu> milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister) writes:

>Q: How many people have the login id rdc@netcom.com?

A: Three hundred and sixty-nine.

>Q: Are Bob D. Crane, Rachel Dafni Christy, Roger David Carasso and numerous
>   others the same person? (Duuhh...)

A: Of course not!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What kind of stupid question is that?)

SPOILERS?

   
  rdc@netcom.com (Bob D. Crane)
  rdc@netcom.com (reggie carlson)
  rdc@netcom.com (Regina Carson)     
  rdc@netcom.com (Reggie Carson)
  rdc@netcom.com (Ronald Coleman)
  rdc@netcom.com (Raji Dessan Camanbo)
  rdc@netcom.com (Rachel Dafni Christy)
  rdc@netcom.com (Richard Cunningham)
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
  rdc@netcom.com (Francais De Noelle)
--
....................................................     o ___  .
Kimble "Kimmo.Ketolainen@utu.fi" at 602750N, 221912E    o /o""\/|
Independent signature designer and Amiga enthusiast.      \_~_/\|
````````````````````````````````````````````````````        `   `
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:134 alt.politics.perot:980 talk.bizarre:22623 alt.fan.gooley:35 alt.politics.gooley:30
From: rdc@netcom.com (Bob D. Crane)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,alt.fan.gooley,alt.politics.gooley
Subject: MARKIAN GOOLEY --STATESMAN SELECTED BY PEROT
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:58:36 GMT
Organization: Symbolics Institute


Houston -- In his first indorsement, Perot has lent his support to
Senetor Markian Gooley re-election.  Senetor Gooley has been shaking
things up in Houston ever since he entered politics in 1976, under the
coat tails of former President Carter.  Banners surrounding Houston,
scream "Go, Go, Gooley" in red, white, and mauve.

	--Summary from Los Angeles Times,
	  July 21, 1992



-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Bob D. Crane
Research Programmer,			Programmer		
Blue Engineering Project		Project Soar6
Symbolic Institute			School of Computer Science
University of Illinois
	
E-mail:  rdc@netcom.com
_______________________________________________________________

"The spear in the others heart is the spear in your own,
			you are he"   
	                     ---------  Attributed to Surak.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:07:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.165230.16783@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>I am also completely opposed to increased gun control legislation.  I
>think all waiting periods should be replaced with instant background
>checks, that semi-auto bans should be invoked.  Let's not over-generalize
>here.

You mean _revoked_ right?  We don't need any more of these New Germany
style bans.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe)
Subject: Re: Voter Registration (WAS: George Bush opposes democracy.)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:07:03 GMT

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.
|> 
|> Wait a minute, I thought this was true, too.  That was until my broth-
|> er,  who  did  not  register  to vote in order to avoid jury duty, was
|> called up for jury duty.  Could this perhaps be a regional thing, i.e.
|> certain  states/cities  select  potential  jury persons from different
|> groups, not necessarily registered voters?  Or is there some law which
|> prohibits a non-registered person from being called up?
|>

In PA, I got called up once when I was not a registered voter; this wasn't enough
to convince them that I shouldn't be there (although being out of state for
school was - and they don't yet seemed to have learned - just last week I was
called up again ...). However, PA's system is really screwed up; they called up
both of my parents when neither of them were citzens or had filed papers to
become citizens - which *is* prohibited nationwide.

  ==================================================================
  Stephen A. Blythe                |    RPI
  Dept. of Computer Science        |  "where Hell has finally
  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |      thawed out ..."
  blythes@sirius.cs.rpi.edu        |
  ==================================================================
          "I am a Liberal in a land of Conservatives!"

translation:

 My views do not necessarily reflect those of the bozos surrounding me.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:732 alt.politics.elections:9144
From: fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:16:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1992Jul24.094357.29820@cheshire.oxy.edu> leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt) writes:
>of around $1100 for an $8 hour job.
>
>Now, this ignores the more subtle effects... the tension, the stress that
>comes from living on the margin, the insecurity of not having any certainity
>about the next month or two.  The things you go without, or don't think
>about.
>

There was a little blurb in the San Diego Union about three weeks ago
that spoke volumes of the jobs created during the Reagan/Bush administration.

The article referred to a Help Wanted ad for a college graduate with a
degree in Hotel Management, fluent in THREE languages, and other require-
ments. The pay?? $8/ hour or about $16,500 in gross income. Wow.  As
a college graduate I'm just overwhelmed with the opportunities 
the current economy has to offer.

How about an MBA graduate with 2 years experience in marketing for
a position as a MacDonalds cashier.  Chance to move into management within
5 years.

-MeatHead
 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:23:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.185037.944@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:

>It can be difficult sometimes to tell who is/isn't a minor.  There are false 
>ID's, and many people look older than they are.  What is wrong with a 
>background check?   Those with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about.

>carol

CAREFUL HERE!  While I MIGHT be willing to accept a background check as a 
reasonable compromise between myself and others who are unwilling to hold 
individuals responsible for thier actions, to say that those with nothing to 
hide have nothing to worry about is to say that only those who have 
something to hide have any need of privacy.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:11:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.145354.18028@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu
(Greg Lee) writes:
>I think the public arguments made against gun control in the U.S. may
>be misleading.  Those arguments mostly concern whether proposed
>restrictions will achieve their ends.  I would like to think that
>a fair number of people oppose gun control

I would guess that the number of people who oppose gun control (i.e., who
oppose ALL gun control) is actually quite small.  The majority of people
favor some kind of gun control.  Even the NRA (yes, I am a member) wants to
keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and psychotics.  However,
aside from those people, I believe that everyone should be able to own a
gun.

>really just because they
>don't think it's any of the government's business whether a
>law-abiding citizen keeps a gun, regardless of what the 2nd amendment
>really means, and regardless of how many are killed as a result of gun
>availability.

People are killed in many ways:  by cars, by electrocution, by drowning.
There is no possible way to legislate that fact away.  People are
amazingly fragile and can be killed with many ordinary, everyday
objects.  Trying to prevent death by gunshot by eliminating access to guns
is doomed to failure.

   don
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A man jumps off the top floor of a skyscraper.  As he passes the seventeenth
floor, someone leans out of a window and asks, "how are you doing?" to which
the man replies, "fine, so far."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Adios, Smith Corona
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:40:47 GMT

[]
Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.

Thanks, George.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:539 alt.politics.elections:9044