HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 16:52:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.040916.18514@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
(The Conservative) writes:
>>I expect you may well be right.  I also believe that the primary
>>motivation of many of the banners is simply to get rid of nasty guns,
>>regardless of how many are killed as a result of the law-abiding no
>>longer being able to defend themselves.  This is the only plausible
>>explanation for the Brady Bunch not embracing the Staggers Amendment:
>>remember, it better addresses the problem claimed to exist by HCI than
>>the Brady Bill...  it's also the only plausible reason for the various
>>``assault weapon'' bans.
>
> I have one question to ask to all you hypocritical Demofarts!!
>Why do you consider abortion a personal liberty yet don't
>consier the right to bear arms one??? Wake the hell up and face
>facts. Yes handguns do kill, but what the hell is a five day
>waiting period going to do?? They'll just be sold on the side
>just like abortions were, so I say to you,

Just a second, now.  I'm a registered Democrat, with some pretty Liberal
ideals.

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.

I have to admit, though, that even though I'm a Democrat, I may vote
Libertarian this year.

     don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "If you have a handicam and see some cops beating me up...
         for god's sake, put it down and help me!"
               - Bobcat Goldthwait
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:479 alt.politics.elections:9016
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Query...
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:38:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <14mhcpINNa3g@network.ucsd.edu> erwin@bend.ucsd.edu (Sean Erwin) writes:
>When was the last time there was a Democratic President and Congress?
>
>---Sean
>-- 
During the Carter years.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: barbara@wpi.WPI.EDU ( Barbara J. Doyle)
Subject: democratic and republican parties
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:55:50 GMT



Ok, i need a little help...
i need to know addresses and or phone numbers 
of the democratic and republican party headquarters..
i also need an address or number for bush's campaign headquarters

im doing a little research ...

please email me if you know, or know where i can find out...

thanks..

barbara doyle


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"...do you respect a world committing suicide?.."    + barbara@wpi.
                     -Skinny Puppy                   +  wpi.edu
"...she waves a drowning hand and falls into
      the sea for the last time.."
                     -The Curtain Society
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Albert Gore (was Re: Convention Speech anyone?)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:39:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.234358.10603@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.002405.5337@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>>One superficial remark I'll make now (most of my previous remarks
>>aren't of this type :->) is that Albert Gore is a very close look-alike
>>to the movie screen version of Superman. Gore's biography lists him as
>>being the captain of his elite high school's football team.
>>
>>Horrors of horrors, if Bill Clinton is elected and suffers the same fate
>>as JFK, then at least the Veep can very competently take over as Prez.
>
>And given that Gore is really Clark Kent in disguise, he wouldn't
>have to worry about further assassination attempts.

I also had some thoughts about this.  If global warming gets too
bad, can't Gore just push the Earth into a different orbit?

-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:56:02 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?

The NCIC database only lists criminals.  It does not list mentally
incompetent [at least I believe so], it most certainly does not list
minors.  The only thing that could be used to check age is a drivers
license or similar state issued identification.  Or are we to have
our social security numbers stenciled on our foreheads ?

> Those with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about.

A classic line of authoritarianism.  Typical.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1150 alt.politics.perot:1153 talk.politics.guns:18436
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:25:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: UB


>Don Baldwin comments:
>
>> No, it's not only a crime issue, it's a civil rights issue.  Under 
>> the Constitution, we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
>> However, by picking on handguns and "assault weapons", politicians 
>> are simultaneously avoiding the necessity to try and solve our 
>> rampant crime problems and trampling on the rights of law-abiding 
>> citizens.  It has to stop!

swalter@nyx.cs.du.edu (DreamWeaver) writes:

>I never said It's _only_ a crime issue (I just checked my post again, I
>know I didn't), only that it's not _just_ a gun control issue.  I won't
>argue that it also involves civil rights, Don.  You're absolutely correct
>(I'm sorry ... it's been a long day, and whenever I think of the 2nd
>amendment I keep remembering the bumper sticker that talks about believing
>in the right to "Arm Bears" with a picture of a grizzly with a shotgun and
>a wicked grin :D ... man, what a day).
>
>All I was addressing (albeit a small part) is that, from what I've seen,
>Clinton doesn't simply believe the way to fix things is to eliminate guns
>... he (or the Democrats, whichever) sees more than one face{ to the
>problem.
>
>I guess I was too tired to address all sides ... oh, well ;)

Clinton believes that guns are a part of the problem though, and he's
wrong.  Controlling guns more than they are already controlled does
not help reduce crime.  That is it.  I can cite some very well known
cities, but you already know the Murder capital of the world and the
one American city with the worst reputation in the US.


-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: ronp@dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: DAZIX / An Intergraph Company
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:15:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.011847.9363@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>
>In California, minors aren't even allowed to enter a gun store unless
>accompanied by an adult.
>

WHAT???? Are you saying all those kids shooting each other in L.A., 
Oakland, Stockton & etc. are getting their guns illegally???  If so,
why aren't they being charged under the existing laws that are being 
broken?    :-)

 
************************************************************
*Ron Phillips                        ronp@dazixca.ingr.com *
*Senior Customer Engineer                                  *
*DAZIX / An Intergraph Company                             *
*381 East Evelyn Avenue              VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
*Mountain View, CA 94041             FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:548 talk.politics.misc:35675
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Minimum wage:  balancing job losses vs pay increases
Summary: there are two sides to the minimum wage controversy
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:48:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>Minimum wages have the effect of reducing employment or increasing
>unemployment (state it your preferred way).

That's one effect.  The other effect is to raise wage levels for those
who are working, which could (say) increase consumption and create new
jobs.  One sentence on the topic is not a useful analysis of the
situation.

>The Democrats love to spike the Republicans when the Republicans
>oppose incresing the minimum wage. They say "these guys are against you
>workers, but we are looking out for you". When the minimum wage increase 
>finally happens, the employers around the country discover that their
>expenses go up for labor but they aren't making any more money. So they
>cut a few jobs. 

Or maybe take a hit on their profit margin, or raise the price of the
Mc Whopper with Cheese.  Any or all of these things can and do happen.
With regards to job losses, the key words here are "a few".  How many
jobs are actually lost depend on lots of things you don't bother to
mention here.

>SOME FAVOR THE DEMOS DID FOR THE LAID OFF WORKERS.

And a possible favor they did for the people who got the raise, spent
more money (the consumer is 2/3 of the economy, as they say) and
hopefully created some better jobs in the process.  Again, this isn't
an easy question, and I bet it doesn't have a one-line, all-caps answer.

jking
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:537 talk.politics.guns:17827 talk.abortion:28600
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:57:12 GMT

|> However, marijuana is supposed to be VERY hard to get these days...

Since MJ is the number one cash crop in Hawaii, California, and Oregon (at
least), and has been for some years, I seriously doubt MJ is hard to get.

The drug warriors might like you to think that, however.

Followups to talk.politics.drugs

[Me? Never touch the stuff - I'm too intrigued by reality to need drugs.]

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:301 alt.politics.elections:8906
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:39:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul21.223411.6175@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <LGOLD.92Jul20132648@cds8952.Cadence.COM> lgold@cds8952.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold) writes:
>>
>>Harry Blackmun is 84.
>>
>>If Bush gets re-elected, he'll be able to topple a woman's right to
>>have a safe and legal abortion.  (PLEASE, no pro-choice or pro-life
>>flames here!)
>>
>>If you're pro-choice (I AM), no matter how low Clinton is on your
>>totem pole, he's your ONLY electable choice.
>
>One thing is not to expect the Court to be suddenly transformed
>by Clinton's appointments: the judges most likely to retire are
>NOT Reagan/Bush appointees.  Blackmun, as noted, is 84, and a
>Clinton replacement will not change the balance.

On the other hand, expect the Court to be suddenly transformed
by another Bush appontee.  Many decisions have been 5-4 recently,
with the extra vote on the side of Blackmun. I think that was the point
of the original poster.

david redish
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:00:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.214214.29127@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.184349.19291@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
>>>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons
>>
>>It remains to be
>>seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
>>platform above work.

>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
>before a woman could get an abortion?

     I have seen people jump through the most amazing hoops in order to 
justify opposing waiting periods on abortions, but not on guns.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:757 talk.politics.guns:17974 talk.abortion:28910
From: dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 25 Jul 92 13:47:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.182032.16950@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>Those interested in this subject will want to have a look at the recent
                  ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>(just decided) Kansas City Rescue case. I will try to get info for any
>interested parties.

"...in this subjest...," meaning abortion.  If you're going to post any
heavy information on abortion, take talk.politics.guns off of the
distribution line.  This is pure selfishness: I've unsubscribed to
talk.abortion because of the signal to noise ratio, and I don't want the
damn abortion-related flamage to leak into t.p.g.

--
David Winters  
dcwst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu OR winters@vms.cis.pitt.edu

          Illigitimi non carborundum.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:810 talk.politics.misc:36017 sci.econ:6553
From: jimb47@netcom.com (Jim Budler)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 07:05:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>[]
>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

Well, I'll be sarcastic, and risk the flames.

Who uses a typewriter anymore?

Why blame George?

When I entered my current employ about two years ago, they had 4
typewriters in place. All manufactured 20 years ago. Not counting the 10
spare typewriters out in storage.

Today, there is one, in shipping for typing multipart forms for some
shipping companies who don't yet accept computer generated forms.

Why blame George?


-- 
Jim Budler

also jimb@silvlis.com and 72415.1200@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: flapjack@unlv.edu (Brian Bourgon)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: UNLV
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:57:24 GMT

>One last point.  Tax evasion is illegal.  Tax avoidance is not.  While I
>don't agree with the logic behind every so called "loophole," they were
>ostensebly created to encourage certain types of economic activity.  If
>you want everyone to be taxed fairly, let's decide on a reasonable rate
>(say 10% -- I know it's arbitrary, but what are you going to do?) and
>have everyone pay it regardless of income -- no loopholes. 
>-- 
>Roger Shouse
>The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Amen!  Even a lower rate then 10% would likely bring in larger
revenues overall if everyone pays without loopholes.  And just think,
no more taxforms to fill out at the end of the year if they could just
remove it from your paycheck.  Less paperwork, and less
bureaucracy.  I've supported flat tax for years.

						Brian




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: barbehen@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Michael Barbehenn)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:46:47 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
   :
   :
>OK, we put all the unemployed to work in good paying jobs and then took 
>all their money. In addition we took all the corporate profits and money
>from the rich.

There's something about what you said that bothers me, I'll have to think
about it some more and get back to you...

>We destroyed the economy but are STILL well short of what it will take to
>enact Clinton's agenda. Hell, we barely raised enough to cover the deficit.
>Yet Clinton's program will be lucky to raise one tenth of this amount.

>So I ask again: where will the money come from? Why is Clinton
>pushing this? Is he too stupid to know any better or does he think
>we are too stupid to know?

Well aren't you forgetting about everything else that he's said and
that's been discussed here?  There's cutting the defense budget,
cutting excess federal jobs, saving people's health care costs, charging
japan and germany for our troops on their soil, little or no capital
gains tax on long-term investments,....
--
-Michael Barbehenn
 AI Group/Beckman Institute
 U. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:928 talk.politics.guns:18103
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns, Background Checks, & Minors
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:39:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Jul27.142203.21077@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:

<Tried to bring in our earlier posts on this subject...but once again hit the 
<wrong key.  Oh well...what I was suggesting in the fact that I don't see a 
<problem in back ground checks is that I don't see why someone who
<isn't a minor
<wouldn't mind having their *age* checked.  

	This is already done in order to properly fill out Federal
	Form 4473, required for all purchases of firearms from
	a Federal licensed dealer (that's all dealers, BTW).
	In addition to answering such questions as "Are you
	a fugitive from justice", "Are you an illegal alien",
	"Are you addicted to marijuana" and so forth, you must
	present a form of identification, usually a drivers license.
	
	Thus, all purchasers of firearms from dealers are "carded",
	just like purchasers of alcohol....although the punishments
	for lying are different; lying on form 4473 is punishable
	by 5 years in the Federal prison and a fine of $5,000.

	Obviously, black market sales operate under different
	"rules"....

<I agree that we are all entitled to
<privacy - more than what we have, actually (did you see TIME
<magazine???).  

	No, I don't read that magazine: any magazine which
	refuses to print letters to the editor on certain 	
	subjects gets no money from me, and TIME has stated
	quite clearly that it will not print ANY letters
	to the editor that support the right to keep and
	bear arms.

<But if my age were to be checked, that's no problem.

	It already is, you see.

<Also, in theory I see no problem with general background checks, looking for
<criminal records.  

	Please note that this amounts to a de facto registration.
	Bear in mind that this info can come back to haunt you:
	suppose that you called the police to complain about a
	noisy party across the street, but the police came to
	arrest YOU instead, because the gun you once bought
	had been outlawed recently?

	Not only can it happen, it has happened.

<But I realize that information can be abused.  There's a
<real fine line between keeping our privacy, and allowing information out for
<the general public good.

	Agreed. 

<No easy answers!

	That's what the NRA says....but NOT what the Democratic
	Party platform says.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:701 alt.politics.elections:9130