HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blosser_cy@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: To: de5ORNL.GOV (wuz ERADICATE CONGRESS)
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:25:19 EDT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

In article <1992Jul23.162826.7148@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

> One of the best points Ross Perot tried to make during his non-compaign was
> that the problems this country has now aren't the president's fault or the
> congress' fault...they're my fault, and your fault, and her fault.  If you
> haven't voted intelligently in every election you've been eligable to vote
> in, and complained to your U.S. senators and representatives when they've
> voted contrary to your preference, and actively campaigned for "better"
> candidates, etc., then *you* are responsible for the mess in Washington.

Me? I'm a simple college student...how can I possibly recieve responsibility
for all the daily bullshit that exposes it's festering self daily within the
halls of Congress? 

It's the corrupt politicians who abuse the power. And I didn't vote for 'em.

> Don't shirk your responsibility!  If you don't participate in government,
> it's not everyone else's fault that the government doesn't suit you.

Seems like the government has been doing what it damn well pleases lately--
despite our opinions or what we say or do.

> Put up, or shut up. The last thing this country needs is a bunch of whining
> couch potatoes.

I don't own a television, thanks. I discovered my brain wasn't compatible with
the brainwashing techniques of mass-media...and rejected their indoctrination.
 
> That said, I'll be the first to admit that I haven't always done my share.

Thank you for your honesty. Now, if we could get our Government to admit the
same.....

Christopher
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:959 talk.politics.misc:36332 sci.econ:6591
From: mary@Cayman.COM (Mary Malmros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:24:34 GMT
	<gggml+-.crisp@netcom.com> <1490@cogsci.ucsd.EDU>
	<1992Jul24.120629.20856@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
	<1992Jul27.153106.14911@tandem.com>
	<hellmann.712258228@oak.cs.scarolina.edu> <!BV-L3B@engin.umich.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: jwh@citi.umich.edu's message of 28 Jul 92 15:12:39 GMT


In article <!BV-L3B@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

   In article <hellmann.712258228@oak.cs.scarolina.edu>, hellmann@cs.scarolina.edu (Douglas R Hellmann) writes:
[snip]
   |> Why is it so important for all these teenagers to have jobs?  I mean,
   |> not that I don't want them too, but why is it so important?  

   Teenagers who have jobs develop skills which will help them get better
   paying jobs in the future.  Simple things, like responsibility.  It
   also keeps them off the street.

Well, yes and no.  Actually, I remember seeing a newspaper article quoting
a study (sorry, I know those are some pretty weak references) that found
that 

	a) most teenagers in their sample were not saving a significant
	   proportion of their wages,
	b) most teenagers in their sample were not contributing ANY of their
	   wages to their households, and
	c) a number of them had managed to accumulate rather scary 
	   debt loads.

The bit about work teaching teenagers the value of a dollar etc. is 
conventional wisdom, and certainly it has the potential to do so.  
Unfortunately, I think in practice, the opposite is really quite common.
The kids in this article were all living at home, with their parents.  
In most cases, the parents didn't insist that the kids either save 
most of their money or contribute to the household expenses, because
if they did, the kids would just quit their jobs.  The spending money,
the disposable income, was their only incentive, and if it was taken
away, they would rather not work and have more free time.  So instead 
of developing an appreciation for what X hours of labor will buy you,
these working teenagers learned to regard a wage as play money, and 
were quite possibly less well prepared to be fiscally responsible
than kids who hadn't worked before.
--


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mary Malmros     | Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
 mary@cayman.com  | Phone 617-494-1999  Fax 617-494-5167  AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:02:57 GMT


Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?

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.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:04:47 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark

In article <1992Jul22.153740.29106@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>lgold@cds8952.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold) writes:
>
>>Harry Blackmun is 84.
>>Blackmun is the guy who wrote the "Roe v. Wade" decision.
>>Although he's a Nixon appointee, he's actually a moderate.
>
>I wouldn't *exactly* call him a moderate.
>

You have to remember that everything is relative. When Marshall and Brennan
were on the court, they were the liberals and Blackmun and Stevens were the
moderates. Now that the court is packed with conservatives the moderates
look like liberals, and the moderate conservatives (like O'Connor and Souter)
look like moderates. And they ARE, relative to this Court. What I think is
interesting is Kennedy. He used to vote almost always with Rehnquist and 
Scalia, but now, as the Court becomes more conservative, he becomes more
moderate. You have to give O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy credit; at least
they have respect for the past decisions of the Court, and feel that they
shouldn't be overturned strictly because the ideology of the Court has 
changed.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:228 alt.politics.elections:8850
From: guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:51:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T

>>Tax Freedom Day (starting January 1, the days needed to work just to pay
>>federal, state and local taxes)
>>    1977:  April 30, 1977                   1992:  May 5, 1992
>>
>>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?
>
>I'm not sure how you're interpreting the phrase "Proportion of federal income
>taxes paid by the wealthiest 1%"  If it mean simply the percentage of the tax 
>pie kicked in by the top 1% then there is no linkage to the tax rate.  The 
>interpretation I draw from your list above is that there are more people in the
>top 1% than in the late 1970's.

Your interpretation can't be correct since 1% of a population is an absolute
number.  While your interpretation is wrong, your mind was working in the
right direction.  A more accurate interpretation is that the top 1% have
so much more money and income that even with a lower tax bracket they
pay a larger percentage of taxes.  Taken to the extreme, if the top
1% had all the income they would pay 100% of the taxes regardless of
tax bracket.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:583 alt.politics.elections:9060 talk.politics.misc:35709
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:50:30 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul22.040837.27794@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.011000.4782@cs.tulane.edu> tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek) writes:
>>How many of y'all share my fear that Bush will increse his popularity and 
>>win the White house in '92 by dumping Quayle and making Baker his VP?
>
>How many of y'all share my hope that Quayle will increase his popularity and
>win the White house in '92 by dumping Bush and making Jack Kemp his P?

Jack Kemp I like, and in 96 he probably will win the presidency.  Kemp is
stronger than Quayle, although I must agree Quayle is stronger than Bush.

Just look how Quayle fights for issues while Bush hides in the shadows. 
Bush is uninterested in domestic affairs--he should be in Baker's shoes now
and Kemp should be running.

*******************************************************
* Teddy Kalivoda  ------------ tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu *
* 	University Computing & Network Services       *
*	  Institute of Higher Education (Drtobe)      *
*                                                     *
* "Philosophers disagree about everything"            * 
*       --Henrikus Aggripus Cornelius von Nettlesheim *
*******************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: wln-mail@cs.columbia.edu (William Lee Nussbaum)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:14:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.125643.20077@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:

...
>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
...

Just for general interest:

The August '92 LP news includes a diagram with "libertarian ratings"
of the justices based on their votes in 18 out of 50 cases.   It rated
(Nolan-compatible numbers, though probably on a tighter grid) as follows:

[Permission obtained from the LP.]

				Ec  Pe
				on  rs
Wm Rehnquist		    XXX 37   0	
Harry Blackmun		     XX 25 100 XXXXXXXX
Byron White		    XXX 37  13 X
Sandra Day O'Connor	   XXXX 50  63 XXXXX
Anthony Kennedy		    XXX 37  75 XXXXXX
David Souter		  XXXXX 67  63 XXXXX
John Paul Stevens	     XX 25 100 XXXXXXXX
Antonin Scalia		  XXXXX 65   0
Clarence Thomas		 XXXXXX 75   0

WHOLE COURT		  XXXXX 63  75 XXXXXX

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: CLinton Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:16:24 GMT

In article <92211.143349U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> Mary Jacobs <U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>

[article discussing personal encounter with Clinton at a campaign event]

First of all, WHAT A RELIEF to hear from someone who has some first-hand
information to contribute, as opposed to the usual 'heard it in the media'
type of stuff that usually fills these discussions.

Secondly, the entire article strongly reminded me of a similar encounter
I had with Robert Kennedy while he was running for the Senate in NY. I
know that the Clinton campaign has (not-so)subtly introduced this
comparison at various points, but maybe there's something to it.

>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>| Mary Jacobs            | This is MY view;  |"There is another alter-  |
>| U45301@UICVM           |  not the view of  |native than to obtain the |
>| U45301@uicvm.cc.uic.edu|     the " U "     |superfluities."--Thoreau  |
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:28:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002656.26909@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.182226.20807@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>There is one *big* difference between the US and Israel.  In Israel
>>almost every adult has served in the military and thus has been trained 
>>in the proper handling of firearms.  This is *decidedly* not the case 
>>in the US.

>Does this mean you support Israel type gun policies (full carry
>privileges, full automatic machine guns available) for law abiding US
>citizens who are as well trained as the average Israeli?

>>I have seen statistics on "accicental" vs. "intentional" firearm casualties
>>in the US that indicate that Americans are phenomenally bad at firearm
>>safety, but unfortunately can't quote them.  Can anyone out there do so?

>Gun accidents are not the problem in the US, gun crime is.

     In 1990, 1400 people died from firearm accidents.  Which, among the 
leading causes of accidental death, ranked firearms behind all others, with 
the exception of death by poison gas.

     Intentional homicides with firearms accounted for twelve times that
number in the U.S.

     If there are 200 million guns in the U.S., then 1400 accidental deaths
is a fairly insignificant number, when you compare them to automobile 
deaths, falls, fires, and other forms of accidental death.

     (Figures from the National Safety Council)


===========================================================================
|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:319 alt.politics.perot:1029 talk.politics.guns:17765
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: "Gun Control" in the Demo Platform (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:25:51 GMT
	<1992Jul21.184349.19291@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

Since the thread has changed, so has the newsgroups and followup-to:
line.

Note the followup!

<In article <1992Jul21.184349.19291@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
<   In article <1992Jul20.220413.11641@sma2.rain.com> fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Broo
<   ks) writes:
<   >In article <1992Jul20.154135.23260@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) wr
<   ites:
<   >>
<   >>To all voters: here is the text of the 1992 Democratic platform.
<   >>If you are interested, please read it.  If you are not interested,
<   >>press 'n' now.
<   >>
<   >>
<   >>Dhanesh
<   >>
<   >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<   >>
<   >>   Democratic Platform Text
<   >>
<   >>                 ---
<   >>
<   >>Here are excerpts from the 1992 Democratic platform.
<   >>
<   >>
<   >>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
<   >>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons
<   >>controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of
<   >>the most deadly assault weapons. We do not support efforts to restrict
<   >>weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes.
<   >
<   >    I am sure this line will get them a lot of votes in Los Angeles.
<   >Law and order has nothing to do with gun control. This kind of backward
<   >reasoning will cost the Demos at least 10 million votes.

<   How do YOU come to your conclusion?  Strict gun control has
<   lowered homicide rates in foreign cities.  

	1. Which foreign cities, please? The city of Juarez, Mexico
	   had a murder rate in 1991 just about twice as high
	   as the murder rate for El Paso, Texas. Note that these
	   cities are "twin cities", divided by a concrete ditch.
	   Mexican firearms laws are MORE STRICT than most European
	   firearms laws.

	2. Which foreign cities, please? Need we discuss the success
	   of "gun control" in Colombia, Peru, Nigeria, etc.?

	3. If by "foreign cities" you mean only Western European
	   cities (and Great Britain), note that the homicide rate
	   was lower than in the U.S. PRIOR to the introduction
	   of current "gun control" laws. Culture is a major factor;
	   the Republic of Mexico probably has a murder rate at 
	   least twice as high as the U.S., although the majority
	   of killings in Mexico involved edged weapons rather
	   than firearms.

<It remains to be
<   seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
<   platform above work.

	The "limited restrictions" above involve destroying at least
	2 Amendments to the Constitution....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:237 alt.politics.elections:8855
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:45:07 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Jul21.222917.14944@nevada.edu> tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY) writes:
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>Though I can see how supportive you are of this issue, a person cannot be
>only pro-choice or pro-life or pro-any-single-issue.  You should look at
>many things before deciding who to vote for, and the abortion issue should
>only be one of them.  In order to put it more clearly with an example:
>would you elect a president who is the only pro-choice candidate but who
>has also stated that s/he would repeal all affirmative action plans based
>on racial equality?  Or who has stated entitlement programs would not
>benefit a single mother because they need a "traditional" family setting.
>(I'm not saying Clinton or Bush would do any of the above, it is merely
>an example of how single issue voting could elect an inappropriate person
>for the job.)
>
>

Try explaining that logic to Operation Rescue or the Right to LIfe 
Party.  The Right to Life party is rather big in NY -- I think it
might have even gotten the third line of the ballot but I am not
sure if it still does.  THese one issue candidates and organizations
unfortunately, force other people to make sure that their
candidates do not espouse right to life positions.  It is a sad
thing that abortion is such a big issue -- it is too bad that it cant
be left in the hands of a woman to decide.  And that these pro-lifers
who claim to support the sanctity of life are not out their volunteering
to help poor, impoverished children.  That they are not fostering
children etc.  But instead, it has become a dominant issue b/c it does 
represent a fundamental right -- that is not just freedom to choose
to have an abortion or not, but freedom from gov't interference in
what should be personal decisions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: david@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 22 Jul 92 10:05:37 EDT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

In article <1992Jul22.002406.23754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.223411.6175@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> 
>>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.
>  
>  
>   However one more Bush appointment will change the balance immediately and
> for a very long time.  


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it went something like this:
Mr. Bush chooses someone to be on the Court and Congress votes on this person.

If this is true it seems to me that Congress is the one that elects 
who gets on the Court.  It seems to me that people think that change 
comes from the President, but I think that change needs to come from
Congress.  I think that every Congress person is glad that
Bush/Clinton are getting all the media and not them.  I have yet to
hear anything about Congress.  Lets get Congress to balance the
budget!!! After all it is Congress' job to do that!!!!  What has
Congress done to balance to budget??  Taking money from special
interest groups does not count! :-) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Link                 david@alice.lrc.edu
Lenoir-Rhyne College          
Hickory, NC  28603 (USA)      I make no claims, but God does.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:45:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.165408.8730@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>
>Not all private  schools are fundamentalist, mind  you.  I am curious, just
>what problems do  you have with the  Wisconsin voucher program. $$$$ 3,500
>per child is a good chunk of money, and you have to make less than 15,000 I
>believe.  What's so wrong with allowing the  poor to send their children to
>private schools at their own tax paying expense?

Well, just a few problems:

1) I don't live in Wisconsin.

2) This isn't the sort of plan one typically hears argued for when the
issue of 'school choice' is raised.

3) How do you decide where to draw the line with regard to income, and
why?  Wherever you draw it, people who have incomes that are $100
above it are getting screwed by this system.

4) Are 'religious academies' eligible to receive these vouchers, and
if so is this seen as a violation of the separation of Church and
State (if the religious parts of the education are non-optional)?

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1026 alt.politics.perot:1134 talk.politics.guns:18251