HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elster@cs.cornell.edu (Anne C. Elster)
Subject: Guns and Abortion (was Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check)
Keywords: Guns, knives, ban, abortion
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:58:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.011740.29446@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>In article <1e8vffINNmqm@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>>                                        I just have a hard
>>time believing that guns cause crime, just by their presence.
>
>You should read the interview with the man in Baton Rouge who blew
>away a Japanese exchange student by mistake.  Of course, this is
>anecdotal evidence, but in effect he said exactly that: since there
>was a gun available to him, his reaction was to use it.  The mere
>presence of the gun changed how he chose to handle the situation.

I am not a big gun advocate, but the sad thing is that this
happens also with weapons other than guns.

Just this fall an aquaintance of mine was stabbed to death by some
unknown local highschool students on the steps of the MIT librabry
at 9pm on a Friday night. His friend was also stabbed, but survived.
Apparantly the kids had headed over to MIT to see "who could mugg
some students  for the most money" -- It was one of those sensless
acts of violence that makes you go "shudder"! It hits you even harder
when you knmow the victims ... :-(

Unfortunately, gun-laws wouldn't have helped much. In fact, had the
kids had guns, they might realize using them would be more fatal and
not ending up killing, but then again, who knows ... the truely evil
will always be evil. (BTW, I don't *really* believe that guns would
have helped!)

I admit to swinging back and forth on this issue.
Like illegal drugs, I think we will prob. be better off keeping most
weapons illegal -- i.e. the fewer available, the better.
However, that does not mean I think a ban is even close to the solution
of the problem! Possessing illegal weapons is also more likely to affect
others than possessing drugs, until they start going hand-in-hand ...

In my absurd moments (like 2am in the morning) I see this as a parallel
to my stance on abortion. I don't really think they are great -- would
probably never have one since I'll try to make sure I never need one,
but do not think banning abortions is solving the real problem -- people
having un-wanted kids. The underlying problem (better sex-ed, free
and better/more convenient contraceptives, etc) needs to be addressed
first .... Admittedly I feel stronger about a woman's right to choose
over peoples right to bear arms, but that's another story ...

				Night-rambles from 


						Anne C. Elster
elster@cs.cornell.edu

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:665 talk.politics.misc:61475
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CONCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS TO CLINTON
From: sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry)
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:09:08 MDT
Reply-To: sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry)
Distribution: world
Organization: Clinton Haters of America
Keywords: Clinton hate die

In article <1992Nov23.232211.10834@dunix.drake.edu>, mtc001@dunix.drake.edu (Spike) writes:

|>GIVE THE MAN A CHANCE.  He isn't even President!  The guy has done wonders
|>already for the psych of the United States.  Certainly not YOU, or any other
|>people who have such a hatred for him.  But for once, people have some hope.
...
|>Just give the guy four years, hell, give him 100 days.  I know the guy has a
|>heart.  Call it "pander" or "waffling" but this guy wants to STOP polarization
|>of people and STOP making things black and white.  Ever heard of compromise?


  Oh, yes.  This guy wants to stop polarization.  That's why he and his
campaign preached a well planned and orchestrated message of class warfare.
IF YOU'RE MAKIN' IT, CLINTON WILL BE TAKIN' IT.
  That's why Clinton supports discrimination against straight, white males.
Well, being a straight, white male, for me to support Clinton would be like
an African-American supporting David Duke.  
  Just because a professional liar runs around the country telling most
groups of people what they want to hear, does not mean the guy has a heart.
It just means he'll say anything to feed at the public trough.  
  I don't need to give him a hundred days; it's obvious what he is: a low-down,
scummy professional politician, the same breed of dog that has put the country
in the perilous position it is now in.  You can see that yellow dog, pussy
whipped fat boy for what he is from a couple of miles away.
  Give him a chance.  Sure, I'll give him the same chance that I have of not
getting stuck with the bill that he and his political chronies have run up.



Larry Denys
sl1yn@providence.declab.usu.edu

  Iceberg at twelve O'clock.
  The PCers/Democrats/liberals have given the orders: straight ahead.
  "I'm givin' 'er full power, Captain,"  Ted Kennedy.
  "I don't think she can take much more,"  H. Ross Perot.
  "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," Ron Brown.
  Collision imminent.
  43% of the crew elect the professional politician/liar/pot-smoker/draft-
        dodger/bimbo-chaser/chameleon Clinton to the helm.
  All intelligent rats prepare to abandon ship.
  CRASH  BIFF  KAPOW KARUMBA RIP  POUND  KRIICK  GROING  SHRED  AURGH
  SOS
  We're going down...
  help...anybody...
        
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:31:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.162630.8691@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> Bill Clinton met with Congressional leaders, i.e Foley, Gephardt and Mitchel.
>But where was Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole? Or the Representative 
>Republican leader? I thought Bill would be not be partisan about his 
>activities. I thought he was a new kind of Democrat.....
>
>In addition:
>
>Bill Clinton said ("Putting People First"):
>    "I will take the following steps:
>    * Staff reductions. I will reduce the White House staff by 25 percent and
>      challenge Congress to do the same.
>
>But Monday 11/16/92, Bill backed off on the promise of asking Congress
>to cut their staff 25%. He now says Congress should just lower their staffs
>over time. [He still plans to pare back the White House staff].
>
>He also said:
>    * Line item veto. To eliminate pork-barrel projects and cut government
>      waste, I will ask Congress to give me the line item veto.
>
>Bill has now backed off on that by changing the rules for Congressional
>overrides of this line item veto fromt he normal 2/3 to a simple majority.
>
>The Democratic Platform says:
>  We don't have an American to waste.  Democrats will continue to 
>  lead the fight to ensure that no Americans suffer discrimination or 
>  deprivation of rights on the basis of race, gender, language, national 
>  origin, religion, age, disability, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, or other
>  characteristics irrelevant to ability. 
>
>Bill now says he he no longer has a timetable or structure to 
>follow regarding relaxing the ban on homosexuals in the military.
>
>The Democratic Platform says:
>    We will relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by forcing 
>    the rich to pay their fair share.
>Bill himself once said:
>    My plan would make the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share 
>    in taxes.
>
>But yesterday "he  raised the possibility of making ALL Americans give up
>something...'The American people will be much more willing to accept the
>argument that ALL HAVE TO SACRIFICE AND CONTRIBUTE over the long run if
>they believe we're starting from a fair tax system' ".
>
>Before the election, I stated that I liked Bill Clinton but wouldn't vote
>for him because of all the Democrats that would come hands outstrectched to
>Clinton. I was concerned they would get him to back off his pledges after
>the election. Granted, most of his pledges are still there to be fulfilled
>but it is starting to look like politics and spending as usual and he is not
>even President yet...
>
>Just my opinion....
>
>Joe

but, at least he is getting some stuff done.  and not like bush compromise
where he went from no new taxes to 2nd largest tax increase in history *and*
spending $1.83 for every $1 brought in.

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:30:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.185445.22510@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes...
>In article <MCCARTY.92Nov18203808@aphid.add.itg.ti.com> mccarty@add.itg.ti.com
>(Rick McCarty) writes:
>>It's interesting that countries such as Great Britain exercise some
>>control over guns.  Are the "outlaws" shooting innocent people left and
>>right (other than the problems in Ireland, which I'd classify as a war)?
>>Take the 20,000 foot view of this country for a moment - look around you
>>and perhaps you'll realize how insane our society is WRT weapons.
> 
>Example that point to other countries are irrelevant.  Switzerland has a
>higher gun ownership rate than the US, yet their crime rate is a tiny
>fraction of ours.  Mexico has togher gun laws than we do and their crime
>rate is HIGHER than ours.


Just thought I'd point out a few missing facts about the Switzerland claim.
It is slightly misleading as stated.

First, Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world.  Hence the
motive for violent crime is rather less than in, say, South Central.

Second, all those weapons are "owned" by people in the army or reserves (part
of the "well-regulated militia" which the Bill of Rights mentions, but which
gun control opponents always seem to ignore).

If you use your military issue weapon to commit a crime in Switzerland, they
court-martial you (i.e. in a military court) and then execute you by a firing
squad when found guilty.


Dave

P.S. I also sort of wonder if the per capita rate of crimes committed with
firearms is really higher in Mexico.

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:56:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1eipgtINNkch@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.222246.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>
>>     Bush compared a Clinton presidency (with a Democratic Congress)
>>to a Carter presidency (with a Democratic Congress), *during the 
>>campaign*; outside of the campaign, Bush did not regularly bash Carter 
>>during his presidency.  Similarly, Clinton and his supporters bashed 
>>Reagan during the campaign.  However, the campaign is over now -- and 
>>Clinton still hasn't fully removed himself from the campaign mode.  
>>Listen to his press conferences -- he still tacitly bashes Bush; watch 
> 
> Ummm perhaps you could give a few specifics here...I've listened to his
> press conferences and read newspaper articles etc. about them and they
> were clearly *very* supportive of President Bush. He has begun to outline
> some specifics of *what* he *plans* to do once in the White House, but perhaps
> you consider the difference in "style" as tacitly bashing Bush...interesting
> to note that *many* Bush aides have been and are continuing to be *overtly*
> hostile to the Clinton transition team...

     Note that I said his Bush-bashing is *tacit*.  One example is
how Clinton says he would have handled the whole State Department
fiasco -- something like, "If I were President, she would have been
fired immediately."  Regarding hostilities between subordinates in the 
transition process, what's new?
 
>>as he shakes the hands of the "masses" in D.C. -- an area in which 
>>probably 90% voted for him.
> 
> I guess you dislike the idea of a president that actually (*gasp*) wants
> to keep in touch with the people of this country (which, BTW, D.C. is
> a part).

     This is equivalent to when Bush was a guest on the Rush Limbaugh
Show.  Approximately 90% of the audience already supported him.  Sure,
it's fun to keep in touch with people that agree with you!

> I guess you'd prefer it if he stayed isolated in the White House
> and *only* listened to his advisors concerning *how* the nation was doing...

     I only pointed it out as an example of his still being in the 
campaign mode (to some extent).  Regardless, what kind of information
do you think he got from shaking hands?  Did he have any meaningful
discussions with the masses?  Did they give him advice on his selection
for, say, Secretary of State?  Or, was this just another photo-op (my
contention)?

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly)
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:52:18 GMT

In <dnebing-181192212426@m64-147.bgsu.edu> dnebing@andy.bgsu.edu (dnebing) writes:
>  This is just the beginning.  Prepare to watch the other campaign
>promises be pushed aside.  Clinton is being proven to be the kind of
>man that (excuse me for mentioning the name in this sacred liberal
>democrat newsgroup) the Bush people said he was.  His is turning out
>to be the type to promise everything but give nothing.
>  dnebing


     And which campaign promise did Bush keep?

    - No net wetland loss:  He tried to more broadly re-define wetlands
    - 15 million jobs in four years:  he's 14 million short
    - Kindler gentler Nation:  ask the dying Iraqi children what this
      means; their water filtration plants bombed by the U.S. illegally
    - Get tough on crime:  huh? 
    - No new taxes..... well......

     Campaign promises are politics.  You are putting Clinton down for
things you do not know are true at this time.  With Bush, we have a
record to look back on.  
     You have to defend before you attack, and that should keep you
busy until he does in fact break a promise.  Until then, maybe you
should fall back on the line that bounced Bush out of office:  It is all
congress's fault.

    
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: hall@pisces.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Hall 283-4031)
Subject: Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton
Organization: MDSSC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:54:05 GMT

>So far, there are more would-be buyers of these bonds than there
>are bonds for sale.  As long as there are buyers of these bonds,
>the country has financing.  When potential bond buyers decide they
>don't trust "Uncle Sam" to make good on the bonds, which simply
>means paying the buyers back when promised and with the interest 
>they were promised, then there is no more money available to run
>the country.  

>It is widely assumed that if this were to come to pass, the US
>government would fall, or at the very least enter into a crisis
>of nearly unimaginable proportions.  No one really knows what
>would happen then.

>   ---Roxanne Rohmann

Actually, it's pretty obvious what will happen. Every country which has
encountered this problem - and there's a long list of them - has reacted
by simply printing more money. Of course, inflation goes through the roof
and the standard of living of the population goes through the floor.

Then some demagogue comes along and promises to fix it as long as he
gets to be dictator for life. 

Sound familiar?


Philip Hall
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: haas@wam.umd.edu (The Future Mr. Graf)
Subject: Re: The "Third" Reich -- Economic Modeling
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:02:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.082551.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     In yesterday's (11/12) press conference, President-Elect Clinton
>said, "We've been in this *deep* recession for a long time now." 

   A="We've been in a deep recession for a long time now."

>But, on Sunday's (11/8) This Week with David Brinkley, Robert Reich
>(who is now the head of Clinton's Economic Policy Council) said
>that this recession is "*not* as deep as the 1981-1982 recession."

   B="not as deep as the 1981-1982 recession"

   A union B = "We've been in a deep recession for a long time now, but
                it's not as deep as the 1981-1982 recession"

   Ok, so where is the problem?  What this means is, Things under the Bush
administration are FUCKED, but they are not quite as FUCKED as they were
under the Reagan administration.  Did I clear that mathmatical equation 
for you, asswipe?  

-- 
***********************************************************************
* Jeffrey Haas     * We Come From The Land Of The Ice And Snow        *
* HAAS@WAM.UMD.EDU * From The Midnight Sun Where The Hot Springs Blow *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:18:35 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov15.231924.3179@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
]In article <BxoGHM.46q@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> willson@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Allen R. Willson) writes:
]>the sale of weapons such as the Russian-made AK-47 which comes with
]>accessories like a 70 round clip may be limited.  This type of weapon
]>is not meant for hunting, unless you're hunting elephants or bears, 
]>both of which are endangered species.

Geez... at least the the facts right. It comes with a 30 round clip, not
a 70 round clip, and is fine for hunting (although a bit underpowered for
deer). Sound's like Willson is just another fool mouthing anti-gun
propaganda that he doesn't even understand.
]
]>Besides, the NRA lobbies congress to death the way it is. I don't think
]>the right to bear arms is in danger, nor will ever be.
]
]But you forgot to mention that they lost the battle to
]keep teflon coated armor piercing bullets legal for use
]in hunting deer wearing body armor.

Sigh. The NRA never tried to stop the banning of cop killer bullets.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: nuke@wam.umd.edu (root)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:10:39 GMT

In @uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William J. Taney) writes:
>>>Of course, my bias may be showing, so I pause before claiming that we
>>>Democrats are a more civilized lot.  Anyone agree?

Civilized?  Nah, just hypocritical and elitist.   :)

>>In light of the plethoria of messages from the anti-Clinton lot, (i.e.,
>>homophobes, anti-women, etc.,) I'd have to agree...

I don't think those are strictly republican... just idiots.  Idiots, BTW,
come in all political forms.  

>I think there may just be really sad sample of republicans in this group,
>however the mudslinging can stop , BUSH lost, I think they are still in
>denial stage.... Hopefully this will end soon and they will come up with
>something productive to discuss....

Good idea... I'm not very fond of rep. or dem... how about we talk about
the economy?  Or is that too right/left wing for everyone?  Can we?
Can we?  Just a *little*?  Some magazine claimed to discuss Clinton's tax
policies... let's go a bit further.  What does the president-elect plan to
do about the economic crisis?  (Besides spending more money, while 
taxing less ... I think we've been doing that for 20 years, now)

Anyone?
Take Care.
 
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:454 alt.rush-limbaugh:9772
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Date: 16 Nov 92 07:13:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <pfk1anr@rpi.edu> jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes
:
>In article <1992Nov5.233343.23215@news2.cis.umn.edu> bunt0003@student.tc.umn.e
du () writes:
>>In article <Bx96to.EpC@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sha
wn Green) writes:
>>> This will be the first time a Democrat has been in the White House since I
>>> was 10 years old.  I'm looking forward to seeing how things will be 
>>> different from the Reagan/Reagan/Bush years.
I'm 23 and I remember waiting in the car in the Bakersfield sun for an hour in
a line so Mom could buy gas.  I remember hearing about inflation on the news
every night from Tommy B.  Be careful what you look forward to, you may regret
it!

>>> (Death to the Democrats was a bit premature.)
May I point out that Clinton didn't win by A LOT and some of it was a protest
vote against Bush?

>...about Bush, about Reagan, etc.  Simple algorithm :
>
>    1. Choose X, where X is a public figure you disagree with.
>    2. Say that "All followers of X are mindless twits who blindly
>	follow X even when X is so obviously wrong!"
>    3. Respond to any argument which contains reference to X with above
>	statement.  Add hand-waving and exaggeration to make point.
>    4. Smirk a lot.
Hear! Hear!!  I love it!

>>As a non Christian and non U.S. citizen myself, I'm scared of Rush
>>Limbaugh.  Do you really think he believes in "God"?  His message sounds
>>so far away from what the bible said.
>
>I've not heard Rush speaking of cutting throats.  Where do you get this
>from?  What would you say his message is and upon what statements of his
>do you base this statement?  Perhaps you've misread his sarcasm and satire
>at times?  Are you aware that he is sarcastic and satirical?
Perhaps you've misread the Bible, Shawn.  What does the Bible say that Rush 
differs on?

>__ __  ____ ______ ______ __  __ 	Keith Jackson
>|| // ||    | || | | || | ||  ||
>||<<  ||==    ||     ||   ||==||	jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu
>|| \\ ||___ |_||_|   ||   ||  ||

Jennifer, proud originator of the "President Clinton" thread on alt.rush-l.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Forget Rush and the Comedy Channel!  What's DOONESBURY (Trudeau) going to do?
I'd prefer he go on the lecture circuit, instead of more stupid cartoons
about that quintabizillionaire that lives on an island with his plain assist-
ant.  Wouldn't it figure I'd have to join alt.poltics.flame.flame.flame. to
spawn my first thread?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:490 misc.test:13144 talk.bizarre:38386