HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Back to the drug debate (was: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:13:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line. >>>

In article <Bx5oLD.3yn@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, 
jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff 'ifucanreedthisumustuzeunix' Aitken) said:

> > Actually, we should *stop* enforcing the laws we have.  If we'd
> > stop enforcing laws against victimless crimes like drug sale/use,
> > we'd have a LOT more prison space, a LOT more police officers free
> > to deal with real crime, and a LOT less wasted court time.  [David
> > Marc Nieporent]
>
> Say what!?  "... victimless crimes like drug sale/use ..."  What
> exactly do you mean by this asinine statement?  Are you saying that
> people who sell/abuse drugs should be LEFT ALONE to further ruin
> themselves and those around them?

Picture, in your mind, a drug sale.  One person hands money to another
person, and that person hands drugs to the first person.  End of
story.  No victim, no crime, no "further ruin" to anyone.  And no
reason for the state to get involved.  At least, not in a free society.

> If you think selling drugs is such a harmless event, take a visit to
> your nearest large city police department, and ask them how many
> homicides in their precinct were a direct result of drug
> trafficking.

Somehow, I'm not inclined to accept the police department as an
accurate and unbiased source of sociological data.  Let's rephrase the
question: gather all the available data on "drug-related" homicides in
large cities, eliminate all the ones that were caused not by drugs per
se but by the *illegality* of drugs and the resulting factors
(artificially high prices, virtually nonexistent quality control and
consumer protection, total lack of any legitimate, non-violent method
of dispute resolution with regard to transactions gone awry, and, of
course, the large potential profits that draw to the business the
worst that humanity has to offer and so intensely skew the normal
cost/benefits analyses that wanton murder and terrorism actually
become sound business practices)... and how many homicides do you have
left that were actually caused by _drugs_?

> I think you'll come to realize that those who sell drugs are
> responsible for a lot of the " ... real crime ..." you mention.  Yes
> locking all these people up requires a lot of space and manpower,
> but it needs to be done.

No.  Those who sell drugs (to adults, anyway) should be left alone.
It's the people who recklessly, knowingly or wilfully violate or
threaten the rights of other people who should be locked up.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16871 alt.politics.democrats.d:454 alt.politics.elections:23498 ba.politics:7006 co.politics:1802 ne.politics:2896 nj.politics:668 or.politics:579 ny.politics:191 talk.politics.misc:59632
From: genew@bucket.rain.com (Gene Wolford;;;655-6410)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:51:36 GMT
Organization: Rick's Home-Grown Un*x

>:>Getting control of Joe Public's wallet has never, and will never, solve the
>:>tax problems which we are facing.
>:
>:	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>:	income have 3 kids????
>
>Some people value children over material items. 
>
>:
>:	People have to be held responsible for their actions - until they
>:	are held accountable for generating mouths to feed, I can't
>:	see subsidizing it!
>
>What do you suggest as the ratio of income to children? What should
>be the limit on the number of children I can have?
>
>:
>:	Let's get control (how I don't know) of the baby factories.
>:
>
>Why not? Let's totally take away people's freedom.  Let's see: we need
>smaller gov't so we have to pay less taxes, but we are going to have
>a gov't that "controls" how many children a family can have. I suppose
>this is ok as long as it is only the blacks and hispanics whose
>family sizes are governmentally contolled.

Vitriolic, emotional arguments aside, have 10 kids if you want.
Have a dozen if you think that is appropriate.
Don't ask me to support them. You created them. They are your responsibility.
Enjoy!

I have my own responsibilities, you have no right to force yours on me as well.
What about my freedom from bailing out the irresponsible?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: STUPID VOTER AND STUPID PERSON 
Keywords: STUPID
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:38:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.214657.29667@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> handd@tramp.Colorado.EDU (handd) writes:
>WHAT A STUPID CHOICE FOR 1993~1996!!!!!
>
>1993=> DOUBLE UNEMPLOYMENT + DOUBLE INFLATION + DOUBLE DEFICIT =>1996
>    

wow, a psychic....can you tell me what lotto numbers to buy for this week too?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: President Clinton -- What a nice sound
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:55:13 GMT


To Cat:

(lots of stuff deleted)

I'm not hateful towards people.  I'm not being a sore loser about the
election but I am concerned about how things will be under Clinton.

Understand something (this is not a flame): most younger voters (myself
included) don't remember Carter.  I truly thought I was doing the right
thing in supporting Bush, so does that make me a hatemonger?? I hope not.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp)
Subject: Re: Call for Radical Tax Simplification
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:32:28 GMT

In article <jbone.721499722@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
>
>(some text deleted)...
>has become.  Sure, you can hire somebody --- but that is symptomatic of
>the problem at hand!  I certainly don't mind paying taxes (much), but I
>mind the headache and inconvenience considerably!
>
>(some text deleted)...

>Use your voice - call your senator/rep:  radical tax simplification and
>reform is needed NOW.
>
>
>My $0.02,
>
I agree whole-heartedly with radical tax simplification and reform
NOW!  I think the Libertarian Party has the ultimate answer to this:
get rid of the IRS.  You know, the IRS, they make money the old-
fashioned way... they steal it!

My $0.02.  Hey, that's $0.04 already, this could develop into
something big.

-- 
Phil Tripp, Computing and Information Resources, U of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:18:26 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov8.123301.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes: 
> 
>      On This Week with David Brinkley, Clinton economic advisor
> Robert Reich said that the current recession is not as deep
> as the 1981-1982 recession.  This does not seem consistent
> with the "worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme I 
> continually heard from the Clinton campaign.  

You're MUCH more polite than I would have been.  :-)  The Wall Street 
Journal called it "The worst lying in 50 years."

> Secondly, Reich
> said that although Clinton did promise a middle-class tax
> cut, it really wasn't a *salient* point.  Once again, I remember
> Clinton campaign ads *trumpeting* that the middle class would
> "get a break" under a Clinton administration.
>      Just think what we'll hear *after* the inauguration....

Hey, no problem!  It's covered -- just select the appropriate quote:

1) "I want to make it very clear that this middle class tax cut, in 
    my view, is central to any attempt we are going to make to have 
    a short term economic strategy and a long term fairness         
    strategy, which is part of getting this country going again."   
     -- Bill Clinton, ABC News Primary Debate                       
        Manchester, New Hampshire, 1/19/92                          

2)  "But to say that this middle class tax cut... is the center of  
    anybody's economic package is wrong"                            
     -- Bill Clinton, ABC News Democratic Canidates Debate          
       Dallas, Texas, 3/5/92                                        

3)  "...I would emphasise to you that the press and my opponents    
    always made more of the middle class tax cut than I did."       
      -- Bill Clinton, ABC "Good Morning America," 6/6/92           

4) "I disagree with Mr. Perot on HOW MUCH we can raise middle class 
    taxes."   -- Bill Clinton, 3rd presidential debate              

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton)
Subject: Re: Poor winners
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:01:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.162009.5410@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In <1992Nov4.024644.4864@athena.cs.uga.edu> stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton)
>>In article <griffinb.720704607@unix1.tcd.ie> griffinb@unix1.tcd.ie (brendan james griffin) writes:
>>>>Tee hee.
>>>FUCK YOU!
>>>Brendan.
>>Sore loser, are we?
>	Almost as bad as being a sore winner, Cat.

I wouldn't know about that.  I never said FUCK YOU (cept for now) on the
net when things weren't going in favor of my candidate or when they were.
Brett, if this guy's eloquent cursing for no reason isn't what YOU define
as immature, or a "sore loser" then I'd hate to see what IS.

Cat



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Mandates & 3-Way Elections
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:21:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.080311.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>
>
>No coat tails for Clinton!!

House loses for the Dems were fairly minimal, given redistricting and
the check thing (the GOP was projecting a 20-40 seat gain early on.
They wound up winning about 9, I believe).  The Dems should have
gained some Senate seats (this was badly muffed, especially by Abrams
in NY).  Coat-tails were shorter than hoped for, but they were still
there.  Hell, we had old-time GOP officials running on Clinton's
coattails (e.g., D'Amato, R-NY).



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
From: mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Mortensen)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:17:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Now, to start working on the downfall of the USA
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton

In alt.politics.clinton, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

> 
> Well, now that Clinton is in the White House (read it an weep),  it is time
> for us to start planning the destruction of the USA.   Our TRUE platform -
> 
> 1) Raise every bodies taxes by 50%
> 2) Tax corporations at a rate of 100%
> 3) Pass laws requiring Homosexual Prayer in school
> 4) practice witchcraft, kill our children, break up families
> 5) put Gorbachev in the Supreme Court
> 
> Yes Dittoheads... it's NIGHTMARE ON PENNSYLVANIA STREET.
> 
	Tom, your to nice!  The worst is yet to come way beyond your
	sarcasm.  In the near future anything goes, you will get special
	protection for everything sick and crazy in this life.  Protection
	to use gerbals, children and chickens when ever I want, and anyway
	I want.  I will be protected against people who hate very bad body
	odor.  You will be protected against people who defend themselves
	while you try to kill them in their homes....Everything is wide open.

	Everything you make will go to the govmt yet you get nothing in return,
	corporations in other countries will not ever have to pay a dime in  
	tax, after all its not their country, why should they pay any tax....

	Why pick on gays, you will be allowed to pray to satan, and have all
	the human sacrifice in school you want, including any parent who 
	objects.  

	Families will not be politically correct, and can be destroyed by the
	police at any time they see fit.  Hell I want all the women I can get,
	use them for their money, get them pregnant, and legally leave any time
	I want......too bad!  be glad I did not sacrifice you to the beer god..

Oh well, at least my predictions 15 years ago are coming true.  Now I can tell
all my friends............I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!

morty
> 
> 
> (And if anybody actually believes this post... shame on you.  Clinton is
> duly elected by the people.  Time to get used to it, pull together and try 
> to heal the country from the ravages of 12 years of "borrow and spend" and
> wedge issue divisivness.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dwhitney@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Email address for Clinton?
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:33:28 GMT

--Does anyone on this newsgroup know if there is an email address for Clinton?
Since we (the public) are encouraged to be in contact with our political
representatives/senators/presidents, it would seem like this would be a
great way to do it.

You can send me email off list if you know an address.
 
Deb
dwhitney@hamp.hampshire.edu
From: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: DEBT PER CAPITA (was Hillary Clinton....President ?)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 04:39:10 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Distribution: world
Reply-To: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)
NNTP-Posting-Host: corless-mac.cisco.com

In response to post:
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton....1st Women President ?

> | This country is a _democracy_.  We all must take responsibility for  | 
> | our government's actions because we the people are legally the basis |
> | of its existence.  This means that we all owe at least $10,000 each  |  
> | on the national debt.  You can't get something for for free.         |

Michael, I agree with you 100% on this issue.

However, your data is a bit behind the times. Our national debt is over
$4 Trillion now, while our population is only 250 Million.

$4000000000000 / 250000000 = $16000 per American

So our per capita share of the national debt therefore is 60% higher than
you stated. Very sad news.

However, that shares the debt among all of the population: employed and
unemployed, infant and fixed-income retiree, billionaire and beggar alike.

The better way of figuring the national debt is to divide it among the
taxpayer base. I don't have my Almanac handy, but I think the figure is about
160 Million. Anyway, this makes the national debt roughly $25000 per taxpayer.

Regardless how you slice it... $16,000 per capita, or $25,000 per taxpayer...
the numbers are grim.

Our total annual Federal budget is approximately $1.2 Trillion. As projected,
our 1992 deficit will add 10% to the debt this year... roughly $400 Billion.
This is in addition to the approximately $150 Billion per year we pay
servicing the debt. Over the next four years, Clinton proposed scaling back
the deficit 50%. This works out to the following:

YEAR   BUDGET DEFICIT   TOTAL DEBT (APRROX.)   % INCREASE OF DEBT
1992   $400 Billion     $4.1  Trillion         27.0% ?!? (over 1991)
1993   $350 Billion     $4.45 Trillion          8.5%
1994   $300 Billion     $4.75 Trillion          6.7%
1995   $250 Billion     $5.0  Trillion          5.2%
1996   $200 Billion     $5.2  Trillion          4.0%

Note that under the Bush administration ALONE the deficit skyrocketed from
$1.5 Trillion to $4 Trillion. Yup... that's right! It about tripled in four
years, or about a 27-28% increase per year! So much for Bush calling Clinton
a "tax & spend" Democrat!

So if Clinton can slow the increase in the debt to something like 4%, then
start concentrating on paying back the principle, I think we may consider
nominating Clinton for sainthood. The question is: can he rally the nation to
this task? And the second question is: will we remain involved enough to HOLD
him to his campaign pledges?

-Peter.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16245 alt.politics.democrats.d:354 alt.politics.elections:23000 ba.politics:6859 co.politics:1640 ne.politics:2775 nj.politics:576 or.politics:477 ny.politics:102 talk.politics.misc:58666
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:48:15 GMT
Distribution: world

In <JTURNER.92Nov5110752@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> What you fail to realize is that $100 billion also ensures the
> domestic tranquility which is of great benefit to the rich.
> It keeps thieves in Harlem and off of Park Avenue.  It is a sop.
> There are/were 28 millioonaires in the Senate, one as president,
> etc., the government is not a socialist institution.  The
> spending on the poor is in the interests of the rich.

Yup.  Which is why they use government to beat the middle class into paying
for it through taxes, rather than doing it through private charity themselves.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:42:56 GMT

In article <14592.2afb267d@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> Conservative dorks, if you don't like way the system works, GET THE HELL
> OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! Remember? America, love it or leave.

Isn't this the complaint that we had against Clinton? He didn't love his
country so he left? Well, at least Garrett is being consistant.
 
> For twelve years I had to put up with Republiclan bullshit being shoved
> down my throat, and now you lost. So shut the fuck up and put up just like
> I had to do for twelve yours. Your icons ruined our economy. Thanks alot
> assholes.

This must be the only thing that I would agree with Garrett on, as he is so
full of bullshit, something MUST be pouring it down your throat.
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16233 alt.politics.democrats.d:349 alt.politics.elections:22988 ba.politics:6855 co.politics:1636 ne.politics:2771 nj.politics:571 or.politics:473 ny.politics:98 talk.politics.misc:58653
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:37:17 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov05.033339.20227@eng.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
>    What we need is an itemized budget listing what has been spent
>and for what projects.   My feeling is that a lot of what is spent
>would not make most people happy, but it is spent because it
>makes some people happy.

Such a thing exists, you can buy a copy from the Government Printing 
Office. However, it is over 1000 pages long and contains 190,000
items. I don't think _anyone_, including the Congressmen who passed
it, has ever read through the entire thing...

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Ultimate book of FACTS & STATS for $29! (Yes, YOU need it)
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:14:07 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

A little more reliance on solid fact would save an awful lot of bandwidth
here.  Luckily, you can purchase the complete book of government statistics
for a mere $29, and blow away your correspondents forevermore! 

"The Statistical Abstract of the U.S." (GPO stock number 003-024-08159-8) 
has several hundred pages, and hundreds of tables, on everything you need
to know to be a respected contributor to this group.  Personal income and
tax burdens by income class?  Gov't revenue by group?  Gov't expenditures? 
What president got what percentage of the vote, and when?  EVERY topic I've 
seen here is covered -- it's ALL here, and much more. 

Frankly, a lot of people in this newsgroup are tossing out "facts," 
"figures," and "statistics" that are equivalent to the end byproduct of
certain cud-chewing bovines.  Don't be one of them.  This book is
guaranteed to equip you to BURY your debaters -- unless, of course, you
discover that *you* are the one who's full of it.... 

Send your check for $29 TODAY to:

     Government Printing Office
     Box 371954
     Pittsburgh PA   15250-7954

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:50:38 GMT

In article <sulkanen.720974651@xanth> sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>It's already lifted.  It was declared illegal yesterday by a Federal
>>court.  _Darn_ the commie feminazies getting real medical advice!  Da
>>noive!
>
>Oh, they can get abortion info, just don't spend *my* money for it...
>


Once tax money has been collected, it's not yours anymore.

And yes, I know, "taxation is theft" and all that...


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16248 alt.politics.democrats.d:355 alt.politics.elections:23003 ba.politics:6860 co.politics:1641 ne.politics:2777 nj.politics:577 or.politics:478 ny.politics:103 talk.politics.misc:58671