HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:00:03 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <crb2.711764025@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>
>>   |> The figure I've heard, that I believe Boyan is misquoting, is
>>   |> that the top 1% of the nation has more wealth than the lower 90%
>>   |> of the nation.
>
>If you are using this argument to promote the tax-the-rich-pay-the-poor,
>Robin Hood philosophy that you call 'Democratic agenda' and I would
>call socialism...I would like to point out that this above statement
>even applies to communist countries that according to crede govern that
>'everyone is equal'.  Even when the old USSR had people starving in the
>streets due to this same philosophy, they had an Ultra-Rich group at the
>top.


Will people actually read up on socialism before defining what it is.
Taxing the rich is socialism, pathetic.  Grow up, read political
science, dont just spout ridiculous George Bush lines.  I.E. if you
dont agree (or dont understand) call it socialism or communism b/c
our citizens are so dumb and so scared of socialism they will 
immediately believe me and vote for me even though I couldnt give
fuck about anyone but myself and my cronies.


>
>The wonderful thing about the system in which we live (under GB) is that
>theoretically anyone has a chance to bust into that upper 1%, but I 
>maintain that if the insintive is taken away (ie..I can live as good
>if I make $24k as if I make $60k) then people will adopt the attitude
>of 'why bother..'.  If you don't think human nature allows that, just
>look at the people that make welfare a career  (understandibly so, if
>getting a job at minimum wage makes you $600/month and welfare will
>pay you 2/3 of that for sitting on the porch..I wouldn't bother either..)
>


The operative word is theortically.  How many people in the inner cites
of the US believe that.  How many college graduates of the past year
who cant even find jobs and owe the govt money in loans believe that.
Not many.  Ronnie and Goerge provide opportunites for the wealthy to
get even wealthier and to screw up the country in the process.


Taxing the rich at a higher rate doesnt automatically mean that 60K
will equal 24K.   Anyway, I believe Clinton is looking at 100K
for higher taxing rates and a small cut for the middle class.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:761 alt.politics.perot:1083 alt.politics.marrou:196 talk.politics.guns:17977
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:40:14 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <nn8chq8@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul24.185001.29302@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> Assuming Clinton wins, we know what he will try to do.  If Bush wins,
>> he'll just use gun control as something to trade with Congress to get his
>> other programs enacted.
>> 
>> Either way, we (gun owners) lose.
>
>I don't own a gun.  I never have, and I probably never will.  However, 
>I definitely consider myself strongly on the supporting side of the 
>right to keep and bear arms.  Maybe there is more careful wording 
>than "gun owners" when refering to that kind of political support.
>
>thant

pro-RKBA'ers

pro-gunners

Second Amendment supporters

?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:50:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.002943.4459@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>Do you know what the words "well-regulated militia" mean?  Well regulated,
>according the Oxford English Dictionary, when said of troops, means
>well disciplined/able in shooting, and "militia" according to the 1792
>Militia Act meant all free males from 17 to 45.  Furthermore, the
>first clause of the Second Amendment is *not* a restrictive clause,
>it merely states the reason for the second clause--which acknowledges
>an unlimited right to keep and bear arms.

Poppycock.  The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens
to "keep and bear arms".  If it had, there would have been wording such as
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The first clause of the amendment is indeed a restrictive clause because
it spells out the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  The second
amendment was written to prevent the newly formed national government from
disarming the state militias.  In the past, Congress has, using their
powers to regulate commerce, enacted legislation restricting firearms
sales.  None of this legislation was vetoed by the Supreme Court.

In addition, the Bill of Rights was also never intended to apply to the
states; only to the national government.  It wasn't until 1940 that the
first amendment was "interpreted" to apply beyond the federal border and
only then by virtue of the 14th amendment.

BTW, using a 1792 defintion to explain something written in 1788 has no
crediblity.

Cheers,
    -Ken K
-- 
Ken Konecki
e-mail:kenk@sdc.com    -or-    ...!uunet!tellab5!sdc!kenk
"I just found out that the brain is like a computer.  If that's true,
then there really aren't any stupid people.  Just people running DOS."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:47:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.145653.8475@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <archer.183@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>You reread it.  There's nothing in there to guarantee the entire people the
>right to bear arms.

Bullshit.

>It guarantees the right of the people to form a militia,
>and the militia has the right to bear arms.

No.  It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE **PEOPLE** TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL
NOT BE INFRINGED."  Unequivocal evidence shows that the Founding Fathers
meant PEOPLE = MILITIA.  

"I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people.  To disarm
the people is the best and most efficient means to enslave them."
 --George Mason

There are two clauses because there are TWO protections in the Second
Amendment.  There were two schools of thought among the Founding Fathers.
One school focused on a citizen militia--the people--and the other
focused on the individual.  In order to get the Bill of Rights through,
BOTH groups were appeased by included BOTH a statement that the MILITIAS
ARE NECESSARY AND ARE PROTECTED and a a satement saying the 
PEOPLE (SAME PEOPLE AS IN 1st AMENDMENT) CANNOT BE DISARMED.


>Nor does it deny individuals
>the right the bear arms.  But it certainly doesn't guarantee it.

Does too!

>That's not an opinion - it's just English.

Oh.  Just like the FIRST AMENDMENT is just English.  The whole
Constitution is just English.  Pick and choose which rights
exist, eh?

>Read it again: "A well-regulated
>militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."  It just doesn't
>say it.

MILITIA = PEOPLE 

>I've looked and looked, and I just can't see the guarantee you're
>talking about.  It's just not there.

Yes, it IS.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:153 alt.politics.elections:8762
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:18:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Jul21.184519.14982@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.174022.23688@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, harlan@sulu.lerc.nasa.gov (Harlan Harris) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]

>If the numbers are right, I have two questions for you.
>
>1) So what?  This is still America and anyone can tap into the wealth of the nation
>	by hard work and luck.


So step right you sonny and get your share of the infinite pie... yep yep,
Just lots of ol' hard work and Whooooooaaaaaa --> 'luck', well shit nobody
told me that this was a big Casino...  They just said "It's all out there
Just waitin' for ya sonny, lots of hard work and toil", but nothing about
luck- 


>2) How would you redistribute? We are already taking 15 to 38% of everyones income
>	via national income tax and close to 50% if you add state and local taxes.
>	Do you really expect that people will continue to produce if more that half
>	of their wealth is confiscated by the government?
>

Well let's turn our attention to that nasty old tax man, he's the one, and
Bush and Reagan have told us for years... Yes chase them the taxers, get them
lynch them... mean while back at the ranch-  looky its Ronnie and Georgie
filling up the money bags for all their rich friends.


>
>
>fred
>

Thanks Fred- ya cleared that one up.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:412 alt.politics.elections:8984
From: turk@imag.fr (Matthew Turk)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Summary: questioning the statistic
Keywords: mathematical illiteracy, perhaps?
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:20:25 GMT
Followup-To: sender
Organization: Institut Imag, Grenoble, France

In article <14i19sINNamp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.095705.21029@imag.fr> turk@imag.fr (Matthew Turk) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>>>[...]
>>>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people:
>>
>>Can you back this figure up with a reference?  Sounds like folklore to
>>me.
>>
>>	Matthew Turk
>
>Go to a library and find out...
>
>Within a margin of +-0.5% this figure is true...
>
>If you haven't been listening many people have been telling us of the
>movement of wealth upwards to the wealthy.

Well, that's exactly the point!  Many, many people have been quoting
and repeating various statistics about the distribution of wealth.
This is precisely the problem -- when people start quoting numbers
which are way off the mark (as I believe the one I questioned is), it
makes the discussion meaningless, and it makes people less inclined to
believe other statistics which may be quite relevant to the
discussion.

Please note the difference between saying "That sounds questionable,
what is your source?" and "I don't believe there's any wealth
distribution problem".  Just because many people have been telling us
about the unequal movement of wealth, doesn't mean I should accept any
given statistic which supports that thesis.  In fact, I really would
like to know the real statistics of the issue.  So I can make an
informed decision, not just "many people have been telling me this, so
it must be true."

So, where does your +-0.5% come from?

	Matthew Turk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.flame
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: Gun Rights Advocates (was Re: An invitation to explore the Libert...)
Organization: GhostBuster Central - Southern NH Usenet Access, Nashua, NH
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:21:29 GMT

allen@iastate.edu (Kenneth R Allen) writes:

> And if you did own guns it may not be a good idea to admit it here.  It is
> known the the FBI recieves a full feed of network news and widely assumed
> that they moniter the "subversive" groups (alt.drugs, alt.sex.bondage,
> alt.politics.marrou, etc.) and while any given federal agency usually can't
> find its records, I bet admitting you have a gun here will get a mark on
> your file somewhere in Washington for when the Police State of America
> really starts to roll.  As a matter of fact, I probably just earned 
> myself (another) one with this article.

All of my firearms are legally owned and there is a 4473 on file for
each of them.  I also have a concealed carry permit.  The government
doesn't need to read netnews to find out that I am a gunowner.  They
already know.

-- 
Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:752 alt.politics.perot:1081 alt.politics.marrou:189 talk.politics.guns:17971
From: oleg@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Date: 25 Jul 92 08:35:46 GMT
Reply-To: oleg@veritas.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Organization: Palo Alto Killifish Loft
X-Disclaimer: I speak for myself only unless explicitly indicated otherwise

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>You vote for Marrou. Bush loses and Clinton wins. The democrats then
>stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges.

Or you vote for Bush and he continues crippling the country's economy, while
allowing the anti-gun provisions of the next incarnation of the Brady bill
to go through in ecxchange for Congress leaving in the other violations
of the Bill of Rights which Bush and his goons want to get.

>In this case, I AM voting for the lesser of two evils.

Bush has already betrayed the gun owners.  He's not the "lesser of two 
evils" by any stretch.

If the Perotistas, all the disaffected Republicans who are sick of the the
neo-Fascists and the lunatic fringe of Christian Fundamentalists controlling
their party, all the Democrats who like the liberal social agenda of their
party but are apalled by the welfare state mentality, and all the people who
have given up on the system because they can't see any difference between
the Republicans and Democrats -- if just a half of them go and vote for 
Marrou, they will send more than just a message.



-- 
"... i heard the droning / in the shrine
	     of the sea-monkey / palace of the brine ..." -- Pixies.
Oleg Kiselev                                             oleg@veritas.com
VERITAS Software                           ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: heal@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Heal)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Subject Lines and the Nolan Chart (was: Re: Parallels between the Nazi's and the Democrats)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 13:55:57 GMT

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Help!! The Nolan Chart is coming back!  This is where the
>degree of "political" liberalism is laid out horizontally
>and the degree of "economic" liberalism is laid out 
>vertically, and then it's tilted so -- guess who?  the
>libertarians come out on top!


Not necessarily.  It all depends on what your personal viewpoint is: if you
happen to like, say, more government intervention in the economy, then the
Nolan chart will point that out.  It will also show where you are relative
to other people.  I agree, though, that it's silly to tilt it.

What is missing from the Nolan chart is a set of comprehensive questions to
go along with it.  As you almost expressed (in the lines of your post I 
deleted), there would need to be as many dimensions in a political chart as
there are issues in the problem space.  The Nolan chart is merely an attempt
to map that infinite-dimensional space onto two-dimensional media.  As such,
there would need to be enough questions to relate each political issue to
the two dimensions in the chart, and that's never done, for practical
reasons.  I find it more informative to think that "GHWB is an 80%
social autocrat, 50% economic autocrat" than to assign fuzzy labels like
"Moderate/Conservative Republican".
-- 
Loren E. Heal: leheal@uiuc.edu  {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!leheal  
"I don't know that athiests should be considered citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God." -- George Bush
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:649 alt.politics.elections:9096
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Voter Registration (WAS: George Bush opposes democracy.)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:05:51 GMT

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.

Although I would like to see a greater voter turnout, I doubt this
would change the election results very much; many people are apathetic,
not because they're cynical, but because they're satisfied.

-- Brad Pierce --

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:582 talk.politics.guns:17858 talk.abortion:28669
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:16:54 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

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

>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.

	Like the woman who's in a hurry because her ex just called to say 
that she isn't going to live to see Tuesday if he can help it?  Is that the
kind of person you don't want buying a gun immediately?

>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no

	The type of people who want a waiting period for abortions are
the same types who want it for gun purchaces: control freaks.  Whether
either one makes any sense is moot, because sense is not an issue to
control freaks.

>wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants an
>abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?

Jim Del Vecchio

>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 168 hours to get a gun makes zero
>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no
>wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants a
>gun?  Or a car?  Or a swimming pool in her yard?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Clinton's draft record
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:42:16 GMT

In article <3426@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>,
psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.170848.22071@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>So what does this say about George Bush's judgement in selecting Dan
>>'Weekend Warrior' Quayle as the most qualified man for the job of Vice
>>President?  Meanwhile, we see Bill Clinton, in the first official act
>>of any Presidential candidate, selecting Al Gore for his Vice
>>President. 
>
>
>You might want to stop right here and realize that when Bush picked Quayle
>he had more time in the Senate than does Gore, sponsored more legislation that
>eventually became law than Gore and was consistantly rated higher by many 
>of the watchdog groups that track House and Senate memebers voting
>preformance, including the Congressional Quarterly, than Gore ever was. 


Right.  He also:

  1. won a Pulitzer Prize;
  2. discovered a cure for cancer;
  3. proved Fermat's last theorem;
  4. solved the mind-body problem; and
  5. refuted the neo-Marxists' critique of consumerism.

Now all he has to do is pass the Turing test.


Dhanesh

NB: Follow up to alt.fan.dan-quayle if you wish.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: mckellar@cs.UAlberta.CA (Neil McKellar)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:40:59 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

<In article <mckellar.711911075@sylvan-lk> mckellar@cs.UAlberta.CA (Neil McKellar) writes:

<   GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ... BULLETS DO.

<   (unless you want to pistol whip someone really hard...:-)

>	Please describe the kinds of "guns" that were used
>	by the Romans in the Carthaginian Wars. Please describe
>	the kinds of "guns" used by the Mongols. Please
>	describe the kinds of "guns" used by Athens in the
>	Punic Wars. Please describe the kinds of "guns" used
>	by Sparta to resist the Persian invasion. Please	
>	describe the kinds of "guns" used by the Assyrians
>	to conquer the Middle East. Please describe the
>	kinds of "guns" used by Pharoh's troops....


>	Get the point, yet?

Well certainly, but you must admit it takes longer without bullets.
But let's examine this more closely...

People kill people.  (with anything that comes to hand, or a hand will do)
Tigers kill people.  (yum)
Elephants (sometimes) kill people.  (ouch, get off my foot)
Falling trees kill people.  (TIMBER!  oh, look out)
Earthquakes kill people.  (California, here I com...)
Radiation kills people.  (Nyet. Nyet.)
Disease kills people.  (yuk)
Toxic substances kill people.  (hey! it glows!)
Old age will kill people when it gets around to it.  (ho hum <yawn>)
Boredom kills people, I'm told.  (read lists like this one to find out!)
Opinions kill people.  (defending to the death my right to disagree with you!)

(are we having fun yet?)

Neil

---
Hey look!  The bottom!
---

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion,alt.politics.marrou
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:48:12 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>The typical pro-choicer: 
>1) Opposes war because it is killing. 
>2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill. 
>3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings. 
>4) Wants to save the dolphins. 
>5) And the whales. 
>6) And the eagles' eggs. 
>7) All because it is killing. 
>8) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing. 

You must know a different class of pro-choicer than I do, because
the typical version that I am aquainted with:

1) Opposes war because it means higher taxes.
2) Opposes a ban or massive waiting periods on guns for the most part. 
   (although many don't own guns or have an opinion one way or another)
3) Favors the welfare of working-class human beings over animals. 
4) Doesn't give a rats ass about the dolphins. 
5) or the whales. 
6) or the eagles' eggs. 
7) All because it is not important.
8) Justifies abortion because abortion restrictions are just another arena
	for ban-ems, do-gooders, control freaks and power-mad meddlers in 
	government to cause problems for normal people

You must associate with a different group of people.

Jim Del Vecchio
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:909 talk.politics.guns:18087
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:26:25 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.224818.18580@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>Just to piss you off :).  Let's see, how many 21-year-old gang members do you
>think go in and buy guns for their younger friends?  Totally zero?  Get real.
>Possibly even a significant number, seeing all the Junior Rambos running
>around with semi-autos in the big cities.

You think gangs buy their guns legally in gun shops?? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

I guess they buy their crack in drug stores too.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns