HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pat@fitz.uucp (Patrick Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:58:28 GMT

[I changed the newsgroups to alt.politics.clinton and talk.politics.guns]

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Richard Crisp) writes:
>|> 
>|> Well you can bet that when Hitler started the SS and the Gestapo,
>|> they appeard different from the way they would up.

>In what way?  Did Hitler start the SS and the Gestapo by having government
>loan students repay their loan by participating with the Berlin Police
>Department?  If he did, we might still be waiting for WW II.

From Clinton's economic plan:
	"We will create a National Police Corps and offer unemployed
	veterans and active military personnel a chance to become law
	enforcement officers here at home."

From the Dem. platform:
	"We will create a Police Corps, in which participants would receive
	college aid in return for several years of service after graduation
	in a state or local police department.  As we shift people and
	resources from defense to the civilian economy, we will create new
	jobs in law enforcement for those leaving the military."

Student loans are only part of the picture.


>[...] What we [liberals] don't support, is the attitude that guns are the
>"ultimate recall power."

To use language similar to your own:  Did the founding fathers start this
nation without an "ultimate recall power"?  If they had, we might still be
part of the U.K...


>[...]They have called for a way to put military personnel (no sexism in my
>post), forced out due to a reduction in military need, to work in local
>and state police departments.

See above, where Clinton advocates the use of "unemployed veterans and
active military personnel".

Oh well, lunch is over, back to work... ;-)
--
   ______   |o| Patrick Fitzgerald     |o| pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com
  / ___  )  |o| Sr. Software Analyst,  |o| (205) 730-3741
 / __)/ /__ |o| Intergraph Corporation |o| Mailstop GD3002
(_/it(_____)|o| TIM Documentation      |o| Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
-- 
   ______   |o| Patrick Fitzgerald     |o| pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com
  / ___  )  |o| Sr. Software Analyst,  |o| (205) 730-3741
 / __)/ /__ |o| Intergraph Corporation |o| Mailstop GD3002
(_/it(_____)|o| TIM Documentation      |o| Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 23:27:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug21.193837.22744@ncmicro.lonestar.org> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
>
>Another good tactic...paintball guns do a great job of messing up the
>little periscopes and sights they use to drive and fire when they're
>in there.  Once these are impared, somebody has to get out and wipe
>the old windshield, eh? Hey, and paintball guns are legal, too.

Lance has done a good job suggesting how easily tanks are defeated by foot
soldiers in close quarters. 

But Lance, don't make an issue of the legality of paintball guns, lest
the 2nd Amendment destroyers put them on their hit list too!

-- 
Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.        crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk        let's do it        (408) 253 4541 fax

Two things in life are certain: Death and Taxes. With Death it doesn't
get worse if the Democrats are elected.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2073 alt.politics.bush:1845 talk.politics.misc:40144
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 17 Aug 1992 14:57:58 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Richard Crisp) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> >
|> >Boy does that frighten the hell out of me.  After all, my state and local
|> >police departments are so overmanned now, that they are just falling
|> >all overthem selves to protect me.  [sarcasm off now]
|> >
|> >Based upon the above, where are the government's storm troopers that
|> >Crisp and others are inventing to scare us away from Clinton?  It is 
|> >sure easy to be afraid of something you know nothing about.  Maybe 
|> >these guys (Crisp and others) would be wiser to spend some time
|> >getting educated, then they wouldn't have to hide under their beds
|> >at night -- or buy assult guns to protect themselves from their
|> >self invented SS.
|> 
|> Well you can bet that when Hitler started the SS and the Gestapo,
|> they appeard different from the way they would up.

In what way?  Did Hitler start the SS and the Gestapo by having government
loan students repay their loan by participating with the Berlin Police
Department?  If he did, we might still be waiting for WW II.
|> 
|> The bottom line is this:
|> 
|> The Liberals are out to remove the weapons best suited for exercising
|> the "ultimate recall power" from the people

You've got it.  Most liberals support the right to own guns, although
most of us believe that registration is reasonble.  What we don't 
support, is the attitude that guns are the "ultimate recall power."  Hell,
I'll bet even the NRA would be really unhappy if this phrase were attached
to them.
|> 
|> They are trying to eliminate the 2nd Amendment to the Consititution
|> thereby getting the inconvenient constitutional question out of the
|> picture -forever
|> 
Who are these "they" you refer to.  There are certainly people who
are trying to get rid of the 2nd ammendment -- as well as the 1st, the
14th, and many others.  If you think that there is a chance that 2/3
of the states would ratify such an ammendment, you are more paranoid
than talented.

|> They want to establish a new Federal police force ostensibly to
|> put retired military men to work keeping law and order (something
|> they were never trained to do btw), {who will they report to, the
|> President?} Clearly this is the most dangerous candidate in the
|> twentieth century. He must be stopped!
|> 
Obviously you mised the earlier posts.  There is no call for a Federal
police force.  We already have several of those.  They have called for
a way to put military personnel (no sexism in my post), forced
out due to a reduction in military need, to work in local and state
police departments.  Having more police in Silicon Valley cities may
scare the hell out of you, but at least recognize what you are 
afraid of.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Subject: Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:20:20 GMT
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology

In <1992Aug20.162052.5548@athena.mit.edu> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:

>>Date: 20 Aug 92 11:20:35 EDT
>>From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: Note from Gov. Clinton
>>
>>I look forward to taking my Putting People First message throughout the
                              ^^^^^^^
>>country as we head through the final phase of the campaign.

why golfers first?
-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.kibo
From: cgw@sol.acs.unt.edu (christopher williams)
Subject: Is it me...
Originator: cgw@sol
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:13:23 GMT

...or does Herr Clinton look more than a little bit like Herr Professor 
from Gilligan's Island?

Quick, someone call SPY and suggest a Separated at Birth.

-cgw

--
christopher williams   cgw@unt.edu  +1 817 565 4161   VOTE REPUBLICAN
lead programmer/operator, university of north texas   it's easier than thinking
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2421 talk.politics.guns:19758
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:45:15 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <170f16INN63m@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <183136@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>>So how was the military coup of Gorbachev overthrown by an unarmed population.
>
>Was that the same "unarmed" population who were all around the Russian
>parliment building carrying assault rifles stolen from military armories?
>Or the ones who placing land mines around the building's enterences? Or
>the ones fighting Soviet armored personel carriers with fire bombs?

They were certainly unarmed before the coup started.  Seems that when they 
needed 'em, they found a way to get 'em.  However, the big weapons against
this coup were: faxes, TV, radio, telephone and an unwillingness on a large
part of the military forces to engage (slaughter) their own people.  Don't
you think that a better networked, more open society (such as the US as 
compared to exUSSR) would benefit from those same weapons to a far greater
degree than the citizens of the Soviet Union?
>
>>Guns aren't the only means to overthrow dictators...you need a better 
>>argument.
>
>Non violent methods don't always work. Why should we through away a
>proven and effective way to overthrow repressive governments, simply
>because it isn't the _only_ solution. Non-violent means should be 
>tried first, but what would you suggest if they don't work?
>
Then I would suggest violent means.  The problem with this whole argument is
that nobody I know or talk to on a regular basis has any fear of a military
coup in the US.  Nobody.  If someone were to take a poll, you would not find
this to be a common fear of the US citizen.

There is irony (to me, at least), that many of those who use this argument
(mostly on the net) also represent themselves as being proponents of 
exhaustive military spending.  So, on the one hand, they fear the military,
on the other, they continue to wish to keep it strong.  That doesn't make 
sense to me.

What gun-owners need to do, in my opinion, is rather than offer these tired
and paranoid sounding arguments (the only valid one is self-defense) is to
stop confronting the people who oppose gun ownership, start recognizing that
there are some pretty serious concerns that need to be addressed, and get
every one working together to find a solution amenable to everyone.

The same suggestion goes to the other half of the arguers.

George Lambert
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2281 talk.politics.guns:19640
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:20:50 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <wa0m75f.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.211933.27226@gozer.mv.com> klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:
>>I am not saying if you remove the means for the people to defend
>>themselves from internal fascism that it WILL happen, only that it
>>COULD happen.  Why take chances?
>
>
>Precisely the point......
>
No, it isn't.  This is no longer a reason for supporting the RKBA.

George Lambert
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:51:06 GMT

In article <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
>disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
>Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
>mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.

You might compare that with Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 
which is a national police force. Ontario and Quebec have provincial
police forces, but in the other provinces the RCMP also carry out the
functions of a provincial police force. There are also local police
forces, but in many cases they are responsible for an area the size of
a county, not just an individual city or town.



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2161 alt.politics.bush:1977 talk.politics.misc:40392 soc.culture.usa:6638
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:35:39 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <cl0nbzqh@cck.coventry.ac.uk> csi056@cch.coventry.ac.uk (WEG)
writes:
>>Guns have several purposes:  they enable you to protect yourself from
>>deadly danger
>>....
>>Surely, life is not now so safe and secure that we don't need to defend
>>ourselves!  
>>
>But if there were less guns in circulation then wouldn't there be less risk
>of "deadly danger"?

Depends on where you are.  In Des Moines, Iowa, maybe; in New York City,
dubious at best.  Of course, since guns also save people from criminals,
the murder rate might stay stable.

In any case, gun control in the US is a moot point.  Trying to institute
national registration or possession permits simply wouldn't work.  There's
absolutely no chance that the majority of the people here would cooperate
with such measures.

Now, if we forget about those options and concentrate on punishing the
criminals who make our streets so dangerous, THEN we'll be doing something
about crime.

   don
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:24:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.092811.1486@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>One other thing that you fail to mention is that the double-digit inflation
>during the Carter term was spurred by a *worldwide* energy crisis caused  by
>the OPEC oil embargo.

And, Carter had nothing to do with that embargo, right?

Maybe they'd have done it anyway, but the fact remains that only
Carter managed to have an oil embargo during his term.  Reagan,
the supposed boob, didn't, and he had twice as many years.  The
Saudis won't pull that on Bush; Desert Storm guaranteed that.

-andy

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:44:47 GMT

Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>...And I suppose all you conservatives will point your legally obtained
>firearms at the tanks, fire them, watch the bullets bounce off, and then
>be squished yourselves?

	Nope.  I'd use a molotov cocktail, or perhaps just a mine rigged
in the street to stop the tank.  Fire will slowly roast the crew, at which
time the tank is useless to my enemy.  Once you destroy the mobility of
the tank, it's a pillbox and can be destroyed at leisure.

>If you really take this "we have to be ready to fight off a military
>takeover" argument seriously you have to argue for private posession of
>everything up to and including fully armed jet fighters. Are you?

	Personally, I'll go for the legalization of nearly any sort of
conventional weapon.  However, I think your argument overlooks one
important thing: the US militia need only hold on for a few weeks at
most.  By this time, foreign help will most likely be on the way.
I remember the French helped us in our Revolution, and we have helped
many other countries with theirs.  It stands to reason that arms will
be sent to us by somebody, doesn't it?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: NPC (was Re: National Health Care)
Organization: Racal InterLan, Inc., Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 16:02:13 GMT

In article <l8nlc9INNd3a@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <19294@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug11.180605.9290@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:
>|> }   Don't count on any savings on the 100,000 jobs he wants to cut from the
>|> } federal government.
>|> In fact in his "plan" he calls for the creation of a "National Police Corps"
>|> with 100,000 new police officers.  Just a coincidence, I suppose.
>
>He said we'd use that money to get more police back on the streets.

    I asked the Clinton Campain were the money was coming from to pay for
the 100,000 new police officers.  Silence was the only answer I got.
  This started with my email to the Clintion Campain asking about the National
Police Corps.  The first answer was that Governer was NOT proposing a National
Police Corps.  I must be refering to another canidate.  I replied back that
it was Clinton.  The campain staffer told me that I must be thinking of
Clinton's plan to cut 100,000 federal jobs.  He also sent a copy to Putting
People First.
  I sent him the quote from PPF were Gov Clinton calls for the 100,000 officer
National Police Force and repeated my orginal question.  Silence for over
week (compared to the 12 hour turn around for previous messages).  I resent
the message.  The reply I got back was the NPC was to be a training cadre.
  My question on where the money for the 100,000 new officers has gone
unanswered for several weeks.

-- 
Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom   Boxborough, MA  These opinions are mine.
"Banning guns makes for great theater but it does nothing to address the 
real problem of criminals and criminal behavior,"
                            -- New Jersey State Assemblyman Frank LoBiondo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: eds@gvlf5-q.gvl.unisys.com (Ed Skladany)
Subject: Use of Putting People First (was Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd))
Organization: Paramax Systems Corporation, Paoli PA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:03:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.214041.2637@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|> 
|> From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
|> >I look forward to taking my Putting People First message throughout the
|> >country as we head through the final phase of the campaign.
|> 
|> "Putting People First" is the name of an organization that spends a
|> lot of its time opposing animal rights folks.  This organization
|> PREDATES the Clinton campaign.  They've asked him repeatedly to
|> get his own slogan, to stop using theirs for his ends.  He's
|> blown them off.
|> 
|> He's raising money using their name.  Should they raise money using
|> his?

Take it easy, pal.  Clinton is only using it as a slogan, not an organizational
name.  What's the big deal?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:17:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.205605.26961@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <92232.122651U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> 
>U45301@uicvm.uic.edu (Mary Jacobs) writes:
>
>>         CLINTON CALLS BUSH VETO OF "FETAL TISSUE" BILL
>>                  "POLITICS -- PURE AND SIMPLE"
>>
>> The President wants us to believe that vetoing this bill will discourage
>> abortions.  But this bill isn't about abortion: it's about freeing 
>> scientists to do the research that could prevent hundreds of thousands of 
>> cases of breast cancer, osteoporosis, and a host of other devastating 
>> illnesses that have destroyed and bankrupted thousands of American 
>> families: Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, sometimes fatal diabetes.
>
>President Bush supports federal funding of fetal tissue research.
>The Bush administration has set up a fetal tissue bank that will 
>collect fetal tissue from spontaneous and ectopic pregnancies.  
>This will allow researchers to gain access to fetal tissue for 
>their research needs.  

And what are the researchers saying about this plan? 
>
>President Bush does not support funding of research which involves the
>use of fetal remains from elective abortions, because this might have 
>the effect of lending legitimacy to abortion, and helping to encourage
>abortions.  
>
Helping to encourage abortions? How?

Lending legitimacy to abortions? Doesn't that just prove Clinton's point?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: There STILL isn't enough money (was: Where's all that money?)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 19:32:52 GMT

In article <15fdfnINN9n3@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>>Look, there just aren't enough rich people in the country for this to
>>work. Taxing 100% of the income of everybody making more than $100K per
>>year will only raise about $20 billion tops. Clinton's plan will only

>I don't support this 100% tax, 

well we can all sleep better tonight.

>but would you care to prove your claim above? 

I can't find the source of my original statement but I did find something.
According to the World Alamanac for 1990 the average income of the top
5% of families was $92,000. If we figure there are 70 million families we
get $232 billion in income for all of them. Figure out what the top
1% makes from this any way you like.

If Clinton applies his plan to the top 5% instead of simply the top
1% he will raise a lot more $$ but it will still only be about $12
billion. Not a lot compared with the $150 billion in new spending
he is promising (not to mention the deficit).

So where is this money going to come from? Clinton says it will be
from taxing the rich but that is obviously not possible. This raises
two interesting questions which I wonder if the Clinton supporters
will answer:

1. Is Clinton stupid or does he think we are stupid?

2. Does this mean Clinton is telling a lie?

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:23:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.221434.15779@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
>of.  Anyhow, we have free commerce among our states and cities, so
>this sort of comparison can't prove anything.

We know how well Federal drug control is working, want to predict
how well Federal gun control would work?

(note: the use of "control" where "ban" would be used by the
non-devious is intentional)

-- 
My opinions are my own.
A right delayed is a right denied.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.guns