HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:48:40 GMT

In article <23009@oasys.dt.navy.mil> efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Edward Findler) writes:

>In rec.humor, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>><In article <mckellar.711911075@sylvan-lk> mckellar@cs.UAlberta.CA (Neil McKell
>>ar) writes:
>>
>><   lchsu@cayley.waterloo.edu (Leon C. Hsu) writes:
>>
>><   >GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ... AMERICANS KILL PEOPLE!

>Geez, Americans must be the most violent in the whole world.  Now that
>I think about it, you're right, America is the only country ever to
>be involved in wars or murder somebody.

     Oh, you have no idea.  Setting up those wars prior to our independence
was simply *hell*.  :-)

>-- Ted Findler

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:847 talk.politics.misc:36089 sci.econ:6566
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:17:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.185001.29302@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul24.164004.19295@adobe.com>, 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.

That's what I would predict. So did Geraldine Ferraro; at the convention
she said she looked forward to confirming Justice Mario Coumo to the
Supreme Court.
>> 
>The scenario is unlikely since Reagan/Bush have recently overhauled most
>of the court with relatively young people.  We are likely 2 or 3
>Presidents down the road before a significant directional change can
>again be made in the court.

Not true.  Justice "Wizzer" White and Blackmun are way up there in age.
They will almost certainly retire in the next 4 years.
Rehnquist and Stevens have been on a while; they will retire within
8 years, I predict.

>>In this case, I AM voting for the lesser of two evils.
.....
>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 want a fundemental change in the political atmosphere in the United
>States, including complete recognition of the right of self-defense and
>therefore of the right to keep and bear arms.  I know I'll never see that
>by continually voting for the lesser of the evils.  I'm willing, if
>necessary, to take some short term hits to achieve my long term goal.
>
>The RKBA battle isn't in the Presidency this year anyway.  The battle is
>in the Congress.  The congressional leaders of the gun control movement
>are nearly all retiring or facing tough battles.  Gun owners can help
>behead the beast, taking the matter out of the President's hands.  There
>are political races where I would vote libertarian unless a
>pro-gun/anti-gun race between Republicans and Democrats was very close at
>the polls.  I'd probably then grit my teeth and make a short-term "lesser
>of the evils" decision.  I did that with Bush in '88 and lived to regret
>it.  So this time, it's Andre Marrou and Bush/Clinton be damned.

Well, turn out the (Democrat-controlled) Congress. That will be a positive
change. As for your Presidential vote .... say hello to Justice Mario.

-----
P. McGuinness

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Subject Lines and the Nolan Chart (was: Re: Parallels between the Nazi's and the Democrats)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:07:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bs01Dn.Dtn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> heal@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Heal) writes:
>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.

   Sure, if you happen to be the sort of simplistic cardboard cut-out
   of a human being loved by econometric economists and net.polititical.
   theorists.   But REAL human beings are apt favor SOME kinds of 
   government intervention in the economy and oppose others.  And
   they will do so in ways that may be perfectly internally consistent 
   with their life and values.  

   Granted, libertarians and leftists and their ilk may consistently match
   the chart.  But that's because they, in effect, look at the chart first
   before making a political decision, i.e., they make a conscious effort
   to be consistent with some political model they learned somewhere.
       


---peter



   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:815 alt.politics.perot:1093 alt.politics.marrou:212 talk.politics.guns:18006
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Rights Advocates (was Re: An invitation to explore the Libert...)
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:21:43 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <allen.712122672@pv031e.vincent.iastate.edu> 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.

There is reason to believe that the government also monitors the
BitNet interest group mailing lists.  The solution to this unhappy
state of affairs is to acquire firearms that are not 4473'ed to you
(preferably not 4473'ed at all) and an adequate supply of cosmoline
and PVC to bury them somewhere off your property.  I figure that
any regular poster on t.p.g. should simply assume that they're
marked as a gunowner (interestingly, perhaps Termie may have had
the right idea after all - set up a random alias or something).

Drew
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Who owns what? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.195233.20689@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

>We might still be number one, but is the economic position of the "average
>worker" stronger or weaker today than in 1980?

GNP has gone up by about a third over the last ten years. The income of
every economic class has gone up (except for the bottom 5% - see below).
The average worker is working for a company which is leaner and stronger which
makes them better able to compete and the worker is more likely to keep his
job and new jobs will be more stable. Yes I would say the average worker is
stronger now than ten years ago.

>Did you read Timothy Smith's posting a few spots back?  Most of us believe that
>the nation's in serious shape.  The remedy is being argued--Bush, Clinton,
>Perot, None of the Above... Do you believe everything is peachy in the U.S. of
>A?

No I don't. I am simply pointing out that the recession which recently
ended was very mild compared to past ones. It just seemed worse because
of the long expansion which preceded it.

As to the problems we do have, most are caused by government. Remember the
bottom 5%? They stayed where they where because of the Great Society
Programs. AFDC for example, has literally destroyed the Black family in
this nation. Without an intact family, it will be impossible for the
bottom 5% to move up. 

If nothing else, this is the difference between Bush and Clinton. Clinton
thinks he can solve all the worlds problems if only he can raise taxes
enough. Bush is at least smart enough to know that the feds can't solve
all our problems no matter how much we spend.

I didn't vote for Bush last time but I think I will this time.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------275 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:925 talk.politics.guns:18099 talk.abortion:29193
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:15:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >So, Mr. Novak, why should someone not have to wait for an
> >abortion (not a right enumerated in the Constitution), but
> >have to wait to exercise the right to keep and bear arms
> >(enumerated in the Second Amendment)?
> 
> Because they're not a well-regulated militia. 

Say, Darcy, which comes first -- the chicken, or the egg?  How are you
going to get competent with a gun (which is what "well-regulated" means)
if you can't get one until you're competent?

> While I'm somewhat sympathetic to a universal RKBA, I don't believe the 2nd 
> establishes any such thing. Propose a new amendment if you want...

Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and has regularly and 
consistently for over 200 years.

           It would give to persons of the negro race, who are
        recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the
        right to enter every other state, whenever they
        pleased. . . . and it would give them full liberty of speech
        in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its
        own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon
        political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they
        went.[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 691, 705.]"

Also instructive is the Report of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982):

     The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history,
     concept, and wording of the second amendment to the
     Constitution of the United States, as well as its
     interpretation by every major commentator and court in
     the first half-century after its ratification, indicates
     that what is protected is an individual right of a
     private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful
     manner.

Followups to TPG.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:13:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@



I said nothing about supporting waiting periods.  I merely related
some facts about buying guns and having abortions.  I have no
desire to debate gun ownership, so I won't be answering any
more articles about this topic.  You may all continue to guess
incorrectly about my stand on gun control.

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:56:07 GMT

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>Is it because the Democrats have finally tired of his socialist rhetoric?

>Or do they actually agree with him but realize that the country cannot afford
>any new welfare programs at this time?

>Of is it, as George Will has suggested, merely a tactical decision; feign
>a repudiation of socialism to get elected.

Because they're tired of his racist babbling?

MD
-- 
--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /     you can show me...
--    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I'm a Doctor..."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:46:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.214308.27457@m.cs.uiuc.edu> barbehen@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Michael Barbehenn) writes:

>>>If you make 100K a year, what difference is it going to make if you pay
>>>higher taxes? You would STILL be making more than a lot of people.

>>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
>>raise a few billion. Yet we have a 300 billion deficit and Clinton is
>>promising an additional $150 billion in spending.

>You act as though you believed that NO ONE BUT the wealthiest 1% are
>going to be taxed at all!

No, I am only assuming that they are the only ones who get their taxes 
raised. That is, after all, what Clinton said.

>If all goes well, there will be a LOT more
>middle class people with steady employment (read: increased tax base).

OK let's factor that in. We start by taking ALL the income of anybody
who makes over $100K (this is even tougher than Clinton who will only
take a little more from those making twice as much). We will add to that
by taking ALL the profits of EVERY company in the US.

Now I dno't know where the jobs will come from since there can now be no
investment but let's assume Clinton gives them all nice cushy government
jobs at $30K each. Since Clinton has a nice safety net, we will tax ALL 
the income they make.

This gives us:

1. Taxing all the money
   of all unemployed:      $175 billion
2. Taxing all the rich:     $25 billion
3. Taxing all profits:     $200 billion
                           ___________
                    TOTAL: $400 billion

OK, we put all the unemployed to work in good paying jobs and then took 
all their money. In addition we took all the corporate profits and money
from the rich.

We destroyed the economy but are STILL well short of what it will take to
enact Clinton's agenda. Hell, we barely raised enough to cover the deficit.
Yet Clinton's program will be lucky to raise one tenth of this amount.

So I ask again: where will the money come from? Why is Clinton
pushing this? Is he too stupid to know any better or does he think
we are too stupid to know?

    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?"                               |
+----------------------275 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:50:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.125128.20174@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>OK, now you have me. If we take ALL the money of the rich, take ALL the
>profits of every corporation, put everybody back to work, take ALL their
>money, and then cut ALL of the defense budget then we will have what it
>will take and then some.
>
>Do you actually think that is going to happen?

The last time there was a balanced budget was I believe 1969.
Why was it possible that year? The economy is certainly larger
now. So where did the money go? My guess is the top 1% of the
income group.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:908 talk.politics.guns:18086 talk.abortion:29165
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:24:22 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.185037.944@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>It can be difficult sometimes to tell who is/isn't a minor.  There are false 
>ID's, and many people look older than they are.  What is wrong with a 
>background check?

Since you admit that ID is easy to fake, just how are these people going
to identify themselves for the background check?  DNA?

>Those with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about.

So you wouldn't mind the police searching your home, car, person, etc?
If you have nothing to hide...

=====================================================================
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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:774 alt.politics.perot:1089 talk.politics.guns:17987
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:22:46 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <veal.130@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
}...
}the foundation of our system of government is that it is the government
}which must justify its actions to the citizenry, not the other way
}around.  In the absence of proof, it is assumed that the citizen is
}trustworthy, to prevent the government from exercising undue controls
}on the citizens lives.
} 
}     This appears to be an idea alien to most Europeans. ...

I suspect it is indeed alien.  I had an acquaintance from West
Germany who went to live in Michigan for a while.  As soon as he
found a place to live, he went to the local police station to
"check in".  He was flabbergasted to discover that the police didn't
consider his whereabouts any concern of theirs.  It's my impression
that our ideas of personal liberty and privacy are unusual in the world.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The people want a change in Washington!
Keywords: Democrats, Republicans
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:49:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

(Nick Szabo) writes:
:>blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
:>>Ahem , Clinton is a Southern Baptist. A *devout* Southern Baptist
:>>who goes to church every Sunday and doesn't drink liquor
:
:(Ron Dippold) writes:
:>Wrong.  He himself said he drank liquor occasionally.
:
:Yea, but he didn't _swallow_.

With apologies to those easily offended:
Poor Bill. He can suck* but he can't swallow. :)

* Suck == reference to not inhaling the joint. Any sexual connotations
with respect to any alleged sexual trists are your own. :)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: tjviv@usmi02.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:59:28 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Jul20.165438.2329@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk>, jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>
>> 3) He's Hillary's Husband.  Oh, how Americans detest Hillary Clinton!
>> Hillary crashed through the glass ceiling, ranked 1st at Yale Law and
>> is now considered one of the top 100 lawyers in America [Road To the
>> White House, BBC2, last Friday morning.]  She doesn't have that
>> nurturing, mothering "softness" which Americans want in a 1st lady.  I
>> personally think she's fantastic and a terrific example for American
>> girls, but if I were running the Clinton campaign I'd have her mouth
>> wired shut until November.
>
>  In other words, Barbara Bush is an Early 20th Century Woman, and
>Hillary Clinton is a Late 20th Century Woman.  Wake up, people!  There
>are far more women, especially young women, like Hillary.  And HC
>is a far more appropriate role model.
>  I find it hard to believe that the average American WOMAN respects
>BB more than HC, even though they may not agree with her on all issues.
>
>	-Keith <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>

I find both women to be good role models.  Barbara is not just a tool of
her husband, she is a separate person.  But yet she enjoys her "role" as
housewife (large house, though).  Hillary is a very successful career
woman.  Women (and men for that matter) should be encouraged to be
whichever they feel best suited.
As for their husbands, they're just trying to get elected, so they have
to say what everyone wants to hear.  Only Perot was willing to do
unpopular things to erase the deficit.  Bush and Clinton both say they
will get the money to lower the deficit from the other guy (whoever
they're not speaking to at the time).

John Viveiros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion