HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:49:40 GMT

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

     Sorry, wrong.

     Would you object to police searches of your home whenever they please?

     After all, "those with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about."

     Or stopping you on the street to frisk you?

     After all, "those with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about."

     Would you object to, say, random body-cavity searches?

     After all, "those with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about!"

     Do *not* assume that the police are on your side.  I have seen too much
in our criminal justice system of attempting to find *a* person, *any* person
to match up with a crime.  Too often the goal is to get a conviction, rather
than catch the person involved.  Also, there is a frightening push toward
pre-emptive laws, where people are harassesed and charged on the basis they
*might* be engaging in criminal activity.

     The fourth amendment was designed to prevent police abuse of 
power, because often, in their zeal to capture criminals, the police
consider it "ok" to step on a few innocent civilians for the greater 
good.

     Demanding your rights under the Constitution should *never* be 
considered to be de-facto evidence you have something to hide.

>carol

===========================================================================
|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:1097 talk.politics.misc:36623 sci.econ:6613
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Date: 30 Jul 1992 16:14:33 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Jul30.133829.26953@cos.com>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
|> In <1992Jul24.120629.20856@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
|> 
|> >king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
|> 
|> >>crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
|> >>>Minimum wages have the effect of reducing employment or increasing
|> >>>unemployment (state it your preferred way).
|> 
|> >>That's one effect.  The other effect is to raise wage levels for those
|> >>who are working, which could (say) increase consumption and create new
|> >>jobs.  One sentence on the topic is not a useful analysis of the
|> >>situation.
|> 
|> >	It has no such effect.  It merely eliminates all jobs paying 
|> >below the floor, with no change for the workers already getting the 
|> >minimum or better.
|> 
|> >	It would be interesting to see, if say you work for Burger Phlem,
|> >for example, for $4.85/hr, if a minimum wage increase to $9/hr would
|> >cause you to get a $4.15/hr raise, or if you would just get canned.
|> 
|> >Jim Del Vecchio
|> 
|> That assumes that BP has excess staff on the payroll, after all some-
|> one has to cook the burgers. Not being an economist, so no flames,
|> but I have wondered what business leaders thought they were doing
|> during the Reagan/Bush years. Our economy is supposed to be 2/3
|> driven by consumers. About 10-12 years back they introduced pay-
|> for-performance and no COLAs. Funny thing was while the managers
|> were planning so badly that companies lost market share, it was
|> the workers who got raises averaging less than the cost of living
|> increases, while mahogany row got marvelous raises. Does it take
|> a PhD to see where this would lead? The economists call it lack
|> of consumer confidence - hey you dummies - we're simply broke.
|> 
But you are missing the obvious point.  As profits and market share
went down, the senior executives got raises.  We peons are not stupid,
we learned that making a company successful was not part of the 
corporate definition of success.  If the corporate culture did not
emphasize success, then the employees won't, either.  In fact the
employess can not make a company successful if the corporate culture
and managment doesn't need the company to be successful.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:26:24 GMT


>Does Quayle count?


Surely. Someone who is credited  for the following statement
must count. For what, I don't know. But for something.

I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman.
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle














Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Donpaul C. Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More from the Education President
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:35:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

> 
>Federal provisions exempting employer-provided educational assistance 
>plans from federal income tax withholding expired June 30, 1992.
> 
>Here is another place that the government could help us.  A simple
>tax deduction or tax credit for money spent on education.
> 
>Have Fun
>Greg Scott
>gjs@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
 
I'm in college, when i get out, the debt will probably be half again
what it is now if we give all these handouts to special interests.

Yes, i'd call students a special interest if they want to get us to vote
for someone because we don't have to pay our fare share.  I don't like
getting a lot of tax taken out of my pay, but I'll pay the same tax
everyone else does that earns what i do.  I believe that we don't pay
Social Security taxes while in college, that helps the money go a little
further, but as for federal, state and local...why?

Why shouldn't i pay my share?  if i don't now, why should i later? 
Heck, why anybody?  That's what has us in this incredible debt.  If the
American public cares so little about getting an education that we need
a tax break to bribe them into taking it -  The Germans and the Japanese
can have their money and their power and my blessings with it!  

If you don't care to improve yourself, then don't come crying to me when
you drop out so you could make more money NOW.  Look at the future and
what your plans would cause

Donpaul C. Stephens
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor
of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me
forever ineligible for public office."
		- H.L. Mencken
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: "Actual Statistics" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul24.014557.23458@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1992Jul28.164106.29920@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:18:20 GMT

<In article <1992Jul28.164106.29920@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jobo@jobo.austin.ibm.com (Joe Bowen) writes:

<   The actual statistics show a handgun in the home is most likely used 
<   against the occupants by an intruder.  The usage of a family member 
<   against another in defence is quite low.  

	Which "actual statistics" are these, please? Not the
	UCR's kept by the F.B.I. 

	"Actual statistics" on handguns provided by organizations
	which solely exist to ban handguns are likely to be 
	skewed, are they not?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:659 talk.politics.misc:35813
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More from the Education President
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:20:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <wePrdkC00WBM07ASBS@andrew.cmu.edu> ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Donpaul C. Stephens) writes:
>> 
>>Federal provisions exempting employer-provided educational assistance 
>>plans from federal income tax withholding expired June 30, 1992.
>> 
>>Here is another place that the government could help us.  A simple
>>tax deduction or tax credit for money spent on education.
>> 
>>Have Fun
>>Greg Scott
>>gjs@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
> 
>I'm in college, when i get out, the debt will probably be half again
>what it is now if we give all these handouts to special interests.
>
>Yes, i'd call students a special interest if they want to get us to vote
>for someone because we don't have to pay our fare share.  I don't like
>getting a lot of tax taken out of my pay, but I'll pay the same tax
>everyone else does that earns what i do.  I believe that we don't pay
>Social Security taxes while in college, that helps the money go a little
>further, but as for federal, state and local...why?
>
>Why shouldn't i pay my share?  if i don't now, why should i later? 
>Heck, why anybody?  That's what has us in this incredible debt.  If the
>American public cares so little about getting an education that we need
>a tax break to bribe them into taking it -  The Germans and the Japanese
>can have their money and their power and my blessings with it!  

I thought I might add a little here.  The Germans, japanese, and many other 
countries have very large incentives to obtain an advance education.  Some
of these incentives are in the forms of funding, respect, power (more than 
in the US), aid in housing, etc.  If you look around, you will see many of 
the now catching us or surpasing us countries have made education a prime
goal of their governments.

>
>If you don't care to improve yourself, then don't come crying to me when
>you drop out so you could make more money NOW.  Look at the future and
>what your plans would cause
>
>Donpaul C. Stephens
>"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor
>of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me
>forever ineligible for public office."
>		- H.L. Mencken

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:218 alt.politics.elections:8845
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:19:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <LGOLD.92Jul20132648@cds8952.Cadence.COM> lgold@cds8952.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold) writes:
>...there's a VERY good reason to vote for him:
>Harry Blackmun is 84.
>
>Although he's a Nixon appointee, he's actually a moderate.
>
>If Bush gets re-elected, he'll be able to topple a woman's right to
>have a safe and legal abortion.  (PLEASE, no pro-choice or pro-life
>flames here!)

Gee Lynn I guess you missed the fact that three of the Reagan/Bush appointees
voted to uphold Roe v Wade.  Proving again that only one group in government
has a one issue litmus test for appointees, the Democrats.  If proved that
all the NOW and NARAL hype about those appointees was just fanatical hysteria.

Democrat = Hypocrite

PSG

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1007 talk.politics.guns:18227
From: jobo@jobo.austin.ibm.com (Joe Bowen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:41:06 GMT
Organization: International Business Machines AWD at Austin

In article <1992Jul24.014557.23458@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>
>And you get more dead wives.  Even the gun controllers acknowledge
>that strict gun control, if it would affect dosmestic violence at
>all, would reduce the number of murderous husbands being justifiably
>killed at the expense of greater wife fatalities.
>

The actual statistics show a handgun in the home is most likely used 
against the occupants by an intruder.  The usage of a family member 
against another in defence is quite low.  And, I doubt that the gun
controllers acknowledge what you say they acknowledge.

Joe Bowen
personal replies may be sent to 72520,3156@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:45:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.174022.23688@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, harlan@sulu.lerc.nasa.gov (Harlan Harris) 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
|> 
|> 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. I'd be
|> happy to get you a reference tomorrow. It's still an impressive statistic,
|> and one that needs to change, in my opinion.
|> Note the difference, however. 90% owns (I'd guess, but will look up) 40%
|> of the wealth. 1% owns 45%. The 9% between most-people and rich-people
|> might then own 15%. As I said, I'll come back with real numbers tomorrow,
|> if someone asks.
|> 
|>  -Harlan Harris
|> 
|> Clinton/Gore '92! Clinton/Gore '96! Repeal the ammendment! Clinton/Gore '00!


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.
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?



fred

##############################################################################


The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are not shared by my 
employer or my friends. However, they should be.

If you receive more than one copy of this notice please pass it on to a 
friend.

Fred Seals
409-845-2298

##############################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:53:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> 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?
- 
- Apples and oranges being compared - and you know it full well, Ngai.
- 
- Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
- records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 

	Waiting periods don't spot a damn thing.  Background checks, 
   on the other hand, can help spot felons (who are ALREADY, by FEDERAL 
   law, PROHIBITED from purchasing firearms.)  The highly publicised 
   Brady Bill included a waiting period but no background check.  The 
   NRA sponsored a bill with a background check.  Guess which got press. 
   No wonder Sarah "Cop Killer" Brady can lie about the NRA's positions. 


- 
- 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.

	One might say that any woman so in a hurry to abort her child 
   that she can't wait a week is EXACTLY the type of person one doesn't 
   want aborting her child impulsively, on a whim.  

- 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
- 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?

	Forcing a law-abiding citizen to wait a "mere" seven days to buy 
   a firearm makes zero sense.  It's just something you control freaks 
   are in to.  She has done no wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows  
   better than she if she needs a firearm immediately.  Or an automobile. 
   Or a kitchen knife.  


- Maybe you could clarify this left-field comparison of yours.
- 
	Please do.  

- -- 
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- steven@advtech.USWest.Com

	Of course there's nothing she can do to save her life.  The 
   police in LA won't protect her and you want her to wait several 
   days before she can buy a gun for self defense.  How caring of you.  
   Well, if rioters kill her before then, you know whose hands her 
   blood is on.  I hope you can live with it on your conscience.  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: ERADICATE CONGRESS!!!
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:28:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.143728.149@lrc.edu>, blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:
>
>[It's all congress' fault]
>
>Flame at will. I'm ready for a bar-b-que!!!

Glad to oblige.

One of the best points Ross Perot tried to make during his non-compaign was
that the problems this country has now aren't the president's fault or the
congress' fault...they're my fault, and your fault, and her fault.  If you
haven't voted intelligently in every election you've been eligable to vote
in, and complained to your U.S. senators and representatives when they've
voted contrary to your preference, and actively campaigned for "better"
candidates, etc., then *you* are responsible for the mess in Washington.

Don't shirk your responsibility!  If you don't participate in government,
it's not everyone else's fault that the government doesn't suit you.

Put up, or shut up.  The last thing this country needs is a bunch of whining
couch potatoes.

That said, I'll be the first to admit that I haven't always done my share.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:22:38 GMT

tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:
>>Fortunately, you are talking to a libertarian, and I support the right of 
>>anyone who wants to take poision to turn thier brain to tapioca.  Just don't 
>>expect me to pay for his rehab or to support him once he screws himself up 
>>to the point that he can't work for a living.

>Of course the Libertarians haven't even thought to add up the possible
>expense to society in terms of crime, loss revenue, etc. 

Of course, you're totally wrong.  However, all the plusses and minuses
aren't always considered, and the assigned values can vary.  We added
the numbers and came up positive.  You've added your numbers and come
up negative.  The last thing we need is another discussion of this
type inhabiting this group, however, so I'll leave it at that.
-- 
Somebody very close to you is going to be accused of consorting with a moron.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:43:57 GMT

Excuse me, but I wonder how many of the people who bitch about people
"living off welfare" have ever tried getting by on $400 a month...

Hmm... in the area where I live, $283 will get you half a bedroom in a
2 bedroom one bath apartment.  Leaving $117 to pay for food, clothing,
medical bills, anything... and the only people that get that are single
mothers with dependent children.  

General relief gets you around $300 a month to live on... and I don't 
think one is eligible for it for an extended period.

I calculate that taking home $800 a month from a $6 an hour job, minus
$400 rent, $70 food, $42 transportation for RTD bus pass, $20 phone,
$10 clothing, $40 misc. leaves $220 

We are talking single person, minimal lifestyle... no health insurance,
no car, 1 bedroom in a shared apartment.  There is no margin for unemployment,
sickness, or any adversity.

I saw a breakdown of a single working woman parent's expenses... it
totaled up to $1500 a month, which was $400 over the standard take home
of around $1100 for an $8 hour job.

Now, this ignores the more subtle effects... the tension, the stress that
comes from living on the margin, the insecurity of not having any certainity
about the next month or two.  The things you go without, or don't think
about.

Thom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:28:12 GMT

In article <veal.126@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes
:
>In article <1992Jul23.222601.8031@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve No
vak) writes:
>
>>Why?  A gun could be used to kill someone.
>
>     And an abortion *will* kill someone.  (Familiar, no?)

Will it?  I think this is clearly the question that
needs to be addressed.  Is an unborn fetus a
someone ( a person )?  If this were clear to everybody
then the abortion issue would be a moot point (hopefully).

The question could further be extended to later include
birth control and masturbation.  Clearly these are separate
issues (or non-issues) right now, but they perhaps could be natural
extensions.  Let's hope that the Victorian Age doesn't recur
in our lifetimes.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:460 alt.politics.perot:1049 rec.humor:24331
From: mckellar@cs.UAlberta.CA (Neil McKellar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:04:35 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

lchsu@cayley.waterloo.edu (Leon C. Hsu) writes:

>GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ... AMERICANS KILL PEOPLE!

>-leon.

No no no no no.  Try again.

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

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

Neil

---
I disclaim disclaiming...
---
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections