HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:34:11 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <LGOLD.92Jul20132648@cds8952.Cadence.COM> lgold@cds8952.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold) writes:
>
>Harry Blackmun is 84.
>
>Blackmun is the guy who wrote the "Roe v. Wade" decision.
>
>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!)
>
>If you're pro-choice (I AM), no matter how low Clinton is on your
>totem pole, he's your ONLY electable choice.

One thing is not to expect the Court to be suddenly transformed
by Clinton's appointments: the judges most likely to retire are
NOT Reagan/Bush appointees.  Blackmun, as noted, is 84, and a
Clinton replacement will not change the balance.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:770 alt.politics.elections:9173
From: maxwell+@cs.cmu.edu (Bruce Allen Maxwell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Summary: more thoughts
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:34:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul24094044@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Jul23.044647.8198@m.cs.uiuc.edu> barbehen@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Michael Barbehenn) writes:
><   >So I ask again: where will the money come from? 
>
><   There's cutting the defense budget,
>	
>	But transfer payments to individuals already exceed the
>	defense budget; next year, Social Security alone will
>	exceed the defense budget. 

Social Security runs a surplus every year in order to pay for future
expenses. This surplus is not supposed to go to any other government
programs, and actually hides the real extent of the deficit.  You
cannot blame the deficit on Social Security.  The defense budget
certainly does NOT run a surplus, on the other hand.

><   cutting excess federal jobs, 
>
>	Huh? Clinton is relying on the unions for election support
>	and he's supposed to CUT featherbedding?

Clinton has decided to piss-off the federal employees union.  He has 
said he'll cut 100,000 or so government jobs.  Maybe he's not such
a 'typical' Democrat.  (hint: he isn't).

><little or no capital  gains tax on long-term investments,....
>   --
>	I'll believe that one when I see it; remember that
>	Jimmy Carter ran, among other things, on a "reduce
>	inflation" ticket. What was the inflation rate in
>	1980, again?
>

What was the deficit in 1980?  What was the growth rate in 1980?  How
many jobs were created between 1977-1980?  That's three strikes to one
against Mr. GHWB and his predecessor.  Three strikes and you're out.
Furthermore, if you aren't going to take Mr. Clinton at his word, then
why bother to vote.  We all know about Bush's favorite words ("Read my
lips").

Bruce Maxwell
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:103 alt.politics.elections:8671
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Albert Gore (was Re: Convention Speech anyone?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 06:30:12 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Jul21.055429.8358@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.234358.10603@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>And given that Gore is really Clark Kent in disguise, he wouldn't
>>have to worry about further assassination attempts.

>Not to mention the simply unbeatable, at the ballot box or on
>the street, tactic of the President of the USA himself installing
>a phone booth in the Oval Office so that he can change in a flash
>and fly out the window to safe his country. _Nothing_ can beat that.

Ah hah!  But, of course, he can't be Vice President, because he's not
qualified for the Presidency!  After all, the President has to be a
"natural born" US citizen, and Kal-El is the child of foreign parents
born on foreign territory (the planet Krypton).  Someone should really
tell the Democrats about this before someone else breaks the scandal,
so they have a chance to do some damage control.  Maybe they can keep
him in the cabinet-- have him replace the entire Defense Department,
or some such.  ("My plan for reducing the deficit is to replace our
land, sea, and air forces with my former running mate, Senator Albert
Gore.  Given that he can fly, see across continents and through walls,
travel faster than light and shrug off nuclear blasts, no nation in
the world will dare attack us, and I'll save us more than $200
billion.  Let George Bush try to top _that_!")

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Workers of the world, forgive me.
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 You had more to lose than I thought."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Karl Marx (1990) as imagined by
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Jim Koncz (konc@midway.uchicago.edu)
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 12:47:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.215549.22572@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:

>>>America was #1 in wages an average person made, now it's #13 in the world. 

>>Also misleading. Measuring wages is open to interpertation due to fluxuations
>>in currency. In 1980 for example, the $$ was stronger than it is now.

>    Then, the less amount of weak $$ we make now certainly make it even worse

Sorry I ment to say the dollar was weaker.

>    What does that say ?  

It says your ignoring the point. You can make the US #1 or #100 using this
measure if you time it correctly. It says nothing about the actual situation.

A better measure is the amount of time the average worker needs to spend
to earn enough money to buy goods. Example (from memory so it will be off
a bit): the average US worker needs to work about two hours a day to feed
a family. The average worker in Europe needs to spend about 2.5 hours a
day. The average US worker needs to work about 20% fewer days to buy the
average car.

>    Though not intentional, that was my fault.  I should have added " among  
>industrial nations" to the statement.  We can't really compare us to Mexico 
>Russia, or China.  If we use the same cut-off line in terms of US $ to 
>measure poverty level, then the whole 1.2 billion Chinese and all of Russian
>are in poverty.  

I think it is good every now and then to do exactly that. It shows us how
fortunate we are and how well our system works.

>I would like to assume even Republicans should know not to
>lower our standard, we should compare to Japan, Europe. 

Which is what I am doing. We are still #1. Basing numbers on currency
fluxuations like you where tells us nothing since you can prove anything
with it.

   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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.155053.14891@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
>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.

Guess again.  Ever hear the phrase 'entitlements'?  You might want to
research some of the numbers and stop guessing.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Parallels between the Nazi's and the Democrats
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:49:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul25.191634.14575@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:

>>i am neither condemming nor am i espousing any of these political parties, but
>>that's where they fall in the political spectrum...
>
>	The two diminsional political spectrum gives a better veiw:
>
>
>Personal	Left/Liberal			Libertarian
>freedom	100	(J Carter)			(M. Freedman)
>  [ . . . ]
>		Economic freedom

   Better, perhaps, but still quite arbitrary.

   Frankly, I've never understood what pleasure some political theorists
   derive from constructing political spectra, pigeonholes and taxonomies
   of all kinds.   

   I hate to engage in political deconstructionism (no I don't), but 
   really, implicit in these schemes is some concept of "consistency"
   which is really more an article of faith than anything borne out 
   by flesh-and-blood human beings.   I think some people come up with
   this stuff to reassure themselves that the universe is orderly so there 
   must be a God, blah, blah, blah . . . 

   People are motivated by many different things and hold a wide range
   of values which themselves are a function of a complext set of
   antecedents.   If an Ohio utility worker supports recycling to 
   "protect the environment" but opposes acid-rain legislation because
   he fears for his job, he is only being inconsistent in the pointy
   little minds of pointy headed political intellectuals.  His choices
   may be perfectly consistent within the context of his life and values.

   I'm reading an *extraordinary* book just now: _Tombee_ (Rosengarten) 
   about the life and times of a South Carolina plantation (and slave)
   owner.   The first half of the book is historical research and the 
   second half is the complete daily journal that he kept between 1845
   and 1858, along with annotations that he made after the War.  Seldom
   have I felt such a deep understanding and insight, not sympathy but 
   empathy, for a person from the historical past.   To us perhaps, a
   man who would whip his slaves but also engage in touching acts of
   love and charity is a "contradiction" -- but only by our narrow
   standards.                    


---peter


  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:06:05 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Jul21.095705.21029@imag.fr>
	<1992Jul21.174022.23688@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Jul21.184519.14982@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Originator: rfb@H.GP.CS.CMU.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:
   |> 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 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.

Some people believe that to be true and some don't.  During the past
dozen years, it has become increasingly difficult to `make it' without
the precondition of already having made it.  What do you say to the
youth of South Central Los Angeles to convince them of your claim?

For some, the first time that they could begin to believe such a claim
came after the Watts Riots.  I've listened to a man who never finished
high school who was able to get a good solid job at a Boeing plant
that enabled him to send his kids to college.  It took a lot of
government incentives to move good industrial jobs into the area.
These incentives don't really exist anymore, and recently the Boeing
plant was shut down.

Really, the claim that anyone can make it in today's America is
ridiculous.  Plenty of good solid hard-working people are worn down by
a system that won't allow them real opportunities.

   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?

They did it before, they'll do it again.  A kind of silly analogy that
still works is a video game that gets harder and harder as you advance
to higher and higher levels.  The real fanatics keep working to
improve their game so that they can be that much better.

In any case, most of the `productivity' of the people in the highest
echelons is through investment -- it's not like they actually need to
work harder than everyone else to maintain their standard of living.
Their taxes can legitimately be viewed as a regulatory action
requiring reinvestment into the ultimate source of their wealth,
society.
-- 
Rick Busdiecker <rfb+@cs.cmu.edu>
	WARNING:  I post unsolicitied e-mail replies to my posts.  Sending such
		  e-mail to me implies your permission for me to post it.
``I hate quotations.'' -- Ralph Waldo Emerson 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: alexho@microsoft.com (Alex Howerton)
Subject: Re: HRP Cartoon
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:45:28 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>It may be that HRP really did have good intentions but the good old boys
>got to him and convinced him to pull out "for his own good."  Now
>they're talking about "change" like it was their idea.  Our only real
>choice for change is now history.  Funny, though, how GB and BC all of a
>sudden got religion.
What really pisses me off is how people pass off as "fact" the skewed
information that makes it through their reality filter.  Clinton
has been talking about change since he announced his candidacy in 
October, but do people with a predetermined agenda bother to watch
full policy addresses on C-SPAN, or seek out other forms of first-
hand information? No! Of course you're going to believe that the
political system is corrupt and ineffective, and that candidtes
don't address the issues, if you let Dan Rather and the rest of
the commercial media tell you what to think.  Both Bush ahnd
Clinton and every other politician spends every day, all day,
giving speeches and outlining positions and programs. But
people growing up in the MTV generation (myself included) want
the quick fix, the sound bite, the daily digest of what to
think fromour information brokers at CBS and the other networks
(if I seem to be laying into Dan Rather, it is because I think
he is the worst of the self-appointed thought police).  HRP
was NEVER an instrument for change; he was a product of that
selfsame information industry (remember the Larry King interview, which
propeelled hinm to fame?) People who didn't want to expend the energy 
to research the full, complex scope of the issues facing us glommmd on
to Perot as a knight in shining armor who would cut through the bullshit of
modern politics and give them a placebo to save them from having to think.
But as soon as Perot realized he would indeed have to think, and 
develop something more complex than "me good, everyone else bad", he
bailed. Clinton, on the other hand, has outlined complex, specific
policies which take time to study and comprehend, much more time
than he is alloted on the various argument shows (McLaughlin Group,
Evans and Novak, Meet the Press, etc.) so most people, who are already
impatient with their microwave oven, write him off as ineffective,
corrupt, part of the system, or some other label where they can dismiss
him and not think. Granted, Clinton is not perfect, but he is out there,
presenting his ideas. Please address specific criticisms at what he proposes
but to label him as "Slick Willie" reflects more on your inability to
think than his. :wq
:wq


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:803 talk.politics.guns:18001 talk.abortion:28956 alt.flame:11375 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:323
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 26 Jul 92 02:53:10 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
-> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >Because they're not a well-regulated militia.
-> 
-> 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.

i can see that you haven't been following mr. darcy's posts. for
future reference, mr. darcy quite often redefines commonly used
terms to mean whatever he happens to want them to mean at the
moment, reserving the right, of course, to change them back, or
to change them to something else if his meaning of the moment is
questioned.

he didn't get to be the only person elected to the council of
net.idiots in 1991 for nothing.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:47:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.222601.8031@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>Waiting periods for credit card purchases can help stop those with
>>bad credit.
>
>We're talking about guns that kill people, Ngai.  Let's not be condescending.

If you can check mere credit card purchases instantly, why can't you
check criminal records quickly? Surely cops who do traffic stops could
use such a capability.

>Gee, Phil, ANOTHER silly analogy.  Besides, people's records get checked when 
>they get a driver's license, and guess what they better have when the cops
>stop them?

So if people already get checked when they get a driver's license, a
driver's license ought to be good enough to qualify for buying a gun?

>>You mean like a woman who has received death threats?
>
>Someone that doesn't own a gun could easily have her defensive weapon
>turned AGAINST her, no?  ...Since you seem to mention a threatened woman as
>if she were the totally helpless type.

"Could", yes. Likely? This kind of argument could be used to disarm
police too.  Police do get some (limited) training, there is no reason
a possible victim couldn't get training too (or might even have it
already). A 15 day wait like we have in California means that no matter
how fast she gets training she still has to spend over two weeks in
fear of her life.

You say "totally helpless type" as though any real man^H^H^H woman
should be able to prevail in a "fair" fight. In the first place, most
women are in fact not going to do very well in a fight with most men.
Otherwise we wouldn't worry about rape very much, would we?  In the
second place, why should an innocent person have to submit to a fair
fight anyway? Should cops engage in "fair" fights with suspects?

I say an innocent potential victim should be allowed to use the most
effective means available of protecting herself. You seem to think
she should have to use her bare hands or at best, a knife.

>Why?  A gun could be used to kill someone.  A waiting period for a woman

No, a gun could be used to save a person's life. That's why cops carry
guns and that's why law abiding women ought to be allowed to carry them.

>desiring an abortion simply makes it hard for, say, a poor woman travelling
>from afar to even AFFORD an abortion.  I don't see the connection.

It's a "cooling off period", like the ones proposed for guns.

>This is extreme.  I am NOT a gun banner; I really don't know that many, yet
>I know many in favor of waiting periods.  _I own a gun_.  I get tired of
>being accused thusly when I simply see the need for ways to get guns out of
>the hands of every murderous thug in the country who wants one.  (Hint: I
>am in no way claiming that all gun owners are murderous thugs.)

But do you consider self-defense a valid use for guns, or are you a sporting
gun only type of person?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Who benefitted when Carter was in the White House?
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:48:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Ted Koppel. Nightline was started to monitor the status of the hostages
in Iran. 

Ronald Reagan. He was able to be elected in a terrific landslide because the
American people simply had enough of the democrats in the white house!

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty:
The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:59:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150709.23717@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

>Who is the "you"?  I don't have a problem, since I'm not going to be getting
>pregnant (wrong sex).  Is it proper for me to be concerned about women?
>My wife doesn't have a problem, since we live in Hawaii, which isn't about
>to get anti-abortion laws.  May we properly be concerned about people who
>live in Utah?  Can you conceive of a situation in which there is a
>pro-choice majority in the U.S. but not in all states?  

Sure. The same way it's possible for a President to get a majority of
electoral votes but not a majority of the popular vote. Some of the
bigger states could have very big pro-choice majorities, while smaller
states could have a narrow but sufficient anti-choice majority. The
entire country would have a pro-choice majority, while several states
didn't.

>Can you conceive
>of there being a pro-choice majority in both houses of congress, yet
>not enough votes to pass into law a freedom of choice act?

Sure. Its going to happen real soon. Congress will pass it, Bush
will veto it. The veto will be sustained because while pro-choice
has a majority in Congress it doesn't have a 2/3 majority.

>Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>


Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections