HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Re: Who owns what? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:11:18 GMT


The Recession has ended?  When did that happen?  And why hasn't it happened in 
Ohio?  Bush has had 4 years to prove that he can turn this economy around, and 
all he's done is make it worse.  He does not/never did/never will have my vote.

Carol
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:57:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.210824.14396@quintus.com>, pds@analog.ingr.com (Peter Schachte) writes:
>
>But someone making $5000 per year can't afford to give the government
>$500 of it.

Why not?  Where is it written?  Why should the poor get a discount ticket to the U.S.
of A. (a lower tax rate) *and* reap larger benefits via welfare, food stamps, WIC,
etc?

>And someone making $500,000 per year can certainly afford
>to part with more than $50,000 of it.

The ability to afford a higher tax rate doesn't justify it, doesn't make it right. 
By the same logic, people who rob the wealthy ought to get reduced sentences.

>That's the theory of progressive taxation, not to punish anyone.

Wrong.  Progressive taxes punish the wealthy.  Progressive taxation is no different
than Robin Hood.

-- 
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.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:06:38 GMT

<In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
<   []
<   Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
<   its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
<   operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
<   manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.

	So? Now a few more poor Mexicans will have jobs in 
	their homeland and thus will be less inclined to walk
	towards "El Norte"...this is bad?

	Perhaps Shore may have heard of some alternatives to
	typewriters that have become moderately popular lately,
	many of which ARE made in the U.S.?

<   Thanks, George.
 
	Sigh. It's almost enough, this kind of economic "analysis",
	to make one wish that Clinton WOULD win, just so folks
	like Mindy could enjoy 4 years of their favorite "fortress
	Amerika" centrally-planned 'economics'; yearly increases
	in the minimum wage, union-only-shops, inflation rates
	in excess of 10%, trade wars with the Japanese and 
	Europeans.....you know, kinda like the good old days of 
	the Hawly-Smoot tariff (that one worked REAL well, didn't it?).

	Unfortunately, the price to be paid is a bit high.


P.S. Does Mindy still believe that dairy farmers have a "right"
     to farm, even at government expense? Has Mindy finally 
     figured out that it wasn't Bush who decreed that the price
     of milk is directly related to the distance from the dairy
     to Eau Claire, Wisconsin?

     Just curious....

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:45:51 GMT

In article <s4dmt!f.jmoody@netcom.com> jmoody@netcom.com (Jim Moody) writes:
>
>Isn't it curious that Republicans seem to want to vest more and more power
>in the hands of the President when its a Republican President?  And that
>power is gained at the expense of the elected representatives of the people.
>Autocrats to the end.  

I hate to destroy this bit of 'logic' with a little bit of fact, but
Clinton has also said that the President (of whichever party) should
have a line-item veto to prevent pork barrel riders and such.  Last
time I checked, Clinton was a Democrat.

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:870 talk.politics.guns:18056 soc.women:14152
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,soc.women
Subject: Re: Democratic platform explicitly demonstrates hypocrisy!
Keywords: gun women abortion rape
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:00:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Jul26.224009.24978@cis.ohio-state.edu> fabian@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian) writes:
>	Hey feminists!!! I need some statistics!  I really, really doubt that
>handguns used in the standard,  suggested way (kept in the home) would
>figure in most rape cases.

Suggested by who? The politicans who want to keep women powerless?

>	What percentage of rapes occur in the victim's home?
>	(Where she would have access to her gun)

Why should women be confined to having a gun at home? Maybe they'd
be even safer if they never left the house, by this kind of logic.

I think law abiding women without a criminal record should be allowed
to carry a concealed weapon when they leave their house. This would
especially help women who don't work from 9-5, like emergency room
nurses who have to walk through a dark parking lot after midnight,
or students who study late in the library.

>	How many rapes are acquaintance rapes, or date rapes?

Does it matter? If you know the guy raping you, you don't have a
right to defend yourself?

>	If a woman has a gun, but is not properly trained, what good is it?

If a woman has proper training, should she be allowed to have a gun?

>	I personally have had someone threaten me with a gun, in HIS house
>with HIS gun.  Somehow I doubt my (theoretical) handgun, safe at home, 
>would have helped me there.  (Outcome: I told him I couldn't be afraid of 

Well, I flew to Taiwan and my car which I left at home was not useful to
me while I was in Taiwan. I guess that means cars don't work and we might
as well ban them all.

<story about idiot friend deleted>

I once rode in a car with a drunk and he nearly got us both killed.
Alcohol is too dangerous and should be banned.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul22.123641.17047@iti.org> <1992Jul22.214308.27457@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Jul22.234654.368@iti.org> <1992Jul23.044647.8198@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:40:44 GMT

<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? Why is Clinton
<   >pushing this? Is he too stupid to know any better or does he think
<   >we are too stupid to know?

<   Well aren't you forgetting about everything else that he's said and
<   that's been discussed here?  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. 

<   cutting excess federal jobs, 

	Huh? Clinton is relying on the unions for election support
	and he's supposed to CUT featherbedding?

<saving people's health care costs, 

	Clinton has promised a comprehensive health care system;
	history shows that this will NOT contain costs.
	
<charging japan and germany for our troops on their soil, 

	And if they don't pay, what will we do? Go to war
	with them again?

	I don't see how this one will fly, considering that
	the Japanese are already paying about 1/2 of the
	cost of the U.S. military on their soil now.

	By the way, exactly how many troops ARE in Germany,
	nowadays? Can you name the Corps which was recently	
	demobilized, and where it was?

<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?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:647 talk.politics.misc:35792
From: hargrove@ramirez.mitre.org (Paul H. Hargrove)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:31:57 GMT
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean, VA

In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>[]
>Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
>its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
>operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
>manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.
>
>Thanks, George.
>-- 
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Now, I'm going to get lost every time I drive from Ithaca to Syracuse.
That plant was the only way I could be sure I'd made the right turn.
Thanks, George.
--------
Paul H. Hargrove, Speaking for myself.
P.S.
I'm a Cornell student when not working my Summer job here at Mitre.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:50:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.164004.19295@adobe.com>,
 pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.101506.3858@techbook.com>,
 szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>I invite you, and every reader who wants a party that defends _all_ 
>>of the Bill of Rights, over to alt.politics.marrou.   Those who want 
>
>Please think about this scenario:
>
>You vote for Marrou. Bush loses and Clinton wins. The democrats then
>stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges.

This assumes that most people likely to vote Libertarian would
otherwise have voted for Bush.  Since that assumption is completely
ridiculous (most of the people who vote Libertarian wouldn't have
voted at all otherwise, and of those who would have voted there are
about equal numbers of Dems and Reps), the conclusion is equally so.

Further, Bush has betrayed gun owners repeatedly over the last several
years, so even if your counterfactual assumption were true it would be
no argument against voting Libertarian.  A vote for Bush is just as
destructive of gun rights as a vote for Clinton; only a vote for
Marrou will preserve and protect your (and my) 2nd Amendment rights.
Particularly if Marrou gets a coupla million votes, and/or if one or
more Libertarian congress-persons get elected: then, the incumbent
parties might wake up and stop betraying the American people.

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

Then if your choice wins you will get the evil you voted for.
Does that make you feel better?  Wouldn't it be better to vote for
what you *actually* *believe* *in* and make sure that whoever is
elected can't ignore the millions of people who did the same?

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: cote@billy.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:43:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Since what most people seem to mean by 'school choice' is that they
>want to use tax dollars to send their kid to some fundamentalist
>religious academy, then I guess you can put me down as being against
>it, too.  What George Bush has proprosed with his $1,000 vouchers is a
>JOKE, and would be certain to lead to an even wider gulf between the
>poor people trapped in the inner-city public school system and the
>rest of us who can afford to send our kids somewhere else, especially
>if we can get a $1,000 subsidy to do it.


Tell that to the inner city folks in Milwaukee, they bucked the local
school boards and the teachers union to have a voucher system just
like the one you so eloquently sited above. The mover and shaker in
the change was a low income black woman who fought the NAACP over the
proposal.

Competition can only be good for the ossified school boards. The only
leverage a parent has in the public school is to remove their children
from the school, and place them in a private school. For most, this is
not a viable option financially. A voucher program would give parents
some much needed leverage.

By the way, the best inner city school in Los Angeles is Catholic. In
a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, several quite amazing
statistics came to light. The cost per pupil was about one tenth a
neighboring public school, a large percentage of students were not
Catholic, and a LA school board supervisor sent his children there,
instead of the public school (ironic isn't it?). By all testing
measures, the Catholic students outperformed the public schools. 

If all our schools were "trapped" in a "fundamentalist religious
academy" such as this, the "education problem" would be over.

					Brad Cote'
					STARE Project, UCSD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:40:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.185034.13106@sdc.com>, kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:

> In article <1992Jul26.002943.4459@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu
> (The Rifleman) writes:
> >Do you know what the words "well-regulated militia" mean?  Well regulated,
> >according the Oxford English Dictionary, when said of troops, means
> >well disciplined/able in shooting, and "militia" according to the 1792
> >Militia Act meant all free males from 17 to 45.  Furthermore, the
> >first clause of the Second Amendment is *not* a restrictive clause,
> >it merely states the reason for the second clause--which acknowledges
> >an unlimited right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Poppycock.  The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens
> to "keep and bear arms".  If it had, there would have been wording such as
> "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Seems to me, that's what it does say.  If you claim that the use of
lowercase "people", means "the people" collectively, then we're in *BIG*
trouble. Re-read the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th...;  Do these all apply
only to the collective "people"?

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

I refer you to Article IV, section 2, paragraph 1:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

   This seems to entend the Bill of Rights to all U.S. citizens.
If "the several States" does not refer to the U.S., then who, or what,
does it reder to?  The 14th Amendment reaffirms this clause.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Scripter                   *      cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics                    *
Michigan Technological University  *
Houghton, MI 49931                 *
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:22:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.201504.10490@genie.slhs.udel.edu> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
>
>people can write all the bad things they want to about us, but i wish
>they would at least spell libertarian correctly. 
>
>it's L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N  (from "Liberty")

Funny, I heard it was from "libertine".
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"Anarchists of the world unite!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:35:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.220230.1941@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>Oh give me a fucking break.  As if the Founding Fathers knew
>anything about *six-guns*, much less Uzis and rocket-launchers
>and personal nuclear devices.  To claim that their 1789 view of
>"arms" and "people" have any conceivable relevance to the social
>conditions we live in, and the weapons of mass destruction that
>are tearing our society apart today is truly to live in a "flim
>flam reality".  The tragedy is that your obsessive ranting is
>actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers.

Oh give me a fucking break.  As if the founding fathers knew
anything about *typewriters*, much less printing presses and radio
and personal television devices.  To claim that their 1789 view of
"information transfer" and "people" have [sic] any conceivable relevance
to the social conditions we live in, and the instruments of mass media
that are tearing our society apart today is truly to live in a "flim
flam reality". [sic] The tragedy is that your obsessive ranting is
actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers. 


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_ 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:853 alt.politics.perot:1101 alt.politics.marrou:222 talk.politics.guns:18031
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 27 Jul 1992 03:39 MST  
 <1992Jul24.185001.29302@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> <1992Jul26.222934.5437@calspan.com>
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Jul26.222934.5437@calspan.com>, schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel) writes...
>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.
>>> 
>>The scenario is unlikely since Reagan/Bush have recently overhauled most
>>of the court with relatively young people.  
> 
>Well, right off hand I can think of one octogenerian, H. Blackmun (sp?)
>who ought to be retiring real soon now.  If memory serves me,
>Reagan/Bush have installed four justices of the nine (in)justices.
>I don't recall for sure.

Five:  O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas.  And Rehnquist was
already on the Court.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: coyote@leland.Stanford.EDU (The White Blackbird)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Organization: Nevermore, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:19:44 GMT

In article <BrssvJ.EGL@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
= In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
= >[]
= >Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
= >its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
= >operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
= >manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.
= >
= >Thanks, George.
= 
= 
=    Look, with all due respect to George (Bush, I assume) (and
=    I'll leave it up to the readers to decide how much respect
=    that should be . . . )
= 
=    Why blame him for this?!
= 

Well, because the current tax structure actually rewards businesses
for taking thier factories overseas.  The current tax structure is the
Reagan-Bush baby.

[Rest of a coherent and well-thought out post deleted.  Sorry, just
couldn't make any comments that would enhance what you already said,
peter. ]
= 
= 
= ---peter
= 
= 
=  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The White Blackbird		|      Because I love my country. . .
Nevermore, Inc.			|	Clinton and Gore in 92
coyote@leland.stanford.edu	|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:992 talk.politics.guns:18202 talk.abortion:29386
From: borden@cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:56:53 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <archer.183@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>Re-read the Second Amendment, sir.  I submit to you that the introductory 
>clause that you refer to, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the 
>security of a free state,"  is NOT the restrive clause that you seem to 
>think that it is.  It gives ONE reason for the RKBA, but does not limit the 
>RKBA to the militia, it protects it for the entire people.
>-=-=-
You reread it.  There's nothing in there to guarantee the entire people the
right to bear arms.  It guarantees the right of the people to form a militia,
and the militia has the right to bear arms.  Nor does it deny individuals
the right the bear arms.  But it certainly doesn't guarantee it.
That's not an opinion - it's just English.  Read it again: "A well-regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."  It just doesn't
say it.  I've looked and looked, and I just can't see the guarantee you're
talking about.  It's just not there.

     - Dave Borden
       borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections