HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.195725.9314@leland.Stanford.EDU> jimbo@leland.Stanford.ED
U (Godfather of Soul) writes:

>Here's a couple documented relevant statistics.

>Tax Freedom Day (starting January 1, the days needed to work just to pay
>federal, state and local taxes)
>    1977:  April 30, 1977                   1992:  May 5, 1992
>
>Top income tax rate (federal)
>    1977:  70 percent                       1992:  31 precent
>
>Proportion of federal income taxes paid by wealthiest 1 percent
>    1977:  13.6 percent                     1989:  15.4 percent
>
>Proportion of federal income taxes paid by poorest 40 percent
>    1977:  9.2 percent of taxes             1989:  7.9 percent of taxes
>
>Source:  Policy Review, Number 61, Summer 1992, pp 86-88.
>
>Note that, although the tax rate on the wealthy is much lower than in 1977,
>they still pay the same percentage of tax--amazing how that works, isn't it?
>
>There are many more fun figures--I'll post more if there is interest.
>--
>| James W. Brown                | Grad school is like drugs--   |
>| Chemistry Grad Student        | it's for those who can't      |
>|                               | handle the real world.        |

Godfather,

I'm not sure how you're interpreting the phrase "Proportion of federal income
taxes paid by the wealthiest 1%"  If it mean simply the percentage of the tax 
pie kicked in by the top 1% then there is no linkage to the tax rate.  The 
interpretation I draw from your list above is that there are more people in the
top 1% than in the late 1970's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Position On Research
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:31:31 GMT

<In article <1992Jul21.001459.10311@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

<   In article <ahqx49-@rpi.edu> maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty) writes:
<   >What is Bill Clinton's position on research and higher education?
<   >What is his track record in Arkansas?

<   And his position on the Second Amendment?  That's what decides whether
<   I vote Democrat or Libertarian.

	1. Governor Clinton vetoed a state-wide pre-emption law
	   not once but TWICE. (Source: Associated Press story)
	2. Governor Clinton is on record as endorsing a total
	   ban on "semi-automatic assault rifles", claiming
	   that "the police are outgunned". (Source: ditto)
	3. I believe, but cannot verify, that Governor Clinton
	   denounced an attempt to introduce a Florida-style
	   Concealed Carry law in Arkansas. Anyone know for
	   sure?
	
	CLUE: the convention had little or no mention of "gun
	      control" at all, and I predict the campaign won't
	      discuss it either, in an effort to capture the
	      Southern blue-coller vote.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Gun Rights Advocates (was Re: An invitation to explore the Libert...)
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:43:59 GMT

yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>pro-RKBA'ers
>>pro-gunners
>>Second Amendment supporters
>How about "gun rights advocates"?  The analogy is to "abortion rights
>advocates" for those of us who are pro-choice on both issues.

What does the media use for abortion rights advocates?  Just use
the same type of term. 

"Gun rights advocates" is okay I suppose.   I want candidates to 
answer "I am 100% pro-choice on the issue of guns" when asked about
gun control, as that genre of rhetoric has already been accepted by
the media.

Pros are "gun rights advocates"		GRAs
Antis are "self defense opponents"	SDOs

>RKBA seems a little too obscure for the general public.  And, to me,
>at least, "pro-gun" seems to imply a position advocating gun
>ownership, while "gun rights advocates" implies a position supporting
>the right to choose whether to keep and bear arms.
>Like Thant, I have never owned a gun, and have no plans to purchase
>one any time in the foreseeable future, but I don't like the idea of
>government restricting people's right to choose to arm and defend
>themselves.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:56:28 GMT

mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>David L. Veal writes:
>>Steve Novak 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).

Randall Terry:      "You don't have a frog today.  It's not a frog that's
                     being killed.  It's a baby."
Faye Wattleton:     "I am fully aware of that.  I am fully aware of that."

Not quite moot.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 01:18:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.220426.20758@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>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.
>
>It is a long-standing rule of statutory construction that the meaning chosen
>for a given law should acknowledge that every phrase therein has SOME sort of 
>contributory meaning to the whole. In this instance, one cannot read the first
>clause of the 2nd as being non-restrictive UNLESS one is prepared to interpret
>it as redundant idle chit-chat, and therefore to break the established rule. 
>This rule is usually waived in the case of mere preambles or "mission 
>statements", of course, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't qualify as either of 
>those. I therefore see no reason to refrain from applying the rule in this 
>case.

But it doesn't say that the militia clause is the ONLY reason for RKBA;
it is merely stated as a reason.  Given that, I don't see how the Second
Amendment can be seen as merely a collective right.

This is backed up by the fact that all 4 Supreme Court decisions concerning
RKBA have treated it as an individual right, not a collective right.  In
addition, a NY senator recently proposed that the Second Amendment be
revoked:  why would he do that, if he wanted to revoke the collective
RKBA?  Is he trying to disband the National Guard?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:31:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.200032.24708@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:
>Of course the Libertarians haven't even thought to add up the possible
>expense to society in terms of crime, loss revenue, etc.  I support 
>the legallization of many but not all drugs.  There are some drugs known
>to promote violent episodes.  But, this is not what I wanted to continue
>on.  My main point is that very FEW cases are in such vacumes as the before
>poster (T. Archer) thinks.

Hmm, you're probably talking about marijuana versus crack.

However, marijuana is supposed to be VERY hard to get these days...
whereas ANYONE can get crack.  Given that, it seems like it's not
the law against crack that keeps people from trying it, it's their
realization that it will fuck up your life.  I doubt many more
people would try crack, if it were legalized.  So what does the
law accomplish?

   don

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.bizarre,alt.fan.gooley,alt.politics.gooley,alt.flame,alt.fan.warlord,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: MARKIAN GOOLEY --STATESMAN SELECTED BY PEROT
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:50:55 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <12dmn0.rdc@netcom.com> rdc@netcom.com (Bob D. Crane) writes:
>
>Houston -- In his first indorsement, Perot has lent his support to
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^			              
Can't spell can you Rachel, er, Bob, er, Robert, er, Roger, er,...

>Senetor Markian Gooley re-election.  Senetor Gooley has been shaking
>things up in Houston ever since he entered politics in 1976, under the
>coat tails of former President Carter.  Banners surrounding Houston,
>scream "Go, Go, Gooley" in red, white, and mauve.
>
>	--Summary from Los Angeles Times,
>	  July 21, 1992
>
>
>
>-- 
>_________________________________________________________________
>Bob D. Crane
>Research Programmer,			Programmer		
>Blue Engineering Project		Project Soar6
>Symbolic Institute			School of Computer Science
>University of Illinois
>	
>E-mail:  rdc@netcom.com
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>"The spear in the others heart is the spear in your own,
>			you are he"   
>	                     ---------  Attributed to Surak.

Q: How many people have the login id rdc@netcom.com?
Q: Are Bob D. Crane, Rachel Dafni Christy, Roger David Carasso and numerous
   others the same person? (Duuhh...)
       
What we have here, I think, is a classic case of multipsychopathology.
1. Multiple personality disorder.
2. Gender identity disorder
3. Hates newbies (Were you abused as a newbie Bob, er, Rober, er, Rachel, er,
   Roger, er, Reggie, er, )

You don't have to go through life like this you know.  Many fine facilities
exist which employ highly trained psychotherapists that can help you merge your
distinctive personalities into the one true you.  Since they all have the
initials R.D.C. you won't even have to change the monograms on your towels,
luggage, sorority necklaces, or fraternity pins.  Or, you could go ahead with
that operation...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:382 alt.politics.elections:8959
From: eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:26:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: mykene.EIVERSON.92Jul22202642
	<1992Jul21.235301.22212@novell.com>
	<1992Jul22.011000.4782@cs.tulane.edu>
Organization: Computing Research Lab

In article <1992Jul22.011000.4782@cs.tulane.edu> tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek) writes:

> How many of y'all share my fear that Bush will increse his popularity and win the White house in '92 by dumping Quayle and making Baker his VP?
>
> (All replies Welcome... )

Extremely unlikely.  If Bush dumps Quayle his standing with the
conservatives will plummet.  Spelling a speedy end to his chances of
re-election.  Someone on CNN referred to Quayle as Bush's heat shield.
Sounds about right to me.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Iverson				Internet: eiverson@nmsu.edu
Computing Research Lab
Box 30001/3CRL				Life is something to do when
New Mexico State University		you can't get to sleep.
Las Cruces, NM 88003-0001			-Fran Lebowitz
VOICE: (505) 646-5711	
FAX:   (505) 646-6218
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:294 alt.politics.elections:8900
From: M23231@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:49:52 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

>
>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.
**********************
Right...Say, I've got a nice bridge for sale...and with practice anybody can be
a Michael Jordan!  Such naivete!!!
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 05:19:39 GMT

In article <14i19sINNamp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU 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
>
>
>Go to a library and find out...
>
>Within a margin of +-0.5% this figure is true...
>
>If you haven't been listening many people have been telling us of the
>movement of wealth upwards to the wealthy.

Sorry, but this doesn't seem to be the case.  Now, for the first time,
the top 1% have more than the bottom 90% (NPR earlier this evening).
Now, if we also buy that the top 1 % have 90% of everything, that says
that the bottom 90% must also have something close to 90% of
everything (since the two groups just crossed over each other).  Well,
that's 180% of everything accounted for already, and we still have 9%
of the population which has higher income than that bottom 90% that we
haven't accounted for.

The numbers just don't seem to jibe.  I think someone misheard the
statement I heard on NPR earlier today.

-- 
"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:1104 talk.politics.misc:36641
From: casey@earth.lexmark.lex.usa.na (Patrick Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Talking To A Brick Wall (Was: Adios, Smith Corona)
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:37:14 GMT
	<CASEY.92Jul23115158@zorro.lexmark.lex.usa.na>
	<ATAYLOR.92Jul30085740@gauss.nmsu.edu>
Reply-To: pacasey@lexmark.com
Organization: Lexmark International, Lexington KY
X-Disclaimer: These views are the poster's and not necessarily those of Lexmark

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul30085740@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

	   Don't expect Shore to reply; she really hates it when
	   people point out the facts which inconveniently contradict
	   her ravings.

I don't expect her to reply, because I don't think she made any
mistake in posting, nor was my follow-up meant to "contradict" her.
I posted merely because the topic was of particular interest to me.  

I don't think she was raving either -- she got her story from the news
media (was it the AP?).  IMHO, it was their mistake, not hers.

And before someone accuses her of not checking these stories out
first, I'd challenge them to do the same with anything they get from
the press before posting it.

Patrick
--
Patrick A. Casey      pacasey@lexmark.com         Hi, I.S. big brothers!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Summary: You need to pay attention to the meaning of the phrase at the time.
Organization: If I was organized I'd have a copy on my desk.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:02:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <Brv573.2q6@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) 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. 

[Note the followup.]

If memory serves, "Fletcher's Political Works", pub'd in 1749,
defines a "well-regulated militia" as a body of armed citizens
not under control of an executive (when under control of an
executive, presumably they are an army).  

My understanding of the use of the phrase "well-regulated" is
that we would call it "well-trained" or "smoothly functioning"
today.

I'm sure there are half a dozen more followups pointing this out.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: colello@cheshire.oxy.edu (Robert Colello)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:41:42 GMT

In article <gggml+-.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.233019.9681@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min "Chairman Mao" Zhao) writes:
>>In article <c7fm8bd.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) 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.
>>>>-- 
>>>Thanks, Congress for:
>>>Minimum wage legislation
>> 
>>  Thanks Mr. Crisp, for showing us what ignorance is. 
>> 
>>  Now we all know you got straight As in your (economics) courses you took 
>>at Texas A&M, (I feel sorry for A&M, a fine school nevertheless) let me ask 
>>you a common sense, 
>> 
>>  Where are the minimum wage jobs ?   At GM, GE, Smith Corona ?   
>>
>Minimum wages have the effect of reducing employment or increasing
>unemployment (state it your preferred way).
>
>The Democrats love to spike the Republicans when the Republicans
>oppose incresing the minimum wage. They say "these guys are against you
>workere, but we are looking out for you". When the minimum wage increase 
>finally happens, the employers around the country discover that their
>expenses go up for labor but they aren't making any more money. So they
>cut a few jobs. SOME FAVOR THE DEMOS DID FOR THE LAID OFF WORKERS.
>
I think your missing the point here.  I really doubt very many of Smith
Corona's workers were earning the minimum wage.  I'm sure Smith Corona would
stay if they could persuade their workers to accept the minimum wage or lose
their jobs.  Yes, this is harsh, but its better to have a job than none at
all.  
  
Another solution of course is to elect the Democrats to the White House and
every State House in the country.  Make every elected post democratic.
The resulting beaurocracy that would develop would lead to endless jobs
producing paper, typewriters, pens, paper clips, staples, etc.  We'd turn
into a great society of paper pushers, wouldn't that be wonderful?  
 
NOT!

-Bob


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:980 talk.politics.guns:18182 talk.abortion:29372
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rights and Legal Manuevering (Was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:25:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

I neglected to mention:

In article <1992Jul28.060136.27536@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> The 2nd
> never refers to "citizens", only to "people", specifically, to that subset 
> of "people" belonging to a well-regulated militia.

No, sorry, wrong again.

In the recent SC case of Verdugo-Urquidez, the Court found that "the people"
was a "term of art:"

     The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people
     to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth
     Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are
     retained by and reserved to "the people."  See also U.S.
     Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law ...
     abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to
     assemble"); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ("The House of
     Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
     second Year by the People of the several States")
     (emphasis added).  While this textual exegesis is by no
     means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected
     by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second
     Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved
     in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of
     persons who are part of a national community or who have
     otherwise developed sufficient connection with this
     country to be considered part of that community.  110 S.
     Ct. at 1061.

Note that "the people" include groups like resident aliens, who are not
"citizens."
-- 

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...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:384 talk.politics.misc:35456
From: milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:18:51 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

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

They are, however, going to introduce the Ronald Wilson Reagan commerative
typewriter sometime in 1992.  It's an electric typewriter with no colon and
no memory.


-- 
athena% cat .signature
ERROR: cannot find .signature file for milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu
Abort, Retry, Ignore, Explode?
athena% .sig? I don' got to show you no steenkin' .sig!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns