HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:34:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul24.165408.8730@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.150648.5036@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.135217.966@dragon.com> cts@dragon.com writes:
>
>>>Keep in mind that it's the democratic party that has stalled educational
>>>reforms, such as school choice 
>>
>>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.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
>
>Perhaps you are unaware that the states provide public funds for private
>education already.  Especiallly in higher education, states give monies to
>help promote the private schools for various reasons, one being that their 
>existence saves the state an incredible amount of money.
>
>Not all private  schools are fundamentalist, mind  you.  I am curious, just
>what problems do  you have with the  Wisconsin voucher program. $$$$ 3,500
>per child is a good chunk of money, and you have to make less than 15,000 I
>believe.  What's so wrong with allowing the  poor to send their children to
>private schools at their own tax paying expense?
>

How about the fact that nearly ALL private schools support some type of 
political view, religious view, or some other type of dogma.  I know of only
one private school which tries to completely neutral with respect to religion,
politics, etc.  Personally, I do not want public money being used in 
non-neutral structures.  i realize that many public schools are not totally
neutral, but at least their stated objective is to be neutral

>*******************************************************
>* Teddy Kalivoda  ------------ tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu *
>* 	University Computing & Network Services       *
>*	  Institute of Higher Education (Drtobe)      *
>*                                                     *
>* "Philosophers disagree about everything"            * 
>*       --Henrikus Aggripus Cornelius von Nettlesheim *
>*******************************************************

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1063 alt.politics.elections:9339
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:25:41 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul28.171741.16701@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:
]In article <1992Jul23.030642.2775@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>My question of the "pro-choice" crowd... what makes you think that the
]>Supreme Court COULD take away your choice? I keep hearing that you folks are
]>in the majority. If so, you don't need the supreme court to protect you -
]>use the legislatures... so, which is it... is this a bogus issue, or are
]>you afraid that the majority of the people really don't agree with you?
]>
]>
]
]John, do you ever bother to read a newspaper.  An overwelming majority of
]polls show that America is in favor of PRO-CHOICE.  Not pro-abortion but
]PRO_CHOICE.  However, there is much legislation at the state (did you not 
]bother to pay attention to what was just infront of the supreme court) and
]at the federal level (how about the gag rule for example) which is aimed at
]limiting or removing the whole issue of even having a choice.  Perhaps

If you read past the headlines, you find that most americans are in
favor of some restrictions on abortion. Not a prohibition, but
limits. The majority is neither pro-choice (the way the pro-choice
crowd has defined themselves) or pro-life (the way the pro-life
crowd has defined themselves). The numbers are something like this:
  30% - absolutely no restrictions on abortion
  50% - some restrictions (parental notification, waiting periods,
        prohibition in the 3rd trimester except to save mother's life)
  20% - absolute prohibition of abortion.

Now, if you look at what is coming down the pike in legislation,
it is mostly relatively mild restrictions (such as the Pennsylvania
law). Currently the US has fewer restrictions on abortions than
even the most liberal European countries.

So, I would suggest you read the details, not just the headlines.

]it is because the pro-life group is better organized or better funded.  I
]don't know why.  But the fact remains, MANY freedoms and pro-choice have been
]erroded over the last 11 years.   

This is ludicrous. The pro-choice groups, in addition to being large
and well funded, have the advantage that the mass media is constantly
giving pro-choice propaganda. The pro-lifers are mostly the fundies,
and are using their own money. 

On the other hand, I agree that many freedoms have been eroded.

]as for being afraid, no, clinton supporters do not fear the majority
]of people.  What they do fear is the ignorance and simplistic views 
]you expressed above

Nice try. Care to argue on the issues?


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:198 alt.politics.elections:8827
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Wealth (was: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Date: 22 Jul 92 07:55:49 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Jul21.191124.1515@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>Pfft.  For my part I don't believe that people of equal abilities
>should be constrained by the environment they're brought up in.

They're not. It's a country with a free enterprise system.

>Yes,
>people are born with different attributes, but people who are born
>wealthy have an opportunity to develop these attributes whereas the
>poor do not.

We are all born with the same potential to succeed and we all have
many opportunities for success in our lives.

We all have an equal opportunity to be as unequal as we like.

It's actually a disadvantage if you are already born rich, because then
you aren't so motivated to improve.

>Consider education, which I think we all agree is
>important to economic success.

No we don't all agree. How do you explain the zillions of rags-to-riches
type stories of uneducated imigrants who come to America, with nothing but
2 cents in their back pocket, work their behinds off, don't even speak the
language and then become millionaires?

Why can't a non-immigrant do the same? It's all to do with ATTITUDE not
education.

>Do the wealthy have an environment in
>which they have to content daily violence and misery while they study?
>Do the poor have private tutors to fall back on?  Small classroom
>sizes and well equipped schools?

Education has nothing to do with it. How come Economics Professors
drive beaten up old Volkswagens?

>Do they wealthy have to worry about
>their health, about where they'll get their next meal?

No. But when they were working to become wealthy they did.

>It is NOT
>about income redistribution, not in this day and age, after we've seen
>the failure and successes of the Great Society.

Agreed. If you divided the worlds wealth equally amongst everybody, it would
end up back into the hands of those who "think rich" 2-5 years later.

>It is about providing
>equal opportunity early in life.

Yea. Agreed. But it's not education that does it, it's attitude.

If you're saying that we should teach attitude in schools, then I agree with
you.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:52:11 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.
 ^^^^^^^

More accurately, SOME studies have found that a gun in the house is
more likely to be used by an intruder TO KILL an occupant than vice
versa, which is very different.  (I can't cite these studies; I hope
someone does.)  Most successful self-defenses with a gun do not involve
killing the attacker (since most attackers will stop the attack if you
point a gun at them), whereas the intruder who initiated the violence
is much less likely to have any compunction about killing (what else is
he going to do with your gun?  Hold you 'til the police arrive?).  By
only looking at fatalities, and not USES, you therefore skew the
statistics in favor of the attacker.  Have you ever heard a
gun-controller admit this?  Of course not; it's one of their main
disinformation tactics.  (To be fair, most of them probably don't even
realize it.  Most of them really do mean well...)

>And, I doubt that the gun
>controllers acknowledge what you say they acknowledge.

Of course they won't!  They think that if you ban guns, they'll go away
and people will stop shooting each other.  And they completely overlook
the fact that a larger, stronger attacker doesn't need a gun to kill,
but a smaller, weaker victim may need a gun to have any chance of
survival.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:760 talk.politics.guns:17976 talk.abortion:28911
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:36:41 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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.
>
If the background check is instant, and doesn't record your name and
register the firearm, most gun owners wouldn't get upset.  The Brady Bill
however is JUST a waiting period--NO background check.  Sarah wants to
stop the law-abiding from buy guns--she doesn't want common folk
to have them.  That's why the gun controllers opposed the Staggers Bill,
an NRA-backed instant check bill that would have required background
checks.  

You're last sentence is ominous, and smacks of 1984.  We all have secrets
we would rather everyone not know.  In the US, one is presumed innocent
until proven guilty, and it's worse to wrongly imprison one innocent man
than to let 10 guilty men go free.  It's bullshit to throw people's rights
out the window and claim that only the guilty have things to hide.  Even
the ACLU, loved by many who despise the NRA, agrees wholely with this.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 23:21:11 GMT

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. 

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

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Democratic platform explicitly demonstrates hypocrisy!
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:22:54 GMT

In article <6dgm6rr.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>the Democratic platform recognizes that a woman should have a right
>to have an abortion if she so desires (a good idea, btw). Implicit
                               [ ... ]    
>The hypocrisy is that in the case of abortion they are readily
>willing to accept that the law will be broken and it is a matter
>of keeping things safe by regulating it. In the case of guns, they

	Well, in my mind, the Democratic Party's hypocricy in the 
   case of abortion is that the party platform implies that it is 
   acceptable for a woman to use abortion to kill her child, but 
   that it is unacceptable to use a handgun to kill a rapist.  

	In other words, Clinton is telling women to lay back and 
   enjoy rape, since they can simply abort the fetus afterwards. 
   Clinton, therefore, completely ignores the threat of AIDS from 
   a rapist (you think he's going to use a condom?) and the mental
   and physical trauma resulting from sexual assault.  How caring. 
   As much as I dislike Bush, I can not in good conscience vote for 
   a man who tells women that they shouldn't defend themselves. 

 [ What's even worse is that organizations such as NOW agree that   ]  
 [ women should not protect themselves.  Perhaps they should change ]  
 [ their name to NOWV - National Organization of Willing Victims.   ]  


-- 
 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,talk.politics.misc
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:10:13 GMT

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.

Oh my God! So much for the recovery! I think it is clear that Clinton
should propose a multi-billion $$ program to support typewriter manufactures.
We just can't allow obsolete industries to move jobs elsewhere!

I propose we pay for this program with a special tax on personal computers
and makers of word processing software. That way PCs and word processors
will cost more so more typewriters will be sold.

  Allen

PS. For the humor impared: :-)

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------275 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1153 alt.politics.perot:1154 talk.politics.guns:18438
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gun Control (Was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:41:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: UB

In article <BrsJJu.nM@acsu.buffalo.edu> henning@acsu.buffalo.edu 
>>[from the platform]:
>
>>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
>>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons
>>>controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of
>>>the most deadly assault weapons. We do not support efforts to restrict
>>>weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes. 
>
>To which Fred Brooks glibly replies:
>
>>	I am sure this line will get them a lot of votes in Los Angeles. 
>>Law and order has nothing to do with gun control. This kind of backward
>>reasoning will cost the Demos at least 10 million votes.

(Karl ramp Henning) writes:

>Okay, let us agree that "gun control" (of any sort realistically
>implementable in late 20th America) does not miraculously result
>in unblemished "law and order".  Note that this paragraph does
>/say/ that.  Simple, yes?  (Read my .sig, below)
>
>Now, Mr Brooks, I ask you to defend a statement which seems to me
>"backward reasoning", to wit, that "law and order has nothing to
>do with gun control".  Explain to me why this is a reasonable
>statement of unbiased fact, rather than an impassioned and generic
>denial springing from the knee-jerk defense of your right to own
>an instrument of death.

Mr. Brooks has apparently felt that it is inappropriate to discuss
this here.  I've set the follow-ups.
                                                        
>Go ahead;  we have time.  Under the heading of "gun control" is
>included, I expect, the idea that someone with a criminal record
>might be denied possession of a handgun.  Is it your contention
>that this practice has no effect on "law & order"?

The idea that someone with a criminal record might be denied the
possession of a handgun by the passage of law has very little
effect on "law & order".  In Kates' book Law & Order (the
appropriate passages can be found at:  archive.cis.ohio-state.edu
in the directory /pub/firearms/politics/rkba (you can retreive 
files via anonymous ftp.  I suggest getting the =INDEX= first).

There you will learn that 5/6 firearms used by criminals are in
fact purchased illegally.  Most of the remaining 1/6 guns used
criminally are purchased by friends and family.  All of your
waiting periods and bans are useless, they effect only normal,
law-abiding people and not, generally, the typical armed criminal.

Again, this is an inappropriate newsgroup, which should show that
the arguments for gun control are too weak to survive in the
appropriate newsgroup.

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:795 talk.politics.misc:35999 sci.econ:6551
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Parallels between the Nazi's and the Democrats
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:16:34 GMT

gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>to tell you the truth:  YOU'RE WRONG...
>it's important to look at things from an unbiased viewpoint...let's see if we
>remember our political science:
> the political spectrum
> far left---communists
> just left of center---the american public, with democrats to the left of
>		       republicans
>			far right---nazis
>for those who need a picture:
>communists-----democrats-republicans-"the political center"----------nazis

	The National Socialists could just as well be called left as right.
	There is little to distinct them from the communist form of socialism. 

>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)
	80	60
	40	Authoritarian			Right/Conservative
	20	(Hitler,Stalin,Perot,Larouche)	(Reagan)
	0	
		0	20	40	60	80	100%
		Economic freedom
		
	With The y axis inversely related to favoring government control 
over personal behavior (sex, drugs, gun ownership, abortion, speech), while
the x  axis is inversely related to favoring government control over the 
economy and business activity.

	Authoritarians, such as socialists, National Socialists, Communists,
nutcakes like Lyndon LaRouche, etc, would tend toward the lower left, 
favoring broad government control of both the personal and business affairs
of individuals, wheras freedom loving individuals would be in the upper
right, such as Milton Freedman, Robert J Ringer, etc, favoring individual
autonomy in both personal and business matters.

	Guys like Jimmy "smoking pot isn't so bad, but you can only buy
gasoline every other day and don't charge more than I tell you" Carter would
be upper left, and guys like Ronald "go ahead, run your own business how you
want, but if we catch you using cocaine I want you crucified" Reagan would be
in the lower right.

	American politicians seem to mostly hoover near the center and
in a band stretching from the upper left to lower right on the two 
dimensional political specturm.  

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:53:53 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. 

Yes, they are.  A "well regulated Militia" was defined in Fletcher's
Political Works, pub'd in 1749, as an armed people NOT under the
control of govt.

Darcy seems to think that "regulate" implies govt control; it doesn't
even today.  It certainly didn't in the 1790s and the phrase in
question specifically rejects that.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul21.195956.1@venus.ycc.yale.edu>
	<1992Jul22.003714.29788@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<Brsu5B.MwC@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> <mckellar.711911075@sylvan-lk>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:01:17 GMT

<In article <mckellar.711911075@sylvan-lk> mckellar@cs.UAlberta.CA (Neil McKellar) writes:

<   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...:-)

	Please describe the kinds of "guns" that were used
	by the Romans in the Carthaginian Wars. Please describe
	the kinds of "guns" used by the Mongols. Please
	describe the kinds of "guns" used by Athens in the
	Punic Wars. Please describe the kinds of "guns" used
	by Sparta to resist the Persian invasion. Please	
	describe the kinds of "guns" used by the Assyrians
	to conquer the Middle East. Please describe the
	kinds of "guns" used by Pharoh's troops....


	Get the point, yet?


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:164 alt.politics.elections:8777