HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:26:01 GMT

> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 

>Waiting periods 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.

>Motorists stopped by police should be held for 15 days so the police
>can do a complete check on them. I am sure you agree that people with
>criminal or mental problems shouldn't have cars, them being as
>dangerous as they are. Drive by shootings would not be possible without
>cars.

However, *shootings* would still be possible, huh?

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?

>>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.

>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.

>>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no

>The use of the term "control freak" is amusing in this context.

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

>By the way, don't ASSume I am anti-abortion.

Since you ASSked so nicely, I withdraw the implication.

>>Yet you wish to make those opinions everybody's, by force of law.

>So do the gun banners.

(Does this imply you ARE anti-abortion?)

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.)

I know people in favor of banning TYPES of guns...including that flaming
liberal Barry Goldwater, who said of semi-automatics (paraphrased): "Anyone
who needs more than one bullet to kill a deer shouldn't be hunting anyway."

>My opinions are my own.

Hey, mine too!

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1004 talk.politics.guns:18223
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Query...
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:57:00 GMT

In article <14mhcpINNa3g@network.ucsd.edu> erwin@bend.ucsd.edu (Sean Erwin) writes:
>When was the last time there was a Democratic President and Congress?

During the Carter Administration (Jan 1977 - Jan 1981).



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: barbehen@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Michael Barbehenn)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:43:08 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.163141.27287@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

>>If you make 100K a year, what difference is it going to make if you pay
>>higher taxes? You would STILL be making more than a lot of people.

>Look, there just aren't enough rich people in the country for this to
>work. Taxing 100% of the income of everybody making more than $100K per
>year will only raise about $20 billion tops. Clinton's plan will only
>raise a few billion. Yet we have a 300 billion deficit and Clinton is
>promising an additional $150 billion in spending.

>To make his plan work he needs to find an additional half a TRILLION
>dollars. Where is he going to find it? Even if he taxed 100% of the
>people making over $100K AND taxed 100% of all corporate profits it
>still wouldn't be enough.

>How can he possible do it and why do people believe him?

You act as though you believed that NO ONE BUT the wealthiest 1% are
going to be taxed at all!  If all goes well, there will be a LOT more
middle class people with steady employment (read: increased tax base).

Taxing the wealthy is Normal Progressive taxation.  Flat taxes are
regressive (even flat percentages) because taxes cut into the survival
of the poor but don't change the ability to exist for the rich.

It is ALWAYS better to have the money and be taxed than to not have the
money in the first place.  Anything short of 100% taxation means that
for every dollar earned, something goes into the bank.

And with the programs Clinton wants to instate, the rich won't have to
waste their money on health insurance -- it might even mean a net savings
when the smoke clears...
--
-Michael Barbehenn
 AI Group/Beckman Institute
 U. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on '92
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 15:53:26 GMT

In <MePLG7S00UhBE1lYNY@andrew.cmu.edu> "Donpaul C. Stephens" <ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>frederic@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Brian Frederick) said:
>>  Does _anyone_ truely believe that either Bush or Clinton can turn 
>>the nation's economy around in only 4 years?
>answer:
>1. No, not me.  I think the only out we have is for Perot to come back
>and do it.

Hahahahahaha.

>	  Doesn't it seem funny how he 'dropped?'  The two political
>partites have A LOT more power than your average joe wants to admit. 

Why do people cling to these conspiracy theories that Perot was forced out?
He didn't even FIGHT for his "principles".

And where did this idea that Perot is the magic man who can turn the
economy around on a dime come from?  He's just as human as the rest.
Maybe he had a better chance, but "Ross'll DO IT" seems ridiculously
naive.

>I'd be willing to wager that the unfare deal that Perot got from most of
>the press is directly due to this.

Aw.  As if he were treated any differently than Clinton, or any of the
other presidential candidates.  As if he couldn't have seen it coming
and avoided the whole thing by not running his non-campaign.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
              Help!  I'm a pedagogical subcutaneous malformation!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:28:38 GMT

rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:

>There was an interesting piece in The New York Times the other
>day that compared gun-related homicides in Seattle and Vancouver
>(Canada) -- two cities approximately the same size, adjacent to
>each other, and with similar demographics.  Seattle has limited
>gun control.  Vancouver has very strict gun control.  I no
>longer have the piece handy, so I can't provde figures, but
>Seattle's gun-related homicides were many times higher than
>Vancouver's.
...
The two cities have very different demographics, as Vancouver has
fewer blacks.    Murders, even in Seattle, are concentrated among
blacks.

...or compare gun-related homicides in Seattle and New York City:
Seattle has limited gun control.  NY City has very strict gun 
control.  I no longer have the piece handy, so I can't provde 
figures, but New York's gun-related homicides were many times 
higher than Seattles.

Jim Del Vecchio
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:955 alt.politics.elections:9289
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:17:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul23.030642.2775@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Jul22.193955.259482@cs.cmu.edu> dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:
>]>>If you're pro-choice (I AM), no matter how low Clinton is on your
>]>>totem pole, he's your ONLY electable choice.
>]>
>]On the other hand, expect the Court to be suddenly transformed
>]by another Bush appontee.  Many decisions have been 5-4 recently,
>]with the extra vote on the side of Blackmun. I think that was the point
>]of the original poster.
>
>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
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.   

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

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1121 talk.politics.guns:18392
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:56:49 GMT
	<1992Jul25.192246.18641@news.Hawaii.Edu>
	<1992Jul28.202958.17780@cs.cornell.edu>
	<1992Jul29.145354.18028@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Jul29.145354.18028@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

<   I think the public arguments made against gun control in the U.S. may
<   be misleading.  Those arguments mostly concern whether proposed
<   restrictions will achieve their ends. 

	How is this misleading, please?
	
< I would like to think that
<   a fair number of people oppose gun control really just because they
<   don't think it's any of the government's business whether a
<   law-abiding citizen keeps a gun, regardless of what the 2nd amendment
<   really means, and regardless of how many are killed as a result of gun
<   availability.

	Well, you have a nice day, too!

	Let's see if I can reply in your tone:

	"I would like to think that a fair number of the people
	who want to ban all firearms really think it is the
	governments business to know what inanimate objects
	a citizen owns....regardless of how many people are
	killed as a result of only criminals and police
	having guns".

	How did I do?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:09:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.083546.17267@Veritas.COM> oleg@veritas.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>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.
>
>Or you vote for Bush and he continues crippling the country's economy,

No. The pro-cripple-the-economy vote will go for Clinton and his
allies in the Democratic Congressional leadership.
They've got the cripple-enabling legislation waiting in the wings.

Get rid of the Democratic Congress and Bush will be able
to turn the economy around.

-----------
P.McGuinness
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 06:47:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.201116.21122@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul21.195725.9314@leland.Stanford.EDU> jimbo@leland.Stanford.ED
|> U (Godfather of Soul) writes:
|> 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.

Huh????  This makes no sense.  How can there be more people in the top 1%
of the people?  I mean, you take 200 people in 1977, the top 1% consists
of 2 people.  In 1989 the top 1% of 200 people is still 2 people.  The pop-
ulation grew a little, but not much, in that time.  I don't get it.

-- 
| James W. Brown                | Grad school is like drugs--   |
| Chemistry Grad Student        | it's for those who can't      |
|                               | handle the real world.        |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:200 alt.politics.elections:8828
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 22 Jul 92 08:06:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul21.163141.27287@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>our system should not put something back into that system?  If you make
>100K a year, what difference is it going to make if you pay higher taxes?
>You would STILL be making more than a lot of people.

Have you ever tried paying a mortgage in Silicon Valley?

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:597 talk.politics.guns:17864
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:34:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul23.182226.20807@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>I have seen statistics on "accicental" vs. "intentional" firearm casualties
>in the US that indicate that Americans are phenomenally bad at firearm
>safety, but unfortunately can't quote them.  Can anyone out there do so?

In 1989, under 1,600 people were killed in the US from all firearms accidents.

Don Kates (Pacific Institute of Public Policy) writes that there are 
approximately 580,000 criminal uses of handguns (alone) annually.

He also writes that there are approximately 645,000 successful defensive
uses of handguns (alone) annually.
-- 

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:731 talk.politics.guns:17963 talk.abortion:28875
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform OOPS!
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:56:27 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <1992Jul24.185534.20557@mcs.anl.gov>, by shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer):
> I posted...
> 
>>In a civilized society clear cut cases of self defense would never
>>come to trial and in those that did the state would pay all legal
>>fees and possibly other compensation.
> 
> But I left out...
> 
> if the defender was aquited.
> 
> Sorry!
> 
> 				mike

But, we have the situation now, where the state frequently DOES pay all legal
fees of defendant, and if he's NOT acquitted, he gets alot of room and board
too!

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Mindy Gets It Wrong, Again (Was: Adios, Smith Corona)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:25:51 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.

	From today's Wall Street Journal, excerpted from a long
	article about a spinoff from IBM:

	"The top exectutives of Lexmark, International Inc.
	 were holding their first meeting since their leveraged
	 buy-out of IBM's laser-printer, typewriter and office
	 supply business. Sitting in their tiny headquarters
	 across from the railroad station in Greenwich,
	 Conn. ...."
	
	 "When John Trisler, manager of Lexmark's typewriter
	  operations, asked a group of workers to redesign
	  their assembly line, they produced one that takes
	  just 1 hour and 15 minutes to make a typewriter - 
	  down form more than 8 hours under IBM".

	The article goes on to describe facilities in Kentucky.

	So, either Kentucky isn't part of the U.S. or Shore
	doesn't know what she's ranting about---again.

	Care to name the source for your "news" flash, Mindy?

< Thanks, George.
 
	Bush may not understand the fact that the U.S. must
	compete in a global market, but some of his advisors
	do. Clintonomics, meanwhile, is beginning to resemble
	some of the highlights of the Nixon and Ford administration;
	anyone remember what the term "Stagflation" meant?

	And on "planet Shore"....well, never mind.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:19:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.201815.16435@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>Why aren't people registered?   Some people don't want to be.  Millions
>and millions of people
> [...}
>It's not often that a presidential action drives me to communicate in
>capital letters.  But
>this time it does.  GEORGE BUSH, WHY DON'T YOU WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE?  IS
>IT BECAUSE YOU KNOW
>THAT IF AMERICA REALLY WAS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, YOU AND YOUR
>MILLIONAIRE FRIENDS WOULD
>BE CHUCKED OUT ON YOUR CUMMERBUNDS?
>
>Okay, I've got my fire extinguisher, so bring them flames on!!

I hope it's full ...

-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:38:29 GMT

In <1992Jul24.120629.20856@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:

>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:

>>crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>>Minimum wages have the effect of reducing employment or increasing
>>>unemployment (state it your preferred way).

>>That's one effect.  The other effect is to raise wage levels for those
>>who are working, which could (say) increase consumption and create new
>>jobs.  One sentence on the topic is not a useful analysis of the
>>situation.

>	It has no such effect.  It merely eliminates all jobs paying 
>below the floor, with no change for the workers already getting the 
>minimum or better.

>	It would be interesting to see, if say you work for Burger Phlem,
>for example, for $4.85/hr, if a minimum wage increase to $9/hr would
>cause you to get a $4.15/hr raise, or if you would just get canned.

>Jim Del Vecchio

That assumes that BP has excess staff on the payroll, after all some-
one has to cook the burgers. Not being an economist, so no flames,
but I have wondered what business leaders thought they were doing
during the Reagan/Bush years. Our economy is supposed to be 2/3
driven by consumers. About 10-12 years back they introduced pay-
for-performance and no COLAs. Funny thing was while the managers
were planning so badly that companies lost market share, it was
the workers who got raises averaging less than the cost of living
increases, while mahogany row got marvelous raises. Does it take
a PhD to see where this would lead? The economists call it lack
of consumer confidence - hey you dummies - we're simply broke.

REB

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women,talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 23:35:53 GMT
Summary: the supreme court has overturned a gun control law

Someone wrote:

>Can you really defend all of the positions they have taken on gun-related
>issues?  Many of them are totally reprehensible, in my opinion.

Please elaborate.

>I'm not actually sure if this is true, but I don't remember many
>Supreme Court rulings overturning gun legislation on second ammendment
>grounds since I've been an adult.

While it wasn't a second amendment case the Supreme Court just a
few weeks ago overturned a gun law.  The case was "United States of
America v. Thompson/Center Arms Co."  But you won't read about it
in the newspaper, or hear about on the tube.  The media just reports
what they want you to hear.

If you call the BATF Public Affairs office at 202-927-8500 they
will mail you a copy of the decision.  Or, you can get a copy
via anonymous ftp at:

archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:/pub/firearms/politics/thompson-center.

There are some interesting cases that have been argued at the
circuit court level, and probably will reach the supreme court
by the end of the decade.  Basically the circuit court has
stated the ban on possession by civilians of machine guns
made after May 1986 is unconstitutional.

>>>What specifically does the NRA do that you object to?  You may
>>>find that some of the things you have been told are misinformation.
>>
>>Not bloody likely, since I did grow up in an NRA household.

We'll see just how informed you are; for starters:

a) Please describe the "cop-killer" bullet controversy.

b) Please describe the "plastic gun" controversy.

c) Please define an "assault weapon" and how it differs from
   a semi-automatic firearm.

d) How are modern semi-automatics different than semi-automatics
   50 years ago ?

e) Describe the NRA's position on machine guns.

>>find it a bit strange that local and national police groups have been
>>finding themselves opposing some of the more bizarre NRA crusades

Surveys of street cops show that most street cops agree with the
NRA positions.  Chiefs of police are another story.  Their jobs often
depend on keeping anti-gun politicians happy.  Just look at Leroy
Martin of Chicago, what a bufoon.  He is so ignorant he thinks guns
can go off by themselves!

>>recently?  Don't you find their blatant vote-buying (or electoral
>>blackmail) a bit disturbing?

The only thing the NRA has going for it are it's members.  Money
certainly helps, but it's the vote that keeps the favored pol in
office and kicks out the disliked ones.

Try to keep an open mind, okay ?
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns