HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwalker@wc.novell.com (Mel Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:53:01 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc. - Walnut Creek

In article <14i2g8INNapk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.184519.14982@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.174022.23688@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, harlan@sulu.lerc.nasa.gov (Harlan Harris) writes:
>>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>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.
>
>
>So step right you sonny and get your share of the infinite pie... yep yep,
>Just lots of ol' hard work and Whooooooaaaaaa --> 'luck', well shit nobody
>told me that this was a big Casino...  They just said "It's all out there
>Just waitin' for ya sonny, lots of hard work and toil", but nothing about
>luck- 
>
>
>>2) How would you redistribute? We are already taking 15 to 38% of everyones income
>>	via national income tax and close to 50% if you add state and local taxes.
>>	Do you really expect that people will continue to produce if more that half
>>	of their wealth is confiscated by the government?
>>
>
>Well let's turn our attention to that nasty old tax man, he's the one, and
>Bush and Reagan have told us for years... Yes chase them the taxers, get them
>lynch them... mean while back at the ranch-  looky its Ronnie and Georgie
>filling up the money bags for all their rich friends.
>
>
>>
>>
>>fred
>>
>
>Thanks Fred- ya cleared that one up.
>

Only to have you muddy the waters again. What exactly is your point? That rich
people don't pay taxes? That rich people are just lucky? That you envy the rich
folks?

Politics of Envy. Ya gotta love it, sonny.

--
Mel Walker                                        mwalker@optics.wc.novell.com
"I've arranged for you to donate $200,000 to the Opera....You'll be in Society.
Then you can marry me and they'll kick you out of Society. And all you'll have
lost will be $200,000." -- "A Night at the Opera"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Gun Rights Advocates (was Re: An invitation to explore the Libert...)
Organization: University of Rochester
	<nn8chq8@zola.esd.sgi.com> <1992Jul25.144014.10645@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:42:33

In article <1992Jul25.144014.10645@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>In article <nn8chq8@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul24.185001.29302@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com writes:
>>> Either way, we (gun owners) lose.
>>
>>I don't own a gun.  I never have, and I probably never will.  However, 
>>I definitely consider myself strongly on the supporting side of the 
>>right to keep and bear arms.  Maybe there is more careful wording 
>>than "gun owners" when refering to that kind of political support.
>>
>>thant

>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.

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.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				Robotics Applications Development
					Boeing Aerospace Operations
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Kennedy Space Center
_______________________________________________________________________________

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:740 talk.politics.guns:17966 talk.abortion:28885
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:41:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Since this discussion is straying, and I am concerned with t.p.g, I am
directing followups there.

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. 

You know full well, if you have paid a hairs-breadth of attention to this
group for even a short time, that none of the proposed waiting period
legislation (i.e., the Brady Bill) requires a background check, and the
NRA has supported a bill to do an *instant* background check (i.e., the
Staggers Bill).  This reason for a waiting period is pure fiction.

>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.

Why don't you go out to L.A. and tell that to a few people whose homes
were torched and businesses ransacked?  Tell that to the woman who had
to buy a gun illegally because of a waiting period, even though the gun
saved her life only five hours later.  It isn't up to YOU or anyone else
to decide when another individual should be ALLOWED to purchase a gun.
Whose the control freak now, pal? (see your comment below)

>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
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants an
>abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?

Forcing a law-abiding citizen to wait seven days to purchase a gun makes
zero sense as well; if you believe such a waiting period is legitimate,
back it up with some real reasons.  Until you can, don't go claiming that
they are "reasonable" for guns, but not for abortions.  *Law-abiding*
citizens have done no wrong and are doing no wrong; who knows better than
they if they want a gun?  Or a pocketknife?  Or a baseball bat?  

>Maybe you could clarify this left-field comparison of yours.

Maybe you could provide some *real* distinction between the issues.  RKBA
is most definitely a right guaranteed by the Constitution.  Whether or not
abortion is also protected by the Constitution is a matter of serious debate
(for another newsgroup; I am keeping the firearms section in t.p.g).


Mike Ruff
U.T. Austin


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:720 alt.politics.perot:1077 alt.politics.marrou:177 talk.politics.guns:17948
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:56:50 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Jul24.185001.29302@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com writes:

[...]

> Assuming Clinton wins, we know what he will try to do.  If Bush wins,
> he'll just use gun control as something to trade with Congress to get his
> other programs enacted.
> 
> Either way, we (gun owners) lose.

I don't own a gun.  I never have, and I probably never will.  However, 
I definitely consider myself strongly on the supporting side of the 
right to keep and bear arms.  Maybe there is more careful wording 
than "gun owners" when refering to that kind of political support.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:05:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.162541.19743@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>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

This is a little high. I don't think you'll find many strong pro-choice
people that would favor no restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions. I'm
sure these people do exist, but not as high as 30%. Maybe if you say
"absolutely no restrictions on 1st and 2nd trimester abortions" you
would be correct. After all, the extreme pro-choice people had no
trouble with Roe v. Wade and that allowed 3rd trimester abortions to be 
prohibited except to save the mother's life.

>  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.

Well, the SC struck down the spousal notification, and I think the
24 hour waiting period should have been struck down as well. If a
woman is poor and must travel a long distance to get to a clinic
this waiting period may make impossible to get an abortion there. 
They can't afford a hotel and can't afford more than one trip...
Counselling on alternatives to abortion I have no problem with.
Parental notification - well, there is parental notification if a 
tooth is pulled, so I guess that could be tolerated. I understand
why people want the waiting period. They want the woman to get some
counselling, then have some time to think. This is fine, but the
waiting period should maybe be shorter, like a few hours, so the
problem above doesn't happen. 

This is a tough problem, and the solution is a long way away...

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:968 talk.politics.guns:18166 talk.abortion:29353
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:49:10 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY


  If the waiting period was intended to reduce crime there wouldn't be
one in those states in which you have firearms ID cards. If someone
waits for 3-12 months to get the card and is still bent on a crime, will
another few days change anything? And if someone is so angry that they
are willing to kill and they already have a gun, will they really go buy
a new gun to do the crime?

  We have laws against drugs, and you can buy them anywhere. Of course
people with cancer can't get pain killers or canabis, but people who
want to get high can. The only people who will be prevented from getting
a gun quickly are the ones who have a good valid legal reason. The guy
who needs to replace a gun for a hunting trip or target shooting, the
person threatened by drug dealers in the building, they will go without.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
	It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise rational people, able to
	understand calculus, compound interest, and the income tax form, can
	continue to believe that poker is a game of chance.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Rights Advocates (was Re: An invitation to explore the Libert...)
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:01:32 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <allen.712122672@pv031e.vincent.iastate.edu> allen@iastate.edu (Kenneth R Allen) writes:
>And if you did own guns it may not be a good idea to admit it here.  It is
>known the the FBI recieves a full feed of network news and widely assumed
>that they moniter the "subversive" groups (alt.drugs, alt.sex.bondage,
>alt.politics.marrou, etc.) and while any given federal agency usually can't
>find its records, I bet admitting you have a gun here will get a mark on
>your file somewhere in Washington for when the Police State of America
>really starts to roll.  As a matter of fact, I probably just earned 
>myself (another) one with this article.


Well, I'm sure they won't come visiting.  The howizter is enough to
knock out a helicopter and the car is rigged with a couple of shotguns
behind the wheel-wells.

I thought that making my own bullets at home would be great and I came
across a crate of steel ball bearings.  Coat the larger ones with lead
and PRESTO! instant armor piercing for most vests from a shotgun.

The more stories the merrier.

-- 
************************************************************************
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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:43:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.201815.16435@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>
>Remember that old cliche that government is for, by, and of the people? 
>From this it follows
>that a truly democratic government has every responsibility to make the
>voting procedure as
>accessible to everybody as it can.  As I see it, Congress tried very
>much to accept this
>responsibility by passing the motor-voter bill.
>
>The motor-voter bill would have required every state to allow voters to
>register to vote at the
>same time they get their driver's licenses.  This is a brilliant and
>simple idea that would
>ensure that EVERY AMERICAN HAS A VISIBLE, EASY WAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE. 
>This would have been
>the most healthy piece of legislation for U.S. democracy in years.  BUT
>GEORGE BUSH VETOED THE
>BILL!!!

Congress tried to usurp the perogatives of the States by telling them
how they had to register voters.  Any state that wants to can register
people to vote when they get a drivers license now.  This bill should
never have been proposed in the first place, and it should have been
vetoed since it was (although not for the lame reasons that GHWB
gave). 

Seems to me that Congress has a lot more important things to worry
about than how the states register people to vote for them.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.conspiracy
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Who benefitted when Carter was in the White House?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:56:35 GMT

In article <hfgmkn#.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>Ted Koppel. Nightline was started to monitor the status of the hostages
>in Iran. 
>
>Ronald Reagan. He was able to be elected in a terrific landslide because the
>American people simply had enough of the democrats in the white house!

I believe the election was actually fairly close until the final weeks
of the campaign.  Carter had a huge boost when the hostages were taken:
folks will rally around the flag.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:43:45 -0400 
From: "Donpaul C. Stephens" <ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: More from the Education President

In response to my post saying:
|> Yes, i'd call students a special interest if they want to get us to vote
|> for someone because we don't have to pay our fare share.  I don't like
|> getting a lot of tax taken out of my pay, but I'll pay the same tax
|> everyone else does that earns what i do.  I believe that we don't pay
|> Social Security taxes while in college, that helps the money go a little
|> further, but as for federal, state and local...why?

 eek@ocarina.mitre.org (Ericka Kammerer) wrote:

>	The problem in this case is that students are being taxed on
>money they never actually received.  If your employer is paying for
>your education (while you're working full-time usually), you never
>actually see that money, except that you get to go to school.  If
>you're taking two courses per semester year 'round at night at a
>relatively expensive school, this could easily add up to over
>$7000 in benefits.  You wouldn't have extra money withheld from
>your paycheck (unless you made arrangements for it) and when
>tax-time came around, you'd be hit with a a rather large amount
>owed to the government.  This can be especially traumatic for
>students who are working on their undergraduate degrees at night
>and are unlikely to be earning all that much money on their day
>jobs.
> 
>	I'm all for students paying their fair share of taxes on
>monies they actually earn (wages, assistantships, etc.) for the
>reasons you give above, but I draw the line at tuition-remission,
>fellowships, and employer assistance since the money never
>actually passes through the students' hands.  If I can pay for
>health care and child care expenses on a pre-tax basis, why can't
>I (or my employer, actually) pay for my education that way, too?
 
I apologize, the post to which i was referring made it seem that it was
monies actually earned that taxes wouldn't be paid on.  If someone is
getting tuition remission or a sholarship, i don't think they should be
taxed on that either.

Thank you for pointing out the line where this discussion came from.  I
did not keep a copy of the post to which i was responding to, else i
would pass this onto them.

Donpaul C. Stephens
"On my income tax 1040 it says 'Check this box if you are blind.'  I
wanted to put a check mark about three inches away." 
		--Tom Lehrer, lecturing in "The Nature of Math", 4/4/90

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:656 alt.politics.elections:9101
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:54:08 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

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?

*******************************************************
* 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 *
*******************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:55:30 GMT

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.

This is in the context of a girl wanting to get abortion and
minors requiring parental permission? You sound like a
control freak.

You would probably impose a background check on each and every
purchase of alcohol to determine if the buyer is a minor.

For that matter, why not a background check on car buyers?
Just to determine if they are old enough to drive, of course.
You know, it would be good to also check if they ever had driver
education or qualified to drive. I know there are these pieces
of paper called driver's licenses but there are so many
false ID's, you just can't be sure.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:50:37 GMT

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.

carol
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1000 talk.politics.guns:18213
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 29 Jul 92 03:32:29 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.

In article <1992Jul24.155824.4433@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>My concern is to stop, if not all, a big chunk of gun purchases by minors,
>criminals, etc.  If a background check can be performed in, say, 20 minutes,
>then to me that is a long enough wait.  If the technology's there in terms
>of quick access to up-to-date data, great.
>
>I'm unaware it is now.

Actually, you just assumed that it wasn't.  It's been years since I
got pulled over for a traffic violation, and the ticketing officer ran
such a check for kicks while I waited.  That's when I figured out that
checks didn't take much time, and this was confirmed by the US
Attorney General's study that found that the only useful records were
already on-line.

>All those that argue a criminal can purchase a gun on the streets if he
>really wants one, I say (1) a thorough background check is _still_ going 
>to stop minors

It can't have any effect on minors that existing federal law doesn't
already.  (Knowing the law is useful if you're going to criticize it.)

>and impulse-criminals,

If they existed that might be useful, but they don't.

>and (2) maybe gun manufacturers oughta get more responsible and
>manufacture only the amount of guns that they know will be purchased
>legally.

Actually, they do already.  Background checks can't affect that.
(Again, knowing the law is useful.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections