HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:09:04 GMT

In article <183136@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) 
writes:
>So how was the military coup of Gorbachev overthrown by an unarmed population.
>How did the British get booted out of India?

If a car if useful, then how did my Uncle Fred plant his garden without
a car?  Huh?  I guess that debunks your theory that cars are useful.
Moreover, I painted the house the other day without a car.  More evidence.
>
>Guns aren't the only means to overthrow dictators...you need a better
>argument.

You've got it wrong.

It's "Not all dictatorships must be overthrown by an armed citizenry,"
NOT ,"guns aren't the only means to overthrow dictators."

In other words, there ARE dictatorships which can only be overthrown by
an armed citizenry, but not all dictatorships are of this form.

>George Lambert

Living proof of the need for retro-active abortions.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2334 talk.politics.guns:19682
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:35:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <183142@pyramid.pyramid.com>, glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
> Hey, why stop there?  I'm not going to feel secure about a government
> takeover by the military until I and every durn gun owner has 30 megatons
> of H-bomb power to stop them damn pesky coups of the US Government.

Hey, George -- go ahead.  What's stopping you?  The law, the desire, or 
the money?  Certainly not the law -- if you had the money and the desire.
-- 

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:2411 tx.politics:4276
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:32:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>>Hey Bill, a lot of folks think it was the BORROW and SPEND Republicans
>>that got us into the present economic situation.  How about it?

>If increasing spending is our mistake,
>dump the big spenders:

....

>We need to dump the big-spending Democrat majority in Congress,
>and install a progressive pro-growth Republican majority.
>*Then* we will end the tax, borrow, and spend binge, and restore
>fiscal sanity to the Federal Government.

pat, i think you are about 55% correct.  but i don't exempt the
45% repubs in congress who are just as willing to "bring home
the bacon".  the politics of pork in the congress was/is a 
truly bipartisan effort.  

bring back jerry brown!!  the only candidate to actually take on
the hogs of DC and offer a true supply side economic policy.
--dg
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1857 talk.politics.misc:39452
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deja Vu All Over Again (Was: Clinton becomes vulnerable)
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:25:04 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug11.153520.28152@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:

>What is really sad about your oppinion is that you do not realize that 
>very little of the oil that we depend on (now or then) came (comes)
>from Kuwait.  The truth be known, we sent our (OUR) sons and daughters
>into danger and for some death or disfigurement largely for the benefit of 
>Germany and Japan.  Also, there is growing evidence that the Reagan/Bush
>administrations aided Iraq's efforts up until the war. 

>While there is nothing wrong with fighting over vital interests, there
>is something wrong with being the dogs of war for some other country.

>Just once I would like to see a well formed idea from Mr. Crisp

>tag@ecn.purdue.edu

What is really sad is the inability of some people to recognize even the
most basic of economic facts.

It is totally irrelevant whether or not the US purchased its oil directly
from Kuwait.

The fact is that if Germany and Japan were not able to buy oil from the
Kuwaiti's, then they would have had to buy there oil from somebody else.
Quite possibly the same people that we were currently buying from.

By decreasing the supply of oil, Saddam effected EVERYBODY who buys oil,
including the US.

Mr. Crisp's point was and is quite valid.  I for one would like to see
a well formed rebuttal from you.
-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2438 alt.politics.bush:2355 talk.politics.misc:41010
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 02:22:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug13.001849.23800@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.180605.9290@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:
>Was this in the Democratic platform?
>If not, can we assume Clinton is just blowing smoke on this?
>

Wait a minute, he can't be blowing smoke since he doesn't *inhale* :-)

(I couldn't resist)

-- 
Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.           crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk     "No more new laws"       (408) 253 4541 fax

We have entirely too much complexity in our laws, codes, and regulations.
Even the IRS cannot understand their own regulations. I propose that we
pass a constitutional amendment that requires two laws to be eliminated
for every new one that is passed. Ok guys, pass all the ones you want, 
but you better pick them carefully.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:25:35 GMT

In article <183136@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>Guns aren't the only means to overthrow dictators...you need a better 
>argument.

No one said that they were.  However, they are an effective method
and, for some dictators, there's no other way, short of waiting until
they've killed everyone.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: nope
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:21:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.221434.15779@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>In article <DLB.92Aug19102759@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>}In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>
>}lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>}...
>}   If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so
>}...
>}By all means, support this assertion too.
>
>You want proof that restricting supply doesn't increase prices?

No, he wants proof that making them illegal would increase the price.
It would be sufficient to show that banning would decrease the supply
available to criminals.  (It might decrease the total supply, but if
the demand among the law abiding goes down even more, the price to
criminals might well go DOWN.)

>} Guns are NOT more expensive
>}on the street in areas of strict gun control in the US (the only area
>}in which I am aware of studies being made). ...
>
>There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
>of.  Anyhow, we have free commerce among our states and cities, so
>this sort of comparison can't prove anything.

Hold it.  Interstate sales are banned, yet they happen.  We can ban
imports, but that doesn't mean that imports won't happen.  Do you
really want to assume that there'd be NO smuggling or illegal
manufacture?  We know approx how much drug smuggling capacity there
is.  If only a small fraction is diverted to gun smuggling, it will
only take a couple months to provide a new gun for every gun crime
committed in a year.

Demand creates supply.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2284 talk.politics.guns:19643
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:11:54 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1992Aug18.194045.16957@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <92231.032653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Norman St. John Polevaulter
><MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>> ...And I suppose all you conservatives will point your legally obtained
>> firearms at the tanks, fire them, watch the bullets bounce off, and then
>> be squished yourselves?
>
>Does one need to be a so called "conservative" to own firearms?

Nope, liberals own 'em too.  Don't get caught up in thinking there is one
and only one politically correct group that owns guns.  Like and dislike of
the things span party lines.
>
>> If you really take this "we have to be ready to fight off a military
>> takeover" argument seriously you have to argue for private posession of
>> everything up to and including fully armed jet fighters. Are you?
>
>Sure, why not?  Is there any reason law-abiding citizens should not be
>allowed to own such weapons?
>
Hey, why stop there?  I'm not going to feel secure about a government
takeover by the military until I and every durn gun owner has 30 megatons
of H-bomb power to stop them damn pesky coups of the US Government.

George Lambert
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1766 alt.politics.elections:10366
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:17:19 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:

>I must point out here that all these "excesses of the '80's" that it is
>fashionable to talk about - all of them were quite illegal, and would have
>been stopped if Congressmen hadn't been bribed to keep their mouths shut.

    What, no mention of the regulators who work for the EXECUTIVE branch?

    How is it that "bribes" (read: campaign contributions) to a few
congresspeople (bi-partisan, I might add)  effects illegal activities
in the executive branch? Wouldn't there also have to be corruption in 
the executive branch? Where was the CHIEF EXECUTIVE when all this corruption 
was going on?

    BTW, not all of the excesses were illegal.  Real estate speculation
is perfectly legal (except for the little detailed bits...), and was
probably the biggest excess in the '80s.

Tim Smith

P.S:
    Why is it that the Republican party always seems to have a three
to one advantage in campaign contributions?  Could it be because they
are the "party of fiscal responsibility," and the big money players
know it?  I love to hear republicans trying to paint the democrats as
corrupt influence pedalers... Do they ever take a CLOSE look at their
own party?  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2463 talk.politics.guns:19789
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:24:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>Hey Bill, a lot of folks think it was the BORROW and SPEND Republicans
>that got us into the present economic situation.  How about it?

There's plenty of fiscal irresponsibility to go around.
Noone has submitted any balanced budgets to congress lately.
But neither has the Democratic controlled Congress done anything to 
trim them or to stem the tide in Social spending.  

Medicaire has to go, except for the poor.
Social Security has to go, except for the poor.
Housing subsidies, (like the housing mortgage interest deduction,) has to
go, except for the poor.

Poor means poor.  Not middle class.  Poor means rice and beans and no heat
in the winter.  I'm sick and tired of spending my tax money on retired
guys with two boats and an RV.

My son is two years old and many thousands of dollars in debt, thanks to
uncle sam.  What a way to start your life.

This must stop.


Is Clinton gonna balance the budget?  Is Bush?

No.  We are.
-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
FICA is a massive wealth transfer from young middle class to old middle class.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Deja Vu All Over Again (Was: Clinton becomes vulnerable)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:56:00 GMT

In article <7103@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>
>By decreasing the supply of oil, Saddam effected EVERYBODY who buys oil,
>including the US.
>
>-- 
>--Mark
>

In this posting, and in at least one other, you have discussed how an oil-
recession can cost lives through unemployment and subsequent loss of health
care.  Most of the points are quite valid.  The general view which you seem
to be presenting is that such a recession may be caused by a disruption in
the oil supply and/or by the consequent rise in oil prices.

Would it not, therefore, make sense to think in terms of using oil, and other
forms of energy, more efficiently?  Just after the gulf war, Bush tried to
thrust a bill, on congress, which would have reduced funding for public 
transportation and diverted it towards building more roads for more cars.
His rather purile argument for passing it was: "if our boys can win the war
against Iraq in 100 hours why can't congress pass this bill in 100 days".
But surely it was a counterproductive bill.  Surely the move should be away
from the heavy reliance which this country has on private cars and towards
public transportation which is much more efficient and more environmentally
sound.  Bush blocked funding for development of the magnetrain, which was
invented in the US and subsequently developed (very successfully) in Japan.
It runs at an average speed of over 300 km/hour and at a cost of 1 cent
per passenger mile (as opposed to ~20c/passenger mile for private cars).
They would probably not be appropriate for rural areas but would be 
very appropriate for heavily built-up areas such as from Boston to Washington.
Given that 2/3 of our trade deficit is imported oil, this would seem to
make some sense.

Peter Lauren.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug17.211933.27226@gozer.mv.com> <183136@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:57:15 GMT

<In article <183136@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:

<So how was the military coup of Gorbachev overthrown by an unarmed population.
 
	Short answer: it wasn't. 
	Longer answer: enough of the Army took Gorbachov's side as to
	make the coup less likely to succeed, since no one wanted
	a civil war.

<How did the British get booted out of India?

	Short answer: they left.
	Longer answer: Ghandi wasn't the only person advocating
	a free India; many of the others were armed.

<Guns aren't the only means to overthrow dictators...

	Agreed. They do have a better track record than
	nonviolent protest.

<you need a better  argument.

	Disagree. The Constitution of the United States is
	my argument; it's the best there is.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2211 alt.politics.bush:2083 talk.politics.misc:40525
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:47:35 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
 <92234.071414DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <VBg-P=+@engin.umich.edu>

In article <VBg-P=+@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) says:
>
>In article <92234.071414DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>|>
>|> No, it's not.  Read what was written, "30% of the country isn't covered for
>|> all medical costs."  The past ten years have seen large increases in       d
>require
>|> co-payments, deductibles, reductions in benefit coverage.  Studies show
>that
>|> a large number of Americans (even more than 30%) would have their savings
>|> completely wiped out by a single serious episode of medical need.
>|>
>
>Which is an argument for people having some form of catestrophic health
>insurance rather than insurance which covers 'all medical costs'.  People
>wonder why insurance is so high.  Imagine how much auto insurance would
>cost if it covered fill ups, tune ups, oil changes, etc.  Insurance should
>be just that, insurance.  Minor medical procedures, check-ups, etc.,
>should be covered by the individual.  Doctors fees can be increased
>simply because the customer (patient) isn't paying the bills.  When
>you intervene in a market transaction so that the customer doesn't
>realize what the good or service he is buying costs, its not surprising
>that the market 'fails'.

Look again Sherlock.  Despite steady increases in the proportion of
the bill that the consumer pays over the last two decades, costs are
still rising at the same rates as before.




>|>
>|> I was without insurance one time for 3 months during a job change.  It
>|> completely changes your life-style.  Stopped playing racquetball becuase I
>|> couldn't afford it if I got hurt, not to mention the possibility of pre-
>|> existing conditions not being covered.  Used two forms of contraception,
>|> because there's no way we could afford to pay for a birth.
>|>
>
>Gee, personal responsibility.  What a concept.  Of course, judging by
>your comments you would prefer if someone subsidized your life-style.

No, I would, in fact, probably end up subsidizing other people in an
NHI system.  I currently am among the well-off who are subsidized, through
tax deductibility, by the less well-off.  NHI allows everyone to live
their life.  It has nothing to do with personal responsibility.

Dennis Shea
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Reply-To: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:51:34 GMT


In article <1992Aug17.230434.16228@cco.caltech.edu>, anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>Personally, I think that we should be a moral enough, amd compassionate
>enough country to make sure that 100% of our population can recieve
>basic health care. 30% without is astoundingly sad.

I'm sure a lot of people share your sentiment, however in this age of 
$400 billion deficits can you realistically come up with a way to pay for 
this?  Do you have a plan for implementing this without creating another
sweeping bureacracy?  

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Use of Putting People First (was Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd))
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:51:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.235026.2652@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> 
>>> "Putting People First" is the name of an organization that spends a
>>> lot of its time opposing animal rights folks.  This organization
>
>It show that Clinton doesn't respect other people's property when it
>comes to pushing his agenda.  Like his buddy Joe Biden, he steals his

The term "putting people first" has always been so ubiquitous that it is absurd to say that it is anyone's "property".  It's like saying that the term 
"After Christmas Sale" is the property of the store which first used it.

Peter Lauren

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2546 alt.politics.perot:1324 talk.politics.guns:19835
From: dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Effecting illegal gun supplies (Was Re: "Demo Gun Control")
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:51:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <7laf838@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <171eaqINNdv0@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>>
>>At issue is the price of guns on the black market. Making guns 
>>illegal (or restricting legal access to them) would certainly effect
>>the _legal_ market, but it isn't clear that they would have any
>>effect on illegal transactions. Further, it isn't clear that such laws
>>would effect the supply to the black market (thieft from police and
>>military, illegal manufacture and smuggling are major sources, all
>>of which would be uneffected by a gun ban.) 
>
>You say that a gun ban would fail to effect theft, illegal manufacturing, and
>smuggling of guns?  If a gun ban fails to cause gun smuggling, theft of guns
>from police and military, and illegal manufacture, that sounds to me like

Interesting interpretation of Frank's statement.  Since you're the one
who is apparently into grammar and spelling flames, I'll point out that
common English usage supports what I believe was Frank's intent.  To wit:
If a law won't affect supply to the black market, which is the primary
source of illegal firearms, then what is its utility?

>three more reasons to support it.  Because without a gun ban we certainly
>have all three problems already.  Oh, btw, there already is a legal gun
>market, so a gun ban can't *effect* it at all.

Gosh, how clever!  A grammar flame!  Must be sad to have nothing more
substantive to say.

>Graduates of the J. Danforthe Quayle Schoole of the Englishe Language can use
>their own dictionaries to find a clue.

The smokescreen continues...

>
>Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| "Where a man's mind is, there is his treasure."    - Clement of Alexandria |
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns