HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djt2445@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Albert Gore (was Re: Convention Speech anyone?)
Reply-To: djt2445@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:31:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.063012.21767@midway.uchicago.edu>, mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.055429.8358@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.234358.10603@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>And given that Gore is really Clark Kent in disguise, he wouldn't
>>>have to worry about further assassination attempts.
>
>>Not to mention the simply unbeatable, at the ballot box or on
>>the street, tactic of the President of the USA himself installing
>>a phone booth in the Oval Office so that he can change in a flash
>>and fly out the window to safe his country. _Nothing_ can beat that.
>
>Ah hah!  But, of course, he can't be Vice President, because he's not
>qualified for the Presidency!  After all, the President has to be a
>"natural born" US citizen, and Kal-El is the child of foreign parents
>born on foreign territory (the planet Krypton).  Someone should really

Actually, Kal-el IS qualified :). He was gestated in a gestation chamber, 
which did NOT open until he was on American soil. So he WAS born on 
American soil. (Funny thing, last year's Annual had Superman running
for president, and someone brought up the fact Superman was an alien.)

>tell the Democrats about this before someone else breaks the scandal,
>so they have a chance to do some damage control.  Maybe they can keep
>him in the cabinet-- have him replace the entire Defense Department,
>or some such.  ("My plan for reducing the deficit is to replace our
>land, sea, and air forces with my former running mate, Senator Albert
>Gore.  Given that he can fly, see across continents and through walls,
>travel faster than light and shrug off nuclear blasts, no nation in
>the world will dare attack us, and I'll save us more than $200
>billion.  Let George Bush try to top _that_!")
>
>Mike
>-- 
I'd rather see someone say "Money", and presto, Captain Economy!

>Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Workers of the world, forgive me.
>mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 You had more to lose than I thought."
>mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Karl Marx (1990) as imagined by
>mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Jim Koncz (konc@midway.uchicago.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:973 talk.politics.guns:18171 talk.abortion:29364
From: jacksonk@fs4.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Voter Registration (WAS: George Bush opposes democracy.)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:14:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.000551.23131@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.201815.16435@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>>Why aren't people registered?

>I suspect a major reason, especially for the self-employed (such
>as farmers), is the increased risk of jury duty. And, no, I don't
>have any evidence.

Wait a minute, I thought this was true, too.  That was until my broth-
er,  who  did  not  register  to vote in order to avoid jury duty, was
called up for jury duty.  Could this perhaps be a regional thing, i.e.
certain  states/cities  select  potential  jury persons from different
groups, not necessarily registered voters?  Or is there some law which
prohibits a non-registered person from being called up?

>Although I would like to see a greater voter turnout, I doubt this
>would change the election results very much; many people are apathetic,
>not because they're cynical, but because they're satisfied.

Satisfied!?  I take it these are  people  who  don't  watch  the  news
("It's too depressing") and don't know what a miserable bum Bush is --
or for that matter Clinton.  Maybe if more people got involved,  espe-
cially  in the primaries, we could have a better pick of candidates --
then again, we have to select from politicians, so it  can't  be  that
great.
-- 
	    ^  >							
	    O o							\_O	
	   >=-=<    	Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O	
	     U							_/ \_	
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
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 17:41:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.164106.29920@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jobo@jobo.austin.ibm.com (Joe Bowen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.014557.23458@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>>And you get more dead wives.  Even the gun controllers acknowledge
>>that strict gun control, if it would affect dosmestic violence at
>>all, would reduce the number of murderous husbands being justifiably
>>killed at the expense of greater wife fatalities.
>
>The actual statistics show a handgun in the home is most likely used 
>against the occupants by an intruder.

No, they don't.  The only thing like that they show is that some
people who own guns will use them for suicide while people who don't
own guns use other things.  (Guns are about as lethal as other
"serious" means.)  Suicides are more common than killing intruders,
but few successful with-gun self-defenses involve shooting, let alone
killing.

>The usage of a family member against another in defence is quite low.

Nope; not close.

References for the facts I've summarized have been posted recently.
Feel free to provide references for any counter arguments.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:706 alt.politics.elections:9133
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:58:25 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

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?
>
>*******************************************************
>* 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 *
>*******************************************************

$1,000 is not going to help the poor have better access to better
schools.  Private education does not cost on $1,000.  Nor can we 
say that private schools are going to accept all these poor
students.  The voucerh plan is rubbish -- it is a smokescrren
be Goerge to pretend he isdoing something about education.
He is abdicating the govt responsibility to educate.  Why not
fully fund Head Start -- sounds better to me, start the education
process when they are young.  

George just wants to pretend the govt cant educated its
children.  The voucher program is patheti
attempt by him to pretend he is an education president.
He is a anti-education president.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:25:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.165738.25577@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
}...
}The ability to afford a higher tax rate doesn't justify it, doesn't make it right. 

Does so.

}By the same logic, people who rob the wealthy ought to get reduced sentences. ...

Yes, they ought.  Robbing a wealthy person harms him less than robbing
a poor person.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:29:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.185001.29302@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul24.164004.19295@adobe.com>, 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.
>> 
>The scenario is unlikely since Reagan/Bush have recently overhauled most
>of the court with relatively young people.  

Well, right off hand I can think of one octogenerian, H. Blackmun (sp?)
who ought to be retiring real soon now.  If memory serves me,
Reagan/Bush have installed four justices of the nine (in)justices.
I don't recall for sure.

>We are likely 2 or 3
>Presidents down the road before a significant directional change can
>again be made in the court.

What do you define as "significant"?  Most recent, precident-setting
cases have been decided by margins of 5-4 or 6-3.  One or two votes
are quite significant, IMO.

>
>
>
>The RKBA battle isn't in the Presidency this year anyway.  The battle is
>in the Congress.  The congressional leaders of the gun control movement
>are nearly all retiring or facing tough battles.  Gun owners can help
>behead the beast, taking the matter out of the President's hands.  There

True if you mean that the RKBA is an issue more in the congressional
elections than the presidental.  However, remember that the 2nd
ammendment can, at almost any time, become a SC issue!

>are political races where I would vote libertarian unless a
>pro-gun/anti-gun race between Republicans and Democrats was very close at
>the polls.  I'd probably then grit my teeth and make a short-term "lesser
>of the evils" decision.  I did that with Bush in '88 and lived to regret
>it.  So this time, it's Andre Marrou and Bush/Clinton be damned.

OK, but please don't place too much faith in polls. 


			       Dave Schabel



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: pds@analog.ingr.com (Peter Schachte)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: DAZIX, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:08:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.182253.13479@midway.uchicago.edu>, shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
> One last point.  Tax evasion is illegal.  Tax avoidance is not.  While I
> don't agree with the logic behind every so called "loophole," they were
> ostensebly created to encourage certain types of economic activity.

Do you really believe that?  Many of the loopholes were created because
someone bought them -- by giving money to congresscritters to get them
reelected.  A few loopholes are genuinely popular, like mortgage
interest, state taxes, etc.  But there are an awful lot that few
people, mostly wealthy people, benefit from.

> If you want everyone to be taxed fairly, let's decide on a reasonable rate
> (say 10% -- I know it's arbitrary, but what are you going to do?) and
> have everyone pay it regardless of income -- no loopholes.

But someone making $5000 per year can't afford to give the government
$500 of it.  And someone making $500,000 per year can certainly afford
to part with more than $50,000 of it.  That's the theory of progressive
taxation, not to punish anyone.  I'm sure everyone in government would
be overjoyed to find another way to fund government; they don't collect
money to hurt people.

-- 
-Peter Schachte
pschachte@analog.ingr.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:872 talk.politics.misc:36145
From: sdbst5+@pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:08:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <c7fm8bd.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>>[]
>>Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
>>its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
>>operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
>>manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.
>>
>>Thanks, George.
>>-- 
>Thanks, Congress for:
>Minimum wage legislation
>
>Thanks Unions:
>for pricing labor higher than the prevailing global rate.
>
>-- 
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
>
If you saw C-Span this weekend you would realize that it is neither the
unions nor the mininum wage restrictions that made Smith-Corona's continued
operation in the United States impossible.  It was the Executive's failure
to take action against practices by foreign firms (operating here) that 
were very clearly illegal according to U.S. law.  At least the President
of the company testified to that effect last Thursday at a Senate Subcommittee
Hearing on U.S. competitiveness.  If you want to know more please either: 
1) contact the company; 2) call C-Span to see if they plan to rebroadcast;
or 3) wait until a transcript of the hearing becomes available.  You can do
all three if you like.  Many other interesting people testified including 
Craig Fields and Pat Choate.

Steven Brener
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:36:41 GMT

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?

    Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:11:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.203500.21908@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>>
>>5) He's just a Tax & Spend Liberal.  Ho ho ho, the Republicans have
>>already started in on this one, unbelievable though it seems.  This
>>one still qualifies as a character issue, because Bush transformed the
>>"L-word" from a philosophy into a label.  I'll take the 3 pieces
>>separately:
>>
>Taxes are, after all, the best mechanism the Democrats can use to punish
>people who have achieved in the name of social engineering.  
>
>Democrats prefer the equality of slavery to the inequality of freedom.
>They presuppose that man can be equal when it is obvious that we are not
>either mentally or physically.  They are happy to take the property of 
>the rich but would they, in the name of equality, be willing to put lead
>weights on Michael Jordan's legs so that I could have an equal opportunity
>to play in the NBA?  NO - they are hypocrites, only fighting for equality
>on the surface while hoping inside to cripple the achievers.

Pfft.  For my part I don't believe that people of equal abilities
should be constrained by the environment they're brought up in.  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.  Consider education, which I think we all agree is
important to economic success.  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?  Do they wealthy have to worry about
their health, about where they'll get their next meal?  It is NOT
about income redistribution, not in this day and age, after we've seen
the failure and successes of the Great Society.  It is about providing
equal opportunity early in life.




Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:391 talk.politics.guns:17784
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Democratic platform explicitly demonstrates hypocrisy!
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:31:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

the Democratic platform recognizes that a woman should have a right
to have an abortion if she so desires (a good idea, btw). Implicit
in the rhetoric is that if the abortions are not legally available
they will still be done but in unsanitary uncontrolled surroundings
(such as the classic back alley with a coathanger) and are therefore
likely to be dangerous to the life of the woman.

At the same time the democrats want to pull guns (particularily the
assault rifles) off the store shelves thinking that somehow this
will stop violent crime. 

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
naively think that banning assault rifles will somehow make them
go away. There you have it, the demos selling out to the fringe,
being hypocritical and hoping no-one will notice it.

Followups to alt.politics.clinton please!
-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty:
The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:349 alt.politics.elections:8938
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:07:36 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul23.144423.55982@cs.cmu.edu> dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:
]Second: For the sake of argument, let us assume that the "pro-choice"
]position is correct and a woman has a right to a safe abortion.  (Please
]no flames on this, I am using it to prove a point.)  
]Then whether or not the '"pro-choice" crowd' is in the majority is
]an unimportant issue.  If it is a right then the majority may NOT take
]away the right.  This is the point of the American constitution.  The 
]rights of all people (even minorities) MUST be protected.  

Yes, this is true. It still doesn't address the fear that the pro-choice
people have of the local political process.


-- 
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 of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:962 sci.econ:6594
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:26:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Jul28.182605.10699
Organization: Western Washington University

13r43@math.ucrf.edu writes:

>.scarolina.edu> hellmann@cs.scarolina.edu  
>(Douglas R Hellmann) writes:
>> Maybe there could be two minimum wages?  One for these kids that don't
>> have real skill or experience, and one for the people that need the
>> money and are somewhat skilled and experienced?

>Isn't there already a "sub-minimum wage" for eg teenagers who work in McD's ?
>(I don't know but I seem to vaguely recall this, at least in one or two 
>states where the regular mininum wage is higher than the federal minimum)

There are different minimum wages:

The federal minimum wage, which applies to interstate trade, ie those 
providing services or products which are intended to cross state lines.

The state minimum wage, which applies to those providing products or 
services that are not.

Farm minimum wages, which are exempt from minimums in many states
simply because the normal minimum would put many agricultural workers
out of work.

Some states may have training wages, teenage wages, or other exceptions
from their state wage price floors.

Jim Del Vecchio
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:190 alt.politics.elections:8815
From: fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:24:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis


Those are some interesting figures someone posted on income tax
distribution.  However, the proportion of taxes payed by the 
wealthy may be misleading.  Real dollar values would be more appropriate.
If the total revenue in real dollars paid by the wealthy is more than
that paid in 1977 (using a base year for inflation, of course) that
would be a real statistic.

In response to the gentlemen that says,"so what if income distribution
is skewed.  So what if the wealthy are more rich and the poor poorer"...
If I can remember my fundamental theorems of welfare economics and 
mathematical economics correctly, one of the fundamental welfare
economics theorems states that a market economy IS an efficient economy,
under certain initial distributions of wealth.  The gist I remember from 
these courses (above all the rigorous proofs) was that an efficient 
market economy MAY not be reached if the income distribution is too 
great.  

Any econ wizards out there who can comment?

-MeatHead One
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ