HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:25:17 GMT

In article <p59m-0j.garyd@netcom.com> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
}The Crisp-in-ator writes:
}If the country has a firm economic footing and feeling of relative
}contentment and equality, there will be no need for revolution that 
}requires guns.

I'll buy this, but if you think anything but a drastic reduction of statist
intervention into our economy will put us on this footing, such as neither
Bush or Clinton have the courage to propose, then you're laboring under a
misconception.

}Why were there riots in East LA and not in Westchester County, NY?

Because only LA had the gangs that did the rioting, which is ultimately
because of that other great prohibition besides the one on guns that's been
creeping up on us, the one on chemical stimulants like crack cocaine and other
drugs.  Repeal this, implement a school choice program, and replace zoning
with private deed restrictions, and East LA will improve economically pretty
damn quick.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: weikart@prl.dec.com (Chris Weikart)
Subject: Re: Naturalized Republicans
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:55:35 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Aug20133448@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
> 
>    In article <1992Aug20.124946.11141@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
>    |> While listening to the TV last night, one of the commentators mentioned how
>    |> Bill Bennett is a naturalized Republican, that is, originally a Democrat that
>    |> later became a Republican.  They went on to name a number of others:  Ronald
>    |> Reagan, Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson, ...
>   
>    |> Are there any naturalized Democrats?
> 
> Hillary Clinton?
> 
> (I heard she was a Goldwater supporter in the 60s)
> 
> *  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
> * steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	  *
> * But, oh, love is strange 					  *
> * and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
> * I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *
>   
>   
>   

I thought Hillary was 40 years old, or at any rate not more than 44. In which
case she would have been 12, not more than 16 years old in '64. A bit young to
be held responsable for one's political opinions, I'd think...

-Chris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Weikart <weikart@prl.dec.com> .............. DEC Paris Research Lab (PRL)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11040 talk.abortion:32608
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 20 Aug 1992 15:54:39 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <9xgywtl@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
|> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
|>
|> >I don't think so.  At least one voice of support of abortion rights
|> >has been heard from the podium.  By the time the convention is over,
|> >there will be several pro-choice speakers.  Whether they talk about 
|> >abortion, we'll have to wait and see.  Pro-choice Republicans are
|> >frequently sent to represent the party on pundit panel talk shows
|> >(Lynn Martin, Alan Simpson, Susan Molinari, etc.)  I can't think of
|> >any corresponding pro-life Democrats in high-profile roles at their
|> >convention.
|> 
|> We may be overlooking a key issue here.  Does anyone know of any 
|> polls of Democrats on the abortion issue?  If the anti-abortion
|> stance is a small minority within the party, it would be reasonable
|> to expect that they would not get a voice at the convention.  If
|> polls showed that, say, 5% of Republicans were members of the KKK,
|> would you attack the Republicans for not including a white supremacist
|> speaker?

I recall reading an article in the New Republic with some whining from
Fred Barnes (who is pro-life, conservative AND a senior editor of the
New Republic) about the fact that though fully 25% of the Democratic
Congressional membership are pro-life, the Dem. convention acted like
they never existed. He pointed out the exclusion of Bob Casey from the
speaker's podium and also mentioned that David Bonior (D-Michigan, who
is Democratic Whip, numero three in the House AND pro-life) had to promise
that he would simply vote his conscience on abortion-related issues and
NOT take part in the debates to get elected to his post. I also recall
reading in Judge Bork`s book, _The Tempting of America_ that there were
some Democratic Senators who told him that they would not vote for him
if they thought that he would NOT vote to overturn _Roe v. Wade_ (names
that I remember are Harry Reid of Nevada, Bennett Johnston of La. and
Dennis DeConcini of Az.). I am pretty sure that David Boren and Hollings
are probably pro-life as well (weren't they the only Democrats who voted
for Bork?).

|>                  -rocker
-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: joel@locus.com (Joel Lilienkamp)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:12:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.144328.6560@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>                      I *disfavor* the way the nuclear power
>industry has been needlessly strangled.

On the other hand, the nuclear industry has been handed liability
limitation on a silver platter.  If you favor market approaches,
let's remove these limits so that the nuclear industry has to
put up full liability insurance or bond obtained in a free market.
My guess is that will strangle the industry as well.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Clinton is an Economic Realist (NYT 8/4/92)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 11:13:50 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Aug12.174914.25279@kpc.com>, emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
|> In article <19205@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|> >
|> >} Right now, our budget deficit is essentially financing our trade deficit.
|> >
|> >The budget deficit came about by government's spending more than than the
|> >amount it took in.
|> >
|> >} That's not a good thing for the long term.
|> >
|> >The trade deficit isn't the problem.  I have personally built up a huge
|> >trade deficit with my local grocery store -- I have bought lots of things
|> >from them, but they haven't bought anything from me yet.  The nation's trade
|> >deficit was done basically the same way but on a larger scale, and it is
|> >just as meaningless.
|> 
|> 	This is a misleading analogy. Your trade deficit with your local
|> grocery store is offset by your trade surplus with your employer. If your
|> overall trade had a deficit over a long term, you'd be heading for bankrupcy.
|> The same holds true for a country. That's why there's concern over the 
|> trade deficit.
|> 

You have to remember that the 'trade' deficit is simply one component
of the total trade between countries.  It represents *merchandise*
only.  It ignores *capital* transactions.  For example, we may buy
lots of cars from Japan but they may by lots of investments in the
U.S.  They are both purchases, just different types.  Money goes to
Japan, money comes back to the U.S.  You need to look at the current
account to get a better feel for disparities.  A long run merchandise
trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:24:33 GMT

In article <jc4m6tc.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.045125.14178@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>Finally, there is the argument that's already been cited by others that,
>>if you earn more, you have more of a stake in supporting the structures
>>that allowed you to do so, and therefore you should pay more tax on that
>>additional income.  As an oversimplified example, if you don't earn much
>
>By golly, if I have to pay more, I want my vote to count more! It is only fair!
>
>Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.           crisp@netcom.com

Now we have an opportunity to look at Mr. Crisp in his true form!  Yes, it is
his gimme attitude which argues that he should be able to BUY votes.  
Mr. Crisp, I am very disheartened to hear this opinion expressed seriously in
the United State of America.  Of course, I guess that I shouldn't be 
surprised with your pro-big-business attitude.  Oh well, you clearly show
how tolerant America is!  Everyone gets their say, no matter how ludicrous...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 22 Aug 92 05:14:14 GMT
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access

In article <x0#np2a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <15CPBCR6@cc.swarthmore.edu> Glenn Stauffer <stauffer@cc.swarthmore.edu> writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.174246.26420@news.columbia.edu> Elizabeth G. Levy,
>>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu writes:

[much deleted on ways to reduce tax load]



>If you are really intersted in reducing the tax load on the poor, how about
>dismantling the FICA taxes? Fo the poor, these are the largest tax load
>they carry, and for the folks that make more than $55K and som change,
>it stops. In other words it is a regressive tax in all senses of the 
>definition.
>

Actually, I have to agree with you on this one, Richard.  The structuring of 
FICA taxes is insane.  The way I would index it would be to *eliminate* the tax
for people below the poverty line and set a flat tax for incomes up to 
$100K above the poverty line. This way, it doesn't hit anyone too hard, unless
you so happen to make an income at exactly the cutoff point.  One other place
that has to be fixed is the double tax that self-employed people have to pay.
This area is one of particular interest to me, and I am quite angry with 
*BOTH* presidential candidates for completely ignoring the issue.


>-- 
>Richard Crisp             Cupertino, Ca.           crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk  "I don't brake for Liberals"  (408) 253 4541 fax
>
>The richest 5% of the population paid 36.4% of the income taxes collected
>in 1980. By 1990 they were paying 42.9% of the income taxes. Furthermore
>they had an increase of 17.9% in dollars paid. The total tax base increased
>while inflation and interest rates decreased under this pro-growth taxation
>policy. The assertion that the rich got an unfair tax break by shifting the load
>from them to the poor is simply unsupported by fact. These figures came from
>the Wall Street Journal 8/5/92
>
>Two things in life are certain: Death and Taxes. With Death it doesn't
>get worse if the Democrats are elected.

The same can be said about the Republicans as well.  This mess we're in is
bipartisan.

Tom H.


-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10980 talk.abortion:32505
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Hostage Swap
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:17:06 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:

> Pro-choice Republicans are
> frequently sent to represent the party on pundit panel talk shows
> (Lynn Martin, Alan Simpson, Susan Molinari, etc.)  I can't think of
> any corresponding pro-life Democrats in high-profile roles at their
> convention.

I propose that the Democratic Party exchange its pro-lifers for the
pro-choice Republicans, as that is bound to significantly increase
the size of the Democratic Party.

John
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Republican Party Seized by Religious Right
Date: 19 Aug 1992 01:56:03 GMT
Organization: Radioactive Eft Smelters
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


When did the rabid religious right wing _become_ the Republican Party?
The folks at the convention are so bizarre that even Barry Goldwater
can't stomach them.

Don't forget to take your Dramamine before listening to Mrs. Dan Quayle
and Mrs. George Bush warm up the crowd for Pat Robertson tomorrow.
-------------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion.
    --Charlotte Bronte
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush shows his love for his children!
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:56:31 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Aug13.152926.15159@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( )
writes...
>>In article <23582@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>>mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
>>
>>> If it is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong.  If it is
>>> murder, then it is murder if his relatives do it.  The inconsistany
>>> demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the thinking.

>>No, it demonstrates that Bush is a loving parent who would
>>support his children and grandchildren no matter what they did.

>So if his granddaughter murdered young children, he'd support her?

I think I can help here.  Bush doesn't need to justify any of this
because he's a sincere hypocrite, a skill he learned from Ronnie;
as long as your sound sincere it doesn't matter what you do.
Besides, he's the prez man!  He and his can do whatever they want,
just ask Neal.

Marty L. Dart
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:12:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.002816.23884@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.205628.29187@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>Wanted: What are the true conservative positions on:
>There are different types, so I'll do the "Reagan"-type.
>Better yet, I'll do my own opinion:
>
>>1) Foreign Aid?
>Can be wasteful, but support if it serves the national interest.
>>     a) Economic	
>I do not support giving money to Governments for "economic development",
>since free enterprise is the best economic development plan devised,
>and this would only encourage more statist economic policies.
>>     b) Military
>Only to serve a valid strategic interest.
>>     c) Aiding insurgents/rebels
>With communism no longer a threat, probably no need for that.
>Better to support democracy through diplomatic and economic methods.
>
>>2) Immigration
>Generally favor open immigration.
>
Good idea!


>>3) Minimum Wage
>Oppose it since it destroys jobs.
>
>>4) Solution to "racism"
>Equality of opportunity and a color-blind society.
>Enforce EEOC laws.
>
>>5) the "Buy American" idea
>It's bogus. Support free trade as better for the economy and the country.
>
Yes, I dislike the Buy American idea.  Was this an idea by the Unions by
any chance?  (<== not a cynical comment)

>>6) Workers going to other countries to reduce labor costs and reduce
>>   cost per item.
>(see immigration :-) )
>I think you are talking about companies, though. If trade
>and immigration is open, we should realize that campanies too can
>go overseas. The solution is to maintain competitiveness at home,
>and not try to build walls of protectionism, which will only
>make the situation worse over the long run.
>
>NB: A Buchanan conservative might be different on 1,2 and 5.

Yes, that was going to be my next question.  I browsed through some of
Buchanan's positions and in my view, some of it seemed rather 
not conservative in terms of foreign aid, open immigration, and 
the "Buy American" idea.  Do true conservatives really support him on this?

What is a "Buchanan Conservative?"  Is Conservatism changing to
Buchanan's style?  Who are the American Politicians in favor of 
True Conservatism, not Buchanan's?
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (2)
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:38:48 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <9208192142.AA01294@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>****************************************************************** 
>Addenda:
>****************************************************************** 
>
>============================================================ 
>Medical costs as percentage of Gross Domestic Product: 
>
>                1980            1989            increase 
>
>U.S.:           9.2%            12%             + 30 percent 
>Canada:         7.4%            8.9%            + 20 percent 
>============================================================ 
>
>
>============================================================ 
>Percentage of premiums consumed by overhead: 
>
>Private Insurance Companies:              12% (overhead & profits) 
>
>Public payers (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid):   3% 
>
>Canadian provincial insurance plans:      under 1% 
>============================================================ 
>
>================================================== 
>Billing, administration, and insurance 
>overhead as percentage of total spending: 
>
>U.S.:           22% 
>Canada:         13.7% 
>U.K.            11.1% 
>================================================== 
>
Another relevent statistic:
===================================================
Percentage of residents who believe fundamental
change is needed in health care system:

U.S.:		67%
Canada:		 3%
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: School Choice
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 AUG 92 21:02:52 GMT

I'd appreciate it if someone would elaborate on this concept for me,
specifically, how a school is defined (and by whom) as being open or
closed to choice by those seeking education. I presume that in the
interests of the election, school choice refers mainly to pre-secondary
education. Are there many demographic considerations in this matter,
or is it much simpler than that?

Bart
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:55:39 GMT

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

>Let's throw this question out to the net.
>Where is the Laffer peak?

>My layman's guess would be, based on what I've seen and read,
>is that it is in the 30%-50% area.

>This is important, because if true, it would indicate that
>millions of Americans are on the revenue-and-growth-losing side of the
>Laffer curve, when their total marginal tax burden is considered.

the answer is....depends.
the more "loopholes" that are available, the lower the Laffer peak!!
back in the big tax shelter days before reagan, the Laffer peak was
probably around 40%-50%.  In a situation without loopholes (shelters),
the Laffer peak is probably at least 70%, probably more!  NOTE:
govt. attempting to maximize revenue will decimate growth.  Also, 
a person must exceed a certain income threshold to be able to 
effectively shelter income.  Thus middle income folks have a 
different Laffer peak than the big bucks crowd.
--DonG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:28:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.201059.23168@noao.edu> lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>Let's
>face it - THE NETWORKS CAN SELECT ANY PRESIDENT THEY DESIRE -.
>Enough of the voting public will support the media choice, that    
>thinking voters will not make a substantial difference.  Hell, they
>could probably get Charley Manson elected.

Well, if he ran on a pro life/pro 2nd Amendment/pro death penalty/no new taxes
platform and picked a politically experienced running mate (Lyndon LaRouche?),
why not?

Matthias

BTW, is Manson out already?

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
  "Rock and Roll adolescent hoodlums storm the streets of all nations."
                            -- William Burroughs, _The Naked Lunch_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Quayle's finances (was: Clinton's bravery)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:41:23 GMT


In article <1992Aug13.112903.9719@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) said:

> This whole story was yet another in a long string of stories in 1988
> that the media more or less "made up" concerning Quayle.  The other
> big story is that he is worth $600 million.  This is also not true.
> In 1988, he was worth less than $1 million and probably the third
> wealthiest of the four running for President with virtually no
> inheritance in his future.

I'm willing to believe this, if only because real life is full of
unexpected little stranger-than-fiction elements, but I'm curious as
to _why_ this is -- after all, Dan Quayle is the scion of a family
that appears to be very rich (what with owning several newspapers,
etc.), so why wasn't _he_ very rich as well in '88?  And why was/is
there "virtually no inheritance in his future?"

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections