HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:46:22 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul24.153320.8026@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
]>Who cares if there is a freedom of choice act?
]
]Yes why not let the people of Utah make up their own minds. As you say
]that is the advantage of a Republic.
]
]In fact why not go one step further. Why not let each woman make up her
]own mind? That is the advantage of a Constitution that limits the powers
]of government? Or do you ingore the warning of de Toqueville about the
]tryanny of the majority?

I should point out that the issue is not that simple. As I have said before,
the only serious issue here is when the right of the fetus to life exceeds
the right of the woman to her own medical decisions. The purpose of the
government is to protect the civil rights of people, and as soon as
the fetus is a "person", that fetus needs its right to life protected.
Any discussion of "the woman's choice" that ignores this issue is
specious. Now, while I hold to the view I just espoused, that doesn't
mean that I believe the fetus becomes a person at any particular
point. It is simply to point out that the issue of rights has
two sides - the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus.
As soon as you accept that at some age (or developmental stage), the fetus
has rights, then you must also accept not only the ability, but the NECESSITY
of government protection of those rights.


-- 
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
- - "May you have the wealth of a Republican, and the sexual prowess - -
- -  of a Democrat." - Johnny Carson's joke writers
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:328 talk.politics.misc:35353
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:52:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

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

To say that Bill Clinton's alleged successes as Governor of Arkansas
qualify him to be President of the US is like saying the shoeshine
stand operator in the airport is qualified to be CEO of IBM.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:26:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul22.152744.2023@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:

>Also, General Motors is reportedly planning to open a factory in
>Spain, one of the cheapest European labor markets.  It's not
>necessarily Bush's fault entirely, but it couldn't hurt
>to continue to blame him.  Hey, it makes more sense than talking
>about less relevant issues!

   The GM plant in Spain will make cars for the European market.  
   US GM plants mainly make cars for the North American market.  
   So the Spanish plant will not be "taking away" jobs from US
   workers even though GM is conducting layoffs here, even while
   they hire in Spain.    A better illustration of wage-related
   job loss (but not for us, heh-heh) was BMW's decsion to begin
   production of BMW's in the US, while announcing (small) lay-
   offs in Germany.   In this case they actually said that wages
   were a factor (German workers are nearly the most expensive in
   the world) and formerly all BMW's bought in the US were made
   in Germany.


---peter

   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:351 alt.politics.elections:8940
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:33:58 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1682CC284.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>
>>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.
>**********************
>Right...Say, I've got a nice bridge for sale...and with practice anybody can be
>a Michael Jordan!  Such naivete!!!

You mean I can't Be Like Mike????????????  Goddamn, anyone out there
wanna buy a used basketball and Nikes?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor
From: sybesmer@uther.calvin.edu (Eric W Sybesma)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:59:24 GMT

lchsu@cayley.waterloo.edu (Leon C. Hsu) writes:

>>Hence, gun laws are not going to make that much difference to
>>criminals anyway.  So what _good_ would a national gun law do to
>>prevent gun related crime, anyway?

>Yeah ... what good would a national gun law do to prevent gun
>related crime? I mean ... you gotta remember ...

>GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ... AMERICANS KILL PEOPLE!

>(ok ... so this is not  original ... I heard it from some 
>comedian ... actually it may even have been my brother.)

Jake Johansen (spelling?), one of my favorites, once said:

GUNS DON't KILL......  It's those darn Bullets!!
Granted, guns make the bullets go very, very fast.
I mean, it's not like someone is going to walk
into a 7-11 and say to the clerk:
"ALL RIGHT, GIVE ME ALL THE MONEY IN THE CASH REGISTER
 OR I'M GOING TO PUSH THESE BULLETS INTO YOUR BRAIN!!"

			Eric Sybesma
			Calvin College

--
Home Address and Phone               Internet addresses  
Eric Sybesma   (616) 243-5913        School: sybesmer@uther.calvin.edu
514 E. Burton St.                    Work:  (E-mail only) (616) 241-7280
Grand Rapids  MI  49507                   sybesma@benzie.si.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:886 talk.abortion:29139
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:14:20 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = Kossack writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:

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

>	Waiting periods don't spot a damn thing.  Background checks, 
>   on the other hand, can help spot felons (who are ALREADY, by FEDERAL 
>   law, PROHIBITED from purchasing firearms.)  

I know this.  You're about 4 of my postings behind.  Catch up and get back to
me...

>- 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.

>	One might say that any woman so in a hurry to abort her child 
>   that she can't wait a week is EXACTLY the type of person one doesn't 
>   want aborting her child impulsively, on a whim.  

One might say it, but one would look pretty stupid.  ("Whim"? Ha ha!)

BTW, there's no child involved.  I guess that explains your confusion.

Again, could we argue one or the other?  Comparing abortion and gun control makes
no sense.  Of course, if everyone ELSE is enjoying this fine, rich discussion :^D,
*I* don't mind.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:581 alt.politics.elections:9059
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:33:05 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <crb2.711764025@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>
>The wonderful thing about the system in which we live (under GB) is that
>theoretically anyone has a chance to bust into that upper 1%, but I 
>maintain that if the insintive is taken away (ie..I can live as good
>if I make $24k as if I make $60k) then people will adopt the attitude
>of 'why bother..'.  If you don't think human nature allows that, just
>look at the people that make welfare a career  (understandibly so, if
>getting a job at minimum wage makes you $600/month and welfare will
>pay you 2/3 of that for sitting on the porch..I wouldn't bother either..)
>
>Chad
>
Chad makes a good point, and it seems that Clinton, if elected, will attempt
(which means the magnents will be sucking him away) to alter the welfare
system.  Hopefully he will introduce workfare systems.  But I have my doubts
that he will stand his ground and really fight for this reform.  

*******************************************************
* 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,alt.politics.elections
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:41:53 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

>Oh give me a fucking break.  As if the Founding Fathers knew
>anything about *six-guns*, much less Uzis and rocket-launchers
>and personal nuclear devices.  To claim that their 1789 view of
>"arms" and "people" have any conceivable relevance to the social
>conditions we live in, and the weapons of mass destruction that
>are tearing our society apart today is truly to live in a "flim
>flam reality".  The tragedy is that your obsessive ranting is
>actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers.

The Founding Fathers knew nothing of modern printing presses,
radio, TV, and other forms of electronic communication, and yet
the First Amendment has been applied to these media as well
as printed text.  Besides, flintlocks are just as deadly
as modern arms, just a bit slower to reload.  For the
record, plans for a Gatling gun HAD been drafted by a fellow
in England prior to the Revolutionary War, so it's reasonable
to expect that the Framers knew what they were saying when
they wrote that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms."
Indeed, many private citizens owned CANNONS in colonial days,
quite a bit more powerful than a .44 Magnum.

Just because you choose to ignore a part of the Constitution
today doesn't mean it ceases to be the supreme law of the land.
Until repealed, the Second stands as an absolute bar against
all government infringement of the right to keep and bear militia
arms.  Do you think Thomas Jefferson or Franklin, themselves
inventors, could not imagine what scientific advances might
take place in the field of arms?  They were smart men and knew
that advances *would* take place--that's why a "patent" system
was built into the Constitution--to further "scientific progress."


  "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." --Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:57:32 GMT

In article <=hjm8zn.jimb47@netcom.com> jimb47@netcom.com (Jim Budler) 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.

This is false.  Lexmark, an independant company which was formerly
the Typewriter division of IBM, manufactures typewriters in Kentucky.
It is a fully competitive maker of typewriters and other office equipment.
Check out p 57 of the Aug 3 Forbes for an ad by them.

It is instructive to note the difference between strategy.  Smith-Corona
tries protectionism to protect their market share, and fails.
Then they run off to Mexico.  IBM/Lexmark use product and process
innovation to make their products better and cheaper to make.
They appear to be having some success, and are keeping jobs in America.

>>Thanks, George.

Yeah, thanks for the 30% increase in exports, the closing of
the trade gap, and the increased competitiveness of many American
companies and industries.   :-)

>>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
>
>Who uses a typewriter anymore?
>
>Why blame George?

To make Bush the scapegoat of all that is wrong with the country,
even to the point of blaming him for events that did not take place.

>When I entered my current employ about two years ago, they had 4
>typewriters in place. All manufactured 20 years ago. Not counting the 10
>spare typewriters out in storage.
>
>Today, there is one, in shipping for typing multipart forms for some
>shipping companies who don't yet accept computer generated forms.
>
>Why blame George?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:41:22 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>A better illustration of wage-related job loss (but not for us,
>heh-heh) was BMW's decsion to begin production of BMW's in the US,
>while announcing (small) lay-offs in Germany.  In this case they
>actually said that wages were a factor (German workers are nearly 
>the most expensive in the world) and formerly all BMW's bought in 
>the US were made in Germany.


As you pointed out with GM's Spanish production for the European
domestic market, BMW's move was primarily to qualify for domestic
content in the United States.  This may be due in part to recent
American trade harassment of Japanese cars made in Canada which
technically fell under the Auto Pact, revised under the existing
US-Canada Free Trade Agreement.  Canada is pushing this all the way 
to the binational FTA panel (where it has batted 1.000 so far) after
trying intermediate steps to help Mulroney's friend, George Bush -- 
it didn't work, so it's being moved up to the big guns after all.

In the duration the Japanese companies have been losing megabucks with
cars unable to cross and employees down in *Pennsylvania* where these
"Japanese" engines are made have been furloughed.  If this harassment
even in light of an FTA was meant to scare foreigners into investing
in America, it has in part convinced BMW (who aren't as popular up
north anyways).

The big reason for BMW's statement on German workers' wages is that a
number of major private sector companies have contract negotiations
coming up.  For their productivity, Germans are underpaid compared to
other westerners.  [My source is a German-American Chamber of Commerce
insider ... my future father-in-law! (-;]

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:45:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
>>before a woman could get an abortion?

>Apples and oranges being compared - and you know it full well, Ngai.

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

No, they don't.  Anyone wanting a firearm for an illegal purpose is not 
going to purchase it through legal channels, nor sit our the waiting 
period.  Waiting periods are ONLY useful as a harassment tool for law-
abiding gun owners.

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

You are in error here.  There are thousands of people who shoot on a 
competiative level who would be up a creek if thier firearm malfunctioned on 
the day before the match.

So would the woman who started getting death threats from her abusive ex-
spouse.

So was the entire city of Los Angeles while the police stood by and let 
chaos reign.

There are plenty of reasons why one might need to purchase a gun today that 
have nothing to do with crime.

>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?

This makes as much sense a waiting period on guns.

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

You might say the same for a waiting period on guns.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:564 alt.politics.elections:9052
From: lchsu@cayley.waterloo.edu (Leon C. Hsu)
Subject: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.003714.29788@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>	Perhaps there _is_ no easy answer.  But do you think that
>criminals will have more trouble smuggling in illegal guns than they
>do smuggling in illegal drugs?  The guns used in gang warfare are
>already illegal, after all.  The US has very long, very open borders
>which we don't have the personnel or the inclination to seal off.
>Hence, gun laws are not going to make that much difference to
>criminals anyway.  So what _good_ would a national gun law do to
>prevent gun related crime, anyway?

Yeah ... what good would a national gun law do to prevent gun
related crime? I mean ... you gotta remember ...

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ... AMERICANS KILL PEOPLE!

(ok ... so this is not  original ... I heard it from some 
comedian ... actually it may even have been my brother.)

flame on!

-leon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:30:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.051939.726@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <14i19sINNamp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.095705.21029@imag.fr> turk@imag.fr (Matthew Turk) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>>>>[...]
>>>>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people:
>>>
>>>Can you back this figure up with a reference?  Sounds like folklore to
>>>me.
>>>
>>>	Matthew Turk
>>
>>
>>Go to a library and find out...
>>
>>Within a margin of +-0.5% this figure is true...
>>
>>If you haven't been listening many people have been telling us of the
>>movement of wealth upwards to the wealthy.
>
>Sorry, but this doesn't seem to be the case.  Now, for the first time,
>the top 1% have more than the bottom 90% (NPR earlier this evening).
>Now, if we also buy that the top 1 % have 90% of everything, that says
>that the bottom 90% must also have something close to 90% of
>everything (since the two groups just crossed over each other).  Well,
>that's 180% of everything accounted for already, and we still have 9%
>of the population which has higher income than that bottom 90% that we
>haven't accounted for.
>
>The numbers just don't seem to jibe.  I think someone misheard the
>statement I heard on NPR earlier today.
>
>-- 
>"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.

 
   I think you have some very basic logic and math to learn. 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:47:42 GMT

> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>> = (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>> = ? (You'll have to ask Phil):

>>>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
>>>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons

>>It remains to be seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
>>platform above work.

>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
>before a woman could get an abortion?

Apples and oranges being compared - and you know it full well, Ngai.

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

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.

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?

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

>My opinions are my own.

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

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:915 alt.politics.bush:302 alt.politics.elections:9254
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:34:21 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Jul27.190231.28652@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>Really?  I'd like to see everybody voting.  
>>
>>    - Dave Borden
>>      borden@m5.harvard.edu
>
>Does this include children?
>

Does Quayle count?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:162 alt.politics.elections:8775