HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ross@BofA.COM (Ross Lefstin)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Supreme Court
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:35:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bank of America, Capital Products, RMTG #5906

I have seen a lot of talk about the supreme court.  The current justices and
(IMHO) their stand RELATIVE TO THE CURRENT COURT is as follows:

Blackmun - Liberal		(?)
White - Liberal			(Nixon?)
O'Connor - Moderate		(Reagan)
Souter - Moderate		(Bush)
Kennedy - Moderate		(Reagan?)
Thomas - Conservative		(Bush)
Scalia - Conservative		(Bush?)
Rehnquist - Conservative	(Reagan)
Stevens - Conservative		(?)

Of the nine, Blackmun for certain, and probably White as well, have been
holding on waiting for a Demo president, and will announce retirement soon.
I understand that Rehnquist and Stevens may retire soon (i.e. in Bill
Clinton's term) due to health reasons.  I saw a post about O'Connor
possibly retiring as well on ba.politics.  Is this right?
Clinton will probably get 3-5 Supreme Court appointments, so we will
see a definite liberal swing in the court over his term, and possibly
for quite some time if he appoints young justices.
I have heard that Derek Bell (ex-Harvard Law Professor who quit(?) over
the Anita Hill incident (I think this is right, but I may be confused))
is a front runner for either Attorney General or Supreme Court.  He may
get his choice.  Any other guesses?

	Rasta
-- 
 "The rich getting richer    \ /  Any resemblances between me and my employer
  The poor get the picture"  / \  are artifacts of observer dependent reality.
--------<  Midnight Oil  >-----------------------------------------------------
Rastasafarian - Servant of the Dark Tower     (415) 622 9543     ross@bofa.com
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Perot
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:29:17 GMT

haas@wam.umd.edu (The Future Mr. Graf) writes:

>>The first and major indication that Clinton is pissed off at Perot?
>>Notice that he NEVER mentioned Perot or the people who voted for him during
>>his victory speech.  This is definatly a sign.  
>>

I thought I remembered some acknowledgment in that speech.  I guess
my mind is weary from all those stumps.

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:262 talk.politics.misc:59340
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:36:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov9.233707.13713@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:

|>everyone blaming everyone else for everyting. In his entire term Bush
|>only had one, count it, ONE veto successfully overidden, and that was
|>during the campaign. I take that to mean that at least SOME of his
|>program, whatever it was, managed to get through.

Not a valid assumption.  All this proves is that he was able to block most
of congresses program.

|>	If this recession is anyone's fault it's everyones fault.

I agree with you.  But the previous post is probably more of the normal
over reaction that many Republicans have been conditioned into by constantly
being told that everything bad that has happened is Bush's fault.
They respond that congress is not blameless.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:18:59 GMT

In article <1dkinjINNfft@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>
>    The great majority of Clinton supporters, who presumably will now
>rush out and boost the economy with optimistic spending...
>
>     have no money.  They are largely made up ofthe lower class, 
>moneywise.  
>

This is incorrect. Clinton carried pluralities in all income groups except
the highest.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:43:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.060913.10011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>
>
>Like I said over there to those wankers in alt.politics.bush and alt.fan.rush-
>limbaugh, 'tain't nothin' like a little gloating.   HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
>Bush lost!!!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!
>
And when the economy sees unheard of lows as a result of Clinton's
policies, Republicans will take the Congress for the first time in 40
years and Jack Kemp will take the White House to begin another long
period of Republican administration, this time without that bothersome
Democrat Congress.

>
>Ta-ta for now,
>M

God bless,

Michael

(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)



-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 GO BLUE JAYS!!!   BEAT THE BRAVES!!!!
 ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:162 talk.politics.misc:58976
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 8 Nov 1992 21:39:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu () says:

>     On This Week with David Brinkley, Clinton economic advisor
>Robert Reich said that the current recession is not as deep
>as the 1981-1982 recession.  This does not seem consistent


      Read my article titled "CSPAN & 1929" or watch the Congressional
Joint Economic Committee on October's Unemployment numbers.  The numbers
are all rigged.  The GDP, the unemployment rate, the first-time claims.

Clinton has got a World Class Depression on his hands. :)


>with the "worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme I 
>continually heard from the Clinton campaign.  Secondly, Reich
>said that although Clinton did promise a middle-class tax
>cut, it really wasn't a *salient* point.  Once again, I remember
>Clinton campaign ads *trumpeting* that the middle class would
>"get a break" under a Clinton administration.


     Yup, "whoops, there goes another rubber check plant "    

      
>     Just think what we'll hear *after* the inauguration....
>
>     C. Perttunen
>

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:399 alt.politics.perot:5486 talk.politics.misc:60031
From: willson@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Allen R. Willson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:12:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

>
>
>  A sad state of affairs?! Listen up people. If congress decides to
>repeal the 2nd amendment, what's to stop them from little by little
>taking away the rest of the bill of rights. Gun control, while it seems
>a good idea, could provide the basis for further decisions on fredom of
>speech, the freedom to assemble, or even free religion (the last is why
>most of our founding fathers came here).
>
>Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu

I would hardly call limiting (or deleting) the sale of high-powered
automatic weapons gun control, or a repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Hand guns, hunting rifles, and such will not be touched.  However,
the sale of weapons such as the Russian-made AK-47 which comes with
accessories like a 70 round clip may be limited.  This type of weapon
is not meant for hunting, unless you're hunting elephants or bears, 
both of which are endangered species.

What needs to be done first is to have a more efficient method of
checking the record of a prospective buyer.  Several effective computer
systems are being used around the country.  For the small cost of a PC,
you get better information (nation-wide network), quicker.

Besides, the NRA lobbies congress to death the way it is. I don't think
the right to bear arms is in danger, nor will ever be.

Allen Willson
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:28:14 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-23140]: hermes


In article <1992Nov8.001313.26887@wam.umd.edu>, sorsha@wam.umd.edu (Laurie Beth Brunner) writes:

> 	The Republicans had Pat "wish-I-coulda-been-a-Nazi" Buchanan
> 	as their KEYNOTE speaker, and had Pat Robertson accusing
> 	feminists and working women of encouraging baby-killing,
> 	witchcraft, leaving husbands, etc., and had several other
> 	speakers spewing nauseating, bilious, hateful statements.

Let's not forget those immortal words of Rich Bond, Republican Party
Chairman, at that hate-fest they called a convention: "We are Americans.
Those other people are not."

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:119 misc.test:12815 talk.bizarre:37130
From: johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM (John Chandler)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:30:35 -0800
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <BxBCG1.5tH@andy.bgsu.edu> dnebing@andy.bgsu.edu (Mr. Neb) writes:
>kumar@carleman.mit.edu (Sanjay Kumar) writes:
>  Training?  Clinton _CREATED_ the new problems in the state of 
>Arkansas, 

A strong assertion.  Any evidence?  The glorious past of Arkansas revealed?

>and he didn't do much to solve the old ones the state had around.  

Opinion is divided on that.  Just re-asserting one side of the debate
doesn't advance the discussion much.

>
>  I hope he doesn't use that training on us.  If you think things are bad
>now, you haven't seen anything yet........

Well, sure, once the national debt triples, you can expect things to 
deteriorate for a while.  We'll be living with the Reagan hangover for 
a long time.  But between continuing the bloat-the-rich policies of the 
last decade or so and taking a chance on some approaches that have had 
good results elsewhere, it looks like an easy choice to me.  What 
do *you* suggest?

>  dnebing

John C

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:39 misc.test:12714 talk.bizarre:36892
From: gatsby@wam.umd.edu (Ravindra Pillalamarri)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:41:48 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>
[blah blah deleted]
>God bless,
>
>Michael
>
>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
>
	You know a friend of mine was at my house with some book or other, and 
in it, the author states that the McCarthy era served to transform patriotism
into a sort of twisted, jingoistic anti-communism.  Now I see why.
	Of course "God" is unconstitutional.  What does religion have to do 
with government?  A better question for people who would like to see prayer in
schools is:  If I were Hindu, and had to light a fire to feel that I had prayed
(some Hindus do...I used to be Hindu) then could I do that in school?  
	It's really too bad the Republican Praty has drifted SO FAR RIGHT.
	"Commie-libs"?  WHAAAAT?!
	wow

Ravi Pillalamarri
gatsby@wam.umd.edu
BASS
[My opinions are beneath words...let alone the University]

> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
P.S.  I just had to say...BWAHAHA
	I was campaining (Clinton...pro-choice referendum) on Tuesday, and I 
somewhat dismayed by the sheer volume of conservative public that came by to 
vote.  Not to say that conservatives ought not to vote, but that they ought 
not to be conservative.  Anyway, Bush carried Harford County, MD.  He carried
my polling place, too...that was distressing.

BASS
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:57 misc.test:12738 talk.bizarre:36947
From: alaric@sti.com (Phil Stracchino)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:18:33 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.

In article <bazyar.720986785@teal>, bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:
] "I remember a time when liberals were generous with their own money."

As against the Republicans, who are greedy with everyone else's?

:-)/2


...on second thoughts, make that about :-)/20


-- 
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
          Public key and info available by fingering alaric@sti.com
Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : Software Transformation Inc
     Free Cyberia!!  :::  Committee for a Free and Independent Cyberspace
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:99 misc.test:12793 talk.bizarre:37087
From: blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:09:25 GMT
Reply-To: blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: blchapma@c00433-313mn.eos.ncsu.edu


In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
|> 
|> (Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
|> 
I'm sure that you can find some other country to live in that is
a Theocracy rather than a Democracy or a Republic.  I prefer to stay
away from Theocracies myself if I can help it.

NO MORE INQUISITIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- 

Bekki Lyn

************************************************************
"Today is within my reach, and tomorrow is so illusive
 But I'm still chasing time through increasing disillusion
 Forever living for the future of an illusion."

 -- FATES WARNING-- "Perfect Symmetry"
************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Bill Clinton's Address (Was: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:24:53 GMT

Someone wrote:
| On the off chance there are any Perot supporters out there who actually were
| (and are) interested in deficit reduction, you might want to write the
| Clinton campaign and explain to them that they have gotten a mistaken
| impression somewhere...

joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
| Please post an address of how to reach Bill Clinton and the team.
| I voted for Perot as did most of my family and friends - ALL because
| of the Deficit as the primary reason. 
|
| Lets bury them in letters...

  Anyone know the zipcode to the White House?

  I'm just going to send a card to:

                  The President of the United States
                  The White House
                  Washington D.C.  zipcode?

  I'm going to tell him not to put the "crazy aunt" back into the
  basement.  He's definitely been trying to avoid the subject.
  I don't think he was ever serious about the debt/deficit.
  ==

  Bob

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:186 misc.test:12873 talk.bizarre:37349
From: nelson@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (Jeffrey J. Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:22:44 GMT
Reply-To: nelson@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (Jeffrey J. Nelson)
Organization: University of Arizona Physics Department

In article <VAITKUS.92Nov5105106@ceres.lexmark.com>, vaitkus@ceres.lexmark.com (Keith Vaitkus) writes:
|> 
|> > Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
|> > (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
|> > GO BLUE JAYS!!!   BEAT THE BRAVES!!!!
|> > ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
|> 
|> 
|> Your sig reminds me of an inconsistency that I noted quite a while
|> ago. Perhaps you should have sent the line "Remember: June 4, 1989 
|> -Beijing" TO President Bush, and not to us. After all, he was the
|> President that prevented the (much maligned Democratic) Congress from
|> "Remembering" the Democratic movement in China and punishing China.
|> As I remember, Mr. "Foreign Policy God" Bush ...

[further explanation deleted]

Some experts argue that Bush did precisely the right thing.  China lived
in isolation for many years before Nixon pried it open.  The theory is
that if we piss off their leaders, they will wrap themselves in isolation
again.  All the progress we have made diplomatically would be lost.  Bush
took a bet that the leaders could stomp any political upheaval where Russia
could not.  (Yeah, I know there are certainly alot of intense feelings
about this, at the time I wanted to see some blood too).


|> This is a large issue to me, in which the US does not use its 
|> military force with any consistent pattern or even follow any
|> sort of obvious convictions or values. (Unless your value might
|> be -- to pursue profits...

Believe it or not the policy is there and has been outlined.  Basically,
we need a clearly defined goal, assurance that the goal is quickly
obtainable, and support of the American people to achieve that goal.
Iraq had all of these.  Panama was more of a raid than a war.  Solving
the Serbian conflict is next to impossible without occupying the country,
taking it over ourselves, for the next 50 years.


|> Liberia is still at war today... And back in the news.

Although that big guy in the sky says it, we don't go to war only for
our moral beliefs.  We do it for political/economic reasons.  You can't
expect the US to step in as the police force of the world or to save
whole populations from starvation.  We certainly have our own problems.

				- Jeff
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:267 ba.politics:6956 ca.politics:9491
From: heidi@wales.net.com (Heidi Wolf)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:39:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: N.E.T., Redwood City, cA

In article <1992Nov9.183158.2817@gvl.unisys.com> armagan@prc.unisys.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.233515.4710@BofA.com>, ross@BofA.COM (Ross Lefstin) writes:
>|> I understand that Rehnquist and Stevens may retire soon (i.e. in Bill
>|> Clinton's term) due to health reasons.  I saw a post about O'Connor
>|> possibly retiring as well on ba.politics.  Is this right?
>
>Both Stevens and O'Connor have cancer. They are likely to step down,
>especially Stevens. I doubt that Rehnquist will step down even though
>we hear that he is depressed since his wife's death. 


I think it would be more correct to say that they "have had" cancer.
Justice Stevens was treated for prostate cancer; Justice O'Connor
was treated for breast cancer.  National Public Radio mentioned 
both illnesses in a news item this morning [Nov. 10] and further
said that O'Connor had apparently made a complete recovery.  (No
additional medical specifics on Stevens in that broadcast.)

NPR said that Stevens, Blackmun, and White (the 3 oldest justices)
were the likeliest to retire; Rehnquist and O'Connor might have been
more likely to choose retirement if Bush had won re-election.


Heidi Wolf
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: williamf@umbc5.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:38:39 GMT

In article <6NOV199212122219@ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.163050.1496@news2.cis.umn.edu>, bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu () writes...
>>In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes...
>>>>>
>>>>And when the economy sees unheard of lows as a result of Clinton's
>>>>policies, Republicans will take the Congress for the first time in 40
>>>>years and Jack Kemp will take the White House to begin another long
>>>>period of Republican administration, this time without that bothersome
>>>>Democrat Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>God bless,
>>>>Michael
>>>>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
>>>> 
>>>It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
>>>be an American......
>>>
>>As a foreigner myself, the republican seems to compete for the fall of
>>their opponents, not for the sake of the country.  It sounds like they
>>really embrace the politics of hatred, not compassion.
>
>I DO NOT follow the politics of Hatred! I follow the politics of low taxes!
>Stop labeling me as a "hatred seed"
>
>The Matador of M83

  You sign onto the posting of a guy who considers everyone who didn't vote
  for a republican to be "Commie-libs" who "think God is unconstitutional"
  and follow that up elsewhere by saying liberals are "communists" who want
  to see "the morals of America flushed" down a toilet and a few other things
  I don't recall at the moment, and you don't want us to get the idea that
  you're a hater?  Sounds to me that you and Buchanen/Robertson/Schafly are all
  cut from the same cloth.
          -William

--
Recession: your friend loses his job.  Depression: you lose your job.
Recovery: Bush loses his job
My name is William and I'm a recovering depressive.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:226 ba.politics:6924 ca.politics:9466