HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:24:44 GMT

dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:

>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) once wrote: 
>> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
>>> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) once wrote: 
>>>> The courts are in existence to interpret the ... Constitution.
>>>
>>> Says who? Not the U.S. Constitution. John Jay, perhaps? :-) The
>>> document is very simple, and very clear. It needs no
>>> "interpretation." To do so is just a front for making it say what you
>>> want it to, what is convenient to support your partisan position. The
>>> U.S. Constitution is not some magical document with holy words
>>> needing a priest's understanding. It is a straightforward contract
>>> between the people and the government. Which happens to be ignored
>>> for just about all intents and purposes.
>>
>> A famous court case called Marbury vs Madison established the
>> precedent of judicial review. That's where.

>Judicial review permits the Court to strike acts of a legislature.
>That is in line with the concept that the U.S. Constitution, as the
>supreme "law of the land," takes precedence over any other law.
>Where, however, does the Court get the right to "interpret" the
>Constitution? And should it have this power? My point is, the act of
>interpreting makes the document moot. It can be anything the Court
>wants, and has become that. Rather than a tool to strictly define and
>restrain government, as originally intended, the Constitution has
>become a tool used to justify expansion of government power and
>jurisdiction. Why should nine men have the power to rewrite our
>constitution at every sitting? We wrote it in convention, every
>phrase having an understood meaning. It is not a "fluid" pact, but
>rather it is a set of chains to bind a government. Each phrase has
>a specific, intended meaning, and Holmes was a twit to say otherwise.
>There, I've committed more blasphemey and criticized Ollie. :-)

All right. It is not a DIRECT interpretation but rather the court's
interpreatation of whether or not a law is permissible under the
Const.'s language. Courts cannot say "such and such is not permissible"
until a law is enacted saying "such and such is permissible."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Read my lips -- no new ideas!"
CLARKSON '95				   --George Bush's apparent motto
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						
"Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clinton's support of legal
rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
party is promoting?"	---Mike Polen (alt.activism user)

			
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:04:47 GMT

skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:

>The vast majority of Americans (80+ %)  receive the bulk of their news 
>from local print and TV. The majority of newpapers have conservative 
>positions and editorial writters . So what are you saying ? the conserv.
>media wants Clinton elected ????

You wouldn't, of course, have a reference for this quoted statistic?

Nah. Thought not.


>We can put up bias claims all day "Why dont they trash Quayle when he
>badmouths Clinton's not serving in the Army when what Danny did was just
>about the same thing. 

Funny, four years ago I couldn't turn on the television or open a newspaper
without finding a reference to Quayle's military record.

Of course, the reason it isn't harped upon now is quite simple - it started
to backfire on the media four years ago, when people started developing a
sympathy factor towards Quayle.


>The republicans are looking for anything or anyone to blame the present 
>situation on, the media, congress, etc.... 

While the Executive Branch is certainly without blame, Congress certainly
shares much of the blame for the mess the country is in. The media is
constantly criticized for re-enforcing the negatives about the economy 
on a regular basis.


> Say economy ! and they scatter like roaches. 

Sorta like what happens when Republicans mention 2% inflation versus 12%
and 8% home mortgage rates instead of 21%?


>It's really hard to admit to being a failure,
>it much easier to blame everyone else.

>Especialy when you are the President 
>of the United States of America.


And, its even harder to be objective when you have a political 
agenda to promote.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11788 talk.politics.misc:42432
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: People from Arkansas, what do you say?
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:25:02 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Any American knows a lot about George Bush, or at least thinks they
do.  Bill Clinton is a little less defined.  I want to solicit comments
from people from Arkansas, pro or con.  Do you like Bill Clinton?
Are you going to vote for him?  Why or why not?  What kind of a governer
was he and what did he do that impressed/disgusted you?  Please be
specific.

Post to me or the net.

Thanks,
Marty L. Dart
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Gridlock?
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:41:28 -0500
Summary: what failed ideas?
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Bush's claims that his ideas "gaven't failed, they haven't even been tried"
ring a little hollow for several reasons.

1)  The President is not the primary sponsor of legislation, Contitutionally.

2)  The legislation that Bush has "proposed" he has not actually sent to the
Hill.

3)  The budgets that he has submitted have ALL had huge deficits (no change
from Congress).

4)  The gridlock has come from his use of the veto.  Thirty some times Congress
has hammered out measures that thought would help America only to see Bush
strike them down.  He vetoed his own reccomendations in the Crime Bill!  That
causes a waste of time!

5)  Remember, each member of Congress was elected, too, given a "mandate" from
the people.  Usually, that mandate was by a larger proportion than Bush's.

6)  The executive branch's biggest move to date has been to freeze regulations. 
In other words, to NOT do their job.  Impressive move, that.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: REPUBLICAN PLATFORM WANTED
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 10:32:47 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

heidi@wolf.net.com (Heidi Wolf) writes:

>
> Last week I phoned the San Francisco Republican headquarters and asked
> for the GOP platform.  They said to call back this week.  This week
> I called and they told me to call the national Republican headquarters
> in Washington, D.C.  The national HQ said that they didn't have copies
> yet, but did take my name and address.  I asked if the platform was
> available in electronic format and the person on the other end of the
> line said, after a "huh?" kind of pause, "...it's 95 [sic] pages long."
>
> If anyone is interested in phoning to request a copy of the Republican
> platform, the telephone number of the national GOP headquarters is:
>
>                       (202) 863-8500.
>
> I have no idea whether they'll actually send it or not, but it's
> certainly worth a try.
>

The latest CBS poll shows 'Rubbers' Bush down 15 points.  Given the
inflammatory nature of that document, don't hold your breath on getting a copy.
I'm quite sure that James Baker and the Cavalry want as few copies of that
sucker spread around as possible.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:41:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.170625.18104@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>In 1988 the Libertarian candidate got less than 1% of the
>vote.  The New Freedom Party got almost as many votes.

The New *Alliance* Party got about half as many votes as the
LP.

>You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
>statistically insignificant (much smaller than the margin of
>error).  With a sample of 800-1500 Marrou might get 5 or 40
>supporters, and statistically the numbers would be the same.

Unfortunately you're right. However Marrou could be included
in polls that ask whether people have a favorable opinion of a
candidate, whether a candidate is competent to handle the
economy, foreign affairs, etc.

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Educational Spending (was: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss Op
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:02:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.193546.13432@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
>sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:

>In general, they don't. Here in Detroit teachers make between $27,000 and
>$40,000 per annum- for a 9-month job. That's $36,000 to $53,000 fte.
                                                                 ^^^
What is "fte"?

>Do you believe that the trouble with schools is simply that we don't
>pay enough to teachers and administrators? Perhaps you'd be very surprised

Absolutely not.  However, a large problem is that the schools do not pay
enough to attract quality teachers who can make more money elsewhere. 
Teachers don't teach as a favor to society.  They deserve a competitive
salary for what they do.  

However, the school system doesn't need to
be saddled with incompetent teachers who managed to lay low long enough
to get "tenure".  I don't think there should be a tenure system for
grammar and secondary school teachers.  It makes no sense.

>learn that private schools pay far less than public schools- and turn
>out far better educated and better prepared students.

I would be surprised, if I believed it.  Please tell the source of that
information.

>Looking at the way teacher's salaries and education spending have rocketed
>in this century you'd think we would have the best school systems in the

Tell me how they have "rocketed".  You forget that this is a state-by-state
issue.

>world. In fact, student performance has gone steadily downward since the
>60s, while spending has gone up.

Perhaps we are spending money on the wrong things?  However, I don't 
consider paying attractive salaries to qualified teachers to be one
of them.

>So much for the argument that all we need is to throw more money at the
>problem. The data seems to say the oppposite.

Lets see some of this data please.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Flowers Question
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:23:22 GMT

In article <Btt001.8KA.2@cs.cmu.edu>
dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:
 
>
>In article <athos-280892123302@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>>Q: Did you sleep with Gennifer Flowers?
>>A: Her story is not true.  I didn't have a 12 year affair with her.  I had
>>   some problems with my marriage.
>>Translation: Yes I did.
>>
>>--
>>Rick Eames
>>athos@apple.com
>>My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
>
>No,
>Translation: I had an affair with someone, but it wasn't her.
>
>david redish
 
Whichever gloss is correct, we might consider H. Ross Perot's remark when
he was asked if it was true if he investigated top executives to see if they
cheated on their wives: "If their own wives can't trust them, how can I?"
          --mike
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: clinton's bravery
Date: 18 Aug 92  18:57:00 EST

-> How could you possibly know?  People who had TRUE moral objections to
-> the war left the country, went to jail, led the anti-war movement.
-> What they did right or wrong was to put their life on the line.
-> People who were looking out for NUMBER 1 went to school.  At least
-> Quayle went in if only halfass.  People lie to themselves.  They can
-> say I don't believe in this, I object to this and as long as they do
-> not have to prove it then you never know how true their belief is. How can you judge Clinton's motives, then?  And, I wouldn't call what Quayle did "going in halfass".  Quayle put his fingers on the line in the typing pool of the Indiana National Guard.  Fat chance of getting called up to head to Vietnam.

I respectfully think that you miss the point about Quayle.  The objection to Quayle in most people's minds, I think, is not that he dodged the draft.  Many young men did so during the Vietnam Conflict. The objection is that he dodged the draft, came back from the National Guard, and talked about how great 'Nam was.  There's real bravery for you.  And, to add insult to injury, Quayle consistently voted AGAINST any sort of veterans' benefits while in Congress.  Things like funding the storefront counseling c
enters for vets who suffered from post-traumatic depression syndrome, and other health and education benefits.

When it comes to doing things for vets of the war that he lionized as a young chickenhawk, Quayle didn't even get in halfass!!!

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Free speech is life itself."
         --Salman Rushdie

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:10:44 GMT

f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>Incidentally, I heard Marrou on a radio talk show -- 60 minutes, call-in
>format. Damn, why hasn't anyone labeled him "Slick Andre" yet?  He's got
>all the answers, canned and down pat (he said he'd have left the survivors
>of Hurricane Andrew to fend for themselves without federal intervention),
>and generally impressed me as a good candidate for hosting his own radio
>talk show.  Not for President of the U.S.

I didn't hear the talk show, but am sure Marrou didn't suggest the
Hurricane victims "fend for themselves."  Rather, private charity
organizations and the individuals that support them should provide
relief.

Where the hell do you think the relief came from, anyway?  I can't
believe how many otherwise intelligent people think the government
"creates" money to give to good causes.  The government takes the money
from you and me (more from our children, now) and distributes it to the
cause (after keeping a huge cut in reduced productivity from lack of
competition and a bigger cut for causes you don't support).

I was *in* Hurricane Andrew and saw what relief government provided and
what relief private charities provided.  Private charities outdid the
government hands down.  I gave money to Red Cross.  What did you do?
You think you shouldn't have to think about where your money goes,
right?  Just give it to the government and they will take care of
everyone.

Other smaller charities like Jaycees got things done quicker, much more
efficiently than the Red Cross.  I will look into giving to that charity
next time.  See how competition even helps non-profit, charitable
organizations.  What do you do when the government doesn't do a good
job?  Bitch and moan.  What did the government do?  They condemned some
homes and forced the residents to stay in "tent city."  Bush promised
to rebuild Homestead Air Force Base, completely demolished from Andrew.
Close down some fully functioning bases instead.  Could be a strategic
decision, but I doubt it.  Sounds more like pork to me.  Like the
billion dollars Bush promised in Farm subsidies, yesterday.

>Sadly, the LP will never gain more than a core of true-believers if they
>go on this path.

Sadly, indeed.  And, sadly, you will probably continue to vote for
people that think that government knows best how to spend your and your
children's money.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Our constitution and politics.
Organization: NASA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:19:59 GMT

Larry Weeks writes
> 
> That's the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, IMO.
> 
> Unfortunately, that spirit is largely ignored by the government, and
> the people themselves. The voters get what they deserve, I suppose.

Here's my favorite quote on this matter:

"Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than
we deserve."
                -- George Bernard Shaw

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending (was: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss Op
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:21:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.193546.13432@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>Michael Edelman writes
>> In article <9208300327.AA14754@poly.math.cornell.edu>
>> >        Percentage of Americans which found the following "very
>> >        important" to promote family values:
>> >
>> >-- Spending more money on education: 88 percent
>> >
>> >
>> Kind of says something about how well informed the electorate is,
>> doesn't it? That, or how questions are phrased in a poll. "If spending
>> more money would make for better education in this country, would you
>> support the increase?" Well, sure. But we've seen plenty to show us that
>> spending money on education isn't going to do a damn thing other than
>> improve the lifestyles of teachers and school administrators.
>
>  Improving the lifestyles of teachers and administrators, eh?  You make that  
>sound like such a horrible thing to do.  I don't have any statistics in front  
>of me, but I rarely meet a public school teacher that does not have to work a  
>second job just to have a reasonable income.  A friend of mine, who is a  
>middle-school music teacher, sells shoes after hours.
>

Well, I taught in the public schools for over 10 years, including 4 years
in an inner city school in a large urban district.  At no time was money
ever an issue for me.  Sure, everyone wants more, but when I left teaching
to return to school I was earning about 40,000 (this was in 1989).  The
moonlighting teacher does so out of desire more than need.

>
>  Did it ever occur to anyone that if we increased educational spending, with  
>the bulk of the increase going to teachers' salaries, that the profession would  
>attract more qualified individuals, and enable those already teaching to enroll  
>in more continuing education courses?

It occured to me, but then it occured to me that it was wrong to think that.
Compared to the number of teachers already out there, there are relatively
few potential ones who opted for other careers due to low salaries.  When
you give huge raises, you're also propping up a lot of poor teachers.

I think the thing to remember is that some studies of educational
expenditures (some done here at U of C) suggest that increased spending 
on our present system of schooling is not the answer to our educational 
problems.


-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Flowers Question
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:50:27 GMT

>>Most of the best presidents we have ever had have had
>>mistresses, some of them in them in the White House.
>>
>Ah, so it's an asset rather than a liability. I think I understand;
>the more experience they have f*cking someone else, the better they'll
>be at it when it comes to f*cking over the entire country.
> 
>Sort of makes Joseph P. Kennedy the spiritual father of the entire
>Democratic party.`
> 
>         --mike

Maybe the correlation is that the less sexually frustrated a person
is, the less likely they will take out thier sexual frustration on
other people..and the less likely that sexual frustration will cloud
thier judgement....I think looking at bush, it is safe to say he hasn't
had sex in QUITE a long time...Now clinton on the other hand, looks
as if he has a pretty healthy sex life...That might be where the
comparison stems from, not how good somebody f*cks other people...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:11:26 GMT

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>There was no essential difference in the coverage for each convention. It
>was uniformly pathetic. Republicans have more of a complex and get bent out
>of shape though.

The point that I was making was that Eleanor Clift admitted to consciously
putting her opinions into her journalistic work, and that other colleagues
at Newsweek do so as well. As journalists are not representative of the 
American people, tending to vote Democratic (at the national level) by at
least 3 to 1, and that Clift's comments were indicative of the media at
large, one must come to the conclusion that the media coverage HAD to have
been different. It wouldn't be logical to assume that the coverage could
possibly be evenhanded, or even "uniformly pathetic," in light of these facts.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12262 talk.politics.misc:43369