HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Yes to line item veto
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:07:52 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

>>>>> Regarding Yes to line item veto; farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) adds:
farenebt> Nntp-Posting-Host: logic.camp.clarkson.edu

farenebt> The one I agree with most is about the line item veto. It has been
farenebt> proved that the Prez and Congress can not work together on a
farenebt> budget efficiently (is government efficiency an oxymoron). It's
farenebt> about time that the prez has the power to slice out pork programs
farenebt> that only one or a few Congressmen want...

I don't like the idea of a line item veto. I would rather see the rules
changed so Congress was every bit as interested in cutting spending as
they are now in increasing spending. How? I am glad you asked :-)...

A simple constitutional amendment would, at one fell swoop, spark
an intense interest in every member of Congress to find ways to reduce
the deficit:

   Any Senators or Representatives currently serving are no longer eligible
   to run for office in the next or any subsequent federal election when the
   following set of conditions are all true:

   * The member has served for some contiguous six year period following
     the ratification of this amendment.

   * The budget deficit was greater than zero in each of those six years.

   * The deficit in at least one of those six years was greater than the
     deficit in the previous year.

I feel these conditional term limits would inspire the members of Congress
into a veritable frenzy of cost cutting measures in their mad scramble to
maintain their eligibility to hold office, without doing the kind of damage
that Bush's proposed balanced budget amendment would have done (throwing the
budget into the federal courts) and without imposing the sort of pointless
brick wall unconditional term limits would produce.

I really feel this amendment would actually solve the budget problems
(eventually) by transforming Congress into a group of 535 individuals with
an abiding interest in avoiding sustained periods of deficit spending.
(Note that is doesn't forbid deficit spending, you just can't keep it
up for more than six years without getting in trouble).

My only problem is finding someone in Congress interested in sponsoring such
an amendment (I am currently trying Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire -
sponsor of the famous "Porkbuster's" bill, but I don't have any high hopes,
maybe I should hire a lobbyist...)
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradic
Date: 15 Sep 1992 18:19:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 9799@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> 
> There were a couple of young men who were working on Florio's campaign
> who had accomplished some task in a manner that was, in Carville's
> estimation, praiseworthy.  While Carville was thanking them, there was
> a young female student who was interning at Florio's campaign working
> at a copy machine nearby.  To show his appreciation for the young
> men's performance, Carville said to her, "Suzy, front and center!
> Bl*w jobs for these two young men right now!"

I don't suppose you'd like to quote a source (verifable please) for this?  
If you can't, please retract it.

> 
> This is the kind of man that James Carville is, and this is the kind
> of man that Bill Clinton associates himself with, because,
> undoubtedly, this is the kind of man that Bill Clinton is himself.
> (Ask Gennifer Flowers.)

Ah! so to you Flowers is a credible witness.  Didn't she say she went to
a specific college (but didn't)?  Didn't she say she met Clinton in a Hotel
(that, at the time, wasn't even built yet)?  Isn't she the one who said she
was in a beauty contest (but wasn't)?  And wasn't she *paid* to give The Star
(one of the more respected Newspapers in all of journalism.....NOT!) her
"story"?

I'm glad to see your getting more objective in your old age Mr. Kaldis.


:^D  for the humor impaired...


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45725 ca.politics:7856 ba.politics:5378
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:20:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Sep14.151153.19036@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, by ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark):

> Phil, are you sure you don't work at Optilink?

I think I saw him in the hall last week with his
glasses taped together.  :-)
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Date: 7 Sep 1992 17:13:57 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 <1992Sep7.155829.13848@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|> 
|> Probably true.  So, amend the Constitution (that's what Article V is
|> there for, after all).  Of course, I'm not certain that term limits
|> can be imposed on federal Senators or Representatives other than via a
|> Constitutional Amendment either; I'm virtually certain that they can't
|> be imposed by state laws.  (Just my opinion, of course; obviously this
|> matter has never been decided by the Supreme Court.)

John Fund, a WSJ editorial page writer, and an agressive proponent of
federal term-limits, pointed out in a recent op-ed (or ed) column that
most state laws trying to place term limits on their federal legislators
do not prevent them from running for office; they just restrict ballot 
access by preventing them being anything but  WRITE-IN candidates once 
they have served a certain amount of time in The House/Senate/Washington DC. 
The idea is that no one but the candidates held in high regard by their 
constituents will take the trouble to campaign as write-in candidates, and 
that those who do get on the ballot that way probably deserve to anyway (I 
could be wrong but I think that Strom Thurmond first won election to the Senate
sometime in the '50's as a write-in candidate). He also points out that
the SC has generally been amenable to such ballot-access restriction laws like
the one where they upheld the constitutionality of law in Hawaii that prevents
any write-ins at all [or maybe I have that wrong -- you get the idea anyway].

Maybe someone who has the column can post it here for analysis by 
net.constitutional.law.experts.

|> 
|> In any case, what I'm saying is that people shouldn't succumb to the
|> temptation to take the quick and easy way out (term limits) rather
|> than bite the bullet and develop and implement a solution that (a)
|> attacks the sources of the problem rather than just a symptom and (b)
|> has as little negative impact as possible on the people's right to
|> elect their own representatives.

These laws just might just pass the Starr test (mentioned above). At least,
test (b).

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

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
Subject: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradiction in Terms)
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:53:51 GMT

	Bill Clinton had his chance, during the Vietnam War,
	to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.

		If he didn't have it back then,
		what makes anyone think he's got it now?


				This public service announcement
				was brought to you by Radio Free Lafayette

-- 

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:00:57 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <jyc.716500469@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
]John Moore writes:
]
]   It is an index of how greatly the Vietnam war has corrupted us that
]most people today would indeed agree that it was naive for an American
]soldier to accept the reasons given to him by our nation's leaders for
]why he had to kill and maybe die in battle.  I surmise from your remarks
]that you hold the idea that only the defense of democracy is an adequate
]reason to order young American men into combat in the same contempt as
]did Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.  But at least you don't lie about
]it.  

No, you only got it partly right. I do believe that only the defense of 
democracy is an adequate reason to order young American men into combat. 
However, the democracy that American men must die for is the American 
democracy. What is irrelevant is whether the south Vietnam had a democracy. 
And yes, our nation's leaders (both democrat and republican) lied about 
preserving "democracy" in Vietnam, and it is to their shame that they did so. 
If they had been truthful, I think there would have been far less cynicism
in america, because everyone knew that SVN had no democracy. 

However, it is also true that most people in SVN were better off under the 
authoritarian government that we protected than they are under the communist
government that replaced it. That, in itself, however, was not worth american 
lives.  Stopping Soviet expansionism IMHO was. It is tragic that the Vietnam 
war was fought in such a way that not only were american lives expended, but
too many were expended stupidly.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45447 ca.politics:7785
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:58:06 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <18vj7jINNgpa@news.aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep13.055146.1959@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
> >rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
> >: In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
# #:    To take the case one step futher.
# #: 
# #:    Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely 
# #:    stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund 
# #:    for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
# #:    is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
# #: 
# #:    Would this be legal in a libertarian world.
# #: 
# #: I would hope not.  In that libertarian world, I would voluntarily
# #: contribute a certain percentage of my personal wealth to help this
# #: woman get back on her feet so she can support her family once again.
# #: 
# #Hi Ronald,
# #
# #   I am a mother who loves my children but I'm absolutely stone broke.
# #Please send me a certain percentage of your personal wealth. When I 
# #get back on my feet again, I will happily buy into your libertarian
# #fantasy utopia.
# #
# #Kathy
# 
# I am waiting with fascination to see how Ronald and any other libertarians
# respond to this post.
# 
# Richard Foy  

We haven't seen the contract for the snuff film yet.  How can we
send money?

By the way, there are plenty of libertarians who aren't waiting
for the libertarian utopia (remember, it means "nowhere" in
Greek).  We fund local, national, and international relief activities.
I suspect that I have contributed more out of my own pocket to
world hunger relief than my portion of federal income taxes does.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Wage slaves vs. serfs (Was: Why I cannot vote Democratic)
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:26:34 GMT

From article <18apn9INNgrs@agate.berkeley.edu>, by lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus):
> In article <1992Sep3.161101.4530@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
> 
>>If the personal income tax were completely eliminated, the total taxes
>>would be about 33% of total income.  This is what the serfs paid in the
>>Middle Ages in Europe.
> 
> I'd like some documentation about the rates paid by serfs. Your
> statistic buried in here misses two major points:
> 
> 1. As wealth increases, people can afford more in taxes (progressivity).
> Hence 33% of the earnings of serfs impinged badly on their ability to
> live. 33% on a computer scientists' income doesn't.
> 
> 2. I imagine the number is bogus, anyway. Does it include the many taxes
> on goods paid by serfs? Rates on necessities like salt were enormous?
> Does it include conscripted unpaid labor?
> 
> Are you a medieval studies major or is this some factoid from the
> Libertarian party platform.
> 
> andy

As wealth increases, *should* we pay more in taxes so the govt. can invade
our privacy more?

I think we should pay less in taxes than serfs had to pay.

Govt. is supposed to serve the people.

That means it is supposed to be big enough to do *only* what is absolutely
necessary to serve the people.

It is not supposed to take all of the excess wealth that the people manage
to create.

Check the library.  Look under feudalism, manorial taxes, etc.

Serfs worked six (6) days per week.
The output of two (2) days was delivered to the lord of the manor.

You did not dispute that taxes consume 44% of the total produce of
the all U.S. people and companies.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are Tax and Spenders in second place
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:48:26 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <lacb8jINNdab@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>During an interview on PBS yesterday, the statement was made that if you
>added up all federal welfare programs since the 1930's (the onset of 
>federal welfare), the total is a small percentage of the S&L bail-out
>cost.  Does anyone have access to data to support or refute this?


Considering the 100's of billions spent every year on welfare, I find this
very hard to believe.

Did the learned gentleman adjust his figures for inflation.  If he did not
then his figures are worthless anyway.

-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43882 ca.politics:7472 ba.politics:5059
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Working for change?
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:36:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <q0dnf5q.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <p57r000@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>    >>Now, if tomorrow we could vote on PERMANENTLY removing
>    >>political coercion, I might consider voting. But, voting as
>    >>we have it today (political voting), is an inherently
>    >>coercive act.
>    >>
>    >However, if you are not working towards making this happen,
>    >then you are whining about things without working on them,
>    >which is as bad as choosing between two evils.
>    >
>    >>But then again, very few people really think about the
>    >>morality of their actions.
>    >>
>    >Do you do something about it?
>
>Yep. These postings are an example. I consistently strive, when the
>issue comes up, to assert that coercive democracy is immoral. The first
>step is make a stand -- to show people that their cherished myths are
>indeed myths.

Yeah? Well you haven't done that yet! All you have done is
spout some useless and nonsensical diatribe about those who do
vote.  Show us some facts....statistics....case studies...make
sure all you show is attributable to a source that can be
looked up by anyone and you may be making a point.
>
>
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
>"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
>"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Len

DISCLAIMER: My opinions...not my employer's.


--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.correct
From: gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 16:28:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

>2. liberal n : one who is liberal : as : one who is open-minded in the
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^

The only problem with being open-minded is that your brains may fall
out! 8-)  8-)

Gene

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: Re GATT & Re The Next Banking Crisis
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:07:04 GMT


The following addresses for ACORN, Public Citizen, et al, are useful
for anyone wanting to get involved...


Harel


Topic 16        S&L Scandal: Background & Resources     Response  2 of  7 
harelb 
Info resources on econ justice issues    8:10 pm  Jun  9, 1992 
(at math.cornell.edu) 

From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai) 
Subject: S&L Scandal: Background & Resources 
            ============================================= 
            R E S O U R C E :   O R G A N I Z A T I O N S 
            ============================================= 

The "Taxpayer's Revolt" ad appeared in a special issue of The Nation, 
"The Looting Decade" [Nov. 19, 1990] focusing on the S&L Scandal. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
I highly recommend this issue's extensive coverage of the S&L scandal 
to anyone who thinks they've heard the half of it as far as the extent 
of the S&L mess, and who wants to find out more. For something like 
$3, shipping included, you can order back issues of The Nation at 
(212) 242-8400. The same issue included the following information: 

"The main citizens' groups working on issues surrounding the bailout 
are the Southern Finance Project, Acorn (the Association of Community 
Organizations for Reform Now) and Public Citizen. The first two groups 
underpin the Financial Democracy Campaign, a broad alliance of more 
than 400 community organizations, unions, churches, consumer groups, 
civil rights groups and small business organizations." 

Some addresses are given below; I will post separately some more 
information about Public Citizen, which was founded by Ralph Nader in 
1971, as well as Citizens for Tax Justice. 

Acorn 
522 8th St., SE 
Washington, DC 20003 
(202) 547-9292 or (800)759-8557 

Common Cause 
2030 M St., NW 
Washington, DC 20036 
(202)833-1200 

Financial Democracy Campaign 
604 W. Chapel Hill St. 
Durham, NC 27702 
(919)687-4004, or (800)759-8557 

Public Citizen 
2000 P St., NW 
Washington, DC 20036 
(202)293-9142 

Southern Finance Project 
329 Renssselear 
Charlotte, NC 28203 
(704)372-7072 

Conf?
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:35:12 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Michael Friedman) writes:
|> Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> >Michael Friedman) writes:
|> >>In article <81741@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
|> 
|> >@     Bill Clinton sought to avoid the draft and stay in school through 
|> >@ perfectly legal means.  He did nothing worse than what Quayle did with
|> >@ his "quickstep" into the National Guard, except that the legality of 
|> >@ the influence peddling which went on in Quayle's behalf is not at all
|> >@ clear.
|> 
|> >>Excuse me, but when Quayle entered the Guard there were openings
|> >>available.  One was not created for him.  There have been claims of
|> >>influence peddling, but no one as shown any kind of evidence for it.
|> 
|> >	Thanx to the new book _Airhead Apparent_, here is Danny Boy's
|> >National Guard record:
|> 
|> >	He spent three months in welding training, then just in time,
|> >an opening appeared in the NG's Office of Public Information. The
|> >result: Danny Boy didn't have to do any serious blue-collar labor at
|> >all. He just had a cushy desk job the whole time. Though it was
|> >associated with the NG's magazine, no article ever appeared under
|> >Danny Boy's byline.
|> 
|> >	One has to ask why an opening had appeared just in time so
|> >that Danny Boy would not have to join the blue-collar work force for
|> >awhile.
|> 
It appears that none of you were college age at the time of the viet nam
war.  For those in college it was a sign of success and planning to avoid
being drafted.  There were student deferements, occupational deferments,
medical deferments, family hardship deferments, etc.  All legal, and all
used.  Even joining the Guard, signing up with a reserve unit (to lower
the odds of involvment), or opting into a military vocation unlikely to
lead to war-zone excitement (like computer programmer) were preferable
to the real thing.

Both Clinton and Quayle accomplished the goal of every male I knew,
though each in a different way.  The fact that this system was biased
toward the wealthy, the educated, the white ... led to the lottery
system.

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.