HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Blaming congress for all his woes... (was: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 22:50:12 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> In article <1992Aug20.210324.23358@pony.Ingres.COM>
> reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
>
> > I've been wondering -- Since  the  President  has to sign  legislation
> > before it becomes law  and the congress has   not *once* been able  to
> > override one of Bush's vetos how can Bush complain  that everything is
> > Congress' fault?  I mean if they pass a bill that he does not like why
> > doesn't  he just  refuse to sign  it.
>
> That's true, but a lot of budget compromises are made between the
> President and Congress before any appropriations bill is approved
> by Congress.  Bush could take a hard line, and refuse to sign any
> appropriations bill which does not meet his approval, but then he
> runs the risk of a Congressional override, and Congress could
> ignore all his budget proposals.  His best bet is to compromise
> up front.
>
>
> Doug Holtsinger
>

So, what you're saying is that the President's 'tough guy' act on Congress will
always be just what it looks like--an act.  The Democrats don't have a
two-thirds majority in either house of Congress.  If Rubbers would veto an
appropriations bill, the odds of that veto being overridden are nil.

The main problem here is that Rubbers doesn't want to offend his tennis buddies
in the Senate.  He's spent just about all of his political life prior to
becoming President schmoozing with senators, and now he finds it difficult to
cross them.  That's a total lack of leadership and moral courage.



|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|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12100 talk.politics.misc:43121
From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:59:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) once wrote: 
>
> Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America states:
>  ...
>    The senators and representatives beforementioned, and the members
>  of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
>  officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
>  be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but
>  no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
>  office or public trust under the United States
>
> The Republican Convention was treasonous.

Oh bull! What the Republicans are doing may be not very wise, but it
certainly isn't treasonous. The federal government is prohibited from
using a religious test, but the political parties are in no such way
restricted. People should start recognizing that the Constitution
governs the actions of the federal government, not private individuals
or organizations.

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  fight, nothing he cares about more than his
-------------------+  personal safety, is a miserable creature who has
 no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of
 better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Operation Popularity Rating! (Was Operation Desert Storm.)
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:49:05 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Well the line in the sand has been drawn.  Since Sadam continues to be
a thorn in his side Bush and company are revving up the military machine
for a nostalgic trip to yesterday when our Prez was Commander-In-Chief,
the Big Kahuna-(sp?), King of the Hill!

Now, I can anticipate some counterarguements here.  No, there is NOT
anything different now.  Sadam was butchering Shiites just days after
Iraq surrendered.  The UN force had stipulated that Iraq was to fly no
aircrafts, and Bush had been on the air encouraging the people of Iraq
to stand up against their dictator, so a bunch of Shiites in the south
took up their weapons and began a rebellion.  It was at this point that
Sadam thumbed his nose at the UN, primarily the US, and sent in some
choppers to stop the uprising.  If we were going to stand with our
convictions we should have then!

I agree that what Sadam is doing is genocide and should be stopped, but
we, Bush, keeps getting confused over what his convictions are and is
sending out mixed messages.  These mixed messages are what inspire Sadam
to take chances!  He never sees the US take a firm stand.

Oh, and for those who say we need to stop the genocide, yes I agree.
We should stop the genocide in Iraq AND Serbia.  Yet the only time
Bush makes efforts to do something in Serbia are when the press or the
Demos bring up the issue!  It's like he's waiting to see what's important
then reacting to it, instead of being a man of principles and going
straight ahead with what he believes is right.  When it's time to be
counted there's nothing worse than a man who stands up halfway.

Meanwhile, in our own back yard, Haitis military dictatorship is
racking up human rights violations at a rate that would shame Baby Doc.
I'll admit I might be a little unfair on this point...heck, I bet
Bush doesn't even know about it yet.  ...and it did take him this
long just to get up to speed on the economy.

Marty L. Dart,
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12429 misc.education:3288
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.education
Subject: Re: AFT
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:04:05 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <00715478715@elgamy.sccsi.com>, elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
> ...  if central office
> staff actually worked for a living.


Question:

When I went to high school -- early '60s, Philadelphia suburbs -- we
had a Principal, a Vice-P, two useless Guidance Counselors, a front-
office staff of about four, a handful of cooks and janitors, and 
the teachers.  Above the school level, there was a Superintendent
of Schools, a Vice-S, and two clerks; they handled the HS, two 
junior highs, and five grammar schools.  The teacher/non-teacher
ratio was about 10/1.

My understanding is that that ratio is now around 1/1 almost
everywhere.  Is that true?

-- 
Bob Munck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:07:37 GMT


Subject line says it all. I'm looking for a copy of the Republican Platform.
Could someone please email it to me or tell me the address of a site where I can
ftp it from? Thanks.

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ``D.C. in 93!''
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"Yes, you can get AIDS from a mosquito...*IF* you have unprotected
receptive anal intercourse with an infected mosquito..." -- Randy Shilts
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:42:12 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <4953@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:
]In article <1992Aug7.215414.877@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>***Periodic Flame Relighted***
]>
]>Why the hell SHOULD the rich pay so much more in taxes than the poor?
]>Where is the justice in that? Why should I, who works hard, pay a lot
]>more in taxes than someone who doesn't work hard or isn't as skilled?

]Equating being poor with not working hard shows just how out of touch
]with reality you are.  Quite a few people work hard but do not earn very
]much for it.  Ever work in a warehouse packing boxes?  I did during summers 
]when I was an undergraduate (no violins please), and it became pretty obvious
]to me that there are plenty of people out there busting their butts and getting
]very little in return for it.  So lets stop assuming that everyone who is 
]poor is just a so-called welfare bum (even if this wasn't your intention it
]is easy enough to interperet it this way).  

It's especially easy when you completely ignore my "or isn't as skilled"
clause, which you completely and obviously did. And yes, I have done my
share of low-paid work (including being a soldier).

]Anyway, in order to answer your question, it sounds like you are in favor
]of a flat rate (like Jerry Brown argued for).  Well you know as well as I
]do that a flat rate is regressive and places a much higher burden on low
]income people (read welfare bums and other trash) who have precious little
]disposable income.

Hah! If you had been reading my postings, you would see that I
have a way out of this "regressive" argument: Give a flat x-thousand
dollar exemption (say, $12000 for a family) and then apply a flat
rate above that up to some limit, after which you REDUCE the rate.
This would be more fair: those who cannot afford it don't pay
for government (ie, they get a transfer of wealth from the rest of us);
those who use government pay for it, but the rates recognize that
above a certain income your use of government does not go up very fast
with you increase in income.

IMHO this would be MORE THAN FAIR - it would be generous.


Another approach (proposed, amazingly enough by George McGovern)
is to give EVERYONE in the country a fixed amount of money from
the government evey year (payed, let's say, weekly). Then we eliminate
ALL welfare programs. Then we tax at a flat rate (alright, GM didn't
propose this part).

-- 
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
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot threatens to return!!
From: scrooge@Moneybin.equinox.gen.nz (Glenn Murphy)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:28:57   M
Organization: Not organised at all.

In New Zealand our media are reporting stories from the US that Perot 
unhappy with the economic policies of both Bush and Clinton and is saying 
that if there is not some changes he will rejoin the race for the 
Presidency. He appearantly still has offices in all 50 states and says the 
infrastructure is still in place for him to remount the campaign.

Any comments from America?

Glenn.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Clinton's lies
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:09:41 GMT

In article <1684FDC62.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <saurav.714849300@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
>saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee) writes:
> 
>>
>>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>>
>>>From a recent speech of Slippery Bill's:
>>>
>>>"  Our productivity has fallen way below that of other rich countries
>>>like Germany and Japan..."
>>>
>>>But Japan's productivity is 80% of that of the US, and Germany's, 75%.
>>>And US productivity grew twice as fast in the 80s as in the 70s.
>>
>>But I read a few months ago in US News & World Reports that
>>the rate of productivity increase for Japan and Germany is larger than
>>the US's.
>>
>>Saurav Chatterjee
> 
>Since their overall productivity is lower, they can have a greater rate
>of increase while still a lower overall level of productivity, right? In
>fact, countries with a very low level would be expected to show the
>greatest % change in either direction. Countries with very high levels
>of productivity might be considered to be near maximum productivity for
>a given technological level, and hence would only be able to increase
>productivity marginally at best. Thus we may be seeing an artifact.

   This is all very true and a very good point, but I would like
to add one more comment (from the January 18th, Economist.)

   The U.S. average productivity gains in manufacturing over the last
ten years have been higher than both Japan and Germany even though
our level was slightly higher.

  The U.S. average productivity in services (not burger-flipping for
those who are misinformed on this point) has been stagnant until recently
allowing Germany and Japan to have higher productivity gains in these areas.
However, since our productivity in services is twice as high as Japan, this
is not necessarily cause for alarm.  Recently, our productivity in services
has started to make significant gains.

  When we combine these two (according to _The Economist_ and US News), we are 
headed for a productivity led recovery which will be very sound for our
economy.  However, the short term cost may be relatively high unemployment
rates for a few years and it could all be screwed up if our government 
decides we need some "quick fixes" to jumpstart our economy. (Depending
on what those "quick fixes" are, but given the current mood of our government,
The Economist & US News are not optimistic that the government
under Clinton or Bush will do anything useful.  Although, Bush may cut 
entitlements which would do some long-term good.)

  If we don't allow our government to screw it up, the 
benefits for US workers will be extremely positive in terms of
good high-wage jobs (according to these two sources.)


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton and Flowers Question
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:33:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <Aug.27.14.25.41.1992.28265@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) wrote:
> 
> I was having a discussion with a friend about the election in general
> and he brought up the Clinton/Flowers "scandal".  He asserted that
> Clinton admitted to having an affair w/ Flowers.  I said that I hadn't
> heard about this, but he assured me that it was true.
> 
> I would have thought the press would have made a HUGE deal about this if
> it had indeed happened.  I didn't have time to press my friend for details.
> Can anyone tell me if this is true?
> 
> Now, before all you Clinton haters jump on the bandwagon and tell me what
> you have deduced, I don't want to hear it.  All I want to know is if he
> actually admited to having an affair with her and what is the source of 
> your information so I can look it up for myself.
> 

Hi,

Actually, he never came out and said "I slept with her."  What he *did* say
is that her whole story wasn't true and that, yes, he had problems in his
marriage.

I am not a Clinton hater, but I *am* against what I call "Lawyer Answers." 
Examples:

Q: Have you ever smoked pot?
A: I have never broken the drug laws of the United States. 
Translation:  Yes, I did, but I did it in England, but I don't want to just
answer the question.

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!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Who toppled Communism??
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 02:56:52 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <92233.173023DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
]I'm so sick, nearly violently so, of hearing of how the Reagan and
]Bush won the cold war.  This is an awful lie that is nothing but a
]huge slap in the face to the real heroes of the revolution.  Lech
]Walesa and Gorbachev are a couple of names that come to mind right
]off.  Then there were many others who held high ideals of a better
]life for them and their fellow countrymen/women, and were put in
]prison and killed for it.  We'll never know who a lot of them were,
]but I'm sure none of them were named 'Reagan' or 'Bush'.

Well, if you as Gorbachev (who, to this day, is still a communist), he
will tell you that Reagan's policies forced him to institute Perestroika
(which required Glasnost). If you travel to eastern europe, you will find
out that many people there and in Russia consider Reagan to be their
liberator. Lech Walesa got a lot of aid from Reagan (via the pope).
]

Try to get some facts next time before you say you're "sure."

-- 
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
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:27:33 GMT

The democrats seem to think they're the real party of liberty. Hmm.
 
I received a mailing form the ACLU a few years back about the evils
of the RICO act- something I agreed with- and how Bush was going to
use it to opress us all. In fact, something very different happened.
It has been used against Wall Street financiers to force them into
pleading to "criumes" that never existed, by the Iran/Contra
inquisition to force the poorer defendants to plead to misdemeanors
and to events that never occured, and so forth.
What we have is a star chamber in which citizens are brought and forced to
confess to crimes without protection from self-incrimination.
 
The left has repeatedly attacked the second amendment of course, first
trying to revise history and maintain that it only applies to the
national guard and finally admitting that they just want to repeal it
(there's a bill being introduced now to do that).
 
Property rights- from which we obtain our privacy and much of our
freedom of the press- have been whittled away. The government now has,
though the efforts of the Democrats, far more power in telling
you what you can do with your property, to whom you may sell it, at
what price and on what terms.
 
In private business, Democrat appointed judges have ruled that contracts
ar no longer sacrosanct agreements if they don't appear to be fair
to the judge. Long standing agreements between businesses with specific
penalties have been abrogated because a judge thinks they're not fair.
 
People have bought land based on prior government approval to build a
house or resort only to be told later that their land is now a "wetland"
even though it remains dry 11 months of the year.
 
Free speech is now banned from campuses. Certain questions cannot be asked
becasue the mere asking now constitutes hate speech. Shelby Steele noted
in a recent speech that his asking a collegue how her work as a teacher of
literature in the Feminist Studies department differed from his in the
Englist department was looked on as an assault.
 
More of your money than ever before- a full 1/4th- is spent by the Federal
government alone. Adding in all taxes, federal, state and local, the
government is now spending around half of your money, most of it to bribe
you to keep it in power.
 
Yup. It's those damn evil republicans.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Is your Congressperson on this list?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:04:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.200947.1318@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>Patrick Sugent writes:
>>
>>  I typed this in for a conversation in another newsgroup, but
>>I thought I might as well spread the information around.  Basically,
>>it is a top 100 list of congressional spenders.  My Representative
>
>Any chance you've got the bottom of the list available as well?
>
>Keith
>


  I wish I did.  I'll try to get in touch with the NTLC and
see if they will release it.  I've never contacted them before, so
I have no idea what the odds are. 

  Any other requests while I'm at it?

Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Another view of the education situation
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:05:33 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

A Harris poll of employers found that they thought only 30% of recent
graduates had adequate math and reading skills and only 12% had
adequate writing skills.  As the Oakland Press newspaper reported
on August 25, 1992, one reason for this abyssmal state may be that
students, teachers,and parents are satisfied with the system.
In contrast to employers' views of graduates, 66% of recent graduates
claimed they had learned to write well <<my note: "had learned to
write good" was counted in this tally>>.  Parents surveyed in this same Gallup
poll put the number at 56%.  Teachers and administrators ranked their school's
overall effectiveness in the 90% range.  Educators do tend to accept that
the system has shortcomings but usually believe their own school is an
exception.

So I say, "What education problem?"  If students, parents, and educators are
happy, then I think these employers should just quit their whining.

Seriously, I think people should quit condemning government for problems
that have some roots in parental hands-off attitudes.  An informal
assessment of local teachers (very unscientific, but perhaps representative
nonetheless) found that during parent-teacher nights (when parents come and
determine what the teacher and curriculum are like), less than 5% of
parents attend.  My point is that our education system is sick but a large
part of the sickness lies in the home.  We seem to want government to spend
more money in the failed hope that this will bring scores up.  I say let's
make sure parents know that their involvment is crucial to educational
success before we burn an extra billion on the educational system.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 31 Aug 1992 17:09:19 CDT
From: John Schulien <U21187@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Newt Gingrich: The New York Times made me do it!!
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug28.122907.8518@mcnc.org>, ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman) says:
>
>I had a good laugh this morning.  Newt Gingrich was asked on
>NPR's Morning Edition about recent news reports that he had
>called Woody Allen the perfect embodiment of Democratic family
>values.

Clinton should act now and promise to deny Gingrich access to the oval
office once elected president. He could phrase his promise as:

                 Read my lips, no Newt access!