HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: DEBATE: Statement - 10/19/92
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 22:59:32 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:

> In article <8exeAFK00iUzQ29YZW@andrew.cmu.edu>, Dean Calloway <dc4l+@andrew.c
> > Propaganda and lies.  Reagan and Bush have combined to ring up a 2.569
> > trillion dollar debt, over three times that of all previous
> > administrations combined. Your assertion that this "growth" was
> > beneficial is naive.  Where do you think all this money is going to come
> > from? 
> 
> IMHO it is incorrect to lump Bush and Reagan together. Bush, in
> effect, implemented Dukakis' plan: More taxes, more spending, bigger
> deficits, more regulation. Regulation and spending grew faster under
> Bush than any president since WWII (faster than Carter!). We're
> talking 6-7% yearly growth rates in the size and budget of regulatory
> agencies and 10% yearly spending growth.
> 
> -- 
> Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
> Epoch Development Team   
> Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan


In reality, bush may have had more in common with Ross Perot than either 
Reagan, Carter or Clinton. George definitely wanted to be President. He 
just didn't seem to know *why.*

Without a vision, even Presidents perish.
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dear Dems: Here's your big chance-don't blow it (like last time)
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:15:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Nov4.223108.20379@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) wrote:
> 
> To all of you Democrats who have been moaning about not having an opportunity 
> to really improve this country the past 12 years,  here's your big chance. 
> With the presidency and the Congress in your column your philosophy of 
> government; i.e. let the government run a large portion of your lives (after 
> all, its for your own good), tax away your earnings (when will tax freedom day 
> be 4 years from now), and punish those who achieve and create in this country, 
> will be put to the test.  If your wrong, then here comes a Republican stampede 
> in 1996.
> 
> Kemp/Weld in '96

...bringing in *your* philosophy of government: let the government run a
large portion of everybody else's lives (after all, its for their own
good), borrow away our kids' earnings, and punish those who achieve and
create anything except personal wealth in this country.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:40:58 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 801@psygate.psych.indiana.edu, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) >...
>validated within the purview of those hearings. Our system demands that 
>Judge Thomas be considered innocent until proven guilty, and since no 
>proof could possibly have been established, I'm forced to conclude that 
>Ms. Hill's testimony was a waste of time. Sexual harassment is a serious 
>...

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to trials, not job interviews.  In a job
interview, you have the burden of proving that you are qualified for the job.
Thomas's response to these serious allegations was something that the Senate and
people needed to judge.  They judged him innocent enough to give him a lifetime
appointment to the highest court in the land.  I think that that was exoneration
enough.  Personally, I think he was guilty, but I doubt that there will ever be
enough evidence to prove it.  Guilty or not, I wouldn't have hired him based on
the way he responded to the Hill allegations.  I didn't think he showed the
proper demeanor for that office, even if he was innocent.  Bluster and charges of
racism were not appropriate responses.

Surveys now suggest that people have reassessed Thomas's likely guilt in this 
matter.  Too bad that it took them so long.  Too late now.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59456 misc.legal:19771
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:37:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: eff.1992Nov10.223733.24074
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <80My023X2aC901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>Well, Blackmun _was_ a federal judge, whereas H. Clinton has not been; I see 
>that as a significant distinction in qualification.
>
>'course, the most famous S.Ct. justice, John Marshall, had never been a judge 
>prior to taking the Chief Justice post.

Neither had Earl Warren.

I note that several of my favorite justices did not serve as judges
before being appointed to the Court: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas,
and Felix Frankfurter hadn't, for example.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: gtolar@xcluud.sccsi.com (Glynne Tolar)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Organization: Greater Montrose UFO Appreciation Society & Data Haven
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:14:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.142807.24873@ida.liu.se> e91petmo@odalix.ida.liu.se (Peter //odin) writes:
>jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>
>>OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.
>>________
>>Jennifer|
>>--------
>
>Once you pay taxes, you're a teeny-weeny bit closer to socialism!!!
>So, unless you're cheating with taxes, you're a flamin' commie!!!!!
>Oh, my God! Now, Clinton - tomorrow- ??? Stalin??? Ceacescu????????
>Seriously, are you sure you'd know Socialism if it stood right in
>front of you yelling, "HEY! YO! LOOK AT ME!!!"? I'm not.
>
>Twelve years too late, but not a second too soon!...
>--

I take it you like more government!  Why do you think our country is in
debt in the first place.  I know, you'll do what many do, blame it on the
republicans.  Check the constitution and see who has the power over the
budget, congress.  Hmmm? An idea crossed my mind.  I think when Clinton gets
in office I'll mail him a copy of the constitution.  It may be the first time
he's seen it!

>=================================================================
>| Peter Modin C92       | EMail: e91petmo@und.ida.liu.se        |
>| Rydsvagen 240 B:11    |               -"Come forth and win my |
>| S-582 51  LINKOPING   |  \\\  Amiga     eternal love", God    |
>| Int. +46 13 17 81 01  |   \\\ user!     said to Moses. But,   |
>| SWEDEN                |    \\\ ///      he came fifth and won |
>|                       |     \\X//       a toaster.            |
>=== Dept. of Computer Science, Linkoping University, Sweden  ====
Well, if we are going for low blows I could go on and on about choice of
computers and LONG .sigs.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59766 ca.politics:9531
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Maybe I'm paranoid, but ...
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:38:39 GMT

jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:

>   There seems to be a consensus among both liberal and conservative
>economists that the absolute, totally, completely worst thing a
>government can do during a prolonged recession/depression is to sharply
>raise trade barriers and risk setting off a protectionist international
>trade war.  Yet it seems the Bush administration, by imposing
>astronomic duties on EC wines and threatening that there's more to come,
>is toying with exactly that idea.

>   I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories, but I find myself
>wondering if the Bush administration isn't doing what it can to leave
>Clinton with the worst economy possible -- that George is, so to speak,
>taking a dump in the Oval Office and leaving it for his successor to
>clean up.

>   Am I crazy, or what? 

As an answer to the last question: no. And you are probably right about
the republicans wishing to leave a real mess behind when they leave
Washington. I mean, during the last few monthes we have been told over and
over again about free trade (by Bush et al), and now he sets in barriers
which are a real no-no in a free market sense. Mr Bush would have liked to
continue living in the White House and he is now angry that he cannot
continue doing it.

However, the wine merchants might not carry these white wines (since they
might not be able to sell them), and the people who are used to a
Mersault might now have to drink just some California wine or switch to
red (i.e. big deal).

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Thank you, Anita Hill
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:09:02 GMT


In article <bob1.721328972@cos>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) said:

> > ...when the Constitution calls for somebody to be nominated by a
> > politically elected officer and then approved or rejected by a
> > body of more politically elected officers, you're going to wind up
> > with a political process, folks.  That's the way it's supposed to
> > be.  [wdstarr]
>
> No, that's the way it is, but the Framers had the idea that this
> court would be representative of all Americans. We can but hope that
> it some day will be so.

While I'll grant you that the Framers had a far different idea of the
U.S. Senate in mind when they gave that body the duty of approving or
rejecting federal court nominees (after all, direct election of
Senators didn't come about until 1913), I'm not sure _what_ they had
in mind when they wrote Article III... certainly the "Publius" faction
didn't devote much (any?) of their Federalist Papers to the topic.

As a general question, how, other than through some sort of political
process, can you get a court that's representative of all Americans?
(I'm not saying that the currently-used political process is the best
for the job, or even that it works at all... I'm just asking if
there's any non-political way of doing it.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Corporate "Free Press" Covers the Elections (III)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:00:09 GMT

The Corporate "Free Press" Covers the Elections (III)

"An ironic feature of the media treatment of Salvadoran elections and
their less favorable view of the prospective Nicaraguan election is
that both the threat to journalist safety and violations of press
freedom are vastly greater in El Salvador that in Nicaragua. Over 30
journalists have been murdered in El Salvador since 1979, and four
Dutch journalists were killed only 11 days before the March 1982
election.

The foreign press corps was trooped into a morgue by the Salvadoran
army to see the bodies, with ripped genitals exposed to media view.
This episode was suppressed in the U.S. mass media, led to no large
outcries and generalizations about the quality of the Salvadoran
government, and may have contributed to the remarkable mass media
silence on unfavorable media (as well as other) conditions in the
incipient democracy. U.S. reporters can report what they like from
Nicaragua without fear of bodily harm.

This is not so in El Salvador But the media cannot admit that in our
client state they must adjust reports and reporters because of literal
threats of death for improper thought.

[Edward S Herman, previously cited]

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59252 ca.politics:9470
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:43:26 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <100853@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <13076@optilink.UUCP>
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #you'll realize how much hatred there is out there, by homosexuals,
# #for anyone that isn't prepared to cluck sympathetic remarks about
# #homosexuality.
# 
# Now, at least, you have your own ready-made utopia to escape to.
# 
# COLORADO. Specifically, Denver, Boulder, or Aspen.
# 
# You see, they used to have municipal anti-discrimination laws protecting
# all sexual orientations against discrimination in those cities.
# 
# Then on Tuesday, the fine citizens of Colorado passed a referendum
# amending their state Constitution. The State of Colorado or its
# "subsidiaries" shall make no law giving any protected status to gay
# men, lesbians, or bisexual individuals, effectively appealing those
# aforementioned city ordinances.
# 
# Now heterosexual men and women enjoy a special privilege in those
# cities. They can sue for discrimination if they are fired because of
# their sexuality. Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals can no longer.

Those cities should repeal their sexual orientation provision
immediately.

# The Fourteenth Amendment be damned, I guess.
# 
# Are you going to move to Colorado soon, Cramer?

Not likely, but I'm pleased by their actions.  I would be more
pleased if they had struck out sexual orientation completely
as a cause for lawsuit.

You of course didn't respond to my posting.  Probably, you couldn't.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58497 ca.politics:9380 ba.politics:6824
From: carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Playing Politics With Our Economy
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:35:51 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <13067@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>It should be obvious that the Democrats were simply playing
>politics with our economy, willing to throw hundreds of thousands
>of Americans out of work, just to get the Presidency back.
>
>What incredible sleaze these liberals are.

	Oh, I see.
	Of course the conservatives wouldn't play the same games.
	I see...

	By the way, ever heard of the word NAIVETE ??

carlos.

Ever feel like the whole world is a tuxedo and you're a pair of brown shoes?
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Game Over; Thank You For Playing
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:41:57 GMT

In article <5NOV199211415345@utkvx3.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>
>The greatest thing about this country is our election system.  For over
>200 years, we have been able to select leaders, rather than resorting
>to coups, inheritance of position, etc.

>  To turn your back on the
>result of the election and say "this is a sad day for America" is to
>turn your back on America itself, the Constitution, and everything
>"patriotism" means.

It *is* a sad day for America. An inferior lawyer-politician with bad plans
is about to take the helm. To say it is only to speak the truth, IMHO.
Yes, it is wonderful that elections decide these things and not
violence, but to pretend that that is all there is to Democracy is
simply wrong. 

> I suffered quietly under 12 years of Reagan/Bush,

I seem to recall that when our great leader Reagan was shot, there
were people who said that they were sorry Hinkley missed.
Ugly, hateful people.
Reagan had just taken office.  I remember people marching against
Reagan his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th year in office.
You know, I even marched one time along with them.
I recall lies, calumnies, jokes, hysteria, and all sorts of nonsense.
There wasn't a name he wasn't called by his enemies. I recall
many commentators speaking of how Reagan threatened peace with
the Soveit Union when he spoke the truth of how it was an evil empire.
I recall a leftist commenting in 1984 on Reagan's re-election that
it was the end of democracy in America. This and more, all during
the sublime leadership of the greatest President during our lifetime.

He was never given a rest, or acknowledgment of his successes,
by the Democrats and other ideological enemies. even now, in history,
*you* can't give him a rest: "suffered"? nonsense. 

>because it was the the will of the people.  I'm sorry to see that 
>members of your party lack to maturity to behave in an adult fashion.

I'm sorry to see that you lack the maturity to accept dissenting voices.
It *is* mature to speak the truth. You claimed numerous times to be
informed, and yet you have been corrected numerous times on
several mistaken beliefs and facts. You are again misinformed here.

The majesty of our democracy is that the people *always* have an input.
Not just on election day; and to suggest people should just
sit down and shut up is an insult to all of us.
You apparently didn't listen to Perot's speech on Tuesday.
He spoke of *staying involved* constantly, and keeping the
politicians' feet to the fire.  That is our right as citizen's.
No .... it is our duty.

Pat
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59935 alt.politics.elections:23674 alt.rush-limbaugh:9600 talk.rumors:1253 alt.activism:18729
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 13 Nov 1992 03:15:41 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov12.214232.29777@ntmtv> jmartin@ntmtv.UUCP (Jeff Martin) writes:
>From article <1doptuINNc5r@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, by jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ():
>> In article <1992Nov10.023120.2114@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>>>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>>>>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>>>>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.
>>>
>>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.
>>>
>>>--Tim Smith
>> 
>> In your opinion...
>> 
>> John
>> 
>
>NO! NO! NO!. 
>It is a fact Mrs. Hill offered no OBJECTIVE evidence (tapes, lab test, eye
>witnesses, coke can, etc..) to substantiate here claims.  Her only "witnesses" 
>were heresay evidence that would not been allowed in a court of law.
>
>Believe her or not, at least admit to yourself that this case was at best
>her word against his. What little evidence there was (phone logs documenting
>the fact that AH continued to contact Thomas after leaving the EEOC) seem
>to call into question Mrs. Hill's allegations.
>
>Jeff Martin

There *were* eye witnesses that were not allowed to testify at the
hearing. As for *FACTS* Mr. Thomas called the senate committee
"a bunch of racists conducting a high tech lynching..." because they
were investigating a possible incidence of abuse of power...That kind
of statement was totally uncalled for *especially* from someone who
is being considered as a supreme court justice...as for *FACT* there
was not a single woman on the senate committee considering allegations
of sexual harassment...kinda stacked against Hill to begin with...





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: What to do about Colorado
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:00:41 GMT

In article <13079@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Think about it: in Oregon, the homosexual lobby had the following
>groups on their side:

>4. The Catholic Church.

>6. Many of the main-line Christian churches.

	This shows how much respect for organized religion that the
Claytoon has.

	Zero.

	Whenever it's something he doesn't like, he just thumbs his
nose.

	And one last thing. I passed through Petaluma by bus yesterday
(as I write this), and it made me very sad that such a pretty little
town could be spoiled by the presence of such a bigot.

/Loren
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:18:17 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1992Nov8.124336.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>      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.

Which is true.  That recession was deeper but the economy quickly 
recovered.
>                             This does not seem consistent
> with the "worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme I 
> continually heard from the Clinton campaign.

The GDP growth rate for Bush's 4 years (.8% average) is the 
slowest since Hoover.  This is certainly the worse (psudo) recovery
in 50 years.
>                                               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.
>      Just think what we'll hear *after* the inauguration....

Probably more whining...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)