HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Why Bush would/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: SPS
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:55:55 GMT

In article <mykes.0dq2@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

|> 
|> I would point out that recently, a woman came into the US carrying the RU486 pill.
|> The pills were confiscated by customs - understandably.  The woman was about 7 weeks
|> pregnant, and the pills are useable through the 8th or 9th week...  Anyhow, she asked
|> Clarence Thomas to intercede in her behalf.  Thomas directed the Bush administration
|> to explain why she shouldn't have the pills.  The administration complied and the
|> court found the administration's explanation to be acceptable.  Due to the importance
|> of a quick resolution to the question, the court acted.  And it was very much an
|> advisory opinion, since there was no court case.  I offer this example not in any
|> way to debate the specifics of the case, but only as an example.
|> 
She went to Federal district court and asked for and received a preliminary injunction
ordering the government to return the pills.  The preliminary injunction was preliminary
to a trial on whether the government was justified in confiscating the pills.  The 
judge ruled that time was of the essence and that the woman would likely win at trial
so he ordered the pills returned to her,  pending trial.  The government appealed
to the appeals court for the region which stayed or reversed (I don't know which)
the injunction.  The woman then appealed to the Supreme Court Justice overseeing
that appeals court for re-instatement of the injunction.  Clarence Thomas refused her 
request.

So this very much was not an advisory opinion.

Those opposing the Boland amendment did not have any possibility or need of getting
a preliminary injunction.

To find the law unconstitutional someone has to be charged with its' violation,  be
convicted,  and appeal claiming the law unconstitutional.  Judge Walsh has not
charged anyone with violating any of the Boland amendments.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: elwin@uxbridge.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:47:44 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <1992Sep9.191656.26216@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|> In article <27672@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
|> >   Where is the "education president?"  Is he the same guy whose
|> >justice department is fighting MIT when MIT and the Ivy Leagues try
|> >to offer "needs-blind" admissions?  Doesn't this seem like a stretch
|> >of the anti-trust laws?  Professional baseball was granted exemptions
|> >from anti-trust laws; why not MIT?
|> 
|> Professional baseball's exemption is STATUTORY.  Anyone who thinks
|> that MIT deserves too can support a law to give it one.
|> 
|> The MIT case had nothing to do with need-blind admission, it was over
|> price-fixing so that MIT wouldn't "bid" more for a student than any
|> other school.  Sure, MIT would like to pay as little as it can, but
|> students being bid for are hurt by that practice.  MIT thinks that it
|> shouldn't have to compete on price and the law disagrees.
|> 
|> Note that other schools figured out that they didn't have a case, that
|> they were breaking the law.  MIT disagreed, and was wrong.
|> 
|> -andy
|> --
|> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
|> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

Actually, I believe the new Higher Education Act explicitly gives schools the right
to do what MIT and the Ivy's have been doing. So the case is moot. Is this the
statutory exemption you were asking for?
						- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz)
Subject: Chicken (cluck cluck)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 05:16:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

> Bush wimping out of real debates

Can you believe Bush?  All the bashing at the convention.  All the
name calling.  Will he dare to substantiate it in a real debate?

What a perfect opportunity for our president to bypass the 'liberal' media
and make a mockery of his 'draft-dodging' opponent.  A REAL, one-on-one
debate.  Not the sanitized news conferences of '88.

Naaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Its easier to use the 'liberal' media to pound sound bites into the
masses heads.  (It ain't gonna work George.)

BTW, I have video-tapes of the 1988 debates that I am going to re-watch
sometime soon.  I'll post some quotes (I know I'll find some good ones).

Gary
-- 

   "To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."  -Plutarch
   "Why do better when you can just blame it on the democrats?" -G.H.W.Bush

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:34:46 GMT

In  <1992Sep12.055553.4593@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>  mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>> What do you and people making over $200,000 a year have in common?
>>
>> 
>>
>> You'll all be paying more in taxes during a Clinton administration!
>>
>> Tonight on CNN's Crossfire Robert Novak asked senior Clinton campaign
>> advisor Frank Greer point blank THREE times "Will Bill Clinton guarantee
>> people making under $200,000 a year that they will not have their taxes
>> raised during a Clinton administration?"  He ducked the question THREE
>> times when all it required was a simple yes or no.  What's the Clinton
>> campaign trying to hide?  Better hold on to your wallet, there's some
>> 'slick' fingers trying to grab it!

In article <1992Sep14.161616.26211@watson.ibm.com> born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
>Hey Richard, who pays for your funding?
>
>I just can't stand people who are on the dol(sp?) who complain about taxes.
>Being on the dol(sp?)  includes the president, people who work for NASA,
>a member of the military, a county garbage collector, a teacher, etc...

So I guess in your world people who work directly or indirectly for the
government have no right to representation in terms of taxes?  {:^)
Don't forget, being on the dol (I don't know how it's spelled either)
includes big computer companies that get big government contracts to supply
big (or lots of little) systems to big government agencies.

>I could never understand, how,  someone who is on the dol, complain about taxes
>If we cut taxes 50%, can we cut everyones dol by 50%?

Nowhere have I stated that I am opposed to paying taxes or having them
raised.  I would gladly pay more in taxes if it was put to reducing the
deficit and spending was frozen.  What I am opposed to is people like
Clinton, a man who is luring the middle class to vote for him by saying 
that people making over $200,000 will have their taxes raised, but then
refuses to guarantee that the rest of us won't pay more.  It's hypocritical
of him to blast Bush for compromising with the Democrats and raising taxes,
and then play 'mind games' himself with the middle class.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Text of Bush Speech, Please
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:48:51 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


OK, now that I've said the magic word, could someone please send me
a text of Bush's speech at the Republican Convention?

thanks,
anwar
-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:55:52 GMT

Richard Mulac (mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:
:   Today in a speech defense expert Bill Clinton referred to Patriot
: missiles as 'being able to go through doors and down chimmenys (?)'.
: Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
: thinking of the cruise missiles which were used in the Gulf war.  It's the
: Dukakis tank ride all over again.
: 
: -- 
: Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
: NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:        "I'm not a Bush supporter, I just can't         | These pontifications
:              can't stand Clinton." - me                |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: lambert@cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Sep2.212447.16220@calspan.com> <1992Sep9.111518.26548@sinix.UUCP>
	<1992Sep10.062620.17652@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:00:23

>>>>> On 10 Sep 92 06:26:20 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:

> The homicide rate for Switzerland is lower than most other European nations.

Actually it is around the median for Europe. (1.2 per 100,000 people)

> In England, Canada and two Australian provinces (those places
> I have seen statistics for) there was no decrease in homicides associated
> with their gun control laws:

You must have seen different statistics from me.  In all the places
that you mentioned, there was a decrease in the  homicide rate
associated the gun control laws.  (The decrease in Canada after 1978
was not statistically significant -- but the lack of a statistically
significant change in a crime rate has not stopped pro-RKBA folks from
talking about the gun-training program in Orlando in 1966.)

Of course, this does not prove that the gun control laws caused the
decrease, and the size of the decrease was certainly not large enough
to explain all of the difference in the homicide rates between the US
and the places that you mentioned.

Tim

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:20:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <NEERI.92Sep14175258@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>>  Can you name any EC nation with lower mrginal rates than the US?
>>  Can you name any without some form of national health insurance
>>  or mandated employer-supplied health coverage?
>
>I must admit that I don't have sufficient data about the EC to answer these
>questions. I suspect that if any EC country has lower marginal taxes for
>corporations than the US, it would be Luxemburg. Some form of health insurance
>probably exists in all EC countries, but I would be surprised if a country like
>Portugal had a higher level of government investment and government mandated
>worker retraining than the US.
>
>>> And Sweden, the country which probably fits these criteria best, had
>>>  unemployment between 1.4% and 2.8% through 1985-1990.
>>
>>  Their unemployment rate is quite a bit higher now, although still
>>  below the US.  But at the cost of the highest marginal tax rates
>>  in Europe,
>
>OK. My point was that both economic policies and unemployment differ widely
>within the EC, and that they are not necessarily correlated in the sense you claimed.

  My point was that the supporters of Clinton/Gore seem to think that
  industrial policy/government R&D and infastructure investment, etc, are 
  necessarily good and will promote lower unemployment.  I'm listening
  with all ears but they haven't made a convincing case.  Also, both
  Bush and Clinton are talking about "job training" as a solution to 
  unemployment, but there are *very* few economic sectors now that are
  doing significant net hiring or where there are significant labor 
  needs going unmet due to lack of trained workers.   So it is unclear
  what jobs all these workers will be trained to do!

  Unemployment is a problem all over the developed world right now.
  Not too many years ago Australia was actively soliciting workers
  from other nations; today they have an 11% unemployment rate.
  Nations like Sweden and Japan which have historically had labor
  shortages are now seeing their unemployment rates increasing dra-
  matically.  US industries (such as electronics and software) that
  the BLS was predicting strong and unmet demand in for the all of
  the 90's are seeing massive layoffs and unemployment.  "Jobs"
  is rapidly becoming THE issue of the 90's and the simplistic 
  theories of the past don't seem to be working.  But political 
  leaders can't seem to face this.  The basic underlying fact is 
  that there are massive changes going on and the "science" of
  economics, which was never very strong anyway, is proving totally
  helpless to offer useful explanations or guidance.  


---peter





Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:37:14 GMT

In article <BuDMDr.Bx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>gstory@netcom.com (Glenn Story) writes:
>: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>: >If the thought he [Bush] was above the law, he'd have said "Piss on this
>: >stupid law --- cut the whole fucking forest down!"  (IE: he puts 
>: >himself above the law by ignoring it as he pleases [like most of
>: >the democratic Congress does] NOT by submitting himself to the 
>: >results of due process.)
 
>: Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?

>Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
>write bad checks?

Well, if there were, what would that have to do with Congress, which
isn't in any state and therefore not subject to their laws?

Furthermore, your question is doubly irrelevant, since Congress didn't
write bad checks.  The House "Bank" had what is the equivalent of
overdraft protection.  If they wrote a check greater than what was in
their account, the bank, BY POLICY, covered it out of its own (meaning
other Congressmen's) funds.

Bush, on the other hand, DOES put himself above the law.  The 'Gag
Rule,' whether or not constitutional, was illegal.  Bush couldn't get
Congress to pass a gag rule, so he simply had HHS 're-interpret' a law
passed by Congress over a decade earlier in such a way as to allow a gag
rule.  I hate when we get presidents that legislate rather than just
enforce the law.

Not to mention Iraq-gate.  (Or Iran-Contra.)  
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4853 alt.politics.clinton:5077 alt.politics.elections:12935 alt.rush-limbaugh:4648 talk.politics.misc:45054
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Clinton's anti-Vietnam efforts
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:13:27 GMT
Keywords: READ the record before you pontificate!!!!

a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>                            You know it always amazes me that people 
>come up with opinions of other people without knowing the complete story.
>The republicans speak of a liberal media bias, but the truth is the
>mainstream media doesn't do a very good job of reporting the news
>indepth on either side.

A good example is the claim being thrown around that Clinton is ignorant
or lying because he supposedly said in his American Legion speech that 
Lincoln had no military experience. Someone on this group claimed this,
I saw the same claim on GEnie, and the topper was a letter to the editor
in my local paper yesterday where the letter-writer chided Clinton and
proceeded to pontificate about Lincoln military factoids. The riot was
that Clinton had mentioned all the same facts in his speech! Obviously,
many criticize but few read what Clinton actually says. The media abstracted
Clinton's comments to something like "Clinton pointed out the lack of military
experience of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Reagan" and people run hog wild with
their own imaginings from there.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5188 talk.politics.misc:45546 alt.politics.clinton:5503
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: economics, swedes, and fantasies (was Re: Bush is a ...)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:38:10 GMT
 <1992Sep13.155656.12652@anasazi.com> <1992Sep14.225504.4498@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>In article <1992Sep13.155656.12652@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>>
>>Well, in that case why did Sweden vote out the socialists? Why has Sweden
>>had to increase its interest rates to 75% (last week)?
>
>Actually, the German bundesbank had a lot to do with this.

Perhaps, but I don't think this was the reason.  The reason they did it was 
to prop up their currency.  Why? The immediate precipitating cuase appears 
to be that the Finns decided to let their currency float, and Sweden has 
resisted devaluing the currency drastically.  And does't want to let it float.
Thus, in order to support the currency, they cranked up the discount rate.  
Worked just fine, so far.

We could argue forever about the root cause, but it would appear to be that
Sweden is having some growing/change pains as the convert to a less
socialist system.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5050 talk.politics.misc:45347 alt.politics.clinton:5328
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:20:32 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <192ed6INNab9@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

MW:If the sum result of all of the Clinton/Gore tax changes result in more
MW:taxes being collected, then by my definition Clinton/Gore support higher
MW:taxes.

SS:By that token, Ronald Reagan supports higher taxes, since his tax cuts resulted
SS:in (or so supply-siders say) more taxes being collected (the result of an
SS:increased tax base??).

I guess I should have been more precise with my terms.

What are the proposed affects of the tax cuts.  Is it to reduce taxes,
increase taxes, or to redistribute income.

Reagan was a tax cutter, because his tax changes were designed to bring
in less in taxes.  The fact that the economy then took off and the
government was then able to collect more in taxes was not Reagan's
fault ;^).  
-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4325 alt.politics.clinton:4333 alt.politics.elections:12594
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A few things in Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 00:56:04 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

> In article <5162@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> >     Ok, I assume we're talking about Bill. He may not be personally
> >in favor of abortion on demand, but why is he publicly advocating that
> >he will have a litmus test for Supreme Court justices regarding choice?
> >Saying that Mario Cuomo is qualified to be on the Supreme Court to me is
> >one of the most stupid things I've heard Clinton say!
>
>    I can't believe that the man whom Clinton accussed of being connected to
> the Mob in his conversation with Flowers a few months ago is now his
> leading candidate for the Supreme Court.  And people talk about Quayle!
> This to me is the best example of Clinton's pandering.  He is willing to
> kiss Mario's *** just to gain the support of his followers.
>

Clinton said that Mario would make a good justice for the Court.  That doesn't
mean he has any intentions of appointing him.  Can you provide references that
say he intends to do so?



|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.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:05:18 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

: With Bush, we're going to get growth in entitlments kept to a minimum.
: With Clinton, we're going to get lots of growth in in entitlements, taxes
: AND the debt.
: 
: The only real choice is the Libertarian party: cut gov't, cut taxes,
: let people be free -- unless you like getting 50% of your income taken
: away in taxes.
: 
: Andre Marrou for President.

Hear, hear!

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher

Marrou/Lord in '92




Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Subject: Re: For those who missed it ...
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:09:05 GMT

In article <5246@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>George Bush took out five minutes in prime time (11:00PM ET) to say he
>has (finally) published as one volume his Agenda for Renewing America.
>If you want a copy of this text, call 1-800-328-1200. Leave your name
>and mailing address at the recording.
>
I tried the above number and got someone who did not have any idea what I
was talking about.  Got a better number?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Cox                            Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
Phone: (512) 891-3182          UUCP Address: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!jimc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4742 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3584 talk.politics.misc:44855