HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: GOP did OK below top of ticket? (was Re: None)
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:22:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.184418.28004@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>Just about everywhere except on the top of the ticket, the GOP
>did okay. They picked up 5 seats in the Texas senate, and I heard
>that they also gained majority in a number of Statehouses (about 7 or so)
>(did they pick up Florida?). The Senate wasn't so hot, but a net loss
>of one isn't bad either.

In California, on the other hand, the Republican party suffered several
major disasters:

1.  The state went for Clinton.

2.  Both senate seats went to Democrats, at least one of whom is very
liberal.

3.  A proposition that would have given more power to the Republican
governor, Pete Wilson, over the Democratic controlled Legislature was
defeated.

4.  Most surprisingly of all, the Democrats got two more seats
in the state Assembly (the lower house in the Legislature) despite
the new redistricting plan that EVERYBODY thought was far more favorable
to Republicans than the old one had been.  California's Democratic
party also kept its majority in the state's congressional delegation,
despite similar Republican expectations from the new redistricting.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58265 alt.politics.libertarian:1632 misc.legal:19581
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Impeachment
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:56:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov5.175600.3423
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov5.155249.13530@b30.ingr.com> craig@jido.b30.ingr.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.040626.14082@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
>   In article <1992Nov5.000014.25877@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>   >It was fun and easy, but it wasn't necessarily accurate.  Judicial
>   >review is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Constitution; many people thought
>   >it was implicitly in there, but not all did.  
>
>   Who didn't?  It was pretty clear to everyone at the time that judicial
>   review was an inherent power of the judicial branch.
>
>Apparently at least the Congress didn't. 

I'd disagree.  Congress was just as aware of the issues regarding
judicial review as the Constitutional Convention.

In fact, the Constitutional Convention had a big debate over whether
to give the judicial branch the power of explicit veto, not just for
constitutional reasons, but when the law just simply wasn't a good law.
The idea of a veto was obviously rejected, but in the debate, both sides
took it as a given that the judicial branch could strike down
unconstitutional laws through judicial review, one of the reasons there
wasn't a need for a veto.

>Given that Marbury v. Madison
>(1803) is universally cited as having _established_ the doctrine of
>judicial review _of Federal law_ _by the SC_, one is left to assume
>that between 1789 and 1803 the question was unsettled. 

Unadressed does not equal unsettled.  And other judicial courts had
struck down Congressional laws in the past without controversy.  We're
talking Article III power here, and judicial review of federal law by
Article III courts had been exercised from the start.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:56:24 GMT

In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>In article <Qf0kU8u00awUB5F1Uw@andrew.cmu.edu>, ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas > 
>>The 68 cent figure is one of the most biased figures ever generated.  It
>>does not count in the fact that many women choose to work part time (so
>>they can raise families) or that women may have to take extended time
>>off from a job for child bearing.  When men and women work the same job,
>>with the same experience and qualifications for the same length of time,
>>they are paid the same.  many studies have shown this to be the case. 
>>And where it is not the case the is legal recourse.
>> 
>
>"Many women choose to work part-time, so they can raise families". Oh God! 
>That's rich!!! Only someone with no idea what it's like in the current minimum-
>wage service sector slave pits would talk like that. 
>
>Maybe lawyers can *choose* to work part-time, but at the lower end of the wage
>scale, choice is a moot point. Hell, if these women had any choice, they wouldn't
>be working at all in the first place!! They work because there's no such thing as
>family leave, because they have no other way to feed their children.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure.  I can't speak about minimum wage families, but
my brother who works for Mobil is the single earner in his family -
it's non-trivial, but they're doing it.

In addition, I took a women's studies course back when I was in school
and we got to discussing the 5 or so reasons why women make 68 cents on
the dollar compared to men.  Two of the 5 are a) a woman on average
will be out of the workforce about 6 years per child while she has kids
AND she does it at the worst possible time between the ages of 25-35
when men are building their careers and b) women are perceived as being
less reliable than men because they will place their kids/family above
their career and men tend to do the reverse.

I discussed this with the Prof. after class one day and got her to
admit that these could be the 2 main reasons for the $0.38 gap -
however, she continued to assert in class that it was discrimination
that held women down.

While I've worked at Novell-Austin I've had 3 bosses, all women.  From
my personal experience, I can't see any obvious discrimination, on
Novell's or my part.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:23:21 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <4NOV199209140199@utkvx3.utk.edu>, drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Ste
ve) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.043731.138233@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (
PAUL N. RITTER) writes...
>>Well, at this time it is not yet official, but it seems that Gov. Clinton has
>>fooled enough of the American people. I can't believe how fast this country is
>>going to Hell in a handbasket. Congrats Democrats. My mission to inform the
>>general population of this net has failed. I'm counting the days...Waiting to
>>see how long it take Sadaam to start and MOST LIKELY FINISH what he has
>>started. I just can't believe how misinformed the American people really are.
>
>Hardly.  This election is characterized as one where the people were
>the MOST informed.  Record numbers of people read the literature, watched
>the debates, watched the informercials.  If they got all this information
>and they are, as you say, "misinformed," they you must be calling the
>American people stupid for not voting for Bush.  (Are you calling Arica
>stupid?)
   Even those who never voted before will welcome the day that the Repubs get
   back into office. I didn't say to vote for "Bush", vote for the IDEA of the
   party the individual STANDS for.


>
>>I'm counting the days to see my right to own firearms slip away. I'm counting
>>the days until the people realize that for 60 of 65 years, the Congress has
>>had the Democrat majority rule in everything we do. And that it's just as easy
>>to vote in new congressmen/women as it is the President of the U.S., and that
>>you can't put the blame on a president for the MAJORITY of the problems in our
>>country when you have a strong Socialist governing body.
>
>As long as you people stick to this rhetoric and don't give the new
>administration a chance to prove it wrong, we're never going to be
>able to unite to fix this country.  Did you bother to watch Clinton's
>acceptance speech?
  No, I didn't see ALL of it. I get a sour stomach every time I see his face.
  The Dems WON'T unite to fix this country. The members elected reflect
  everything I detest about people. You put welfare cheats, SERIOUS check
  bouncers, and druggies into office. Yeah, this country has hit rock bottom
  alright.

>>   In these next four years, we are going to see some significant changes. A
>
>Yes, and they will be, for the most part, necessary and good ones!

   Yeah, tax me to the point where I'll be too poor to light my own ass on
   fire and jump into a pit in the ground.


>>few of them will be for the common good of the people, but most to shove
>>government right down our throats and disrupt the balance.
>>I mourn for four years...Doomed...Doomed...

I'm sorry that you feel so bad about living in a democracy.  Why don't
>you move to another country with autocratic rule?
>
     Too bad you don't know what the word DeomcraCY means. Big difference to
     the term DemocrAT stands for.

>-s
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Summary: Socialism and morality -- what he said!
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:39:39 GMT

In article <ta==_v@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>
>Advocating a position that an individual should be free to choose
>how much he/she is willing to give does not make the advocator
>'selfish'.  Compassion is not measured by how much you are willing
>to force others to conform to your notion of morality, it is measured
>by your own personal deeds.  If anyone can be called 'selfish' it
>is socialists like yourself who wish to impose their view of morality
>on all others.  You are no different that those fundamentalist religious
>types who wish to impose their notion of morality on the rest of us.

All "social engineers" should _carefully_ read that; it illuminates
the real nature of what they support ever so clearly, with the cold, 
harsh light of truth.

I am not sure the hubris of the typical Socialist is penetrable 
by anything, but if this doesn't do it, I can't imagine what would.

My compliments on a truly outstanding paragraph!

Dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: otto@systems.cc.fsu.edu (John G. Otto)
Subject: Re: Impeachment
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,misc.legal
Organization: Tallahassee Objectivists for  Nancy Lord in 96
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:06:56 GMT

> In article <1992Nov5.040626.14082@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
>  thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) wrote:
> Who didn't?  It was pretty clear to everyone at the time that judicial
> review was an inherent power of the judicial branch.

It wasn't until a couple decades into the 19th century that the Supremes
claimed this power for themselves.  It was hotly contested by Congress.
It was pretty clear to everyone at the time that judicial review was NOT
an inherent power of the judicial branch.
jgo   John G. Otto   otto@systems.cc.fsu.edu
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:35:57 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov3.184742.1574@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
} You think a Democratically controlled Congress is
} going to want to make THEIR President look bad?

As long as Clinton goes along with them, no.  Even though they were from
the same party, Jimmy Carter found a very hostile Congress, when he tried
to ramrod some things through them too.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"I will not raise taxes on the middle class. ... I disagree with Mr. Perot
 on how MUCH to increase taxes on the middle class."  -- Bill Clinton, 3rd
 Presidential debate
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Dive, Baby, Dive!
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:57:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.224738.19386@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <73653@hydra.gatech.EDU> jgostin@mal-s1.gatech.edu (Jill Gostin) writes:
>>>In a previous article, whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) says:
>>>
>>>>Remember too, that yes, Clinton has clearly won the election, BUT he
>>>>goes to the White House with almost 60% of the voters having NOT
>>>>voted for him. 
>>
>>
>>Remember, too, that several presidents have been elected with an even
>>smaller percentage of the vote than Clinton... Lincoln was elected
>>with less than 40% of the popular vote.
True.

>>I believe Teddy Roosevelt was
>>also elected with about 40%.
Not true. You may be thinking of 1912, when Wilson won. see below.

>>I think there are many more, too (Nixon,
>>Kennedy??).
It was a squeaker, within a point away in popular vote.

The best analogy to the 1992 election would be 1912, when the Democrat Wilson
beat out the GOP-splintered Taft and  "Bull-Moose" T. Roosevelt.
Wilson got a little over 40% of the vote. Roosevelt was the strongest
third party showing this century.


>If we consider the vote as a percentage of the American population,
>Reagan made it in '80 with maybe 26% of the population supporting him
>actively.  Clinton may beat Reagan's raw vote count, given the high
>turn-out this year.

I disagree with your analysis. The people who don't vote generally
have the *same* split in opinion as those who did.
Turn-out this year was about 56% ... With a ~43% popular vote
of votes cast being for Clinton, it translates to 24%.
I boggles the mind to think that 3/4s of America opposes our
next President. (Again, the presumption is faulty.)

Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:41:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.074838.8909@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>In article <BxJAAI.88H@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>>
>>Rush's comment was along the lines of: "Since when are qualifications
>>important to people who support AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?!?"
>>
>>Great line. It turned me into a dittohead.
>>
>>P.S. You ever notice that companies will put EEO/AA on applications, ads,
>>etc.? Of course, this expands to mean "Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative
>>Action." Isn't this contradictory? If you have a quota system in place, it's
>>not equal opportunity.
>
>Quit your whining over affirmative action, go to class, get decent grades,
>and grow up.  I am sick of beating you guys of "Merit" and having some lush
>of a frat boy cry 'affirmative action' because he finally has to compete on
>a level playing field.  If you want to end affirmative action, work for
>justice--even when you will not benefit from its application.
>

This is a fine piece of writing and you should be commended for your fortitude
and courage, and those who acted the way they did should be removed.  No
question or argument.  I don't think, however, that you could characterize 
most of us as "lush of a frat boy".  The complaint and I have also seen it,
is against the side of affirmative action that pulls in underqualified 
minorities under an arbitrary quota system, and then holds them to a lower
standard of productivity because of a fear of retaliation and screams of
"Racism!" and "Discrimiantion!"  I work for a prestigious company and I am
proud of the ass-busting effort I made to get here.  I have 3.8+ friends who
were turned down for it.  Yet I see minorities (a few, not all by any means) 
who screw around in full sight safe in the knowledge that they are safe.

I have no problem competing on an open market on my own merits for jobs
with anybody, regardless of their race or whatever.  I have never 
discriminated against anybody, but it angers me that you would be 
discriminated against because you are a woman, but it also angers me that I
have an automatic disadvantage because of affirmative action.

What is the solution?  I guess right now we have a problem with an imperfect
solution.
-- 
Tim Canham
tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Pasadena, CA
"Everybody always told me I was a rocket scientist!"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60070 alt.rush-limbaugh:9660 talk.rumors:1272 alt.activism:18759 alt.politics.elections:23756
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:40:17 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <1992Nov13.203514.18128@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>If these are the two main reasons, then it may demonstrate that the
>entire system is biased against women.  If a system requires something
>of a person to succeed that functionally is not possible in most cases
>(women who want children), then the system is biased.  A key question
>is whether missing a few years of work to raise a child (or even the
>few weeks that many women take off today) really detracts from the
>contributions a women can make to a company.  In some fields, they
>would need to keep up on current education.  Obviously, there is
>lost time, but why can't they get back in where they were if they
>keep up with new knowledge in the field?  Is this a fair reason to
>put women on the slow track?

If I'm a manager, and I've got two good workers names Jack and Jill --
both of whom are excellent workers in a similar way, I may face a time
when Jill chooses to have a child. If she takes time off (via vacation/
company falily leave/federally mandated family leave, etc.), then she can
still keep up in the field. But, when she returns, and I need to promote
someone, I'm more likely -- all else being equal -- to promote the person
who has been there, has more hands-on experience in the office. It's just
good business. It's a biological disadvantage that women have to weigh. It's
not fair, but I wouldn't go so far to say it's biased. It's just life.

						- greg
-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58545 alt.rush-limbaugh:9173 alt.politics.elections:22922 alt.politics.clinton:16145 alt.politics.bush:13384
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 6 Nov 1992 18:24:26 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Ted Krueger writes:
>Do you think that there is a difference between the tax on profits and 
>capital gains tax?  What do you think capital gains taxes are?

Yes, there is a big difference.  If I own a house, I don't pay capital
gains tax on that house until I sell it, & only if the sale price is
greater than the purchase price (+ some other things).  I will, however,
have paid tax on the income I derived from renting the house during
my period of ownership (- allowable expenses).   The profits I acquire
_while_ running the business should be my main consideration for whether
or not the business was working, & whether or not the business can
be grown or not.  In fact, they will determine whether or not there
will be a capital gain or loss.  Can you address these questions now?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58300 soc.culture.usa:8260 alt.politics.perot:5185 alt.politics.clinton:15900 alt.politics.bush:13213
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Sign seen at Bush rally
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:17:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Oct30.223513.26538@netcom.com> hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser) writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.152604.10400@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:

>>Klinton has made Brady Bill and a ban on U.S. militia weapons top
>>priority in a Klinton Administration.

>Top priority?  Hardly.  An imporant issue? Fersure. 
>But since you're so quick to wave the 2nd amendment in everyone's face,
>why don't you go back and read it. And while you're reading it,
>think about the types of firearms the Framers had in mind when
>they wrote it. Do you think they ever in their wildest dreams
>thought about fully automatic guns?  About plastic pistols that
>can pass thru metal detectors undetected?  About six-shooters?
>About Thompson Submachine guns? About Gloks and Uzis and 
>bazooks and rocket lauchcers fer chrissakes?  

I guess they had as much idea of modern fire arms as they did of
modern communications media. Do you really want to claim that the
First Amendment only covers voice, handwriting, and 18th century style
printing presses?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: While We Are discussing AntiWar Protestors
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:51:43 GMT

Monte Olsen <olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu> writes:
] 
] I guess I'm an ingrate and a bit thick headed, too, I
] spent a year over there, and I don't feel I owe protestors
] other than the Vietnam vets a debt of gratitude either.
] 
] Monte Olsen

Just to get a grip here....

But since both LBJ and RN ran on a 'peace platform'
do we get to list them as 'anti_war protestors' or
the GoodGuys?

ciao
drieux

ps: anyone want to discuss Frank Snepp's allegation that
the release of classified documents by Nixon and Kissinger,
that were listed as WINTEL, and thus lead to the death of
sources in NVN was NOT a Pleasant thing for that dynamic duo
to have done, irregardless off what 'domestic political' beni's
it was alledged were to be accrued?



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

just because you may NOT have root on your machine
does not mean I do NOT have root on my machine!!!!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60089 alt.politics.homosexuality:7191 alt.conspiracy:12170
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:57:04 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1di0roINN7tg@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>Was not the Good Samaritan a homosexual?

This is a new interpretation.  Where did you get it?

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.pol