HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 31 Dec 1992 02:57:01 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec30.224714.29832@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
|> In article <1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de> arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras) writes:
|> >
|> >	I hear from Rush Limbaugh (the right) and All Things Considered
|> >(far left) that many environmentalists are anti-property rights.  Would
|> >anyone care to guess at what percetage of "greens" are against property
|> >rights?  Is it in the party line?
|> >
|> >Mike Arras
|> >arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de
|> 
|> "Against" and "for" are simplified positions.  The position of the USA
|> Greens (from their program) is that private property should carry the
|> responsibility that it not be used in a way that is harmful to other
|> people or the environment.

What is the *least* harmful thing I would be prevented from doing
with my own property?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,soc.culture.europe
From: junikka@cat12.cs.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka)
Subject: The fate of the European Economic Area
Organization: Dept of Mathematics, Uni of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:10:47 GMT

Since the Swiss vote, the EEA has disappeared from the US
media as far as I can tell. Actually, the New York Times reported
the affirmative vote by the Lichtenstein (sp?). 

Has there been anny discussion about the implementation of the EEA
recently? What is the timetable like?


regards,

jari
(junikka@math.wisc.edu)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R. Sparks)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 02:01:00 GMT

In article <Ax3es*6v1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> The entire Clinton campaign was based on the assumption that the voters are
> stupid, ignorant, and have a memory which fades after a day or two.  He got
> 4 votes out of 10 and won (with a very willing and cooperative news media's
> help.)
> 

So was the Bush campaign.  The only campaign that even tried to treat
the voter as intelligent was Perot's.  He was the one who talked about
the economy.  He was the one who brought the election on track, by
talking about real issues like the economy.  The professional campaign
managers eschewed this kind of politics because they figured the
voters would go to sleep.  He may have changed campaign history.  By
showing the professional "guns for hire" that politicians hire to run
their campaigns every 2-4-6 years that charts and graphs DO keep the
voters attention.  BTW, I'm one who thought that Ross Perot would not
have made a good President (even though, as a protest, I voted for
him).  What he did do was provide a public service to this country
that will affect it for decades.  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: Re: President and superman
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:05:55 GMT

>   We seem to be getting along ok, how about you?
>
>
   God , I don't mean to sound like that pedantic jingoistic
   scumbag T*d K*ld*s.

   Really,

   Wayne



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:21:32 GMT

erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:

>and political hand-waiving they could think of to obscure what was 
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I know no one thinks misspellings are worth noting, but in this
case, I like the idea of politicians making their hands disappear
as a means to obfuscation.


-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: Re: President and superman
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:24:45 GMT

In article <bill.725657664@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:
>
>>   We seem to be getting along ok, how about you?
>
>Several points:
>
>  1) Unless you know the poster is actually from mainland China
>(from past postings, etc.), this seems like a quick conclusion.

    Even quicker for you to assume from my cryptic comment that
    that was my intent.  I suppose my quickest assumption would
    be that the original poster was at least an American resident,
    if not citizen.

    But let's assume he is mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, or
    practicaly anything else.  Why is my comment querying
    whether his country's method of leader selection leads
    to anything better than ours out of place?


>
>  2) It doesn't seem to me that the poster is saying anything but
>"is it possible that intellectual abilities and education should
>be the prime qualifications when evaluating a presidential 
>candidate?"  We are getting along okay, but we might do better
>with a more diversely trained leader (Carter was an engineer,
   
    Hey, we might get along better with an autocrat who could
    just impose the changes we need.  No intelligence needed there.
    My point is that *no one* selects their leaders using 
    intelligence and education as a primary requirement.
    That they are in the running essentially guarantees this,
    to some extent.
    
    I don't think I was quite off target in implying that the
    original poster was being insinuating about foolish
    Americans.  My response is that we're no *more* foolish
    than anyone else.
    
    Wayne
    
   

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24682 talk.politics.misc:66050
From: diviney@carson.u.washington.edu (Patrick Diviney)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 2 Jan 1993 17:26:28 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
Summary: People might not be as dumb as you think.

In article <1993Jan2.154908.4823@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1993Jan2.042405.14887@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>In article <Ax3es*6v1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>>>
>>>The entire Clinton campaign was based on the assumption that the voters are
>>>stupid, ignorant, and have a memory which fades after a day or two.
>
>>This distinguishes it from the Bush campaign, which was forward-looking,
>>intellectual, principled, and appealing to the best in the American
>>character.
>
>Careful, Mike.  There are probably some people around here who don't
>understand sarcasm without a dozen smilies appended to it; they're
>going to thing you're SERIOUS in making that statement.

This would make about the fourth time I have seen such a caveat.  In my
opinion one should have confidence that at least a majority of the
readership will understand such dry wit.  Those who would take it
seriously quite probably do not have the ability to turn on their
computers, thus eliminating themselves from the audience automatically.

It would be a pity if, upon posting a bit of subtle humor, one had need to
include such blatant indicators that yell, "HEY, I'VE JUST MADE A JOKE. 
YOU MAY CHUCKLE NOW."  Of course I could be wrong........nahh.


   Some people are alive simply because it's against the law to kill them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Patrick F. Diviney IV --- diviney@u.washington.edu


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dasher@well.sf.ca.us (D Anton Sherwood)
Subject: Re: President and superman
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 02:48:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.060911.24217@midway.uchicago.edu> hsue@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I wonder if there is any theory or anyone that advocate such an idea that to be 
>qualify as the president of a country one has to be intellectually
>superior; for example one should have a number of adavance degrees in a number
>of different fields, such social sciences, natural sciences , and humanities.
> ...

Plato's philosopher-king, anyone?

I suppose the establishment would require that education to be at schools
tightly controlled by themselves.
-- 
Anton Sherwood                                       dasher@well.sf.ca.us
+1 415 267 0685              1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA
"We all hate poverty, war and injustice, unlike the rest of you squares."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: drewsaur@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Drew David Saur)
Subject: Address for new N.C. Senator
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:48:28 GMT

I need to send a letter to the new senator from North Carolina,
Lauch Faircloth.  Does anyone here know his address either in N.C.
or Washington (office address, that is, not home), or, better yet, know
where I can find his address on the Net?  I tried Gopher, but it
doesn't have the new people yet.

Please respond via email to drewsaur@phoenix.princeton.edu.  I don't
read the news much.

Thanks!
	Drew Saur

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.040737.5982@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Jim McMaster (MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com) wrote:

>[Much deletia]

>: Some things were specified quite clearly, and those take an amendment
>: to change.  I believe a state could have allowed women to vote in
>: state, but not federal elections, since the Constitution said only
>: males could vote.                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Are you sure about this?  The only part of the original Constitution and Bill
>of rights that I can find, relevant to voting, is Article 1, Section 4,
>Paragraph 1 which states "The times, places, and manner of holding elections
>for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the
>Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such
>regulations, except as to places of choosing Senators."

>: Other things were left open.  Congress was forbidden to outlaw the
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: slave trade for a certain period of time.  After that, they could if
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: they so chose via legislation, but they were not required to do so.
>: Congress can pass laws on many things, either because the powers are
>: explicitly granted, or because the powers granted are very broad, like
>: the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses.

>And where do you find the above assertion in the Constitution?

Right there, in Article I, Section 9:
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed upon
such importations, not exceeding 10 dollars for each person.

>[more deletia]

>: Jim McMaster

>I'm just curious about these two statements.  To my knowledge, the framers of 
>the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not deal with gender at all (persons 
>and citezens are referred to) and only dealt with slavery to the extent that it
>impacted on representation.

>Am I wrong?

Batting .500.  Great in baseball, not so good in constitutional law.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hsue@ellis.uchicago.edu (yung chang  hsueh)
Subject: President and superman
Reply-To: hsue@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:09:11 GMT

Hi, everyone

Greeting!
I wonder if there is any theory or anyone that advocate such an idea that to be 
qualify as the president of a country one has to be intellectually
superior; for example one should have a number of adavance degrees in a number
of different fields, such social sciences, natural sciences , and humanities.
The idea is based on the  fact that being the president of a country is not
only the most important job but also the most difficult one intellectually,
It certainly is harder than being a mathematician or a doctor. The president 
has to know almost every issue he addresses in order to come up with 
right policies and decisions. He should be a intellectually super man.

Why people do not question about candidates' educational background first?




Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:24:45 GMT

In article <BzFFwI.C4J@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>	I think of term limits as an ON/OFF switch, an automatic
>binary reaction, that considers but the instructions for when to
>switch to off. In other words, it reminds me of why we need 
>fuzzy logic- to make computers practical, which works better
>in many cases than behaving strictly logically. Do we want to 
>automate this process? Remember, term limits will replace the
>vote to a degree. Instead of a Congressfolk losing his/her seat
>due to the vote, he/she will automatically lose the seat. This
>becomes a Kirk/Spock logical/practical sort of question.
> [reasonable discussion deleted]

Sad but true.  Longevity in a politician does not necessarily translate into
worthlessness.  Remember, term limitation kicks out a Sam Nunn just the same
as it does a Charlie Wilson (I don't care which side of the fence you are on,
this example should make sense :-) ).
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Cheap, fast, good - choose two.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24685 alt.politics.clinton:19520
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:42:34 GMT

In article <168C37506.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.235918.4383@mtu.edu>
>cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
> 
>>We could push for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting this "bundling".
>>Then the President wouldn't "need" a line item veto...  [BTW, I believe
>>Michigan has such a clause in their Consititution, restricting a bill to
>>one subject]
>>
>>--
>>Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
> 
>This is an excellent idea, but there is one problem.  Define "subject"
>in this context.  If Congress defines "jobs" as a subject, then a
>pork-barrel dam project fits.  If they define "environment" as a
>subject, the same dam could fit there, too.  If "budget" is the
>subject, then katy-bar-the-door.

Well said. It *is* a good idea for the Congress to generally conduct
its business this way.  However, it must be part of the Congressional
rules. For example, all bills should come out of a single committee,
and only relevent Amendments should be brought into the bill.
Anti-bundling is an idea fit for Congressional reform, as opposed
to the Constitution, since Congress would (as suggested above) find
it too easy to subvert the amendment if they so chose.
 
>I am for a line-item veto that requires a simple majority on a
>roll-call vote to override each separate line-item vetoed.  This allows
>the President to force each pork-barrel item to stand on its own.  The

Sounds like an excellent way to put it, and the correct form for the
line-item veto. The 'majority override' would placate the critics who say
that (eg witha  2/3rds override) it puts too much power in
the President's hand. If, for example, the President attempted
to change the meaning of a bill by striking a provision, the
Congressional majority could override that measure.
On the other hand, the 'cobbled' together majorities for pork-barrel
project would have to support, one-by-one, the offensive projects
that a President deems unnecessary. 

>Congressman could no longer say "I objected to that item, but the rest
>of the bill was too important to vote no."  If he objects to the item,
>he would have to stand up and vote against it by itself.

Pat
	Kay Hutchison for U.S. Senate '93
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:37:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.003646.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.235918.4383@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec13.070641.9436@anasazi.com> karl@anasazi.com
>> (Karl Dussik) writes:
>> 
>>>So do you contend that the practice of bundling hundreds (thousands?) of
>>>separate spending items togther, calling it a "bill," and submitting it to
>>>the President with a "take it or leave it" attitude IS consistent with
>>>original intent? 
>> 
>> We could push for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting this "bundling".
>> Then the President wouldn't "need" a line item veto...  [BTW, I believe
>> Michigan has such a clause in their Consititution, restricting a bill to
>> one subject]

Bundling is a bad thing, but it would be very difficult, in the face
of a Congress determined to subvert Constitutional intent, to be effective.
Just look at how the Democrats Congress managed, without a law or even consent
of all the members of their body, to "create" 5 Democratic votes in the House
of Reps. Just pretend that represtantives from U.S. territories are real
Congresspersons, and give them a vote. Amazing. Who needs real democracy
when you can have this instead?

>Except that the budget of the government is ususally consdidered
>one subject.  One of the arguments for a line-item veto would be that
>it would allow the President more flexibility in controlling spending.
>
>Presently if Congress appropriates money, the President has to spend
>it.  Nixon tried to stop runaway spending in the 1970's by impounding
>funds.  I forgot if that Presidential peragative was taken away from
>him by law, or by court decision.  In any case, a line-item veto would

It was taken away by law, by Democrats in Congress.
Now, in the face of a try to get a line-item veto, many of those
same Democrats in Congress, opposed to the line item veto,
are hypocritically saying " You don't need a constitutional
amendment. You just need to give the President greater impoundment powers."
Well, $4 trillion and 20 years too late, they come up with status quo
ante as a 'solution'.

>go a long towards reducing pork in the budget. Congress is affected
>more by special interests than the President, who has a much bigger
>voter power base.   === Al Sparks

Agreed. Unfortunately, the Liberal Elite (newly refurbished and
emboldened with their man in the white house) Just Doesn't Get It.


Pat
Bumperstickers never seen on Volvos:
	I believe Justice Thomas
	Visualize Kemp President
	Pro-choice ... in education 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: President and superman
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:34:24 GMT

hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.060911.24217@midway.uchicago.edu> hsue@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Hi, everyone
>>
>>Greeting!
>>I wonder if there is any theory or anyone that advocate such an idea that to be 
>   [poorly wrapped hidden agenda deleted...]

>>Why people do not question about candidates' educational background first?
>>
>>
>   Despite what *should* be (the Central Committe of the Communist
>   Party *should* be composed of selfless human beings; the upper
>   hierarchy of any given religious body *should* be composed of
>   the most pious; the Secretary-General of the UN *should* be Above
>   All Temptations) thePresident of the US has never been elected 
>   because of his educational background.  

>   Lately it's been television persona.

>   We seem to be getting along ok, how about you?

Several points:

  1) Unless you know the poster is actually from mainland China
(from past postings, etc.), this seems like a quick conclusion.

  2) It doesn't seem to me that the poster is saying anything but
"is it possible that intellectual abilities and education should
be the prime qualifications when evaluating a presidential 
candidate?"  We are getting along okay, but we might do better
with a more diversely trained leader (Carter was an engineer,
but technological knowledge doesn't seem to be a prerequisite
for the position, what with Bush's amazement with checkout
scanners and all).  (And, to qualify the answer, we might do
worse - the Presidency is not a technical position).

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: President and superman
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:12:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.060911.24217@midway.uchicago.edu> hsue@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Hi, everyone
>
>Greeting!
>I wonder if there is any theory or anyone that advocate such an idea that to be 
>qualify as the president of a country one has to be intellectually
>superior; for example one should have a number of adavance degrees in a number
>of different fields, such social sciences, natural sciences , and humanities.
>The idea is based on the  fact that being the president of a country is not
>only the most important job but also the most difficult one intellectually,
>It certainly is harder than being a mathematician or a doctor. The president 
>has to know almost every issue he addresses in order to come up with 
>right policies and decisions. He should be a intellectually super man.
>
>Why people do not question about candidates' educational background first?
>

Wisdom does not necessarily come with a Ph. D.!

"Taught" knowledge does not necessarily make one a better politician or
legislator or governor, than just plain "good, old common sense"...
and one often learns more from life experiences than from attending
educational institutions.

Our democracy and judicial system are based on the principles that
ordinary people can very well make most any decision, provided the
necessary information is presented to them in an honest, comprehensible
manner by those who know. 

Gerald
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24675 alt.politics.libertarian:2994