HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.usa] Re: Americans! *smile*
Originator: clewis@bcarh1d7
Organization: Eee. Northern Research
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:32:03 GMT

In article <20792@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>This kind of drivel is just plain nonsense.  If this country is so bad, then
>why are Hatians braving the open sea in leaky boats trying to get here?

Because Canada and other nice places are too far to row.

>Why do people world wide clamor to get in?

They clamour to get into lots of countries.  Canada is, for example, the
preferred destination of many immigrants.  Ie: it's the preferred destination
for emmigrants from Hong Kong.

>The US is the most caring, 
>powerful, and concerned with other countries country in the history of
>the world.

I should point out, for example, that Canada has a higher relative
immigration rate and higher racial mix of immigrants than the US and
has done so for decades.  Ditto several European countries.

You're just the biggest (<mumble> ;-) in absolute numbers.

The UN considers us the best place on the planet to live.  They do have
a reason for that.  And there's a couple of other countries ahead of the US
in that list.

>Vicious actions?

Vietnam.  Remember Mai-lai?

>We sent people in to throw Hussain out of Kuwait, we

You weren't the only ones there.

>gave Panama back to the freely elected leaders of that country,

There's some question whether you were actually asked to do that.

>we were
>praised for helping the people of Granada take back their country.

You also shelled (BIG shells) civilians in Lebanon, faked evidence in
order to go after Quadaffi, and were instrumental in killing the
democratically elected president of Chile.

Nice guys.

>We pump
>so much foreign aid into countries (some of whom don't even really care
>about us) that we are going broke doing it.

Sometimes without even being asked.

>We have helped the two
>major countries we fought in World War II become two of the greatest
>economic powers in the world.

You weren't the only country doing that.

>Nope, I have no qualms about being proud to be an American!

Actually, there's nothing wrong with being proud to be an American.
Just be a little more critical of what US *government* activities
you're proud of will ya?
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: (none)
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:38:15 GMT

Subject:  AUTOMATED CLINTON/GORE MAIL SERVICE
 
 Bill Clinton and Al Gore are committed to bringing all Americans 
 into the American political process -- for the good of our country.  
 At this critical time in our country's history it is imperative that 
 we all do everything in our power to make our system work.  
 
 We are happy to announce a new step forward in 21st century 
 democracy: We now have a mail server that will allow you, the 
 internet citizen, to receive on-line campaign documents and send 
 your comments and ideas back to us.
 

 To learn more, send mail to the automated Clinton/Gore mail server 
 
    clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org



 RECEIVE THE LATEST SPEECHES:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info speeches" to the mail server, 
 you will receive all the latest Clinton/Gore speeches as soon as 
 they come on-line.


 RECEIVE ALL AVAILABLE POSITION PAPERS:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info all" to the mail server at, 
 you will receive the full set of Clinton/Gore position papers.


 QUERY THE CANIDATES -- INTERNET POLL:
 
 If you have a question for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 question to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "question propose".  

 Send the Subject line "question get" to get the current numbered 
 list of questions.  

 Send the Subject line "question vote <X Y>" to vote for questions 
 number <X> and <Y>.  For example, you would send the SUBJECT line 
 "question vote 3" to vote for question number 3.

 Each week the questions with the most votes will be forwarded to 
 Little Rock.

 
 SEND YOUR SUGGESTIONS & COMMENTS

 If you have a suggestion for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 suggestion to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "suggest propose".  

 Send the Subject line "suggest get" to get the current numbered 
 list of suggestions.  

 Send the Subject line "suggest vote <a b c>" to vote for suggestions 
 number <a>, <b>, and <c>.  For example, you would send the Subject 
 line "suggest vote 18 4" to vote for suggestions 18 and 4.
 

 The questions, suggestions, and the campaign's responses will be 
 posted to the network.  You can help redistribute this and other 
 information by sending the Subject line "volunteer email distr" 
 to the mail server at

 clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org
 


 Clinton/Gore '92
 Volunteer Email Effort
From: Clinton-HQ@mail.clinton-gore.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: [75300.3115@compuserve.com: Thanks from Little Rock]
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:58:45 GMT

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:33 EDT
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
To: Clinton Team <clinton-org@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Thanks from Little Rock

Volunteers,

Jeff Eller asked me to pass this along.

"FYI to the team:  David Kuznet...chief speech writer and mastermind
of the  Notre Dame Speech says the info he gets from e-mail is great!
Keep it up!"

Please do keep it up.  And please do let people know that what we send in
gets used and is valued!

Regards,
Jock
From: z_totahmc@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Help Please!  The trouble with Congress
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:10:54 CST
Summary: Help
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

Please.  Need help on paper entitled The Image of Congress by High School
Students.  Secondary research bad need to have topic ideas.  May
start with definiition and terms used by Congress by need two more
topics and I do not know how to correlate it with my survey.

If any one could help me please send message to:
Z_TOTAHMC@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:40:16 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <Oct.4.01.08.38.1992.21416@andromeda.rutgers.edu>, detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>
>  This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
> information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
> British citizenship.

Gad, is there no end to Clinton's villainy?  Man should
be horsewhipped down Whitehall.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
From: leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:27:26 GMT

In article <Oct.4.01.08.38.1992.21416@andromeda.rutgers.edu>, detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
 > 
 >      Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
 > live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
 > protests during his college days.
 > 
 >     Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
 > to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
 > this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
 > be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
 > knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
 > with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.
 >

So what?  The Soviet Union no longer exists.  Do you still want people to be 
afraid of it?
 
 >      This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
 > information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
 > British citizenship.
 >
Hmm.  If I was a US citizen, I'd probably try to emigrate.  (Before the flames
hit:  I've lived in the US.  I know what I'm talking about.)
 
 >      Is this the individual the American people should send to
 > The White House?
 > 
Consider the alternative.  George Bush has walked the White House corridors for
the last 12 years.  And before that he used to be Director of the CIA...the
world's largest and bloodiest terrorist organization now that the KGB has had
its amputations.  The man is a vampire, good people.  Read my lips:  A vampire.

 >      Rep. Bob Dornan should be addressing the house again this
 > weekend.  I urge those concerned about what I have briefly outlined
 > here to call:
 > 
 > UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 > WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
 > 
 > (202) 224-3121
 > 
 >      Your can either ask for Rep. Dornan's office or staff, or attempt
 > to reach your own.  This information must be presented to the American
 > public, and the events which occurred there must be researched and
 > addressed by Bill Clinton.
 > 
 > 
 > -- 
 > ---------------------------------
 >      David De Trolio
 > ---------------------------------
 > (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)

Leif the .sigless
Norwegian Institute of Technology
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.  No, you can't have them, go and
make up your own opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:08:41 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
protests during his college days.

    Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.

     This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
British citizenship.

     Is this the individual the American people should send to
The White House?

     Rep. Bob Dornan should be addressing the house again this
weekend.  I urge those concerned about what I have briefly outlined
here to call:

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

(202) 224-3121

     Your can either ask for Rep. Dornan's office or staff, or attempt
to reach your own.  This information must be presented to the American
public, and the events which occurred there must be researched and
addressed by Bill Clinton.


-- 
---------------------------------
     David De Trolio
---------------------------------
(detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Subject: Quayle & Spelling Issues
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:01:20 GMT

Read this on Compuserve

   DETROIT (AP) -- Vice President Dan Quayle said Wednesday he would be "at a 
big disadvantage" in vice presidential debates because he attended public 
schools rather than private schools like Al Gore. "He grew up in Washington, 
D.C., and he's the son of a wealthy U.S. senator," said Quayle, himself the 
grandson of the founder of the Pulliam newspaper chain. 


Maybe someone should tell Dan Quayle it is a debate, not a spelling bee!
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Satellite Schedules for Tuesday 9/28
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:24:03 GMT

Satellite Schedules for Tueasday 9/28

Please distribute

1.

Al Gore Iraq-Gate speech,  Washington  D.C. 

9:00 am CDT		10:00 am EDT

	COORDINATES

satellite:		Galaxy 6
transponder:		5
uplink frequency:	6025
downlink frequency:	3800
audio:			6.2/6.8


2.

Clinton rally

11:00 am CDT		12:00am EDT

	COORDINATES

satellite:		Galaxy 6
transponder:		19
uplink frequency:	6305
downlink frequency:	4080
audio:			6.2/6.8

Great viewing
Jock Gill
Little Rock



Distribution:
  General >internet:C-General-Distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
  All Volunteers >internet:c-all-volunteers-distr@mail.clinton-gore.org

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Packing the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:08:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.175115.6923@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> schof@robocop.berkeley.edu (Steven Schofield) writes:
>Does the president still have the authority to appoint more then
>9 people to the Supreme court?  Roosevelt threaten to do this in
>the 30's.  Does the consitiution allow this?

The Constitution makes no mention what so ever of the number of 
Supreme Court Justices. At one point (very briefly during the
Washington administration) there were only five.

The Senate, however, would probably not confirm any more than nine
Justices at a time, unless a better reason than Court packing were
given. Roosevelt came up with a passable excuse: Most of the Justices
are old, and the Court has a large work load. "Assistant" Justices
should be appointed, one for every Justice over 70 (I think that 
was the suggested number), to spread the work out amoung younger,
more vigorous Justices. Of course, the effect would have been to
let Roosevelt appoint six additional Justices...

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Precedents for "General Welfare" power of Congress?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:23:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.032842.21544@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>Are there any precedents for the interpretation of Article I,
>section 8, clause 1 of the US Constitution: 
>     "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
>   imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
>   defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties,
>   imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

>which grant Congress the right to pass laws to 'provide for the general
>welfare of the United States' in the general sense?

NO. Everyone agrees that the purpose of listing powers in Article One
was to _limit_ the powers of the federal government to those listed. 
_None_ of the powers listed can be reasonably interperted as an unlimited 
grant of power.

The "general welfare" clause means, at most, that the government can
spend money for that vague purpose. It does not empower other, non-financial
actions (such as passing laws). The most limited interpertation would be 
that it justifies taxes intended to benifit the general welfare (as opposed 
to collecting money. For example, a gasoline tax intended to reduce
consumption.)

The Supreme Court has generally supported the former, loose view. In 
addition, it has allowed Congress to put conditions on spending (i.e.
requiring state legislatures to raise the drinking age to 21, if they
want federal highway grants.) This would also, by the way, allow the
federal government to effectively ban abortion, if a national health
care system was established: Congress could legally refuse federal
health care funds to any hospital/clinic/doctor preforming abortions.
In many of the health care proposals, this would effect essentially
_everyone_ providing abortions. This would be the equivilent of
repealing Roe v. Wade, since the availability of abortions would depend
on the political process and who controls Congress, as opposed to being
a constitutional right protected by the courts regardless of the political
climate.

Also see:
United States v. Butler 297 US 1, 1936
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 US 548, 1937
South Dakota v. Dole 483 US 107, 1987
 
                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:58:00 GMT


In article <1992Sep26.201813.23030@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes...
>demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.) writes:
>
>[...]
>>The phrase "same rates" is very important.  _ALL_ publications and broad-
>>cast media are required to have posted rates.  They are REQUIRED to charge
>>everyone the same rate.  No matter what!
>[...]
>
>Are you sure about publications? I know that the FCC has all sorts of
>controls on broadcasters, but I don't think there are similar controls
>on publishers.
> 
Yes, I'm certain.
My mother has been the editor of both a weekly newspaper and a monthly
professional journal (shipping industry).  In both cases, I often heard
her ranting and raving about the "lies" (I put that in quotes since that's
what she said and I'm not qualified to judge) that advertisers were 
printing.
In the case of the shipping journal (_Workboat Magazine_), there
were often adds printed by anti-shipping (i.e. environmentalists)
on a page right next to an add for Exxon Offshore Drilling.
	DEmon.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:423 talk.politics.misc:48026
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Precedents for "General Welfare" power of Congress?
Followup-To: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Summary:  Is there one?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:28:42 GMT

Are there any precedents for the interpretation of Article I,
section 8, clause 1 of the US Constitution: 

     "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
   imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
   defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties,
   imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

which grant Congress the right to pass laws to 'provide for the general
welfare of the United States' in the general sense?  I can look up
cases in our library, I think, if someone can point me at the correct
ones to read.

Has Congress simply been completely unchallenged in this regard?  It
would be somewhat amazing to me if this is true.

/Roger
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: molin@crs.cl.msu.edu (Michael Olin)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: Michigan State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 05:26:07 GMT

I can't believe there is ANYONE with a modicum of sense in the cranial
region who would ADVOCATE the use of the electoral college under ANY
circumstances...

I say this suggestion should be filed in Round File 13.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:05:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.033312.4743@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED) writes:
>	To: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>We don't seem to be getting anywhere, so I'm going to propose
>a question that is the basis of my objection to the electoral college.
>
>	What if the electoral college decided to elect someone 
>besides who the people of the country voted for?

Since you didn't e-mail it but rather posted it I feel it fair to add
my two cents.

First of all, there have been 8 faithless electors out of more than 16000
which is not significant. 

Second, this scenario could either start or prevent a civil war.

Third, there is no reason to allow this to happen when all that would
be required is that we abolish the office of the elector *but not the
electoral votes*.  This could be accomplished by statutory law.
North Carolina not only fines a faithless elector but declares that
the failure to vote as pledged amounts to a resignation from the office
thus allowing the appointment of another elector.

> Do you have any idea the uproar this would cause? Can you imagine the
>riots that would happen? Do you realize how many people would get killed?
>This is not idle speculation. If someone got elected by say 60% of the
>votes, but the Electoral College had lied (as all politicians do) and 
>instead elected the loser, the people wouldn't stand for it. The 
>first reaction would be accusations of curruption (whether they are true
>or not, people would believe them. You know it to be true.)

You are probably correct. However, this is highly hypothetical.

>	In the end, after the riots were put down at a huge loss
>of life, people would still have lost all respect for the system.
>This would undermine the whole purpose of your Electoral College 
>reform.
>	What I'm saying is "Let the people make their own 
>mistakes". If they elect the wrong person, then they will get what 
>they deserve. If you try to mother the populace, then you will fail.
>The people don't want to be mothered, especially in this country.
>	I welcome any constructive criticism.

I think that major reform is not necessary, the elimination of the
office of the elector while maintaining the electoral votes automates
the system to prevent a faithless elector.

Mike Best
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Interpreting the Constitution
Keywords: quis custodiet?
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:50:17 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep25.021502.19867@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>It might clarify the matter if you could tell me what _Visions_of_
>>Liberty_ has to say about the Second Amendment.

>I've just looked. The book doesn't seem to say anything about the 2nd
>or gun rights.

Then it must have been a different book I saw... Sorry about the 
confusion.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: RE: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:33:12 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1


	To: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
We don't seem to be getting anywhere, so I'm going to propose
a question that is the basis of my objection to the electoral college.

	What if the electoral college decided to elect someone 
besides who the people of the country voted for?

 Do you have any idea the uproar this would cause? Can you imagine the
riots that would happen? Do you realize how many people would get killed?
This is not idle speculation. If someone got elected by say 60% of the
votes, but the Electoral College had lied (as all politicians do) and 
instead elected the loser, the people wouldn't stand for it. The 
first reaction would be accusations of curruption (whether they are true
or not, people would believe them. You know it to be true.)
	In the end, after the riots were put down at a huge loss
of life, people would still have lost all respect for the system.
This would undermine the whole purpose of your Electoral College 
reform.
	What I'm saying is "Let the people make their own 
mistakes". If they elect the wrong person, then they will get what 
they deserve. If you try to mother the populace, then you will fail.
The people don't want to be mothered, especially in this country.
	I welcome any constructive criticism.

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.individualism,alt.politics.civil-liberty