HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Using Power (was Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?)
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:23:26 GMT

In article <JASON.92Nov6094515@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>-> Clinton can take *anything* he has said during his campaign
>-> and say the following:
>-> 
>-> 	"I campaigned on XXXXX, and I won the election.  More
>-> people voted for me than for anyone else and I have earned the
>-> right to try my stated programs."
>
>	The president can't do what Clinton has said he's going to do.
>He must have congress do it for him, and the representatives are going
>to look at how much their people want what Clinton is going to
>recommend.  A weak vote means much of it will never happen.

  Well, that's not exactly true.  It is true that Clinton needs the
  Congress for certain things like passing a budget, but there are
  many things he can do by Executive Order (particularly undoing
  things that Bush did by similar Executive Order).  Last night on
  both McLaughlin Group and MacNeill/Lehrer, it was discussed that
  Clinton intends to issue Executive Orders within the first week
  of taking office to do the following:

    1) Eliminate the "gag" rule imposed on federally funded
       clinics which provide abortions.

    2) Permit importation of RU-486 (the French abortifacent pill).

    3) Eliminate the regulations restricting fetal tissue research.

    4) Permit gays in the military.

    5) Provide family leave to federal government employees.

  All of these actions require no Congressional action whatsoever although
  Congress could clearly act to prevent these regulations.  However, since
  Congress supported all of these actions explicitly by legislation which
  was vetoed or by clear sense of the Congress, it is unlikely that there
  will be any serious attempt to stop Clinton from issuing these orders.  

  In addition, expect Congress to pass family leave again which Clinton
  will sign into law along with a passel of other legislation that has
  minimal Federal cost with specific high visibility results that are
  consistent with Clinton's campaign promises.  

  Its truly a new day :-)

  Jon Rosen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23587 ba.politics:7046 co.politics:1849 ne.politics:2928 nj.politics:688 ny.politics:210 talk.politics.misc:59786
From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Gov't Bonds * Perot (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:24:24 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Michael Friedman writes:
> [stuff deleted]
>Note, by the way, that this means that as soon as anyone buys
>government bonds it is in their interest to persuade the government to
>stop borrowing any more money so that there will be fewer bonds
>available and the ones in their greedy little hands are worth more.

It all becomes so clear now!  This is why Ross Perot wanted to become
President and eliminate the national debt; by doing so, all those
government bonds he has his billions socked into increase in value.

Dave
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25,
 but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23114 misc.legal:19666 talk.politics.misc:58895
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Harvard (Was: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court)
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:34:11 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov7.113828.19658@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>Is there any reason *to* go to Harvard, other than their reputation, which
>should help in the job market?


Some reasons to go to Harvard:

1) Great conversation starter at parties.

2) Lifelong networking contacts (which is really how you get jobs in
the legal field)

3) Best Critical Legal Studies faculty in the country.  

4) Live in Cambridge MA

5) They have lots of money to spend on special projects (like sending
students overseas on human rights projects for the summer).

6) You can cross-register at other Harvard Schools, MIT, Fletcher
School.

7) Big diverse classes.

8) Lots of non-traditional curriculum.

9) Extensive clinical program.

10) Lots of juicy faculty politics.

11) You can experiment without really worrying about your long-term
job prospects.


Some bad points:

1) Like at most law schools, the majority of students are
anti-intellectual careerists.  This is true on the left as well as the
right.  The atmosphere is one of status-mongering much more than
serious intellectual inquiry.

2) It's the largest law school in the country (550 per class) and
faculty access is limited, even among faculty who make an effort to be
accessible.  I could often drop in to see my favorite professor
unannounced, he would greet me enthusiastically, and then after 15
minutes of chatting tell me he had another appointment.

3) Almost everyone there is smitten with him/herself.

4) In many ways its still a stuffy place, in spite of the best efforts
of the crits to liven things up.  

5) Almost everyone (students that is) there professes to be unhappy.
A lot of them went to law school because a) they had nothing better to
do after college, b) had nothing better to do 10 years after college.
Me, I liked it there (at least the academic side, socially it sucked).


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22951 alt.politics.perot:5257
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:45:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <Bx9ruw.8Jt@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:

>>    DC            4

>Gee, go figure!  Why do you think it might be that Washington
>D.C. only voted 4% for Perot when the national average was 20%?
>Could it be self-preservation?

Probably.  DC is mostly minority, and they didn't want Perot cordoning 
off minority neighborhoods and searching door-to-door for guns and drugs.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23031 talk.politics.misc:58726
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:45:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1devn2INN1jl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Richard A. Mulac writes:

>                           HOW'RE YOU DOING?

> Great example to set for kids.  And this man is going to IMPROVE our
> educational system???

I'll give you a hint: the "how're" is a contraction, standing for
"how are".  *You're* familiar with them, I assume, as I *can't* imagine
the concept *hasn't* or *isn't* being taught in schools.  If you
*weren't* taught about them and they *aren't* familiar, *you'll* be
sorry if you *don't* learn about them ASAP.

Now please go shoot yourself.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:27:04 GMT

In article <XvnVr*pe1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Oct27.155229.22941@ra.oc.com>, Tom Kimball writes:
>
>> In article <-v#=sZC@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>> >In article <1992Oct27.035902.7086@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>> To make up for the loss of revenue, Reagan should have cut spending by much 
>> more than that AT THE SAME TIME as the tax cuts.  Instead he increased 
>> spending.
>
>NOT Reagan, CONGRESS.  I really wish you people go read the Constitution.  One
>more time:
>
>ALL SPENDING BILLS MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
>
>Can you understand that?  It is really very simple.

Its not that simple at all, as you well know.


>> Try as hard as you can to shift the blame for the sharp increase in the 
>> deficit, it just won't work.
>
>It won't work for ignorant people who refuse to understand how the government
>operates.  

The net can decide which people or person it may think is 'ignorant'.


>Didn't you ever take a government class?

This sentence makes it obvious why Jim Pritchett is always getting himself into
flame firestorms.  When he can't debate his holy cause on its own merits,
he throws out flame bait in an attempt to drag down the level of discussion.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
From: asspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Final Results (major parties)
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:12:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fnordbox Escape Committee
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC

In article <1992Nov5.030549.4807@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes...
> 
>Hope this answers some questions.
>Garrett@Ingres.com

Not really.  I didn't see any mention of the person who I voted for
for President in that article at all.

**********************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan*****asspr@acad3.alaska.edu or sean@freds.cojones.com
3215 Oregon Dr. #2, Anchorage, AK  99517-2048***(907)272-9184****fnord
IRC: RadioKAOS***"Life.  What a beautiful choice."***Disclaimer?  NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Silly Americans!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:56:05 GMT

In article <05NOV92.14218920.0112@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> Andrew Chase <T3F2@UNB.CA> writes:

>However, the
>media doesn't allow for him. 52% would have voted for him if the polls
>did not show him losing. Only 19% voted for him because the polls show
>he wouldn't win. Do you see the irony here?


1) What is your source for this "fact"? A poll, perhaps? Or are you just
making this up?

2) I always find it ironic when a canadian tries to tell me how flawed
our 200 year old constitution is. Hows your constitution doin?

 If you Americans weren't
>bombardedwith polls Perot would have won! 

HOW do you know this? Please, I know this may sound silly on usenet and
all, but please make some token effort to support your statements with
facts.

>Polls should be banned but...

the asshole canadians couldnt tell us who we REALLY wanted for president.

>Canada by the way was
>ranked #1 country in the world by the United Nations this year.


#1 in what? I wasnt aware that the UN had a top 25 poll for countries.
I never trust those until after the New Years Day Bowl Games anyway.


>Haven't heard about it..... did you expect your media to report it!!!

No one cares. Im sure it was in the paper somewhere.


And now, the real flames: WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, LOUSY
KANUCK?!?!@ At least we HAVE a fucking constitution, asshole, and we
do our elections by a system which is NOT merely a rehash of the
British parliamentary system.So spare me your crap, boy, we had
a consitution when canadians were still brits.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hugh@cs.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne)
Subject: electoral college vote for Perot?
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:06:55 GMT

Just a quick question.  All the results that I saw given here (the
Netherlands) gave Perot zero votes in the electoral college.  How sure
is this?  I noticed that his best result was in Maine (about 30% ?).  It
seems that Maine is one of the few states that does not (necessarily)
give all its votes in the electoral college to the first past the post.
Since Maine must have at least 3 votes, does this mean that Perot gets
one of them?

--
Hugh Osborne                              Dept. of Informatics
                                          University of Nijmegen
                                          The Netherlands
                                          +31-(0)80-65.25.99
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22667 talk.politics.misc:58233 tx.politics:7013
From: mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 07:47:20 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Seventh Circuit Bound) writes:

>I agree whole-heartedly.
>It's a good thing Ross Perot didn't have his way.  He fought kicking
>and screaming against having an Asian woman design the memorial, even
>to the point of having the members of the memorial selection committee 
>followed.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

Gosh Ted, you sound paranoid.  I don't suppose you can prove this?  And
no, The New Republic is not proof.  And if you can't prove it, they why
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:39:14 GMT

I agree with Mr. Frank's list of potential Supreme Court justices.  I add:

1. A. Leon Higgonbothan, 3rd Circuit.  While this Circuit Judge now has senior 
status, he is well respected.

2. Damon Keith, 6th Circuit.  Another well respected Circuit Judge.
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Silly Americans!
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:45:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <05NOV92.14218920.0112@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> T3F2@UNB.CA (Andrew Chase) writes:
>The media in the USA dictated who wins the election. I'm Canadian and
>feel Perot would have solved America's problems it faces. ...


   Take him! Take him! By all means, take him!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:00:53 GMT

In article <1dbkceINN2vd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>>I survived Reagan; I cheered when he was shot.  I'm not proud of it,
>>but it's so
>I can't believe anyone would stoop to making a statement such as this.  
>The only thing having an attitude like this will get you is a visit 
>from the Secret Service (you've probably been added to their nut list 
>because of your post).

Exactly.  If Ronnie had been killed then, Bush would have become president,
and anyone wanting Bush to be president should definitely be on the "nut
list"!
-- 
SICKNESS IS HEALTH
MADNESS IS WISDOM                  | hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
DRINKING IS STRENGTH               | WWIVNet 1@2750  WWIVLink 1@12754
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Subject: Re: It's the Jimmy Carter Show
Summary: Can't add  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:44:00 GMT

In article <1dbk8uINNapg@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike)                        writes...
>It's the Jimmy Carter Show with:
>	-Higher inflation
>	-Gas lines and
>	-Every third-world country stepping all over us
> 
The Republican version of Algebra: 
If Jimmy Carter was a Democrat, and Bill Clinton is a Democrat,
then Jimmy Carter = Bill Clinton.
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (JUNE GENIS)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Does anyone have corrected vote total forFulani?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 14:07:38 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

I have heard that the origianl AP results reported for Lenora
Fulani, New Alliance Party, were severly inflated.  The story I saw
listed her returns at 211,742 but I have since learned that the
number was actually closer to 80,000 due to an error in the figures
recevied from New York.  I'm going to press with a newsletter
tomorrow and would like to include the actual corrected number if
anyone has it.  I can be reached by email at this address or by fax
to 415-851-5730.

In any case it now appears that not only did Marrou do significantly
better than any other third party candidate, but that Fulani came in
6th rather than 5th having now been beaten by Bo Gritz at about 97K
votes.  Clearly while John Anderson's third party candidacy seems
to have helped all other third parties in 1980, Perot hurt all of us
this time out.

/June
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23441 talk.politics.misc:59523
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Talk about laughingstock
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:12:01 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Sun Microsystems

According to the Washington Post, for about a week before the
election, Administration officials and other Republicans were calling
that newspaper and other news organizations to inform them that:
(a) Clinton was having an affair,
(b) The secret service knew about it, and
(c) Why wasn't anybody reporting it?

Congressman Van Der Jagt held a news conference the day before the
election to announce this; it only made the local news, so he sent
faxes out to other news organizations with his speech on it.

After the election, he said he had nothing to say, because the
accusations were made against the candidate, not the president-elect.

The secret service said the story was nonsense.

If Clinton's only success is to curb this kind of political garbage,
I'll be happy.  I think that GHWB has placed the office of the Presidency
on a level with professional wrestling (my apologies to any wrestlers I
may have offended).

--f2

--------------------
  "You may wait here in the sitting room,
   or you can sit here in the waiting room."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Organization: Clark University
Date: 8 NOV 92 16:43:41 GMT

In a previous article, turney@kenyon.edu wrote:
> 
>The media went after Clinton in the primary.  He took everything that they
>could throw at him by just smiling and shrugging.  The media then decided that
>since he passed their "rite of passage", he must be the best man.

"Smiling and shrugging?" Come on. It's true that Clinton may have been done a 
service by being branded the "frontrunner" early on, but he certainly didn't 
get a free ride after that. He was getting fried for months on issues from 
Gennifer with a "G" to his handling of the draft. I wonder how many of the 
primary candidates on either side could have survived that.

>Bush, on the other hand, fought back at the media.  In turn, the media
>portrayed him as being behind, in trouble, and having difficulty catching up.
>They sealed the fate of Bush by showing the Iran Contra memo right before the
>election.

This is true to an extent, but IMO it's equally true that Bush harped on the 
media bias question so that he wouldn't have to discuss the relevant issues
in depth.

>Showing polls of the "likely voters", 28% of the voters, promoted Clinton as 
>the winner.  Polls of unlikely voters, 72% of the voters, were not shown
>because they did not show Clinton as the winner.

What was actually compared were likely voters and *registered* voters. Didn't
Bush get a boost late in the campaign by a strong showing of registered voter
polls? But then he focused on negative campaigning again, which turned people
off. And the heavy voter turnout helped Clinton.

-		
Bart "Webb" Tilney	
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The Decline ...)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:28:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.160813.23749@midway.uchicago.edu>, dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:
> Of course, Cuomo has doubtless done the same calculations himself, and thus
> wouldn't touch a Supreme Court nomination with a ten foot pole. 
 
I don't agree.  People who know Cuomo have said that he would like nothing
more than to be a judge.
 
Cuomo would get savaged, but with Democratic control of the Judiciary
Committee and the Senate, he'd make it through.  Think of it as the
ordeal to be endured before the prize.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23041 talk.politics.misc:58754 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6449 alt.rush-limbaugh:9205
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,t
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 01:42:28 GMT
Organization: Wireless Broadcasting Guild, Houston, Texas

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> >>Seems to me that if Bush was locked up four years ago a lot people might
> >>be alive today who aren't.
> >
> >Name one, asshole!
> 
> You?  Oops, sorry.  I missed the comma. :-)
> 
> Seriously, how about several American soldiers who were killed by a SCUD?
> Of course, if Bush had been locked up four years ago, there might also be
> a lot of people now alive who would have been dead, so the original
> statement was pointless.
> 
> --Tim Smith

If Bush had been locked up, and someone else been president, Saddam 
probably would not have been allowed to get into a position where he 
could invade Kuwait while Bush sat on his spotty butt popping pimples.
  All the people in Kuwait that were tortured to death, all the children 
of Iraq who died from bad water because of the bombing or iraq's 
infrastructure, and the innocent citizens of Iraq who were killed by our 
bombs would still be alive.  What's yhis amount to?  150,000 people?
200,000 people?   
  And then there is Panama.  How many died because Bush 'n' Reagan 
screwed up with Noriega?  And then there were the 10's of thousands of 
deaths in El Salvador.  People killed by government troops armed with 
weapons we supplied, paid for by our money, trained by our own green 
berets.  Murder, torture and whole villages wiped out by these murdurous 
thugs.  Men, women & children.  Anybody read Time Magazine last week?
Bush has been up to his neck in crap that has allowed horrors and death 
for huge numbers of people, most of them innocent.

Your tax dollars at work.

--
popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Wireless Broadcasting Guild, Houston, Texas, (713) 943-2728
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: It's the Jimmy Carter Show
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:29:19 GMT

In article <1dbk8uINNapg@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>It's the Jimmy Carter Show with:
        -first time peace between Israel and Egypt
It's the Georgie Bush Show with:
	-first stime war between Iraq and USA

Now what was your point?  That Jimmy Carter's coming back into office?  
You must be dreaming... Clinton ain't your father's Democrat.

You must be one of those people that like being trickled-down upon.

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*