HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spencer@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:13:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:


>The Federalist Papers, especially the installments written by Madison,
>are fascinating and often brilliant essays upon the field of political
>science, and they almost certainly reflect the beliefs and preferred
>Constitutional interpretations of a faction of the people who framed the
>document.  But they aren't gospel, they weren't voted upon by anyone,
							 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and they aren't part of United States law.

Have to take exception to the indicated statement. The consensus of
American historians is that the Constitution would not have been
ratified by New York (and other states but New York alone would have
been fatal) except for the Federalist Papers. People in those
states were voting on the interpretations they read in those papers
not on some other glosses which arose later.


===========================================================================
Michael Spencer            |      2640 Borregas
spencer@cats.ucsc.edu      |      Aptos, CA   95003
===========================================================================


-- 

===========================================================================
Michael Spencer            |      2640 Borregas
spencer@cats.ucsc.edu      |      Aptos, CA   95003
===========================================================================
From: mmdd@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Anita Hill for Attorney General!
Date: 23 Jan 93 12:28:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483600069:000:33
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mmdd    Jan 23 04:28:00 1993


Anita Hill for Attorney General!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69288 talk.politics.theory:5732 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13532
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:19:50 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <C18tFM.AMo@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike
myke schwartz) writes:
|> Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
|> : In article <C16u87.MpI@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com
(mike myke schwartz) writes:
|> : >Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
|> : >: So how would World War II have been funded?  Without a violation of
|> : >: the Fifth Amendment, mind you.
|> : >
|> : >Issuing bonds and defecit spending are not the same thing.
|> : 
|> : Please, for the rest of us, explain the difference.
|> : 
|> : (Hint: they are the same thing.)
|> 
|> Bonds are an instrument of borrowing, true.  But the purpose of bonds are
|> for a specific project, not for general expendatures.
|> 

This is often true for munipalities, counties, and states, but alarmingly
untrue for the federal goverment which issues treasuries (bonds) as a
vehicle for raising cash in the short term to fund its *general* expenditures.

Many of us are deeply concerned because,

1.) the US government is issuing bonds to finance general expenditures, 
    because it is outspending tax revenues, and

2.) it is issuing bonds to pay off the interest on bonds, and

3.) continuing both 1.) and 2.) ad nauseum.

1.) is the financial definition of "bad."  That's "bad."  Those of you who
have trouble with the good/bad thing, 1.) is "bad."

2.) is "mortifying."  This means you're frozen in silent awe.  You want to
scream but nothing but silence comes out of your throat.

3.) lets those of us who are not debt-a-holics see the national obsession
with denial and lying surrounding the national debt.  It is re-assuring
to the extent that it explains our mortification over 2.) and tells us to
pursue personal strategies of financial protection, until 1.) ceases and
desists.  No need to argue about it, is there?  Just go protect yourself.

Paul Collacchi

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:68906 alt.politics.clinton:20731 alt.president.clinton:1643
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Reality is a b!tch
Date: 21 Jan 93 02:10:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

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

>I disagree. The *worse* the economy, the better for the Democrats ...
>they milked the great depression for a 16 year run, and bad times
>make people more reliant on the big-mommy Govt support, a Democrat
>strength.

An interesting view of history.  FDR took office in March, 1933,
when the Depression was already three years old (older for farmers),
unemployment was at 25%, and the economy had essentially collapsed.
Those big-mommy programs like the FDIC prevented another Depression
from happening in the past few years.  Not even Reagan was willing
to try to dismantle the New Deal.

Reagan was elected in 1980 primarily because of the bad economy.
Republicans can benefit from economic woes too.


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 04:25:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.160428.15141@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>A quibble: Madison made it quite clear what Madison wanted people to
>believe that section of the Constitution meant.  Assuming he was writing
>honestly, he also made it quite clear what Madison believed it meant.
>But Madison did not have the authority -- and possibly also did not have
>the ability -- to make it quite clear what it meant.

I'm a little ammused: When the Federalist is cited to support sweeping,
broad constructions (empowering the government with great authority)
the bias of Madison, Hamilton and Jay is rarely mentioned. Instead,
the essays are treated as the difinative word of the framers. However,
when it is cited to restrict the powers of government, the authors'
baises are immediately mentioned.

Let's look at this bias: The Federalists (the authors of these essays
especially) saw a need for a more energetic government empowered to 
act freely when necessary. They didn't _want_ strict limits on
governmental power, and arguing for such restrictions goes against
their biases. In aruging for limits on the government's powers,
I think it's safe to say that Madison wasn't acting out of personal
bias, and he was probably taking the least restrictive position
of any of the framers.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc,soc.college,alt.peeves
From: vdveen@cs.utwente.nl (Hans van der Veen)
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Organization: University of Twente, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:42:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.151635.659@st-andrews.ac.uk>, ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan25.085937.18352@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> >cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
|> >] 
|> >] Does this mean i think prostitution should be legal?  Yup.  (It is in
|> >] Norway - a fact which seems to surprise the heck out of some people,
|> >] for some reason...)
|> >
|> > [edited...]
|> >WHAT!!!!!!!
|> >This the Immortal Land of St. Olaf!
|> >The Patron Saint of Pious Pedantics Upon the HILL!!!!
|> >WHAT!!!!!!
|> >I am just SHOCKED!!!!!
|> >ciao
|> >drieux
|> >ps: and to think we sent them Sid Rand,
|> >and he was still UnAble to SAVE THEM!!!!!
|> >ObPeeve: that I did not know this while
|> >I was a student at Stained O'Laugh.....
|> 
|> Would you be more shocked to learn that prostitution is legal here in stuffy 
|> old Britain? It's only *soliciting* that is illegal. What's the difference?
|> How should I know? Solicitors are prostitutes that get caught?
|> 
|> Colin.

Since the first of January prostitution is legal in the Netherlands too.

Hans van der Veen.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70030 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13941
From: jma@aber.ac.uk (Jonathan Michael Ashley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:26:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Wales, Aberystwyth

In article <Jan.15.22.05.57.1993.26003@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>om> <Jan.13.
>Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
>Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
>Lines: 12
>
>In article <1j5svvINNh52@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>> Will there be equal access to schools for all churches?   Will
>> there be equal access, for example, for Churches that preach 
>> tolerance of Gays?
>
>I wouldn't know.  I can't predict the future.
>-- 
>The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
>my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>as this would hold such views??? ||

Is this the same Ted "Tyre-Iron" Kaldis who made a famous post describing how
he and one of his chums set about some chap with a tyre-iron for no apparent
reason other than that he was gay? If it is, I sure hope no one sees fit to
contaminate my mailbox with a copy of it. Perhaps they could repost it here?

--
ash
PS Beware of following up to misc.test (which is in the distrib. of this post)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Basic Rights for Gays? (was Re: Your own words, of course != bigot)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 18:12:19 GMT

In article <90440@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan17.163531.7356@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>|That's impossible; it is not criminal to say this, nor even to sexually
>|harrass someone, which is what I assume you're referring to.

>Sexual harrassment is not illegal.  Come on now David.
 
No, it isn't.  It is a *civil* matter.  You might get sued for it, but
you aren't going to get thrown in jail.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: jeff@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Williamson)
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:48:27 GMT

In article <1k7dm9INNlhe@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

[long story about how his employer screwed him over deleted]

>e hhh
>hxxxxxxsehlhhkawlays shll the tn
^
|
Some...ummm...randomspeak left in.

I understand now! Broward suffered a nervous breakdown after his employer
gave him the shaft (too bad you didn't leave them earlier, Broward, that
kind of s**t just should not be tolerated). Now, several years later and
minus a few key brain cells controlling the ability to write comprehensibly,
he has taken to the nets, having nigh-epileptic fits over the keyboard.

Tell you what, B. Get a good neurosurgeon, have the proper synapses
reconnected, and present us with some rational thought on why you think
Billy Boy is taking us to hell in a handbasket. I'm afraid the train 
noises you keep making have derailed your train of thought.


-- 
**  Jeff Williamson     **  Academic Computing and Network Services  **
**  blackmagik@nwu.edu  **          Northwestern University          **
**  Evanston, Illinois  **      Hours: 0000-0800, Monday-Friday      **
****   Someone in the club tonight has stolen my ideas.   --TMBG   ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: that: Xianity Thing
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:38:09 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>] 
>]     I think some people use the "x" abbreviation because of their
>] struggle in either writing or saying "Jesus Christ."  (For those of
>] you in this category, do not feel alone -- Billy Graham used every
>] euphemism for "Christ" that he could conjure up during his inaugural 
>] prayers.)
>] 
>]      C. Perttunen

I do know that many use the X convention to save writing time.
I used it extensivly in my note taking - and a "Chi Rho" is more
explicit, and a nice gliph with a pen.  (a Chi Rho is a monogram
of the greek letters ''x'' & ''p'')

Back when manuscripts were 'hand writings' (and what other sort
was there?) all sorts of abbreviations were invented, some we still
use: etc or &c, et. al., %, a c with a line over it, + for 'make the
sign of the cross now' and so on.  my favorite is 'xb', usually
found as a marginal note, means 'Christus bene' Christ bless - and
was a sort of written opening prayer at the start of the scriptors
day.  (from the twelfth century is the more ambiguous 'Godd help myne
hande')

Yes -the use of the X convention does allow some people to ignore
the Christian aspects of something.  Xianity vs Christianity,
or Xmas vs The Festival of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus.

But if we are going to do way with anagrams, there go
BTW, IMHO, WTH, IMNHO, WRT, BART and in re:

>"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
>Why should anyone else?"

If your opinions are not important enough for 
you to discuss them with yourself, why should
I listen either?
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Nothing says loving like a bun in the oven.
EOF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:20:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.045159.14445@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.041301.5085@news.acns.nwu.edu>, birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)             writes...
>>I don't think you can count the speed and directness with which Clinton
>>retracted nearly everything he promised and his haste in appointing admitted
>>felons as positive qualities.
>
>Speeking of felons, what about Bush's pardoning of felons. Not just felons
>that commited illegal acts, but also committed another felony by lying to
>Congress. In fact, I think that we can include Bush himself on the felony
>list. Implicated by his own diary. Pretty ironic.
>> 
>>birdman@nwu.edu
>
>-Garrett

You seem to think that by attacking Clinton, I am implicitly supporting Bush. 
This is not the case.  Additionally, we don't yet know that Clinton is
preferable to Bush.  Even the most ardent Clintonite must admit that, when it
comes down to it, we have no *real* reason to assume that anything is better
than Bush.  There have been worse presidents, and Clinton has yet to prove
himself any better.

birdman@nwu.edu


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Guess who has more millionaires in his circle?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:00:27 GMT

In article <1k4ct8INNilo@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
}Heard on CBS Radio.
}
}Guess how many millionaires Bill "middle-class got shafted in the '80's" Clinton 
}has in his circle of advisers?
}
}If you guessed 9, you were right.
}
}Now, guess how many Ronald "friend of the rich" Reagan had in his advisory circle?
}Answer: 7.
}
}And now, guess how many George "doesn't give a fig for the middle-class" Bush
}had?
}Answer: 6.

To best reflect america, Clinton has selected millionare lawyers.  Maybe someone
should tell him?
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Guess who has more millionaires in his circle?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 22:10:48 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

Heard on CBS Radio.

Guess how many millionaires Bill "middle-class got shafted in the '80's" Clinton 
has in his circle of advisers?

If you guessed 9, you were right.

Now, guess how many Ronald "friend of the rich" Reagan had in his advisory circle?
Answer: 7.

And now, guess how many George "doesn't give a fig for the middle-class" Bush
had?
Answer: 6.

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:28:10 GMT

In article <1jpr10INNlsq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>>Technology (celluar phones, etc) will probably change the market for
>>the Baby Bells enough, so that their monopoly status will be loosened.
>>Providing electricity and gas, well, I don't see any technology that
>
>        Then you haven't checked out solar lately.  My counterpart 
>    at University of Idaho is completely solar now.  I was amazed at
>    the total cost.

Solar won't work at all latitudes and all climates, though, you're
right.  I haven't checked the solar industry recently, and was under
the impression that it still isn't competitive with, say, gas.  Is U.
Idaho running an experimental, trial project?

>  Another reason we'll see emmigration out of the
>    U.S.  Iridium will go into operation, providing telephone service
>    from anywhere on the globe.  The U.S. military is providing 
>    protection world-wide, free of charge.  What else do you need?  :)

Good plumbing.  Toilets outside of the US just suck.



--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:41:36 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <93024.035733MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1jt93fINNm10@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Broward Horne) says:
>>In a previous article, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) says:
>
>>>I think you're becoming increasingly loony.  "PC" is hardly sweeping the
>
>>       HA!  How did you guess?
>
>>       PC just swept a president into office.
>
>Oh? If you see Bill Clinton as the epitome of Political Correctness, then
>you'd have to admit that 43% of the American people (53%, if you count
>Clinton-leaning Perotistas) like Political Correctness and the evil
>leftist ideologies that come with it, and God-fearing anti-PC'ness is
>in the definite, unpopular minority in America.

Of course, Clinton was hardly the politically correct candidate, while
the PC candidate, Jerry Brown, was deservedly wiped out in the primaries.

Your results may be different if you simply define "PC" as "people I don't
agree with."
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:45:22 GMT

Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <C16u87.MpI@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: >: So how would World War II have been funded?  Without a violation of
: >: the Fifth Amendment, mind you.
: >
: >Issuing bonds and defecit spending are not the same thing.
: 
: Please, for the rest of us, explain the difference.
: 
: (Hint: they are the same thing.)

Bonds are an instrument of borrowing, true.  But the purpose of bonds are
for a specific project, not for general expendatures.

: 
: >: Agreed to a certain extent.  But budget deficits in a welfare state are
: >: countercyclical, while government spending is directly correlated with
: >: GNP.  Insisting on a balanced budget, in good times and bad, would 
: >: exacerbate the business cycle.
: >
: >A balanced budget does not prevent the government from issuing bonds.
: 
: What's the difference between issuing bonds and borrowing money?
: 
: What do you think treasury bills are?

They're issued whenever the government needs to borrow to cover its
defecit spending.

Ted, you miss the point, it seems.  The government can borrow and save
money at the same time.  The government can borrow and have a surplus
spending level even.  The government can also borrow to build roads,
run electricity everywhere, trains, a banking system, and the likes,
and still have a positive cash flow.  The government could do it and
cut taxes in half, even.  It simply has to spend less than it takes
in... :)


: -- 
: ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
: standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
: the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69732 alt.politics.elections:25156 alt.politics.clinton:21216