HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PRICKRIL@bscf.uga.edu (BEN PRICKRIL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Maybe I'm paranoid, but ...
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:36:08 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, USA
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1demktINNelj@lindy.Stanford.EDU> jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU writes:

>    I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories, but I find myself
> wondering if the Bush administration isn't doing what it can to leave
> Clinton with the worst economy possible -- that George is, so to speak,
> taking a dump in the Oval Office and leaving it for his successor to
> clean up.
> 
>    Am I crazy, or what? 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Negative, Captain! George appears to be doing what George does best - screwing
up.  How is it possible that the same man who gave the Chinese most favored 
nation status after the Tienanman (sp?) Square debacle, and supported Saddam 
with hundreds of millions right up to the war in Kuwait, could imagine imposing
trade barriers with western European countries?? Why some seem to think George
is (soon was!!) strong in foreign policy is anyone's guess. This may be another
item Clinton will choose to reverse in his first 100 days.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  !!!!!!!!         !         !!!!!!!!!    !!!!!!!!
Ben Prickril          !  !               ! !        !       !    !
prickril@bscf.uga.edu !  !              !   !       !            !
706-542-3486          !  !!!!          !     !      !            !!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  !            !!!!!!!!!     !            !
!                        !           !         !    !       !    !
!                        !!!!!!!!   !           !   !!!!!!!!!    !!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:39:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.155545.15345@news.vanderbilt.edu>, rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes...
>In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
> 
>    And let's give the impending resurgence of judicial activism
>a nice big round of applause.  


Yeah, nothing like those unelected, unanswerable to anyone legal nerds making
laws.

Funny how all those who complained about a judiciary active in protecting police
and preventing the guilty from being freed on legal technicalities are now so
enthusiastic about a judiciary which will be active in shielding criminals and
overturning democratically arrived at laws.

1996 can't come too soon.


Dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:31:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov10.093126.5513@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.201244.10258@nntp.hut.fi>, v37262d@kaira.hut.fi (Mancko H|glund) writes:

>> reason Americans tend to think that their form of democracy is better than
>> others'.
>
>	Maybe because we've had 42 peaceful transfers of power.
>:)

   Italy has had 45.   Of course that's been in the last 43 years!   
   ("A true fact", not an ethnic joke)
 

>	Is it just Finland, or do a perponderance of posters from other
>countries also hate the US?

   "They all hate us anyhow.  So let's drop the big one now"
                  ---Randy Newman from the song _Political Science_.


---peter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:47:07 GMT

pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>For someone who purports to oppose individuals acting as "judge, jury, and 
>executioner," you are very quick to condemn.

	I overreacted to what I have heard, its not as bad as I though, but
it is still pretty bad.

>Sure, there is a reason for 911.  But I have a feeling that we have a 
>radiaclly different perspective as to it's use, and efficiency.  Police 
>response time can be anywhere from 20 minutes, to two hours.  Had the "
>victim" been an assailant, 911 would have been useless.  

	First, they rang his doorbell. Not many criminals do this, but 
sometines they do.

	Second, they made no attempt to enter the house forcefully.

	The proper way would have been to grab the gun and call 911. Wait
INSIDE of your house for the police to come. IF they break in and confront
you inside of your house, than you can justify the shooting. Running outside
with a loaded gun in a neighborhood is just plain stupid. 

James Dusek
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Maybe I'm paranoid, but ...
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:55:47 GMT

In article <1demktINNelj@lindy.Stanford.EDU> jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>   There seems to be a consensus among both liberal and conservative
>economists that the absolute, totally, completely worst thing a
>government can do during a prolonged recession/depression is to sharply
>raise trade barriers and risk setting off a protectionist international
>trade war.  Yet it seems the Bush administration, by imposing
>astronomic duties on EC wines and threatening that there's more to come,
>is toying with exactly that idea.
>
>   I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories, but I find myself
>wondering if the Bush administration isn't doing what it can to leave
>Clinton with the worst economy possible -- that George is, so to speak,
>taking a dump in the Oval Office and leaving it for his successor to
>clean up.
>
>   Am I crazy, or what? 

In this case, it is Europe and particularly France, that is to blame...
...it is a dangerous game of chicken that is being played, but in this
case it is not Bush's fault.  On the issue of agricultural subsidies,
the US has been fighting to reduce them, and Europe has been fighting
to maintain them.

Delors and Mitterand may be trying to test Clinton...but what they
are doing is extremely dangerous to the world economy.

Gerald

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative? 
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:36:43 GMT

In <BxMFIq.FJ8@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.144755.26931@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>Because without Reagan's Defense policies there would have been no
>>'crisis' for the Soviet Union, insofar as spending a huge amount of
>>wealth and still being faced by the United States, which looked like
>>it was able and willing to outrun them indefinitely? 

>I'm not sure it wasn't a case of their economy collapsed from the burden
>of defense spending only shortly before ours did...we were lucky.

Well, I don't think that is really supported by the facts.  After all,
how much (as a percentage of GNP) were we spending at the height of
the Reagan buildup?  Something like 7%?  Of course, this made us less
competitive with people who were spending less, but the idea that a
normal economy can't spend 7% of GNP on Defense INDEFINITELY just
doesn't seem to be supported.  Of course, once you add in all the
other 'money down a rathole' spending we were doing, it probably took
things up over the 10% of GNP mark that is generally recognized as
being harmful if sustained over a long period of time.

Compare that to the Soviet level of spending, which was about 15%
'above board' and probably closer to 20% if you count all the 'hidden'
charges that weren't included in their Defense budget.  Once you
factor in the fact that the TOP of their economy (the best production
of everything) was going into their Defense establishment, heaven
knows how much it should really be counted as.  Quantity may indeed
have a quality all its own, but skimming the cream off the top of
their economy had to hurt them more than if they had had a more even
distribution.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:31:20 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>who was then the EEOC Commissioner.

She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58631 alt.politics.libertarian:1688 misc.legal:19632
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Impeachment
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:44:28 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov5.155249.13530@b30.ingr.com>, craig@jido.b30.ingr.com 
(Craig Presson) writes:
> Apparently at least the Congress didn't. Given that Marbury v. Madison
> (1803) is universally cited as having _established_ the doctrine of
> judicial review _of Federal law_ _by the SC_, one is left to assume
> that between 1789 and 1803 the question was unsettled.

Not at all.  "[T]he power to be proposed to be conferred on the Circuit 
Courts of the United States by the [U.S. Congressional] act of 1792 [1 Stat. 
243] was not judicial power within the meaning of the Constitution, and was, 
therefore, unconstitutional, and could not lawfully be exercised by the 
courts."  United States v. Yale Todd, 13 How. 52 (Feb. 17, 1794).  This was 
the first recorded instance of a Congressional statute being struck down as 
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The power of judicial review was not created by _Marbury,_ although that is 
claimed so consistently so as to approach being an Urban Legend.

The thing is, US v. Todd was a pretty routine case, not the Presidential 
confrontation that Marbury v. Madison was.  As a result, it didn't get all 
the attention Marbury did, and went unreported until 1851.  But it represents 
the first recorded instance of judical review of a federal statute for 
constitutionality by the Supreme Court.

Judicial review was asserted by the lower courts at an even earlier date.  
See Hayburn's Case, 2 Dallas 355.

What I think _Marbury_ is justly famous for establishing, is that it is the 
judiciary's role to say what the law is, surpassing the legislature and 
executive.  In Yale Todd, the Congress responded to the ruling of 
unconstitutionality by repealing the law.  _Marbury's_ position, I believe, 
is that the ruling in itself negated the statute.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:25:17 GMT

jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>
>Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"

Finally! A Republican who accepts her fate. Congratulations -- you have
taken the first step to recovery. Screwing of Republicans will indeed be
the order of the day. Don't think of it as four more years.  Just take it
one day at a time, and learn to love the Higher Government Power.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: USA Today/CNN tracking poll -- final results
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:40:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.110837.5445@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>	Just wanted to make an observation here.  Does anyone remember what
>happened on 10/30?  The press pulled their own "October Surprise" and trumped
 
     No, the Press just reported it. Do you mean the Press should not have   
reported that ?   I don't seem to remember you said anything against the
press when they reported Wenberger was aquitted early this year. It's the
press's job to report this kind of news that concern the public. 
    If you conclude that the Wenberger reindictment report contributed to the 
result of the election, then the press did a good job !  Don't you think the 
press's job is to report information to the mass so the mass can make a 
more informed jdugement ?  Do you really think the press should not report that
indictment which happened that day ?   What do you think the press should do ?
Just tell the whole America that Mr. Smith's daughter, 123 W. Wright Lane, had
a baby of 7 lb 10 oz on Nov 6. The father is a school teacher, mom is a home-
maker, and they named the baby Jane ?  Is that the news you can claim that 
is not biased ?   
 
     Get realistic.
 
     On the other hand, do you really think it's right for the Bush 
Administration to hide the truth that the public wanted to know and should
know about ?  Do you think it's right for both the campaigns, especially 
the Bush campaign to disregard facts and give false or misleading information
to the public before the election ?  The American public can not rely on 
the Democrat's ads for information, the American public can not rely on 
the Republican's ads for information. The press has must play the big role
in this regard.
 
    Don't whine. Look deeper to find what went wrong. It's not the 
press's fault.

>up Casper's notes to be a "smoking gun" for Bush on Iran-Contra.
>	Bush recovered from that, but not enough.
>
>	The press is seeing the real side of their favorite-son candidate now,
>though.  He has basically ignored them since the election day love-fest.
>
>	(Is anyone else sick of Ted Koppel fawning all over Bill?  Did he send
>Bill a sweetest day card?)
>
>	The press has their candidate in the White House.  The spin has rotated
>counter-clockwise.  Let's see how they try to make Camelot II happen.
>
>Brett
>===============================================================================
>80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
>GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60034 alt.politics.elections:23731 alt.politics.clinton:17097 alt.politics.democrats.d:536
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Cong. Pay Raises Was Re: Ignorance
Summary: 27th Amendment
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:40:47 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov13.183159.7522@wri.com>, walsh@dragonfly.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)                       writes...
>In article <1992Nov12.184033.5936@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>>I consider taxing me and spending the money on something that I don't approve
>>of is in itself a criminal invasion of my rights.  If EVERYTHING that the
>>Gov't spent money on was put to a vote first (not very realistic) how much
>>tax money do you think we would be paying in?  I would certainly vote down
>>any and all pay raises over 3%.  That's about all the average working person
>>gets, moreover, a public servant should be willing to accept less ...  How
> 
>So the average working guy gets a 3% raise every year, and
>congresspeople get a 33% raise every ten years.  What's
>the big deal?
> 
This is neither here nor there anymore. The 27th Amendment took care of that.

>j. walsh
> 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Socialist health care (was legalizing drugs)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 09:27:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.233006.22715@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>However, I hope one aspect of socialized systems gets tried here: the local
>non-doctor health practitioner, quite possibly employed by the State.  I'm
>particularly thinking of the visiting nurses who barged into the house
>after the children were born, gave them a couple of thorough checkups (yes,
>Rob, I'm talking about you) and generally dispensed good advice.  Often the
>same woman who handed out iron and folic acid tablets during the pregnancy.

But we're talking the United Sates here.  The land of the free and the home
of the brave.  The only country on the planet where herbalism is banned.
Where there are laws being proposed to define vitamins beyond a certain 
potency as 'drugs', subject to the same ruthless enforcement as other
banned substances.  Where nutritional supplements are threatened with
the same treatment.  Furthermore, if you sell something and don't call it
a "nutritional supplement", and a magazine article appears saying that
it is a useful nutritional supplement, these proposed laws would fund the
FDA investigating for conspiracy to get around the laws.  No doubt they
would first seize your company's and the magazine's assets.  Here in the
land of the free, the FDA is already censoring medical journals that
talk about "unapproved" uses for drugs.  They don't want our researchers
to know about the information untill the FDA has already approved them.

I've just finished reading some of the heartbreaking testimony that lead
to DEA administrative law judge Francis L. Young's recommendation
to make marijuana a medicine.  I've also just read DEA administrator John
Law's overruling order, in which he attacked the professionalism of the judge,
attacked the politics of some of the sick people and their representatives, 
attacked the believability of the elderly folks who came forward to say
"my dear son's last year was made bearable by marijuana", ranted on about
how some of the people giving evidence were known to be marijuana users
before they were aware of their illneses, and generally made clear what
a bunch of hateful tyrants our "public servants" tend to be.  Bastards.

I don't want them in my life.  I certainly don't want them involved with
my healthcare.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58358 alt.rush-limbaugh:9094 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7976 alt.politics.elections:22770 alt.politics.perot:5209 alt.politics.bush:13267
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Mo Clinton
Summary: The new Rap group
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:28:16 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov5.191325.23215@stortek.com>, v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar)                          writes...
>It occured to me yesterday -- I was watching a lady being interviewed
>after coming out of the polling place.  When asked how she made her
>choices, she said she used the "eenie meenie miney mo" method.  "Mo"
>ended up on Bill Clinton.
>So I think we should call him Mo Clinton.
> 
This sounds like a new Rap Group.

>And let's honor the media (the most *powerful* political party) for
>it's incessant slant against G Bush and blatant love affair with Bill
>C.  It's a shame when so much of America voted the way they were told
>to think by the liberal media.
> 
I know this is going to open me up to flaming, but I work part-time at
a newspaper right now. And during the weeks leading up to the election
we were recieving calls from both Republicans, independents and Democrats,
all where accusing us of slanting our news for the other guy. Basically
we decided that if everyone was unhappy, then we were doing our job.

>I'm willing to bet that the 5% margin of victory for BC can be
>explained as people who voted for this "cross your fingers" candidate
>without *any* idea of what they were getting us into.

What makes you think that people are any dumber or smarter than in 
past elections? BTW, no one ever knows what we are getting into
(except for you, of course).
> 
>Vince Dugar                 | CIS: 71011,2657
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:06 PST
Subject: NICARAGUA SERIES
Nf-ID: #N:9211102217.AA11142@poly.math.cor:-399246456:000:817
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Nov 10 14:06:00 1992


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: NICARAGUA SERIES

NICARAGUA SERIES

...Comes full circle back to domestic issues in the final segment
(about 10 parts) concluding the series, taken from Michael Parenti's
1986 article "Is Nicaragua More Democratic than the U.S.?" exploring
not only still more reality-versus-Washington-Party-Line gaps but also
questions, particularly relevant in this shortly after the election,
about "democracy" in the United States.

Harel Barzilai
Co-founder, Co-moderator, misc.activism.progressive (MAP)

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Inquiries by email, please, to harelb@math.cornell.edu, for more
information about PeaceNet/EcoNet or about misc.activism.progressive]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -