HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:33:10 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov6.140250.25074@fia.dmg.ml.com> jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber) writes:
]In article <1992Nov4.230711.5810@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
]
]|> One suggestion I've heard that I've liked is to double the size of
]|> Congress (to 870 seats) while maintaining the current size of the
]|> Congressional staff.  
]
]This would be REALLY stupid.  That means doubling money needed to pay
]congresscritters (what's their current salary right now?  how much do they
]charge to their expense accounts?).  It would be far better to halve the
]congressional staff.

...financial analysis of congressional cost cutting deleted...

Speaking of REALLY stupid. The costs to run congress are NEGLIGIBLE compared
what their legislation costs us. Paying them too little, or worrying too much
about how they are costing us is dumb. What counts is what legislation they
pass. We could pay every one of them $1,000,000 per year and it would be
nothing compared to the pork barrel each one of them takes to his home
district.

If you want to reform congress, do it. Save the complaining about how
much money for rec.humor.
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 07 Nov 92 07:18 PST
Subject: Clinton's Snail Address
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483600041:000:289
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Nov  7 07:18:00 1992


From: <jlohrmann>
Subject: Clinton's Snail Address

From: Steve Freedkin <sfreedkin@igc.apc.org>


Just in case somebody needs Clinton's snail address:

Snail-mail address for Clinton/Gore, per your request:

Gov. Bill Clinton
Clinton Committee
Post Office Box 615
Little Rock, AR  72203
From: mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Rockville)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Nov. 23, 1992 A day that will go down IN INFAMY!
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:48:15 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:


>   People's votes reflect thier lifestyle or what they want in a lifestyle I
>guess this means that SPOUSE nonconsentual adultery, lying, draft dodging,
>weasling and stealing is now the acceptable wasy of life.

I suppose your idea of acceptable morals is living off the efforts of people
not yet born?  And I would be very careful calling Bill Clinton a liar.  Glass
houses, dear.  As for draft dodging, I think that if the government engages
in an immoral war (or any war for that matter), if the people find it a just
cause, they will enlist.  If they find the cause unjust, then there will not
be the necessary support, telling the government to get out.  I see draft
dodging in the same light as the African-American activists in the '50s and
'60s; breaking the law is OK, even necessary, if the law is unjust.

>--People such as Clinton, Kennedy, Carol Mosley Braun, Barbara Boxer and
>Marian B. 

Are you referring to Ted Kennedy?  I don't really see how he relates to
Clinton.  If you're referring to John Kennedy, well, that was 30 years ago.
If we're going to go back that far, how about Nixon, Ford, Joe McCarthy...
By `Marian B.' do you mean Marion Barry?  Again, totally irrelevant.  Should
I mention John Sununu, Ollie North, David Duke?

>Why were all the men pitched for check kiting, when the women were
>doing the same thing?

Definitely a conspiracy by the women of the country.  Look out; they'll be
taking to the streets with guns next :)

>I guess it's ok for a convicted drug user to be
>elected to city counsel but a president share multi purpost technology, such
>as welding lasers, because they might not be used for the purpose thay were
>attent in.

What?  I'm not sure if this one is the fault of your typing or your brain....
Why not clarify for us, and check your spelling?

>   We have stated the journey's to ounish ourselves by electing corrupt people
>to our government.

Corruption is all relative.  I would really like to see hard evidence that
Bill Clinton is corrupt; don't bother posting a Wm. F. Buckley column.

>                       THIS IS THE MAN YOU VOTED FOR!!

Yes, this IS the man I voted for.  I take no small amount of pride in the fact
that I made the right choice, and for once the American public did the same.
I have a strong feeling that history will prove us right.
-- 
Michael T. Chaffee        | Amateur Evil Genius        |  ______ 
mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu | Professional Slapthologist |  \    /      HATE 
Member, Universal Life Church, Sect of Loons           |   \  /    can never be
Annoyance Theatre Platinum Member                      |    \/    a FAMILY VALUE
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Dear Dems: Here's your big chance-don't blow it (like last time)
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:24:23 GMT


In article <92Nov4.181946edt.342@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.223108.20379@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) writes:
>> [deleted]
>>i.e. let the government run a large portion of your lives (after all, its for
>>your own good), tax away your earnings (when will tax freedom day be 4 years
>>from now), and punish those who achieve and create in this country, will be put to the test.  If your wrong, then here comes a Republican stampede in 1996.
>
>  Well, the gentleman's honesty is refreshing.  It's the Day After,
>but he's still spewing out those paranoid distortions and tired cliche's.
> [deleted]

I disagree entirely with your characterization of Mr. Oliver's 
comments, as would many people who have actually paid attention
to the actions of the Democratic Party, at least since FDR. 

>  I'm inspired to see that people like Mr. Oliver will keep the 
>basic Republican mean-spiritedness alive, in spirit if not actually
>in a campaign.

How is struggling to look after your own "mean-spiritedness"?  

Toronto must give you a perfect vantage point from which to 
understand the struggle of honest, WORKING people in America 
to survive the continuing plunder of their earnings by the US 
government.

Then again...

Dave
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59704 ca.politics:9525 ba.politics:7028
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A Worrisome Example of "Subhuman" Ideology
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:50:34 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <hines.721425847@cgl.ucsf.edu>, hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #the implicit assumption that anything done to such a person,
# #just like a dangerous dog, is therefore justified: execution 
# #without trial, using him in laboratory experiments, or torture.
# 
# Get serious jack.  Why not instead extrapulate that the bashers,
# like an abused and "trained" doberman, is really the victum.  

Because I'm not a liberal.  There is no excuse for going out
and beating the crap out of someone.

# -Wade Hines  

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Racism is "class struggle" applied to ethnicity.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59240 alt.rush-limbaugh:9338 alt.politics.elections:23291
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:23:01 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov8.231951.20111@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>In <1992Nov8.023941.23946@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In article <8NOV199201395076@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>>In <1992Nov4.155545.15345@news.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.

>>Unanswerable to anyone?  Have you read the Constitution?

>    Yup.  Have you?  All federal judges hold their offices for life
>during good behavior.  In practical terms, the appointments are for life,
>since impeachments are rare.  They have to be nominated by the president
>and approved by the Senate to get in, certainly, but they are neither
>elected nor representative.  And it is difficult to see how they are
>answerable to anybody.  (Their salaries, for example, cannot be diminished
>during their time in office.)

>>They're answerable to Congress.

>    Only if Congress decides to impeach them, and that is, as I said, rare.

I think it was Ted Frank who used the analogy of the traffic lights --
the fact that few people are given tickets for running red lights is not
evidence that red lights don't work.

And the fact that few judges are impeached doesn't mean that that
they're unanswerable.  It simply means they stay within the bounds of
what people are willing to accept.

>>For that matter, "unelected?"  They're no more unelected than the
>>President is.  And than the Senate used to be.

>    Perhaps you should look over Art. I - III again.

Yes?  They're unelected, certainly.  But they aren't picked at random
out of the phone book -- then they truly would be unelected.

They're nominated by a (mostly) elected leader -- the President, and
confirmed by an elected legislature.

Given this, complaining that the reason they shouldn't make laws is because 
they're unelected makes no sense.  After all, the Senate didn't used to
be elected -- they used to be picked by the state legislatures.  And yet
people didn't complain that *they* made laws.  The President isn't popularly
elected, either, and yet he has a *lot* more power than the average
Supreme Court justice.  Sure, the Electoral College usually goes along with
the popular vote, but not always.

>>>1996 can't come too soon.

>>Four more years.

-- 
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.
From: jarmolow@samsung.com (Tom Jarmolowski)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Libertarian vote totals ??
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:24:54 GMT
Reply-To: jarmolow@samsung.com
Organization: Samsung Software America

Does anyone know how the Libertarian Part did in the election ?

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tom Jarmolowski              _/_                    jarmolow@samsung.com
Samsung Software America     /      __     _____    ...uunet!samsung!jarmolow
One Corporate Drive         (__    (_)    (  )  )   Voice: (508) 685-7200  x308
Andover MA 01810                                    Fax: (508) 685-4940
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: clinton's court?
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:55:49 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 721271598@mcl, markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>
> we know that none of the reagan bush nominees
> will be kicking-off too soon. but does anyone
> know the ages of the supreme court members?

I think that health and political leanings are more of a consideration.
Two probable retirees are White and Blackmun.  Rehnquist is reported to
want to leave, but he will probably stay in until a Republican reaches the
White House.

> i think there are few who have been waiting to 
> get out when a democrat was elected.

Believe it or not, White is the only Democrat on the Court.  

> but poor moderate bill....he will have to
> nominate ultra lefties to balance the court.
> i think the supreme court creates the most
> dangerous politicians: those that can find a 
> precedance for their crazy beliefs.

Certainly, Reagan and Bush had a tough time packing the Court with right
wingers.  It was hard to find anti-abortion conservatives with the right
credentials, so they had to lower their standards.  Clinton will have a
very large field of qualified people to pick from, much larger than Reagan
and Bush had, given their political agenda.  He won't need to look either
extreme end of the political spectrum.  He has said that pro-choice views
and a strong belief in the right to privacy will be "litmus tests" for 
appointment to the Court.  He isn't going to pretend lack of bias on those
issues, and he justifies it on the grounds that Reagan and Bush packed the
federal judiciary for 12 years with young judges who had a strong right 
wing agenda.  I have heard that Clinton will appoint about an eighth of the
federal judiciary in his first term.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:48:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.212723.25899@emr1.emr.ca> knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:
>In article <JTURNER.92Nov7205744@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.152731.15169@emr1.emr.ca> knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen) writes:
>>
---------

Sorry, I got a mistake in typos; here's the original :

-Diem died along with his HAMLETS. After 1963, VC came back their own
strategy and made SVN and US armies into dilemma because they did like
to kill villagers whom they want to protect.


This should be read :

-Diem died along with his HAMLETS. After 1963, VC came back their own
strategy and made SVN and US armies into dilemma because they did not
like to kill villagers whom they want to protect.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Kentucky Colonel)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Organization: You'd never believe it.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:45:57 GMT

In article <Bx898r.5rD@xcluud.sccsi.com>, gtolar@xcluud.sccsi.com (Glynne Tolar) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.142807.24873@ida.liu.se> e91petmo@odalix.ida.liu.se (Peter //odin) writes:
>>jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>>
>>>OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.
>>>________
>>>Jennifer|
>>>--------
>>
>>Once you pay taxes, you're a teeny-weeny bit closer to socialism!!!
>>So, unless you're cheating with taxes, you're a flamin' commie!!!!!
>>Oh, my God! Now, Clinton - tomorrow- ??? Stalin??? Ceacescu????????
>>Seriously, are you sure you'd know Socialism if it stood right in
>>front of you yelling, "HEY! YO! LOOK AT ME!!!"? I'm not.
>>
>>Twelve years too late, but not a second too soon!...
>>--
>
>I take it you like more government!  Why do you think our country is in
>debt in the first place.  I know, you'll do what many do, blame it on the
>republicans.  Check the constitution and see who has the power over the
>budget, congress.  Hmmm? An idea crossed my mind.  I think when Clinton gets
>in office I'll mail him a copy of the constitution.  It may be the first time
>he's seen it!

Considering some of the atrocities that pass for your "logic" that I've seen
on a couple of local boards, it might not be a bad idea for YOU to take a 
look at it for the first time, Disk Doctor.

You might want to take a look at one fact:  how many Presidential vetoes did
Congress override during Bush's four-year reign of error?  ONE -- and it had 
nothing to do with the budget.  Looks like your lame-duck hero is just as 
guilty as Congress when it comes to spending *our* money...

>>| Peter Modin C92       | EMail: e91petmo@und.ida.liu.se        |
>>| Rydsvagen 240 B:11    |               -"Come forth and win my |
>>| S-582 51  LINKOPING   |  \\\  Amiga     eternal love", God    |
>>| Int. +46 13 17 81 01  |   \\\ user!     said to Moses. But,   |
>>| SWEDEN                |    \\\ ///      he came fifth and won |
>>|                       |     \\X//       a toaster.            |
>>=== Dept. of Computer Science, Linkoping University, Sweden  ====
>Well, if we are going for low blows I could go on and on about choice of
>computers and LONG .sigs.

Big words from an Apple II user, indeed...in that case, there's not much chance
of you ever figuring this out, as I'm putting it together on a SPARCstation 1...
:-)


--PLH (don't blame *me*.  I voted for Marrou/Lord.)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59256 ca.politics:9474 ba.politics:6934
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Defending Dahmer Wasn't Satire
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:55:15 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BxButK.DCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Rockville) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #To demonstrate that homosexuals are NOT healthy, well-adjusted
# #people who just have different sexual preferences.  By the way,
# #even some homosexuals in soc.motss came to the same conclusion --
# #that those postings were supportive of Jeffrey Dahmer.
# 
# Clayton, have you ever actually MET a homosexual?  Do you know what one looks

Sure enough.

# like, how one thinks (NOT what your questionable statistics indicate one
# thinks), what one feels?  How many homosexuals do you know personally?  I have
# this nasty feeling you haven't a clue what a real-life homosexual is like. Do
# you honestly think we are all Dahmers-in-waiting?

Where did I say that?  I don't think that -- though the disproportionate
number of homosexual serial killers could certainly make you wonder a
bit.

# #The concentration camp operators were among the least morally
# #outraged people in history -- which is what makes it so disturbing.
# #We aren't surprised when people at the heights of irrational
# #passions do horrible things -- we are more horrified when someone
# #engages in a methodical, organized, carefully thought out program
# #of genocide.
# 
# As long as it's not against homosexuals, you mean.

Which genocides against homosexuals are you talking about?  The
only "genocide" against homosexuals right now is what homosexuals
did to themselves: AIDS.

# ## Most people can't kill unless they're outraged.  If you want to know
# ## where the future fascists will be coming from, here's a hint: look
# ## among the people who are often morally outraged.
# ## 
# ## David Canzi
# 
# #You mean homosexuals?
# 
# Oppressed minorities have the right to be outraged.  Try being one.  Better
# yet, wait ten years.  Then brain-dead supremacists such as yourself WILL be

Supremacist?  For arguing that the laws should be equal for all?

# #The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
# #passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
# #does lethal injection...
# 
# The really sad thing here is you're probably not joking.
# -- 
# Michael T. Chaffee        |****COLORADO BOYCOTTER******|  ______    

Yes, I was joking.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:30:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <5845@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct27.100214.12998@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>No, he lied, and you're mistaken.
>>Quayle claimed that Gore advocated spending $100 billion on an
>>environmental Marshall Plan.  He said it was on page 304.
>>Actually, Gore said no such thing anywhere, though he did mention the
>>general topic on page 304.

>The crucial statement:
>---------------------
>>What Gore *SAID* was that an environmental Marshall plan would be nice.
>>And that the Marshall plan was 2% of our GNP.  So it would come out to
>>$100 billion in today's economy.

>According to _my_ dictionary (kindly provided online by the Gutenburg Project):
>ad.vo.cate \'ad-v*-k*t, -.ka_-t\ n
>  1: one who pleads another's cause
>  2: one who argues or pleads for a cause or proposal

>Stating that the plan would be nice _is_ an argument for the proposal. Indeed,
>the whole _book_ is an argument for the proposal.  But the definition of the
>word implies nothing about attempts to implement.  Whether he went on to talk
>about its political feasability or not, this statement _is_ advocacy.

>It sounds to me like Quayle was dead on the mark, and was again made out the
>fool by people who figured they would get away with it because he is not
>well-liked by the media.

Now you're playing semantic games, and you're STILL wrong.  It was clear
to everyone that Dan Quayle's statement meant "If Al Gore gets elected,
he will propose a plan to spend $100 million on environmental projects
in other countries."

He did NOT say anything of the kind.  He did *imply* that $100 million
should be spent on an Environmental Marshall Plan, but specifically
STATED that the US SHOULD NOT, COULD NOT, and WOULD NOT pay for most of it.  

That doesn't sound like advocating it to me.

-- 
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 talk.politics.misc:59200 alt.rush-limbaugh:9324
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush and Saddam
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:35:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <6918@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:

>I see this a lot: Bush built up Saddam, another president would have
>stopped Saddam without going to war.
>  a) Are you aware that Saddam (pre-Gulf) had a VERY large oil income?
>     This basically allowed him to purchase whatever he chose to.

The vast majority of Saddam's arsenal was Soviet and French.

From the US he got some helicopters that he converted to military use.
After the war some arms caches have been found that contained US made
mines and artillery shells.  There has been speculation but no evidence
about how Saddam got these weapons.

Does anybody know if US munitions would work in Soviet guns.  I have
read about the amount of coordination in NATO that is used to assure that
US and say German artillery is interchangeable.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism