HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:55:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) once wrote: 
> The courts are in existence to interpret the ... Constitution.

Says who? Not the U.S. Constitution. John Jay, perhaps? :-) The
document is very simple, and very clear. It needs no
"interpretation." To do so is just a front for making it say what you
want it to, what is convenient to support your partisan position. The
U.S. Constitution is not some magical document with holy words
needing a priest's understanding. It is a straightforward contract
between the people and the government. Which happens to be ignored
for just about all intents and purposes.

Not a flame, I suppose, just something else that irks me. :-)

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "That government is best which governs least."
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |   -- Thomas Jefferson
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"Politics - Formed from the Latin 'poly', meaning many, and 'tic',
 meaning little bloodsucking insects."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.042808.16244@sdf.lonestar.org>
thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
      [... references to Social Security...]
>
>
>BTW, could someone tell me how this particular area could be on its "last legs",or generally in real trouble if it is showing a $20Billion *PROFIT*
>during the
>past year?  Am I missing something in the new math??
>
Yes. Most reporters, and seemingly a lot of politicians, have an inability to
distinguish between cash flow and actual aolvency. SSA has a positive cash
flow right now, as the baby boom generation hasn't retired yet. It is long
term solvency that is in question.                                              -----
As the boom generation retires and a smaller cohort takes their place, the
number or retirees will increase as the number of workers paying into SS
decreases. The Social Security administation publishes regular estimates
of the solvency of the system. At this writing, the most optimistic of
those estimates, as published in the SSA bulletin, is that SSA will go
bankrupt around 2030, or when many of us expect to retire. The less optimistic
projections show the insolvency of some SSA funds before 2000.
 
The only way around this ponzi scheme is to limit payouts by raising
the age of eligibility, eliminating or reducing the minimum benifit, or
taxing the deferred retirement accounts of those who have planned ahead.
None is particularly politic to do.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12326 talk.politics.misc:43534
From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:20:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) once wrote: 
> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
>> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) once wrote: 
>>> The courts are in existence to interpret the ... Constitution.
>>
>> Says who? Not the U.S. Constitution. John Jay, perhaps? :-) The
>> document is very simple, and very clear. It needs no
>> "interpretation." To do so is just a front for making it say what you
>> want it to, what is convenient to support your partisan position. The
>> U.S. Constitution is not some magical document with holy words
>> needing a priest's understanding. It is a straightforward contract
>> between the people and the government. Which happens to be ignored
>> for just about all intents and purposes.
>
> A famous court case called Marbury vs Madison established the
> precedent of judicial review. That's where.

Judicial review permits the Court to strike acts of a legislature.
That is in line with the concept that the U.S. Constitution, as the
supreme "law of the land," takes precedence over any other law.
Where, however, does the Court get the right to "interpret" the
Constitution? And should it have this power? My point is, the act of
interpreting makes the document moot. It can be anything the Court
wants, and has become that. Rather than a tool to strictly define and
restrain government, as originally intended, the Constitution has
become a tool used to justify expansion of government power and
jurisdiction. Why should nine men have the power to rewrite our
constitution at every sitting? We wrote it in convention, every
phrase having an understood meaning. It is not a "fluid" pact, but
rather it is a set of chains to bind a government. Each phrase has
a specific, intended meaning, and Holmes was a twit to say otherwise.
There, I've committed more blasphemey and criticized Ollie. :-)

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "When Congress is in session, no man's pocketbook
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  is safe." -- Mark Twain
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and
 for liberty to yield." -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.education
From: lion@netcom.com (carl loeber)
Subject: Anyone know official computer vote count procaess
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 02:40:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Keywords: elction

s 
This may not be the place to ask BUT>

Does anyone know of the official procedure for vote aggregation via computers.

Is this hired to private contractors?

What are the precautions, Justice DEpt. for tampering?

Pls E-Mail

Thanks.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12167 talk.politics.misc:43221
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 1 Sep 1992 23:52:25 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

|> Jym Dyer) writes:
|> : 
|> : >> Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...
|> : >> Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...
|> : >> Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...
|> : > Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I
|> : > just love the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to
|> : > pretend that their idol always tells the truth.
|> : 
|> : =o= Read it again.  The 327 figure is *by* *Bush's* *criteria*.
|> : To present a calculation *by* *Bush's* *criteria* as being *by*
|> : *Bush's* *criteria* is not telling a lie, it's pointing out the
|> : inadequacy of Bush's criteria.
|> : 
|> : =o= One needn't idolize Clinton (I certainly don't) to parse
|> : this correctly; one needs only to use one's brain.
|> 
But by the same *criteria* if a married couple has two children,
Bush would count that as two families.  That is not a criteria 
issue, it is a bald-faced lie.

-- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Great Britain's View of Bush (Was: The Swedish view on Bush)
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:57:50 GMT

csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:

>Hold on a sec. You're basically right: no-one here thinks Bush has a
>snowball's chance in hell of winning, but the tone you refer to is not biased
>against GB, just an accurate reflection of what's going on, according to
>the pollsters in the US. I watched some of that Republican convention, and
>maybe Paxman was a poor choice to anchor coverage, being the most snide and
>superior sh*t on either side of the pond, but the color commentary, from which
>most of that sort of remarks came, was by local political commentators, not
>the BBC's.

Well, it was the veteran Charles Wheeler, _not_ Paxman, who commented
that this year's Republican Convention was the silliest he'd ever seen.

And the silliest _I'd_ ever seen, for that matter.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:25:11 GMT

In article <mjenkins.715015044@cunews>, Michael Jenkinson writes:
>I hate to have to point this out, but Jesus, while preaching love of
>fellow men and women, was very firm about who he was and what he was
>about...much of which has little to do with what people today would
>call "tolerance."

This is absolutely true. He would never have tolerated Pat Robertson. 
He had very specific things to say about rich people and those who
make a great show of their piety. 

>Check out his reaction to the money-changer in the temple...that's not
>very "tolerant" is it? Of course not, because these people were
>thieves in his Father's house.

Exactly. Like those who take money from the sick, the old, and the poor because
they are on the top of the ecclesiastical heap. Pat Robertson is the money 
changer...a thief working Jesus' name for a buck.

>Jesus also said "I am the way, the truth, the life...No one comes to
>the father except through me." Funny, that's sounds pretty "fundie"
>doesn't it?

Well, no, not really. There's no mention of family values and no mention
of bringing public prayer into our political institutions, just to name two
things that are missing.

>Read the New Testament and see what Jesus was all about. You may be
>surprised.

I did and I was. It had nothing to do with the modern Protestant church. 
I was amazed that Karl Marx didn't pick it up and run with it. It's the
best socialist tract I ever read. Think about it. It exhorts us to give up our
wordly quests and love each other, and take care of each other. It exhorts
us to put God and Love foremost in our lives. It teaches us not to worry 
about the government and to discount material possessions. 

QED,

JZ


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:24:00 GMT

What you mean is that the GOP's proposals violate YOUR
INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. There is a big difference. They
are not blantantly and intentionally advocating violation of the
Constitution. The courts are in existence to interpret the laws and
the Constitution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Read my lips -- no new ideas!"
CLARKSON '95				   --George Bush's apparent motto
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						
"Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clinton's support of legal
rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
party is promoting?"	---Mike Polen (alt.activism user)
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Health Care & Canada
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:21:20 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

The two arguments put forward for Canada's health care system are
 
1. It has lower administrative costs
 
2. It covers everyone.
 
Seldom is it argued that it provides superior health care. The facts
dictate otherwise.
 
Costs are lower than for US health care coverage for two reasons: First,
Canada has a younger population. That accounts for perhaps 30-40% of the
variance. Older people need more health care. Second, Canada limits costs
by simply limiting health care. That's the secret. If you're 65 and need
heart surgery, you just don't get it. You die. The Detroit Medical
Center, down the road from my office, has an unbelieveably high percentage
of Canadians who are taking advantage of the loophole that pays for any
and all medical care for Canadians abroad.
 
Hospitals in Canada have strict limits on the number of procedures of a
given type that can be performed per year. Doctors are similarly limited.
There was a piece on CBC radio last month on an Ob-Gyn who had been banned
from delivering any more babies at a certain hospital- he was going over
his limit. Of course, women wanted him to do their deliveries and early
child care, but the government said no.
 
If you'd like a preview of what universal government-controlled health
care would be like in this country, look at the existing system: The
Veteran's Administration's medical care system.
 
Instead of destroying a system that works very well, who not simply
propose limited, subsidized health care insurance for the working poor
not currently covered? The non-working poor are already covered, and most
working people have some coverage.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman)
Subject: The "foreign policy" president and China
Organization: MCNC Center for Microelectronics, RTP, NC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:36:22 GMT


George Bush has decided to offend The Peoples' Republic of
China by selling F-16's to Taiwan.

He wouldn't risk offending China over a little thing like
Tiennenman Square, where human rights were involved: human
rights only matter if your country has lots of oil.

Bush, the "foreign policy president," is offending China for a
more important reason: it's yet another Defense Department
welfare program in an election year.


##########################################################################
#  George Entenman (ge@mcnc.org)                  			 #
#  MCNC                            					 #
#  P.O. Box 12889                           Dan Quayle is more stupid    #
#  Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2889    than Ronald Reagan put       #
#  919/248-1953 (voice)                     together. - Matt Groening    #
##########################################################################
-- 

			  George

##########################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Blaming congress for all his woes... (was: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:55:38 GMT
Organization: The Department For Doing Departmental Things

mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>
>Pardon? On one count, the Democrats certainly don't have a 2/3 majority in
>either house. On the other, Congress has yet to override a Bush veto.
>Methinks you're blowing smoke here.

Another way of looking at it is that Bush has never vetoed a bill for which
the veto might have been overturned.  The question of cause and effect in
this situation is an interesting one indeed.

-- 
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)

"...the only thing worse than being hurt is being bored." -- Daniel Mocsny
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush and Clinton Character Issue
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:56:57 GMT
 <1992Aug25.153118.7747@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

What can be a greater measure of a mans character than his honesty?
I think nothing can, so who is the greater perpetrator of flasehoods,
Bush or Clinton?  ...I'm soliciting examples, quotes, and facts.

Marty L. Dart.
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fonts of Wisdom
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:54:30 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu's message of 31 Aug 92 19:35:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.193504.28134@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

   FONTS OF WISDOM

   by Barry Tarshis

   copied w/o permission from the NY Times, Monday 8/31/92, p.A15

   Imagine that a network morning show has assembled six political
   heavyweights for a call-in show.  A teacher phones to report that during
   a recent class tour of the White House, a student wanted a drink of
   water, only to discover that the fountain was out of order.  The teacher
   asks the panel what message a broken fountain at the White House sends
   to the young people of America.  Let's listen to the answers.

   [anyone want to do, say, Buchanan, Pat Robertson or Mr. Marrou? :-)]

Marrou: Kid wants water she can go buy a glass! Or maybe some rich
philanthrope type will pay to fix it; if not, we'll round up the
neighbours and fix it ourselves, but then no outside weirdos get
to drink our water or we'll blow 'em away.

Robertson: I spoke to The Lord and He fixed the fountain. A New Yawk
fountain will break in its place. Send me all you money or The Lord
will break the fountain again in His wrath.

Buchanan: This is a nigger-jew cultural elite satanic democrat
conspiracy to corrupt the Youth of America's Precious Bodily Fluids!

;-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: PETITIONING WORK TO BE DONE - 39 LIBERTARIAN STATES
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:45:40 GMT

In article <GOLDM.92Aug28113023@sage4a.rpi.edu>,
goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.173956.26832@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>   27 Aug 92  06:40:24
>           STATUS OF PETITIONING FOR MARROU/LORD TICKET
>
>   States where petitioning is going on or could be going on [5]:
>
>                 required   collected   est. to go   deadline
>                  (valid)      (raw)       (raw)
>    New York       15000       27000           0*     Aug 27
>--
>
>Was this not handed in? In an article on Clarinet (UPI) today, it was
>said that there were four minor party candidates on the ballot: Lenora
>Fulani of the New Alliance Party, the Socialist Worker's Party, the
>Natural Law party and Ross Perot.

Apparently there was some sort of screw up in Alaska the exact
nature of which we have not been able to determine because the key
person has been unreachable since the signatures were files.  After
assuring all party officials that he had more than twice the
required number to qualify, he filed fewer than the number that
would be required if they were all valid (which they never are).

Either this person was a total incompetent who masked it well or a
clever mole who was out to screw the Marrou campaign from the start.
We're trying to find out but in the meantime we're also trying to
salvage our 50 states + DC ballot status by redoing the entire drive
and filing a lawsuit claiming that the deadline for presidential
candidates should not be any earlier than the deadline for all other
candidates who have to petition to get on the ballot.  That date is
September 8th, but because there is another law requiring that
slates of Presidential Electors be submitted by September 1 we
expect to complete the drive and submit all paperwork again by that
date.

There is no question that we will get the necessary signatures this
time around as the effort has been placed in the hands of
experienced party regulars.  We remain optimistic about the law suit
as we have an experienced ballot access attorney working for us and
the Alaskan courts have extended other filing deadlines in the past
based on similar arguments.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: keithd@versyss.com (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Is your Congressperson on this list?
Reply-To: keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Organization: VERSYSS Incorporated, Torrance, California
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:09:47 GMT

Patrick Sugent writes:
>
>  I typed this in for a conversation in another newsgroup, but
>I thought I might as well spread the information around.  Basically,
>it is a top 100 list of congressional spenders.  My Representative

Any chance you've got the bottom of the list available as well?

Keith
From: st1lv@jane.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Serbia comes to the US.
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:37:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	I was talking to my very successful relative the other day and she 
seemed flabbergasted at the thought that the main reason you give benefits
to the poor is so they don't get all hot and bothered and kill you.
	Are all the republicans around here completely ignorant of just how
much of the pie they have these days?  When you get over 75% of the wealth
held by 10% of the people the other 90% start getting a little peeved.  I'm
working real hard on being in that top 10% myself but sometimes I really 
worry that the republicans have gotten so piggish and greedy that they are
going to end up destroying everything.
---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal? Student
From: brehonyt@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: A question about the American politcal system
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:10:36 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland


I have a few questions about the American political system which I would 
appreciate if somebody could clarify for me.

Bush is a Republican, and you have had Republican President for the last 12
years, but Congress has had a Democratic majority for longer than this. What
does this mean in practice ?. The President has executive powers. To what 
extent ?. He can't rule by decree/executive order/whatever can he. 
How big is the Democratic majority in Congress ?.

If somebody out there could answer these questions for me I'd be grateful.
Email me at the below address to save netspace as these questions are
I'm sure, trivial to the readers of this newsgroup. Thanks.

Tom Brehony,
University of Limerick,
Ireland.

Email : IN%"brehonyt@ul.ie"
From: jmcbride@ccvax.ucd.ie
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Question about speeches.....
Date: 28 Aug 92 10:54:29 GMT
Organization: University College Dublin

In article <Bto5wK.I9t@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, stacysm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Steve Stacy + Audra) writes:
> 
>    This may sound like a stupid question, and may have nothing to do
> with what this news group usually talks about, but I could think of
> nowhere else to ask it.
>    What are the small rectangular tinted pieces of glass that are 
> on metal bars on either side of the president whenever he makes a speech
> used for?  I have always wondered.  It's the kind of thing that keeps
> you up a night, know what I mean?  
>    Anyways, an answer would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks for your time.
This is the political equivalent of the autocue, to allow politicians to 
read their speeches without having to look down at notes.  I believe they're
known as 'sincerity shields' or something like that, because they stop the
reader from looking shifty or suspicious by having to look down constantly.
I think it started with Reagan, probably because the extra instructions
involved in getting the Gipper to look for words on a page instead of just 
having him look straight ahead would probably have shorted somethinig in his
brain.
> 
> 	Steve


james p mc bride
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct