HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: If clinton/gore die NOW, who succeeds?
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:18:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: roundup.1e0ri2INNp7
Distribution: na
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

Jim Lacey writes:


>The Speaker of the House is Tom Foley, a Democrat, who I 
>believe was re-elected and would be expected to continue
>as Speaker.  Bob Dole is a *Senator* and is not eligible
>to be Speaker of the House (if that is what you meant?).

Wrong. Anybody can be Speaker of the House. It doesn't necessarily
have to be a member of the House. There is no place in the
Constitution that sets conditions upon who can be Speaker. 

[Article 1, Section 1: "The House of Representatives shall
choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have sole power
of impeachment."]

This raised an interesting possibility earlier this year when it
seemed that none of the three guys running for President could win
either in the electoral college or in the House (too many states
tied between Republican and Democrat for one party's nominee to get
26 states). Then, if enough Senators had absented themselves from the
Vice-Presidential balloting to constitute a lack of a quorum, the House
Democrats could elect Bill Clinton their Speaker and he could take over as
President. Far fetched, and a recipe for revolution. But it could have 
happened.

>Bush recently made Dole the head of the Republican party.

Nooo. Dole was elected Senate Minority leader. He, and Bob Michel (R - IL)
are the two highest elected GOP officials in the land. The Chairman of the
GOP will be elected sometime next year after the sleazeball who occupies the
position now (Rich Bond) has his term run out.

>BTW, the head of the Democrats is Ron Brown.

And after HIS term runs out, Bill Clinton gets to appoint his replacement
(the de facto head of the party in power is always the President, and he
calls the shots on party positions).

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8374 alt.politics.clinton:16499 alt.politics.bush:13575 alt.politics.perot:5334 talk.politics.misc:59051
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 9 Nov 1992 06:13:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) says:
>In just what ways do you think that the rich have plundered the poor?


    Exactly.  The rich aren't plundering the poor.
    They're subcontracting the government to do it. 


>The government is taking VAST amounts of money away from people who
>EARNED it (rich, middle-class, and poor) and delivering it to people who have
>not (either rich, poor, or middle-class).  If you think that allowing
>
>
>

Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re:  A Japanese Student killed in Lousianna (Gun Control)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:58:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.195059.22273@ntmtv> nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen) writes:
>Exactly! not many people who legally own handguns commit crimes when
>gun-control laws are tough.

Since gun control laws don't disarm criminals, what's the point?

>What I mean is that these laws don't prevent crimes
>in New York city when guns can still be obtained so easily --
>illegally of course (ILLEGALLY implies buying guns from other states
>and abroad).

So, they won't stop smuggling either.  What's the point?

>Against the law doesn't imply that people won't do it.  They may
>commit a "felony" just because they don't feel safe enough without
>an "illegal" gun in their house.  Or they may buy and then resell
>it for a profit.

In other words, the laws won't disarm criminals.

>Tough gun control laws enable us to feel more safe when we know that
>guns are in the hands of a right person.

Hold it.  A few sentences before, Nguyen said that these laws won't
disarm criminals, that they won't "enable us to feel more safe"
because, as he's said, they won't keep guns away from crooks.
Or, does he think we should feel safe even though they don't
provide the promised benefits?

>But YAL in neighboring states and perhaps for the whole U.S.A WILL.

Nguyen obviously doesn't know the gun laws in the US or states
neighboring NY.

Nguyen thinks that gun laws will work when drug laws don't....

If anything, gun smuggling and illegal manufacture is easier than drug
smuggling/manufacture.  (I'm a better chemist than I am a machinist,
which isn't saying much, but I know enough to make guns, but not
drugs.)  There are drug detection methods that can't work for guns and
there are no gun detection methods that don't work for drugs.  (Guns
don't "smell" and a few hundred disassembled guns in a shipment of
metal parts can't be found, so customs inspections are less useful for
guns than drugs.)  Considering most smuggling doesn't even go through
customs, that may not be an important difference, but it does
demonstrate that Nguyen is assuming that we can do something that is
harder than something he admits that we can't do....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran)
Subject: Re: Was it a landslide? (was Re: Please revise your lexicon, ladies and gentlemen!)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:26:23 GMT

In article <MJL.92Nov5153001@rigel.bos.locus.com> mjl@bos.locus.com (Mike Leibensperger) writes:
>

>P.S.  I can't express how much better I feel about the future of the
>      country.  At last, this time George really *IS* out of the loop!
>      Ha ha!!!
>
>P.P.S.	As a colleague pointed out: ``At last---a vice president who
>	knows about networking!''
>--

I voted for Clinton and am of course glad he got elected, but I don't
have a lot of hopes that the economy will get fixed in a hurry.  The
deficit is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't thing.  If in fact
spending is cut or taxes are raised, there will be quite a recession
until the country's economy gets reorganized to live with a few
hundred billion dollars out of circulation, which will take sometime.
The real problems of the economy are also related to changing social
mores, international changes, etc., and it is not clear that the
American people have the patience to do what it takes.

This is not to say that positive changes cannot be made in a lot
of areas economically, but the rate of change is going to be slow,
very slow.  It took us several decades to get here, and it may take
a bit of time to get out.

On the other hand, I fully expect, hope for and demand a number of
changes in other areas: judicial appointments, keeping the government
off private morals, etc.  These are reasons enough for change.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: mortenny@idt.unit.no (Morten Andersen Nyg}rd)
Subject: Thanksgiving Day 
Reply-To: mortenny@idt.unit.no (Morten Andersen Nyg}rd)
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 18:34:59 GMT

A question for you Americans out there:

Is Thanksgiving Day tomorrow, next Thursday, or the last Thursday in November?
I just thought it was the second Thursday in November, but I'm not sure.
Please answer.

Thanks in advance,
Morten. 


Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: y41@aix320a.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood)
Subject: Re: Do they have bigger dicks in USA?
Organization: University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:59:09 GMT

Yes we do.
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey T. Hazelwood                    Universitt Heidelberg
EMAIL: y41@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de       Heidelberg, Germany 
            "God is dead." - Nietsche    "Nietsche is dead." - God
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: To the Bush (It's nice, believe me)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 14:29:07 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <jyc.720941494@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>
>
>>           ...      It's also not clear that the USA will survive in the
>>long run if Clinton and his Democratic congress spend us into eternal
>>hell during the next four years.
>
>   Now, now.  This is a time for reconciliation.  The election is over,
>and Republicans should not be bitter that the entire Bush/Reagan agenda
>has been repudiated by the American people for the ludricrous farce it
>was, nor should they feel downcast that that agenda's leader has been
>expelled from office in disgrace.  As for those of us who opposed Bush,
>we should not be arrogant and exult over the spectacle of George Bush
>having to slink back to Texas whimpering with his tail between his legs:
>it would be ungenerous and ungracious of us to congratulate ourselves on
>his having been consigned forever to the cesspool of history's failed
>reactionary ideologues.  Instead, let us all join hands and look to the
>future in a spirit of fellowship. 

Thank you Jon.  I feel so much better now that the levers of power are in the
hands of people like you.  On the other hand, perhaps you should reconsider
the election.  President-elect Clinton received a smaller percentage of the
vote than President-wannabe Michael Dukakis.  19% of the electorate preferred
a paranoid from Texas.  Almost every tax-increasing measure on the ballots in
the several states was defeated.  Candidate Clinton's plan to raise taxes on
the rich to cut taxes on the middle class was actually on the ballot in
California and was soundly defeated.  No, my friend, this election was not a
repudiation of the Bush/Reagan agenda but a referendum on the Bush presidency.
We gave it a thumbs down.  If President Clinton is not careful he will suffer
the same fate.


===============================================================================

William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Thanksgiving Day.  In the days of our  founders, they  were  willing to give
 thanks for mighty little, for mighty little was all they expected.  But now,
 neither government nor  nature  can  give  enough but what we think it's too
 little.  Those old boys  in  the fall of the year, if they could gather in a
 few pumpkins, potatoes and some corn for the winter, they were in a thanking
 mood.  If we can't gather in a new  Buick, a  new  radio, a  tuxedo and some 
 government relief, why, we feel that the world is against us."

												Will Rogers

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: rechtien@ganymed.rz.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE (Jens-Heiner Rechtien)
Subject: Re: To the Bush (It's nice, believe me)
Organization: University of Osnabrueck, FRG
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:05:27 GMT

In article <100630@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:


>
>There's also Europe, which by '96 may have already blown the US away
>economically (not to mention the Japanese)...
>
>
>
>Gregg
>

Hmm..., maybe the Japanese will blow away the US economically, but surely
not Europe. After reading today's news (well, yesterdays news) I'am
sure that they need another fourty years before the U.S of E. will be
founded. Completly impossible to bring all european nations on one
way (at the same time). And, of course, there is always the question
wich one is the right way. In '96 the Europeans even will not have such
a simple thing like a common currency. (well, it is not that simple
and this is why we need some more decades for a political and
economical union). And in 2032, when Europe is a united economical
superpower, the U.S of A. will hopefully have new power to withstand
the economical storm the Europeans will bring over the new world :-) :-). 


>
>
>-- 
>Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy)  Dept. of Physics (and Philosophy), Boston Univ.
>                
>                DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR ROSS PEROT
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards,

Jens-Heiner Rechtien
Department of Physics, University of Osnabrueck, FRG
Internet: rechtien@ganymed.rz.uni-osnabrueck.de

PS.: I can't resist, I know it's a dumb try of a foreigner to influence
     an innerstate affair.... :-) :-) 
     HURRA, BILL CLINTON WURDE GEWAEHLT, HURRA!!
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: If clinton/gore die NOW, who succeeds?
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:24:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: roundup.1e0rthINNp7
Distribution: na
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Nov13.094359.5576@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

|> 	One of the Reps from Wyoming is heading up the Republicans in the
|> House.  His name escapes me at the moment.

Illinois, please. The House Minority leader is Robert Michel, R - Illinois, from
Peoria. Until last year, he and William Broomfield jointly held the record for
having been the longest-serving members of the House who have been in the minority
party for their entire tenure (since 1954). Now that Broomfield (R-MI) has
retired, Bob Michel holds that dubious distinction all on his own.

 
|> Brett


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: mjl@bos.locus.com (Mike Leibensperger)
Subject: Re: WANTED: Clinton's platform
Organization: Locus Computing Corp., Boston Massachusetts USA.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:34:52 GMT


There is a Clinton/Gore e-mail server, from which you can get position
papers and the like.  Here's part of a note someone forwarded to me.

	yr obdnt svnt,
	mjl

- - - Cut Here - - -

Send mail to:
        Clinton-Wins@mail.Clinton-Gore.org

Use the subject line to tell the server what to send back to you.
Valid subject requests:

  info all          sends you some info (includes all position papers)
  question get      sends you a list of e-mailed questions and answers
  add <issue name>  adds your name to an e-mail discussion list

<issue name> can be any of the following:

  Agriculture             Aids                    Arms-Control
  Arts                    Campaign-Finance        Children
  Cities                  Civil-Rights            Corporate-Responsibility
  Crime-Drugs             Democracy               Defense-Conversion
  Disabilities            Education               Elderly
  Energy                  Environment             Family
  Foreign-Policy          Gun-Control             Gay-Lesbian-Rights
  Health-Care             Housing                 Immigration
  Israel                  Labor                   Middle-East
  National-Security       Rebuilding-America      Science
  Small-Buisness (sic)    Space                   Veterans
  Women                   Work                    Yugoslavia

--
Michael J. Leibensperger      "Rats and roaches live by competition under the
Locus Computing/Boston		 laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege
25 Mall Road; Burlington MA	     of human beings to live under the laws of
01803 (617)229-4980 mjl@locus.com       justice and mercy."  -- Wendell Berry
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8295 alt.politics.clinton:16098 alt.politics.bush:13361 alt.politics.perot:5238 talk.politics.misc:58503
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:36:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Nov6.163601.9595
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

(David Scharfe) writes:
>
>I agree, Brian.  Clinton has incredible audacity to speak of "healing"
>the nation while he plunders one group of people ("the rich") to 
>influence the voting of another ("the poor").
>
>This bald-faced promotion of class conflict, combined with shrill 
>rhetoric about "healing", is the epitome of hypocrisy.
>
Not quite! All nations in the world have agreed that taxation should
be progressive, which is why we all pay a fraction of our income
towards taxes. If your notion of justice and non-hypocrisy were
to hold, everybody would be required to pay the same amount because
all of use the resources to the same extent, more or less. So,
according to your metric even Reagan and Bush were hypocrites 
because not only the richer paid more in terms of absolute amount
but also in terms of a fraction of their income. Clinton is just
saying that he would increase the fraction for the richest.

Satya Prabhakar
From: gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:38:12 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov6.193425.14200@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purd
ue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>In article <BxAxtv.F2M@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.
com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>In article <Bx9L5F.39I@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K.
Yoder) writes:
>>>In article <Bx7KE9.wu@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R
SULAIMAN) writes:
>>>
>>>>How can we even talk about healing a nation, when we divide it by our
>>>>words?
>>>
>>I agree, Brian.  Clinton has incredible audacity to speak of "healing"
>>the nation while he plunders one group of people ("the rich") to
>>influence the voting of another ("the poor").
>>
>wow now,,,since when does he say he is a viking that wants to plunder?
>he said he wants to raise the top bracket from 31 to 36% on those who make
>over 200k and he wants to eliminate many loopholes that only the rich take
>advantage of...like mortgage deduction on 2nd homes or limit that amount..
>like only homes under 250k or something.
>
It'd be nice if some loopholes (closed by Regan/Bush), were now reopened:
    Full IRA deductibility
    Interest on credit cards and car loans (slap on the face to renters)

And the good one from our "education" president:
     Taxation of tuition reimbursement.
-- 

------------------------
|   Gail A. Fullman    |
|   Manager - ADMO     |
|   Ext. 83113         |
------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.guns
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re:  A Japanese Student Killed in Lousianna (Gun Control)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:06:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.195320.22393@ntmtv> nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen) writes:
>But then I may also
>afraid that some young children may use it unintentionally and
>hurt themselves.  There is a tradeoff.  If guns are cheap and
>can be easily obtained, then I may buy it because the tradeoff
>is not that great.  But when guns become illegal so I have to
>pay 10 times as much and go through a lot of burdensome in order
>to have it, then the answer is NO.

So what you're saying is that if a gun costs only $200 and your
son might use it to hurt himself, you'd be willing to take that
risk, but if the gun cost $2,000, you wouldn't. Just how much
is your son's life worth to you?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8328 bit.listserv.politics:17398
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:40:32 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Minority President?

There has been some talk that as Clinton was elected with only 43% of the
vote, he lacks a mandate. This of course is nonsense, he won the election and
he will hold the reigns of power just like his predecessors.

Other minority presidents in recent times have been Nixon (68) Kennedy (i
think), Truman (48).

 A possible solution to this problem is to a)scrap the electoral college b)
institute a system where the candidate who gets 50% of the votes plus one
nationwide wins, if no candidate does that on the first ballot, have a run-off
two weeks later between the top two candidates.

 Anyway, when Clinton is sworn in, the number of votes he received is
irrelevant. A landslide is only important in intimidating a Congress of a
different party hue to go along with the President's wishes. It worked during
Reagan's first term but not beyond that. In any case Clinton and Congress are
of the same party and with the voters' fatigue with gridlock, there will be
an incentive to introduce a comprehensive programme.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:59:45 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <Bx7KE9.wu@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
]Yes, we won!!!  Doesn't it feel great?!!  
]
]But with this excitement and good feeling comes a different type
]of responsibility.  Instead of saying when things go wrong "they
>aren't our guys, we didn't elect them", we now have to keep ourselves
]and our president on track.  Keep him and Al Gore on the path that they
]set, reaching for and obtaining the goals that we elected them for.

Maybe now you folks will finally discover how much power the democrat
controlled CONGRESS has, when they start to thwart President Clinton's
programs. Some of us are then going to say, hey.... it must be Clinton's
fault - since you told us it was all Bush's fault when he had to deal
with the same congress.

I hope Clinton does well, but I also hope that people will realize that
there has not been a Republican controlled congress since the 1950's,
and Congress has 5/6ths of the legislative power in the US, and that
this just might bear some relation to the problems we now face.

]Just because we Democrats now control two branches of government DOES
]NOT mean that there won't be log jams, grid lock and problems -- this is
]where are voice still comes in.

Not to mention pork barrel and corruption. It will be interesting to
see if the democrat controlled congress is as quick to criminalize
and scandalize policy disputes with a Democrat president as it was
with a Republican.

]Finally, there is such a thing as being poor winners, and I've seen some
]already on the net.

Yes, and sad to say, some poor losers, too. Regardless of our (Bush
supporters) complaints about a biased media, it is clear that Bush
was rejected by the majority of voters because of his policies or
lack thereof, and to deny that is to deny our system of government.

However, it is also true that Bush was NOT a conservative, didn't
understand conservatism, and did not enact conservative policies,
so we do not take this election as a rejection of conservatism.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa