HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: 'Splain this pleez
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:52:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.144007.16482@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>Peter Laws writes
>> 	I wish someone would explain this to me:  How can the Dems be held
>> solely responsible for our $4,000,000,000,000.00 debt, when they have
>> not had a veto-proof majority at any time in the last 12 years?  (that
>> I can remember).  
>> 	Mr. Bushe could have vetoed any of the unbalanced budgets that he
>> submitted, but chose not to.  
>
>  Well, there's not a really good explanation out there.  

Yes there is and you did go on to touch on that reason.  The President
could not veto the omnibus spending bill.  The result would be to shut down
the government and that is nearly as irresponsible as the budget overruns
themselves.  What he should have done is to do what many scholars believe
that he has the constitutional right to do and that is to line item
veto various parts of the spending bill.

This is, I remind you, not a absolute veto but, rather, is a qualified
veto that can be overridden by a the 2/3rds majority rule.  The result
would require legislators to do their job and actually vote on the
value of the items in the bill itself.   As of now the whole process
seems to be on auto-pilot.

Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8714 talk.politics.misc:34959
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:56:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Ron Dippold) writes:
|> >>What billions of dollars?  If the Perot campaign spent more than about
|> >>$4 million I'd be very surpised, and if Perot spent more than a
|> >>million of his own money, the same.   Perot had an excellent chance,
|> >>but he wimped out, just like he bailed from the Navy.
|> 
|> >According to the San Jose Mercury News, Perot spent approx $10 Million,
|> >of his own money. He frequently mailed back large checks sent by supporters.
|> 
|> Thanks, you saved me the trouble of looking up the article (and posted
|> some interesting stuff).  I looked it up, and an article in the LA
|> Times today says that the FEC thinks that Perot spent $3.2 million
|> dollars of his own money (okay, count me surprised).  Now there's a
|> matter of reconciling those numbmers.

Perot said $10 million, the FEC things $3.2 million.  Heck, I believe
everything Ross says.  I'll go with the $3.2 until I hear different.
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:56:07 GMT

Anthony Koumis writes
> Carl Edman writes:
> >You are absolutely right. George Bush is the only candidate who has made a  
> >serious attempt at ending budget deficits, which Bill Clinton and Henry
> >Perot opposed. People who want budget deficits and supported Henry Perot for
> >that reason definitely should switch to Bill Clinton who has already
> >promised more budget deficits.
> 
> Proof that if you say it long enough people will believe
> it.  Bush has mouthed support for balanced budgets for
> years but never  proposed one.  His balanced budget
> amendment was aploy to embarass the Democrats.  Reagan
> and Bush presided over huge increase in deficits.   It is so
> huge now, I doubt it could be eliminated in one year except
> by a total shut down of every gov't expenditure except
> debt paying.  Bush is a liar and balanced budget arte
> another one of his lip service issues.

Can you name a single political initiative ever taken by any politician at any  
time any where which was not motivated by political motives ? There is  
absolutely nothing wrong with that, and those who recoil in horror from that  
thought merely vainly try to hide the fact that they can't make good  
substantiative arguments against the BBA. The fact remains that this was the  
only initiative in decades which if based actually would have done something  
about the deficit. The fact also remains that Clinton and Perot opposed it and  
so showed their true colors on this question. 

Your final argument about the size of the deficit is either a lie or a sign of  
ignorance. I suggest you look up the sizes of the federal budgets over the last  
few years and of the budget deficit. They've been posted repeatedly to his  
group and others. They might help you see clearer on this issue.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Arsenio Hall is a hypocrite
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:52:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.024951.8742@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.030845.27512@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
>baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>
>
>|>  Hall is an obvious leftist,
>
>Hey your right! Better arrest him. No better not take chances, lets shoot him
>
>|> and same goes for his audience.
>
>Yeah, better rub them out too, sounds like we might need some extra body bags.

We might make this all a part of an Economic Plan: prime the pump for
ammo manufacturers and funeral homes!



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Ex Perotista Tribunites, hot tip! WasRe: MLC PR: LP has over 500 candidates
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:07:58 GMT

So, you want to form a third party??? The libs have some usefull suggestions :-

In article <1992Jul22.063459.9544@eskimo.celestial.com>,
delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
|
|>     "Running candidates at all levels is what distinguishes an
|>ongoing political party such as the Libertarian Party from a flash-
|>in-the-pan like Ross Perot," 

True, if you want third party politics you have to be prepared to start
at the ground up. Community politics like we used to have in the Liberal
party.

So don't start by saying that you have to replace the Prez, politics
works from the ground up. You need to start running people for state dog
catcher and town councils before you go for the number one spot.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: TV Campaign Ads Idea
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:58:05 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Now that the anti-abortion candidates have demonstrated that TV
campaign ads can't be censored, the pro-aids education candidates can
put ads on TV showing condoms being applied to erect penises and/or
female condoms being inserted into real vaginas.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
What's the different between a Salem Witch Hunter and a modern day
Drug Warrior? - 3 centuries.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9245 talk.politics.misc:36166 sci.econ:6578
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:51:43 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Jul18.155832.23601@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

>
>Regardless of the policies they propose a group like the libertarians
>will cause a disaster. Any group that thinks that the only way to save
>the ecconomy is to apply a theory regardless of the effect it has will
>cause a disaster.
>

Oh, you must be referring to the current borrow-and-spend regime.
You're right, it will cause a disaster.

The Libertarians want govt to live within its means, just like
everyone else has to do.  We have seen that the only way
to get democratic govt to do that is to structurally limit its scope.  
Otherwise, the special interests conspire to raid the Treasury. 


>Political theory is merely an abstraction of a certain set of observed
>data. Within that data there must inevitably be systematic biases. Any
>proposal to replace the system under which the data was collected and
>replace it completeley with another constructed from the theory will
>fail as the systematic biases reveal areas which the theory does not
>account for.

Well, the original Constitution was summoned up with only the theory
of liberal govt as a guide, and we simply want to head back in that
direction.  The idea of limited govt is not radical, it is the
real basis of the United States which has been subverted by the politics
of the Left and Right.

>
>The only way to change an ecconomy is slowly through trial and
>experiment, the Lib party judge the worth of an experiment by the extent
>the results concur with their theory. Statistics should be used to
>formulate policy, not to defend a preconcieved policy.
>

We dont want to control the economy, we want to liberate it from the
ill effects of "central planning."  


>The Deregulation of the Bush era (eg S&L) almost destroyed the US
>ecconomy, 

Well, in the first place, deregulation began under Carter, and is
considered a success with respect to energy, trucking and air travel.

With respect to the S&Ls,
no matter how many times you and Mr. Reagan call it "deregulation,"
it was mis-regulation.  If you want to reference a de-regulated
banking system, we had one prior to 1933 which operated quite
well.


>yet the Libs consider that the only problem was that the
>policies were not tried hard enough. 

How can a govt-subsidized, govt-protected industry be held as an
example of laissez faire?

>Compare and contrast this with the
>fall of the 1974-79 British Labour government due to industrial disputes
>and the analysis of the hard left that the problem was that socialism
>had not been tried hard enough. I would trust the Libs to run an
>ecconomy no more than I would trust militant.
>

We dont want to run the economy, we want the economy to be allowed to 
run itself.  


--Al Date 

Do they spell economy with two c's in England?  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:46:01 GMT

In article <22623@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
>    I hope the voters will take a good LONG look at why we would get
>involved in another adventure overseas.  But then again, no one ever
>lost any money betting against the intelligence of American voters...

And I hope they take a good long look at all the folks like you who
think that it's just a normal part of political manuevering to send
people off to war, but only if the politician in question happens to
be in the other party.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court qualifications
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:18:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <l6po41INN4kb@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <9207220116.AA19713@cs.utexas.edu>, PLAWS@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU (Peter Laws) writes:
>|> Never mind ideology (was: You may not like Clinton but...).  How about we
>|> appoint Justices who are *qualified* for the job?  "Justice" Thomas NEVER
>|> even tried a case before any court before his appointment to the Court.
>
>Depends on what you mean by "tried." He DID hear cases on appeal while on the
>Federal Appeals Court in the District of Columbia. His last decision before
>leaving the court was a fairly important one on affirmative action (the Chicago
>Tribune praised it effusively). He also was a lawyer for Monsanto at the very
>beginning of his career. 
>
>|> Peter Laws  
>
>-- 
>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu
>
>If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
>********************************************************************************

Thomas also heard a case on appeal involving Ralston-Purina.  Ralston-Purina
is controlled by the Danforth family.  John Danforth was Clarance Thomas' 
sponser to his selection to the Supreme Court.  Thomas voted to overturn a 
lower court award that Ralston-Purina was to pay out.  This was important
ethical question that NEVER came up during the confirmation hearings.  Thomas
clearly was involved with what was a conflict-of-interest and possible other
ethic violations.  This was reported in _The Nation_ during the time of
Thomas confirmation but was never picked up by ma$$ media.

ChrisWa.
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Liar.      (Anti-Bush poster)
Keywords: Bush
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:01:38 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


In the 1988 election, someone came up with a fax or postscript poster
of Bush being sworn in, with the caption, "Liar." Does someone have
this on-line?

Please just let me know if you have it, so I can avoid getting deluged
with ten godzillion copies of the thing. I'll repost it once I have
it. Thanks!

- Steve (masticol@cs.rutgers.edu).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Electronic Constitution
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:43:24 GMT

I think I read on this group before about electronic copies of the Constitution
and/or the Bill of Rights.  Can someone give me an address where I can get
a copy?  Thanks.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

     "Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
	                     -- Matthew 15:4

          "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on 
                       to the traditions of men."
                             -- Mark 7:8  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: larryw@sun.lclark.edu (Larry Westdahl)
Subject: Billy and Foreign Policy
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:47:25 GMT

Okay, here is the bottom line that you have all been waiting for.  Bill
Clinton has said very little about foreign policy.  There is a good reason
for this: he doesn't want to expose his biggest weakness.  He will spend 
most of his time talking about domestic programs, wisely avoiding the
Mondale/Dukakis faux pas of saying how he will fund these policies.  He
wants us to think he is a watered down version of a Democrat, and like 
Ross Perot, if he dances around the heart of the matter, he should do fine.

ANYWAY, here it is:  In the past four years, the world has gone through more
change than in any other four years in this century.  There have been many
positive changes, but new problems have been created too.  Now that the
leadership in Israel has changed, and that country is now faced with an
uncertain future, the last thing we need in the oval office is an amateur.
It should also be noted that if we lose George Bush, we lose Jim Baker also,
and there is no way that Clinton can come up with a better replacement.
Jim Bakers work has been tireless, and he has been very tough with Isreal.
Now that the leadership in Israel has changed, it seems that progress is 
possible.  And since they have few friends in the region, U.S. support and
leadership is crucial. 

You have to believe that the domestic situation has been affected by 
things beyond the Presidents control (for the most part!). For example,
a hostile Congress and Senate, an unstable Europe, and the natural 
cycle of the U.S. economy.  It seems that all of the bad press that
is leveled against Bush is over domestic issues, and it is not entirely
his fault! 

Therefore, with the world situation still in the balance,
don't elect a guy who doesnt know the ropes.  Bush may not be a great 
president, and he may not be the best person in Washington, but with the
choices we have, there's no other way to go.

- Lawrence
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
**larryw@lclark.edu**  |STEVIE for presidend     | "In human relations 
Writer, Musician,      |CHRISTINE for VP         |  kindness and lies are
Laker fan, Blazerhater.|LINDSEY for Sec. o' State|  worth a thousand truths."
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Time/CNN poll 18th July
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:45:13 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)

In article <1992Jul21.144215.6342@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>
>Year  Candidate    Poll Before    Poll After    Election
>--------------------------------------------------------
>1976  Carter (D)   53             62            50
>      Ford (R)     29             29            48
>
>1980  Reagan (R)   37             38            51
>      Carter (D)   29             39            41
>
>1984  Reagan (R)   53             53            59
>      Mondale (D)  38             39            41
>
>1988  Bush (R)     37             37            53
>      Dukakis (D)  47             54            46
>
>("Before" and "After" mean before and after the Democratic convention.)
>This table was in the WSJ a while back.
>
>Note that in 1976, Carter had a 33 point lead, but he ended up winning
>by only 2 points.  Note also that in every case, the convention "bounce"
>was more than wiped out by election day.  This year, however, it is
>impossible to determine what the convention bounce was since the
>convention coincided with Perot's disintegration.

It's also interesting that Bush's popularity dropped during the
DemCon.  This hasn't happened in the above samples (and no, I don't
have the poll to back it up!!!).  But I do expect it to get closer
than what I read this morning:

	Clinton:	56%
	Bush:		28%

-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:24:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.191004.14076@husc3.harvard.edu> chen3@husc10.harvard.edu (Hung Chen) writes:
>
>Why do you think this idea (starting a war to get reelected) would not even
>occur to Bush?  And why might it occur to his advisors?  What do you think
>is the difference?  I am not advocating Bush started a war to get reelected
>here, I simply want to know your reasoning.

Because George Bush has been in combat and seen people killed, so it's
not just some high-tech video game to him.  Some of his advisors
haven't been, so they don't have an emotional understanding of what
it's all about.

Rather like the reaction General Schwartzkopf had to whichever stupid
reporter that was who started talking about how trivial it all was and
how the press (and supposedly the military) could so easily lose sight
of the fact that there were people at the other end of those weapons.
It was the only time I ever saw him get angry on camera.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton's OLD Covenant
Organization: Oceans & Ice Branch
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:28:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.174706.28337@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> Here is a flyer being passed out by the Ohio Republican Party:
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                         Bill Clinton's OLD Covenant
> 
> Bill Clinton says he wants to do for America what he has done for Arkansas.
> But he has failed to move Arkansas up the ladder during his years in the
> state house. Arkansas' labor conditions, environment, and conditions for
> children rank among the worst in the country, according to studies by the
> Southern Labor Institute, Institute for Southern Studies, and the Center
> for the Study of Social Policy.
> 
> 
> 
>                                    Labor:
> 
>         49th in overall worker climate;
>         46th in labor opportunity; and
>         50th in youth employment.
> 
> 
> 
>                                 Environment:
> 
>         42nd in percentage of polluted rivers and streams;
>         47th in per capita toxic chemical releases to surface water;
>         42nd in per capita toxic chemical releases to air;
>         41st in ozone depleting emissions; and
>         43rd in per capita spending on air pollution.
> 
> 
> 
>                                   Children:
> 
>         45th out of 51 in children's well-being;
>         45th in low-birth-rate babies;
>         49th in child death rates;
>         47th in teen violent death rate;
>         45th in single teenage births; and
>         42nd in percentage of children in single-parent families.
> 
> 
> 
>                    Don't buy Clinton's "New Covenant" until
>                         you've seen his OLD Covenant!
>

Yeah, but what were these numbers BEFORE Clinton became governor!  I
think you'll see a big improvement.

Jason

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:40:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.154208.16318@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>>
>>>If we do hit Iraq again and we see a surge in the presidents popularity
>>>I give up on the voters in this country. All an air strike on Iraq
>>>should do is point out how Bush has screwed up evry thing he's done with
>>>respect to Iraq.
>>
>>    This is an unlikely scenario, because if we hit Iraq (and miss Saddam) 
>>    again, the oil prices would surge, and the stock market would take a 
>>    nosedive.
>>
>>    On the other hand, toppling Saddam could bolster Bush's re-election
>>    campaign, hence no US intelligence operative in Iraq will be spared 
>>    to achieve this goal.
>>
> 
>   Another excellent ploy would be to stage an assasination attempt 
>on President Bush.  And this can be really easily done. Just make sure
>the President is not really or seriously shot.  His popularity will
>be dramatically increased.  
> 


Bush ought to get the UN to hold a Nuremburg like trial of Saddam for
war crimes, in absentia if necessary. When he is convicted. Put a 
$1,000,000,000 reward for his capture dead or alive.

That would solve Bushes Iraq problem.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
From: kent_f1@verifone.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton's VP (was: Is Clinton really sick)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:19:16 -1000
Distribution: usa
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

> But, of his short list of six vice pesidential canidates none were woman.
> Aside from that none were minority men either.  Say one thing do another?
> Is that Slick or what?

Would it have made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside if the "short list"
had included a Black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple?  The fact is that
he picked who he picked... critisize the choice, not the list.

Thank goodness Clinton didn't cave into the radical feminist agenda and 
make some cynical pandering choice like Pat Schroeder.