HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PLAWS@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU (Peter Laws)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Supreme Court qualifications
Date: 21 Jul 1992 20:16:55 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

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.

================================================================================
Peter Laws            |"The '90s are gonna make the '60s|    pcl@engr.uark.edu
n5uwy@ka5bml.ar.usa.na| look like the '50s"--D. Hopper  | plaws@uafsysb.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pat@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:57:19 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.130005.3890@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:
>>
>>	Just to get the ball rolling, here's what I think:
>>As a Clinton supporter, I do worry that Bush might time such
>>an attack as to try to appear more "presidential" and evoke
>>memories of the Gulf conflict.  
>
>Frankly, I've always found the whole idea that George Bush would start
>a war to get reelected just a bit incredible (as in not credible).
>People have been saying this sort of thing ever since Desert Storm.
>folks who support the other side.

	Looking back now on what I originally wrote, I realize I
sounded a little more alarmist than I really am.  I do *not* think
Bush would "start a war" to get re-elected.  What I meant was that
if US intervention is called for, I think Bush might try to time
it so that any subsequent increase in the polls would come close to
the election.  As I said before, I don't think it would have a
significant impact on the election.  The pros and cons would cancel.

>[I don't plan on voting for Bush, but I don't subscribe to this 'the
>other side is the Great Satan' philsophy of political though, either.]

	Point well taken.  I don't subscribe to it either.  George
Bush is probably a pretty decent guy.  I just don't think he's been
a very good president.


--

                                                             patrick m. ryan
     nasa / goddard space flight center / oceans and ice branch / hughes stx
                     pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov / zmpmr@charney.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.211717.25436@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.203501.322@cs.tulane.edu>, tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek) writes:
>> Think about it: Saddam still has his job, do you?
>
>Not only does he have his job, but it's beginning to appear
>that he has about $2 billion in U.S. taxpayer money, thanks
>to yet more escapades from the ReaganBush school of criminal
>antics.  During the Iran/Iraq war, Reagan pushed through the
>approval of a $2 billion dollar loan guarantee to Iraq, even
>though Iraq was not considered credit-worthy. 

Not surprising to hear this from the People's Republic of Ithaca, 
the city with a mayor who is a member of the Socialist Party and,
of course, Cornell!  

You nicely neglected to omit that the US has, since the Iran Hostage
"wake up call", been keenly interested in the Islamic movement in 
the Middle East.  The point being that Iran and Iraq were at war
and we were rightly concerned about the outcome thus the activity
which you have scorned.  Your vision is 20/20 in your analysis that
there were mistakes made as to the uses to which Saddam used the monies
(such as nuclear technology?).  But to first implicate that Reagan
himself broke the law and then to imply that he "pushed" it through
as if he could use brute force to pry money for this purpose is, IMO,
rather simplistic and more cliche than factual.  Why don't you get 
right down to what you really mean, that the Presidents conspired to
start the Gulf War which, when it happened, I remember you were against.

>Investigative reporters are still trying to find out where the extra 
> money went.  

It didn't go to the Kuwaiti YMCA.  It went, of course, to weapons.

Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 22 Jul 1992 18:43:34 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul22.180447.21375@udel.edu>, lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul22.153740.29106@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|> >lgold@cds8952.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold) writes:
|> >
|> >>Harry Blackmun is 84.
|> >>Blackmun is the guy who wrote the "Roe v. Wade" decision.
|> >>Although he's a Nixon appointee, he's actually a moderate.
|> >
|> >I wouldn't *exactly* call him a moderate.
|> >
|> 
|> You have to remember that everything is relative. When Marshall and Brennan
|> were on the court, they were the liberals and Blackmun and Stevens were the
|> moderates. Now that the court is packed with conservatives the moderates
|> look like liberals, and the moderate conservatives (like O'Connor and Souter)
|> look like moderates. And they ARE, relative to this Court. What I think is
|> interesting is Kennedy. He used to vote almost always with Rehnquist and 
|> Scalia, but now, as the Court becomes more conservative, he becomes more
|> moderate. You have to give O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy credit; at least
|> they have respect for the past decisions of the Court, and feel that they
|> shouldn't be overturned strictly because the ideology of the Court has 
|> changed.

That's a stupid reason for respecting them. I'd respect them if I knew that
they voted to uphold past decisions because they BELIEVED in them. I get the
impression that they are swung more by the public reaction to their verdicts
than any belief in the sanctity of precedent, and that greatly lowers the
respect that I had for them, especially Souter. On the other hand, Brennan,
Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens and Scalia all are worthy of respect in my book
because they wri(o)te opinions based on what they believe(d) the Constitution's
intent was, rather than respect for precedents or public opinion. I am no
lawyer (thank God for small mercies), but I think that no precedent that
a Justice feels is wrong should be upheld strictly because it is a precedent.



|> Brian Lintz
|> lintz@udel.edu

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Bush's accomplishments
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:40:23 GMT

In article <14cse2INN4qp@agate.berkeley.edu>, wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>
>He put together a successful coalition through the U.N. which handily
>pushed Iraq out of Kuwait.

After propping him up for years, at great cost to the people of Iraq who are
largely opposed to Saddam Hussein but powerless to do anything about it, and
with apparently very little long-term improvement in the situation.  Bush won
the war but has, as they say, lost the peace.

>On the domestic front, Bush has had problems...

Agreed.

>Bush has said he's holding the line on taxes...

We've heard that before.

>A tax increase will NOT cause the economy to grow.

Correct, but *spending* the revenue in the right places certainly will.

>A cut in the capital gains tax will.  Why won't Clinton endorse it?

He has.

>Granted, I don't trust either Bush or Clinton to keep their promises.  
>However, if I have to choose between either of the two, I'll go with
>the experience Bush has.

Does Bush have 12 years experience in the executive branch, or does he have
one year's experience repeated 12 times?  Is he getting better?  Is he more
effective now than 4 years ago?  Is he consistent?  Does he have a spine, or
does he blow in the wind of popularity polls?  Is he a statesman?

>Foreign policy is still very important.

It sure is.  And I, for one, am not at all proud of our record in this area
over the past 12 years.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu
Subject: Re: Billy and Foreign Policy
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:06:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.054725.4512@lclark.edu>
larryw@sun.lclark.edu (Larry Westdahl) writes:
 
...
>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.
 
So who is Bush going to replace him with after Jim comnes home to run
Bush's campaign? Or does Bush not think Baker is that important to foreign
policy?
 
--Eric
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:03:35 GMT
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)

Anthony Koumis writes:
> Obviously, things are motivated by politics.  My point
> that you missed is that Bush says he is for a balanced
> budget and for cutting the deficit but has never done
> anything about it.  He was VP under Ronnie which started
> the huge deficit increase, and as president ignored the
> issue until very recently.  He never submitted a balanced
> budget.

I've no illusions about the principles or the
intelligence of George Bush, but submitting a balanced
budget now would rank in political stupidity together
with the reversal of the tax pledge. He would have to cut
the enormous federal welfare programs and alienate a
part of the electorate. And while the positive effects
both on a political and a policy level of a balanced budget
would probably make up for that in the long run, there
isn't any chance in the world that the House would pass it.
After all every single deficit budget since WW II emerged
in a Democratically controlled house. All the Democrats
would do is immediately restore all the spending cuts and
in that way win the undying gratitude of the recipients of
those welfare programs. In short if GB proposed a
balanced budget, the budget would not be one jota closer
to being balanced but he and his party would suffer a huge
drop in popularity. I strongly suspect that is why the
Democrats are calling for him to do so while refusing to
pass a balanced budget themselves.

If there was a balanced budget ammendment which required
both the president to propose and the congress to adopt a
balanced budget the Democrats would not have this way out
and the goal could be achieved. BTW, the Democratic
"replacement" bill for the BBA _only_ required the
president to propose a balanced budget without placing
any requirements on the congress actually to _pass_ a
balanced budget.   

>            And now suddenly come election year after Perot
> made a big stink about the deficit, George suddenly
> introduces a BBA.  This was just a ploy to show his supposed
> real support for it.   If he really supported a Balanced
> budget he would have done something long ago.  Instead, he
> only gave it lip service when it suddenly looked good.  He
> is a liar (among other things). 

He certainly is a liar. But he did _not_ introduce the BBA.
The BBA was introduced this time by Rep. Stenholm, a Texas
Democrat. And the BBA is very far from being a new idea. As a
matter of fact some Republicans have introduced a BBA
every single year for more than a decade only to be voted
down time and again by the Democrats.   

	Carl Edman
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:31:47 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul22.173657.20092@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul22.100537.146@lrc.edu> david@lrc.edu writes:
|> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it went something like this:
|> >Mr. Bush chooses someone to be on the Court and Congress votes on this person.
|> 
|> OK.  You're wrong.  Pres chooses, the Senate votes.  If they vote the
|> candidate down, Pres submits another one (who has learned which
|> questions will be asked, and has prepared answers).  If the Senate
|> rejects too many candidates, people get impatient and the Senate
|> eventually gives up.
|> 
|> BTW, the Administration's line is that the Senate can vote, but the
|> vote is non-binding.  In this case the Pres would be totally
|> responsible.

Where did you hear this one? The White House has dumb people in there,
but not THAT dumb (otherwise, John Tower would be the Defense Secy.
now instead of being dead assuming that the SC went along with that
view, which they would have laughed outa the window anyway). I believe that 
their position is more like that they do not have to consult the Senate 
Leaders before nominating someone.


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
From: Mayank_K_Kothari@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush meets angry voters head on (POW/MIA speech)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 21:23:43 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <15491@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>

Truth is bitter for the cock of the CIA. Congratulations on your most 
current posting. Will Weinberger go to the slammer to keep Bush out? 
Bush Presidential Library should be constructed of manure posthaste!
If the Bush/Quayle ticket does not opt for Dr. Kevorkian's therapy,
they should be pursuaded by the reawakened public to do so. Lastly,
stacking up the Court is indicative of high treason against the working
class. Also, don't forget that you may need a plain arrest warrent for
your Governor for not balancing the budget along with the state
legislators!!! That will get rid of your incumbents damn quick. 10-4
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: More fun facts, was Re: Wealth Distribution
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:48:37 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:

>Median family income in 1991 dollars
	^^^^^^
>        total:  1977:  $34,570          1990:  $36,916
>        white:  1977:  $36,149          1990:  $38,547
>        black:  1977:  $20,651          1990:  $22,370

>That's an 8.3% increase for blacks and an 6.6% increase for whites.

    An increase for what *kind* of blacks and whites? Black and white
employees or black and white families?  Note that in 1991 most families
have dual incomes. In 1977 most families had a single income. There 
is no inconsistency between the observations that family incomes have 
gone up while wages have gone down.
    Personaly, I am not thrilled that I cannot earn enough money to 
support a family.  My father could, in 1977.  I have a very similar 
job and cannot in 1992.

Tim Smith
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton's OLD Covenant
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:34:46 GMT
Organization: NASA

E. Jason Albert writes
> In article <1992Jul24.174706.28337@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com  
(joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> >                    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.

  Irrelevant.  You're forgetting that the average American is not capable of  
even the most elementary political analysis.  Sure, if you showed them the  
before _and_ after figures, they'd get the picture, but it would never occur to  
most people to ask for more information than Mr. Knapp provided.  And the  
Republicans are counting on that, just as they always have.

Regards,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dostalik@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Bill Dostalik)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:42:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.202032.20852@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
>
>>I am almost ready to hope that he wins too. That way, it will be clear
>>who to blame when the country goes to hell in a handbasket. As it is
>>now, the Democrats in congress are able to hide behind George Bush
>>and blame him for everything but tornados in Kansas.
>
>I'm not so sure. By winning, Bill Clinton will have won a referendum on the
>past 12 years being a failure, and when he throws this country into a depression
>he will simply say that the country was now reaping what the Republicans
>had sown for the past 12 years. It sounds far fetched, but when you have a
>vindictive, spiteful media behind you, nothing is impossible. Hell, they've
>managed to convince the American public that Ronald Reagan,
>who brought 8 years of economic growth and won the cold war, wasn't that
>good after all. Tell a lie long enough, and the people will start to believe it.
>
>ACF

Oh, boy.  Now, I'm scared, because you're absolutely correct.  I kept telling
myself, "Well, at least if Clinton pulls this off, it will only be four years
and then we can have Quayle or Kemp and go back to Reagan's (highly successful)
agenda."  But you're right the media (with help) has cozened a great deal of
the public into believing that eight years of growth was eight years of greed,
and that RR was responsible for the S&L's, aids, etc.  Up is down.  The sun
sets in the East.

Besides even if you're wrong can we survive four years of Bill & Hillary?  Do
I want to find out?

-  BWD      "Please give Bush a National Review subscription."

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll
From: bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady!  
Reply-To: bobh@troy.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:29:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.174641.9681@ntmtv> shea@ntmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes:
>In article <XDc5NB3w164w@micro-c.mcds.com>, speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>>
>
>Next we'll have mandatory rating systems which tell us whether the
>movies have "occult" references, incorrect political thinking,
>bad acting, or rainy scenes where the sun still shines.  These are
>all factors to consider when making a decision on whether or not to
>see the movie.
>
>Of course, people could use their *brains* and do a little research
>before buying a ticket, but most Americans are too sheeplike to do
>anything more than look at the rating.
>

If movie studios or record companies choose to get together and fund a 
ratings or labeling system because they think it will help them sell 
their products, who are we to stop them?  I suppose next all the 
anti-labeling people will ask Billboard to stop ranking albums or Rolling
Stone to stop reviewing albums because it might bias the buying decision
of customers or it might bias the stocking decisions of the all important
mall record stores.  (Is is censorship for a store to only sell classical
music)?

Come on folks, if it isn't mandatory and it isn't government funded or
enforced, the use (or abuse) of labels comes down to a business decision
of the record companies.  To say that people aren't allowed to give their
opinions on a movie or record or that the studios aren't allowed to affix
a sticker on the product advertizing that opinion is censorship as well.

Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

-Bob
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Recycling Costs and Libertarian Candidates
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:01:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.083728.8724@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.195321.14704@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>
#
#.....yeah, but remember that the only way the producer can get the $$$
#to pay for the cost of the ultimate disposal is by charging the
#purchaser more for the product.  Ultimatly, consumer's pay the cost
#for _everything_.  "Businesses don't pay taxes--they only collect them."
#

Yes! However my original suggestion said that if the producer used recycled
materials in his production he would have a credit to offest the potential
new disposal costs.

I am familiar with the aphorism about business. It is not totally true.
It makes the assumption that the only place the business has to recover the
cost is from the consumer. It isn't. There are several other potential
sources, one is lower wages to the employees, one is increased pruduction 
efficiency, another is lower dividends to the stockholders.

I assure you, that if for what ever reason the public quits buying a product
because the  price is too high, the managment will do all they can in these 
other areas, perhaps except lower management salaries. Witness what has
happened in many industries in the past few months when the public has been
resisting purchases. I have even noted price incentives in restuerants, and
movies.



#|# 
#|# Yes, all of what you say does not require any government action. However,
#|# it hasn't happened in the past. It most likely won't happen in the future.
#
#Well it won't if people don't vote Libertarian!!   But it certainly would
#if a Libertarian government were installed.
#

This is a theoretical assumption based on just as poor psychological 
reasoning as was the theoretical assumption of Karl Marx.


#|# It is a chicken and egg situation.
#
#Indeed, but the voters have it in their power to lay the first egg.

True I just happen to see the nature of the egg a little bit differently
than you do.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8931 alt.politics.clinton:338 alt.politics.bush:58