HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "The Sceptic" Horne")
Subject:      Re: Take the Clinton Quiz!
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:45:40 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA10146; Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:04:04 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA16902; Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:04:01 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 5175; Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:06:46 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 9832; Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:06:44 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

Subject: Time to mix the pot: was it a mistake?
Summary: Concerning the lifting of the banning of homosexuals
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:56:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

>        Clinton sounded conciliatory notes -- ...
>                                                                  , he
>said he no longer believed such a cut was needed and promised to slash
>the size of the White House staff. But the news conference was often

        Sigh.  This is getting beyond even *my* cynicism.
        Let's see.  Sixty days until he TAKES OFFICE, and...

   a)  Can't cut deficit, much less by 50%, without raising taxes, because:

             i)    George Bush already spent the next four year's income?
             ii)   Congress already spent the next four year's income?
             iii)  our economy would implode like a hot souffle?
             iv)   would use up a good campaign promise for 1996?

   b)  Congressional staff doesn't need to be cut, after all, because

           i)   Congress is too busy "fixing" the economy?
           ii)  it would raise the unemployment rate?
           iii) Mr. Bill got an offer he couldn't refuse?
           iv)  Congress Needs Women?

   c)  Middle class tax cut, is it:

           i)    delayed for two years, while Clinton "fixes" the economy?
           ii)   just an idea during the campaign?
           iii)  a hilarious practical joke on the middle class?
           iv)   misdated, it was really intended for Oct. 30, 1996?

   d)  Gasoline taxes and toll roads fees.  Are these items:

           i)    only used by people making over $200,000?
           ii)   just an idea during the campaign?
           iii)  a hilarious practical joke on the middle class?
           iv)   highly flammable by cigar?

   e)  The New Code of Ethics only applies to

            i)   Congress
            ii)  a hilarious practical joke on the middle class?
            iii) RJ Reynold's lobbyists?
            iv)  Non-RJ Reynold's lobbyists?

   f)  The Bosnia conflict isn't important anymore because:

            i)   Somebody important might be drafted?
            ii)  Bosnia can't vote?
            iii) Mr. Bill's passport is missing?
            iv)  The election is over?

   g)  Was the Walsh Indictment released on:

            i)    Oct. 29, 1992?
            ii)   Oct. 30, 1991?
            iii)  Oct. 29, 1929?
            iv)   Oct. 30, 1993?

     Get hep, take the Quiz!
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: jessie in clinton's cabinet?
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:05:15 GMT


 i wonder if jessie jackson has a place
 in clinton's cabinet?

 maybe in hud. please not the state
 dept. please.

 mark.

 "ah hell, the gangs all here..."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: LBJ's anti-nepotism law
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:45:22 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov19.135113.26340@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> In article <1992Nov18.164718.10656@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) said:
>> > > It's illegal for the President to appoint relatives to positions
>> > > over which he exercises control.
>> > >
>> > > The law was passed in response to Kennedy giving the AG position
>> > > to his brother.  Johnson signed it into law in 1965.
>> > > [demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)]
>> >
>> > And who's to say Bill "exercises control" over Hillary?  
>> > [00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)]
>>
>> No one.  But the President exercises control over cabinet positions.
>> By definition.
> 
> This is interesting... I'd like to see the text of this law, and I'd
> especially like to see how it's constitutional.  After all, Article
> III, Section 2, 2d paragraph, says:
> 
>    [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and
>    Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
>    Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other
>    Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein
>    provided for, and which shall be established by law.
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Doesn't that imply that laws can/would change the
positions/circumstances for which the president can appoint?

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Keynes on the Laffer Curve and balanced budgets
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 09:37:27 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <184349@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
|> 
|> Secondly, there IS an effective tax-rate reduction going on right now,
|> in 1992.  Check your withholding statement.  Do you think the economy is
|> "booming"? How do you explain this? 
|> 

Oh please, altering withholding so that people get a smaller 'refund'
at the end of the year is hardly what I would call an effective
tax-rate reduction.  There is no reduction at all.  People will pay
the same amount in tax.  Many people even upped their withholding
so that they could guarantee that they would get their 'refund'
at the end of the year.  There are at least two reasons why this
policy is not making the economy 'boom'.  First, as I mentioned, many
people simply upped their withholding so that they aren't taking
home any more money than before.  Second, consumer spending is not
the primary force in getting the economy going.  Third, many people
are wary of the economy and may not spend the money but save it.
Normally this would be good, however current banking regulations are
creating incentives for banks to invest in 'safe' securities such
as T-bills rather than making loans to small businesses.  So even
if the pool of savings increased, it is simply being returned to the
government rather than being loaned to businesses.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:42:50 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Nov14153635@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Nov12.165456.21991@osf.org> Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:

><Or
><   could it be that affirmative action is actually a program designed
><   to open up opportunities for groups other than white males.  

>	This term, "white males" is offensive. I have a black female
>	dog; I work with women who are black. The difference between
>	"black female" and "black woman" should be obvious.

As a white male, I must say that I find nothing offensive about the 
term "white male".  I think "white man" would be more offensive, in 
that it conjures up old "Cowboy 'n' Indian" movies which are full 
of offensive stereotpyes.

I do not find the terms female or male derogatory.


And now for a joke....

What does the gender-neutral dictionary call the old occupation of 
"mailman"?



   




















Answer: "personperson".
-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 00:14:06 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov19.192104.29683@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.235453.6146@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.162601.27809@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>>
>>>I've said it before and I'll say it again: the main argument for term
>>>limits has to do with the way in which today's money-driven politics
>>>has made it almost impossible to compete ...
>>
>>If this is indeed the root cause, why not eliminate it, instead of using
>>a blanket approach?  Why not limit expenditures?  Or maybe publicly fund
>>campaigns?
>
>These have been tried, and have proven to be unenforceable in practice,
>or in some cases in violation of the First Amendment.

So we just give up?  This was not meant to be an all-inclusive list.

>>>and when there is no 'someone else', the incumbent will stay by default.
>>
>>So?
>
>Everyone who opposes term limits does so on the grounds that it is
>'anti-democratic', that it arbitrarily limits choice in an election. My
>response is that it is the *current* system that limits choice, by
>discouraging qualified prospects from running, because they would have
>to take on an overwhelmingly well-funded and well-known incumbent,
>without having any effective means of making up the gap.

And how are term limits going to fix this?  Seems to me that even under
term limits, the money guys will have the advantage.  And money can certainly
buy name recognition.  Not only that, your outgoing critter can endorse his
chosen successor, right?  You're arguing the system's broke, and I don't
disagree.  I just don't think term limits will fix anything, because the
real problems with the system haven't been addressed.
>>
>>Look, the real problem here is that everybody yells about the "other guys"
>>congresscritters slinging pork for their constituents, yet they want to 
>>continue to get theirs.  So, they keep returning their reps to the trough.
>>People are getting exactly what they are voting for.
>
>No. The real problem is that Congresspeople put their own career interests
>ahead of either their consituents' interests, or the national interest.

If that's the case, then the blame lies with us, the people for returning
them to office.  I think you're getting closer to the real problems with
the system here, though.  The problem is NOT that they put their career 
interest ahead of national interest, that's just a symptom.  We need to
understand WHY they do this, and why it succeeds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:43:24 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 27345@athena.cs.uga.edu, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>     I've always had mixed feelings about the line-item veto, because
>I fear it would give the President too much inchecked power. However,
>it scares me a little less if the Congress if given a balancing
>override power.  A simple majority to overturn a line item veto is a
>bit easier to round up than a 2/3 majority. So my hat is already off
>to President-Elect Clinton, for striking a balance before his term
>even begins.

I agree.  It isn't really important that the "line item" be easy to override.  Clinton
is an avowed JFK-style Democrat, so we should expect to see him use his office to
jawbone opponents.  Congress will be reluctant, as a whole, to override Clinton on
a lot of obvious pork-barrel projects.  Any attempt to do so will only focus attention
on their inability to hold the line on spending while we continue to stagger under
the phenomenal budget deficit.  There is also already a lot of pressure not to do to
Clinton what Congress did to Carter.  I expect Congress to be a lot more quiescent
and agreeable than the press (bless their evil hearts) is predicting.  Reelection is
only two years away for the House.

But will Clinton use his power to cut a lot of pork?  I don't think he will use it
as much as people think.  It will simply become another weapon in the president's
arsenal for beating back congressional opposition.  He can use it to reward those
who go along with him and punish those who resist.  Pork will be very important in
those reelection campaigns.  So we are looking at the continued evolutionary erosion
of legislative power.  I don't think that the erosion will be so bad under a president
like Clinton, who is likely to push for rather modest progressive reforms.  But look
out when the Republicans get back in.  Bush could have used a weapon like that.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: term limits (please read it ALL this time)
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:33:32 GMT


I got more than a few response to my term limit posting which said that
it wasn't hypocritical to pass a term limit and re-elect an incumbent.
That's right but that's also not what I was condemning. PLEASE RE-READ
WHAT I WROTE!!! 

i wrote: it is hypocritical to pass a term limit and then re=elect an
   	incumbent TO A TERM THAT WOULD EXCEEED THE LIMIT JUST PASSED!!!!!

Please read the last part. If you pass a 2 term limit for Senators and
re=elect whomever to their 3rd Senate term at the same time, i WOULD
call that hypocritical.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	Get involved (or shut up)
CLARKSON '95				
We already have term limit provisions in the Constitution, it's called voting.
===========================================================================
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights; that among
these being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 
		----Declaration of Independence

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60816 ca.politics:9675 ba.politics:7247
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence That Homosexuality Is A Result of Child Sexual Abuse
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:05:10 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov18.044339.11301@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <13214@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #The authors are described
# #on the dust jacket as "a doctoral candidate in child clinical
# #psychology, University of Virginia," and "professor of
# #psychology and director of graduate studies, Department of
# #Psychology, University of Virginia." 
# 
# #.[Jeffrey J. Haugaard and N. Dickon Reppuci,]
# 
# Clayton, I am a student at Mr. Jefferson's University, and *NEITHER*
# Haugaard nor Reppuchi are listed in the database. However, there are
# four "Hennessy's" listed, including yours truely.
# 
# Please double check the names, and if they *ARE* from UVa, I will
# personally speak to them to double check your assertion.
# 
# --
# -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia

That's what is on the dust jacket.  Maybe they aren't there
anymore.  Maybe the whole dust jacket is a fabrication, I
don't know.  Even better, go to the library there and look
on the page I cited.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " TimbukToo " Horne")
Subject:      Re:
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 15:40:13 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA01395; Sat, 21 Nov 92 14:38:45 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA11106; Sat, 21 Nov 92 14:38:43 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0975; Sat, 21 Nov 92 15:41:27 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 2329; Sat, 21 Nov 92 15:41:26 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Summary: MUFON Alert.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington

>El Presidente is a BOZ0

>(imported by Sharp, Nippon).

>-= Getcher self some cheap sunglasses =-

      That's right.  Get hep.  Catch the Wave.  The future's so bright...
      I have to wear lead.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60528 alt.politics.elections:23999 alt.rush-limbaugh:9854 talk.rumors:1320 alt.activism:18910
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Bork is a good judge? (NOT!) (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:22:23 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
> 
> From what I've read of it, Bork strikes me as a strict literalist
> who 1) ignores admendment #9, and b) has a view of government such that
> the gov't has the moral power to do ANYTHING unless it is prohibited by
> doing so by the Constitution.
> 
> On the contrary I 1) do not ignore admendment #9, 2) believe that the
> gov't has the moral power to do ONLY what has been explictly granted to
> it in the Constitution, and 3) believe it is important to try to
> understand what the founder's view of gov't was at the time they
> created it when attempting to use #9 to "create" a new right.
> Consequently, Bork scares the hell out of me.
> 
> In fairness to Bork though, I think that if you can understand these
> basic premises, each view is consistent in interpreting the
> Constituion/deriding previous interpretations.

Actually, Brendan, you couldn'tbe more wrong if you tried. Judge Bork
would most likely have ruled that the Federal government had NO powers
other than those specifically listed in the Constitution; that's what
scared the liberals so badly, because 95% of the liberal agenda would be
thrown out on that basis. It looks like the media smear campaign worked;
you clearly have PRECISELY the impressions about Bork that the left-wing
wants you to have. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60833 ca.politics:9684 ba.politics:7252
From: bobh@troy.cc.bellcore.com (hettmansperger,robert)
Subject: Re: Bork is a good judge? (NOT!) (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 14:07:33 GMT

In article <BxupxB.By2@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>> 
>Actually, Brendan, you couldn'tbe more wrong if you tried. Judge Bork
>would most likely have ruled that the Federal government had NO powers
>other than those specifically listed in the Constitution; that's what
>scared the liberals so badly, because 95% of the liberal agenda would be
>thrown out on that basis. 

No, I don't think that was the real reason.  If it were, the conservatives
wouldn't have picked him eather (the Libertarians might have), since about
95% (okay, maybe only 94%) of the conservative agenda was not part of the
original intent of the Federal Government (Big Defense, Government 
intervention in the economy via tax manipulations, "social engineering"
through enforced morality, etc.).

The real reason that the right liked him and the left didn't goes back
to his Nixon-friendly activities after Watergate.

-Bob
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60962 sci.engr.civil:543 alt.activism:19004 alt.planning.urban:224 rec.railroad:9082
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Lawnmower Strategy ( for the 90s )
From: sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry)
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:46:58 MDT
Reply-To: sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry)
Distribution: world
Organization: Clinton Haters of America

In article <9211222154.AA02016@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu 
|>               Avoiding the Federal Lawnmower
|>               ------------------------------
|>
|>               A personal philosophy - by Me.
|>
|>
|>   Okay.  By now, it should be absolutely CLEAR to most everyone that
|>
|>   i)    The Federal Lawnmower is being gassed up.
|>   ii)   New taxes are coming for dinner.
|>   iii)  Your Congress is out to lunch.
|>   iv)   Your standard of living is on the menu.
|>
|>   I.   The Federal Lawnmower
|>
|>      Over the past 4 years, I have developed the "Lawnmower strategy".
|>
|>      If, by some means, I can be a SHORTER blade of grass, then, when
|>      Mr. Lawnmower comes calling, he will happily pluck everyone around
|>      me and go on his way.
 
  I am afraid the mower blades are set so low, they will take all the grass
down and a lot of dirt, too.  Like a disk sander chewing through your flesh
until it hits bone.
  We are headed for the land of anarchy on this ship of fools.
  As Robert A. Heinlein would have said, "Keep your powder dry."  And,  "Always
carry weapons."  



Larry Denys
sl1yn@providence.declab.usu.edu

  Iceberg at twelve O'clock.
  The PCers/Democrats/liberals have given the orders: straight ahead.
  "I'm givin' 'er full power, Captain,"  Ted Kennedy.
  "I don't think she can take much more,"  H. Ross Perot.
  "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," Ron Brown.
  Collision imminent.
  43% of the crew elect the professional politician/liar/pot-smoker/draft-
        dodger/bimbo-chaser/chameleon Clinton to the helm.
  All intelligent rats prepare to abandon ship.
  CRASH  BIFF  KAPOW KARUMBA RIP  POUND  KRIICK  GROING  SHRED  AURGH
  SOS
  We're going down...
  help...anybody...
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.legal