HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Line Item Restrictions (was Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell)
Summary:  I added tx.pol & t.p.m as a courtesy, delete in follow-up pls.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:33:00 GMT

In article <7236@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes...
>Can anyone clue me in as to how line-item vetoes actually work on the
>state level? Do overrides occur by majority vote or two-thirds?
>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineer


From _Texas Politics, Economics, Power, and Policy_ 4th ed. 
by James Lamare, West Publ. p.138:

	[Governor's Legislative Powers...]

	The governor's most impressive legislative weapon is the
	veto power. Every bill passed by the legislature must be
	sent to the governor's office for approval. The governor
	has the option of signing the bill and making it the law
	of the state or refusing to sign the measure and thereby
	vetoing it. With respect to the appropriations bill (the
	state budget), the governor may choose to veto any item
	in it. The governor has ten days during the legislative
	term (twenty days if the session ends) in which to act.
	Failure to do anything within this time period results
	in the bill becoming law automatically. The Legislature,
	if it is still in session, can override the governor's
	veto by a two-thirds vote of the members of each chamber.
	Compared with most states the number of votes needed to
	overrule the governor's veto is high.

	Since statehood, the governor has exercised the veto more
	than 1,200 times. In 1981, Governor Clements rejected 27 
	pieces of legislation. During his four-year term Mark
	White vetoed 96 measures, including 86 bills, six concur-
	rent house and senate resolutions, and four line items in
	the legislative budget. During the seventy-first legisla-
	tive session (1989-1990), Governor Clements vetoed 55 bills,
	eleven budgetary line items, and one concurrent resolution
	each passed in the house and senate. The governor's decision
	is usually final. In more that a century the legislature 
	has been able to muster enough votes to override the veto
	in only 50 instances. Only one veto--Governor Clement's
	rejection of a minor matter in 1979--has been overrridden
	by legislative action in the last 50 years.

Considering the Texas implemenation, the fact that the US Congress has
not extended a Line-Item-Veto to the President is additional evidence 
that the President is mostly a figurehead of the Parties these days,
(...except in in extremis).


-= Change is the illusion of *Progress* =-
	
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17627 alt.president.clinton:632 talk.politics.misc:61289
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Sunday, 22 Nov 1992 09:19:59 PST
From: <RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
 <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> <cubsfan.722154042@camelot>
 <1enma7INNnlr@agate.berkeley.edu>

In article <1enma7INNnlr@agate.berkeley.edu>, wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F.
Tell) says:
>
>In article <cubsfan.722154042@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael
>Silverman) writes:
>>The average Republican once again astounds the world with intellignt,
>>thoughful political discourse.
>
>As if we have never seen t-shorts with similar epithets directed at Bush.
>
>And if the Democrats really respected intelligence, Robert Bork would have
>been confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1987.
>
>William F. Tell
>UC Berkeley
>

Intelligence is'nt everything. It is how you use it with some balance of judgem
ent or not. That in the end was the reason Bork was given the order of the boot
.

Would be interesting what happens when Tribe gets tyhe nod.

rajagopalan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: The World
	<Bxqp3x.3Bq@slipknot.rain.com> <22520@drutx.ATT.COM>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:11:00 GMT


>But government has no business collecting the fees for public broadcasting,
>because public broadcasting is *not* a government provided service.

Although I suspect you would personally be opposed to this also it is
perhaps worthwhile to point out that one reason the conservatives in
congress finally voted for the public broadcasting support bill was
because there was a threat by PBS' supporters to also demand that
Congress remove financial support for Voice of America, the overseas
American propaganda stations.

As usual, the conservatives "were on a mission from god" while those
who support public broadcasting were of course just wasting money...

So in the end it wasn't really an issue of whether it was right or
wrong to spend money on public broadcasting, the issue came down to
"who's" public broadcasting was to be paid for, or neither, or both.

So they backed off from their little right-wing adventure thus leaving
both programs intact.

Politics...ya gotta love it.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17524 alt.president.clinton:585 talk.politics.misc:61049
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Date: 20 Nov 1992 13:41:57 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov20.111123.20252@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> wr001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (William E. Raftery Jr.) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.211332.2873@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <treilly.722130963@vincent2.iastate.edu> treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
>>>In <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:
>>>
>>>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>>>>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>>>>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>>>>Appealing to your subconcious.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Well, there's a good way to get the secret service mointoring the
>>>network.  So thoughful of you.  hope you get a visit from them.
>>>
>>For the record, I didn't vote for Clinton, but I still want this idiot arrested
>>for posting this trash.  And I hope no one thinks all Republicans think this
>>way.  Heck, I'd be the first one to report him if I could!
>
>	Report him? Nahh, lets try something a little more down to earth.
>How about trying to have his cookies tossed off this net.
>	Now I was a Reagan-Bush supporter, but above it all I am a supporter
>of the law. Whoever this guy is, he's obviously immature, and more than
>likely a felon or soon to be after making a statement like that. I am not
>Bill Clinton's biggest supporter, far from it. but I am at least going to
>wait until he gets into office and see what he does there before critizing him
>to bits or maybe even supporting him. Mr. "Kill Kill Kill", I would love to
>hear from others out there as to how he could be dealt with. Getting him off
>the net would actually be a good start.
>
>Bill
How about sending a copy of his original post to "postmaster@eos.ncsu.edu" and
to "postmaster@ncsu.edu", along with comments on how/why you find his posting
objectionable...

John
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:19:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov20.213130.4299@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.162630.8691@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
[.........]
>>Before the election, I stated that I liked Bill Clinton but wouldn't vote
>>for him because of all the Democrats that would come hands outstrectched to
>>Clinton. I was concerned they would get him to back off his pledges after
>>the election. Granted, most of his pledges are still there to be fulfilled
>>but it is starting to look like politics and spending as usual and he is not
>>even President yet...
>>
>>Just my opinion....
>>
>>Joe
> 
> but, at least he is getting some stuff done.  and not like bush compromise
> where he went from no new taxes to 2nd largest tax increase in history *and*
> spending $1.83 for every $1 brought in.

What a surprise to hear that the President now spends the money from the
Treasury!  I guess the rest of us missed this wholesale restructuring of our
government.  We HOPE that you know better, because frankly, this myth is
getting VERY tiresome.  If you really DON'T have a better clue than this, then
I'd suggest you sue whatever school system taught you this pap. 

------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
  
"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..." 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:08:12 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu <Mark Allan Hunt> writes:
>
>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!

    Yup, it does - you're a typical, intelligent, reasonable republican -
not.

>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
	            ^^
    You mean "too".  

    By "four more years", do I take this as an admission that the country
isn't exactly in tip-top shape *now*?

>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!

    What a dweeb.  Enjoy your visit from the Secret Service.

>Appealing to your subconcious.

    Appealing to your intelligence.....on second thought, never mind.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.asian.american
From: heidi@wales.net.com (Heidi Wolf)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton....1st Women President ?
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton 
Summary: pish tosh 
Organization: N.E.T., Redwood City, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:02:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.180442.553@hspice.portal.com> georgew@hspice.portal.com
(George Wu) writes:

>     Likewise, Eleanor Roosevelt is reputed to have wielded Presidential
>power after her husband's death.  In general, the First Lady is always going
>to be the President's closest confident and advisor.

I believe that it was Harry Truman who wielded Presidential power after
Eleanor's husband's death.  :-)  Mrs. Roosevelt may have made more lasting
contributions to U.S. policy by her work in the United Nations, instead.
 
>     I don't see the objection to Hillary's personality.  I'd rather see a
>woman of character than a mouse in the office.  Bill Clinton's choice of wife
>merely reflects a man confident of his own goals and identity.

No disagreement with you there.  (Though I expect not everyone will agree,
just as not everyone approved of Mrs. Roosevelt.)


Heidi Wolf

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17281 alt.politics.democrats.d:584 alt.politics.elections:23954 ba.politics:7167 co.politics:2089 ne.politics:3007 nj.politics:739 or.politics:650 ny.politics:259 talk.politics.misc:60449
From: buckmr@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:56:13 GMT

tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:

>I heard on Rush's show a  GOOD argument for not letting gays in the military.

>Ok, when you serve in the armed forces, you get free/VERY cheap healthcare for the
>rest of your life.  (and your spouse)

>Q. #1  What is one of the most expensive illnesses?   AIDS!
>Q. #2  What lifestyle is one (if not the highest) highest risk category for AIDS?  Gays

Not only is this patently false, but re: the military EVERY SINGLE 
person entering is tested for HIV periodically. 

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ***Clinton-Gore '92***
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
Feminism "...encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children,
practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17225 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8654 alt.rush-limbaugh:9781
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prayers in school (Was: What is a Conservative?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:28:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Nov13.040800.7656@ncsu.edu> wglee@eceris.ece.ncsu.edu (William Gary Lee) writes:
>In article <BxKCIz.C1C@ns1.nodak.edu> jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
>
>   some text deleted ...
>>
>>FORCED?????   I don't think that the push for prayer in schools would FORCE
>>students to pray.  It's more of a quiet-type time.  BUT you can pray if you
>>want.
>>
>
>
>RIIIIGHT! I can just imagine the loving gathering....
>
>	'Now class, lets all set in a circle and join hands
>	while Rush Jr. leads us in the Lord's Prayer...that is
>	all except for little Mohammed, who doesn't believe in
>	our true Saviour and hence will never enter Heaven.'
>
>I'm sure that prayer in schools would *really* be voluntary and would
>help us to be a more moral and loving nation; that it would
>show our children that acceptance and understanding will make the
>world a better place.
>
>
>	Gary Lee

That's the problem with you liberal wacos, you don't believe that anyone 
will ever do the right think without passing a law mandating that they do 
or do not do the right thing.

How about if I allege (as you have done above) that all homosexuals will 
in fact try to put moves on straight soldiers in the military, and that 
for that reason we should keep gays out of the military?  This is 
exactly what you have done in your argument above.

This is so disgusting.  Because you are convinced (without any evidence, 
it's nice to know) that people will misuse their rights, instead of 
dealing with the misuse of that right, you remove their rights.

Ted

-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17560 alt.politics.elections:24205 alt.rush-limbaugh:10108 talk.politics.misc:61144 alt.politics.bush:13977
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Line Item Restrictions (was Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell)
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:09:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Can anyone clue me in as to how line-item vetoes actually work on the
state level? Do overrides occur by majority vote or two-thirds?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
X-Xxdate: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:10:18 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:13:43 GMT

In article <sulkanen.721925422@xanth> Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65,
sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov writes:
>I disagree, I feel that that there is much more tolerance, or at least
>indifference, to anti free-speech actions perpetrated by radical
liberals.
>Indeed, much of this behavior has been given intellectual legitimacy by
>the academic left on college campuses. That is a large portion of the 
>goal of the PC movement - to control the subjects, rules, and manners
>of intellectual inquiry.

What measure have you used to make this conclusion? In actuality, the
radical left and the radical right are BOTH guilty of anti-free speech
activities. Examples from both sides have been posted frequently in this
group. Unless you have some definitive measure, I can't see how you can
support this contention. The problem is that radical idealogues, no
matter their persuasion, are more likely to take radical actions.
That is one of the many reasons I supported a moderate---Bill Clinton.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:15:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>There's too many people here already.
>>
>>But that is NOT my situation.  And as for you not having any kids, fine.
>>Your choice.  Now please allow me mine.
>>
>What do you mean that not your situation?? Are you trying to imply
>that you don't live on the same planet as *I* do? Hardly.
>Your situation is the same as mine is the same as everyone elses.
>There's too many people and it's time to limit. Your view of the world
>is very narrow (i.e. focused on yourself). "*I* have my kids; *I*
>can afford them. So everything is fine". That still does not counter my
>argument that we have an overpopulation problem on Earth AS A WHOLE!

There is no overpopulation problem.

People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
advancement, generally.

Arguments concerning the alleged population problem usually center
around the myth of finite resources. Nothing could be further from the
truth. As Juliam Simon as amply demonstrated, every resource of
signifance, from metals to food stuffs, has decreased in price over
the last century. And, of course, when you consider other sources of
human wealth such as knowledge and skill, the finite resources
argument crumbles even further.

Of course, those who push the population problem usually have an
agenda which requires it. For example, many leftists are weded to
the idea of controlling population because it is a convenient
bridge to controlling people, generally.

Do your part for the human race. Have as many kids as you can afford.
Teach them to acquire and defend wealth through peaceful commerce with
their fellow man.

(Except for you leftist socialists out there. You people should
definitely refrain from propogating yourselves.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Robert Bork
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:53:33 GMT

wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:


>The left-wing nuts (and I use the term "nuts" without reservation) were
>out in force in 1987 against Bork because they knew he is probably the
>most brilliant legal mind and a conservative to boot.  He wasn't acceptable
>to the quiche-eating New York Times/Washington Post crowd.


I may have my names confused, but wasn't Bork the guy who dismissed
the Watergate special prosecuter at Nixon's bequest?
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Not Even Inaugurated, Breaking Promises Already
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:18:44 GMT

Hey boys and girls, dig deep and spare a coin for the coffer -
if you want improvements, you have to pay.  So Billy lied?
Tough shit.  Your parents probably fed you a line or two
on why you couldn't have that ice cream cone, or why you
should finish your supper.  And yes, there is no Santa Claus,
only a bum pushing a shopping cart full of tin cans.

I'll be the first in line to say "increase my taxes, please,
but do something real - improved aid for technological 
development, improved health care, foreign policy with a
humanitarian face, et al., et al.  Don't spend my extra
money on giving more to HUD officials and their friends,
or $500 billion to S&L officers, and the like, and don't
send more to Hussein in the name of improving agriculture.
Do something real, give us a better, not perfect, system."

And yes, I'm part of the middle-class (not the upper-middle-class
either - no home, one car, etc.).  But I'm richer than maybe
98 or 99% of the people on earth.  And all rhetoric and
campaign promises behind, I just want an improvement.

Campaign messages are simple platitudes designed to make simple
people feel good about complex issues.  Ideally they reflect
an iota of the truth, but I don't take Kevin Costner so seriously,
and politics are a very similar form of entertainment.

Indicators to look for:  fewer people on the streets, better
educated kids, retraining in defense and other industries,
renewed strength in various technical and industrial fields,
a stable foreign policy promoting stability in the world,
economic growth, tolerable taxation, improvement in the arts
(yep, a culture's art is a reflection of its health), an
improved infrastructure, more attractive cities, preservation
and cooperation with nature, more jobs, more diversity and
tolerance of ideas, etc.

If you were just voting your pocket-book, you deserved to be
fooled.  If you're really interested in your country, you
should make up a list as above of the many important aspects
of a culture, and judge the next four years on the relative
success of the various areas, of course weighing them according
to their importance.

Not that I don't encourage honest criticism on such factors
as taxation.  Just don't be small-headed.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}