HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:49:15 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <15OCT199215013551@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger) writes:

>The Congress is given powers to enact legislation in a number of
>areas.  The authority to legislate in these areas incorporates the 
>power to restrict contracts in these areas.  

I guess this renders the part about all powers not granted to the congress
being reserved to the states rather meaningless.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:38:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct12.034653.8121@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>        "If this election is Bush versus 'Not Bush,' then we lose,"
>        one Bush associate said.  "If this election is Bush versus
>        Clinton, then we win.  We have to keep the focus on Clinton."
>
>Russ Nelson said:
>
>> "Four more beers", they were chanting at the Republican National
>> Convention.  That's about all Bush is going to get.
>
>and in article <16041@umd5.umd.edu>, gurd@wam.umd.edu said:
>
>> Actually they are going to get nothing more than FOUR MORE MONTHS!!!
>
>Just to bring home the point that it ain't over till it's over (thank
>you Yogi Berra, wherever you are), here's a front-page article from
>the Saturday, October 10, 1992 Boston Globe.  I realize that this
>guy's viewpoint may be coming from somewhere out in the Oort Cloud (he
>_is_ described as "a disciple of John Sununu, former White House chief
>of Staff," after all), and/or he may just be trying to pull off the
>old self-fulfilling prophesy stunt... in any event, though, I think it
>makes interesting reading:
>
>Bush aide looks at map and sees landslide

>Carney sees all the needed states -- and more -- falling into place,
>resulting in nothing less than a Bush blowout victory.

   
  Interesting, especially considering the Globe is pro-Clinton.   Even
  more interesting is that the Boston Herald, which is pro-Bush ran
  a cover-story Saturday citing polls showing that the Clinton-bashing
  by Bush is backfiring and widening Clinton's lead!   Could it be that
  both papers are simply trying to energize their crowd with warnings
  about the risks of complacency?  


---peter




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51144 alt.politics.usa.misc:156 alt.politics.usa.constitution:652
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:18:32 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>No, but the Constitution is a written code of law. To read into it
>whatever one wants, would be equivilent to throwing away the whole
>thing. Wherever possible, it should eb interperted to mean what it
>was written to mean (e.g. what the framers intended the provision 
>in question to mean.) This helps remove modern political bias, etc..
 
It helps remove modern political bias, but it may restore old
political and social biases.  

Progress is making *new* mistakes.

							--  Michal
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: MY VIEW OF THE DEBATE
Date: 12 Oct 1992 16:30:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   A little background: I used to be a Republican, switched to Democrat when
Perot dropped out, but now...

#1 Perot showed them "where it hangs". He was a bresh of fresh air and you could
tell that his answers came from the heart, not from some script.

#2 Clinton just gave me no reason to want to vote Democrat at all. I can forgive
him for his past mistakes (even though he isn't big enough to admit he made
those mistakes), but I simply can not trust him. There is something about that
slick smile and his scripted responses that just made him look totally fake. He
has never said anything to offend anybody, and when he does walk on this ice
he does everything he can to please both sides of the issue. He panders like I
have never seen in my entire life. His preprogrammed responses were a perfect
example of his slick style. As somebody put it, Clinton clearly showed that he
is as much of a product of the political process as he could possibly be. He
gives us smiles and lollipops for problems that DO require some pain in fixing.

#3 I think Bush showed that he is a man of character. Nobody can question that
he is a decent man. However, I feel he is as much a victim of the political
process as Clinton. They both are out of touch with reality. They were bought
off long before you knew they were going to be candidates. Don't vote for either
and do the right thing.

 Ross Perot belongs to us. We will answer to us and he will admit a mistake
when he makes it. It will take nothing short of Ross and TRUE change to fix
this country. If your not ready to face reality and fall for the liberal
false hopes that Bill Clinton offers, we will have to suffer another four
years before the REAL answers to our problems are ready to be heard. Hey, I'm
laid off right now. I not exactly thrilled about paying extra for gas. But it
IS what has to be done in order to fix this country. Nobody wants to admit
that this country is so screwed up that it will have to take some pain to
fix our problems. Please, vote for truth and not for fantasy.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Clinton victory causes stock drop [was Re: Bush ...]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:31:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.231803.14970@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1bavqoINNed7@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>
>A Clinton victory in this manner would probably cause a true national
>depression. 
>
>
>He claims he will raise $89 billion from people making over $200,000
>by raising their taxes.

I should clarify this ... In his "Put Government First" plan,
the number is about $80 billion over a 4 year period for increased taxes
on the "top 2%", which kicks in at considerably less than $200,000.
(But then he said he'll only tax about $200K, and we all know how
honest and forthright Bill Clinton is. Right.)
He hopes to reap $89 billion in additional revenue from increased
incomes taxes and business taxes in 1996.  Good luck.

>The WSJ says he's off by a factor of about 50 - it will raise
>only $200 million. With that, plus his claim that he can raise
>business taxes over $50 billion dollars without having any impact
>on economic growth. 

I've been told the Wall Street Journal is also advising investors to
consider the wisdom of *tax-free* municipal bonds after the election. 

>- His spending plans will lead to one of two things: higher deficits,
>or higher taxes on middle-class taxpayers. It will also lead to further
>economic stagnation, as private investment is eaten up by taxes.
>
>- The Nation Center for Policy Analysis ran Clinton's plans through
>their econometric model and it came out .... *destroying* about
>900,000 jobs.
>
>- He says he's not a tax-and-spender, but his tax and spend plans
>are more extreme than Mondale or Dukakis. 
>
>- He uses the word "investment" as a euphemism for Governmental industrial
>policy and boondogle projects, and his "investments" will cost billions.
>Clinton has precious little understanding of the difference between
>public "investment" and private investment.
>
>- He has signed to yet more environmental regulation, even though
>the environmental regulation load already costs, according to a study,
>about 6% of our GNP in lost production and resources.
>
>- He proposes "cost-containment" measures on prescription drugs that
>are thinly disguised price controls.  These will have little effect
>on overall medical costs, but will have a negative impact on the
>research and development of new drugs.
>
>His likely victory has already sent the stock market sliding 10% in
>the last few weeks. :-) Only 90% left to go. :-(

Pat
	Bill Clinton: The Status-quo candidate
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Vote for Clinton!
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:46:51
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
	<1992Oct14.035221.17583@news.columbia.edu>
	<1992Oct14.052950.29697@ncar.ucar.edu> <Bw4522.J8A@apollo.hp.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:20:26 GMT

In article <Bw4522.J8A@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   Some Republican will be elected in 1996.  The 
>   only question is whether it will be a sensible moderate like Kemp
>   or Weld or some slobbering neoNazi.

It shows how far to the Right our country has moved that someone like
Kemp can actually be described as a moderate.  Kemp has the virtue
that he is reasonbly intelligent, but "moderate"?  Am I the only one
out there who remembers the news reports about Kemp from the early
80s?

(Of course, I was really scared a few years back, when I first heard
someone describe Jerry Falwell as a moderate...)
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton will clarify
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:53:53
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:24:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.152414.15518@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:

> "I was in protests against the United States, but I didn't inhale^h^h^h^h^h^h
> organize."

Is it your opinion that protesting against a particular war that the
United States is involved in (a war, remember, which was so divisive
that the government never even had the fortitude to officially declare
as a war) is the same thing as protesting against the United States?
Does patriotism really require unquestioning support of every
government policy, no matter how foolish or immoral it may be?
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Bush & Clinton Numbers Don't Add Up!!!
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:09:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.130753.10576@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes:
>In article <1bh5bvINNq07@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
>> 
>>    I saw a CNN special last night in which they took both Bush's and Clinton's
>> plans to address the debt and investigated them. Both plans did not do anything
>> to kill our nation's debt. The "experts" they had there said that Perot's plan
>> was the only realistic one that would erase the debt. They said that stating
>> that we all have to sacrifice was "political suicide" and that is why Bush and
>> Clinton put forward these fluff plans with no real substance. Don't believe
>> the hype! We all have to suffer a little to pay off this thing.

>Actually if you listen Clinton said he would cut the deficit in half...

Big deal.
The deficit will fall by more than half if we do nothing but stop the growth
in spending. What is dangerous about the Clinton/Gore plan is that
they think that high economic growth will cut their deficit for them,
so they pretend they can increase spending significantly and not worry.
And how will they get high economic growth? Some tax increases, more
regulations and mandates on business (family leave, pay-or-play etc.), 
and higher Government spending, er, "investment". We've seen
this prescription before, and it causes stagnation not growth.
So while Clinton *says* the deficit will be around $200 billion
by 1996, it may be much higher. That's the real danger.

" ... this's the guy who one week told Larry King he could balance the budget
in five years, and two weeks later releases an economic plan that doesn't
balance the budget, and reduces the deficit buy assuming high economic
growth." - Emmett Kilgiraff on Clinton:

>not eliminate it... and what has Bush/Quayle said about it?  Not a thing...

They at least are not irresponsibly calling for large increases
in spending. And they have addressed the budget in their "Agenda
for American Renewal".  They support the Balanced Budget Amendment;
Clinton/Gore do not.  They support capping entitlements; Clinton/Gore do not.

Pat
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:47:14
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com's message of Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.133100.19575@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> >He's a Party-Pawn plain and simple. And he won't dare upset the 
> >incumbents by putting his own ASS on the line.
> >
> >Goodbye MR. Clinton. 
> 
> Are you leaving the country?

If he is, he'd better not protest when he's overseas.  That would be
wrong. 
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:45:29 GMT

From article <ld986cINNmcq@spim.mti.sgi.com>, by mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen):
> N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
> |> 
> |> The government, and more specifcally the taxpayers across the country,
> |> should not be subsidizing outrageously inflated housing costs any more 
> |> than they should be subsidizing million dollar homes.  
> |> 
> |> "Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
> 
> I see.  Suspend the laws of supply and demand as they apply to
> housing.  

If you're so concerned about the laws of supply and demand as they
apply to housing you should be advocating the complete elimination of
the mortgage interest deduction.  

> I suppose that we should outlaw states from exempting
> food from sales tax since food has inflated at a rate much higher
> than the cost of living index.  Or just tax steak, since only
> rich people can afford it.  

Welcome to the real world.  The fact is that the government subsidizes
some things and discourages others using the tax code.  Dreaming up
absurd examples doesn't make that any less true.  I believe that high
priced homes are something we shouldn't be subsidizing. 

> Or make all the people with average
> salaries move out of silicon valley because their house
> costs are rising.

We shouldn't subsidize people moving into areas with inflated housing 
costs to begin with.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!^H^H^H^H^Hbit inventive!
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:52:59 GMT

In article <treilly.719164397@vincent1.iastate.edu> treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:

>     My refernece to the 200 billion dollar amount was to point out that
>stupendous man was incoorect- 200 billion was stupendous man's figure,
>not mine- i was pointing out that he was mistaken.

I understand. I am simply reinforcing the fact that Quayle had that basic
number correct.

>     Further, look at what gore said- the cost should not be bourne
>by the U.S. alone.  Disproportionatley, maybe.  But not alone.  

He also won't tell us what that means. Untill he does Quale's statement
is in essence correct.

>     i do not know how much Clinton wants to pay for other countries
>problems.  

It is interesting that Gore flames Quayle over the CBI, which is an effort
to produce real growth and real benifits to some of the poorest people in
the world. This growth would not only produce better standards of living but
it would also let them produce the wealth to solve their own environemntal
problems. Yet he wants to spend far far more so that the US govenrment can
run other countries environmental programs.

It is a typical pattern. Clinton/Gore always propose solutions which make
government more powerful and make people more dependant on Government. Bush/
Quayle however tend to propose solutions which empower people and help them
stand on their own.

>his opponenets are using his assertions and figures in ways he did not intend.

And Gore is pure as the driven snow?

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------192 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 19:57:07 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>The telphone. The light bulb. The automobile.
>
>Quick. Name the inventors. Of course you can.

Really?  Who invented the automobile?  Aren't there several who can lay a
valid claim to this?

>How about flat-bottomed paper bags, bullet-proof vests and
>Scotchgard? The dishwasher, the fire escape, AZT?
>
>Of course you can't.
>
>Why? Because these inventors are women, says historian Anne
>Macdonald. That's why they're hard to find in history books.
>Or in any books.

Anne Macdonald is full of shit.  If Thomas Edison had invented flat-bottomed
paper bags, almost no one would know that offhand.  The first set of inventions
named above are much more important in everyday life than the ones mentioned
in the second set.

Try to imagine a world without telephones or light bulbs or automobiles, and
you will have a world quite different from today's world.  Now do the same
for flat-bottomed paper bags and the others.  There's no comparison.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Clinton waffling?
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:13:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.185752.10384@bsu-ucs.uucp>, 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes...
>In article <tdboyce-101092151458@lloyd-at1.caltech.edu>, tdboyce@cco.caltech.edu (tdboyce) writes:
>> I have heard quiet a bit in the news that Clinton has waffled or been less
>> than forthright on various issues and events that have come up from time to
>> time during his presidental campaign.  Consequently, according to opinion
>> polls he seems to have a trust problem with the American people. 
> 
>And according to opinion polls Clinton widened his lead by 6pts after
>the Moscow Affair... Nice try George...
> 
>And according to opinion polls Bush's approval rating is at 34%... now
>there is the sign of a great leader... (excuse the laughing)...

Fairy tales *are* quite amusing. I wonder if the polling group extends 
beyond the press pool. You'd think they'd at least contrive some 
population statistics.

>|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
>|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas   10-10-92

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:23:35 GMT

In article <Bw0JM8.C7G@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>The ABC polling last night showed Perot taking support from Bush and widening 
>the gap. A couple more nights like that and George Herbert Walker Bush will be 
>third. 

That's entirely possible.
That was the whole point of Perot entering the race:
he simply wanted to beat George Bush at his own game.

Of course, the whole thing may be trivialized by those moving bargraph
charts shown by CNN on audiences' reaction to each segment of the debate. :-)

>When do the marines get sent in?

To where? Yugoslavia? Just watch. It may yet happen on a grand scale.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc