HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot drops out!!!!
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 22:42:40 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <92202.201736KCRUZAT@auvm.american.edu> Kristi Cruzat <KCRUZAT@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>Who cares about the two parties' grip on politics.  The point is, Perot is a
>fascist and we should be glad to be rid of him.  Let's just worry about who
>the Perot supporters are going to vote for.  We definitely don't want more
>of the same so hopefully they will vote for Clinton.

But you aren't rid of him. His name is still on the ballot in all the states
where the process was completed, and his headquarters has not responded to
requests, even from gubenatorial offices, to clarify his intentions.

It's interesting, if nothing else - Perot can sit back (folks are _still_
working to get him on more ballots, as I understand it) without saying a
word or spending a dime, and _still_ have a massive affect upon the
election. All he really has to do is wake himself up a week before voting
day and say "golly, I guess I _will_ run..."

... actually, he doesn't even have to do that - he's still going to be on
the ballots, and he's still going to get lots of votes... must be giving the
mainline candidates fits, eh?

-- 
"I boiled  the soap  out  of  the  bodies of women and men.  The process of
boiling alone took several days --  from 3 to 7.   During two manufacturing
processes, in which I directly participated, more than 25 kilograms of soap
were produced." (Mazur, from "Hitler's Death Camps")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jason@news.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Political information sources
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:43:51 GMT


	I'm looking for some good magazines or news letters that report
information about current happenings in Congress.  I'm not interested
in opinion or party related information, but just the facts about
current bills and how various members are voting.  I saw an add for
something like this on CNN but wasn't able to get the ordering
information down.  What would be ideal is something that releases a
different version for each state and lists in detail what the state's
representatives are doing.  If there is interest, I'll summarize
anything I find out.
--
Jason C. Austin
jason@ab00.larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:58:23 GMT

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>Ah, now who is calling whom names?  Oh well, I would expect as much.

Yes, you should, because you've done nothing but call names.  Seems to
be your entire repitoire, when added to lying.


>I have never stated that any net libertarian or Libertarian supports
>rescinding laws against pedophilia.  I will pay $100 to the first person
>who can prove that I did so.  Just post an _accurate_ quote from me and
>then call me at the number below.  What I DID say was that the Libertarian
>Platform (the subject we are discussing) contains language that would
>eliminate all laws we now have against pedophilia.

From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) (replying to T. Archer) <archer.106@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu

>"Frankly, you can go ahead now and put me in your .kill file - I will
>not restrain my criticism of anyone who promotes rescinding laws
>against pedophilia.

Of course you're nothing but a lying weasel, so you can always claim
you just tagged this on here as a completely random line, which had
nothing to do with accusing him of supporting such.

-- 
I like the future.  I'm in it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: arras@bfws46.forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras)
Subject: Re: Perot's October Surprise
Organization: FORWISS, Uni Erlangen, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:27:25 GMT


In article <3967@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> ...
>	Perot is going to re-enter the race in October, saying "We've
>heard these goofballs for two months, and they haven't been saying a
>thing! Since my name is already on the ballots, I'm gonna run again!" He
>would have saved his money from being spent on the campaign, had a
>respite from the media and the campaign scrutiny, and avoided any
>negative characterisations of him from both the Democrats and the
>Republicans. (And I do mean BOTH sides. Ron Brown, Bill Clinton, Bill
> ...

	An do you know what he doing going to do in November?  Lose.
That's a terrible tactic.  Clinton will probably get more votes.

Mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:05:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul21.220328.11772@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <BrouoD.3E2@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
>writes:
>>>But it's true.  Look at the choices we have now.  We can vote for President
>>>Mush
>>> [  . . .  ]   Or we can vote for Clinton
>>
>>
>>   Except that this is pure bullshit.   You get to vote for more than 
>>   the President, and you get to participate in more ways than voting!
>>   In fact voting is the LEAST of your powers to take part in US
>>   politics!
>
>How do you figure that?  Are you talking about here, lobbying?

  No I'm talking about influencing WHO gets on the ballot in the 
  first place, and also playing a role in shaping public opinion
  before election day.

  A Congressman has 500,000 people in his district -- if half of them 
  vote then your vote is 1/250,000th of the total.  But the number of
  people actively involved in party politics *prior* to election day 
  is much smaller.  If the Congressman does not run in a primary
  (they don't usually) then the number of people influencing who
  will run in the race is quite small  -- in the challenger's camp
  it's usually even smaller.   By actively participating in the 
  party your influence is vastly multiplied over what it is in 
  November.

  You can also raise funds for the candidate of your choice, you
  can write letters to the editor (it's easy -- my letters have
  been published in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, the Atlantic
  Monthly, the Boston Globe, and elsewhere), you can gather petitions
  to put a candidate on the ballot, you can man the office, answer
  phones, stuff envelopes, etc.  

  And then, as another poster pointed out, AFTER voting it's your job
  to keep the heat on -- monitor the performance of your congresscritter
  let them know how they're doing and what you think about it (bad AND
  good) and publicize it to others.

  
>>   Furthermore, the major power to enact laws, balance the budget, change
>>   spending policies, or whatever, is with Congress.   And House races
>>   are typically decided by a few thousand, or at most a few 10's of 
>>   thousands of votes.
>
>And unless the group sponsoring the law carries enough congressmen to
>override a veto, the president can stop them cold...

  That's why we *have* overrides.  And maybe the congresscritter YOU helped
  put in office will cast that crucial override vote (or the one that
  kills the override, depending on how you feel about the bill in quest-
  ion).   Personally, I think there's something to be said for only having
  laws that have widespread, enthusiastic support.  


---peter

  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Perot sued!!
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:59:21 GMT
Organization: Loose Affiliation of Millionaires and Billionaires and Baby

Tim Pierce writes:
>
>When Pete Wilson of California vetoed AB101, a supporter of his who
>had donated $4,000 to his campaign on the basis of his promise to sign
>was given a refund.  It doesn't sound entirely unheard-of.
>
To refund the money sounds EXACTLY enough to qualify the donation as bribe.
Could someone explain the difference to me.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Coach of the Fighting Thundercats 
Member of the Chelsea Clinton Fan Club  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36355 soc.singles:21277 soc.men:13800 soc.women:14214 alt.flame:11453
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:15:25 GMT

rcw@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Robert White) writes:
>In article <archer.127@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>} So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
>} of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
>} statist government.
>}
>} I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.

>Check out the Oregon Hate Initiative or Ammendment Number 2 in Colorado.
>That ought to remove all doubt from your mind.

Strange, but those look like people not believing that others are
capable of acting in an "enlightened" manner (by their definition),
and must be forced to do so by a benign statist government.  Those who
advocate one use shouldn't be surprised when it gets used against them.

-- 
Don't be fooled by his twinkling eyes; it's the sun shining between his ears.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett)
Subject: Re: Perot's October Surprise
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:45:38 GMT

In article <3967@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Jeff Young is a Sunday late night talk show host on a local FM station
>here who enjoys talking politics and news of the week. Last night, he
>noticed (as did I) that when HR Perot pulled the plug on his
>un-candidacy, that he did NOT tell all his volunteers running petition
>drives to stop putting his name of the ballots or removing his name from
>the 24 states that have certified him. Instead he told them to continue
>their work and finish the job! Now, he and I were very skeptical of why
>Perot would do such if he were really serious about pulling himself out
>of contention. The following is Jeff Young's premonition:
>	Perot is going to re-enter the race in October, saying "We've
>heard these goofballs for two months, and they haven't been saying a
>thing! Since my name is already on the ballots, I'm gonna run again!" He
>would have saved his money from being spent on the campaign, had a
>respite from the media and the campaign scrutiny, and avoided any
>negative characterisations of him from both the Democrats and the
>Republicans. (And I do mean BOTH sides. Ron Brown, Bill Clinton, Bill
>Bradley, Dan Quayle have all criticized him. I'm sure I'm leaving a ton
>of people off this list.)

   It won't work.  Perot is officially on the ballot in only 25 states, and
pending in only 8 more.  Since his announcement that he was not going to run,
his support has dropped off enormously, and the petition drives in the
remaining states have come to a complete halt.  If he were to announce his
candidacy in October, he would be short at least a dozen states, some of them
very large states such as New York.  I'm not even going to begin to mention 
the huge numbers of his former supporters who will never trust the guy with
anything for the rest of their lives.  (The latest polling data shows Perot
with 5% of the vote -- down from 38% only a few weeks ago)
  
>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
>Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
>Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
-----------------------------------------------------
"If you like Congress, you'll **LOVE** Bill Clinton."
                                --new campaign slogan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: A Hollow Shell
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:17:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.060611.9557@news.columbia.edu>,
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

|>In article <1992Jul25.144525.18926@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu
|>(Vignes Gerard M) writes:
|>>	The Democratic Party is like a hollow shell,
|>>	the Old Confederacy awaiting Sherman and his March to the Sea.
|>>
|>>							Gerard Vignes
|>
|>This is absolutely the most informative, substansive post I've ever
|>seen on talk.politics.misc.  Absolutely.  Mr. Vignes piercing insight
|>has revealed to me what a sham the Democrat are.  This is a
|>thunderous
|>revelation, and I must humbly acknowledge this earthshattering
|>wisdom,
|>and hang my head in shame for my delusions.  With this bright moment
|>of epiphany, I shall vote for Bush, and trust in him (for through him
|>the Godhead is revealed) to lead us all to the New Jerusalem.

Really? I though it was a piece of pretentious crap.

Also Blake's Jerusalem was rather closer to Burnley than a Dallas hotel
room. Do they make kids sing that in school in the USA too? 

Phill
--
Give money to debtor nations, help them rehouse their Presidents so they
don't have to live in hotels.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: high-speed trains
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:58:07 EST
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Press release from Joseph Vranich

 High Speed Trains Win in Senate
 To: National Desk, Transportation Writer
 Contact: Joseph Vranich, 703-941-8927

   WASHINGTON, July 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The High Speed Rail/Maglev
Association hailed today's Senate action that would put tax-exempt
bonds for high-speed train systems under the same rules as airport
bonds, allowing planners to use private capital in construction.
   The effort, led by Sens. Steve Symms (R-Idaho) and Bob Graham
(D-Fla.), was an amendment to the Energy Bill.
   The president of the association, Robert J. Casey, released this
statement:

   "This is the first time the Senate has considered putting
high-speed train systems on a truly equal footing with other modes of
transportation, and the sense of fair play prevailed.
   "I wholeheartedly agree with Sen. Symms' closing statement that
the high-speed rail provision is good energy policy, good
environmental policy, good transportation policy and good tax policy.
   "It's clear from the vote that broad-based support exists from
senators of both parties and from every region of the country,
showing that high-speed trains have become a national issue.
   "It was appropriate that the effort was made in conjunction with
the energy bill.  After all, electrically powered high-speed trains
are the most efficient form of intercity transport ever designed.  If
we're serious about reducing oil imports, we must build high-speed
train systems.
   "We will work to ensure that the measure is enacted into law as it
moves into the conference committee and is considered by the White
House.
   "Specifically, the provision would remove the requirement that an
allocation under state volume caps must be obtained for 25 percent of
bonds issued for high-speed rail systems.
   "Congress has already recognized the importance of tax-exempt
bonding authority for the development of airports, seaports and
high-speed train systems.  However, the restriction applies only to
high-speed train systems.  Since many states are already operating
near their volume caps, the 25 percent allocation requirement has
served as a barrier to the use of tax-exempt bonds to build such
systems."
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Congress and the balaced budget scam
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:28:31 GMT

From article <Brwo8M.MFz@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
> 

> 
>    More ca-ca.   It's apples and oranges.   A vote for a balanced budget
>    amendment is a vote for something abstract.   A vote for a cutting a 
>    spending program is a vote for something quite real and concrete.  
>    Only a moron would think these are comparable.  
> 
> 
> ---peter

True, but this seems to imply that 280 Congressman are actually for a 
balanced budget amendmant and just couldn't bring themselves to vote for 
specific cuts.

How it actually worked is the various congressmen got together and
said 'you are in a tough re-election race, so you vote for the balanced
budget amendment, I have a shoo-in election so I'll vote against'.  The
whole thing was basically a political game--the one thing congress is good
at.

SEH
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett)
Subject: Presidential Line-Item Veto Power
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:41:30 GMT

   The July 27 issue of U.S. News, in an article on Bush's political campaign
strategies, mentioned that insiders in the GOP are prodding Bush to consider
"imposing large-scale budget cuts unilaterally through a line-item veto, 
provoking a constitutional fight with Congress."  Does anyone know anything 
more about this?  I have heard talk before that the President might actually
have line-item veto power already, that it had just never been tested, and
that if a President were to try to use this power it might actually be upheld
by the Supreme Court.  IMO, line-item veto power for the President would be
the best development since the origination of the Constitution itself.

   If there is any possibility at all that the President might have this power,
I would like Bush to test it.  A lot of bills go through Congress that are
good overall, but have tiny rider amendments that make the bills unsignable.
Similar tactics by Democrats include passing legislation that includes most, 
but not all, of the wishes of the President along with points (such as major
tax increases) that make such bills similarly unsignable.   A lot of the waste
in our government is from pork that originates in this manner.

   IMO, the perfect way to test this would be for President Bush to wait until
a backlog a legislation accumulates on his desk that includes a lot of pork-
barrel rider amendments and similar attachments, and line-item veto the whole
misbegotten mess, removing the waste and passing on the parts that are 
beneficial for the nation as a whole.  In this time when the public just
totally fed up with the government as a whole and Congress in particular, a
stunt like this -- deliberately provoking Congress into a constitutional
fight and exposing the whole bunch for the rotten, self-thinking, pork-passing
people that they really are, would set up George Bush for a real landslide 
in November.

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
-----------------------------------------------------
"If you like Congress, you'll **LOVE** Bill Clinton."
                                --new campaign slogan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35269 alt.politics.clinton:281
From: sdbst5+@pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Summary: an error, I think
Keywords: Japan, economic recession, salvos
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:53:13 GMT
Followup-To: whatever
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul20.205634.7994@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.155428.8208@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>|> consider yourself corrected. The recession in the middle 70's and the
>|> one in the early 80's where each far worse. This one is actually pretty
>|> mild, it just seems worse compared to the previous decade of growth.
>
>Well said.  Furthermore, the people who insist that this recession 
>represents a fundamental change can't back up their claim either.
>Yes, it plays well to say that the jobs have been shifted permanently
>overseas.  However, that statement would imply that Germany and Japan
>should have booming economies while ours is limping.  This is not the
>case.  There is a world-wide recession.  Japan's is quite deep.


Not true (about the deep recession in Japan).  Japan's economy has slowed, 
but it is now growing at a moderate (last time I looked) pace.  Also, there
are more jobs than there are people to fill them, and companies are falling all over themselves to attract potential employees.  The most noticable difference about Japan is that its inhabitants are a little less capricious than they 
were during the years of the bubble economy.  A recseeion like that should only happen to us.

Steven Brener:
Nothing fancy here yet because I don't know how the hell to use this machine.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: First 20 Spy reasons not to vote for Bush
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:33:42 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Jul30.141043.13124@cc.gatech.edu>, barrett@cc.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
> 1.  He cheats on his wife.

	When?  Evidence?

> 2.  The JFK Thing.

	What JFK thing?

> 3.  The Lying-About-JFK Thing.

	What JFK thing is there to lie about?  Denial of a non-event is not
lying.

> 4.  The War-Hero Thing.

	He is.

> 5.  Harry Bluckmun is 84 years old.

        Happy Birthday.

> 6.  If we vote him out, that's one new job created.

	But then he'll be in Maine at least half the year!

> 7.  His doctor says he should get some rest.

	Naps.

> 8.  Asked why he wanted a second term, he said, "I think the people want change."

	He's talking about his personality.

> 9.  In March 1992 he said, "Change is nothing to fear."

	We have nothing to change but fear itself.

> 10. In April he said, "The need for reform won't wait."

	Waiting is.

> 11. And "We must rekindle a revolution."

	Endeavour to persevere.

> 12. In seven public appearances in April, he referred to "change" or "reform" 
>188
> times.

	Just twelve shy of 200.

> 13.  The GNP increased an average of only 0.6 percent per year during the first
> three years of his presidency.

	One yearns for the Reagan years.

> 14. Even if the economy does nine times better this year, he will still have the
> worst record of any president since World War II.

	Why stop there?  Oh yeah, FDR.

> 15. In January 1992 he said, "I will do what I have to to be reelected."

	I wouldn't want a prez who did less.

> 16. A campaign official said, "We'll stoop to whatever is necessary to win."

	Mind if I push in your stoop?

> 17. When schoolchildren chanted, "Read my lips: no new taxes," he whined about
> "attack-dog politics."

	Voodoo politics.

> 18. He told newspaper editors that the 1992 presidential campaign was the
> "ugliest" he'd ever seen.

	He kept his eyes closed during the previous ones.

> 20. He said he'd "instructed his people to stay out of the sleaze business."

	More profit in the rumour and petty bickering markets.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35396 alt.individualism:4449 alt.activism:13299