From: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:12:28 GMT
Reply-To: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: polant@cuttlefish.cps.msu.edu

In article <1992Dec10.021802.13612@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <nate.906@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) writes:
>>>Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>>ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) says:
>>>>>It is the far left that have gained untold power in this country in
>>>>>the last 30 years.
>
>>>>Izzat so? Maybe you should break that news to the American people who were
>>>>so far to the wacky, loony left that they elected Republicans to the Presidency
>>>>for nearly all of those 30 years.
>
>	Let's see from 1960 to 1992:
>
>1960-64 JFK/LBJ
>1964-68 LBJ
>1968-76 Nixon/Ford
>1976-80 Jimmy Carter
>1980-88 Ronald Reagan
>1988-92 George Bush
>
>	If you think that JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter are all "loony
>left-wingers", then I've got the deed to the Golden Gate Bridge to
>sell to you. But I've seen even Nixon called a "liberal", so I guess
>the majority of those Presidents are flaming left-wingers.
>
>	It's 12 years Democrat and 20 years Republican; or if one
>counts Nixon/Ford and the Democrats together as "liberals", it's 20
>years "liberal" and 12 years "real" Republican, and if one counts in
>Bush as a "liberal", then it's 24 years "liberal" and 8 years
>non-"liberal".
>
>	Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis lost because they were all
>feckless wimps. They should have done some serious negative
>campaigning, enough for the Republicans to whine about how evil
>negative campaigning is.
>
>	I'm really disappointed at the low caliber of political debate
>in America. Here's what I'd like to see considered:
>
>	Alternative sentencing (not criminal coddling, but
>alternatives to imprisonment) on a larger scale. This would include
>restitution to crime victims on a regular basis; I find its lack
>annoying, and restoring it would probably do more to create confidence
>in the criminal justice system than mass executions.
>
>	Public execution. Those who crave the death penalty should get
>a chance to see Justice Being Done. Television should make it easy to
>get a worldwide audience.
>
>	Treatment on demand for drug addicts. Good alternative to
>imprisonment, and almost certainly less costly.
>
>	The development of chemical antidotes. Willpower is
>insufficient for kicking many drug habits; chemical antidotes would
>make the job a _lot_ easier.
>
>	"Safe" drugs? I think that the possibility of creating "safe"
>highs should be seriously explored, and not dismissed as impossible or
>immoral.
>
>	Promotion of condoms, non-procreative, and non-contact sex,
>including masturbation. I think that people have a right to sexual
>satisfaction, and the means to get it safely. Condom ads should be
>allowed, if not actually encouraged.
>
>	Equalization of subsidies for public-transit with respect to
>roads and intercity trains with respect to air travel. Though cars and
>trucks are relatively convenient in some ways, they are _very_ awkward
>and inefficient in others, and the free ride they get from the
>taxpayers ought to end. Abundant rail transit can make cars
>unnecessary for much of urban travel, unclogging many city roads.
>High-speed trains can hold their own against car and airline
>competition, as is evident in France, Japan, German, Britain, and even
>between New York City and Washington, DC. Their safety is higher, and
>their ride a lot more pleasant.
>
>	Changing zoning laws so that more people can live in big
>suburban houses. This might do wonders in making housing more
>affordable.
>
>	Many of these initiatives do not require significantly more
>government; in some cases, such as allowing condom ads, government can
>be _reduced_. For "safe" drugs, companies can sponsor the development
>of recreational drugs with a minimum of side effects, with the only
>public-sector involvement being the setting of performance standards
>(a minimum of bad trips, say).
>
>	The reason that "liberals" seem to prefer the public sector is
>because the private sector seems too often uncreative, greedy, and
>selfish, concerned mainly with increasing the wealth of its top
>levels, often at the expense of the wealth and health of workers down
>below. I know that there are exceptions, but what's the general rule?
>I have no opposition to private-sector initiatives, and I would like
>to see _more_ of them, if only to kick many government bureaucracies
>in their rear ends. Those who decry taxes and regulation don't seem to
>have any real vision of a world without what they dislike (just more
>of the same, but without those troublemakers), with the possible
>exception of the Libertarian Party.
>-- 
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/lip@s1.gov

I must admit I am stunned, a truly intelligent post.  While I don't
agree with evrything you say, I feel like some attempt has been made to
think with some imagianation and creativity.  I have left the post
while, in the hope that my repost will circulate it longer.  
Brad Polant
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy