HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Blaming congress for all his woes... (was: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 04:36:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <DisZPB4w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>The main problem here is that Rubbers doesn't want to offend his
>tennis buddies in the Senate.  He's spent just about all of his
>political life prior to becoming President schmoozing with senators,
>and now he finds it difficult to cross them.  That's a total lack of
>leadership and moral courage.

Bingo.  Which is likely to move me to write in Dave Barry this year.

In some of my more cynical moments, I figure that since Ol' Lipless
will protest and protest and then sign whatever Congress passes his
way, then if we're going to be destroyed by idiotic Democrat policies,
we might as well have a Democrat in the White House to take the rap.
May as well be stabbed in the front as the back.

Besides, the Demos have run against Hoover since 1929.  If it comes to
that, I'd rather have the Republicans running against Clinton for the
next 90 years than the Demos running against Bush.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western)
Subject: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Keywords: yes
Organization: Ramona Engineering
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 21:26:59 GMT

Los Angeles (UPI) - This morning, in a speech to Southern California
aircraft workers, President George Bush announced the sale of 50
ultra-tech F-15E fighter planes to Iraq. The fleet will replace Iraq's
air force which was stolen by Iran during the Gulf War. Each plane
will be delivered with a complimentary, specially-tooled version of
The Club anti-theft device. "I want to be the Jobs President," said Bush
to the cheering throng.

        - Jim Western
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Remember, if you have an agreement with someone and you think they owe
   you money, don't take the law into your own hands. Carve their fucking
                              organs out."
                                              - The Bizarro Doug Lewellyn
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: re: liberal v. conser
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:08:31 GMT

In article <714994897.0@iphase.FidoNet.Org> Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender) writes:
>-> Now don't be silly. The Republicans are the only major party who have
>-> a workable, fundamental solution to the dismal state of education.
>-> The Democrats - ever eager to please the teachers unions - are quite
>-> happy to defend the status quo indefinitely.
>
>Perhaps you would like to enumerate "The Education President"'s "vision" for American education.  One would only hope that it's better than his "vision" for American business and the economy! :->
>
>Seriously, a system of vouchers is yet another ploy to appease Pat "Ayatollah" Robertson and his band of crazies.  It plays heavily toward sectarian schools that have been dominated by fundamentalists and charismatics.
>
This statement suggests that you know very little or have thought very
little about the idea behind educational vouchers.  Perhaps you should 
read some Friedman or perhaps "Politics, Markets, and America's Schools"
by Chubb & Moe.  Beyond this, you should realize that the private school
sector contains relatively few schools of the type you describe.  They are
predominantly Catholic.  At the same time, their are many non-sectarian private
schools, and their could be many more if parents had the dollar power in their
own hands.

>And isn't it altogether possible that vouchers would be contrary to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?  After all, wouldn't the government be funding religious instruction?  I remember a case from the forties or fifties (can't remember the name of the case) in which the Supreme Court decided that it was o.k. to provide transportation to private schools since the money didn't directly go to religious instruction, and it served a higher, secular purpose (education).  The voucher program allows



 
>the government to fund (through the backdoor) religious instruction.
>
Well, the highest purpose of a voucher plan would _be_ education, and giving
the poor some of the same opportunities as the wealthy.  Anyway--why is it
not a violation of the establishment clause to provide poor people with
general assistance money with which they may go to a privately run store
to buy necessities of life?  Some of these people may purchase bibles or
other religious material with that money, or may even donate some of it
on a church collection plate.  What's the difference between this and
vouchers?

>The emphasis ought to be on improving public education and preserving the First Amendment, rather than supporting the Religious Right.
>


The "religious right" are not the fanatics _I'm_ worried about!


>
>
>"Vote Republican, it's easier than thinking!"
>       --Abbie Hoffman
>
>
"Commit Suicide, it's easier than admiting to total life failure!"
	--Abbie Hoffman


-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
From: guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:19:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T

>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>>
>>  I was just responding to an apparently popular view that we should stop
>>investigating possible links between the Iran Hostage crisis and subsequent
>>U.S. arms shipments to Iran.  The only points I brought up were:
>>
>>        1.  The first arms shipment to Iran was made six weeks after Reagan
>>            took office.
>>
>>        2.  Reagan won the 1980 election, in part, because of the public's
>>            perception that he would be more militant in his dealings with
>>            Iran.

One major problem that needs to be explained is why the hurry?
Even if you believe everything rationalizing Reagan's actions, why
were shipments made so quickly after taking office.

    1) The hostages were already released.
    2) Reagan had just taken office and was/should have been busy
       getting his administration organized.
    3) Getting the arms shipped in a clandestine way required a
       a significant amount of planning and effort.

    So why was Reagan in such a big hurry to ship arms for supposedly
    longer term goals of improving relations with "moderates"?
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush Exposed For Lying About Lying--CNN
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:18:07 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

> 
>   Bill Clinton feels that the government
> (himself and the liberal congress) can spend your money better than you can. 
> This is categorically false. 


It is also categorically false to claim that only Clinton and the 'liberal
congress' will spend our money.  Reagen and Bush did not submit budgets
appreciably different from those of the congresses.  Moreover, Republicans
never seem to count military spending as part of government spending.  Besides
the huge DOD budget, the military gets money from things like 60% of Energyu
spending being for the military, etc.


 The government is not able to spend one penny of
> your money more efficiently than you can.


Buying in quantity is more efficient.  I'm not saying that the government does
it the way they should, but we could have far more viable HDTV, photovoltaics,
etc if the gov would buy them in massive amounts. 



  50% of everything we buy is taxes in
> one form or another.  Think what we could do with our money if we could buy a
> new car for 5000$, a new house for 25000$.  


Think of how safe we would all be if we were also paying for the police out of
our own pockets, buying gas masks to be able to breathe air, etc.  What, we'll
have 0% taxes w/o Clinton?

The list goes on and on.  Government
> regulation and taxes are an affront to our freedom.  Taxes and regulation
> permeate every facet of business and health care.

I agree.  However, anarchy is also an affront to the freedom of anyone w/o
tremendous power.

> Everything bad that the Republicans have said about Bill Clinton is true.  

I hope that that is a purely rhetorical statement.  An absolute claim like that
bespeaks possible paranoia.  "Everything"???  Not even everything bad said
about Hitler was true!



> will raise taxes, and further destroy the economy of the US.  He will support
> increased regulation and government involvement.  Unfortunately, George Bush has
> not demonstrated that he is much better.
>
Actually, considering that Reagen cut federal aid to the states so drastically,
it is amazing that Clinton kept the taxes low enough in his state as to be 49th
in taxes per capita.

 
> I will probably vote for Bush in the end because the concept of a Bill Clinton
> presidency is so frightening that I will accept almost anything else.  However,
> I will not enjoy my decision.


I will probably do the opposite, although I don't view Clinton as a savior. 
But good grief!  You seem to be rational in your thinking process, you just
have poor info (read, propaganda) as much of the basis of your decisions.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11922 talk.politics.misc:42770 alt.politics.clinton:3448
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 10:41:46 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:

> Oh my God!  Ya, we're responsible for winning the cold war and
> the downfall of the Soviet Union...uh, and Cuba, Haiti, Veitnam, Lybia,
> Iraq and China are holding up because we're, uh, not reeealy trying as hard.
> Eyah, that's the ticket, not trying as hard in those places..eyah.
>
> Sorry to deflate your misplaced patriotic ego pal, but thats one
> pat on the back that we don't deserve.  To say that we do is a
> gross oversimplification of some very complex events that took
> place, most of them without our help, and the efforts and courage
> of many nameless individuals, who also fought without our help
> to change things from within their country(s).
>
> To say that economic pressures *WE* brought to bear on the Soviets
> are what forced change is nonsense.  If the leaders of the XUSSR
> would have wanted to they could have maintained their grip on the
> people the same way the Chinese, Lybian, or Iraqies-(sp?) do.  To
> think that they couldn't is contradictory to whats happening in
> the world today.
>
> Marty Dart.
> My opinions are mine and mine alone.

Meg Greenfield's column in Newsweek this week says it all.  The whole strategy
of Rubbers Bush taking credit for the collapse of communism because it happened
on his watch is as hollow and cynical as his visit to the flag factory in '88.




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
From: selliott@cup.portal.com (J Steve Elliott)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Cultural Elite?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 06:24:23 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>So who are the 'Cultural Elite' Bush & Quayle are so fond of
>warning us about anyway?  I *hear* about them all the time,
>yet I know so little about them.  I *hear* Vice President
>McCarthy...er, uh, I mean Quayle, saying that "I know who they
>are, and they know who they are, and the American people know
>who they are.", but somehow I never catch the part where he
>actually says *who* they are!  Has anyone ever caught this
>or am I the only  American who doesn't know "who they are"?

I heard this now famous quote during the interview. At the time I remember
the interviewer asking Quayle "who are the cultural elite?" repeatedly, 
pressing him for an answer. Each time Quayle became more evasive, finally
answering with the above quote. So to answer your question, I don't think
Dan Quayle knows who the cultural elite are, because he never defined them.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Anasazi Inc
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 02:07:47 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug19.225642.12296@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
]John Moore = john@anasazi.com
]Mike Best = best@anasazi.com
]
]John, Mike (if you are separate people :-), what's this company about?

We are indeed separate people.... not even related. Anasazi is a software
and service company in the hotel and financial industries. The name
comes from the Navajo name for those who made the ruins in the four
corners area, and means "The Ancient Ones."

Not all Anasaziites are conservatives, but we have our fair share. We
also have various other flavours of political opinion.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12284 alt.pagan:8710
From: donal@brewich.hou.tx.us (Donal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Wicca (was Re: Pat Robertson)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 16:31:25 CDT
Organization: The Brewer's Witch BBS, +1 713 272 7350, Brewich.Hou.TX.US

(Michael Snider) writes:

> Wicca is a name used by any of several neo-pagan groups.  Some claim to
> be descended from the pre-Christian folk-religions of Europe.  Most worship
> a Goddess and her male consort in a kind of nature religion.  Some wiccans 
> call themselves witches.  A reasonably good book to start with (I think)
> is _Drawing Down the Moon_, the author of which I can't remember.  You can
> get lots of information, company, and entertainment at alt.pagan.

Margot Adler, of course! (jus' tryin' to be helpful!)

> Critics quarrel with other critics. With an artist, no sane man quarrels.  
> 
>                                                    George Santayana        

I like this one... mind if I keep it?   :)

--------------------
Donal, Sysop of The Brewer's Witch BBS -- +1 713 272 7350
(Internet) donal@brewich.hou.tx.us  (Work) bill%pssi@lobster.hou.tx.us
(CIS) 76460,1443 
(SCA) Ld. Donal Dubh, IC of Dun Bruddair, B of the Stargate, K of Ansteorra
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12308 misc.education:3278
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: NASA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:13:42 GMT

James Davies writes
> In article <1992Aug30.180554.17290@uunet!tellab5!odgate>  
mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
> 
> >(And before anyone comes back on Clinton's draft record, at least he has a
> >reason: he opposed the war.
> 
> Would you care to elaborate on this?  If he was opposed to the war, then
> why did he join ROTC?

  Simple... Clinton stated that he did this to avoid having to go to Vietnam!   
He later reconsidered and decided to put his name back in the pot for the  
draft.  That's a more noble approach than I would have taken as one who  
objected to the war.

  I really think the Republican's attack on this issue is going to backfire for  
them; Clinton was not exactly the only anti-war draft dodger around at the  
time.  At least his actions were somewhat consistent with his stated beliefs.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:05:46 GMT

In article <Bu0G1u.F3@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) once wrote: 
>> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
>>> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) once wrote: 
>> A famous court case called Marbury vs Madison established the
>> precedent of judicial review. That's where.
>
>Judicial review permits the Court to strike acts of a legislature.
...stuff deleted...
>Why should nine men have the power to rewrite our
>constitution at every sitting?

Well done Larry.  Couldn't agree with you more.  The Court is only supposed
to have authority over original jurisdiction cases as defined by the 
constitution.  It is the court themselves that has grabbed the excess power
that it now has, and no one has decided to stop them from doing it.

An interesting little tid-bit that I'll bet a lot of people don't know.
The constitution provides only that there shall be a chief justice of the
supreme court, i.e. one person.  The court now has 9 members, but this is
not required.  In the past the court has had both fewer and more members.
It is within the power of the congress, according to the constitution, to
adjust this number as they see fit.  Now if congress was so concerned with
the possibility that an incoming Republican president might pack the court
after Carter left office, it could have expanded the number of members of
the court and then Carter would get to nominate them.  Interesting, eh?

Tim


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11981 talk.politics.misc:42873 ca.politics:7246 alt.politics.correct:5213
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Date: 31 Aug 1992 00:11:27 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

The famous Russian poet Pushkin was the subject of an article in the
Sept. 92 National Geographic. Two items are of interest.

One Pushkin once "carelessly wrote that he was 'taking lessons in
atheism' from an expatriate Englishman. As a result he was confined by
the Tsars order so that he could not propagate his "perverse ideas."

I find this an intersting contrast with those who overthrew the Tsars
not much later.

The other aspect of Pushkin raises a question for the libertarians.
He was a libertine. However he objected to anyone paying too much
attention to his wife. As a result he died of a dueling wound. My
question is would libertarians allow dueling? If not why not?

Richard Foy
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Reagan's quote
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:25:06 GMT

Since so many True Believers think that Regan's attribution of a quote
to Lincoln makes him a candidate for the Inquisition, what about Clinton's
defense of his draft dodging, in which he justified his lack of service
by listing "good leaders" with no service record?
 
He listed, among others, Abraham Lincoln. Well, it's fairly well known by
Lincoln scholars, historians and people who attended high school that Lincoln
was a *captain* in the state militia. I guess that puts Clinton in the
same sleazy category as Reagan, hmm?
 
       --mike
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11824 talk.politics.misc:42530 alt.politics.bush:3288 alt.politics.clinton:3336
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:11:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>jacksonk@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug27.011842.28335@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>>>Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
>>>political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
>>>kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
>>>become lesbians."
>> ...

He says that as if its a bad thing.  :)

But seriously, or as serious as you can get with this kind of nonsense
staring you in the face, I just have a small question.

>Age" is witchcraft, allong with Wicca, etc.  Any 'pagan' rituals would

What is Wicca?



-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Electoral College
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:22:14 GMT

I saw on CSPAN a few weeks ago a session on proposals to reform the
presidential election process.  Basically, they were discussing getting
rid of the electoral college, making each vote equal, and requiring a
run-off between the top two candidates if no candidate receives a simple
majority.

I think it's a great idea.  How far did this get?

Very few in this country understand the electoral process.  I admit, I
don't understand it fully.  Don't some states let winner take all (the
electoral votes) while other states let each candidate take their "fair
share?"  Maybe when that is answered, I'll know it all. :)

Also, having a run-off rather than letting the Senate decide would
encourage people to vote their best choice (read Libertarian) rather
than do the horse-race thing?  For example, let's say the country votes
49% Dem, 48% Rep, and 3% Lib.  In the current system, the vote would go
to the Senate, the majority party (Dem) would win.  Now, in a run-off,
the Libs, having had their say, could then vote the lesser of 2 evils.

Who would Libs vote for in the run-off?  I'd have to go Rep.

Now, disregarding my obvious political bias here, doesn't the proposed
system seem much better.

Anyone know what I was watching on CSPAN and where this thing went
or might go?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections