HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:04:54 GMT
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:

>In article <1992Aug19.224946.12105@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In any case, while Bush was talking about family values, where is his
>>support for children?  Why is our infant mortality rate one of the
>>highest in the industrial world?
>
>Because certain US subpopulations have third-world infant mortality
>rates and one can pick countries that don't have those subpopulations.
>(The US isn't a nice uniform "industrial" country.  It is a unique
>geographic collection of first, second, and third world communities.)
>We know that pre-natal care is the difference between 3rd and 1st
>world infant mortality rates.

Excuse me Andy, but I was wondering if you could help me out with a
small question on terminology. What, in your definition, is a 
"subpopulation" and what defines a person as belonging to such an
entity?

You see, I always thought "third world" referred to what are also
sometimes called the less-developed countries, those without a
_modern_industrial_base_. The U.S. does still seem to have a modern 
industrial base, although it is in trouble in many parts. If you
are talking about rural areas, it doesn't really speak to the question
of some of the highest infant mortality rates being in inner cities
such as Washington, D.C. Maybe you can explain to me why, if the
industrial development characteristic of "first world" nations is
present in the U.S., there exist what you call "subpopulations" who
do not benefit from it

Also, I was under the misconception that the phrase "second world"
referred to nations living under the communist system. Maybe you
could give me some examples of communities in the U.S. that live
under that system.

I would really appreciate it.

>
>Interestingly enough, some of those communities have FREE pre-natal
>care available; the rates continue to be high because it isn't used.

Some examples would enhance your argument.

>Should Bush be send in troops to make sure that it is?  No?  Then what
>should he do to reduce infant mortality in those communities?  The
>relevant care is FREE; should he bribe them to show up, penalize them
>if they don't, both?
>
>>Why do so many children live in poverty?
>
>Because single-parent families are poor.  Did Bush chase away the
>other parent?  (Govt does go after parents that don't pay child
>support.)
>
Did Bush do anything to foster an economy where the "other parents" 
can find stable employment at a reasonable living wage?
-- 

              "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho"

                              -- New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PAYCHECK DAMMIT!!!
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:37:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <48a-WQB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <Aug.11.11.10.51.1992.15884@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>|> Since the SS Trust Fund is being used as a mechanism to trasfer funds
>|> from FICA to cover general expenses by borrowing money from future
>|> income taxes (which will then be used to repay the SS system), FICA is
>|> very much a part of the income tax system.
>
> ... FICA taxes are too high but you don't correct that
>situation by raising income tax rates.  You fix FICA.

Yes, you fix FICA. But since its surplus is used as general revenues
where there is a deficit. The reasonable way (ie. without increasing
deficit) to fix it is to increase other revenues to make up the
difference given by the FICA surplus.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dave_barry
From: darrin@arrakis.engin.umich.edu (Darrin P Cardani)
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 10:34:26 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: na
Originator: darrin@arrakis.engin.umich.edu


Hate to break it to you, but Dave Barry has said in interviews that he's an
anarchist. He's said that he would rather just do away with government. I
don't know how serious he is, considering he's running for president :-)

						Darrin Cardani
darrin@engin.umich.edu
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Who toppled Communism??
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:30:23 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center


I'm so sick, nearly violently so, of hearing of how the Reagan and
Bush won the cold war.  This is an awful lie that is nothing but a
huge slap in the face to the real heroes of the revolution.  Lech
Walesa and Gorbachev are a couple of names that come to mind right
off.  Then there were many others who held high ideals of a better
life for them and their fellow countrymen/women, and were put in
prison and killed for it.  We'll never know who a lot of them were,
but I'm sure none of them were named 'Reagan' or 'Bush'.

Marty L. Dart
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Republican Party Seized by Religious Right
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:01:26 GMT

bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:


>When did the rabid religious right wing _become_ the Republican Party?
>The folks at the convention are so bizarre that even Barry Goldwater
>can't stomach them.

>Don't forget to take your Dramamine before listening to Mrs. Dan Quayle
>and Mrs. George Bush warm up the crowd for Pat Robertson tomorrow.

The Republican convention has been rather extreme: either extremely offensive
(like when Buchanan spoke) or extremely boring (like during the parade of 
middle aged white guys on the podium).

Does anyone else get the feeling that Buchanan is really a very sexually
repressed individual?  



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Defending Reaganomics?
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:35:43 GMT

Hello.  I've read opinions from various Republicans at the convention in
the newspaper and something that keeps coming up is Bush's supposed
abandonment of Reagan's economic platform.  These Republicans believe
that if Bush had stayed with Reagan's plan, we wouldn't be in the economic
situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
   insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.
2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a 
monumental deficit in the 90's.

Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?

dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PAYCHECK DAMMIT!!!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:26:37 GMT

In article <l8iothINNots@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Andy Freeman writes:
>> I've eliminated the easy choices because including them can't result
>> in an interesting discussion.  (Am I wrong to assume that Demos prefer
>> increasing the gap and the wealth of the poor to increasing the gap
>> and decreasing the wealth of the poor?)  I'm also eliminating them
>> because it isn't obvious that we always have a "no lose" option,
>> however nice that would be.
> 
>Apparently interesting discussion is now more important than communication.
>The last time I checked the Democratic platform, they believe that the 
>rich will get rich more slowly and the poor will get out of poverty faster.

Beliefs are nice, but the results don't always agree with the intentions.

I'm asking about values and priorities.  While we'd all like to have
it all, when I heard all this talk about making hard choices, I
thought that Democrats meant it, so I decided to ask what they'd do
when faced with a choice involving two of their stated goals.

The message I'm getting from the responses will be useful to replay in
other discussions.  Now that's communication!

>Your choices are interesting but have nothing to do with reality.

Really?  Democrat goals never conflict?  What a deal!  But, why the
talk about making hard choices if you really can have it all?

It's convenient to have goals that can't conflict, but it sure limits
the goal set.  Are you sure that Democrat goals satisfy that
constraint?

I am learning that Democrats are a lot like the image of Repubs that
they like to project.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: the "l" word and Republicans
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:48:09 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <ceYFZ9600h5yEtNpwR@andrew.cmu.edu> conradp+@CMU.EDU (Conrad Poelman) writes:
> [info on libertarianism creeping into Rep party removed]
>
>So the question is, what is the best way to accomplish this?  Should
>libertarian-leaning Republicans jump ship to the Libertarian party, in
>an effort to increase it's size and influence to a point where it can no
>longer be ignored by the public, by the media, and by the two major
>parties, so that libertarian ideas will be discussed?  Or should they
>(ok, we) try to work within the Republican party to change it?
>

Personally, I have given up on the Republican party.  I am not 
alone, I'm sure.  There are plenty of us not in any way loyal to
the Demopublicans; regrettably most of them seem to waste their 
vote on the lesser of two evils rather than voting their 
conscience, if they vote at all.

For this reason, I suggest that anyone who has not yet become 
completely disgusted with the Republican Party remain on the
"inside" to attempt to effect a transformation.  I wish you the
best of luck; breaking the stranglehold of those who would
dictate our morality will be an arduous task.

Those voters seeking change MUST focus their efforts on the
Congress.  They hold the real power; think how many of them
are effectively "representative for life".  A President can only
hurt us directly for eight years; Representatives can do so
indefinitely.  I am not about to start raving about 
"getting the Democrats out of Congress" as the Republican 
members are equally irresponsible as far as I can tell.

I humbly suggest that everyone vote against their incumbants,
regardless of party affiliation.  The only hope of changing
the government, before they reduce us all to abject poverty,
is to VOTE at least 90% of THEM OUT of office!

Dave
  "It's all opinions, of course, and they're all mine..."

P.S.  Can anyone provide the readership with the following
      statistic (preferrably as far back as possible :^))?

      Of all Congresspersons who sought re-election, how
      many lost (gee, I suppose as a percentage would be best)?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: I want to see the 1992 Platforms
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:09:46 GMT

In article <2297@unet.UUCP> heidi@wolf.net.com (Heidi Wolf) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.200424.25063@genie.slhs.udel.edu> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>(tom) writes:
>
>
>	     GOP Swings Rightward In Adopting Platform
>
>
>And it calls for building a fence along the Mexican border to keep out
>undocumented immigrants, a proposal that many Mexican and U.S. Hispanics

What sort of fence could possibly seal the US/Mexican border?  Maybe they
should use something similar on prisons so they wouldn't need any guards.
I wonder how much they would like to spend on this sort of farce.  Are they
really suggesting this? 

>
>During the four days of drafting, a few conservative proposals -- such as
>a plank opposing favorable trade status for China -- were rejected on the
>ground that they ran counter to Bush's policies.  But the defeats for the

And yet Bush has the audacity to claim to be a champion for democracy.

>
>In the area of education, for example, the platform opposes birth-control
>counseling or the distribution of condoms in schools, and it advocates

They really know how to cut down on unwanted pregnancies (and hence abortions).

Peter Lauren.
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Candidate stands on term limitations
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:15:02 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:

>I'd like to know where Bush and Clinton stand on term limitations.  If you
>know would you please post to the group.  Thanks.


	I know Clinton is opposed to them, and I believe Bush is too, but
somebody else had better answer for that one.
	I was for term limitations earlier in the year, but am now opposed.
Here's the best reason I've heard against term limitations (from Atlantic
magazine BTW):

	Washington is largely populated by an unelected set of permanent
bureaucrats in the IRS, FBI, CIA, congressional and administrative staffs,
Pentagon etc. and permanent lobbyists with long DC experience.  It takes
time for a freshman senator or rep. to learn the ropes--and until they do
they must rely  heavily on staff and "permanent bureaucrats" for advice
and guidance.  With term limits, the power of these unelected officials
and lobbyists and generals, would only increase relative to the
inexperienced elected representitives.  Something like this already goes
on in the French system with its heavy reliance on a permanent civil
service, and it contains even more room for abuse than the present one.

	-JG
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Who toppled communism II?
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:48:34 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

I'll just send out a general form letter here, I don't have time
to respond to all of the mail I got from individuals.  Besides,
most of the views I got had the same GOP-platform theme in them.

It is embarrassing as an American to have George Bush out in the
middle of prime time television telling America, and the whole
world, how we won the cold war.  I can understand the importance
of the military build-up and the deterence it achieved, I supported
Reagan for it.  I can understand the importance of Americas role
in world politics, thats why I voted for Bush 4 years ago.  But he is
way out of line to put himself on that pedestal, all it does for the
US anywhere is propagate the view of the 'Ugly American'.  I think
Bushs' understanding of foreign policy and our  relationships abroad
only serves to make it less forgiveable.

Several arguments stated that it was the 'threat' of military action
with the US that caused the USSR to crumble and wither.  This is a
childish oversimplification.  It's nothing more than a parroting of the
GOPs stance which I can only interpret as a hyper-soundbite.  It doesn't
seem to have deterred Castro much, Haiti is once again a bastion for
power hungry human rights violating military dictators,  Columbian drug
lords continue to operate freely, well at least we beat Saddam...didn't we??
We should never forget the lesson of Vietnam, when it was the will of
the people of a small nation that stomped our technologically superior butts.
And lets not forget the military superiority we have over China, and
how much impact that had on the fate of a few thousand students.

What do we as Americans get credit for?  I think we can say we helped
stop it, Communism, from expanding.  To say we did any more than that
is to embarrass ourselves across the world, and to belittle the efforts
of so many nameless brave souls who stood on their own two feet and fought
in whatever way they could to forward their cause.

Marty L. Dart.
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: Racal InterLan, Inc., Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 14:04:31 GMT



In article <1992Aug11.214304.12559@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.163946.14614@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>The positive vision is hope, opportunity, and greater choice and freedom
>>in our lives, and a reduction in the central power of Government.
>	Does that include law enforcement and the military?
>	Shall it all be done by vigilantes?
   The only vigilantes present in L.A. were the rioters taking `justice' into
their own hands when they felt the court system had let them down.  The rioters
sought out people to punish after the crime was commited.  Personally I don't
see what Korean-American merchants had to do with four L.A. cops beating up on
Rodney King.
  Once the riots started, police were ordered out of the area.  Citizens left
without police protection had to fend for themselves.  These people were NOT
vigilantes.  They were citizens defending themselves from a crime in progress.

>
>	And before you flay me on being a hypocrite on gun control, I
>do not believe in banning guns. Just in having a nationwide system of
>gun permits and essentially instant checks on the validity of one when
>one purchases guns or ammo. The system would be computerized and
>denials of permits would be open to challenge (to help take care of
>bureaucratic snafus). The system would be very much like driver's
>licenses, which no one calls a threat to freedom. Or is it? :-)
   You have just discribed the the Staggers Bill.  The Staggers Bill was
shot down by a democratically controlled congress.


-- 
Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom   Boxborough, MA  These opinions are mine.
"Banning guns makes for great theater but it does nothing to address the 
real problem of criminals and criminal behavior,"
                            -- New Jersey State Assemblyman Frank LoBiondo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: poll bias (was: LATimes Poll)
Organization: The Lab Rats
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:28:46 GMT

In article <16nepbINNih1@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

and filling in the column that they (or maybe you) neglected to
mention...

}Latest _Los Angeles Times_ national poll reported by CNN, 16 August 1992:

}                       Bush   Clinton   Somebody Else
} Choice for Prez:       33%     56%       11%
} Better on Taxes:       34%     36%       30%
} Better on Health Care: 16%     62%       22%      !!!

}(Margin of error supposedley +-3%)

yeah right. these polls are about as useful as the ones that find that
75% of the population favor keeping abortion legal, and 70% of the
population favor banning it.

in 44 states so far there are at least 3 names listed on the ballot
under the heading President. in 24 states (so far) there are are 5 or
more candidates on the ballot for president. 

did this poll include Andre Marrou, Lenora Fulani, Ross Perot, or John
Hagelin in the choice for president question? or was it worded sometheng
like, "Who would you choose to be President? George Bush or Bill Clinton"?

i've been called for polls 5 times this year, and 4 of them didn't even
have "other" as en explicitly stated option, let alone the names of 3 of
the 5 (now 6) candidates that will appear on my ballot in November. with
this kind of built in bias it is no wonder that only 11% don't pick Bush
or Clinton.

in just about every state where it isn't illegal, about a quarter of the
registered voters list their party affiliation as something other than
Democrat or Republican.

if the polling agencies didn't consistently ignore this 20-30% of the
population elections in this country would be a lot more interesting,
and probably get much better voter turnout too.
-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: re: liberal v. conser
Date: 18 Aug 92  18:45:00 EST

-> 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.

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.

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

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

======================================================================

"Vote Republican, it's easier than thinking!"
       --Abbie Hoffman

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Naturalized Republicans
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:10:02 GMT

In article <2A9467DD.16416@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>Elizabeth G. Levy writes
>> Moynihan, a Cold War Liberal, became a neo-conservative, and saw
>> the light again when he switched back to the Dems.
>
>You mean to say that Moynihan ever was a Republican ?
>
>	Carl Edman


--
But this is.