HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Propaganda
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:55:52 GMT

In article <91693@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:

>
>
>I am wondering people here think about the prominence of the words
>``covenant'' and ``crusade'' in the speeches by Clinton and Gore
>lately. Anyone have an idea how this terminology is intended to
>sway people? Frankly, with peace and stability trying to be worked
>out in the Middle East this sort of vocabulary makes me nervous...
>

My guess has been that it's meant to appeal to religious folks (especially
in the South) who have voted for Republican presidents due in large part
to these voters' perception that Democrats are opposed to traditional
values and morals.  Living here in very conservative East Tennesseee, I've
been struck by how many people say they intend to vote Democratic this time
because this is the first all-Baptist ticket. The quotes from scripture in
Clinton's acceptance speech might have been a calculated attempt to signal
Southern voters that he is on their side.  To be fair, recent articles in
the Washington Post and elsewhere have indicated that Clinton is sincerely
religious, having walked several miles to church each week as a child despite
the fact that his parents weren't churchgoers.

Early this week, I saw Pat Robertson denouncing as "blasphemy" Clinton's use
of the New Covenant phrase.  Robertson said that any party advocating the
murder of unborn children has no business using biblical allusions in its
campaign or platform.  This was on Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network,
though, so he was just preaching to the converted.


<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>
<      Tom Garritano                >
<      University of Tennessee      >
<      pa113718@utkvm1.utk.edu      >
<                                   >
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:07:49 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Voter Influence

Elizabeth gives a fairly clear explanation of her voter influence
measurement technique, in which a town's/state's influence is given by
the number (should it be fraction?) of coalitions in which that group is
"pivotal", i.e. essentially coalitions in which that group's vote can
make the result go either way.

But my original question was really only with her last step:
Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 26-Jul-92 Voter Influence
Elizabeth G. Levy@cunixf (5444)

> Residents of Hawaii, which has less power than California because it is
> less pivotal, may actually have greater individual influence than a CA
> voter.  Their power, though less, isn't split among 31 million residents
> (I don't know how many are registered).
How do you do this "splitting" among 31 million voters?  In your first
post, you implied this was to be done simply by dividing the influence
of the state by the number of voters.  This seems inconsistent with your
previous method - why not do the "coalitions" thing again within the
state, to determine when you as an individual voter are a member of a
pivotal winning coalition?  A voter is a member of a "pivotal winning
coalition" within his/her state only if the election is determined by a
single vote.

So if you compute voter influence within states this way, you are
essentially doing exactly what I proposed - a voter's "influence" is the
probability that his/her single vote will determine the outcome of the
election.  Then you can choose which state to vote in so as to maximize
this probability.  However, given that that probability is virtually
zero no matter what you do, I don't see why this strategy makes much
sense.  In fact, I suspect that there never has been and never will be
an election swayed by a single vote, so why compute a voter's influence
based on the probability of this happenning?

Another problem with any of these measures is that they don't take any
real-world knowledge into accout.  Although they don't explicitly state
it, if you try to interpret the results in terms of "probability" you
are really assuming that each person's vote is essentially random. 
Also, this ignores the fact that 30-50% of the voters in any state vote
along straight party lines, so their votes really aren't in question,
and Washington D.C. and Arkansas will vote for Clinton no matter what.

So any system which only looks at the behavior of a single voter is
meaningless, because a single voter will never effect the outcome of the
election.  Better voting influence measures would look at whole groups
of voters and determine how their votes will influence the outcome of
the election.  Perhaps a better rule of voting would be along rule
utilitarian lines - "Act in the manner which, if followed by everyone,
would result in the best outcome".  I think this translates fairly
directly into "vote for the person you think is best, regardless of what
you think their chances of winning are."

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.154016.8370@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes...
>Bush ought to get the UN to hold a Nuremburg like trial of Saddam for
>war crimes, in absentia if necessary. When he is convicted. Put a 
>$1,000,000,000 reward for his capture dead or alive.
> 
>That would solve Bushes Iraq problem.

Not likely -- the tension between the Arab nations (not just Iraq) and
their feelings towards the US would certainly increase, if not snap.
The Western countries (ourselves and much of Europe) have meddled in
Arab affairs for a long time, and nothing has been done to make amends.
We give the Jewish a homeland in Israel and turn away when they lay claim
to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (and the Sinai). When an Arab nation
(Iraq) lays claim to Kuwait, we attack with great force. While I am not
saying that the idea of Saddam controlling Kuwait is a good thing, I do
believe that it is an example of Western attitudes towards the Arabs, or
at the very least it is seen by some Arabs as such.

We cannot continue to act with arrogance towards the Arab nations, or it
will become much worse. It's bad enough already... 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky)
Subject: the wasted vote theory
Organization: IBM, Austin
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:35:59 GMT

I usually just lurk on the net but I just have to comment on this 
idiotic idea of the "wasted vote" I keep seeing people espousing.
People, there is no such thing as a wasted vote!  You should vote 
your conscience.  Plain and simple.

Look at it this way.  If you are really excited about George Bush
you're going to vote for him.  If you're really excited about Bill
Clinton you're going to vote for him.  Am I right so far?  I mean
in general, if you have somebody that you *really* like you're going 
to vote for him/her.  And I'll bet in such cases you're going to vote 
for that candidate no matter what his/her prospects for winning are.  

Suppose, for example, the economy right now was booming, unemployment
was down, the deficit was being reduced, etc., etc.  In general 
everything was peachy.  Well, I bet Bush would be a pretty popular guy 
and the Dem's chances of electing somebody would be pretty slim.  Now, 
suppose further that you are an ultra-liberal (a stretch for some of you 
out there but bear with me :-) and the Dem's pick an ultra-liberal 
candidate.  You really like the guy but you know he doesn't have a 
snowball's chance in hell of winning.  So would you then vote Republican 
even though it goes against your beliefs to do so, just to be on the 
winning team...just so your vote isn't "wasted"?  I think not.  I should 
hope not anyway.  But this is exactly what you're doing if you are 
dissatified with BOTH candidates and you vote for one of them anyway.
You're voting AGAINST your conscience!

I hate to burst people's bubbles out there but your single vote does
not mean shit.  Its the combined votes of millions of people that not
only determine the course of the country but act as a barometer of its
collective mood, temperament, desires and frustrations.  

In short, if you really like one of the big two then by all means vote 
for him.  If you truly, truly, truly believe one is the lesser of two evils
then vote for that one.  But if you are completely dissatisfied with both 
candidates and think them equally bad then you should express that 
dissatifaction in the voter's booth by voting for a third party - Libs, NAP,
whatever.  Your dissatisfaction is a real and valid feeling that is shared 
by many in the country but it will not be heard unless you act collectively 
and express it with your vote.

later,
--
Bill Chesky | IBM internal: chesky@squirrel
IBM         | ibmpa!chesky%squirrel.austin.ibm.com@ibminet.awdpa.austin.ibm.com
Austin, TX  | ibmpa!squirrel.austin.ibm.com!chesky@ibminet.awdpa.austin.ibm.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Pro Choice stats
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:01:14 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul21.110109.14017@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
]Not when the small minority of outright banners of abortion as in
]Bush can veto an pro-choice bill (whcih problably wouldnt be sustained)
]and appoint another Supreme Court Justice    . . . . . . . .

You already have choice guaranteed by the supreme court. The "pro-choice bill"
was all the way to one side of the issue. This is why it is a nonsense 
issue. The supreme court has shown that even with a conservative majority,
it is not going to prevent women from having abortions, for any reason,
early in their pregnancy. What more do you want?


-- 
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 ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:20:34 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>[would support Bush] just to have the satisfaction of NOT being
>on the same side as the kind of idiots who think George Bush would
>start a war and get people killed merely to shore up his domestic
>popularity.

Is your view that no US administration would do this? Or the CIA wouldn't
do this? Or George Bush would never do this? Or maybe we shouldn't mention
it even if he would do this?

Of course, everything Bill Clinton does is politically calculated to the
Nth degree.

The current snafu is being billed as the most serious toe-to-toe
confrontation with Iraq in 18 months. Why now? It's no accident.

Not to say that the plan might not backfire. It has already given Clinton
a forum to throw some tough words Saddam's way, giving voters a preview
of Bill Clinton, foreign policy heavy.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MrEd@GreenAcres
Subject: Re: Registering to vote at the DMV (WAS: RE: Farewell Perot)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 23:03:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.222508.21704@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David  
Condon) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, werbick@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (WERBICK LAWRENCE JAR) says:
> 
> >
> >[lots of stuff deleted]
> >>Rob mentions that he thinks people/states shouldn't be coerced into  
registration
> 
> The "Motor Voter" bill had explicit provisions that people could refuse
> to register if they so chose. It was not coercive in any way.
> 
> 
Said bill MUST however have been coercive towards the STATES, otherwise said  
bill would be redundant, since the states already have the right to register  
people at DMV's if they choose to enact legislation to that effect. Someone  
mentioned that Colorado already had. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:45:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.004901.20740@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>Let us not forget a few things:
>  [...]
>  -Clinton is against the second amendment - he favors gun confiscation.

This is false.  Although he was booed by gun-rights activists (?!) in
Houston, he stated explicitly that he supported the Second Amendment.
Of course, he also supports the Brady bill, which I don't expect you
to like.

>  -Clinton is allied with the very liberal, tax and spend democrat
>   congress. Carter appeared moderate too, but his administration
>   was largely composed of very liberal people, and had very liberal
>   policy. 

Whole buncha liberals out there, huh?  How about a more cogent
argument?

>  -Clinton's VP is a true radical on environmental issues.
>  -Clinton's wife is a radical feminist.

Now we're into radicals ... has anyone out there ever seen Al Gore
throwing bombs around?

>  -Clinton is now running far to the right of where he was a few months
>   ago. Why should we believe that today's Bill Clinton is the real one?

This whole post seems to be biased by black-and-white thinking.
People are either radicals or liberals, and they change their positions
drastically (not, of course, incrementally).

This polarized name-calling is a waste of time.


-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: The Soviet Collapse...
Organization: None
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:30:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.114121.14357@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>Bush's ads before the NH primary or Mass. primary had a voiceover
>about his leadership -- he led us to victory in the Gulf and to
>vicotry in the Cold War. etc.  If anyone seriuously believes the latter,
>i.e. Bush caused the downfall of the USSR and Iron Curtain countries
>singlehandly all I can say is fiddle -ee - dee.
>

I think the majority of the credit for the downfall of the USSR belongs
to Ronald Reagan. He called them an evil empire, embarked on an Arms race (the
Soviets had largely outgunned us when Reagan took office) and challenged
their client states around the world (Cubans in Grenada and Angola,
Soviets themselves in Afghanistan, etc). He called their bluff and they
folded.

The Soviets were forced to match the arms buildup but their economy
couldn't afford it (the old guns/butter argument) for too long.
Gorby was probably brought in to challenge Reagan and get Reagan to relent
but was not up to the task. Reagan made it clear they would have to stop 
their arms buildup too. The Soviets were also scared by the Strategic
Defense Initiative and knew they couldn't match it. BTW, it was Kennedy
who coined it 'Star Wars'.

Imagine the absolute panic in the Kremlin when Reagan called them an
"Evil Empire", when Reagan went to the Berlin Wall and said "Mr Gorbachev,
tear down this wall", etc - they must have been going crazy.

The pressures became too great within the USSR - the leaders were faced
with a massive expenditure to build up arms or shortchanging their own
citizens in food, housing etc. The leaders lied to the end - during the
coup of a year ago, the soviet troops brought into Moscow were told to
be alert to 'outside invaders' - protect the citizens and keep them
indoors, protect the Kremlin leaders, etc (a Moscovite told me this).

The sad thing is the people of the former USSR are now suffering with
the massive pollution, major shortages, etc, caused by the prior leaders
of the Soviet Union.

Thank you Ronald Reagan - the world is a safer place today than it was
10, 20 and 30 years ago....

Just my opinion....

Joe
joec@morgan.com
From: andrew@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Andrew Shields)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Billy and Foreign Policy
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:27:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin

In <1992Jul22.054725.4512@lclark.edu> larryw@sun.lclark.edu (Larry Westdahl) writes:
>It should also be noted that if we lose George Bush, we lose Jim Baker also,
>and there is no way that Clinton can come up with a better replacement.

True, so why doesn't he just keep him as Sec. of State or a Habib-style
special envoy?

Still dreaming,
Andrew
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8709 talk.politics.misc:34949
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Obtaining copies of party platforms
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:25:57 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Ron Dippold) writes:
|> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> >You give the impression this is a CNN position, as opposed to the opinion
|> >of one very conservative, right-wing republican commentator.  Just remeber,
|> >congress taxes and the president spends.
|> 
|> What?  In which country?  I was under the impression that congress
|> taxed and spent, and that the executive branch carried out their
|> dictates.  If you say that the congress allocates the money, but the
|> executive branch is the one that actually spends it, you might as well
|> claim that the executive branch (through the IRS) taxes as well, and
|> Congress does nothing at all.
|> -- 
|> This post protected by a pitbull with AIDS

Must be a weak pitbull.  Congress decides how much to spend and what
programs to spend it on.  The president decides how to implment.  Congress does
not manage employees, does not do departmental efficiency studies, and does
not lay off people.  Congress sets the budget based upon the efficiency
of the civil service employees that work for the president.

If Bush wanted to, he could have accomplished every program congress
funded, and more, without spending all of the money.  Every company in the
US today is accomplishing as much or more as they did a few years ago
with lower expenses and overhead.  This is because the president of
those companies did not have a congress to give them the money 
necessary to continue to be inefficient.

The president is the Chief Executive Officer and the Cheif Operations
Officer of the country.  How would you feel if the president of your
company hired doubled headcount and hired people to stand around in
various departments and do nothing?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Bush's accomplishments
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:53:57 GMT

mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) writes:

>Pretty bold statement.  So there's NO impact from the change in the
>radiation signature of energy reaching the surface of the planet?
>They're TOTALLY unrelated?  Hmm...

Well, they do have one thing in common - they're both highly exaggerated
by the media to scare the public into believing them! While reports of
ozone depletion are detectable, the whole CFC theory is still just that -
a theory. As for the greenhouse effect, there is to date NO scientific
evidence to support its existence. I don't mean to imply that these
well studied theories are false - just that science hasn't given us any
reason to panic. Unfortunately, I've had to calm dozens of people who
were under the impression that the world was about to burn up and that we'd
all die, or that the ozone layer was already gone and we'd all die of
skin cancer.

I'd say Bush's record on global change policy has been reasonable, in a time
when hysteria has led others (like Al Gore) to rash judgments.


>--
>==============y=o=u='=r=e===a=l=l===s=t=e=a=m=e=d===u=p===j=o=e================
>   Mike +   Software +   Digital Equipment +   Western Software +      mcnally@
>McNally +    Laborer +         Corporation +         Laboratory +   wsl.dec.com
>===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9385 misc.legal:15219
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.legal
Subject: Corporations as Persons was Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:35:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: aero.1992Jul30.213518.13697
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

In article <1683@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com writes:
#In article <1992Jul26.170803.26254@aero.org#, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
## You might also consider including the idea that Corporations are persons in 
## your amendment. It would seem that the activist Supreme Court in the 19th 
## century gave them many of the rights without some of the responsiblities 
## of persons.
#
#Humm, I wonder if we could use that fact to get some of the jerks who
#used leveraged buyouts and junk bonds to decimate and destroy formerly-
#successful corporations during the 80's.  (I call them "Reagan's Henchmen").
#
#If the corporations are people, can we charge the junk-bond people with
#assault and murder?
#
#-- 
#Bob Munck

I have added misc.legal to the newsgroups because of the last question above?

My understanding of the Corporation gaining the rights of a natural person
came from a book on that subject. 

Would anyone care to comment on the question above? What would happen
if someone filed a charge in some State or Court that Joe JunkBond had
killed cororation x?

What would happen if some overzealous district attorney charged a
corporation with murder because that corporation hid information that
resulted in the death of natural people? For example what would happen
if someone filed murder or negligent manslaughter charges against Pan
American Airways over the 107 crash?

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections