HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:36:40 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <1992Nov6.222614.23808@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.171836.18358@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>>You said it. The rich must be *prompted* -- not told -- to do the right
>>thing. If you offer tax breaks for those who spend their money helping
>>the economy, then the rich win, and the working class win. I like a
>>win-win situation.
>
>What exactly can the rich do with their money that would be BAD for the
>economy?  If they spend it they provide jobs for those who produce what is
>bought.  If they save it they provide capital to others to produce.  The only
>BAD thing I can think of is to bury their money in the back yard and I suspect
>that they wouldn't be rich if they did this.

It's not a matter of doing something bad; it's not doing something good.

If you've got a million bucks to invest, you can put it up as capital venture.
Or perhaps you want to buy a T-bill. Here are the pros and cons:

Capital Venture: Putting money into a business. Risky. But, this really helps
the economy.

T-bills: Very secure. But, since the money doesn't get out into the private
sector, the economy is none the better for it.

As an investor, your main concern is, naturally, *your* money. You want to
see a good return off of your investment, and you don't want to lose your
money. Since T-bills are very secure, you'll buy them. So, what has to
happen before you'll consider putting your money in a business?

Taxes. You see, if the money you make from the T-bills are taxed at the same
rate as the money you'd make off of the business, then you'll put your money
where it's safe. But, if you pay less taxes for money you make off of the
business, then the tax break will offset the risk. Then your money goes into
the private sector, creating jobs and helping our economy.

That's why I said: you've got to give the rich a reason (tax breaks) for
putting their money where it will help the economy (private sector
investing). The "lost revenue" argument is moot, of course, because the
increased jobs and increased number of businesses increase federal personal
and corporate income tax.

						- greg


-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Its official: Clinton wins
X-Xxdate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 08:48:55 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:52:21 GMT

In article <5NOV199201422020@vxcrna.cern.ch> CASPER,
casper@vxcrna.cern.ch writes:
>Face it people, everyone who works for a living is about to become a
victim of
>a four-year-long mugging by IRS.

Face nothing.... The man hasn't even been inaugurated yet and the
Republican
"crystal ball analyses" have started. You people have been brain-washed
pretty well by all that lame Republican rhetoric.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: at the risk of sounding repetitive...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 6 Nov 92 05:33:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.140345.11238@hemlock.cray.com> dadams@cray.com writes:
>In article 3199@gvl.unisys.com, train@gvls2.gvl.unisys.com (Herbert Rutledge) writes:
>|In article <1992Nov5.060351.24196@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu 
>
>||> America: prepare to impeach Hillwilly & Al before it's too late!
>|
>|
>|   Like I said, sore loser.
>|
>
>I can remember quite clearly how "gracious" the Democrats were when Bush
>won in 88.  Continuous comments like, "There will be no honymoon."  "We'll
>give 'em hell for 4 years."  

Could you please provide a citation (and context) for these two quotes.

John D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:30:37 GMT


<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line. >>>

In article <1d955aINNbgp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) said:

> Big winners:
>
> Alan Specter - Put the left wing in it's place by trouncing someone
> who thought they could win soley on the Anita Hill issue

I read in the morning-after newspapers that the Speter/Yeakel voting
in Pennsylvania looked to be roughly 51/49... definitely a victory for
Specter, but I'm not sure that "trouncing" is the right word.

> Term limitations - Won big, 14 out of 14 states.  Hopefully it will
> make it through the Supreme Court.

It might, but almost certainly not for a long time (relatively
speaking).  If the New York Times was accurate in the article they ran
about a month ago, none of the term-limitations referenda on the
ballot this year would actually affect any Congressional or Senatorial
elections until 1998 at the earliest.  Since the federal courts,
including the Supreme Court, only deal with actual "cases and
controversies," their first chance to rule on any of these laws won't
come until there's an actual candidate who's barred from the ballot
and brings suit in federal court.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Subject: Re: pat is back!
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:41:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.030330.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <mlt2001-111192225454@m248-113.bgsu.edu>, mlt2001@andy.bgsu.edu (the big steak!) writes:
>>  PAT BUCHANAN IS BACK ON THE MCLAUGLIN GROUP.  THE ANTI-SEMETIC IS BACK IN
>> HIS GLORY.  THE MAN WHO RAN FOR PRESIDENT AND HURT GEORGE BUSH IN THE
>> PRIMARIES.  WHY DID THIS RACIST RETURN TO THIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM? 
>> BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE WILL LISTEN TO HIM, EXCEPT MICHAEL KINSLEY OF CROSS
>> FIRE!  WHEN WILL PAT LEARN THAT HE WON'T WIN ANY SUPPORT OF ANY SORT WHAT
>> SO EVER.  THIS SHIRT STUFFING CONSERVATIVE HAS NO FUTURE.  UNTIL JOHN
>> MCLAUGLIN REALIZES THIS WE'LL HAVE TO PUT WITH MORE PAT!  I RATHER WATCH
>> MEET THE PRESS!

IMHO, people with common sense realize that it is valuable to understand 
more than 1 point of view.  Pat should be on the show occasionally
at least for the simple fact that he represents the far right of the 
Republican party.  If not for that reason, then he should be on so
we can hear more of Eleanor's great ribbing.  Last week for instance
was one of my favorites where she said something like, "I'd like to 
personally thank you Pat for pushing the Republicans so far to the right
that you managed to isolate much of the country and helped to ensure the
Clinton's victory."

Rocky Giovinazzo

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13299 alt.politics.clinton:16008 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8003
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: January Surprise
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:57:10 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen) writes:

[ Bush torpedoes GATT and starts a trade war with Europe ]

>I state flatly that this is a political maneuver directed by the Republican
>Party to stall the early days of the Clinton Administration.  Nice move.

And expect more. George Herbert Walker's last three months in office
will be spent in rigging a January surprise for Clinton. If he gets
away with it, there will be no transition, just a debacle.

One thing he's already done is to commit a lot of money for porkbarrel
projects (rebuilding Hanscom Air Force base in Florida [which was
scheduled to close before Andrew levelled it], building the V22 Osprey
helicrasher [which the DOD says it doesn't want], etc.). To have a
hope of reducing the deficit, Clinton will have to cancel these, to
the chagrin of those living in the areas affected. Republicans will
then start hollering about how Clinton's destroying jobs.

Also remember that he was CIA director under Ford. So he's got some
ties to the boys with the black bags, too, and will probably keep on
pulling them after he's out of office. On a happier note, the CIA's
charter prevents them from conducting domestic covert operations
against U.S. nationals, so they couldn't possibly be doing anything
like pulling media strings or sabotaging the economy.

Right.

Any speculation on what else it will be?


      _/_/_/    _/_/_/_/    _/        _/  Stephen P. Masticola          .^.
    _/         _/     _/   _/_/    _/_/  ProLangs  Research  Group     /   7
   _/         _/     _/   _/ _/  _/ _/  Dept. of Computer Science     (   C 
    _/_/     _/_/_/_/    _/  _/_/  _/  Rutgers University              \   `J
       _/   _/          _/   _/   _/  Hill Center, Busch Campus        ,>   /
      _/   _/          _/        _/  New Brunswick,  NJ  08904        (    //
_/_/_/    _/          _/        _/  masticol @ cs.rutgers.edu 	       \  //
                                   Voice:   (908) 932 - 4070 		`U   
                                  Fax:     (908) 932 - 0537              '
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13545 alt.politics.clinton:16449 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8182 alt.rush-limbaugh:9249
From: cjk@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:50:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: CERFnet

>What exactly can the rich do with their money that would be BAD for the
>economy?  If they spend it they provide jobs for those who produce what is
>bought.  If they save it they provide capital to others to produce.  The only
>BAD thing I can think of is to bury their money in the back yard and I suspect
>that they wouldn't be rich if they did this.

How about, they bilk the elderly, out of their life savings with
Junk bonds.  Then escape prosicution or get their hands slapped
donate it to politicians who helped them, and then spend it and
invest it in foriegn countries?

Or they can aquire cash rich U.S companies, rape the pention funds,
sell off the assets for $.30 on the dollar and leave the carcasess
out to rot.  Kind of like the buffalo.  Killed and skinned just
for the valuable fur.

Or they can take their profits and open up plush resorts in 
foriegn countries for the rest of thier Wealthy friends/politicians.

>William Crosmun
>crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

Chris Kevlahan
cjk@cerf.net
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13790 alt.politics.clinton:16906 alt.politics.libertarian:1828
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Liberal -> Conservative -> Libertarian (was What is a Conservative?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:10:56
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1992Nov10.230134.26099@Cadence.COM>
	<1992Nov11.184513.5879@news.columbia.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu's message of Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:45:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.184513.5879@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.230134.26099@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov2.152813.21375@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>>Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
>>>individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
>>>the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
>>>at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
>>>todays portion of happiness.

>>A True Conservative (tm) would be against the RICO seizure statutes, against
>>keeping drugs illegal, against keeping prostitution illegal, against making
>>abortion illegal, against forced prayer in schools, etc., etc., etc.

>Methinks they go around calling themselves libertarians....

The ironic thing is that libertarians would have been considered
conservatives before the religious right claimed that term, and would
have been considered liberals before the welfare statists appropriated
*that* term...

So, to answer the original poster's question: conservatives are
liberals are libertarians, under the appropriate definition of the
word "are".  :-)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: check THIS guy out
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:37:36 GMT


> rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:
>

>>
>>Too bad that the U.S. political system failed and allowed Slick Willie & Al
>>to become elected, after all, in the the popular vote, not the electoral
>>vote, President Bush and VP Quayle WON this election!


WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKIN, HOSS? Do you mean "won" as in "garnered one of
the lowest popular vote totals of any republican candidate this century"

do you mean "won" as in "got less 40% of the popular vote, and 5 million
votes less than the electoral college winner"? Define won, dickweed.

  However, the
>>liberal media is trying their best to downplay this fact,

o i get it, its the fault of the anti-bush liberals like G Will an W Safire
who are to blame.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, BUTT-CHEESE.

BUSH LOST. He lost in the popular vote, he lost in the electoral vote,
he lost in the east, and he lost in the west. bush will no longer be
president in two short months.

get a grip, man.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:58:53 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>Fine, go ahead and sulk. But, the majority has spoken. That is the
>democratic way. You now have the choice to be devicive or
>constructive. It is up to you.

You're right, the majority did speak, and it wasn't for Clinton. He
did get the biggest slice of the pie, but he didn't get half of it.
If I disagree with what we wants to do, why shouldn't I have the 
right to say so? 

-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13394 alt.politics.clinton:16175 alt.politics.elections:22948
From: cjk@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Just for a moment
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:40:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: CERFnet

In article <1992Nov5.235655.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.011214.17471@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>...I hate to break this to you, but
>MANY people prospered under Reagan. The effects AFTER the election is
>debatable, but employment was at record levels. Under Bush, interest rates were
>at the lowest, and the Stock Market climbed to unheard of levels. This qualifies
>in my book as working for the U.S.

The government has an interest in keeping interest rates low. By doing
so they save billions of dollars in interest for the national debt.

On the other hand, when interests rates are too low, smart money goes
to the stock market, where they can typicaly outperform the interest 
rates.

Remember, money made in the stock market produces nothing.
While money made through loans to business ventures etc...
produce Industry, Manufacturing, Jobs, R&D, Employment, Constuction.

There must be a balance between the two.  And because we have a huge
national debt, we are forced to keep interest rates low to save 
billions of dollars.  Thus keeping them out of balance.


>>       That's right, if Clinton screws up, such as if he only works for certain 
>> Americans while excluding other people (for example, you and your friends), he
>> is wrong.
>
> Bzzt. Recurring theme in flawed logic. You have yet to establish that
>Republican favored only a select few. It is impossible for a public figure to
>include only a select few in the benefits. Wow! Would I like to see that
>legislation:
>"Be it resolved...blah...blah...blah

In fact thats exactly what trickle down economics was all about.  By
helping the rich get richer, it was hoped that this would create jobs
etc... Who was trickle down economics supposed to trickle on?

And cutting the capitol gains tax was not to help the middle class.
I'm middle class, and capitol gains cut  would yield me mayby an
extra $100.  But if I was in the rich class, It might have been
$100,000.  Pretty substantial if you ask me.

So its really not the fact that Reagan,Bush selectivly helped 
a minority of people, its that the whole program was targeted
at the minority people (those with money).  If you give a poor
man a 50% tax cut, that might only give him an extra $300 per
year to spend.  But give a Rich man a 20% tax cut, and it might
be $30,000 per year to spend

...numbers only for philisolophical purposes only...

>Please help me out so that we can carry this on!

I hoped this helped.


Chris Kevlahan
cjk@cerf.net			Tsongas||Rudman||Perot '96
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13327 alt.politics.clinton:16042 alt.politics.elections:22836 talk.politics.misc:58436
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush the loser
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:54:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Just to add my 2 pennies worth....

Bush can take the new world order and shove it up his deficit.

Ranjith Powell
-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:20:50 GMT

In article <1d9k5cINN3bb@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:

>Actually, the problem with bush was that he wasn't reliably much
>of anything.  He might have retained some respect if he stuck to
>some base convictions, but he didn't.  So he wound up being trusted
>by no one.  It wasn't so much of a right wing/moderate wing problem
>as a credibility problem.

>Kemp could run strongly against Clinton.  So could a more-or-less
>moderate republican.  Someone who's all over the map wouldn't.

Oh, you mean *Bush* lived in the "Waffle House"?  I see.  Good thing 
I didn't read his lips on that issue!  :-)


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13840 alt.politics.clinton:17011 alt.president.clinton:369
From: larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: YET MORE DEMOCRATIC MISINFORMATION, Was January Surprise
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:45:28 GMT
	<1992Nov9.194337.15005@wixer.cactus.org>
Organization: Data General, Westboro, Mass.


You are completely mislead regarding the tariff on French Wine and who
imposed it.  It was imposed by the Trade Commission, and the Democrats
backed it 100%.  Senator Moynihan was just on CNN praising the stand
the US was taking.  The French have been abusing the US in trade for
years, but until it involved the entire EC, it was not worth pursuing.
The tariff was quite ingenious, actually, specifically targetting
white wine, a purely French product while excluding Red wine that
primarily comes from other sources including Italy.

Senator Moynihan said:  

Good for them; they chose white wine.



To think that our trade stand with the EC is some plot to hurt Clinton
is ludicrous.  Even Clinton has said the the best service any foreign
nation could provide to him was to cooperate with the current
administration fo the next two months.


BY the way turkeys, we won, the EC backed down ya bunch of cry babies.
This will help the US and Clinton.  Yeah, guess it was a Republican
plot.



--
    @@               Larry Rogers               *
   @@@               Larry_Rogers@dg.com        *   Big Brother
   @@@ &&&           larry@boris.webo.dg.com    *   is Watching
    @@ &&            Data General  508-870-8441 * 

The opinions contained herein are my own, and do not reflect the
opinions of Data General or anyone else, but they should.

"Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
   Dire Straits
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13436 alt.politics.clinton:16273 alt.politics.elections:23019 talk.politics.misc:58704
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Niepornt, Republicans and "Fascism" (Was: Can anyone spare this 'change'?)
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:06:53 GMT
	<1992Nov1.075522.292@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <1992Nov1.075522.292@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

   I know most Republicans are in favor of fascist dictatorships, 

	Citation, please?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13839 alt.politics.clinton:17010 alt.president.clinton:368
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 06:13:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.024820.14186@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> 
> Certainly the ones who voted against Bush are legion compared to those
> voting against Clinton.  I'm exaggerating somewhat, but, still, 3/5th
> of the people voted against the sitting President, the one in power.
> Bush received a smaller portion of the vote than Herbert Hoover,
> hardly a clarion call to keep him in the Oval Office.
 
Ok. Sorry! I should have clarified myself. What I mean't by "WE are still in
power" is not that we are in the White House (symbolicaly is what I think you
mean't) but rather the majority of the voting population voted for someone
other than Clinton. Yes, I agree that these people are sitting on the
sidelines, but, the voters still have the ability to voice a powerful voice. In
fact, one that is in the  majority. The people who voted for Marrou, Perot,
Bush and all the others are the ones who hold the majority of America,
collectively, of course. I hope this helps with future followups.
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		A possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush