HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: 10% check-off proposal
Summary: Sounds good, not  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:15:53 GMT

In article <POPAT.92Aug27174459@image.mit.edu>, popat@image.mit.edu (Kris Popat) writes...
> 
>> It sounds to me like what GHWB just
>> proposed was a program which would make it possible for me to certify on my
>> tax form that 10% of my money should be used for exactly what they were
>> already using 15% to 25% of it for (not to mention the chunk greater than
>> 10% of my money which they will continue to use for debt service).
> 
>I think the idea is that the 10% would be taken right off the top.  A
>fraction of the remaining 90% would still be used to service the debt,
>as it is now.  Thus, 25% to service the debt would become close to 33%
>under Bush's scheme, but only for those people who check off the box.
> 
>Seems to me that Bush's proposal alone would not really put much of a
>dent in the debt for many years, even if everyone checked their box.
>But it sure *sounds* good!
> 
If that's the case (it would be good if we knew for sure) then what 
are they planning on cutting? This idea means nothing without making
a huge cut in spending. 
	To make this proposal without a concrete spending cut 
plan then it means you are going to have to borrow the money that 
was originally going to public services that is now going to pay the 
deficit and...Hey! What do you know? We are back where we started.

>Kris Popat
>MIT Rm. E15-355   Cambridge, MA  02139

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF REAGAN'S SPEECH
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:30:48 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1684EBE20.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>It is a measure of the unbelieveable and unmitigated venom that some
>academics and media types have for Reagan that they find they must
>attack him for using a reference that apparantly mis-attributes quotes!
>Even Joe Biden, who stole chunks of speeches knowingly, didn't suffer
>as much at the hands of the critics as does Reagan.

Joe Biden dropped out.  Ronnie has a LONG LONG NLONG history of
misquoting facts  (read _Reagan's Reign of Error_), his misquotes just
show how he has continually asserted tings without backing them up
(a la his welfare queens etc.)


> 
>Here's a politician who actually wote his own speech- a very fine one, I think,
right, he wrote it . . .  more bs from the Reps.  

>with some wonderful humor in 

it- and the critics spend their time faulting
>him for not knowing that his reference source is in dispute by Lincoln
>scholars? Obviously the man is capable of anything...! ;-)
> 
>  --mike


IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BY SCHOLARS -- it has been known to be fake
for over 50 years.  It is because people wanted to believe lies for
so long that they voted for Ronnie, and for Bush the education,
environment, kindler gentler president, and now they wonder why
the country is messed up.

Ronnie should be counting his blessings that he isnt in jail for
his other memory lapses. :-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot
From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Subject: Re: Our constitution and politics.
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:54:35 GMT

tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY) once wrote: 
> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) once wrote:
>> It embodies the concept that government is created by man, and it
>> derives its power from the governed. Democracy. Government does not
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^ 
> Most of your assertions I agree with, however, the United States is
> not a Democracy.  It is a Republic incorporating *some* democratic
> principles.  There is a *big* difference.  Publius, in the
> Federalist Papers, decries that pure Democracy cannot and will not
> ever provide a stable form of government.

I tend to disagree. Demos are the people, and cracy is a form of
government. Democracy means government either by the people or
authorized by the people, or more precisely, sovereignty is possessed
by the people. We practice representative democracy, with
the government deriving its power from the sovereignty of the people.
The Greeks practiced both direct democracy in what we call the
city-states, and representative democracy in the leagues binding the
city-states for military and political purposes.

I suppose it is all a matter of definition. If you narrowly define
democracy to be direct democracy, then we don't have a democracy.
However, I define democracy to be sovereignty vested in the people,
who happen to grant their governing power to representatives in our
system.

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "The American Republic will endure, until
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  politicians realize they can bribe the people
-------------------+  with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
"The truly ignorant +-------------------------------------------------
 in our society are those people who would throw away the parts of
 the Constitution they find inconvenient."
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Another view of the education situation
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:20:25 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <1684F63BD.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>
>Seriously, I think people should quit condemning government for problems
>that have some roots in parental hands-off attitudes.  An informal
>assessment of local teachers (very unscientific, but perhaps representative
>nonetheless) found that during parent-teacher nights (when parents come and
>determine what the teacher and curriculum are like), less than 5% of
>parents attend.  My point is that our education system is sick but a large
>part of the sickness lies in the home.  We seem to want government to spend
>more money in the failed hope that this will bring scores up.  I say let's
>make sure parents know that their involvment is crucial to educational
>success before we burn an extra billion on the educational system.

I could not agree more.  I have often heard people complain about the
schools their children attend; my response is to ask them how many
times they've conferred with the teachers and/or administrators.
The typical answer is, to be charitable, "once or twice".  

It appears that many parents simply don't give a damn whether or 
not their children receive an acceptable education.  Wake up, you're 
_paying_ for it!  How many parents spend more time to save $30 by
finding the best mail-order deal on their newest VCR than on finding 
out what their children are and are not learning in school?  Too 
many, I'm afraid.  

I guarantee you that _I_ will not be amongst them.

On the other hand, there are financial requirements.  Perhaps an
experimental mechanism could be set up where school funding was
based on the number of hours the parents of the students spent
working with the teachers and administrators.  This would result,
IMHO, in a tremendous increase in "bang for the buck".  It would
also (to quote the poster) help "make sure parents know that their
involvement is crucial to educational success"!

Has such a proposal been made?  Comments?

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:51:37 GMT

In article <4P9BqB6w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>> But, you see, those fundies are the Good Guys!  All those RC are evil
>> papists, in the employ of Satan.  Being dominated by the religious
>> right is GOOD!
>
>Hey, those papists are anti-abortion also.  You noticed that most of the fundie
>preachers have toned down their attacks against Catholics?  Shoot, even
>Swaggart was forced to back off of the RCC before his demise.  If the radical
>religious right ever gets its way on abortion, then they'll go back to bashing
>the evils of Rome...

Oops, I forgot.  I was even down at the abortion clinic when Cardinal
O'Connor was there praying, with gaggles of Operation Rescue folk
there along with Johnny Boy's usual flock.  OR needs the Catholic's
numbers so they won't be grossly outnumbered.



--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Organization: Clark University
Date: 4 SEP 92 15:59:42 GMT


In a previous article, jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western) wrote:
>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.
>
Each plane will display a yellow Gulf War ribbon, hand-painted by Dan Quayle.

I saw part of Bush's speech to a similar crowd about sales of fighter 
planes to Taiwan (I think). 

As we know, nobody in this election has a monopoly on pandering...

-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:15:06 GMT

In <rrqyzl#@rpi.edu> 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:
>>ROBERTSON LETTER ATTACKS FEMINISTS

>>-----
>>Says Effort in Iowa Supports Witches and Child Killers
>>-----

>>DES MOINES, Aug 25 (AP) -- A fund-raising letter written by the
>>evangelist Pat Robertson in opposition to a proposed equal rights
>>amendment to the Iowa Constitution suggests that feminists want women
>>to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
> ...

>>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."
> ...

>I can see how he could get "kill their children" from his pro-life
>(anti-choice) stance, but where the hell does he get "practice witchcraft?"
>Anyone got a clue into this idiot's mind?

>-->             U                                                  _/ \_

I'm sure this isn't the example Mr. Robertson had on hand when he made
the comment, but its still verifiable. A magazine published out of
Alberta, called Western Report, ran an article recently about a
feminism conference sponsored in part by the Alberta government. Among
the workshops offered were courses on witchcraft/wicca, seminars on
lesbian relationships, pagan worship ceremonies, etc.

So much for separation of church and state! :)

And, ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work!

Michael
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: mcmanus@rajeesh.WPI.EDU (Pat McManus)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Keywords: marrou polls press
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:30:54 GMT

>>>   poll                  dates      Clinton Bush    gap
>>>   ====================  =========  ======= ====    ===
>>>   ABC/Post              8/21-8/23     47    42      5
>>>   ABC/Post              8/21-8/25     51    41     10
>>>   ABC/Post              8/26-8/30     55    36     19
>>>   Gallup/Newsweek       8/27-8/28     49    39     10
>>>   Yankelovich/Time/CNN  8/25-8/27     46    40      6
>>>   Times/CBS             8/23-8/24     51    36     15
>>>
>>

<some stuff deleted...>

>
>I don't think that it is dishonest to leave out a candidate whose party at the
>last election got less than 1% of the winner's votes (Bush 48'886'097, Ron Paul
>432'179). In fact, I think that putting Marrous Name on these polls would be
>somewhat dishonest, as it provides free propaganda for a small extremist party.

Your notion of free propoganda is an accurate one, where I take issue is for
whom. The idea that the major parties are entitled to the propoganda while
the smaller one is not is not exactly rooted in reason. You may term the
libertarians extremists, but apparently they agreed with a significant
number of people (400,000 is a lot of people!) and that deserves to be
acknowledged. Note I am not champion cheerleading, but if you conduct a poll
and selectively limit the results you report, in effect you are cheerleading
for those that get reported, and not reflecting the results of your survey.

>BTW, the next two candidates in '88 were Leonora Fulani and David Duke. Are you
>suggesting that they also be included in the polls ?

Yes. I see no reason to supress opinions just because they run contrary to 
mine.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'He who governs least, governs best.' - no attribution
Pat McManus '96 CS..... 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (richard.del monaco)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:58:12 GMT

In article <1874@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
> Reread Bill Bennets speech at the convention. Family Values means relying on
>your family members and surrounding neighbors for support, counsel and guid-
>ance and not expecting a big government socialist program to cure all the
>problems you have. It also means establishing a set of traditions or values
>within your family which you think are important. 

So what is a family and where does family responsibility end?

It seems you like the idea of extending the family to include the neighbors.
This is a good start.  Why stop here?  Aren't all Americans part of a larger
family?  Shouldn't an American living in suburban New Jersey be concerned about
the victims of a hurricane which devastated southern Florida?  How about the
homeless in New York City?  

The Republican party would have you believe that those who disagree with their
priorities don't have family values.  There are those of us who do hold
family values (even the traditional kind), who find the Republicans to be
heartless and cruel.  Family means loving and accepting one another (even
those who are different).  Family means caring about those members who may
be facing tough times.  Even Dan and Marilyn Quayle admit that family means
supporting your daughter when she's facing a difficult decision.  The
difference is that the Quayles don't have the decency to extend that courtesy
to the rest of America.

Reread Mario Cuomo's address to the 1984 Democratic convention.  It much more
impressive than Mr Bennett's.


Richard Del Monaco		rdelmonaco@attmail.att.com
Somerset, New Jersey		    r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
Disclaimer:  I am not an official company spokesperson.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Religious Right Wing Censorship On Rise
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:57:15 GMT

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


>As some correspondents thought that my condemnation of the Republican
>party for embracing the rabid religious right was overstated I offer
>the following:

>    WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Censorship or challenges of textbooks, classic
>  novels, and other materials frequently used in public school classrooms
>  was at its highest level in 10 years of surveys of the practices, a
>  public education watchdog group reported Tuesday.
>    ...
>    ``The censors' success rate was disturbingly high, higher in fact
>  than at any point in the last four years,'' the group said. ``Forty-one
>  percent of the materials challenged were removed or restricted in some
>  fashion.''
>    ...
>    The group said the most frequently challenged books during 1991-92
>  school year included Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck; More Scary
>  Stories to Tell in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz; The Catcher in the Rye by
>  J.D. Salinger; and The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier.
>    ...
>    ``The most frequent rationale for challenges was that materials were
>  perceived to be at odds with the challengers' religious views. Such
>  materials, including classic novels, were frequently labeled 'Satanic,
>  New Age, or anti-Christian.'
>    ...

Lest we forget that both ends of the spectrum have their censors, how
about the feminists who want material like Snow White banned from the
classrooms...
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ednschmi@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (John Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Who toppled Communism??
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:15:59 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.040828.17050@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>>In article <l9lmguINNmcm@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, aldo@ips-server.Eng.Sun.COM (Aldo Castillo) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> I think that it is prepostereous to argue that Reagan is considered a
>>|> liberator in the ex-Eastern bloc.  Have you heard of any monuments to
>>|> honor the aforementioned liberator?  I'm sure not.  
>>|> 
>>
>>That's because they don't have any money yet!!  Wait a cuppla years!!  :)

>Wow!  Pigeons crapping on Reagan!

The trouble with trying to credit any American for the fall of communism is
that it minimises the bravery and determination of the people who continued
with demonstrations in the face of well-armed troops and tanks etc.

Cosy analyses from across the ocean using their own mythologies in an
election context can be both not very illuminating and very offensive.

John Schmidt


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending (was: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss Op
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:48:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.193546.13432@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
 
>
>  Improving the lifestyles of teachers and administrators, eh?  You make that
>sound like such a horrible thing to do.  I don't have any statistics in front
>of me, but I rarely meet a public school teacher that does not have to work a
>second job just to have a reasonable income.  A friend of mine, who is a
>middle-school music teacher, sells shoes after hours.
>
>  Teachers should not have to live like that.  They should be able to spend
>their after-school hours grading papers and preparing lesson plans.  Most of
>them do, but their salaries are based on the flawed impression that they work
>shorter days than those in other professions.
>
In general, they don't. Here in Detroit teachers make between $27,000 and
$40,000 per annum- for a 9-month job. That's $36,000 to $53,000 fte.
Teachers aren't starving.
 
>  Did it ever occur to anyone that if we increased educational spending, with
>the bulk of the increase going to teachers' salaries, that the profession would
>attract more qualified individuals, and enable those already teaching to enroll
>in more continuing education courses?
>
Do you believe that the trouble with schools is simply that we don't
pay enough to teachers and administrators? Perhaps you'd be very surprised
learn that private schools pay far less than public schools- and turn
out far better educated and better prepared students.
 
Looking at the way teacher's salaries and education spending have rocketed
in this century you'd think we would have the best school systems in the
world. In fact, student performance has gone steadily downward since the
60s, while spending has gone up.
 
So much for the argument that all we need is to throw more money at the
problem. The data seems to say the oppposite.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:33:02 GMT

In article <y72FqB2w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
 
>
>One could ask the same question of Nixon in '72...
>With that as precedent, I'm willing to listen to any argument about Reagan.
 
Ah, the cold logic comes to light. I don't think that requires any comment.
    --mike
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: pat robertson
Date: 30 Aug 92  12:20:00 EST

-> >Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
-> >amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.
-> >
-> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
->
-> I don't think the text of the amendment is the point.  The article
-> shows that Pat Robertson is a serious whacko who should not be
-> running around loose.
What's more frightening is the fact that Robertson, known affectionately around these parts as The Virginia Beach Ayatollah, is a serious whacko with serious political clout.  "Rev." Robertson has stated that Hinduism is Satanism, his prayers stopped a hurricane (where was he during Andrew?), and, in his recent speech to the Republican National Convention, that "It's time for America to get rid of its left wingers!"

Pat Robertson is a purveyor of neo-McCarthyism (see the above quote), religious bigotry (see his quote on Hinduism), and miscellaneous nonsense.  May he go the way of Jim, Tammy, Jimmy Swaggart, and the other Elmer Gantrys who worship at the altar of Mammon and political power."

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
"Free speech is life itself."
           --Salman Rushdie

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Clinton odds-on favorite
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:34:23 GMT

latest odds from Ladbroke's of London:

	Clinton 4-to-9
        Bush    6-to-4

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: PETITIONING WORK TO BE DONE - 39 LIBERTARIAN STATES
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:16:32 GMT

In article <GOLDM.92Aug27151151@jonah.rpi.edu>,
goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
>How many petition signatures have been collected in total for the LP? Is it
>over 100,000?
>  -- Mitch Gold, sundance@rpi.edu
>

A lot more than that.  I seem to recall that in the early days of
the report the total number of required signatures was well
above 300,000.  Many states also collected more than their target
while few collected less.

/June
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP