HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:05:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.073928.17711@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>
>  Just for fun, let's take Bush and Clinton at their word and compare their
>stated positions on 8 issues of our time.  I'll rank my favorite on each
>of the issues.

[Analysis of issues deleted]

The problem with Bush, is that (even more than the average politician)
you cannot take him at his word. The man has flip-flopped on so many
issues that no one knows what he stands for. Some examples:

1. Pro-choice before 1980, anti-choice after 1980 just so he could be
   VP to Reagan.

2. Says he's against racism, but has no compuction using race politics
   such as quotas and Willie Horton.

3. Said he wanted to be the environmental president, yet he wants
   to destroy wetlands.

4. Immediately after the Gulf War, when some people were pushing for
   an energy policy, his response was, "We need more foreign oil".
   Later, when some big companies wanted to drill in the Alaskan 
   Preserve, Bush gave a speech where he said, "We need less dependence
   on foreign oil."

This is my main problem with Bush. He wants to be President just to
top his resume. I never liked Ronald Reagan, but at least he had
some idea of the direction he wanted the country to go. He had
a vision. I didn't agree with it, but at least he had one. Bush
has admitted in the past that he has problems with "the vision thing".

Now, to be fair, I will tell you why I don't like Clinton. He seems
to have had his sights on the Presidency since he was in college.
All his political alliances, his actions, and even his friendships
seem to be calculated at helping his eventual run for the White House.
However, since I don't live in Arkansas, I don't know if Clinton is
like Bush in that he wants the Presidency just to say he had it, or
if he really has an idea of where he wants the country to go. If
the choice comes down to Bush and Clinton, a have to pick "possible
vision" over "no vision". However, Perot defintely bears looking into.

I don't know much about Perot, but there are a few things I do like
about him. He doesn't want to run for President, but will if the people
want him to. He's independently wealthy so lobbying won't influence him.
He was against the Gulf War, and is pro-choice on abortion. He's serious
about reducing the deficit.

If Perot is given a legitimate chance, ie. giving news coverage, 
invited to participate in debates, I may give my vote to him.
Otherwise, I'll vote for Clinton, but I won't be happy about it.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: How to get around the $1000 limit.
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<Apr.4.18.31.26.1992.9758@math.rutgers.edu>
	<1992Apr6.171859.9406@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:39:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.171859.9406@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> folse@crs.cl.msu.edu (Mark Folse) writes:

   "Moreover, the way they devised is consistent with a standard
   practice used to get around the $1000 legal limit.  I say
   "standard" because you'll be hard-pressed to find a campaign whose
   volunteers will not tell you to write checks in the names of family
   members to get around the limit."

   What Scotts suggests as "standard", common practice is illegal as a method
   of circumventing the current campaign finance laws.  It is neither standard 
   nor common, unless Scott contributes to some pretty henious people.

Sorry to disabuse you, Mark, but it IS the standard methodology, and I
suggest you write to the FEC and get some of the candidates
contributor lists; you are legally entitled to get copies.

I think you will find that the number of 8 year olds with occupation
listed as "Student" contributing is quite astounding.

Virtually every candidate's people encourage you to make contributions
via all your family members. Its so standard that it is virtually
understood that this will happen. You will find such instances on the
campaign contributions sheets of every single major candidate for the
White House other than Jerry Brown. Not, you understand, that I am a
Brown supporter, because I'm not.

You may also be interested to know that the limits also are counted
seperately for the primary and general elections, allowing powerful
congressional incumbants to get extra money for uncontested primaries
that they spend no money on which they can hold over for the general
election while their challengers whittle down their own funds, thus
demonstrating another way that limits backfire. You may also be
interested to know that you can carry over money from previous
elections that you didn't spend, which is one of the reasons people
become unassailable; after a few elections, many congressmen have
giant warchests that their challengers are legally restrained from
being able to match.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government is best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Flat Tax
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:22:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.44927
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <k!mj3mf.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>How about a flat tax of (say) 17% for all income above the poverty
>level so that poor people pay no taxes at all?

At the present time, the poor pay the highest taxes, but they are not called
taxes.  They are called welfare eligibility rules.  

If we abolished welfare eligibility rules and only had a negative income tax,
then if we maintain the present welfare status of a family of 4 earning $0,
at a 30% rate a family of 4 earning less than $50,000 would receive negative
income tax payments.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.175520.21422@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) writes:

>Bush has the authority to at least tell them to do SOMETHING. He gave them
>a reasonable time for the passage of an economic growth package.  Congress
>is stalling, hoping to stall the recession of course. They don't want to
>take the risk of having the economy improve so Bush will lose in '92 to
>Slick Willie.

No, Congress did pass an economic package before the deadline. Bush
vetoed it because it would give a middle-class tax cat by raising
taxes on the rich. God forbid the rich pay there fair share! 

>What exactly are you saying?  That the President doesn't have the right to
>tell Congress to act in the State of the Union Address?   And what's so
>wrong with giving them 3 months to act?  It's not like Bush only gave them
>a week.   

Bush gave Congress a deadline to pass HIS economic package, not just
any economic package. Bush assumes because he is the President, Congress
should just go along and pass any legislation he wants. This is the point
the original poster was making.


Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: meggin@epas.utoronto.ca (David Megginson)
Subject: Re: Voter registration (was President Moonbeam!)
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:42:49
Originator: meggin@epas.utoronto.ca
	<1419@orpheus.slc.unisys.com>
	<1992Apr6.214045.28170@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Apr6.214045.28170@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

   ... I understand that there are people
   who choose not to vote on the basis of principle, and while I might or
   might not agree with the specific cases, I won't argue it.

People who chose not to vote on the basis of principle should either
a) spoil their ballots, or better yet, b) turn up and DECLINE their
ballots. If someone will not go in and decline a ballot, then the
person is acting out of laziness, not principle.


David



--
#################################################################
David Megginson                  meggin@epas.utoronto.ca
Centre for Medieval Studies      david@doe.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto            39 Queen's Park Cr. E.
#################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Brown is prochoice on abortion, despite "rumors"
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:09:43 GMT

In article <86j+TD=@engin.umich.edu> jimj@engin.umich.edu (James Joseph Jewett) writes:
>In article <STEINLY.92Apr6165916@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>>Does this mean that only lawyers with _large_ families would be
>>appointed to the Supreme Court by President Brown?
>>Is this related to his alleged unPCness on abortion??? ;-) ...
>
>What?  Brown is definitely pro-choice.  He seems to take it as a given
>that people would know this about him, though, so he usually tacks it
>onto the ends of his speaches, without any transition. ...
>
No flame, but this strikes me as rationalization of the highest order.
If he's _really_ big on it, does he not mention it at all?  What kinds
of things does he believe in so steadfastly that he's never mentioned
them to anyone? ;-)

>He was also at the big rally recently -- you can probably get other quotes
>from there.
>
To be fair, yes he was there.  But there was a policy that neither
Brown nor Clinton (who was _also_ there) should speak.  So there were
no quotes.  There has to be a joke in here somewhere about the
previous paragraph ...
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: PAC's Lets have a real democracy
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:40:33 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <EduuKVe00h5yQx1FM8@andrew.cmu.edu> cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 14-Apr-92 Re: PAC's Lets
>have a real.. Anthony Koumis@husc4.har (1889)
>
>> We definitely need campaign finance reform.  Get rid of T.V. ads - make
>> them have to give a certain amount of t.v. ad time to candidates
>like they do in Britain and other places.
>
>Your second sentence contradicts itself.  I like the first half better -
>ban all political T.V. ads.  Your post really talks about two different
>issues:
>	1) Candidates seem to simply sling mud at each other and not talk about
>the issues.
>	2) The person who manages to raise the most money has an advantage by
>being able to buy more TV ads.


I am sorry that I did not clarify exactly want I meant by t.v. ads
in Britain.  IN britian each party is allowed a paid political braodcst which 
I think is based on the votes they get in elctions.  They ahppen every
few months and are for 30 minutes (about).

My theory was taht if each candidate had to only have one chance on t.v.
for an extended period of time when people who were intrested would
know would tune in then the candidate would have to discuss the issues.

I htink the newspaper ads are a fine idead but not everyone reads teh
paper.  And in an interest of reaching as many peoople as 
possible I htink that a simited time would be fine on t.v. (Say one long
ad before the N.H. primary -- but I htink the whole primary system
should be reformed into a month of 4 primaries by regions or time zones)






>
>If we simply banned all T.V. ads, I think we'd find less mud slinging. 
>The problem is that the most effective message that can fit into a
>15-second spot is an opponent-bashing ad.  If you had a half-page of a
>newspaper, you could very clearly explain your views.  Plus, since
>newspapers are a lot cheaper, the amount of money a candidate could
>raise would not be as much of an issue.
>
>Simply providing "free" T.V. times raises several questions: 1) who pays
>for it? 2) how do we determine who gets it? 3) what makes you think ads
>will be any more constructive?
>
>--Conrad
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:566 talk.politics.misc:17387
From: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: media's misrepresentation (was Re: Ross Perot)
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:06:19 GMT
Reply-To: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC


> Article <31451@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> From: cs171wcu@uape_9.ucsd.edu (Mark Rotenberg)

> In article <1992Mar31.202836.12958@cs.rose-hulman.edu> parkem@susan.cs.rose-hulman.edu (Eugene M. Park) writes:

> Would you give it to somebody who wants it so badly he'll lie, cheat and
> steal to get it?  Unfortunately, many voters do, so politicians will.  As
> for experience, Perot's personal experiences would be far more applicable
> toward solving America's ills than many of those of the other candidates.
> George Bush never saw a electronic checkout counter in a grocery store until
> a few months ago.

That is a mistake; George Bush saw a new type of electronic scanner
at a grocier convention which could recognize a bar code even though
the bar code was torn up into 5 separate pieces.

Some media reports (including my news radio report) only resported
at first that George Bush was amazed at the electron scanner.
Later they added the correction that this was a brand new type
scanner and thr details.

Almost nobody had seen the scanner before because it was first (?)
displayed at the convention as a demonstration.

P.S. I am not a Bush fan so don't try to tell me that I just
trying to support Bush on this matter.  As far as I am concerned
my opinion about him being out of touch with people would
be further supported if this was true.

-- 
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375   (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091                 (703) 620-1141 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:456 talk.politics.misc:17010
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:37:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Apr6.055137.6789@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche) writes:
>
>Hitler asked for the same powers in 1933 in order to clean up a "big mess."
>The Reichstag gave him the powers, and the rest is history. Perot is offering
>the same solution: a strong leader able to enfore unilateral decisions with
>the brutality of the state. Perot may be rich and powerful, but upstairs he's
>still a redneck whose solution to anything he doesn't like is "beat it till it
>bleeds." I hardly call this sensible.
>
>
>-- 
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+ "That government is best which governs LEAST"    VOTE LIBERTARIAN   +
>+ Andre Marrou / Nancy Lord '92   1-800-682-1776 / 1-900-4-LIBERTY    +
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  Again, another Libertarian bashing Perot; what gives???  My theory 
still holds... :-)

  You have obviously read/heard nothing about Perot.  Why don't you read
the Larry King interview that has already been posted here twice?

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Vote NeXT!
Keywords: angry young man
Organization: George Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.062312.6212@zip.eecs.umich.edu> baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.023748.5564@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>
>>                             Elect H. Ross Perot!
>
>Preserve your right to be thrown in jail for cohabitating before marriage!
>
>-- 
>Brad Baillod						baillod@eecs.umich.edu


Do you have any sources that state that Ross Perot is intending to throw
people in jail for "cohabitating" before marriage? If so, please post them 
on the net. If not, please refrain from making unjustified claims.

John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ling@watson.ibm.com (David Ling)
Subject: Re: Perot's company standards
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 13:53:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1942@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> > Article <1992Apr4.062312.6212@zip.eecs.umich.edu> From: baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod)
|> 
|> > In article <1992Apr3.023748.5564@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
|> 
|> > >                             Elect H. Ross Perot!
|> 
|> > Preserve your right to be thrown in jail for cohabitating before marriage!
|> > Brad Baillod						baillod@eecs.umich.edu
|> 
|> Because Perot requires his employees to not cohabitat does NOT
|> mean that he is going to requyire Americans to do the same if
|> he is elected President!
|> 
|> Perot Systems is a company and you have the right to not
|> work for it if you choose.  He tries to project a certain
|> image of his company and wants the employees to reflect that.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
|> NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375   (202) 767-2046
|> 12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091                 (703) 620-1141 

Suppose the image Mr. Perot wanted to project was Republican or Catholic...
You could only work for his company if your were a Republican, etc. I, for
one, believe that this is an unsupportable intrusion into people's private
lives. What someone does, or thinks, or worships in their non-working hours
should not be any of their employer's business!!!

That Mr. Perot feels as an employer that it IS his business tells me he has
a world view that I wouldn't want to see in the White House.

David 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: meggin@epas.utoronto.ca (David Megginson)
Subject: The _other_ election
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:42:55
Originator: meggin@epas.utoronto.ca

While we are talking about an election which is still months away, a
very different one is about to take place in the U.K., and according
to the latest polls, Labour may win.

Of course, the Tories are doing everything they can to discredit
Kinnock and the Labour party -- you'd think that would be easy, given
the Labour nearly reduced the U.K. to third-world country status (a la
Eire) by over-spending during the '70s, and that the country was saved
only by an IMF bailout of historical proportions -- but it is not
nearly so simple this time.

For one thing, the pound sterling is locked into an exchange mechanism
with other European currencies, so it must keep pace with the DM, etc,
and inflation is not an option. When a government borrows money, one
or both of two things will happen: 1) the currency will lose value
(inflation), or 2) interest rates will rise (unemployment).  Since
Labour can no longer hide its borrowing behind inflation, it will have
to raise interest rates to extremely high levels, and cause massive
unemployment, if it runs a big deficit.  Isn't it ironic that
something which Thatcher opposed so strongly (stronger ties with
European currencies) will be the best check on Labour spending? ;-)

Labour will have some room to spend -- there is a lot of pressure on
the DM because of the costs of reunification, the Yen will probably
slow down because of the upcoming economic downturn in Japan, and the
U.S. dollar will plummit if the government has to buy its way out of
recession -- so the pound will not have to work as hard to keep pace.
Still, it's neat to see how the rules of the political game have
changed so much in the last two decades.


David

--
#################################################################
David Megginson                  meggin@epas.utoronto.ca
Centre for Medieval Studies      david@doe.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto            39 Queen's Park Cr. E.
#################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:20:20 GMT

In article <ru2euINNhve@agate.berkeley.edu> jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'
Rourke) writes:

>I believe the original poster asked for people to say why they WOULD vote
>for Mr.  Bush.  I don't think I'd mind seeing that.  Surely there are
>Republicans that can use a computer.  But all I've seen so far is comments
>insisting there still is a presidential election, and that Libertarians
>are over-represented on the net (like nasa employees).
>
>So, let the GOP speak, and give us rationale, hopefully other than just
>party ID.  And let everyone post to "why not vote Bush"

Original poster speaketh:

As those of you have posted before know, some people prefer to respond by
email.  Indeed, I did receive replies from a few who support Bush.

In no case was I told that the president has been doing a good job.

What I heard was that Bush is the lesser of three evils, and that the decision
to go ahead and vote for Bush seems like the sensible thing to do given the
quality of democratic opposition.  One gentleman commented that he would look
into Perot, but it would probably be Bush.

I took some heat for my statement in my original post that Bush is a shoe-in,
no way he will lose.  Republican silence in this forum and the private email I
received has strengthened my initial belief.  In the upcoming election Bush
will not have to stand for anything, the status quo and presidential
silence is all he needs.

The more specific the democrat (Clinton?) candidate is post-convention in
delineating the many problems facing the United States the more mind-boggling
any offered solution will seem.  What do we do about the homeless, the gap
between rich and poor, the environment, insufficient tax revenue, our decaying
cities and schools, our erroding industrial base and the overseas flight of
jobs and industries, the deficit, the debt and even Libertarian Utopianism's
legitimate concern about meddling governmental bureaucracies?  Can any one
democratic candidate even begin to offer a solution to even one of these
problems that all could agree upon?  Of course not.

Bush's people (who have done quite well electing folks to the executive branch)
will take a TV crew down to Arkansas in August and find people on the
street, probably democrats, who will say, "I live here and I don't see that
Clinton did that much for our environment--and he raised taxes too."

George Bush:  "I *do* care, and isn't all this confusion on the democratic side
and in the democratic platform planks just a little bit frightening,
uncertain."  George Bush, the 1992 alternative candidate.

JH