HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: the wasted vote theory
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:24:36 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul22.161643.26260@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson) writes:
]Wasted or not - I'm voting for Perot (It has been announced that he will
]still be on the ballot in Colorado). The average American is very ignorant
]about how our government works. For example - when I start talking about
]how the NSC (National Security Csomething) should be uprooted completely
]because they hold tons of power AND they are not elected OR appointed - they
]just "continue" from admin to admin and cause major problems for the prez -
]my cube neighbor just laughs and calls me "paranoid". That person has no
]clue and is very representative of the U.S. population in general.

Har har har..... ouch.... my sides are hurting...

stop it!....

this laughing is killing me!!!

You imply that you know more than the average american, and then
out out this nonsense! First of all, it is the National Security Council.
Second, it is appointed by the President and as such reports to him. They
ARE appointed, as are all high level administrative officials.

Get a clue....
-- 
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll
From: hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady! (Was: Clinton's VP list gets shorter
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:56:56 GMT

speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd) writes:
>> speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>> >korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:

> I was not aware that PMRC was a religous group.  Is it really?

I gather that the company which prints/publishes their book is a religious
book company.  Their ties to fundamentalist organizing were I thought well
documented.  For further info see Jello Biafra's spoken word stock.

>  What scares me is when a "self-appointed guardian of morality" tries
>to put into LAW their morality.  I think a store owner or mall owner
>who bows to the visible views of the few are to be flamed for their
>actions.
>  The nonsense that the Meese commission did put pressure on stores
>like 7-Eleven to remove magazines from their shelves.  Meese's actions
>were repressive, but 7-Eleven should be flamed for bowing to such
>stupidity.
>  People in this country should be educated as to the meaning of the
>first Amendment and should know better than to bow to the 10% americans
>who have no tolerance.
>  Yes, we should not succumb to the 10%, but we should not endeavor
>to suppress their views.  Instead, if they have an honest concern,
>we should listen, and help find an answer.
>  What is the answer?

The cave in to the back door censors is pretty much a business decision.
The mall stores, chains, 7-elevens &c of the world are after the bottom
line.  I really don't know how to get a lever under such people.  It seems
stupid to try pulling the same handle with them, and say but this stuff
will make you money, I certainly don't want to walk into a 7-eleven and
say I will buy enough colliding body skin mags to make it worth your
stocking them, if you put in fringe culture magazines (which are the 
market hit by the clampdown on obscene material).  It bewgins to sound
like the loggers who say "but clear cutting is my job!, I take my pay
check and I buy durable goods.  You want to stop a man from feeding his
family?"  (The logic applies just as well to supporting burglary as it
does logging).  But the dollar is the bottom line out there in the
"real world (TM)", and that is the pressure the spineless are succumbing
to.  I doubt that the first amendment of yours will get far unless it's
economically beneficial to those who control the distribution and sale
of fringe culture material.  Sad, but true.
-P.
-- 
-- Pete Hurd, hurd@sfu.ca          |   Truth never set anyone free,          
Behavioural Ecology Research Group |   it is only doubt which will           
Dept.Biol.Sci., Simon Fraser Univ. |   bring mental emancipation.               
Burnaby B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada        |               -- Anton LaVey                      
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:04:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.025030.7159@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>
>Jack Kemp I like, and in 96 he probably will win the presidency.  Kemp is
>stronger than Quayle, although I must agree Quayle is stronger than Bush.
>
>Just look how Quayle fights for issues while Bush hides in the shadows. 
>Bush is uninterested in domestic affairs--he should be in Baker's shoes now
>and Kemp should be running.

I don't dislike Kemp, but (like some other prominent politicians) Kemp
seems to have a great deal of difficulty in constructing coherent sentences;
he doesn't think before he opens his mouth, and then he rambles on and on,
boring his audiences.  Also, I doubt that his "enterprise zones" will work
(for the simple reason that most ghetto Blacks don't have any enterprise).
I would rather see Kemp put his emphasis on further reducing tax rates for the
the whole country (as suggested by the Hall-Rabushka flat tax proposal) and
eliminating uneconomic regulations for the whole country instead of trying
to sell what looks an awful lot like an affirmative action program.  I like
what Clarence Thomas said about enterprise zones.  He called them "gadget
conservatism" and suggested that improved law enforcement might be more
useful than some tax gimmick.

I think it would be unfortunate if Kemp is the best candidate that free-market
conservatives can come up with.  I don't know who would be better though.
Maybe Phil Gramm or even William Weld.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9323 talk.politics.misc:36443 talk.abortion:29428 soc.women:14276
From: cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,soc.women
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
Date: 29 Jul 92 06:12:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.4eReRau00h5yFCn7Qb
	<l7atnnINNh8g@spim.mips.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 28-Jul-92 Re: Pro Choice
Election Strat Michael Polen@gelato.mip (1321)

>> In any case, pro- and anti-choice refer to positions on law, and pro-life/
> pro-death refer to positions on morality.  Anyone that supports the death
> penalty is pro-death, for example...

Utterly False.  I don't think the death penalty is a good idea.  If I
were on a jury, I certainly wouldn't vote for it.  I just think every
judge or jury has the right to *choose* whether it should be applied or
not.  I don't want pro-lifers forcing their morality on those judges and
juries. That's why I'm "pro-choice".

--Conrad

> You make the assumption that someone who is pro-choice is pro-death or even
> pro-abortion.  Not necessarily true.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9399 alt.politics.clinton:1138 alt.politics.bush:391
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:25:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.182034.29434@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>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?

It is my view that it is quite unlikely that any American
administration would do this, and that George Bush would never do
this. 

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

Sorry to disappoint you, but no.  All the people raising all the furor
over how he 'deliberately didn't inhale because he planned it that
way' are just as stupid as the 'George Bush is going to start a war to
get votes' people.  However, I consider the accusation of being
'slick' to be somewhat less insulting than the accusation of human
sacrifice to get votes.  Hence, given the choice between the two, I
consider the accusation at Bush 'dirtier'.

>
>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.

No, it's not.  Saddam is doing it on purpose.  You don't know much
about how things work in the Middle East, do you?

>
>Not to say that the plan might not backfire. 

What plan?  I don't know how to break it to you, but we DON'T own the
U.N. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politcs.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Whadya gonna do about it?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:48:47 GMT

darlene@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Darlene Wiedman) writes:
>Again I say, posting complaints to the net is exactly that...posting to
>the net.  I doubt this will bring about change in Washington or on the
>local levels.  Do you?

It does in a way - quite a few of us here found out about the third
parties and some of the policies and actions of the government through
the net.  The media certainly wasn't any help.  We then got involved
in local parties.

Other than that, well taken.
-- 
Never appeal to a man's "better nature".  He may not have one. -- LL
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8925 alt.politics.marrou:126 talk.politics.misc:35351
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: MLC PR: LP has over 500 candidates
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:20:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul22.063459.9544@eskimo.celestial.com>, delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>      "Running candidates at all levels is what distinguishes an
> ongoing political party such as the Libertarian Party from a flash-
> in-the-pan like Ross Perot," continued Dasbach. 

Is this the "Late, Great, Libertarian Macho Flash" that I've been
reading about in the LP newsletter?

Way to attract those Perot supporters, guys!
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: bks@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Time/CNN poll 18th July
Date: 27 Jul 1992 17:14:26 GMT
Organization: Logon to Dogon, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

Brad Sherman:
>>...
>>It's a safe bet that Bush will try to use the military to get back in
>>the race if he has not regained a lead by Labor Day.  His epicenic
>>veneer hides the animus of a true bully.

Elizabeth G. Levy:
>I don't think Bush is a bully of any sort. ... 
>
>A military move would perhaps be seen as a paper ploy, and would
>open up ungainly questions ("Why didn't you finish Iraq when you had
>the chance?  Why did you call a cease fire for the sake of a nice round
>number, when your military advisors disagreed?" ...

Those questions are already being asked!  Saddam played Bush like a
violin this last week.

Let me reiterate: Bush is vicious.  Do not underestimate his willingness
to shed blood to get his way.  He can hide behind the UN sanctions in
Iraq, but there is no such shelter w.r.t. Panama.  He will attempt to
get the U.S.A. into a dicey situation so that people will rally 'round
the commander-in-chief.  I hope I'm wrong about this, but I can still
remember his smirking countenance during the early days of both Panama
and Iraq.   Please try again to convince me that I'm mistaken.  
-----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Organization: Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:25:17 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-17820]: convex1.tcs.tulane.edu

In article <1992Jul18.061512.23983@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> molin@crs.cl.msu.edu (Michael Olin) writes:
>filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
>
>>How can the king of status quo/budget deficits say he has _anything_
>>in common with R. Perot and what he stands for?
>
>It's simple.  Bush is a fucking liar.  He'll say ANYTHING that sounds
>expedient.

Tell that to the moron who just posted his lengthy speech about keeping the
republican president, and wiping out the dems from the house....

He obviously doesnt understand that the leader we have now isnt going to do
us any good, we need change, we need Bill Clinton.

--
| Bill Sirinek                     Snail: Box 3799, Tulane University     |
| Computer Science Major                  New Orleans, LA 70118           |
| Tulane University               BITNET: tcws000@tcsmusa                 |
| New Orleans, Louisiana        Internet: tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu     |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9327 talk.politics.misc:36469 talk.abortion:29443 soc.women:14281
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,soc.women
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
Date: 29 Jul 1992 16:54:53 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <4eReRau00h5yFCn7Qb@andrew.cmu.edu>, cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman) writes:
|> Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 28-Jul-92 Re: Pro Choice
|> Election Strat Michael Polen@gelato.mip (1321)
|> 
|> >> In any case, pro- and anti-choice refer to positions on law, and pro-life/
|> > pro-death refer to positions on morality.  Anyone that supports the death
|> > penalty is pro-death, for example...
|> 
|> Utterly False.  I don't think the death penalty is a good idea.  If I
|> were on a jury, I certainly wouldn't vote for it.  I just think every
|> judge or jury has the right to *choose* whether it should be applied or
|> not.  I don't want pro-lifers forcing their morality on those judges and
|> juries. That's why I'm "pro-choice".
|> 
But you would not be allowed on a jury, because you would not consider
*choosing to apply* the death penalty in a particular case.  So this is
support of the death penalty as long as you don't have to dirty your hands.
I find that inconsistent.  Just as I find Quayle's position on abortion
inconsistent (I'm against it as long as it doesn't dirty my daughters hands).

The difference between abortion and the death penalty, is that one is a 
personal decision, unless society interferes, and the other is is a societal
decision.  In the end run, pro-choice is simply the position that says
society should not interfer in personal decisions.  Abortion is only one
of the *choices* under attack.

|> --Conrad
|> 
|> > You make the assumption that someone who is pro-choice is pro-death or even
|> > pro-abortion.  Not necessarily true.
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:01:31 GMT

Allen Halsell writes
> This is inaccurate.  Congress consists of the House and
> Senate.  The Democrats only gained control of the Senate
> recently ... maybe Reagan's second term?  If Congress is
> split, you can't exactly say that Dems had control.  In
> fact you could make a good case for the opposite.

The Democrats regained control of the Senate in 1986 after losing it in the  
first Reagan landslide in 1980. Nevertheless they've controlled the House  
without interuption for the last 40 years and the Senate almost without  
interuption for the same period.

> Of course, if you have a short memory, or limited
> experience, I guess you might think that the Democrats
> were in control.  Oh, and how many times have they
> overridden the Presidential veto? 

A few times.

Now, the question for you, how often has the president overridden the  
Democratic House on any legeslative or budgetary matter ?

	Carl Edman
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Soviet Collapse...
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:39:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <1992Jul31.173054.6828@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>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 Soviet Union mostly fell under its own weight....the West can
be credited mostly for patient and firm resolve over forty years. 
George Kennan probably deserved more credit than anyone else in
the West, and the average citizen of the former Soviet Union the
most credit for a relatively non-violent overthrow of a totalitarian
state.

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

But Reagan was aiding and abetting the buildup of the Saddam's 
war machine and chemical and nuclear arsenal.  Reagan totally
neglected the problem of nuclear proliferation during his
administration.

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: the wasted vote theory
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:07:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.161643.26260@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson) writes:
>
>Wasted or not - I'm voting for Perot (It has been announced that he will
>still be on the ballot in Colorado). The average American is very ignorant
>about how our government works. For example - when I start talking about
>how the NSC (National Security Csomething) should be uprooted completely
>because they hold tons of power AND they are not elected OR appointed - they
>just "continue" from admin to admin and cause major problems for the prez -
>my cube neighbor just laughs and calls me "paranoid". That person has no
>clue and is very representative of the U.S. population in general.

Um, this is not a very convincing argument if you don't even know what
the National Security Csomething is.

And BTW, there is some context missing above.  The poster DOES NOT
mean he's voting for Perot whether or not he's intoxincated.

-- 
 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: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:23:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.154614.12359@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>,
hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.115843.29130@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul27.155053.14891@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
>>>The last time there was a balanced budget was I believe 1969.
>>>Why was it possible that year? The economy is certainly larger
>>>now. So where did the money go? My guess is the top 1% of the
>>>income group.
>>
>>Guess again.  Ever hear the phrase 'entitlements'?  You might want to
>>research some of the numbers and stop guessing.
>
>Oh, yes. I also gather that the people who turn out to vote the most
>are the retirees. By 2015, the baby boomers are going to retire
>(granted that they made their contributions during their working life),
>by then not only the budget is going to burst, so will the ballot box.
>However, entitlements are not the problem right now. The major part is
>the social security which is in the black. It is the rest of the budget
>that borrows from the social security trust fund.
>Have you ever heard the phrase `S&L bailout'? Do you know that the top
>rate went from 70% to 31% while the budget deficit went from 65billion
>to 340billion?

Actually entitlements are already a problem.  I finally received my
packet on t the Congressional Budget Tracking SYstem from the
National Taxpayers Union which included a book of charts called (as
best as I can recall from memory) "Entitlements and out aging
population.  The charts are devastatingly clear that we are throwing
more and more government money at those age 65 and older at the
expense of those much younger.  It also show things like how we
spend more on entitlements to seniors measured as % of GNP than just
about all other countries int he world.  All in all, a *lot* of very
interesting data looked at from many different angles.

They never come out and say that older citizens are the ones who
vote so politicians are trying their best to keep them happy, but
that's sure the picture the numbers paint.

BTW, the more I learn about NTU's CBTS the more impressed I am.
It's a fine piece of work that seems to be making a lot of
Congress-critters take a hard look at what legislation they're
sponsoring.  And as soon as I've had time to play with the software
(they send you their whole data base, not just reports) I'll have
some more specific things to say.  I'm renewing my NTU membership
(which I let lapse a long time ago when they got hung up on fighting
for calling a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget
amendment) so I can get the updates cheaper.  I think the price was
$29.95 for members and $50 for non-members.

/June
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: More fun facts, was Re: Wealth Distribution
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:23:53 GMT
Organization: Surely you jest

jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:

> Education expenditures per pupil, grades K-12, in 1991 dollars
> 	1977-78:  $3,889			1991-92:  $5,578
> 
> Average teacher salary in 1991 dollars
> 	1977-78:  $30,289			1991-92:  $34,413
> 
> Average SAT scores (combined math and verbal)
> 	1977:  899					1991:  896
> 
> It's good to see that throwing money at education is helping.

The interesting part is that we're looking at close to a 40% increase in 
spending, yet only a 14% increase in teachers' salaries. Yet there's much 
wailing and gnashing of teeth on the great shortage of teachers, 
understaffed schools.. So.. Where's all the money going?

Besides the obvious wastebasket, that is. :)

--
55: It's not a good idea - it's just the law.
The country needs them more than ever: Bill 'n' Opus in '92!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.legal