HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Subject: Re: the wasted vote theory
Reply-To: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:21:46 GMT

--
>>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.

So why does that completely destroy the content of my statements? The content
and truth of my example does not go away just because I could not remember
the EXACT name behind the initials NSC. Is it the National Security Counsel?
I could have easily looked it up but I am not at home.

It was not my intention to start a dialog about the NSC specifically - the
EXAMPLE I stated was meant to secure some context for my previous statement
about the ignorant American public. Ask the average Joe on the street or in
your place of work what the NSC is and you will get a blank stare most of the time. And this is one powerfull department of our government. The American
people don't know how their govenrment works - so how does the American
public make a wise choice in November? They don't - same thing every election
year.

Anyway - if you don't believe me then go read Oliver North's book. He addresses
these facts about the NSC. (Not that I am a North fan - but he does have a very good understanding of our government's internal workings - he should - he was
very good at beating that system. You have to KNOW the system to BEAT it)

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

Funny  ;^)     But I will vote for Perot (as of today) sober or not.   ;^)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 M_Henderson               | "Could you please continue the petty bickering?
 Marty Henderson           |  I find it most intriguing."   ---    Data, 
 Woodland Park, Colorado   |  Star Trek, The Next Generation, "Haven"
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Causes of the "Cultural Elite"
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:23:28 GMT

hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article <rdippold.711922999@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com
>(Ron Dippold) writes:
>|>mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>|>>I would say that in today's world libertarianism has taken the
>|>>place of socialism as the trendy ideology. The same sort of
>|>>nerdy types who a few years ago would have been loony
>|>>socialists are today loony libertarians.
>|>
>|>Oh yeah, those who advocate the destruction of freedom would make just
>|>great defenders of freedom.  Libertarianism has been around for at
>|>least 200 years.  Socialism only 100.  You're seeing the retreat of it
>|>because it doesn't work.

>Not so, free-market libertarianism has only existed for thirty years
>being dreamed up mainly by Hayek in his dotage. Socialism has existed
>over two hundred. Check the dates of Robert Owen. Remember that Marx was
>criticising a mature ideology, he had to distinguish his `Scientific
>Socialism' from Owens established rather paternalist variety.

I've apparently underestimated Socialism's age.  On libertarianism,
however, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are extremely
libertarian, especially compared to the other governments of the time.
-- 
A "pacifist" is a contradiction in terms. Most self-described pacifists are not
pacific; they simply assume false colors. When the wind changes they hoist the
Jolly Roger.   -- Lazarus Long
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton's OLD Covenant
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:36:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.230905.29210@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, MrEd@GreenAcres writes:

|>In article <1992Jul24.182814.2054@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>  
|>ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert) writes:
|>> In article <1992Jul24.174706.28337@cbnews.cb.att.com>,
|>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com  
|>(joseph.m.knapp) writes:
|>> > Here is a flyer being passed out by the Ohio Republican Party:
|>> > 
|>> >
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
|>> > 
|>> >                         Bill Clinton's OLD Covenant
|>> > 
|>> > Bill Clinton says he wants to do for America what he has done for
|>Arkansas.
|>> > But he has failed to move Arkansas up the ladder during his years
|>in the
|>> > state house. Arkansas' labor conditions, environment, and
|>conditions for
|>> > children rank among the worst in the country, according to studies
|>by the
|>> > Southern Labor Institute, Institute for Southern Studies, and the
|>Center
|>> > for the Study of Social Policy.
|>> > 
|>> > 
|>> > 
|>> >                                    Labor:
|>> > 
|>> >         49th in overall worker climate;
|>> >         46th in labor opportunity; and
|>> >         50th in youth employment.
|>> >
|> 
|>[ omitted numerous depressing statistics]
|>
|>> > 
|>> >                    Don't buy Clinton's "New Covenant" until
|>> >                         you've seen his OLD Covenant!
|>> >
|>> 
|>> Yeah, but what were these numbers BEFORE Clinton became governor! 
|>I
|>> think you'll see a big improvement.
|>> 
|>> Jason
|>
|>Yep, I'm sure Arkansas was 50th in overall worker climate before
|>Clinton took  
|>office and he pushed them up to 49th :) 
|>He's been governor for (I seem to recall) 10 of the last 12 years. 
|>If he stayed on for another 10 years, maybe he could push then all the
|>way up  
|>to 48th or even 47th :)

Hang on a sec, who runs this `research institute'? Some of the terms
seemed just a little vague. What does "overall worker climate" mean? How
is it measured?

This sort of attack is prone to backfiring. If Clinton can come out with
a counter ad that shows improvements then it knocks a hole in the
Republicans case. 

Also remember that Bush dosen't exactly have a great record of his own
to go on. I don't think that another failed attempt to unseat Hussein is
going to help. Short of a direct hit on the bastard there is no chance
of Bush doing anything other than remind the US people that despite all
the fancy firepower he failed to achieve the mission they expected him
to.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8903 alt.politics.clinton:298 alt.politics.bush:42
From: dtl8v@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Heraclitus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:56:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Virginia


  I agree; it would be stupid to make more war to win an election, and
I think George Bush, while cunning, cares enough not to do something
that inhuman.  We have to admit that politicians are another animal,
men dedicated to carry out public policy which no person alone can
interpret and whose interests will never lie in everything in which he
is forced to deal.  He likes foreign policy, and he's good at it.  I
wish he'd appoint a domestic czar like Kemp to run his domestic
initiatives in the mean time, although short of another LA Riot, Kemp
won't have any more support in the House than Bush does.
  Frankly, I think Clinton might have some domestic ideas, but I
prefer having a President who is a Head of State and pushes
initiatives like Free Trade and United Nations Resolutions.  Congress
is elected to make the laws, and they haven't been doing a good job.
It's easy to find a major disagreement with any bill that is on the
table today because of the size and complexity required (via political
maneuvering, logrolling) today of the simplest proposals.  I think
CONGRESS needs a Paperwork Reduction Act.
  No matter which candidate wins, however, there will be a great
deficiency in the President's policy.  How will Clinton have time for
foreign policy?  Will the Secretary of State have to do EVERYTHING?
And how will Bush ever have enough time for the domestic economy?  And
how will either do with Congress?  Bush has vetoed fewer than a dozen
bills in his term, as did Reagan before him and so on into the past.
That's more than Clinton would veto, surely, but does it make that
much difference?  If that were a sizeable chunk of Congress' important
legislation (and I'm not saying is necessarily ISN'T), then wouldn't
Congress itself be the real culprit of not offering enough legislative
policies up for Presidential examination?

Doug Lamb
University of Virginia
dtl8v@Virginia.EDU
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8732 alt.politics.perot:979 talk.politics.misc:34999
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:59:45 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:

>>I hope the Perot people are smart enough not to fall for it.

>He's counting on them not being that smart. It's very insulting, IMO,
>for him to talk out both sides of his mouth like that and expect
>people to believe him, but he DOES! It just shows how little respect
>he has for the American people.

    Well, historically he's right.  He was elected in '88 as the education
president, the environment president, the civil rights president, the
jobs president, the labor president, the whatever president; he was 
going to end the trade imbalance, create new jobs, etc, all while not 
raising taxes.  And a significant enough majority of Americans believed 
him. Why should he have any respect for the American voters?
    This was after Ronald "teflon" Reagan, the president who was very
popular even though the majority of people disagreed with the actions
of his administration.  People were not connecting what he did with
what he said. After Reagan, why should anyone have any respect for the 
American voters?

Tim Smith

PS: Remember Ron saying "We hit the jackpot with this one!" as he signed
into law the de-regulation of the savings and loans in the early 80's?
     Well, the S&L crisis is now going to cost us $500B to bail out; more
than the amount of money spent on all of all the "liberal" social programs
like student loans, Pell grants, head start, alternative energy sources,
etc. that Reagan cut. Note that despite deep cuts in these programs we STILL
managed to rack up $3.2T worth of debt in the the LAST 12 YEARS (added
to the $0.8T from the PREVIOUS 200 YEARS.)  So much for the Republican
myth of fiscal responsibility!
    Thanks for making America strong, Ron! Thanks for staying the course, 
George!  And thanks for nothing, American voters!  Check please!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,nj.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Movie Ratings (was: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady!) 
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:49:39 GMT

In article <8Xq7NB4w164w@micro-c.mcds.com> speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>
>  Let's remember that the intent of labeling / Rating is to help
>parents determine what is appropriate for their children to watch /
>listen to.
>  Many people are bashing the ratings system.  If it's so bad, will
>someone please tell me a better way for a parent to know what this
>record their child wants to buy / movie to see - has in it?
>

Find a couple of movie critics/reviewers, there are enough of them
around, and follow their reviews...compare their reviews with your
own reviews of the same movie over time to learn whether you can
trust their judgement or opinions...and then use them to judge
whether a movie is appropriate for your children.

Why would a responsible parent trust an anonymous industry sponsored
reviewer...where all they give is a letter...how do you know the
"devil" is not providing the ratings.

Gerald
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton chooses Gore as VP
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:19:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
>  This is all crystal-clear now why a European pays so close attention to
>Perot- you don't want your countries to pay for the defense they have been
>receiving for the past 45 years!

Don't give us that crap. American troops are occupying parts of
Britain and other European countries purely to defend American
world domination. Personally, I'd far rather my country be
defended by a force under its own control than be lined up in
America's interests to take the first hits.

Matthew Huntbach
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 30 Jul 1992 18:59:08 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul30.180538.23818@udel.edu>, lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
|> 
|> I don't think you'll find many strong pro-choice
|> people that would favor no restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions. I'm
|> sure these people do exist, but not as high as 30%. Maybe if you say
|> "absolutely no restrictions on 1st and 2nd trimester abortions" you
|> would be correct. After all, the extreme pro-choice people had no
|> Well, the SC struck down the spousal notification, and I think the
|> 24 hour waiting period should have been struck down as well. If a
|> woman is poor and must travel a long distance to get to a clinic
|> this waiting period may make impossible to get an abortion there. 
|> They can't afford a hotel and can't afford more than one trip...

I cannot see how that is a consideration for the COURT to worry about.
It seems to me that if restrictions on abortion are not unconstitutional,
then all restrictions must be allowed, and worries about burdens, the extents
of the restrictions etc. are considerations best left to legislatures,
Federal or State.

|> Counselling on alternatives to abortion I have no problem with.
|> Parental notification - well, there is parental notification if a 
|> tooth is pulled, so I guess that could be tolerated. I understand
|> why people want the waiting period. They want the woman to get some
|> counselling, then have some time to think. This is fine, but the
|> waiting period should maybe be shorter, like a few hours, so the
|> problem above doesn't happen. 

This paragraph above is a good example of the reasoning a legislator might use
to determine how he might vote on a Bill, i.e. he uses his/her conscience 
as a guide. A Judge/Justice on the other hand, should use the Constitution
as a guide, not his/her conscience or whatever happens to strike him/her as
a good/bad idea.

|> 
|> This is a tough problem, and the solution is a long way away...

On the contrary, it is a very easy problem once you eliminate the extremists
from the picture. Keep out those who favor abortion at all costs, those who
are opposed to it anytime, and you are left with a solid majority of about 60%
who would be willing to frame reasonable laws that permit but do not encourage
abortion. 60% might not be enough at the Congressional level with a pro-life
President, but that might be a good thing for Federalism, with the Federal Govt.'s
role being minimized, and local governments taking the initiative (as in
Washington's voter initiative to codify Roe).

|> Brian Lintz
|> lintz@udel.edu

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9168 talk.politics.misc:35948
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: State endorsement of the political party system
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:54:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <l6jdmtINNq6h@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, 
sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) said:

> If you accept the fact that states CAN hold Party primaries (which
> apparently, you don't endorse), then there's no reason they
> shouldn't also print the candidates' names AND their parties. One
> makes it clear that you are voting for individuals (we ARE
> representative democracy) and the second gives you an idea of the
> general ideology that you are putting into office.

> As an example, California allowed candidates to cross-file in Party
> primaries so that candidates could be nominated as the candidates of
> BOTH parties at times...  The GOP probably owed its loss of control
> of the Cal. legislature as a result of a 1952 measure putting
> partisan designations on the ballot which resulted in their losing
> the legislature once people knew what the ideologies of the people
> they were voting for were.

Oddly, I believe that if the voter wants to know the ideology of the
candidate that he's voting for, he can -- and should -- expend the
effort of doing a little more research than just looking for the
desired brand name on the party label on the ballot.  Leaving aside
the question of whether the state should be endorsing/legitimizing the
party system in the first place, do we really want the state to be
making it this easy for people to vote, know-nothing-like, along party
lines?  I mean, sure, in a democracy everybody has the right to make
their voting decisions in any brain-dead way they want... but should
the state actually _encourage_ them to do so?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: sullivan@dalek.mcs.anl.gov (Ms. Wendy Sullivan)
Subject: Re: the wasted vote theory
Organization: C. S. U. 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:22:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.003559.11919@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com> chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky) writes:
>I usually just lurk on the net but I just have to comment on this 
>idiotic idea of the "wasted vote" I keep seeing people espousing.
>People, there is no such thing as a wasted vote!  You should vote 
>your conscience.  Plain and simple.
>
>Look at it this way.  If you are really excited about George Bush
>you're going to vote for him.  If you're really excited about Bill
>Clinton you're going to vote for him.  Am I right so far?  I mean
>in general, if you have somebody that you *really* like you're going 
>to vote for him/her.  And I'll bet in such cases you're going to vote 
>for that candidate no matter what his/her prospects for winning are.  
> (stuff deleted)
>if you are 
>dissatified with BOTH candidates and you vote for one of them anyway.
>You're voting AGAINST your conscience!
>
>I hate to burst people's bubbles out there but your single vote does
>not mean shit.  Its the combined votes of millions of people that not
>only determine the course of the country but act as a barometer of its
>collective mood, temperament, desires and frustrations.  
>
>In short, if you really like one of the big two then by all means vote 
>for him.  If you truly, truly, truly believe one is the lesser of two evils
>then vote for that one.  But if you are completely dissatisfied with both 
>candidates and think them equally bad then you should express that 
>dissatifaction in the voter's booth by voting for a third party - Libs, NAP,
>whatever.  Your dissatisfaction is a real and valid feeling that is shared 
>by many in the country but it will not be heard unless you act collectively 
>and express it with your vote.
>
>later,
>--
>Bill Chesky | IBM internal: chesky@squirrel
>IBM         | ibmpa!chesky%squirrel.austin.ibm.com@ibminet.awdpa.austin.ibm.com
>Austin, TX  | ibmpa!squirrel.austin.ibm.com!chesky@ibminet.awdpa.austin.ibm.com

Thank-you!  That is *exactly* my view......

Wendy
From: ward@max.cchem.berkeley.edu (Ward Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Arsenio Hall is a hypocrite
Date: 21 Jul 1992 07:03:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: max.cchem.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul21.015812.1090@leland.Stanford.EDU> jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:
>Now, after a statement by the White House that Bush would "probably
>not" appear on Hall's show, Hall responds.
>"Excuse me, George Herbert, irregular heart-beating, read-my-lying-
>lipping, slipping in the polls, do nothing, deficit raising, make
>less money than Millie the White House dog last year, Quayle-
>loving, sushi-puking Bush.  I don't remember inviting your ass to
>my show.  I don't need you on my show.  My ratings are higher than 
>yours."
>				--Arsenio Hall, on his June 11 show.
>
>Either Hall is afflicted with Alzheimer's disease or he's a
>blatant hypocrite.


Or maybe....just maybe...he's a comedian.  Nah, that couldn't be it.
Did you notice that when Clinton was on the show he and Arsenio did that
top-secret Democratic-insider special handshake?  I think that pretty 
much explains everything.  Of course this is not nearly as blatant as
Johnny Carson's nearly fanatical support for the NRA. 


                                        Ward Thompson


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll