HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:56:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.172046.26326@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Matthew.B.Berry@dartmouth.edu (Matthew B. Berry) writes:

>3.  While I disagree with some of Bush's foreign policy, I feel that at
>least
>he will safeguard our national security interests.  Clinton wavered on
>the Gulf War, and Perot opposed it.

Saving the Kuwaiti emir and his 100 wives does NOT safeguard our
national interest. Opposing the Gulf War is not an indication that
the candidate will not protect the interests of the U.S. overseas.


>10.  I HATE BILL CLINTON!

Me too.

John Korman

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Perot very clear on issues
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:04:27 GMT

>In article <1992Apr13.230228.22926@uunet!tellab5!odgate> mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>
>>Does he think that no one else has 'studied' the health care
>>crisis?  Does he think that Washington is not just full of bookshelves of
>>such 'studies'?  Or does he just not know what to do so he falls back on
>>the old politician's standby, the 'study'.  And then the 'pilot
>>program'.  And by then, it will be time for reelection anyway, so the 37
>>million Americans without adequate health insurance can just wait for
>>old Mr. Perot to 'study' their problems.

	Granted, the 'study' has been a stall practice in politics for
a long time. But the pilot program... has the U.S. Government ever
done a factory-like pilot program on anything before? You know, something
to get the bugs out of the procedure before it's implemented on 250 Million
people?
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot on social issues
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:40:45 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, bergen@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:

>I'm not a Perot employee, but on the local Dallas public radio station I
>heard something very interesting.  The moderator made the statement that
>Perot has proposed house-to-house gun searches for illegal weapons.  To
>implement this, he would use military and state reserve personnel.

>Perot's connections with Oliver North and Gen. Singlaub worry me a
>great deal.

>Comments?

    I don't know a whole lot about Perot.  His recent interviews make
a lot of sense.  I find it interesting that someone can articulate in
one hour far more vision than Bush has been able to do in an entire
term.  Why anyone would want to vote for Bush is beyond me...but that's
another story. Hey, where is Bush anyhow?  Why doesn't someone flip
a rock?
    Of course, no one has been after Perot about his record yet.  Several 
months of tabloid media will really grind the shine off of our newest 
candidate.  Norman Rockwell images are only as thick as the paint...

    RE: Perot

    Is it true that Perot fires employees who divorce?

    I know about the manditory drug testing, etc.  Would he favor Congress
passing laws to that effect for everyone?

    What about dress codes?  Would we all have to wear uniforms?

    How is Perot planning on getting this stuff through congress?  The
last time I checked they were a separate branch of the government.

Tim Smith
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:1043 talk.politics.misc:18576
From: bobm@anasaz (Bob Maccione)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:18:31 GMT
Reply-To: bobm@qip.UUCP (Bob Maccione)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

strat@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>pete@helena.rice.edu (Louis Wu) writes:
>
>>Perot might have two different effects. First, he'd be likely to do his
>>damdest to get rid of waste, pork, and entitlement programs. He'd be
>>dismantling the "paternalistic government" in this sense, not creating it. 
>
>This is the one reason I plan to vote for him.  Too few people seem to
>realize all the positive effects we could have from having our first 
>non-partisan president.  Just imagine the state that our congress
>would be in if they found out they would have to deal with someone who
>has no real ties with either political party.  

Actually it would be interesting to see a president get elected without
have 'debts' to pay back from special interest groups.

>
>>Secondly, I had always assumed that Perot would be a right-wing moralist,
>>judging from the facist way he runs his company.
>
>I dunno.  I still haven't seen anything "fascist" from what I've read 
>about him.  I am more inclined to use the term from above:
>Paternalistic.

I don't know if fascist is the right word but the company seems scary as hell.
With a dress and appearence (sp) code it's a wonder that they get any REAL(tm)
programmers to work for them.

>
>> However, he's pro-choice.
>
>Another good reason to vote for him.  He might help reverse the trend
>of government to take more and more rights away from women.


here! here!  Since I'm not a female I've taken the stance that I really don't
have much say in what a woman does with her body, but this isn't the forum
for _that_ discussion.



If nothing else it might scare the lifers on capital hill into actually 
trying to do something ( doubtful though )...

bob maccione -- all opinions mine, leave my employer alone.
anasaz!bobm@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
From: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Flat Tax lowers taxes on poor
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:50:57 GMT
Reply-To: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: finess.corp.sun.com


I also agree that the lack of a personal exemption is  a flaw in the Brown
flat tax proposal.  If the proposal were modified to include a $4000 per
person exemption, we would only need to raise the marginal rate from 
13 to 14 percent. The advantage is that we could take _lots_ of people off the
tax roles entirely.  A letter to the New York Times suggested allowing 
an exemption of food and education from the value added tax and a personal
deduction for educational expenses-these might be worthwhile if there were some
kind of cap. I also feel there should be some kind of cap on the mortgage
interest/rental deduction.
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: NYT on the difference between Clinton and Brown
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:30:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <Apr.5.21.05.41.1992.27851@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>
>The April 5 edition of the New York Times has a table comparing Brown
>and Clinton on various issues.  If you're still not familiar with
>their platforms, you might want to look it up.
>

>
>"Before the campaign began last year, the Arkansas Governor published
>a booklet that set forth his views on everthing from the economy to
>the cold war, from race relations to the environment.  In anticipation
>of the New York primary, he released a 10-page paper on urban policy.
>
>"He has a five-point plan for ending the recession and another
>five-point plan for long-term economic growth.  he has three
>"principles" for invigorating cities, nine ways of "empowering
>inner-city youth," a four-part "crime strategy" and a four-point
>health care plan.
>

	Out of curiousity- how many of Clinon's multi-point plans that
he is proposing for the Country has he implemented in Arkansas? It seems
like some of the plans he would be able to implement locally. Has he
done this?
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 10 Apr 1992 16:27:09 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr10.053437.19874@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> ... Last I checked, there's no wall surrounding the US as
> once surrounded Berlin.  No snipers to prevent your escape.  The method
> of changing governments is known as emigration ...

No, that's the way of changing countries.  A government and a country
are not the same thing.  Why do so many people say, "If you don't like
the government, leave"??  We're not here for the benefit of the
government, they're here for us.  As Perot says, *we* are the owners
of the country, and if our employees, the people in government, are
screwing up, then maybe we need new employees.  Don't try to make
yourself out as a patriot by saying "America -- love it or leave it",
and ignoring the third alternative -- "change it".

	Wayne
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 11 Apr 1992 20:05:52 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

sdstpk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Stephen D Spencer) writes:

I write...
>>Again, you have demonstrated your total lack of knowledge and awareness
>>on this issue. 

He writes...
>Of course...

Tell you what, folks.  You can listen to this idiot if you like, but I'm
going to put him in my kill file.  He may be interesting to sit next to
in Computer Science... but his childish notions of government and 
politics bore me.

Stratocaster
-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
 Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:14:24 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


I think Don Baldwin has some valid points about regulations as in
the gov't can interefere.  I totally agree with their nosy parker
attempts to interfere with a right to an aboirtion.

What got me steamed up was this simplistic notion that less
regualiton equal more freedom.  A simple and untrue notion. One
must look at the regulaiton and what it is doing.  It can be furthuring
freedom.  LIke worker safety standards, or health codes for 
restaurants.

Obviously gov't can pass laws to repress - like laws on sexuality etc.

But abolishing all regulations like thses Liberatarians support
is simple and dangerous and a result of surface reading of history.
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: NH Primary & LP
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:21:04 GMT
Reply-To: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Fairbanks, Alaska...no wait, that's not right...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a3

In article <1992Apr14.193426.12942@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Kenneth.E.Harker@dartmouth.edu (Kenneth E. Harker) writes...
>as many students, which must have been more than a little  disturbing
>for Marrou.  In fact, it occured to me halfway through his speech that
>he hadn't yet asked me to vote for him.  All he seemed to want to talk
>about was how fast his little party was growing.  He never did actually
>ask us to vote for him.  Of course, it wouldn't have helped...

This appears to be the strategy of most recent LP candidates (at least
from 1985 on, from what I can tell).  Push the party, forget about the
candidate.  Of course, this doesn't sell in the real world.  It's highly
ironic that the Randians in the party rally endlessly against 
collectivism, then become total collectivists themselves once they 
attain party office, as evidenced by their total lack of ability/
willingness to deal with anything on an individual level.

Marrou's 1986 campaign saw him receive a pretty hefty sum of money from
many Libertarians all over the country, but instead of spending it on an
intelligent campaign, he instead spent it on the abstract notion of
promoting the party in his district.  What campaigning he did do was
against Dick Randolph, who he wasn't even running against and was
nothing more than just a vain stab at someone who defected from the
party, with good reason I might add.

************************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan*****Internet: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
WWIVnet: 220@9704*CFN: au414*IRC: RadioKAOS, Aoxomoxoa*Ph: (907)488-8365
BITnet: FSSPR@ALASKA****Snail: P.O. Box 83381, Fairbanks, AK  99708-3381
*Call me Pastor - Pastor - Pastor of Muppets I'm pulling your string...*
I'll do a disclaimer when they pry my cold dead hands from the keyboard.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: The Democratic Candidates: New Yorkers' Opinions
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 23:49:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.201207.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>  WHY THEY'RE FOR NONE OF THE ABOVE...
>
>  * None of the candidates will lead to true reform
>  * All of the candidates have character deficits, be it scandal or flakiness
>       or not enough gumption to take command

Of course, EVERYBODY has character defects.

Do you really think people are expecting to find people who don't??

   don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing over swords...
that's no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic
ceremony!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mjg@sso.larc.nasa.gov (Marston J. Gould)
Subject: Democrats Delagate Count
Reply-To: mjg@sso.larc.nasa.gov (Marston J. Gould)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:48:44 GMT

Does anyone have any recent numbers on the total number of
delagates committed to each of the candidates (on the first
ballot) and for uncommitted. Also would like to know what
the count is by superdelagates and non-superdelagates, as
well as the number of delagates remaining.

Thanks in advance.

Marston


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pmiragli@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Pierluigi Miraglia)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:22:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.054712.14353@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason
W Solinsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.040027.30891@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.colu
mbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>|> People have been concentrating in cities since the Industrial Revolution
>|> began, the days of laissez-faire.  Government intervention has in fact
>|> caused people to move out of cities (the Highway Act allowed suburbs
>|> to be possible.  I suppose tax breaks for mortgages, etc., though I'm
>|> not as clear on the dates for this)  Arguably, technology will allow
>|> us to become even more dispersed, with faxes, modems, etc.
>
>Just look at the fraction of all people living in urban areas. It's climed
>tremendously. As is illustrated below, we are distributed horribly. Regulation
>allows people to move together. Without it they can't get too close, but
>regulation costs money. Just look at NYC. It isn't even close to being able to
>support itself. If you look at the net flow of funds, its the worlds biggest
>sinkhole.

I couldn't resist this one. People move together because of a number of
typically human needs that have nothing to do with gov't incentives. If
you looked beyond the (deceptively large) boundaries of the U.S., you'd see
that every other advanced society is essentially urban.
In Europe ( as most everywhere else) people *want* to move to *inner*
cities, as shown by the skyrocketing land value in the urban centers. In
fact, it is as far as I know only in the U.S. that "inner city" means
"area where nobody wants to live". And the reason for that are probably
the relative cheap value of space here and the enormous gov't *subsidy*
for private transportation.

Moreover, studies about urban anthropology show that people in fact like
to group together and not to spread apart. Suburbs here are much more
the result of people wanting to live *with* what they perceive as their
likes than the effect of people seeking isolation. Isolation is one of
the least tolerable conditions for humans (then again, humans in the US
may be a counterexample to this).
Anyway, it's quite obvious that any thriving contemporary society is a
urban society. In America, the tendency seems to be the opposite. But
America right now is not so thriving perhaps.
Bye
PL.
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pierluigi Miraglia       Miraglia.1@osu.edu
Dept. of Philosophy, The Ohio State University
A word is worth a thousand pictures - CSLI anonymous
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.news-media
From: goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard)
Subject: US coverage of Canadian health system
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 22:01:11 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

I think that mainstream coverage in the US of the Canadian system
is a good test of Chomsky and Herman's propoganda model.  As far
as I can tell, elite opinion ranges from being completely against
government intervention to wishing to dump the problem on the
taxpayers.  The latter end is personified in Lee Iacocca, but I
don't think there is much support for his position.  The model
(if I understand it) would predict that the debate about health
care would be framed by the parameters of elite opinion, i.e.,
ranging from private organization of health care (i.e. insurance
industry) to government financing of health care, with emphasis on
the solutions that include a substantial role for the insurance
industry.  Since no elite groups (as far as I can tell) want the
government to actually provide health care (e.g., own and manage
the hospitals, as in Britain), the model predicts that this option
would not be discussed or would be summarily dismissed.  And, as
far as I can tell, this is exactly what we find in, for example,
the New York Times.  Government management is dismissed if mentioned,
taxpayer-funded single-payer systems (Canadian) is discussed a
little but usually in negative terms.  Meanwhile, the debate rages
around the question of whether to *require* employers to provide
health care (the state taking care of the unemployed) - the Democratic
pay-or-play approach - or to *encourage* employers to provide health
care or consumers to buy insurance - Bush's approach.  As usual
we have a full-spectrum debate from A to B.  I think the model is
confirmed by this example; it would be nice to see a proper study
done.

Nigel





-- 
Nigel Goddard
goddard@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
From: thompson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Heidi Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: what does Clinton have to SAY?
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:46:10 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

I'm really sick of hearing the words "slick political operator" in connection
with Governor Clinton. In ten years as Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton
distinguished himself in his open and honest dealings with the people of
Arkansas, and his ability to make real progress while having to deal with a
backward and nearly illiterate state legislature. Mr. Clinton found himself
opposed by special interests at every turn, and still managed to bring Arkansas
out of the cellar in education, health care, the environment, and many other
areas. If you need specifics, I will do the research to post on the net soon.
The voters of  Arkansas have heard these accusations before, and they were found as empty
and meaningless then as they are now. Refer to Article 405 in
alt.politics.elections for more information on Bill Clintons position
statements.

Michael Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:39:54 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>In article <EduqBi200WBNM87np4@andrew.cmu.edu> to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Oli
>   {stuff about first time homebuyer tax credit deleted} In escense what Bush
>>put forth to the american people was not what he asked congress to give
>>them.

>  Many leading Democrats didn't like the Democratic budget either.  They
>merely passed it because they knew Bush would Veto it.  Even then, it
>barely made it through.

    Another viewpoint:  The Democrats were not thrilled with the bill,
they knew Bush would veto it, but they passed it anyway to meet the
"deadline" so that it would not become as much of a campaign issue.

    Bush vetoed it because he could not sign a tax increase on the top 
1% of the population (the core of his power base). The Dems didn't like 
it because it wasn't powerful enough medicine for the economy.  Most
would have prefered to fund infrastructure to create jobs, but that
would have either increased deficit spending or raised taxes, both a
No-No in an election year with a divided government.

    BTW, the house bill did include virtualy all of the presidents
"state of the union" proposals, even the ones he left out of the written 
bill he sent to congress (e.g., first time homebuyer tax credit, etc.).
    The few ommisions were on capitol gains (Trickle down economics 
is in general Dead on Arrival in congress nowadays - deep cuts in capitol
gains have been floated in congress for at least 10 years with no success.)
The few additions included an increase the upper tax bracket to pay 
for cutting the middle class some slack. (ostensibly to restore fairness 
after the top 1% recieved a 12% reduction in net taxes in the last decade 
while the middle class recieved a 1+% increase.)

Bottom line: 
     It's an election year with a divided government. The Dem bill was 
a parry to Bush's thrust, neither was a serious attempt at solving economic 
problems.

>Patrick Sugent

Tim Smith