HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Warning to voters?
Date: 25 Aug 92  00:44:00 EST

->    I wouldn't be saying this if the possibilities weren't so dire.
-> We have
-> to take our own lead through the trust of the Almighty God whom our
-> Founding Fathers trusted in to make our independence stand up.  Ours
-> is one nation, under God, as the Pledge of Allegiance (sp?) says.
-> Our leaders haven't always acted Godly, but we've tried, and our
-> faith allowed us to create many wonderful things and produce amazing
-> discoveries.  We have to make sure it stays one nation, and not part
-> of a world government that could turn evil. The words "under God" were not part of the original Pledge of Allegiance as written in 1894.  They were added by an act of Congress, in the midst of the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950's (the World Almanac lists the date as 1954).

As for the Founding Fathers trusting the Almighty, very few of them would qualify as evangelical Christians.  Jefferson's religious beliefs were a major point of controversy in the election of 1800.  Thomas Paine, the Brit who started a good deal of this, was by no means an evangelical.  His _Age of Reason_ was a lengthy and unflattering critique of the Bible.  And Ben Franklin?  He spent a good deal of his spare time carousing, even into his seventies.  He was a member of Sir Francis Dashwood's "Hellfire 
Club", in which members dressed as monks and nuns and participated in orgies.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

"Bush-Quayle '92...................................NOT!"

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11572 talk.politics.misc:41963 alt.politics.clinton:3006 alt.politics.bush:2912
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:19:34 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 23545@fid.morgan.com, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>Democratic in the near future.
>
>Jimmy Carter - a nice guy to be sure but NOT a good President.
>               For those with short memories, go look at what
>               the prime rate, inflation was during his years.
>               He also wanted to work with the Soviets, until
>               they invaded Afghanistan. And then there were our
>               hostages in Iran. And Cubans in Angola. And Soviet
>               advisors in Central America. Libya's Qaddaffi was
>               also openly supporting state-sponsored terrorism.
>
Carter also had to deal with OPEC, which caused much of that inflation.
He also pushed through the ONLY lasting peace between Israel and a neighbor.
You could be sure he wouldn't be dealing with China after Tianimin (sp) Square.
He'd also have gotten rid of killer rabbits in his second term B-).
>           
>Governor Jim Florio (NJ):
>               During his campaign to become Governor, he said (and I quote):
>                  "I SEE NO REASON TO RAISE TAXES"
>               Once in office, he pushed through the largest single tax
>               increase for any state, in the entire history of our country, 
>               all WITHIN SIX MONTHS. He never apologized or attempted to 
>               say why. NJ residents are generally *furious* with Jim and 
>               his party.
>
Yeah, Florio's a major waste, isn't he.
>
>And then there is Mario Cuomo, Governor of NY.
>
Does that say it all?  I don't like Cuomo (D), but by comparison to Sen.
Alfonse D'Amato (R), he's a candidate for sainthood.
>
>In general I simply have a hard time trusting members of the democratic 
>party - they are too quick to raise taxes and 'help me' with new programs.
>
>Just my opinion....
>
>Joe
>joec@morgan.com
>Usual disclaimers....
I've voted all around the board, generally backing losers because (I like to
think) I look beyond the BS.  I've voted Rep, Dem, Libertarian (often), Ind,
Liberal, Cons, for and against tax increases.  In general, unless someone's
running on a single issue (like the Morons against Tall Bulgarians Party),
if they had good ideas, they had my vote.

The current crop of GOP candidates are so much worse than the Dems, it's not
even a fair contest.  This is, of course, a generalization, but that's what
you started with.  I _really_ _really_ wanted Dole in '88.  Not "I wasn't in
the loop" Bush.

--f2
--------------------------------------------------
  "I wanna grow up,
   to be a politician,
   And take over this beautiful land."
  --either the Byrds or George Bush, I forget which
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:57:00 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>>
>Uh, don't you think having Bill Clinton comment during the Republican
>Convention, as PBS did, was a little slanted?

As I remember, Bush was given the opportunity but declined, as he was in
"vacation mode" at that time.

Jim Lehrer did a good job grilling Gore in an interview a couple days ago,
so it can go both ways with PBS. 

I think the only way a partisan of either candidate could have tolerated 
their party's convention this year was to watch it on C-SPAN and skip the
jaded, cynical analysis from the pundits. Many callers to C-SPAN from
both parties complained bitterly about the networks' negativism.

---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11886 talk.politics.misc:42642 alt.politics.bush:3368 alt.politics.clinton:3398
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:32:22 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Steve, you said something like "next he'll ... about the astrologers."

	Were you referring to those three wise men that followed the
	star to Bethlehem?  I always thought they were what we would
	nowadays call astrologers.


		Bye, Judy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Religious Leaders Criticize Republican Blasphemy
Organization: NASA
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:55:26 GMT

David Scharfe writes:
>The upshot of the whole thing was that the clerics were complaining
>about partisan use of the name of god.

>My response was prompted by the fact that members of an organized
>religion finally have demonstrated some integrity publically...

Dave,

  Actually, toward the end of the 1988 election, Presbyterian Survey printed an  
article along those lines.  It basically stated that the best thing a  
government can do to promote religious activity is to create and maintain a  
free society in which all religions can flourish.

  The '92 Democratic Platform espouses similar ideas; I wish more religious  
organizations would speak out on this issue.

Regards,

Steve

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: The lie of "school choice"
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:59:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.093112.6401@iscsvax.uni.edu>
fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
      [...]
>
>That's the problem with making assumptions.  I am not now, nor have I ever been
>a Democrat.
 
I hereby apologize for my vicious characterization of you as a Democrat.
 
>Actually, a religious group did try to start a school (they used their church
>as a building).  Part of the reason it died was that transportation was a huge
>barrier.
>
And the fact that they didn't have access to the $2,000-$5,000/year per
student that the public schools do!
>
>>
>Bravo for them.  I'm not denying that choice may help some folks. However,
>when it is the only thing GHWB proposes, I'm concerned.  Moreover, the likely
>result here is that cities and suburbs will get to use choice, and smaller
>communities will help to pay for it.
>
Not at all. Schools are generally paid for by local taxes.
>
>Jeez, good reasoning  include ad hominem attacks?
 
Nah. But comic relief demanded it.
 
>For the record, I was a national merit scholar...
>
Me, too. Competition wasn't too tough back then, was it ?  ;-)
               --mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: REPUBLICAN PLATFORM WANTED
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:20:25 GMT

Charles Mok writes
> 
> In article <1992Aug27.174856.6773@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu  
(Carl M. Kadie) writes...
> >*Taunt mode on*
> > 
> >Top Five Reasons the Republican platform has not been posted on-line:

  For that matter, has anyone posted the Democratic platform?  If so, could  
someone please email me a copy, or repost it if there's significant interest?

Thanks,

Steve
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: NASA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:13:45 GMT

Michael Edelman writes
> Hey, maybe he'll charge the entire Supreme Court with treason for taking
> their oaths on a bible.

  Well, since the U.S. is not a theocracy, it might be appropriate to eliminate  
that practice; it is pure silliness to require a non-Christian to take an oath  
on the Bible.

  As recently as the 1940s, Supreme Court opinions often quoted the bible.   
Would anyone have us return to that type of justice?

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Vote in past elections
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:32:35 GMT

piiro01@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dave Rodriguez) writes:
>  Does anyone have data available on plurality percentages in previous 
>elections? I refer here to percent of vote on a per state basis such as
>was recently posted from the Wall Street Journal? I am interested in 
>recent national elections for the presidency such as '84, '80, and '76.
>I realize that is a lot of information to ask anyone to post so a 
>reference would also be fine. 

Check your library for a series of books called _America Votes_. The latest
one is #18 which includes a county-by-county breakdown of the 1988
election, as well as state-by-state breakdowns for earlier presidential
elections.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Flowers Question
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:40:45 GMT

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>In article <Aug.27.14.25.41.1992.28265@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
>Q: Did you sleep with Gennifer Flowers?
>A: Her story is not true.  I didn't have a 12 year affair with her.  I had
>   some problems with my marriage.
>Translation: Yes I did.

How about when Bush was asked about his marital infidelity by Stone
Phillips of NBC:

Bush: How dare you ask me that question in the oval office.

Like Clinton, Bush denied a specific rumor but refused to outright
state that he never had an affair. Personally, if he did have an
affair, it is much more damaging to Bush than to Clinton, because
the people who Bush is courting cares much more about this issue
than most other voters.

Saurav
From: mok@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Charles Mok)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:19:47 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <akyy3!p@rpi.edu>, buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes...
> 
>Subject line says it all. I'm looking for a copy of the Republican Platform.
>Could someone please email it to me or tell me the address of a site where I can
>ftp it from? Thanks.

Yes, me too, if anyone has it.  Thanks in advance!!!

Charles
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: 29 Aug 92 10:07 PDT
Subject: Re: No Answer from Clinton/Gore to This
Nf-ID: #R:q7dn7=d.feustel@netcom.com:-804839733:cdp:1640500018:000:484
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Aug 29 10:07:00 1992


The mail box you sent this question too is totally swamped.  I 
forwarded your question to another mailbox where they have a group
of people pulling out questions and working on them.  The techies around
the campaign are testing a system that they hope to make public soon
that should give us all the opportunity to get questions fielded faster.

Until then, have you seen the electronic text directly from the
campaign on crime and drugs?  If not send mail to CLINTON2MARIST.BITNET.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se (John Dryselius TG/HB)
Subject: Re: The Swedish view on Bush
Reply-To: etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 07:46:27 GMT

In article 67910003@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com, smyers@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (steven myers) writes:
|	I suppose that Sweden is used to its 25% plus sales tax, 51%  of its
|gross national product being spent on taxes, a special tax for dog owners (yes
|it is true!), and deodorant and soap bot being listed in the catagory subject 
|to 'luxury tax,' but I hope that we here in America are sharp enough to see 
|past spend now and pay forever politics.  The sliding tax system of Sweden
|allows folks on welfare to make close to the same amount (after taxes) that
|teachers and scientists do.  Somehow, this just doesn't do much for me.  As 
|Bush said,"I made a mistake to concede and raise taxes once.  Bill Clinton did
|it 120 times while governor, and was glad to do it."  For a party that so often
|quotes the "read my lips" line, it would seem more appropriate for them to 
|find a candidate that wasn't quite so spend happy himself.  O' kettle, how 
|black thou art.
|
|				With Love,
|				With respect,
|				Steve.




Thanks for your opinions on Sweden. You will find that most people here will agree on you
that we went too far.

The taxes in Sweden have been reduced recently. The VAT to ~20-23% and the income tax
to ~40-45%. The latter is mostly due to that the "sliding effects" have been removed.
The general concept toady is to further reduce the taxes but to achieve this the welfare
system first has to be reduced. The problem is what parts should be removed or reduced
and what parts of the welfare should remain. 

I believe that the general assumption of that everyone is entitled to the same kind of
medical care (i.e. the amount of care you receive is related to physical condition not 
income) and education (related to intelligence and ability not income) will remain.

The concept of equalizing the income by having a sliding tax (the higher income the higher
tax) and then handling it back through general contributions and income related contributions
failed from the beginning and the equalization never happened. The money was consumed in
the enormous administration (and still is consumed).

If "folk on welfare" means social welfare it isn't true they get more than teachers and 
scientists. Otherwise it doesn't make sense since everyone is on welfare, also the teachers 
and scientists.

Finally I can say that the direction of Swedish politics for the last five years are towards
the right wing. I doubt we are going so far to the right as USA seems to do (from our
perspective). Germany, UK or Canada seems to be the most appropiate ideals for us today.
But the ideals can always change, it has happened before.

John
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot
From: johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: George Bush's new math...
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:58:50 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

I seem to be a bit confused.

President Bush wants to lower taxes across the board.

President Bush wants to cut the capital gains tax.

President Bush wants to cut the deficeit.

Now President Bush wants to increase spending with a job training act.

And President Bush refuses to tell us what programs he is going to
cut. We are asked to "trust" him.

Somehow, this does not add up at all. Perhaps someone could enlighten me
how the President plans to decrease revenue, increase the budget (oh, I
forget, tax vouchers don't increase the budget, they just lower revenue
even more) and balance the budget.

--john chadwick
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12390 alt.rush-limbaugh:4269 talk.politics.misc:43683
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton leads new poll by 34 points
Keywords: yes
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:03:56 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep3.205201.16821@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
->In article <1889@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
->|>  Ok, Ok. Has anyone noticed that recently polls seem to be varying quite
->|> drastically. Last night CNN had a poll which showed the following.
->|>        Clinton  50%
->|>        Bush     45%
->
->	Yup. Thats the Time/CNN poll.
->
->	The trick in reading poll results is to look at the results based on
->previous examples of the same poll. The polls this year have been pretty 
->consistant in that they all go the same direction at once, although the
->spreads vary considerably, thanks to the questions that they ask.

 But the last CNN poll I saw was Sunday and it showed an 8 point lead 
for Clinton. So now even the polls are going in different directions.
Why were they all fairly equivalent and solid before the RNC ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: GOP and G-O-D
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:47:30 -0500
Summary: religious freedom
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Anyone who is a member of any religion should be very wary when they hear
comments like "the Democarats left three little letters out of their platform:
G-O-D"

I.  Let's assume that you want the government to be involved with supporting
religion.

The three little letters only work for some religions.  You can't spell any of
the following in three little letters: 
Allah
Buddha
Siva
Krishnu
Zoroaster
Dionysus

Technically, Satanists believe in God and are a religion.  Does Bush promise
that he'll give yoy a voucher if you want to send your child to a Satanist
school?  (imagine the football games)

My reading of the New Testament (a book that does tend to support God) advises
against public prayer, for giving all wealth to the state (Caesar's to Caesar),
against defense, and "sets brother against brother" as one of its family
values (and don't forget that if you're not married now, don't get
married--Paul).

If I want a theocracy (works great in Iran, doesn't it), then I at least want
someone who has my beliefs.  As I am a Dinoysian, that may be a little hard to
find (although we would have a GREAT innagural bash!)

II.  Let's say that you like the Constitution and don't want government
involved in religion.

Schools are paid for by society as a whole, not simply by people with children
in school.  If you get a tax credit to send your kids to parochial school
because you want to do so, I want a tax credit to not have kids and over-crowd
our schools.  But that is not the way it works.

The Founders of this country knew their recent history, knew how many of the
colonies had been founded so that religions which had not been tolerated
elsewhere could go and be intolerant of other religions in their new home. They
knew how religious differences had had to be overcome in the forming of a
nation.  They very wisely knew that the governing had no special insight into
the religion of the governed, and so prohibited government from involvement in
religion.

Do you like what America stands for, not just the land?  Then you really need
to like the freedom we have, and keep government out of God!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Clinton and Flowers Question
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:25:41 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I was having a discussion with a friend about the election in general
and he brought up the Clinton/Flowers "scandal".  He asserted that
Clinton admitted to having an affair w/ Flowers.  I said that I hadn't
heard about this, but he assured me that it was true.

I would have thought the press would have made a HUGE deal about this if
it had indeed happened.  I didn't have time to press my friend for details.
Can anyone tell me if this is true?

Now, before all you Clinton haters jump on the bandwagon and tell me what
you have deduced, I don't want to hear it.  All I want to know is if he
actually admited to having an affair with her and what is the source of 
your information so I can look it up for myself.

Thanks,



-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending (was: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss Op
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:04:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.202640.10864@midway.uchicago.edu>
shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
 
>
>See, for example, recent work by Robert Jewell of the University of
>Chicago (Administrator's Notebook, Volume 34 -- can't remember the issue #).
> He created a regression model using data from all 50 states and controlled
>for everything you'd ever want to control for, and found no significant impact
>of increased funding.
>
>also, see Chubb & Moe, "Politics, Markets, and America's Schools."
>
>--
>Roger Shouse
>The University of Chicago               Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
>
I'll just add a footnote to Roger's excellent references by mentioning that
the Detroit News did a series on school spending in Southeast Michigan,
and area that includes the highest and lowest spending per pupil in the
state, as well as some of the highest and lowest scores on standardized
achievement tests. Their staistician found no correlation between per-pupil
spending and achievement.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton