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)
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Educational Spending (was: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss Op
Organization: NASA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:35:46 GMT

Michael Edelman writes
> In article <9208300327.AA14754@poly.math.cornell.edu>
> >        Percentage of Americans which found the following "very
> >        important" to promote family values:
> >
> >-- Spending more money on education: 88 percent
> >
> >
> Kind of says something about how well informed the electorate is,
> doesn't it? That, or how questions are phrased in a poll. "If spending
> more money would make for better education in this country, would you
> support the increase?" Well, sure. But we've seen plenty to show us that
> spending money on education isn't going to do a damn thing other than
> improve the lifestyles of teachers and school administrators.

  Improving the lifestyles of teachers and administrators, eh?  You make that  
sound like such a horrible thing to do.  I don't have any statistics in front  
of me, but I rarely meet a public school teacher that does not have to work a  
second job just to have a reasonable income.  A friend of mine, who is a  
middle-school music teacher, sells shoes after hours.

  Teachers should not have to live like that.  They should be able to spend  
their after-school hours grading papers and preparing lesson plans.  Most of  
them do, but their salaries are based on the flawed impression that they work  
shorter days than those in other professions.

  Did it ever occur to anyone that if we increased educational spending, with  
the bulk of the increase going to teachers' salaries, that the profession would  
attract more qualified individuals, and enable those already teaching to enroll  
in more continuing education courses?

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
Subject: Warning to voters?
Reply-To: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 00:07:19 GMT


b    My grandparents received recently a campaign brochure from one
Bo Gritz - I hadn't heard of him either before now, but their HQ apparently
got my grandparents' names off the Perot petition that they signed.
     Anyway, it mentioned something that I didn't know - that there is a
State Department document which allows for the complete disarming of the
U.S. military, turning our total control over to a World government with
a world Constitution; this would supposedly be formed out of the U.N., and
one can already see that the U.N. is being respected so much that it is
acting like a world government.  Mr. Gritz's pamphlet says candidates Harkin
and Tsongas had already endorsed the measure.
     Even if this isn't true - I'll be the first to say it sounds
unbelievable, though it could be true - the very idea seems VERY dangerous.
If we allow ourselves to do this, it will be like losing the independence we
fought so hard for 200+ years ago!  It is something that we must never
consider - if we allow our military to be taken away, our freedoms might
be next.  And, Heaven forbid if another Hitler or Stalin should rise up to
the head of such an organization.
     I'm just reporting what I've read - I'm not saying it's true or not, but
our involvement in foreign affairs is something we MUST curtail; we have too
many problems at home to be worrying about other nations so much; we spend a
ridiculous amount on foreign aid that could be spent on jobs, the poor,
medical care, or trimming the deficit.  Please, don't support a candidate
unless he actively takes a stand *against* such a proposal, should one exist.
Vote only for candidates willing to spend their time at home, with America.
Look how bad things looked in 1932, and we didn't need anyone's help.  Don't
let our country be put at the mercy of foreigners, from whom the next Hitler
could wind up ruling us and taking not only our military, but our freedoms
away as well.
     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.
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu      :    "Every baby born into the world is
Real home: Canton, Ohio             :  finer than the last."--Charles Dickens
 Trying to follow in the path of our :     "A baby is an inestimable
Lord;anything close will be a success:  blessing and bother."--Mark Twain
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:01:42 GMT

Kathy and others have contended that "taxes are the price we pay for
good government". Would that it were so!
 
The government, across all administrations, has taken an increasingly
large bite of our money over the years, from under 3% to the current
20% and certainly has not delivered increasingly better services.
 
Government is fundamentally a corrupt enterprise. Does that seem
outlandish? Consider this: As deToqueville stated long ago, it is
an enterprise in which the state can take your money and then bribe
you to remain in power- and take more of your power. The largest single
budget increase in the last US budget was for Congress itself!
 
The only real way to limit the debt, to limit the drag on the economy
and to make government responsive is to limit its power and its resources.
How about a radical notion- instead of an abstract "balanced budget
amendment"- which could be fulfilled if the government both taxed and
spent 100% of GNP- we limit the government's spending to 18.9% of the
previous year's GNP?
 
Given that military spending spending is now *half* of what it was under the
Great Society, when tax revenues were about 18.9% of GNP, that means we
would have even more money for social spending than we did back then, along
with a tax rate that corresponded to a reasonably high and productive
economy. And if politicians wanted to spend a greater % of GNP on something,
they'd have to reduce something else.
 
It might even reduce pork. Any takers?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:02:19 GMT


   poll                  dates      Clinton Bush    gap
   ====================  =========  ======= ====    ===
   ABC/Post              8/21-8/23     47    42      5
   ABC/Post              8/21-8/25     51    41     10
   ABC/Post              8/26-8/30     55    36     19
   Gallup/Newsweek       8/27-8/28     49    39     10
   Yankelovich/Time/CNN  8/25-8/27     46    40      6
   Times/CBS             8/23-8/24     51    36     15

One note: George Stephanopolous, Clinton's communications director,
expects the November 3rd "poll" to be within only two points.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Polls: are Americans fickle?
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:47:24 GMT
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <2329@unet.UUCP> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>Good question--to be or not to be(fickle)? The polls did some very interesting
>stuff during the RNC. There was alot of reports about how the polls showed
>George and Bill ~ even. I even saw one such report on a nation wide news report.
>What they didn't tell you was that the poll that showed them almost even was
>taken in Huston during the convention(or just after the end)and it must have
>included a few delegates! 

I've seen this notion tossed out before, but I never saw any evidence of it
being true in any news account.  The media is usually pretty careful about
stating whether a poll is national or statewide.  Can you verify your claim?

Some thoughts on polls: (1) They've been all over the map.  Yesterday, one
national poll shows Clinton up by six.  Last week, CBS says their neck and
neck.  Today, CBS says Clinton's up by 15.  The fact that there's so much
variation from poll to poll casts a lot of doubt on the so-called "margin
of error" statistics.  (2) Nearly every poll shows an "undecided" count of
about 10%.  From my first poly sci course on elections, I remember that
this suggests that a fairly high number of those who pick a candidate
are also rather unsure of their choice.  (3)  Does anyone out there
suspect the presence of a "Sandinista effect"?  Recall that during the
Nicaraguan elections the polls predicted a big Sandinista victory.  Turns
out that many of those polled felt obliged to give a "politically correct"
response.  The same kind of thing happened in the last British election.
Polls showed Labor with a big lead.  I'm just wondering if something like
this might be going on in the present polls.  This might be a "hidden
factor" that's causing some of the wide variability.


-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Religious Right Wing Censorship On Rise
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:29:20 GMT

Just imagine how boring the books would be that are left (uh, remain)
after both sides do their censoring. :)

One more example of why you can't separate religion from education.
Seems to support school choice IMO.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12220 talk.politics.misc:43291 ca.politics:7370 alt.politics.correct:5225
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Date: 2 Sep 1992 13:34:34 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <16854137BE.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>     I certainly don't see any real objection to dueling in the
>general libertarian attitude.  I would, however, suggest that, even
>under a fairly libertarian government, the parties would have to go
>and let the authorities know they were going to be shooting/swinging
>swords/throwing pies at each other, and sign appropriate liability
>waivers, if for no other reason than the police don't confuse the
>ass who gets himself killed dueling with real murders.
>
>
>========================================================================
>| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
>|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
>========================================================================


This is a very thoughful response. It might even get me to vote 
libertarian.

Richard Foy
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush's Bounce only a Blip
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:51:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T


The latest New York Times poll show's that Bush's convention bounce, if it
ever existed, was only a blip.

Their poll of last Thursday had shown Clinton's lead shrinking to only 3%,
45% to 42%. Bush's rise was due primarily to male voters, who favored Bush by
a 47% to 40% margin in that poll. In the current poll, taken 8/23-8/24, male
voters reverted back to supporting Clinton by a wide margin, 51% to 38%.
This swing accounted for most of the difference between the two polls.

Says Democratic consultant Ann F. Lewis:

	It really does seem these days that men are much more responsive
	to politics of emotion, especially certain kinds of patriotic
	symbolism, while women are more likely to focus on the family
	budget and the nation's well-being.


Clinton did show a loss of support in the South, holding only a 46% to
41% margin. This compares to a 49% to 38% lead before the convention.

Bush's approval rating was not helped much by the convention, so it looks
like the only way for him to proceed is to go deeper into "attack mode."
That, or whip up men's patriotic fervor again somehow.

Clinton did a good job yesterday at the Legion speech. He impressed many
people, I'm sure. Many more will be impressed during the debates. Bush is
history.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:19:31 GMT

fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>      ...this just proves that all those rags like Time, Newsweek and the
>others are nothing but advocacy journalism at its worst, masquerading as 
>impartial sources of news.

Could it be as simple as:

	1) the public gets excited about Clinton and likes him

   then 2) the press reports on the excitement, bus tour crowds, etc.

    and 3) Bush partisans wail that their hapless candidate is looking
           bad by comparison

In other words, sort of like Cleveland Indians fans complaining they don't
get much national sports coverage.

There was no essential difference in the coverage for each convention. It
was uniformly pathetic. Republicans have more of a complex and get bent out
of shape though.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12439 alt.activism:15929 alt.politics.marrou:1044
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Libernet, an electronic digest and forum
From: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:13:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu

This is an announcement for Libernet, posted every couple of months
or so to the Usenet politics newsgroups.

***
Members of the network community should know about Libernet,
a mailing-list/discussion group.  Libernet is intended to be a
real-world, high-quality forum for libertarians, classical liberals, and others
interested in applying the philosophy of liberty to tough
policy questions. 

Libernet is for anyone interested in good discussion and provocative ideas, 
including (especially) non-libertarians who are curious about the libertarian 
perspective.  Criticism is not only tolerated but encouraged, provided it is 
kept civil and does not choke the list.  

Libernet is available in two subscription modes: "reflected" and "batch".
"reflected" mode subscribers will receive Libernet messages one at a time,
as they are sent out.  "batch" mode subscribers receive groups of Libernet 
messages in RFC 1154 Digest format, the defacto standard for e-mail digests.
(If you don't know what this means don't worry about it; nothing special
is required to receive batch mode messages).  These batches are published 
daily.  Subscribers should indicate which mode they prefer.

If interested, send mail to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu.  Thank you.

--Barry Fagin (libernet-request@dartmouth.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ted Wagner)
Subject: What the hell is all this stuff about Family Values?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:59:54 GMT


	Every election proves to surface a worthless and empty "issue"
brought forth by some politician.  Who do they think we are?
What the hell does Family Values have to do with politics?  I am
sure someone will say plenty. 
	Well, in that case, then what the hell has Bush been doing
to adhere to the "family values."  Family Values is not even
DEFINED!  It is an issue that both parties THINK everyone wants to
hear about.  Bull!  I want to hear about how our next president
will improve education, cities, the lives of us working folk, 
the decrease of the deficit, interest rates, educational opportunities,
foriegn relations, international loan collections, etc etc etc!
I have watched the so called "family values" evolve from meaning
abortion, conservatism in families, religion, and "Christian" values.
	The orignal meaning (not definition) of the term was
indirectly related to "Christian values" as best I can tell.
Not that any other religion does not have the same morals and 
what-nots to go with values.  But, since I assume Bush et al. are
Christians, it stands at that.
	Now we see family values to include putting condoms in
schools, racial relations, housing opportunites, gay/lesbian rights,
convict rights, media rights, censorship.....etc etc etc.
These are issues that existed before and that are being shoved
into one category.  Well, I guess instead of forgetting their
promises on several issues, they can just say (in four years),
"I only didn't follow one promise and that was family values."
Never-mind that the family values issue now encompasses nearly 
all social concerns!  

	So when will our dear friends or enemies (depending on
which party you wish to adhere to) talk about something that will
EFFECT US ON A NATIONAL BASIS????
	Isn't "family values" something that should be dealt
with in the family core, religious leaders, and community leaders?
Why must our polticians bicker over who had legitimate children
and illegitimate children and who slept with whom when they
don't even know how in the hell they will deal with world
leaders, our OWN PROBLEMS, or a debt that may never be paid off?

	WAKE UP!!!! WAKE UP!!!!!

	No one wants to hear about family values for crying out loud!
We want to know about VALID AND CONCRETE ISSUES AND HOW THEY WILL
BE DEALT WITH!!!!!!


Hello?  anybody home in those politically rotten minds???

(Written in haste, please excuse misspellings)

-- 
         Swallowing your pride rarely leads to indigestion.
         A hard thing about business is minding your own!
-trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu   &    trwagner@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com (Randy Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Originator: rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:36:06 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:
|> In article <mykes.0ca9@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
|> 
|> >Bush/Quayle have been under merciless attack since a few weeks before the
|> >dem. convention...
|> 
|> No, it was just an open and frank discussion of the Bush/Quayle record.  
|> Any open and frank dicsussion about the B/Q record would, by default,
|> seem like an attack.

This morning on NPR, I heard a Democrat campaign consultant - I forget his
name, I want to say something like Joe Lippee (spelling obviously incorrect) - 
who has worked on Jerry Brown's campaigns. He said that he had always thought
that "media bias" was just a line used by "the other side," but that after
watching the coverage of the conventions he was "apalled" by the cynicism
and bias. 

Now, if you have a Democrat (who presumably would like to be employable
after this year) saying something like this - in an election year no less - 
then maybe there's something to it...


-- 
Randy Whitehead         And now, back to your regularly scheduled day...    
SAS Institute Inc.                     
rkw@unx.sas.com
From: popat@image.mit.edu (Kris Popat)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: 10% check-off proposal
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:44:59 GMT
Organization: MIT Advanced Television Research Program


> It sounds to me like what GHWB just
> proposed was a program which would make it possible for me to certify on my
> tax form that 10% of my money should be used for exactly what they were
> already using 15% to 25% of it for (not to mention the chunk greater than
> 10% of my money which they will continue to use for debt service).

I think the idea is that the 10% would be taken right off the top.  A
fraction of the remaining 90% would still be used to service the debt,
as it is now.  Thus, 25% to service the debt would become close to 33%
under Bush's scheme, but only for those people who check off the box.

Seems to me that Bush's proposal alone would not really put much of a
dent in the debt for many years, even if everyone checked their box.
But it sure *sounds* good!

Kris Popat
MIT Rm. E15-355   Cambridge, MA  02139
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:33:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.161126.23627@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
 
>
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
>>There was no essential difference in the coverage for each convention. It
>>was uniformly pathetic. Republicans have more of a complex and get bent out
>>of shape though.
>
Uh, don't you think having Bill Clinton comment during the Republican
Convention, as PBS did, was a little slanted?
From: Aluha@fun.loving.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: test
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:06:39 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Fun Loving Co.


Test only.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton