HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Choice! (was: Re: Vice Shrub won)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:26:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.170649.18533@bnr.ca> labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche) writes:

>If you give everyone a voucher to send their kids to private schools
>then only the wealthy/fairly wealthy will still be able to send their
>kids to private schools.  

Not true in many cases. If I had a voucher for what the state spends on
the average child of that age I could send my daughter to the most expensive
school in the city. I could also send her to the private school she attends
now (which is better than the public schools) and have enough left over to
buy her a brand new computer every year. In High School (where the state
spends more) the voucher would be enough to send her to school (again,
getting a better education than the public school) and the remainder
would be enough to let her spend a week in Europe every year.

>If you can't afford to send your kid to private 
>school now how is a check from the Federal Government which would be less 
>than the tuition required by the private schools help you to send you
>children there, 

Depends on the amount of difference. If the state kicks in their part as
well, the child could go almost anywhere she could be admitted.

>especially since the price of private schooling will 
>increase because of the basic laws of supply and demand.  

Now this is interesting. Why would demand increase if the public schools
where doing their jobs?

But this is a false issue. If demand increases then supply would increase
as well. In addition, the competition would make public schools more
accountable and better so fewer students will go.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------193 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: I will not vote Democratic - here's why.
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:10:47 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct14.182613.3469@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>>  The ONLY reason Clinton is currently leading in the polls is due to the
>>>fact that a majority of Americans believe that under a Clinton
>>>administration only the rich will have their taxes raised and through this
>>>additional revenue Clinton will revitalize the economy.
> 
> But don't trust him....fellow (democratic) governor Jim Florio certainly
> misled us in NJ. When he ran for governor in 1989, candidate Florio said "I see
> no reasons to raise taxes". Less than six months later, Florio pushed through 
> the largest single tax increase (for any state) in the history of our country!
> 
> The new 'Florio' taxes include:
> 1-He raised the state sales tax from 6 to 7% (since reversed).
> 2-He extended the sales tax to toilet paper, alcohol, and other items.
> 3-He almost DOUBLED some of the tolls on NJ's highways
> 4-He DOUBLED the income tax rate on NJ residents.
> 5-He eliminated the deductability of property taxes on NJ tax returns.
> 6-He drastically curtailed the property tax relief program
> 7-He increased numerous fees (car registration, etc) as well.
> 8-If a NJ resident goes to a hospital and is insured, that
>   NJ resident gets a bill with a 23% surcharge added to it.
> 9-He revised school funding and our property taxes shot up.
> .......etc......
> 
> These taxes affected every income level and social strata in our state.
> In general, NJ counties rank near the top nationwide in property taxes.
> [The property taxes in my county (Passaic) are the 2nd highest IN THE NATION].
> 
> Our state saw its bond ratings drop and its economy decline much worse than
> most others as a result. Our unemployment rate was the highest in the nation
> for a few months (its now the 3rd or 4th highest - a dubious distinction).
> 
> The latest predictions for NJ's economy says we will take longer to
> come out of the recession. Lucky us.
> 
> Its a very safe bet that Florio will be unemployed after the next election
> in our state (11/93). His approval rating is now at its 'highest', just 33%.
> 
> Because of Florio's actions and deception, I will NOT vote democratic. Period.
> 
> Consider the above when you vote on November 3rd.
> 
> Joe
> joec@morgan.com
> Usual disclaimers....
> 
> Perot in `92

This is the reason NJ will go for Bush!!

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16180 talk.politics.misc:51019 or.politics:254
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,or.politics
Subject: Oregon Measure 9 - Arguments In Favor
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:06:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Organization


ARGUMENT IN FAVOR


  According to the book of Leviticus in the Bible, oyster-eating,
crossbreeding cattle, shaving a beard, wearing clothing made of mixed
fibers, cursing one's parents and adultery are just as immoral as
homosexuality.  If the OCA's "No Special Rights" Committee wants to take
one of the 3,000-year-old laws of ritual holiness from Leviticus and put
it into the Bill of Rights in the state constitution, they should be
sincere enough to put all the rest of Leviticus into the constitution as
well.  It's a simple matter of respect for these historic laws to treat
them consistently.

  We at the Special Righteousness Committee are just as offended by
oyster-eating, shaving, and mixed fibers as the OCA is offended by
homosexuality, and we have just as much right as the OCA does to change
the state constitution to require government discrimination against people
whose behavior we don't like.

  My friends, do you want the public schools teaching your children that
shaving is a legitimate and equal alternative style to a normal and
healthy beard?  Would you want to be forced to hire an oyster-eater to
direct your church choir?  Adam and Eve wore fig leaves - 100 percent fig
leaves - and this is divine proof that those disgustingly unnatural
cotton/polyester blends are sinful.  And when the OCA was analyzing the
threat to traditional family values, we don't know how they managed to
overlook adultery!  Why, there's a lot more adultery than homosexuality
going on out there, and extrapolations from OCA statistics show that 90
percent of the people who have engaged in sexual perversions are
heterosexual ("straight").

  The state condones adultery by not punishing it with death as required
by Leviticus.  It promotes oyster-eating by licensing seafood restaurants,
and it allows people to take mixed fibers out of the closet and to flaunt
them right out in public without being fired or evicted!  The state is
encouraging sin!

  If the OCA can have the special right to make their personal moral
agenda into public policy, then anyone else also should be able to amend
the state Bill of Rights to eliminate basic human rights for people who
they don't like.

  Let's put ALL of Leviticus into the constitution!  A "yes" vote is the
first step in facilitating our militant moral agenda.


                         AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!


Special Righteousness Committee
P.O. Box 1851
Portland, Oregon 97207


(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, Chair, Special
Righteousness Committee.)


(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16887 talk.politics.misc:51884 or.politics:277
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,or.politics
Subject: Re: Oregon Measure 9 - Arguments In Favor
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:29:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: vice.10547
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct14.070259.17924@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>
>I'm in the process of collecting both references refuting the 
>"homosexual=pedophile" argument, and first hand accounts showing that
>contrary to popular belief, it's friends and family that do the *overwhelming*
>majority of molestation.
>

  I heard a quote, which I cannot validate, to the effect that the
  second leading group of sexual molestors in this country (behind
  Daddy) is the clergy.  So much for the OCA's family/christian
  values.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16481 talk.politics.misc:51401
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Class Warfare in America (was Re: Upper--middle--lower class??)
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:12:45 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct13.092242.18891@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

EI:Wake up and smell the coffe!

EI:Class warfare in America is no longer about rich vs. poor, capitalist vs.
EI:laborer, or even educated vs. ignorant.

EI:Class warfare in America is, and perhaps always has been, between tax
EI:payers and tax consumers. The Democrats are clearly the part of tax consumers
EI:but what has so disillusioned the American voter is that their erstwhile
EI:representatives in government, the Republicans, have proven to be tax-and-
EI:spenders of monolithic proportions.

EI:Reagan was the most popular president in modern American history precisely
EI:because he offered Americans the hope of escaping the oppression of ever-rising
EI:taxes to fund ever-failing social programs.

This reminds me of a quote from one of our local talk show hosts, Neil
Bortz.

"There are two classes of people in this country.  Those who work for
a living and those who vote for a living."

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Conversion
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:32:27 GMT


I am going to string some articles from past NYTimes and
present the case that this election is also a decision
on the fate of the military complex. The issue is CONVERSION!
This is a dirty word to a large segment of the complex.
The Times reported that the hardliners are pressing very
hard to avoid conversion. They are claiming "Weapons
or Shutdown!". Bush appears to be in their camp. The proof:
Weapons sales to Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
Needless to say, Clinton has been preaching conversion
since day one. I believe this is why he has been endorsed
by Silicon Valley Republicans; they would benefit from
conversion due to Clinton/Gore support of high speed
communications, etc. Also, companies such as Hughes have
been entering LAN markets very strongly, a sign of conversion
in progress. So the choice is clear:

1. A Vote for Clinton is a vote for conversion.
2. A Vote for Bush is a vote for the military complex
   hardliners about whom Eisenhower warned us all.
-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: Ben Masel <bmasel@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:19 PDT
Subject: Why I'm running for SHERIFF
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1728300002:000:548
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Oct 10 01:19:00 1992


THIS MORNING I WOKE UP IN A CURFEW
as the first Drug-War roadblocks appeared in Madison.  I decided
our Republican Sheriff could not stand for re-election un-
opposed, and declared my candidacy as an Independent Write-In in
November. (Its too late to make the ballot.)

I have registered with the County Clerk, and created an official
Campaign Finance Committee, Masel for Sheriff, No More Roadblocks!
516 E. Mifflin St. #4, Madison, WI 53703. Contributions over $20
refused.

See response 1 for my first salvo, a letter to my opponent.

Ben Masel

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jeff@don't.want.email
Subject: AL GORE - The man with too many faces
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:28:14 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri's Technological University


Did you know that Al Gore use to be PRO-LIFE....

Now all of a sudden he is in the race for the VP slot.

Gee, I think that there is something fishy going on here....

Corrupt Politicians will pay someday!

Jeff E
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Look who joined the crowd!!!
Date: 9 Oct 1992 12:05:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:

>Nelson Mandela drew an icy and puzzled silence at Beijing University this
>week with his public praise of China as an "inspiration to democracy and 
>freedom of expression".
>
>The 76-year old leader of the African National Congress has been feted by
>Chinese leaders for the last three days.  His official visit is to thank
>Beijing for sustaining the ANC's anti-apartheid struggle for years with
>cash and goods.  
>
>Many of those watching Mr. Mandela receive the an honorary doctorate saw
>their student comrades shot down or beaten at Tiananmen Square in June
>1989 after demonstrating for more freedom and democracy.
>

 This is certainly revolting. To think that Nelson Mandela's attitude
toward China is so reminiscent of George Bush's makes me determined
not to vote for Nelson Mandela for US President.


-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:01:38 GMT


The Reagan era will soon bite the dust.  Unfortunately, the debt left 
behind because of the Voodoo Economics practiced in the last 12 years 
will not.  It turns out that one thing even worse than the "tax and 
spend" policies we had in the 1970's is the "borrow and spend" 
policies of the 1980's and 1990's.  Frankly, it makes me mad to 
realize that I will be paying HIGHER TAXES FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE to 
make up for the debt run up in the years 1981-1992.  Also irritating 
is the realization that the quadrupleing of the national debt that 
occurred under Reagan and Bush's watch is now so massive it is has 
become the country's 2nd biggest threat to the national security. 

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won (NOT!)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:46:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.160819.3183@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1bhdhvINNdv@eagle.natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>>
>>Quayle had a lot of 'facts' that should be easy to check.  Does
>>anybody have a copy of Gores book that they could turn to page
>>304 (i think) and see what it says.
>
>It says the World War II Marshall Plan cost $100 billion in today's currency.
>Quayle probably didn't even read the book.

I think it's more likely that Mr. PotatoE Head read the book and 
misinterpreted what he read.  

There were several times he got facts wrong last night according to 
the morning news shows.  I think it is more charitable to chalk it 
up to stupidity rather than dishonesty.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17205 talk.politics.misc:52237 alt.politics.clinton:10820 alt.politics.bush:9416
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Presidential debates #2
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:05:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


Wow.  This was actually a useful debate.  Good questions for the most
part--kinda gives you hope for humankind.

Next time we should do this kind of debate five times with five more
debates involving "professional" questioners *with* followups.

Anyway, my incisive analysis:

Perot:
	when he was impassioned (eg on education) he was magic
	wasn't impassioned often enough
	"too" one-note (in quotes because I don't know how this will
		play to the rest of the world)
	who cares?  his negatives will go down and he can die happy
	"I will not spend a moment thinking about re-election"

Bush:
	very presidential
	relaxed.  Shouldn't have looked at his watch so much.
	He fucked up--and I use those words quite on purpose--on one
		question:  "how has this bad economy affected you?"
		While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I think he left the
		impression that he couldn't quite connect with the
		personal pain (he also faced a hostile questioner on
		this I think).  He did the worst on this.... even
		Billionare Perot gave the impression that he
		understood the concept of pain even if he couldn't
		honestly say he had felt any the last four years.

Clinton:
	very presidential
	relaxed.
	On every single question, he said "Let me give you five (or 2
		or 3 or 4) quick answers/solutions/points."  I can't
		wait to see if this is seen as Wooden and
		Rehearsed(tm) or as Specific(tm).
		I think he managed to actually pull it off as
		Specific(tm) this time.
	Oh, and he managed to go last almost all the time.  Tactically
		brillant.


I admit it.  I was happy with the debate format.  I can't even think
of any real soundbites....

Anyway, I'll roll the dice and say it was a tie in a statistical
sense--everyone's positives will go up--but Bush's one pseudo blunder
combined with the Specific(tm) Clinton gives the edge to Clinton.

In my most humble opinion, this bodes well for Clinton as a
presidential contender, well for Perot as a nice guy, and not so well 
for Bush as a returning president.

Even if you disagree with me, I think this isn't more--really--than a
tie, so that means that the numbers won't change much.

--
Peace.
               "'Sex without love is an empty experience.'
                'Yes, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.'
                             - Diane Keaton and Woody Allen
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:08:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.150446.14325@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Oct8.202316.4532@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>]What really saddened me about GHWB's performance last night
>]was the implications of his remarks.  He criticized Clinton
>]for organizing anit-war rallies overseas, and attacking and
>]protesting against his country while living in Europe.
>]
>]Most of us who participated in anti-war protests were
>]not attacking America, nor were we in any way traitorous.
>
>Nor were you in a foreign country. THAT is the issue (as Bush has clearly
>stated). If you want to protest US policy in the US, fine, go to it and
>there's nothing wrong with it. When you take it overseas, during the middle
>of a war, it is wrong and goes against 200 years of American tradition.
>It's the same principle as a family dispute... you don't do it in the
>shopping mall.

Oh, I see...its just not *proper* to have a family dispute in a 
shopping mall...is this anything like being "politically correct" ?

Ummm...since when have the constitutional rights of a US citizen to 
protest what the US Government is doing been limited to within the
boarders of the United States? Perhaps you could show me the passage
from the Constitution, or Bill of Rights which suspends freedom of
speech at the boarders...BTW: can you be a bit more explicit as to
HOW it goes against 200 years of American tradition? 

>
>]Apparently, the role of dissent in a democracy totally
>]escapes GHWB.
>
>Apparently the distinction about where you protest completely
>slipped by you.
>

Apparently the Bill of Rights completely slipped by you...


>]Maybe I should take some small satisfaction in the fact
>]that my (and many others') prediction that the Republican
>]Sleaze-o-Matic (tm) would be working overtime in October.
>]But the sight of the President of the United States
>]sinking to the level of Robert Dornan is just
>]too sad.
>
>Well, Bill Clinton has been slinging all sorts of personal attacks
>at Bush since he has been in the race. Fair is fair, and character
>is a legitimate issue, in spite of the fact that the democrats are
>trying to remove it as an issue because their candidate doesn't
>have any.
>

Amazing, yet sad...people who cannot see beyond the party dogma
shoveled at them on a regular basis...

John

>
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
> - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: leej@sgi.com (Lee Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dave_barry,rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: BUSH CAMP ACCUSES CLINTON OF TREASON
Date: 16 Oct 1992 20:48:59 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: diver.asd.sgi.com

In article <64.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>Richmond, VA (AP) - On his way out of the University of Virginia
[blah blah blah]

MHO:
Political humor/commentary/satire is fine, but not what this newsgroup is 
intended for.  Please don't cross-post such items here.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot