Conference yukon::christian_v7

    I looked upon this and was filled with mixed feelings. On the one hand,
    I feel REAL anger toward Clinton for doing something that in my mind
    is to only win allegiances , etc. On the other, I WANT to believe that
    Clinton is sincere in his respect and praise.
    
      I especially relate to the one who wrote this. Although I was never
     a POW, I share what this person has gone through and I FEEL his
     conviction and understand where those feelings come from. I could
     not read this and be not moved. I could not read this and not feel the
     deap hatred and anger I once shared upon those who "could not
     understand".   For me, this stuff is like some "ism" (I.e.
     alcoholism), I was so deeply entrenched in it, that if I get a smell or
     taste of it, the illusion comes flushing back.
    
      Lord, I pray for our administration. Lord be with president Clinton.
     Give him good sense Lord. Help him to see you and to repent from his
     evil sinful worldly leadership ways and to be the instrument that all
     eyes may look upon you Lord.
    
    
    
      What and why this letter. Well, it apears that our dearly beloved
      prsident is going to make a speech in front of "The Wall".
    
    
              
    
              <<< MKOTS4::LIB01:[NOTES$LIBRARY]VETERANS.NOTE;2 >>>
                             -< Veterans Affairs >-
================================================================================
Note 622.0                    Clinton and the Wall                       1 reply
DECWET::MPETERSON "Max Overhead"                     59 lines  27-MAY-1993 12:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sent this to the local paper this morning as a "Letter to the
Editor".

    Dear Editor,
    
       I believe the president of the United States is about to commit an

    act that will substantially diminish the honor and reverence

    accorded to, and deserved by, those who died in Vietnam. I can not

    express the depth of my distress at the thought of Mr. Clinton

    speaking before the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial this weekend.

    Here is a man who would pay tribute to those who died doing what his

    conscience would not permit.

       The War Memorial is particularly meaningful to me; not only had I

    friends whose names are on that wall, but I am also a former POW.

    This is relevant because I remember being "educated" about the

    activities of the men and women who were protesting the war.  I was

    forced to sit "at attention" for hours on a dirt floor, pus and

    blood draining from the bullets embedded in my knee and foot,

    listening to accounts of antiwar activities read to me by my

    interrogators.

       Early in the first few days of my captivity, I remember asking what

    were my rights under the Geneva convention.  I was told that all of

    the world, and especially my country, had branded us criminals of

    war.  As evidence of this, I was read speeches made by the anti-war

    activists of the day.  I do not remember, but I wonder now, as I

    think back on those days in the jungle, whether any of the speeches

    had been from Mr. Clinton.

       Ironic isn't it, that Mr. Clinton may, if only implicitly, be

    honoring someone who died because he would not serve.  Honor, from

    this man of easy virtue and faint ideals, rings hollow; for his

    patriotism is bereft of a committment to the ideal of service, not

    to his country, but to his countrymen.

     I am in such pain at reading the previous reply, that words can not
     begin to express it. That an amoral coward like Billary Clinton would
     dare to present himself for *any* purpose at The Wall, *except* to
     repent of his cowardice and desertion in a time of crisis, makes me
     wretch. You see, many good and intimate friends of mine are listed on
     The Wall. I sometimes wonder why my name is not there, too. I should
     have been, many times. It is a good thing that I cannot be in DC this
     Memorial Day, as I would be *seriously* tempted to shout him down and
     maybe throw a rotten tomatoe (notice the Republican "e"?) or two at him. 

     I can't say that this surprises me, though. It has become more and more
     apparent to me since (before) January 20 that the man has an immoral
     agenda, and will use whatever unethical and Macheavellian means
     necessary to enact it. There obviously is no point to which he will not
     stoop to put on the Politically Correct appearance, even when all
     previous statements and actions clearly indicate that what he is now
     doing is a complete sham and pretense. But, he'll fool most people.

     Very Sadly, 

    Well, Clinton did it and got what I think he should have expected. He
    got *some* cheers but mostly jeers. Bill is very good at giving the
    warm fuzzies, but the substance of his speech was shallow. He spoke
    is so much generality and agenda that the actual point of Memorial
    day was lost. More over, the speech he gave could have taken place in
    front of the Lincoln memorial as would have lost little due to
    ambiance.  (IMHO)
    
    Again, I have mixed feeling Lord, - topple the mighty and lift up the
    frail. Who does Clinton think he is fooling, those that have fought in
    battle??? Certainly not! - Ah those that do not know for what the
    country we call U.S. stood for and meant.
    
    Lord, open the eyes of Clinton and his administration so that they
    may correctly deal with the injustices and corruptness of this day
    and age.

    I have no problem with those who openly opposed the Vietnam War. I have a
    problem with those, like Bill Clinton, who lied about opposing the war
    when he first announced his candidacy. I have a problem with those who
    used political connections to get  a deferment with the promise
    of going in to ROTC and then not following it through when his draft
    status changed. I've got a problem with those who organized protested on 
    foreign soil. 

    Those like Mohammed Ali were braver for their stand against the war than 
    many who avoided Vietnam through other means such as the National Guard 
    or going to college and did so, not because they were truly against the 
    war, but merely because they were cowards. 

    Jim

    Jim,
    
      I agree. I have no complaint against those who said the Vietnam war
    was bad. Or any war for that matter. My anger burns against those who
    scorned the men and women who did what they felt was right and just, or
    spoke against their obligation to a country that reared them. I say this
    NOT only for the Vietnam war but for those who jeer any soldier. Oh,
    Lord, when will people learn?
    
    Lord, pardon me for my anger, I have little respect for those that take
    their biterness out upon the soldiers. Open the eyes of Clinton and
    show him what he did was more disrespectful than respectful.
    

| <<< Note 40.16 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>



| Again, I have mixed feeling Lord, - topple the mighty and lift up the
| frail. Who does Clinton think he is fooling, those that have fought in
| battle??? Certainly not! - Ah those that do not know for what the
| country we call U.S. stood for and meant.

	Phil, what's meant to YOU may not be what this country means to him. I
applaud him for getting up there to speak. Like you said, he had to know what
he was getting himself into. He had to expect the jeers. That's why it is even
more important that he got up there in the first place. Regardless of whether
his feelings or actions were right/wrong back then, he still got up and talked.
Now, who does he think he's fooling? Maybe he wasn't trying to fool anyone.
Like with the Lord, no matter how many times you fall, if you believe in Him
with all your heart, He will right you. Do you know what was in Clinton's heart
Phil?


Glen

| <<< Note 40.17 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "I Shoulda Been A Cowboy" >>>




| I've got a problem with those who organized protested on foreign soil.

	Why?

| Those like Mohammed Ali were braver for their stand against the war than
| many who avoided Vietnam through other means such as the National Guard
| or going to college and did so, not because they were truly against the
| war, but merely because they were cowards.

	Jim, this really scares me. If someone doesn't want to fight just for
the sake that they don't like violence, are afraid that they may die, this is
wrong? They are cowards? Is the only way out that is right = opposing the war?
If your kids (if you have any) were to get into a fight at school, would you
call them a coward because they walked away from it because they didn't want to
get hurt? I wish more people would just walk away from fights for whatever
reason so we don't have to hear about people dieing so much on the news. 


Glen

| <<< Note 40.18 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>




| Lord, pardon me for my anger, I have little respect for those that take
| their biterness out upon the soldiers. Open the eyes of Clinton and
| show him what he did was more disrespectful than respectful.

	In what way Phil?


Glen

RE:20



>| I've got a problem with those who organized protested on foreign soil.

>	Why?

    Because, when you protest the policies of your country in a foreign
    land, only one side of the issue is heard. If you want change in your
    country, then have the courage to go home and change it. 

>	Jim, this really scares me. If someone doesn't want to fight just for
>the sake that they don't like violence, are afraid that they may die, this is
>wrong? They are cowards? Is the only way out that is right = opposing the war?
>If your kids (if you have any) were to get into a fight at school, would you
>call them a coward because they walked away from it because they didn't want to
>get hurt? I wish more people would just walk away from fights for whatever
>reason so we don't have to hear about people dieing so much on the news. 

    No one likes violence and everyone is afraid to die in a war. However,
    the freedom you enjoy is the result of someone else fighting  and dieing 
    so you could enjoy it. If my child had to stand for what is right or walk 
    away, I would hope they would stand. As the song says, "if you don't stand 
    for something, you'll fall for anything." Walking away from injustice would
    be more harmful, than the injuries received from standing up and fighting 
    for justice. What your asking is that those who are afraid to fight, let 
    others go do the fighting for them and perhaps die in the process.
    These type of people are COWARDS !

  Jim

    
 Oh Lord, there are those that do not understand the mind of a soldier.
 Lord there are those that are quick to judge a soldier. Oh God, you
 made all men and you have said, 1 Gen 6:5 "The Lord saw how great man's
 wickedness on earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts
 of his heart was only evil all the time." Forgive those that judge the
 soldier and forgive the soldier for their burning anger against those that
 do not understand them.

  Lord grant understanding to the current administration that they may see
  that what they do, though it *looks* good, serves no fruitful purpose. Lord
  help them to sympathize with verterans and to respect their beliefs and not
  to present pretty flowers that smell bad.


re: Note 40.19 JURAN::SILVA


~| <<< Note 40.16 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>



~| Again, I have mixed feeling Lord, - topple the mighty and lift up the
~| frail. Who does Clinton think he is fooling, those that have fought in
~| battle??? Certainly not! - Ah those that do not know for what the
~| country we call U.S. stood for and meant.

~	Phil, what's meant to YOU may not be what this country means to him. I
~applaud him for getting up there to speak. Like you said, he had to know what
~he was getting himself into. He had to expect the jeers. That's why it is even
~more important that he got up there in the first place. Regardless of whether
~his feelings or actions were right/wrong back then, he still got up and talked.
~Now, who does he think he's fooling? Maybe he wasn't trying to fool anyone.
~Like with the Lord, no matter how many times you fall, if you believe in Him
~with all your heart, He will right you. Do you know what was in Clinton's heart
~Phil?
	Glen, I do not need to know what was in Clinton's heart. I was simply
	expressing my prayer and feeling. I do not care to have my prayers and
	feeling attacked. You may pray, and I encourage you to pray. If you
	do not agree with my prayer, then present your own prayer. If you
	concur with my prayer, again, enter your own prayer. Please do not
	ask me to justify my feelings or prayer.

re : Note 40.21 JURAN::SILVA


~| <<< Note 40.18 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>




~| Lord, pardon me for my anger, I have little respect for those that take
~| their biterness out upon the soldiers. Open the eyes of Clinton and
~| show him what he did was more disrespectful than respectful.

~	In what way Phil?

	Glen, what is your need? Again, I was presenting a prayer to the Lord.
	I encourage others to pray and to make a joyful sound unto the Lord.
	I never profess to be eloquent in my prayers or even to present them
	in an understandable manner. My holy spirit carries my true thoughts
	unto God in sighful groans. I invite you to pray.

	This topic is "Politically prayerful", I will entertain little
	discussion outside of the scope of this topic.

   Lord, I do not care for the manner in which our president sees his job.
  In fact, Lord, I do not care for our president. 'Thank you Lord for my
  belief, help my unbelief.' Although my mind knows Your will be done, it
  is difficult for this servant Lord, to respect the man in that office.
  The power that is welded from that office Lord is scary to me, - one of
  so little faith.

  PDM

| <<< Note 40.22 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "I Shoulda Been A Cowboy" >>>



| Because, when you protest the policies of your country in a foreign
| land, only one side of the issue is heard. If you want change in your
| country, then have the courage to go home and change it.

	I agree with part of what you wrote Jim. The part I can not agree with
is that you take <insert anyone> and make it sound like they have a lack of
courage if they don't come home to try and make changes. How many people have
fled other countries and gone to others to try and show others what is going
on? Are these people cowards? Hardly.

| If my child had to stand for what is right or walk away, I would hope they 
| would stand. 

	What if YOU feel the cause was right, but your child did not? Then are
they a coward?

| Walking away from injustice would be more harmful, than the injuries received 
| from standing up and fighting for justice. 

	For what YOU believe to be justice? Remember, those that opposed the
war did not think of it as a justice. But let me put the scenerio another way.
If there was someone who wanted to beat up your child at school for "fun" and
your child walked away, would they have been a coward? 

| What your asking is that those who are afraid to fight, let
| others go do the fighting for them and perhaps die in the process.
| These type of people are COWARDS !

	OR, maybe they don't believe as you do that fighting was the correct
thing. Is this hard to believe? 

	BTW, how do you view those you have labeled a coward?


Glen

	Phil, are you telling me you have no meaning behind the prayer?




Glen

    !           <<< Note 40.26 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
    !                             -< confused >-

    !	Phil, are you telling me you have no meaning behind the prayer?
    
    	Glen, *I* am telling *you* nothing. Again, I encourage you to pray
    if you feel so lead.
    
    
      PDM

    What a crock!
    
    I opposed the Viet Nam war.  I protested it openly.  I put up with the
    jeers then.  And I put up with the jeers now.  Being against popular
    opinion ain't a job for cowards.  Never has been.  Never will be.
    
    That doesn't mean that the WALL doesn't mean anything to me!  I'm
    haunted by all those names; haunted by the deaths of all those
    Americans who stepped into the quicksand of war.  When I see the
    WALL, I am filled with unbearable grief.  I deeply regret that the
    madness, which is the very nature of war, was not halted sooner.
    
    Richard

A friend of mine in the service had mixed feelings.

He said that the military is taught to salute the office and not the person.
Then he said that this man inthe office had besmirched the office.
Then he said, "I would have done the same thing."  (Booed and turned his back.)

It doesn't seem to be whether the Wall has meaning to someone.  It's clear
it has meaning to people on both sides of the dodging issue.  Evidently,
there is something deeper to those who served the country that feels
violated by those whose societal freedoms are treated with contempt, by
actively seeking an almost "anarchistic freedom," trampling and hampering
those who go to service (and despite the cries of anti-government, it
is the individual soldier who felt this; also witness the reception the
soldiers got for doing their duty).

I'm too young to have been a part of either side and only observe and
imagine how I would have shaken out.  I imagine I'd have gone to service,
and maybe be a name on the wall, were I ten years older.  Would I boo
this president and turn my back, having served the country?  I don't
know, but I do know one Digital veteran who would.

Mark

    Richard, it is not just the Vietnam War that was a trajedy, but all
    wars. The difference with the Vietnam war, was that the American people
    knew from the start it was a foolish war. Our government, our
    ELECTED body!, demostrated their alterior motives and chose to rebuke
    the cries of those that elected them and to continue in a venture for
    ECONOMIC GAIN!
    
    I know that God established the rule of authority, but He meant it to
    be a positive re-enforcement and an encouragement to the multitude.
    Of late, the government is a self fullfilling and pertetuating BEAST!
    I feel disdain at times for the actions of this *elected* body. It
    certainly does not act on my behalf! Furthermore, it is getting worse
    with each passing year. 
    
    Richard, do you know how many service men (and women) die each year
    in the name of democracy?! The number is staggering.  Paul Weiss says
    he does not want to forget the unborn, I do not want to forget those
    that die each year to keep us safe in our mock complacency!  For
    the government, this beast that rules each nation, is the cause of
    a great deal of this grief - felt by all. 
    
    Now to my point, who is the "head" of our beast? What is his role?
    What is his power? What is his INFLUENCE??  WHAT IS HE DOING?!
    
    We need a God fearing leader, not a pious fool!
    
    prayerfully,
    	PDM
    
    ps. I apologize for my strong convictions, they may be too unpolished
        for some to read. These are my thoughts and feelings as I can best
        polish and express them. I feel bad when I think of the amount
        of needless death I have witnessed and participated in. O God, in
    	thy good time free me from this anger that accompanies my political
        thoughts...

 No need to apologize for your convictions, Phil.






 Jim

             LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
         IN ANNOUNCEMENT OF WHITE HOUSE ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCESS
 
        Dear Friends:
  
        Part of our commitment to change is to keep the White House
   in step with today's changing technology.  As we move ahead into
   the twenty-first century, we must have a government that can show
   the way and lead by example.  Today, we are pleased to announce
   that for the first time in history, the White House will be
   connected to you via electronic mail.  Electronic mail will bring
   the Presidency and this Administration closer and make it more
   accessible to the people.
 
        The White House will be connected to the Internet as well as
   several on-line commercial vendors, thus making us more
   accessible and more in touch with people across this country.  We
   will not be alone in this venture.  Congress is also getting
   involved, and an exciting announcement regarding electronic mail
   is expected to come from the House of Representatives tomorrow.
  
        Various government agencies also will be taking part in the
   near future.  Americans Communicating Electronically is a project
   developed by several government agencies to coordinate and
   improve access to the nation's educational and information assets
   and resources.  This will be done through interactive
   communications such as electronic mail, and brought to people who
   do not have ready access to a computer.
  
        However, we must be realistic about the limitations and
   expectations of the White House electronic mail system.  This
   experiment is the first-ever e-mail project done on such a large
   scale.  As we work to reinvent government and streamline our
   processes, the e-mail project can help to put us on the leading
   edge of progress.
  
        Initially, your e-mail message will be read and receipt
   immediately acknowledged.  A careful count will be taken on the
   number received as well as the subject of each message.  However,
   the White House is not yet capable of sending back a tailored
   response via electronic mail.  We are hoping this will happen by
   the end of the year.
  
        A number of response-based programs which allow technology
   to help us read your message more effectively, and, eventually
   respond to you electronically in a timely fashion will be tried
   out as well.  These programs will change periodically as we
   experiment with the best way to handle electronic mail from the
   public.  Since this has never been tried before, it is important
   to allow for some flexibility in the system in these first
   stages.  We welcome your suggestions.
  
        This is an historic moment in the White House and we look
   forward to your participation and enthusiasm for this milestone
   event.  We eagerly anticipate the day when electronic mail from
   the public is an integral and normal part of the White House
   communications system.
  
             President Clinton        Vice President Gore
        [email protected]      [email protected]

    {RISKS-FORUM Digest  Friday 4 June 1993  Volume 14 : Issue 69}
    [The Risks suggests [email protected] for Hillary Clinton]

 Anybody else happen to see President Clinton's speech welcoming the Pope
 and the Youth day celebration?  I believe I heard the President to say, in
 support of our youth "We can't afford to waste even one", which I thought
 was rather interesting given his view on abortion.





Jim

				Psalm 1993
			First Book of Democrats

Bill Clinton is my shepherd, I shall not want.
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in the Republican Party.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the 
bread line, I shall not go hungry.
Clinton has annointed my income with taxes.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me
all the days of my life.
The Democrats and I will live in a rented house forever.
But, I am glad I am an American.
I am glad I am free.
But, I wish I were a dog, 
and Clinton was a tree.

{Reprinted from Christian Cruisers Report, Aug. 1993}

    Didn't know where else to post this fact from the net, so I put it
    here.  This fact is pretty sobering.
    
    Bo
    
    
    
    
Private sector provides health insurance to 160M people at the cost of 
$2500 per person-year. The goverment covers 50M at $6500/person-year. 
To reduce costs and improve efficiency Clintons want goverment to control
all of health care.

	Be real..... if the government is going to take over under Clinton's
plan then costs will be reduced by going to a simplified method, making prices
come down for medication, hospital stays, etc. The plan ain't perfect, but it
is at least a start. But the $6500 figure you throw around won't be the reality
of the situation when universal health care takes place. 



Glen

>                     But the $6500 figure you throw around won't be the reality
> of the situation when universal health care takes place. 
    	Yea, you are probably right Glen, it will probably be MUCH MUCH
    more. :^)
    
    PDM_who_is_concerned_for_those_on_medicare_like_people_over_65
    

"We're from the government, and we're here to help you". 





Jim

RE:  The 160M from the private sector and the 50M from the govt.

Consider that we all pay that $6500 per person already.
I appreciate the statistics, Bo, but what do they really mean (aside
from Glen's comments).  How much of the $6500/person is giving through
welfare (as opposed to government employee health care)?  

Since we all support welfare, persons and corporations, let's add
our contribution to the $6500 into our $2500, not forgetting to deduct
that amount from the $6500, to count our REAL cost.

In other words, we pay for it all now.

I'm not a Clinton fan, by any stretch, by the way.  John Kellerman on 
WBZ this morning said that those who have actually read the Clinton
Health care program are finding things in it that would pit the city
against the suburbs, etc.  (I.e.  lots of things that may indeed do more
harm than good).  The commentary was really saying how the senate
hearings on this matter have done a good job of politicking the matter
rather than researching it.  That is, the show diverts from the content.

We do need to look at the content.  The republicans are going to offer
an alternative plan.  Truman (?) and Nixon both submitted health bills
which languished; now it's President HR Clinton's turn.  I think the Clinton
bill should languish, too, but that's due to my utter lack of faith in
them than any concrete information (excepting the above), admittedly.

Mark

      Hear about the new Bill Clinton golf ball?
    
      No matter how you slice it you get a perfect lie.

    what's this new one I hear about Clinton's ties to 2 murdered drug
    dealers?  anyone hear details?
    
    also, the Clinton lawyer friend that committed suicide:  the coroner's
    report stated that he died of a gunshot wound to the head (he
    supposedly placed the gun in his mouth), but the corpse had *NO* exit
    wound in the head.
    
    then there's whitewatergate...
    
    Mike

    no exit wound?
    what does that imply?
    low powered gun?
    I suppose they found the gun and the bullet?

 This is going to be interesting to watch unfold, and quite sad as well.






 Jim

	Sounds like he's already been convicted.....



Glen

 I don't think anyone has made any such implication.  There are certainly
 enough questions to go around.  And whether there is guilt or innocence
 the entire process of making that determination will be enough to drag this
 country further down the chute.





 Jim

>    no exit wound?
>    what does that imply?
>    low powered gun?
>    I suppose they found the gun and the bullet?
    
    Nobody is saying, but there are all kinds of implications.  One of
    which he wasn't even shot, but murdered some other way.

        It seems there was very little investigation done about the suicide, no
    check for powder burns, etc.

    Think about what the "note" said, something to the effect that they
    (public) will never believe they (administration) didn't have anything
    to do with this, now maybe I've read to many Ludlum books, but I'm
    beginning to see a series of seemingly unrelated events that are adding
    up to a major conspiracy

    Sparky

    too much for my little brain to handle...
    
    fortunately the ultimate judge has a bit more knowledge and
    understanding than I do...
    :-)

Fall 1993 Congressional Scorecard on Financial, Moral and Ethical Issues.  Let
me know if there's another state/congressperson you want to see.

House Votes
-----------
1. Banning Immigrants with HIV/AIDS Virus - Accepted
2. Parental Notification for Abortion - Rejected
3. Taxes to promote abortion - Accepted
4. Fetal Tissue Research - Accepted
5. Clinton Pork-Barrel Spending Program - Accepted
6. Clinton Tax-and-Spend Program - Accepted
7. Increasing Debt Limit - Accepted
8. Stacking Votes in Congress (adding D.C.) - Accepted
9. Term limits for House Committees - Rejected
10. Taxpayer-funded Abortion - Accepted
11. Taxpayer funding of Pornography (NEA) - Rejected
12. Abstinence-based Sex Education - Accepted

Senate Votes
-----------
1. Keeping ban on Alternate-Lifestylers in the Military - Rejected
2. Banning Immigrants with HIV/AIDS Virus - Accepted
3. Tax Incentives for family leave - Rejected
4. Clinton Pork-Barrel Spending Program - Rejected
5. Clinton Tax-and-Spend Program - Rejected
6. Clinton Social Security tax increase - Rejected
7. Clinton Tax Increases on Energy - Rejected
8. Achtenberg Nomination - Accepted
9. Senate Committee Budget Cuts - Rejected
10. Capping Federal Spending - Rejected
11. Abortions in Military Hospitals - Rejected
12. Taxpayer funding of Pornography (NEA) - Rejected
13. School Prayer - Rejected
14. Term Limits on Congress - Rejected

Score Symbols
-------------
++ = voted in favor              ?? = didn't vote or make position known
-- = voted against            Blank = not eligible to vote
A  = absent                ALL CAPS = Republicans

MASSACHUSETTS U.S. Representatives
----------------------------------
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12
Oliver           __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __
Neal             ++  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __
BLUTE            ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++            
Frank            __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __
Meehan           ++  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  ++            
TORKILDSEN       ++  __  __  __  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++            
Markey           __  __  __  ??  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __
Kennedy          ++  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __
Moakley          ++  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __
Studds           __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __

MASSACHUSETTS U.S. Senators       
---------------------------       
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14
Kennedy          __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __
Kerry            __  ++  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __

Mike,
  I like the format of this scorecard (well, was there any editorializing
  in the naming of the issues?).
 
  New Hampshire, please!

MM

    Great scorecard.  Could we have California??
    
    Daryl

NEW HAMPSHIRE U.S. Representatives
----------------------------------
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12
ZELIFF           ++  __  __  __  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++
Swett            ++  __  __  __  __  ++  ??  __  __  ++  ++  __

NEW HAMPSHIRE U.S. Senators       
---------------------------       
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14
GREGG            ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  __  ++  ++              ++
SMITH            ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++

    >   Great scorecard.  Could we have California??
    
    I'll give you the senators, but tell me which U.S. Representative is
    yours because you have 50 bazillion of them.
    
    Mike

CALIFORNIA    U.S. Senators       
---------------------------       
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14
Boxer            __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __              __
Feinstein        __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __              __
    
    that's a 0% for your U.S. Senators, not too good, but I'm not
    surprised.

Score Symbols
-------------
++ = voted in favor              ?? = didn't vote or make position known
-- = voted against            Blank = not eligible to vote
A  = absent                ALL CAPS = Republicans


NEW HAMPSHIRE U.S. Representatives
----------------------------------
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12
ZELIFF           ++  __  __  __  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++
Swett            ++  __  __  __  __  ++  ??  __  __  ++  ++  __

House Votes
-----------
1. Banning Immigrants with HIV/AIDS Virus - Accepted
2. Parental Notification for Abortion - Rejected
3. Taxes to promote abortion - Accepted
4. Fetal Tissue Research - Accepted
5. Clinton Pork-Barrel Spending Program - Accepted
6. Clinton Tax-and-Spend Program - Accepted
7. Increasing Debt Limit - Accepted
8. Stacking Votes in Congress (adding D.C.) - Accepted
9. Term limits for House Committees - Rejected
10. Taxpayer-funded Abortion - Accepted
11. Taxpayer funding of Pornography (NEA) - Rejected
12. Abstinence-based Sex Education - Accepted


NEW HAMPSHIRE U.S. Senators       
---------------------------       
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14
GREGG            ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  __  ++  ++              ++
SMITH            ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++



Senate Votes
-----------
1. Keeping ban on Alternate-Lifestylers in the Military - Rejected
2. Banning Immigrants with HIV/AIDS Virus - Accepted
3. Tax Incentives for family leave - Rejected
4. Clinton Pork-Barrel Spending Program - Rejected
5. Clinton Tax-and-Spend Program - Rejected
6. Clinton Social Security tax increase - Rejected
7. Clinton Tax Increases on Energy - Rejected
8. Achtenberg Nomination - Accepted
9. Senate Committee Budget Cuts - Rejected
10. Capping Federal Spending - Rejected
11. Abortions in Military Hospitals - Rejected
12. Taxpayer funding of Pornography (NEA) - Rejected
13. School Prayer - Rejected
14. Term Limits on Congress - Rejected

Score Symbols
-------------
++ = voted in favor              ?? = didn't vote or make position known
-- = voted against            Blank = not eligible to vote
A  = absent                ALL CAPS = Republicans

    For those keeping score, that's 75% for Zeliff, 33% for Swett, 91% for
    Gregg, and 100% for Smith.

    Thanks, Mike.  I like the 2-line summary!

    Jane Harman is the person that is office.

    Why don't they have minus signs for Boxer and Feinstein.  At 0 they
    scored far higher than I thought possible.

CALIFORNIA    U.S. Reps.
---------------------------       
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  
Harman           ++  __  __  ??  __  __  __  __  __              
    
    that's a  11% for your U.S. Rep.  Slightly better than your senators.

    Thanks, it must be that she lives closer to me and osmosis helped. 
    Last time I talked to her office it sounded about the same as Diane and
    Barbara.  Bill Danmeyer is going to make a run for senator.  He's a
    Christian and a conservative - some group ranked him as number one on
    taxing (voting against) when he was in Congress.  Pray for Bill and the
    rest of California, being lead by these ... 

    
    Mike,
    
    Could you please post Dana Roherabacher, Rep for the forty-something
    district.  I just moved out of (B-1) Bob Dornan's District and I wonder
    if Dana is worth voting for.
    
    Thanks
    
    -Rick

CALIFORNIA    U.S. Reps.
---------------------------       
                  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  
ROHRABACHER      ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++            
    
    that's a 100% for your U.S. Rep.  

    
    Thanks.  Now I think I'll go meet the man...
    
    -Rick

    I don't remember where the Rush Limbaugh thread was, but here is a
    quote for you.
    
    Press Release/Youth Specialties 10/29/93:
    
    RUSH LIMBAUGH ADMITS THAT JESUS IS THE ANSWER TO LIFE'S PROBLEMS
    
    "Jesus holds the answers to all of the everyday problems that you face,
    I am talking about an acceptance and belief in Jesus, heaven, and God. 
    I guess you can deal with your problems on your own without those
    beliefs, but it's much, much tougher.  With those beliefs, you realize
    how insignificant the budget deficit debate is in comparison with the
    big picture.  The quest for happiness is too often centered on
    materialism and wealth.  Anyone who has had those things will tell you
    they don't contribute to internal happiness or self-satisfaction at
    all.  The comfort of a firm belief is probably the single greatest gift
    you could give somebody who's really seeking self-satisfaction and
    internal happiness."

    .52
    
    interesting...  What is Youth Specialties?

    I forget all the players in Youth Specialties, but there is Mike
    Yacconli and two others.  Great helps for Christian Youth Programs.  I
    have a book by them that is the best ever written on the subject.

Article 6139 of clari.news.religion:
From: [email protected] (Reuter/Carol Giacomo)
Newsgroups: clari.world.asia.china,clari.world.asia,clari.biz.world_trade,clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.usa.gov.foreign_policy,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.religion
Subject: Clinton May Meet Dalai Lama before China Decision

    WASHINGTON (Reuter) - President Clinton, facing a critical
decision on trade benefits for China that revolves partly on his
demand for better treatment for Tibet, is expected to meet the
Dalai Lama next month, a senior U.S. official said Thursday.
	 Separately, U.S. officials confirmed that leading Democratic
advocates of a tough policy toward China are working with the
White House on a compromise that would include limited sanctions
but still allow considerable trade if China fails to meet the
the human rights objectives Clinton laid down.
	 Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck mentioned the
Clinton meeting with the Tibetan religious leader at an American
University program on China.
	 ``I might say that he (Clinton) looks forward to meeting
with the Dalai Lama next month,'' he said.
	 Shattuck gave no details, and a State Department spokesman
later tried to make the meeting appear far more conditional.
saying Clinton ``possibly might meet the Dalai Lama.''
	 It would not be the first meeting between Clinton and the
Dalai Lama, into whose country China sent troops in 1951. The
president dropped in on talks last year between the religious
leader and Vice President Al Gore.
	 But this year's encounter would come at a critical time.
Clinton is to decide by June 3 whether to renew favorable trade
benefits for China, called Most Favored Nation trade status.
	 Failure to extend the MFN, which allows China to pay the
lowest tariffs on goods imported into the United States, could
have a major negative impact on U.S.-Chinese relations.
	 In renewing MFN last year, Clinton said it would not be
extended unless China improved its human rights record.
	 He named two mandatory conditions -- allowing emigration and
banning export to the United States of goods made with prison
labor -- and five other conditions, such as providing an
accounting of political prisoners. He said there must be
''overall significant progress.''
	 Secretary of State Warren Christopher, responsible for
making the MFN recommendation to Clinton, has said Beijing has
made substantial progress toward meeting the two mandatory
conditions.
	 He and other officials, faced with a potentially explosive
decision on MFN, have also said more progress on the other
conditions is needed.
	 Shattuck on Thursday generally tried to steer away from
evaluating Beijing's progress but acknowledged that ``with
respect to protecting Tibet's distinct cultural and religious
heritage, there has been no significant movement.''
	 U.S. officials previously said the administration was
weighing the possibility of selectively withdrawing MFN from
certain Chinese state industries if Beijing does not meet
Clinton's human rights test.
	 A U.S. official confirmed reports in The New York Times that
the White House and Democrats in Congress were working on a
compromise.
	 The newspaper said targeted sanctions has become the
centerpiece of the new debate on China. The debate is no longer
primarily between those who want to totally withdraw Beijing's
trade benefits and those who want to renew them unconditionally.
	 Human Rights  Watch/Asia, an influentiual activist group,
accused Clinton on Thursday of strengthening the hand of
hard-liners by waffling on China.
	 ``Political repression in China is increasing, not
decreasing,'' the group said.
	 Clinton, meanwhile, decided against restricting imports of
honey from China, despite a recommendation from the
International Trade Commission. The move may have been an effort
not to upset trade ties with China until he had made his
decision on MFN.

    What's the difference between Pro and Con?
    
    Progress and Congress!

 Been listening to Will Rogers there, Mike?





Jim

    Political Snarf!

    I'm confused by this one.  Why would the secular media vote a
    anti-abortion, anti-condom, homophobic, white, European male as "Man of
    the Year"?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

	I didn't think Newt was gonna get that..... :-)

    ...or Rush.  Frankly, I'm shocked.  Maybe revival is on the way ;-)

It's based on IMPACT, gentlemen.

After Kohlmeini (sp) was shown on the cover (1980?) you knew it wasn't
always for the best of reasons.  If the Pope got the nod, I am glad for it!

MM

Well, it isn't a media "vote" anyway; it's simply the management of Time, Inc.

The fa�ade of "voting" on the web had nothing to do with it; I'm pretty sure
JPII didn't get many votes at all; he was not being discussed at all on the
bulletin board time set up to propose and discuss potential candidates.


A Little History . . .

   
   
   For a tradition that has such global resonance today, TIME's Man of
   the Year started out in the most ordinary way. Henry Luce and his
   fellow editors were facing a slow week at the end of the 1927, and
   they couldn't decide who to put on the cover of their fledgling
   newsmagazine. Someone suggested they make up for a lapse that had
   occurred earlier in the year, when they had failed to put Charles
   Lindbergh on the cover after he had completed the first solo flight
   across the Atlantic. The solution: Name the immensely popular Lindy
   Man of the Year
   
   The idea was a big hit, and before long, men such as Mahatma Ghandi
   and Franklin Roosevelt were gracing the cover of the first issue every
   year. The criterion quickly became clear: The Man of the Year was the
   person who, for better or worse, had most influenced events in the
   preceding year. Nor did the person always have to be a man. Wallis
   Simpson was Woman of the Year in 1936 and Generalissimo and Mme Chiang
   Kai-Shek were Couple of the Year for 1937. We took further liberties
   with the formula when the personal computer became Machine of the Year
   in 1982 and Endangered Earth the Planet of the Year in 1988.
   
   Over the decades controversy has surrounded our choices of people who
   would not exactly have been candidates for a Nobel peace prize: Adolph
   Hitler, Joseph Stalin and, more recently, Ayatullah Khomeini. Yet no
   one could deny that these men had an enormous impact on the course of
   history. The Man of the Year reflects a news judgment, not a seal of
   approval.
   
   - - Henry Muller, Editorial Director of Time Inc.


/john