| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 222.1 | thub dub, thub dub . . . | GADOL::LANGFELDT | Flake-brain extraordinaire | Mon Oct 03 1988 09:48 | 8 |
|
How about steeling the one from "unnamed" members of the
Bush camp -- that they will consider the VP debate a
success if Quayle manages to say his name correctly!
Maybe with the sound of a tell-tale heart in the
background. . .
|
| 222.2 | | CADSE::SHANNON | look behind you | Mon Oct 03 1988 10:04 | 22 |
| Here is a whole commercial idea for the duke
open up to a large floor map of massachusetts with kitty and
mike standing on it.
zoom into kitty and mike where mie introduces kitty and himself
pan to mike only
mike : " The federal government has a large debt, in massachusetts
this year we have a 67 million dollar surplus and if
I am lieing may a lightning bolt strike kitty.
background noise (crack boom)
the camera pans out only to show mike standing there next to
wisps of smoke
why does he need one liners why not talk issues
|
| 222.4 | I have already sent these to Mike | DECSIM::GREENBERG | Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105 | Mon Oct 03 1988 11:58 | 140 |
|
67 Laurel Dr.
Bolton, Ma. 10740
September 3, 1988
Dukakis for President Campaign
Issues Department
105 Chauncy St.
Boston, Ma. 02111
Dear Governor:
I have a few suggested lines of attack that you can use in your
campaign for the Presidency.
O In Massachusetts, we say the pledge of allegiance voluntarily
because we love our country. How is it where you are,
George? Do you think you need to force people to say the
pledge?
O So, George, you want government off the people's backs. Then
why do you want to regulate what we read, what we do in the
privacy of our bedrooms, how and when we pray, when to say
the pledge of allegiance, whether a woman can control her own
body?
O Defense contractors who are stealing our money - I bet they
say the pledge of allegiance often.
O Play back George's convention speech words on greed - good
old Republican greed, then list the facts. Like the Wall
Street scandals. Also the bank failure scandals many caused
by unscrupulous, unregulated bank officers.
O Ask people if they remember the days this summer they
couldn't breathe? Then remind them that the foul air was
courtesy of Reagan/Bush's loosening the polution control
requirements on automobiles.
O In the war on poverty - poverty did not win. The war in
Vietnam won. The war sucked up the money that should have
been used to help the people. People had to riot in the
streets to get the Republicans to put a stop to the war.
Sincerely,
Steven Greenberg
67 Laurel Dr.
Bolton, Ma. 10740
September 5, 1988
Dukakis for President Campaign
Issues Department
105 Chauncy St.
Boston, Ma. 02111
Dear Governor:
I have a few suggested lines of attack that you can use in your
campaign for the Presidency.
O When the mortgage or rent payment comes do, can you just go
to the bank and say the pledge of allegiance?
O When the grocery store wants you to pay the food bill, can
you just say the pledge of allegiance?
O When you need to come up with the money to send your kids to
college, can you just say the pledge of allegiance?
O When drugs are flooding the street and your being shot at by
drug dealers, can you just say the pledge of allegiance?
O George Bush would rather have you concentrating on the pledge
of allegiance than the real problems facing this country.
O Will George pass a federal law that every morning every
worker in the country must stop to say the pledge of
allegaince?
Sincerely,
Steven Greenberg
67 Laurel Dr.
Bolton, Ma. 10740
September 15, 1988
Dukakis for President Campaign
Issues Department
105 Chauncy St.
Boston, Ma. 02111
Dear Governor:
If Governor Dukakis wants to take the high road and if he really wants
to be President, then perhaps he should take the following tack.
He should decry the mean spiritedness of the George Bush campaign.
Here is a man who called for a gentler nation and for inclusiveness,
but he is practicing meanness and divisiveness.
Here is a man who would rather use ridicule than to use reason. A man
who will refuse to listen.
Imagine yourself holding a position that is different from Bush's and
you want to convince him to change his mind. If you try to discuss it
with him, he will return mean spirited invective, ridicule, and
McCarthyism.
The best decisions are not arrived at by refusing to discuss issues.
Are the people of this country mean like George Bush? Are people as
unable to listen to reason as George Bush? I hope not.
Sincerely,
Steven Greenberg
|
| 222.5 | When you hate someone, logic has nothing to do with it | DECSIM::GREENBERG | Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105 | Mon Oct 03 1988 12:24 | 59 |
| This not seemed to disappear before I had a chance to respond. However, I
trapped it, so I am going to respond anyway.
>< Note 222.4 by MOSAIC::RU >
>
>
>
> RE: .2
>
> Do you really know how much the Duke borrowed to balance the
> budget? Do you know how much he ignored the plead to put money
> into the much unfunded state pension fund?
When you consider that the public, lead by Barbara Anderson, wants no state
taxes, no local taxes, but plenty of services, I think that Mike has done a
darn good job getting anything accomplished under these circumstances. The
same people who refused to let Mike keep last year's state surpluses for a
rainy day, are now complaining that he doesn't have enough money for a rainy
day.
I guess, if you dislike Mike Dukakis, your just going to dislike him and logic
has nothing to do with it.
> Do you know how much
> he ignored the plead to clean up the Boston harbor, build to relieve
> over-crowd prison, let the Nuclear plant open so the citizen can have
> enough and cheaper electricity?
Do you know how much the federal government has stood in the way of cleaning-up
the harbor? Should Mike have gone ahead and spent billions of dollars to build
a plant for which no good technology existed. Now that they have finally
figured out how to build the plant, the federal government wants to end their
financial support.
Everybody is telling Mike to build more prisons as long as they are not built
near them. In fact he is building more prisons and taking a lot of flak for it.
When was nuclear power ever cheaper? As long as the nuclear plants don't have
to clean up their own mess, the cost calculations are skewed. In a few years
the nuclear proponents will be screaming that Mike hasn't found a way to clean
up the nuclear wastes. We have so many non-nuclear hazardous waste sites
(including Boston Harbor) that we don't have the money to fix, do we need more
waste dumped on us?
>
> This guy is a bozo.
>
A lot of these situations are brought upon us by the Reagan-Bush voodoo
government. They seem to think that you can have everything you want in terms
of services, but that you never have to pay anything to get them. They also
seem to think that they can efficiently deliver these services and still allow
their corrupt friends to skim some funds off the top. We also don't have to
invest in the future of our people. We can cut out as much education as
possible, waste the money on unneeded weapons systems, give money away to
corruption and still succeed in this world. Maybe George thinks the flag makes
this country "bullet proof" like Superman. Hard work definitely not needed.
Just buy everything with junk bonds and our problems will be solved.
|
| 222.6 | re: 222.4 | FANTUM::MARCOTTE | | Mon Oct 03 1988 13:04 | 77 |
| 67 Laurel Dr.
Bolton, Ma. 10740
September 3, 1988
Dukakis for President Campaign
Issues Department
105 Chauncy St.
Boston, Ma. 02111
Dear Governor:
I have a few suggested lines of attack that you can use in your
campaign for the Presidency.
>> O In Massachusetts, we say the pledge of allegiance voluntarily
because we love our country. How is it where you are,
George? Do you think you need to force people to say the
pledge?<<
Do you know for a fact that Bush "Wants to force people to say
the pledge of allegience", or just Democrats?
>> O So, George, you want government off the people's backs. Then
why do you want to regulate what we read, what we do in the
privacy of our bedrooms, how and when we pray, when to say
the pledge of allegiance, whether a woman can control her own
body?<<
Did bush really say that....in those exact terms, or does he
just want to regulate democrats?
>> O Defense contractors who are stealing our money - I bet they
say the pledge of allegiance often.<<
Are there only Republican defense contarctors that are stealing
our money? It is really comforting to know that none of Mike's
defense contractors are stealing any of our money!
>> O Play back George's convention speech words on greed - good
old Republican greed, then list the facts. Like the Wall
Street scandals. Also the bank failure scandals many caused
by unscrupulous, unregulated bank officers.<<
Is the greed of the Democrats better? Is it only republicans that
work on Wall Street? Is it only Republicans who are unregulated
bank officers?
>> O Ask people if they remember the days this summer they
couldn't breathe? Then remind them that the foul air was
courtesy of Reagan/Bush's loosening the polution control
requirements on automobiles.<<
I wasn't aware that we only had Republican Auto makers in this
country. I don't think you can realisticaly hold one or two
persons responsible for the pollution problem that has been
going on for years in this country.
>> O In the war on poverty - poverty did not win. The war in
Vietnam won. The war sucked up the money that should have
been used to help the people. People had to riot in the
streets to get the Republicans to put a stop to the war.<<
I agree...the war won. There is nothing like a "Good Old
Democratic War" to suck up a nations resources. In case you
forgot your history....do the names Kennedy and Johnson ring
a bell. I seems to me that in Chicago it was the Democrats that
the people were pissed at for putting us deeper into "Nam". The
rioting in the streets started a long time before the Republicans
took over.
|
| 222.8 | | RAINBO::RU | | Mon Oct 03 1988 13:49 | 17 |
|
May be he should explain why a terrible crowd section of route 3 to
NH he didn't want to spend surplus money on.. ? to prevent people
of taxchusetts from escaping to "live free in free land".
RE: .5
Nuclear is certainly cheaper if you want to shut down those plants
after spending billions dollars. Nuclear waste? have you heard
about acid rain, greenhouse effect, and not to mention about black
lung? Do you know how much it cost to remedy those problem associate
with coal? As far as oil generator, can we afford importing much
more oil from unfriendly mid-east in the future.
Nothing is easy these days. But we know we don't need a big liberal,
big spender like Mike as president. If we had King as governor, the
state payroll won't be as this big today. I am sure about this.
|
| 222.9 | | ESKIMO::JULIUS | | Mon Oct 03 1988 14:57 | 30 |
| If I were to advise Governor Dukakis, I would have him ask
the Vice President to address the following issues:
- The delay in the North/Poindexter trial - isn't the delay
till after the election in Bush's best interest (could
it be that Bush will be implicated in the Iran/Contra
scandal?).
- How would the V.P. explain the most corrupt Republican
cabinet of all time?
- What punishments does Bush have in mind for women who
have abortions?
- What is the justification in this administration's
cutbacks to:
-- Environmental protection regulation
-- Funding for the Coastguards to police drug traffic
-- Veterans' benefits
- Does Bush have a plan to eliminate homelessness? - A
product to a very large degree of this administration.
- What's Bush's plan to eliminate the deficit which
has skyrocketed (in more ways than one) during this
administration?
Bernice
|
| 222.10 | | 2B::ZAHAREE | Michael W. Zaharee | Mon Oct 03 1988 15:23 | 5 |
| Try this one:
"Everyone knows I'm tough on crime."
- M
|
| 222.12 | TIRED OF THE SAME OLD THING | SLOVAX::HAGUE | | Mon Oct 03 1988 18:55 | 7 |
| One thing that I remembered during the Reagan administration is
praying "Please God, don't let anything happen to Ronald, because
if he dies, look who would be our President" {scary}.
Why would I vote to put in a man whom I prayed to keep out???
I say, we've had enough of reaganomics. Let's get this country
back on the right track.
|
| 222.13 | | CADSE::SHANNON | look behind you | Mon Oct 03 1988 20:54 | 24 |
| Another commercial for dukakis,
we are in the dukakis bed room it is late at nite
kitty is not there - remember she was zapped in reply .2 -
the alarm rings waking mike up
mike sits up mumbling to himself
time to pay off the mass deficit, time to pay off the mass deficit
suddenly a little red mike d appears in a devil suit saying mike
you really don't need to do that and then whispers something
into mike's ear , at this point a little "angel" mike appears saying "mike
get up and get mass out of its deficit crisis.
all of a sudden we are in a duncan donuts shop, the camera swings
around there are 4 police officers eating donuts and drinking coffee
back to the dukakis homestead it now mid morning and there is mike
still sleeping mumbling to himself, 67 miliion dollar surplus
67 million dollar surplus, the little red devil dukakis is smiling
over him
|
| 222.16 | National Organization on Disability | AKOV12::MILLIOS | Mass.' 3 seasons: cold, -er, -est! | Tue Oct 04 1988 13:23 | 46 |
| The National Organization on Disabilities gave their report last
night at the JFK Center for Politics at Harvard U.
An overwhelming majority of the disabled support Dukakis. (Something
in the 60 percentile, I believe.) This is a great tip in the scales
since prior to the National Conventions, the debate, etc, when it
was something like 55 % for Bush.
Commercial:
Camera pans to ring of students under bleachers in back of high
school. Students are snorting, sniffing, and puffing on various
toxic substances. Announcement comes over the loudspeakers, "Please
stand for the Pledge of Allegiance." All grudgingly saunter to
their feet, and hold their hands over their hearts as the sound
of the Pledge is heard.
Close shot.
Camera pans to front door of school. School administrators stand
around flustered, while asthmatic wheelchair-bound student (who
can't breathe very well due to pollution, and has to keep honking
on his aspirator) tries to get 34 inch wheelchair thru 32 inch door.
Sound of students reciting "I Pledge Allegiance" are heard in
background.
close shot.
Caption: George Bush: Allegiance to the flag, not the nation.
Second commercial:
Camera pans to young girl, wearing a body-type hearing aid,
sitting in a classroom full of actively participating students in
a lively lecture. The girl is staring out the window. Her shirt
has the quote "Deaf people can do anything.... except hear" written
on it. On her desk is a rejection from the Vocational Rehabilitation
to provide her with an interpreter, stating lack of funds as the
reason. She does not seem to hear the heartbeat sound that is in
the background. A tear rolls down her face.
Caption: "George Bush; listening to the heartbeat of America."
Bill
|
| 222.17 | where is George? | LDYBUG::ARRAJ | | Tue Oct 04 1988 14:00 | 7 |
| My favorite quote from the first (maybe only?) Bush/Dukakis debate
was when George said,
"I think Governor Dukakis is confusing the homeless with the housing
issue..."
If that ain't presidential material...
|
| 222.18 | RE .6 | DECSIM::GREENBERG | Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105 | Tue Oct 04 1988 14:12 | 76 |
| RE: < Note 222.6 by FANTUM::MARCOTTE >
> Do you know for a fact that Bush "Wants to force people to say
> the pledge of allegience", or just Democrats?
The law that Bush wanted Dukakis to sign provided for fines if a teacher didn't
lead the pledge of allegiance often enough. Do you consider that to be forcing
people? I do.
> >> O So, George, you want government off the people's backs. Then
> why do you want to regulate what we read, what we do in the
> privacy of our bedrooms, how and when we pray, when to say
> the pledge of allegiance, whether a woman can control her own
> body?<<
>
>
> Did bush really say that....in those exact terms, or does he
> just want to regulate democrats?
What was the Meese commision on pronography all about if not to regulate what
we read? What is mandatory drug and AIDS testing all about, if not to regulate
our personal lives? What is forced saying of the pledge of allegiance all
about? What is putting prayer into the schools all about, if not to tell us
when to pray?
> Are there only Republican defense contarctors that are stealing
> our money? It is really comforting to know that none of Mike's
> defense contractors are stealing any of our money!
No, it is not only Republican defense contractors, but Mike Dukakis has a
reputation of running a very clean government. If you remember the Ward
commission report, the construction contractors told of the corruption in the
system that came to a screeching halt when Dukakis came to office. No one can
guarantee that there will be no corruption, but some people try to halt it more
vigorously than others. The current administration cannot see corruption when
it is right under their noses.
> Is the greed of the Democrats better? Is it only republicans that
> work on Wall Street? Is it only Republicans who are unregulated
> bank officers?
The greed of people who happen to be Democrats is no better. The attempt to
regulate it might happen in a Dukakis administration, but not in a Bush
administration. It is the Republicans that are trying to deregulate the
banking industry. This administration has been in power when there have been
the most bank failures since the depression. It is the Republican justice
department that refuses to enforce the anti-trust laws. We have been wasting
our resources on take-overs and green-mail rather than investing in basic
research. Even IBM and AT&T don't do the basic research that they used to.
> I wasn't aware that we only had Republican Auto makers in this
> country. I don't think you can realisticaly hold one or two
> persons responsible for the pollution problem that has been
> going on for years in this country.
You damn betcha, I can hold two people responsible. It's not the political
party of the auto-makers that is the problem. It is the political party of the
people in this administration that fought to have the polution laws loosened
that is the problem.
> I agree...the war won. There is nothing like a "Good Old
> Democratic War" to suck up a nations resources. In case you
> forgot your history....do the names Kennedy and Johnson ring
> a bell. I seems to me that in Chicago it was the Democrats that
> the people were pissed at for putting us deeper into "Nam". The
> rioting in the streets started a long time before the Republicans
> took over.
Kennedy and Johnson certainly deserve their share of blame. However, Dukakis
doesn't sound as much like Johnson to me as Bush sounds like Nixon. With the
way the Republicans keep braying about "soft on defense", no Democrat can get
elected without acting more hawkish than makes sense. It is very ironic. Only
Nixon could have opened the diplomatic channels to China, because there was no
Nixon to call him a pinko.
/Steve
|
| 222.19 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | John Wayne should sue for defamation | Tue Oct 04 1988 14:51 | 14 |
| re .18
> but Mike Dukakis has a reputation of running a very clean government.
You can't *possibly* be serious? Look at the number of consultants
the Duke has hired. Look at the New Braintree scandal. Look at
his recently appointed campaign co-chairman, his Education Secretary,
Massport.
>Kennedy and Johnson certainly deserve their share of blame.
Like all of it?
Tom_K
|
| 222.20 | what have you to fear | NSSG::FEINSMITH | | Tue Oct 04 1988 16:46 | 9 |
| RE: .18, as far as drug testing, before I moved back to New England,
I lived in upstate New York. There was a big debate about mandatory
drug testing of school bus drivers because of some incidents. Since
my son (in kindergarden at the time) took the bus, I wanted to be
damned sure that his driver wasn't impared. As far as the whole
issue of drug testing, I say if you have nothing to hide, what have
you got to fear.
Eric
|
| 222.21 | Don't like Bush, Can't stand Mike | RUTLND::KUPTON | The Blame Stops HERE! | Tue Oct 04 1988 16:51 | 47 |
| I'm not crazy about either of these men nor am I ecstatic about
who they selected as runnibg mates. BUT:
The Duke saw that there is a surplus in the Social Security Fund
and wants to give my retirement to kids so they can get into college.
He expects that they will pay it back over a working lifetime. I'm
sorry but that's too radical for me. The democrats screwed up SS
and it took 8 years to straighten out. Leave my money alone.
The Duke "stole" $97 mil in lottery money that's supposed to go
back to the cities and towns (by law) for general fund help to keep
taxes down. There's no surplus, it's called underestimating potential
income from lotteries.
The Mass. State Senate and House are supposed to be in session.
Duke asked them to stay home until after the election. Why?
He's afraid that his home policies will hurt his chances to get
into the White House. If he stayed home as governor and showed what
he can do to improve life then he'd have ammo to fight Bush.
The man from Mass. thinks the $$$$ well is bottomless. He cannot
play the games in Washington that he plays in Massachusetts. The
man will surely put us so deep into a recession or possibly a
depression that it will take a war to get us out. Or a Republican
that understands business.
I'm an Independent, switched from a lifetime as a democrat. When
I lived in Maine, we elected an Independent governor James B. Longely.
The Maine owed no allegiance to anyone and began a program that
all govs have since tried to stick with, both dem. and rep. I'd
love to see that same type of man in DC.
Bush is a weak bureaucrat himself, but he has the experience and
connections to keep the country on an even keel.
I don't believe that either man will make much of any impact on
the following in the next four years.
abortion
deficeit
homelessness
poverty
I also don't believe that either can be re-elected in 1992.
Hold on to your hearts, the next four years will tear it apart.
Ken
|
| 222.22 | Where Was I, George? | VAXWRK::CONNOR | Clean mind clean body; take your pick | Tue Oct 04 1988 16:56 | 2 |
|
|
| 222.23 | Who has the best training Ron? | PSG::PURMAL | You saw the whole of the moon | Tue Oct 04 1988 17:14 | 8 |
| In the introduction to a new book called "Profiles In Power", which
features interviews of all the governors of the United States, Ronald
Reagan writes "Being governor was the best training for this job".
It might be good for Mike to quote him in an ad saying that
by Reagan's standards he has the best training.
ASP
|
| 222.24 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | John Wayne should sue for defamation | Tue Oct 04 1988 17:28 | 7 |
| re .20
> I say if you have nothing to hide, what have you got to fear.
False positives. The tests are not foolproof.
Tom_K
|
| 222.25 | outta my face, gov't! | ULTRA::ZURKO | UI:Where the rubber meets the road | Tue Oct 04 1988 18:10 | 5 |
| > I say if you have nothing to hide, what have you got to fear.
I fear for my privacy and my independance. (Where's that darn 'constant
vigilance' quote when ya need it?)
Mez
|
| 222.26 | | BOLT::MINOW | Fortran for Precedent | Tue Oct 04 1988 22:54 | 7 |
| From Ellen Goodman's column in the Boston Globe:
"If abortion were illegal, it would be a crime. Every crime has
a criminal. Even George Bush, who hadn't ''sorted out'' the issue,
knew that right off the bat. ''Of course there's got to be some
penalties to enforce the law...'' Of course."
|
| 222.28 | More | DECSIM::GREENBERG | Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105 | Wed Oct 05 1988 10:34 | 158 |
| >Note 222.19 Sound bites for Dukakis 19 of 27
>EVER11::KRUPINSKI "John Wayne should sue for defama" 14 lines 4-OCT-1988 13:51
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>re .18
>
>> but Mike Dukakis has a reputation of running a very clean government.
>
> You can't *possibly* be serious? Look at the number of consultants
> the Duke has hired. Look at the New Braintree scandal. Look at
> his recently appointed campaign co-chairman, his Education Secretary,
> Massport.
Yes, I can be SERIOUS. Is there something inherently wrong with being a
consultant? Many of us hard working engineers aspire to be consultants.
Just throwing out an innuendo is not enough. Show me some massive wrong-doing
among the consultants.
I have yet to see the scandal in New Braintree. I have seen some
unsubstatntiated charges.
What's wrong with his recently appointed campaign co-chairman? Is the person a
Nazi like some of Bush's people?
He fired his education secretary. He didn't hem and haw for four years, saying
"Gee guys, I know this guy is a crook, but he has been my buddy for 20 years.
Do I really HAVE to fire him?" (You remember unindicted Meese, don't you?)
Now what's wrong with Massport? It doesn't seem to me to have any of the
corruption that existed when Ed King was in charge.
>>Kennedy and Johnson certainly deserve their share of blame.
>
> Like all of it?
Not hardly all of it. If I can let the Democrats take the blame they deserve,
why can't you admit where the Republicans went wrong. Don't forget, that this
whole thing started under the Eisenhower administration. But the real
Republican crime occurred under the Nixon administration. Nixon took a
country, Cambodia, that was trying to tread the tightrope of neutrality and
prevent itself from being gobbled up by the communists or the US, and upset the
balance. He couldn't be satisfied with neturality. He had to illegally bomb
in Cambodia. This so greatly upset the balance, that the Khmer Rouge
eventually took over. The very communists that he was supposedly fighting
against. The ensuing blood-bath was just unbelievable.
>================================================================================
>Note 222.20 Sound bites for Dukakis 20 of 27
>NSSG::FEINSMITH 9 lines 4-OCT-1988 15:46
>
> RE: .18, as far as drug testing, before I moved back to New England,
> I lived in upstate New York. There was a big debate about mandatory
> drug testing of school bus drivers because of some incidents. Since
> my son (in kindergarden at the time) took the bus, I wanted to be
> damned sure that his driver wasn't impared. As far as the whole
> issue of drug testing, I say if you have nothing to hide, what have
> you got to fear.
The loss of your civil rights? You have heard of the bill of rights in the
Constitution? I thought that somewhere in our heritage was the presumption of
innocence until proven guilty. Right now the FBI is trying to check the
library records of the books that you read. It's very easy to give up your
rights in situations like this, but the eventual outcome is dictatorship.
If there were incidents with bus drivers, were there severe penalties meted out?
I'd much rather punish the guilty than the innocent. If it were known that
there would be very harsh treatment for crimes, there would be less crime. In
Scandinavian countries you can go to prison for life because of drunk driving murders.
They have very little drunk driving.
>================================================================================
>Note 222.21 Sound bites for Dukakis 21 of 27
>RUTLND::KUPTON "The Blame Stops HERE!" 47 lines 4-OCT-1988 15:51
>
> I'm not crazy about either of these men nor am I ecstatic about
> who they selected as runnibg mates. BUT:
>
> The Duke saw that there is a surplus in the Social Security Fund
> and wants to give my retirement to kids so they can get into college.
> He expects that they will pay it back over a working lifetime. I'm
> sorry but that's too radical for me. The democrats screwed up SS
> and it took 8 years to straighten out. Leave my money alone.
Since when is this money coming out of social security? Please, give me a
break. If we don't invest in a more productive society, there won't be any
money to pay your socail security.
> The Duke "stole" $97 mil in lottery money that's supposed to go
> back to the cities and towns (by law) for general fund help to keep
> taxes down. There's no surplus, it's called underestimating potential
> income from lotteries.
Where do you get this stuff? It is the return of money from the state to the
cities that rescued them from the ravages of prop 2 1/2.
> The man from Mass. thinks the $$$$ well is bottomless.
Actually, Mike's proposals depend more on cooperative efforts between
government and business than do Bush's. He is actually going to spend less
money than Bush to accomplish the same goal. Now Bush wants to put up $100M
in matching funds for a volunteer core. Of course the other $100M that
suuposedly comes from the private sector will be tax deductable so that the
government will also be paying for half of that as well. Despite the fact that
volunteer organizations are already tapped out because of the added burden put
upon them by this administration, George expects to squeeze more out of them.
Why doesn't George just put more effort into VISTA instead of inventing yet
another beauracracy?
> The
> man will surely put us so deep into a recession or possibly a
> depression that it will take a war to get us out. Or a Republican
> that understands business.
You mean like the 1982 Reagan depression?
> I'm an Independent, switched from a lifetime as a democrat. When
> I lived in Maine, we elected an Independent governor James B. Longely.
> The Maine owed no allegiance to anyone and began a program that
> all govs have since tried to stick with, both dem. and rep. I'd
> love to see that same type of man in DC.
Then, Mike Dukakis is your man. Many of his programs are being emulated by
Republican and Democratic governors. he was voted the most effective governor
by both Republican and Democratic governors.
> Bush is a weak bureaucrat himself, but he has the experience and
> connections to keep the country on an even keel.
What experience? He has failed at almost everything he has tried.
> I don't believe that either man will make much of any impact on
> the following in the next four years.
> abortion
> deficeit
> homelessness
> poverty
Have you heard about Supreme Court nominations? Reagan's negative impact will
live on for the next 20 years because of his appointment of judges. And it
will only get worse if Bush is elected.
>================================================================================
>Note 222.27 Sound bites for Dukakis 27 of 27
>ANT::ZARLENGA "shake it up, just like bad medicine" 9 lines 4-OCT-1988 22:22
> -< 'criminal' is an inherently biased term >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>.26>"If abortion were illegal, it would be a crime. Every crime has
>.26>a criminal.
>
> In this context, 'criminal' also applies to people who cross
> outside the pedestrian walk-way and fail to use turn signals when
> driving.
Yes, but the abortion "criminals" were put in jail for 5 years. I don't think
a jay-walker ever received such a punishment.
|
| 222.29 | Moderator Question | RAINBO::TARBET | | Wed Oct 05 1988 10:43 | 9 |
| This string is clearly a topic of interest to _men_, but I'm not so
sure about _women_...scanning a directory of the string, I see only two
responses that I recognise is having been written by women (Sharon's
and Mez's).
I think that this is the first time this situation has come up.
What shall we (mods) do?
=maggie
|
| 222.31 | Darn straight - tough on crime!!! | DECSIM::GREENBERG | Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105 | Wed Oct 05 1988 10:46 | 14 |
| RE: < Note 222.11 by AERIE::THOMPSON >-< tough on crime (snigger) >-
Yes, tough on crime. Mike Dukakis instituted an effort to concentrate crime
fighting on repeat offenders who are responsible for about 80% of crime. With
the attorney general, they put high priority on running the repeat offenders
through the court system as quickly as possible so that they could be sentenced
and put away. When you put a repeat offender away, you not only imprison
someone who committed a crime that we know about, but you are also getting a
person who probably committed a number of crimes that we hadn't charged him or
her with.
This is why crime is down 13% in Massachusetts.
/Steve
|
| 222.32 | Speak now, or forever hold your piece!!!! | DECSIM::GREENBERG | Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105 | Wed Oct 05 1988 10:52 | 23 |
| RE: < Note 222.30 by NOVA::M_DAVIS >
>
>
> Because we're not writing doesn't mean we're not reading, Maggie.
>
> Marge
You have given me the perfect entry for something I was going to bring up.
Reading and not writing is not good enough. This campaign is going to
go to the person who can shout the loudest. Bush has made that clear.
If the more than 50% of Massachusetts people who favor Mike Dukakis sit idly by
as he is attacked by the Bush people. The undecideds will figure that Dukakis
has no defense. They will then swing to Bush.
There certainly seem to be a lot of issues that women and men care strongly
about in this campaign. We can't let this go to the yahoos by default.
Speak up!!! Get angry!!! It's your patriotism that is being impugned!!!!
/Steve
|
| 222.33 | Read and vote | CASV05::RITARI | | Wed Oct 05 1988 11:06 | 6 |
| Ah, but some of us read, don't write and *do* vote. I'll take my
dissatisfaction with the past 8 years into the voting booth with
me, and I'll be voting against another 4 of the same.
Jan
|
| 222.34 | | LEZAH::BOBBITT | aspera me juvant | Wed Oct 05 1988 11:16 | 9 |
| Also, there is a separate (related) topic called "Who are women
voting for" (or somesuch) where several people (myself included)
have aired political opinions.
I am reading this topic, but since I really haven't studied the
candidates' histories very closely, I have very little to add...
-Jody
|
| 222.35 | Soundbites of interest to women, anyone? | BOLT::MINOW | Fortran for Precedent | Wed Oct 05 1988 11:17 | 9 |
| My apologies for starting this mess. I had hoped to capture "sound bites
of interest to women," rather than general soapbox flames and succeeded
in failing miserably.
To answer the earlier question, perhaps the moderators should follow
their own guidelines and ask for conformance to the conference guidelines
by offline mail messages.
Martin.
|
| 222.36 | Moderator Response | RAINBO::TARBET | | Wed Oct 05 1988 12:08 | 7 |
| Fair enough, as long as women are reading there's no conflict with
our charter.
(Whether the string is serving _Martin's_ intended purpose is a
totally different issue)
=maggie
|
| 222.37 | sanity checked... | FRAGLE::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Wed Oct 05 1988 12:51 | 9 |
| Re maggie's query
ahem, this is ONE woman who has noticed a VERY high male presence
in this topic, and the replies in the "what are women voting for"
(whatever the real title is...) note keep making me wonder if i've
inadvertently opened soapbox (cause there seems to be very little
being said in that note which is about women...).
lee
|
| 222.38 | re:222.18 | FANTUM::MARCOTTE | | Wed Oct 05 1988 13:27 | 70 |
| ================================================================================
Note 222.18 Sound bites for Dukakis 18 of 19
DECSIM::GREENBERG "Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105" 76 lines 4-OCT-1988 13:12
-< RE .6 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The law that Bush wanted Dukakis to sign provided for fines if a teacher didn't
lead the pledge of allegiance often enough. Do you consider that to be forcing
people? I do.<<
Fine, consider it what you like. But who passed the Law? Could it be the
congress that happens to be controlled by the democrats
>>What was the Meese commision on pronography all about if not to regulate what
we read? What is mandatory drug and AIDS testing all about, if not to regulate
our personal lives? What is forced saying of the pledge of allegiance all
about? What is putting prayer into the schools all about, if not to tell us
when to pray?<<
Give me a break. There have been commissions on porography for so long I
forget how many there were. And guess what....we still have pornography, and
nobody still isn't telling us when to pray, or in fact say the pledge of
allegiance.
>>No, it is not only Republican defense contractors, but Mike Dukakis has a
reputation of running a very clean government. If you remember the Ward
commission report, the construction contractors told of the corruption in the
system that came to a screeching halt when Dukakis came to office. No one can
guarantee that there will be no corruption, but some people try to halt it more
vigorously than others. The current administration cannot see corruption when
it is right under their noses.<<
Butter it up any way you want to....the New braintree scandal...you say has
unsustantiated charges...I can smell a decaying fish...without having to see
it.
Butter it up any way you want....Mikey-boy stole the lottery money in order to
help his image in balancing the budget.
I wonder why now that Dukakis is running for president we have question #2
popping up? Maybe some secret finnancing?
>>You damn betcha, I can hold two people responsible. It's not the political
party of the auto-makers that is the problem. It is the political party of the
people in this administration that fought to have the polution laws loosened
that is the problem.<<
who let the auto makers get away with....is there not a congress who write
laws...are they napping...or just democrats in need of campaing contributions.
I have a feeling that if the auto makers were held to the commitment...the
foreing competition would be all over them. Also there would be a lot of layoffs
as a result....is this what you want?
>>Kennedy and Johnson certainly deserve their share of blame. However, Dukakis
doesn't sound as much like Johnson to me as Bush sounds like Nixon. With the
way the Republicans keep braying about "soft on defense", no Democrat can get
elected without acting more hawkish than makes sense. It is very ironic. Only
Nixon could have opened the diplomatic channels to China, because there was no
Nixon to call him a pinko.<<
As i saw it, Nixon inherited the "Democrats War" and eventually got the country
out of it. I don't like Nixon, he is the republicans MAJOR blunder as far as
his pardon goes...but none the less....he knows how to play the game.
As for democrats sounding "acting more hawkish than makes sense", I guess that
quote speaks for itself, the democrats seem to have no ideas concerning defense.
I looks like it will be easy to spot the Dukakis supporters by the ring around
their necks.
|
| 222.40 | great stuff Steve! | DECSIM::SEAVEY | | Wed Oct 05 1988 13:42 | 12 |
| Great work, Steve! Lots of super excellent rebuttals and arguments
put forth. You've proven that cute one-liners have little meaning,
and regardless of the topic heading, your arguments are vital for
both women and men to absorb. Many topics deviate from their original
purposes - nothing unusual in that. I think the moderators made the
right choice. This election IS important, and there IS a big difference
between Bush and Dukakis. Steve has given numerous reasons why a Bush
presidency would be a disaster for this nation. And if the latest
revelation from Abul-Hassim Boni-Sadre is correct, Bush is still trading
arms for a hostage.
-mardy
|
| 222.41 | I know the all the issues | NSG022::POIRIER | Suzanne | Wed Oct 05 1988 13:48 | 12 |
| Re: .39
<warning flames>
I would like to inform you that most women I know have an interest in
politics! I know all of the issues! All of them - not just abortion
- and I don't need a man telling me I need more exposure to the
issues! Abortion is an issue - and when it comes right down to
it both candidates stink! But the one of the tie breakers for me
is the abortion issue - because it is important to me as a woman.
Thank you I feel better now.
|
| 222.42 | and just who are you asking? | NOETIC::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Wed Oct 05 1988 13:53 | 11 |
|
Are we better off than we were 8 years ago, yes, but we would be
better off anyway. Was I better off after Carter than I was 4
years before that, yes, I was. But we are the elite, the
technocrats who will flourish just because it's our time of the
century. Now take a look at the poverty level households headed
by single mothers. Are they better off than 8 years ago, NFW. A
society that prides itself on the gains it can give those who are
already well taken care of but which ignores the poor and
downtrodden is an amoral society. liesl
|
| 222.43 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | John Wayne should sue for defamation | Wed Oct 05 1988 13:59 | 65 |
| re .28
> Is there something inherently wrong with being a
> consultant? Many of us hard working engineers aspire to be consultants.
> Just throwing out an innuendo is not enough. Show me some massive
> wrong-doing among the consultants.
You miss my point, Steve. Nothing wrong with being a consultant. Or
even hiring a few. But not in the numbers Dukakis has. And speaking
of hiring of state workers, why is it that Massachusetts needs twice
as many as Pennsylvania, a bigger state with a population that about
the same as Massahusetts?
> I have yet to see the scandal in New Braintree. I have seen some
> unsubstatntiated charges.
Perhaps the biggest scandal about New Braintree is the fact that
Dukakis refuses to meet with the residents. This is not an
unsubstantiated charge.
> What's wrong with his recently appointed campaign co-chairman?
He is one of the biggest vendors of the smear campaign that there is.
Dukakis himself kicked him out once. And since you brought up smear
campaigns in a subsequent reply, let's not forget which party began
attacking which candidate first. Bush has been very restrained in
his attacks on Dukakis. But I always find it amusing that when
Bush talks about the Dukakis record, the Democrats complain about
"negative campaigning".
> (You remember unindicted Meese, don't you?)
Weren't you the one who had just talked about "unsubstantiated
charges"? I've heard a lot of innuendo about Meese, but several
panels have examined him and found no wrong doing.
>Now what's wrong with Massport?
It's a long and boring story that I suspect most of the readership
isn't interested in. Suffice to say that Dukakis's Director of
Massport has created a political fiefdom for himself, at the
expense of the air transportation system of New England, and paid for
by the federal government.
> Don't forget, that this whole thing started under the Eisenhower
> administration.
Eisenhower had lots of military advisors in lots of places. They
remained advisors. No war was started. Until the Democrats took over.
> Nixon took a country, Cambodia, that was trying to tread the tightrope
> of neutrality
A country that allows one belligerent sanctuary and does not allow
another belligerent to pursue, does not sound like a neutral to me.
> The ensuing blood-bath was just unbelievable.
For which the Democrats bear full responsibility.
Tom_K
(who has said more than enough about
this for a while)
|
| 222.44 | We're NOT better off | TALLIS::ROBBINS | | Wed Oct 05 1988 13:59 | 29 |
| Re:
> For those people fed up with the past eight years of Reagan government,
> I have to ask you are you better off then eight years ago? Compared
There was a fairly long article that I read yesterday in
Time Magazine with lots of pretty graphics to get attention.
In summary, the article said that wealthiest 10% or so of the
population has become much wealthier under the Reagan Administration.
There are over a million millionaires in this country!
In contrast, the poorest 10% has become even poorer. They make
less money now than they did before Reagan took office.
The middle class, however, in some ways remained the same.
The biggest difference is that while they might be earning about
the same amount of money as before Reagan took office, and their
money usually buys them about what it bought them in the pre-Reagan
years, there are deviations from this in a couple major areas:
first: these middle-class citizens will probably never be able to
afford to purchase their own homes, and second, these middle class
citizens will never be able to remain in the middle class unless
they are part of a two-income family.
So, as far as "are you better off than eight years ago?", the
answer is an overwhelming "NO!" from all but the wealthiest
10% of the country. If your experience is different, congratulations
on being one of the few who have survived the Reagan era econically
unscathed.
|
| 222.45 | my last inputs on this subject | FANTUM::MARCOTTE | | Wed Oct 05 1988 14:19 | 137 |
| ================================================================================
Note 222.28 Sound bites for Dukakis 28 of 35
DECSIM::GREENBERG "Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105" 158 lines 5-OCT-1988 09:34
-< More >-
================================================================================
>>Yes, I can be SERIOUS. Is there something inherently wrong with being a
consultant? Many of us hard working engineers aspire to be consultants.
Just throwing out an innuendo is not enough. Show me some massive wrong-doing
among the consultants.<<
Consultant....what a nice loose fitting title. I guess Vito Corleone could have
been appointed a labor consultant. There is nothing wrong with consultants..just
the type of consultant can affect some people.
>>I have yet to see the scandal in New Braintree. I have seen some
unsubstatntiated charges.<<
One need only smell the rotting fish.....etc..etc.
>>What's wrong with his recently appointed campaign co-chairman? Is the person a
Nazi like some of Bush's people?<<
Geezzus....who are the Nazis in Bushes campaing./..give us some names please!
>>He fired his education secretary. He didn't hem and haw for four years, saying
"Gee guys, I know this guy is a crook, but he has been my buddy for 20 years.
Do I really HAVE to fire him?" (You remember unindicted Meese, don't you?)<<
Yes we do...and wasn't Meese cleared of the allegations?
>>Not hardly all of it. If I can let the Democrats take the blame they deserve,
why can't you admit where the Republicans went wrong. Don't forget, that this
whole thing started under the Eisenhower administration. But the real
Republican crime occurred under the Nixon administration. Nixon took a
country, Cambodia, that was trying to tread the tightrope of neutrality and
prevent itself from being gobbled up by the communists or the US, and upset the
balance. He couldn't be satisfied with neturality. He had to illegally bomb
in Cambodia. This so greatly upset the balance, that the Khmer Rouge
eventually took over. The very communists that he was supposedly fighting
against. The ensuing blood-bath was just unbelievable.<<
Fair enough, the republicans are not perfect either.
If my history serves me well...Vietnam or French Indo-China as it was called
had been going on before eisenhower got to power. Truman and eisenhower had
some observers over there to see how an asian land war was neing handled by
a western power power. Well the french got out (and this part is fuzzy for me)
all of a sudden we have kennedy in there and he sending over "advisors" not to
be confused with observers...the rest is history.
As for what the Khmer Rouge did over there...please produce some evidence that
an American president was responsible for THEIR action against THEIR own people.
>>Since when is this money coming out of social security? Please, give me a
break. If we don't invest in a more productive society, there won't be any
money to pay your socail security.<<
Mikey took the lottery money...whats to prevent him from hitting this fertile
area?
>>Where do you get this stuff? It is the return of money from the state to the
cities that rescued them from the ravages of prop 2 1/2.<<
It seems to me that proposition 2 1/2 rescued us from the ravages of the
politicians....lets try to look at both sides.
>>Actually, Mike's proposals depend more on cooperative efforts between
government and business than do Bush's. He is actually going to spend less
money than Bush to accomplish the same goal. Now Bush wants to put up $100M
in matching funds for a volunteer core. Of course the other $100M that
suuposedly comes from the private sector will be tax deductable so that the
government will also be paying for half of that as well. Despite the fact that
volunteer organizations are already tapped out because of the added burden put
upon them by this administration, George expects to squeeze more out of them.
Why doesn't George just put more effort into VISTA instead of inventing yet
another beauracracy?<<
are you saying dukakis has figured out a system to give everyone in America
what they want....at a discount...with no new "revenue Enhancements"?
>>You mean like the 1982 Reagan depression?<<
a problem inherited from Jimmy Carters administration.
>>Then, Mike Dukakis is your man. Many of his programs are being emulated by
Republican and Democratic governors. he was voted the most effective governor
by both Republican and Democratic governors.<<
thank for showing us that the democratic governors are just as screwed up as
you say the republicans are.
>>What experience? He has failed at almost everything he has tried.<<
please give us some specifics....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>RE: < Note 222.11 by AERIE::THOMPSON >-< tough on crime (snigger) >-
Yes, tough on crime. Mike Dukakis instituted an effort to concentrate crime
fighting on repeat offenders who are responsible for about 80% of crime. With
the attorney general, they put high priority on running the repeat offenders
through the court system as quickly as possible so that they could be sentenced
and put away. When you put a repeat offender away, you not only imprison
someone who committed a crime that we know about, but you are also getting a
person who probably committed a number of crimes that we hadn't charged him or
her with.
This is why crime is down 13% in Massachusetts.<<
Crime is probably down by by a lot more than that...what with the governor
supporting furloughs for anybody. Kinda keeps the crime rate down if you
furlough a segment of the criminal...don't you think.
>>You have given me the perfect entry for something I was going to bring up.
Reading and not writing is not good enough. This campaign is going to
go to the person who can shout the loudest. Bush has made that clear.
If the more than 50% of Massachusetts people who favor Mike Dukakis sit idly by
as he is attacked by the Bush people. The undecideds will figure that Dukakis
has no defense. They will then swing to Bush.
There certainly seem to be a lot of issues that women and men care strongly
about in this campaign. We can't let this go to the yahoos by default.
Speak up!!! Get angry!!! It's your patriotism that is being impugned!!!!<<
This my friend is something you have my whole hearted support in...except
I would like to see everyone get involved....no matter who their candidate
is that they support, and to let their views be known...a lot of the issues
these two guys (bush...dukakis) are discussing will affect a lot of women, and
what is important to them....
Paul
|
| 222.46 | not quite | TALLIS::ROBBINS | | Wed Oct 05 1988 16:36 | 19 |
| Re:
>Yes we do...and wasn't Meese cleared of the allegations?
Meese was most certainly NOT cleared of the allegations.
The final report of the investigation said that they had reached
the conclusion that several of the allegations were in fact true.
However, they did not feel that the case was worth prosecuting.
One reason for this was that had John Doe performed these crimes, it wouldn't
have been prosecuted--Meese would have been prosecuted largely because
he was in such a public position. (Although, personally, I think that
someone who has the gall to commit these crimes in such a public
position should be made an example of.)
I don't really remember the other reasons they declined to prosecute
Meese.
The day the report was released, Meese announced he had been vindicated,
even before reading the report. Had he read the report, even he would
have realized the difference between choosing not to prosecute and
being "cleared of the allegations."
|
| 222.47 | Ho, Hum! | SLOVAX::HASLAM | | Wed Oct 05 1988 16:37 | 9 |
| I find it really difficult to get riled up over who is bad and who
is worse. As I'm sure many of us realize, we do NOT have a terrific
choice this year. Debating this issue is not necessarily going
to change anyone's opinion either. I've had my mind set for quite
awhile now, so the debate is being wasted on me.
It must be time for NEXT UNREAD:-)
Barb
|
| 222.48 | Moderator Request | RAINBO::TARBET | | Wed Oct 05 1988 17:07 | 5 |
| Might I request a lighter touch on copying previous replies? It
certainly helps to keep the context, but the disk pack around here
will be happier if it's done in a less-wholesale manner. Thanks.
=maggie
|
| 222.49 | same as it ever was | ULTRA::ZURKO | UI:Where the rubber meets the road | Wed Oct 05 1988 17:21 | 7 |
| re: several
Yes, that's what this moderator is doing, a quick scan for signs of life, then
a next.
[ooops! are moderators allowed to do that? I'm used to being a mere mortal :-)]
Mez
|
| 222.50 | I wish that EITHER of them had some guts... | USMRW1::RMCCAFFREY | | Wed Oct 05 1988 18:01 | 44 |
|
For those of you who are unaware of this fact....persons in
the military have lots of rules regarding the support of a particular
candidate for public office. Since I don't know what the rules
are exactly, my comments will be limited to the general rather than
the specific.
First I would like to commend the League of Women Voters for
refusing to sponsor the 2nd debate because the candidates wanted
to set their own rules. Am I the only one in this conference
incredibly offended that the 2 men running for the highest public
office in the land are AFRAID to debate by the rules of the League?!
Does either one of them posses any strength of his convictions?
Does either one of them KNOW in even the most basic terms, how he
will deal with the very large, very difficult, very emotional issues
that face this country as we enter into the last decade of the century?
For myself....I'd be really interested in knowing how George
Bush expects to pay off the deficit without raising ANYONE's taxes.
I'd like to know how the 2 candidates plan to deal with hazardous
waste and environmental pollution. On this one it would seem to
me that a good, safe, politically sound first step would be to endorse
programs like the one Seattle has implemented that allows much of
the city to have their trash recycled. I'd also like to know how
the 2 men would stop the growth of drug use in the country. It
doesn't really matter how much coke gets into the country if no
one is interested in buying it. How do we stop the demand? How
do we get America high on life?
And of course there are other issues that I'm interested
in....abortion, defense, and ERA.....but I don't feel that I really
know how either candidate feels because they don't make solid
committments and then publicise them. It almost seems like whoever
says the least is going to win the election.
At 22 and voting in my 2nd presidential election, I am very
disillusioned. But I WILL vote. I just wish I wanted to vote for
one of them rather than, as I feel I will now, vote against one
of them.
GO IRISH!
Rachel
|
| 222.51 | So he hadn't even read it, huh? | SKYLRK::OLSON | green chile crusader! | Wed Oct 05 1988 20:16 | 12 |
| re .46 -
> The day the report was released, Meese announced he had been vindicated,
> even before reading the report.
Oh, come on. By law, the special prosecutor released the report
to the victim of trial-by-leak 30 days before the report was made
public. This in order to give him time to prepare a public statement
answering the still unproven and unprosecutable allegations. If
you don't even know the mechanics of the report of the witch hunters,
how much can I trust your other claims?
DougO
|
| 222.53 | Gorbachev is voting for Dukakis | SRFSUP::LONGO | Bob Longo | Thu Oct 06 1988 02:57 | 18 |
| re: .52
> My only satisfaction comes from realizing that they are outnumbered
> by the realists who will be voting in November.
Let's hope so! I would like to see the the current low interest
rates and economic growth continue without a big spending liberal
messing it up.
The ONLY major issue I disagree with Bush on is abortion, but I
don't think he'll attempt to change the laws during his term as
president.
On a lighter note, the base note in this topic asks for "sound bites"
for Dukakis. Maybe a rabid dog can be located to provide Mikey
with the bites he deserves. ;-)
-Bob
|
| 222.54 | How do you explain it, then? | TALLIS::ROBBINS | | Thu Oct 06 1988 10:11 | 18 |
|
> Oh, come on. By law, the special prosecutor released the report
> to the victim of trial-by-leak 30 days before the report was made
> public. This in order to give him time to prepare a public statement
> answering the still unproven and unprosecutable allegations. If
> you don't even know the mechanics of the report of the witch hunters,
> how much can I trust your other claims?
If I was inaccurate on this, I apologize. I was however, merely
repeating what NBC news told me.
If, then, as you say, Meese knew in advance what the report would
say, why did he claim to be "vindicated" when the report said that
they believed he was guilty but they declined to prosecute? Are you
asserting that Meese is merely stupid? Even I don't think that; I
believe he's a very intelligent man. Or are you saying he's a liar?
I don't have trouble believing it--but that's a sad thing to say about
a former attorney general.
|
| 222.55 | Victimized by the Press and Special Prosecutor | SKYLRK::OLSON | green chile crusader! | Thu Oct 06 1988 12:55 | 22 |
| re .54-
> If, then, as you say, Meese knew in advance what the report would
> say, why did he claim to be "vindicated" when the report said that
> they believed he was guilty but they declined to prosecute?
Picture this: A team of 30 lawyers appointed by your political
opponents spends 18 months and over $1M digging through every business,
personal, and official contact you've made for the past 5 years.
During most of the 18 months, "leaks" from your private papers
are aired in the press together with statements of the leading
prosecutor that they are going to get you, you've done all sorts
of bad things. Because you know you've done nothing wrong, you
stick to your guns and refuse to be hounded out of office. When
they fail, after all of this harassment, to force you to leave,
they finally have to admit they couldn't find a single charge they
could make stick. Wouldn't you claim vindication? That report
didn't "decline to prosecute". Given the political stakes involved,
failure to prosecute was as good as admitting he wasnn't guilty,
however much they slanted the wording of the report.
DougO
|
| 222.56 | Hard to believe what gets said... | FRAGLE::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Thu Oct 06 1988 13:09 | 7 |
| re .39, Jason
� Since most of women has little interest in politics [...]
Care to substantiate this blatantly sexist assumption?
|
| 222.58 | Let's put in a fact. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Oct 06 1988 13:53 | 8 |
| Jason,
There are fewer women in public office because fewer women run
for public office. Fewer women run for public office because
it is harder for women to get funding from the male-dominated
party organizations than it is for men to.
Ann B.
|
| 222.60 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | UI:Where the rubber meets the road | Thu Oct 06 1988 13:59 | 9 |
| re: nature, attraction and sex (sound like another discussion to you?)
Not all male persons are attracted to female persons, and ditto in the other
direction.
Jason, I suggest another topic if you want to continue on that one.
Then again, I suggest you don't continue on that one (listen a while, you might
hear things of interest).
Mez
|
| 222.62 | Don't let the turkeys get you down! | JJM::ASBURY | | Thu Oct 06 1988 14:19 | 40 |
| re: .39 and a few others.
There is a part of me that wants to SCREAM when I hear things like
women have no interest in politics and need a little help in
understanding the issues. But I am going to try to ignore that for
the moment.
What I have to say is in response to the "Are you better off now
than you were 8 years ago?" question. I had this same argument,
oops, discussion, with another engineer in my group earlier this
week.
There are more things to consider besides what affects me personally.
(That was the crux of the 'discussion' I had - he kept asking me
how -whatever- affected *me personally*)
I am concerned with the plight of the homeless. That is not something
which affects me personally. I rent an appartment. I am not homeless.
The abortion issue is also not one which affects me personally. I have
not had an abortion; in fact, I probably never will. I do not believe in
it, for me, at this time. I do, however, believe very strongly in a
woman's right to make the choice which best suits her at the time.
I am concerned with the availability to financial aid for students.
This does not affect me personally, either, anymore. But I believe
it is important that a large sector of the population is not cheated
out of having the opportunity to choose to further their education
because they can not afford it. There are so many more examples I
could give, here, but I'm sure you get the picture.
There are so many problems in our society today. I really believe
it is important to look at these things and try to find some solutions.
I guess what it comes down to is that I make my decision about whom
to vote for based on so much more than what directly affects *me
personally*. Because, as someone once said (I know I should remember
who...) "No man is an island." (no woman either... ;-) ) We live
within society and the state which society is in and whatever affects
it certainly have an impact on all of us.
-Amy.
|
| 222.63 | | RAINBO::TARBET | | Thu Oct 06 1988 14:27 | 6 |
| Actually, since Jason's native language isn't english I think he's
doing a fine job expressing himself and that no shots are warranted.
His politics, on the other hand....
=maggie
|
| 222.65 | Perhaps, my last word. | DECSIM::GREENBERG | Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105 | Thu Oct 06 1988 14:58 | 111 |
| RE: 222.38 FANTUM::MARCOTTE
>Fine, consider it what you like. But who passed the Law? Could it be the
>congress that happens to be controlled by the democrats
Ah, so you admit it was a bad law. It makes no difference who you think
controls congress, that doesn't get Bush off the hook.
Bush and Dukakis are running for President, not Congress. We need to pick the
person who will lead in the right direction, not the wrong direction. In a
separate note we can discuss how to select better people for Congress.
>Butter it up any way you want to....the New braintree scandal...you say has
>unsustantiated charges...I can smell a decaying fish...without having to see
>it.
You may have a more finally tuned nose than I. So far, no law enforcement body
has been able to find anything that Dukakis has done wrong. And since his
record has been so squeeky clean up to now, I am not ready to jump to any
conclusions.
>who let the auto makers get away with....is there not a congress who write
>laws...are they napping
No, just having their arms twisted by an administration leading in the wrong
direction. Remember, it is President we are voting for.
> Also there would be a lot of layoffs as a result....is this what you want?
Being sick as a dog, but having a job is not my idea of the good life. You are
much too myopic if you think there has to be a tradeoff between good
environmental quality and jobs.
>I looks like it will be easy to spot the Dukakis supporters by the ring around
>their necks.
Cute, but I don't get it. Would you care to explain?
> why is it that Massachusetts needs twice
> as many as Pennsylvania, a bigger state with a population that about
> the same as Massahusetts?
I don't know, would you like to research that question and report back here
with an answer? To ask the question doesn't mean there is no good answer.
Where specifically are the people employed in the two states? How many public
colleges does Pennsylvania have? How much construction is going on?
> I've heard a lot of innuendo about Meese, but several
> panels have examined him and found no wrong doing.
The panel found plenty wrong with Meese. They just decided it wasn't worth the
expense to indict him.
> Massport
That may be your opinion. I see no facts to support it.
> Eisenhower had lots of military advisors in lots of places. They
> remained advisors. No war was started. Until the Democrats took over.
How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?
>> The ensuing blood-bath was just unbelievable.
>
> For which the Democrats bear full responsibility.
Nixon did it, and the democrats bear full responsibility?
-------------------------------------
>Note 222.45 FANTUM::MARCOTTE
>Geezzus....who are the Nazis in Bushes campaing./..give us some names please!
You really ought to read the newspaper or listen to television. It was
about 7 people with Nazi or Fascist connections that quit from an Ethnic
Advisory Council to the Bush campaign.
>Yes we do...and wasn't Meese cleared of the allegations?
Definitely not cleared.
>As for what the Khmer Rouge did over there...please produce some evidence that
>an American president was responsible for THEIR action against THEIR own people.
It is my interpretation that Nixon's actions drove Prince Sihanouk from office.
The Prince was the only one who was keeping the delicate balance.
>>>You mean like the 1982 Reagan depression?<<
>
>a problem inherited from Jimmy Carters administration.
Make up three envelopes ... (Have you heard that joke?)
By the way, has anyone noticed that Mike Dukakis is not Jimmy Carter?
>>>What experience? He has failed at almost everything he has tried.<<
>
>please give us some specifics....
War on drugs, war on terrorism, advising the president on arms trading for
hostages. He was in the CIA and Emissary to China for less than 1 year each.
I don't think he accomplished anything. Has he reached his Peter Principal
position yet?
He did attend funerals well.
He did recognize voodoo economics when he saw it.
/Steve
|
| 222.67 | | JJM::ASBURY | | Thu Oct 06 1988 15:18 | 7 |
| Jason -
Don't go away hurt. Perhaps try to understand the sentiments of
the audience to whom you are writing. And please forgive those of
us who jumped - *if it was not warranted*.
-Amy.
|
| 222.68 | Heads you win, tails I lose | SLOVAX::HAGUE | | Thu Oct 06 1988 15:35 | 16 |
| After reading all the notes in this particular file, and being fairly
open minded, I have reached the following conclusions:
FACT 1: Both Bush and Dukakis have good points and bad points.
This is based primarily on past records.
FACT 2: If this election were based on personalitys, both of
them would lose. I'm not too thrilled about supporting
a mud slinging campaign.
FACT 3: Neither the Dukakis supporters nor the Bush supporters
will change their minds and vote for the other candidate.
OPINION: The old saying "If you don't vote, you don't have no say"
but I seriously can't find anyone worth voting for. After reading
the notes, I don't like either of them. Who else is running?
|
| 222.69 | | CADSE::SANCLEMENTE | | Thu Oct 06 1988 16:52 | 17 |
|
RE: < Note 222.65 by DECSIM::GREENBERG "Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105" >
I think you will find people more inclined to listen to you if
quit comming off as someone on the dukakis campaign commitee. Reasonable
people can find many faults with either candidate. Mike Dukakis
is no saint. Many people here seemed to have made their decsion on who
to vote for based on the abortion oops, right_to_choose issue. If
thats the most important thing to them then they should vote for
mikey. However, please don't tell me the dukey has the right answer to
everything, he doesn't.
- A.J.
p.s. You aren't from Mass are you? You sound like you've been getting
all your info from network news and dukakis campaign literature.
|
| 222.70 | don't get me started! | ULTRA::ZURKO | UI:Where the rubber meets the road | Thu Oct 06 1988 17:56 | 7 |
| >"No man is an island."
entier of itself; every man is a peace of the continent, a part of the main;...
John Donne
He writes lovely poetry (fer a guy :-)
Mez
|
| 222.71 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | John Wayne should sue for defamation | Fri Oct 07 1988 03:13 | 19 |
| re .68
> Who else is running?
Ron Paul is the candidate of the Libertarian Party. I like the
Libertarians in general, but after seeing Ron Paul make a fool
of himself a few times, I can't vote for him.
Lenora Fulani is running as in Independent candidate.
The candidate of the Socialist Workers Party is James Warren.
I recently saw an ad for Lyndon LaRouche, running as an independent
Democrat.
I would be very surprised if the Communist Party of the US does
not field a candidate (invariably Gus Hall).
Tom_K
|
| 222.72 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Foole | Fri Oct 07 1988 12:43 | 10 |
| I just had a thought (finally, after all these years!). Perhaps
asking the question "Are you better off now than n years ago"
puts ones's focus in a risky place. A counter question might
be, "If ___ is elected will you and/or the planet be better off
in "n" years". Wouldn't it be a shame (deserved or not) if we
all managed to "get ours" only to find the planet becoming a
man-made wasteland?
Steve
|
| 222.73 | yup | VINO::EVANS | Never tip the whipper | Fri Oct 07 1988 12:50 | 6 |
| re: .72
Well said, Steve, I couldn't agree more.
Dawn
|
| 222.74 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | John Wayne should sue for defamation | Fri Oct 07 1988 12:59 | 12 |
| "I believe Ronald Reagan can make this country what it
once was - an arctic region covered with ice"
-Steve Martin circa 1980
Hasn't happened.
Then, remember when the LBJ campaign urged us not to vote
for Goldwater because he'd get us into a land war in Asia.
We all remember how that turned out.
Tom_K
|
| 222.75 | Good ol' Gert | VINO::EVANS | Never tip the whipper | Fri Oct 07 1988 13:08 | 9 |
| A couple of comments made about Danny Quayle
"His shallowness runs deep"
and about The Debate (Quoting Gertrude Stein)
"There was no There, there."
|
| 222.76 | Better off now, but not due to the government! | CADSYS::RICHARDSON | | Fri Oct 07 1988 13:24 | 22 |
| Am I better off than I was 8 years ago? You bet I am! But not
because of anything the current government did for or to me (and
I don't plan to vote for Mr. Bush, even though I think that the
current healthy economy in Massachusetts is more due to the efforts
of Mr. Olsen than of Mr. Dukakis). Eight years ago I was in an
unhappy marriage to an uncaring workaholic with a nasty temper,
and working in a group which did not give me any room to develop
my abilities or any reason to expect that they would recognize any
abilities that I did develop. Since that time, my first husband
left me to move in with a girlfriend of his (married her the day
after our divorce was final, and she divorced him three months later
- which is what I should have done, too, but I wasn't that brave
in those days), I fell in love with and later married an affectionate,
sweet-tempered DECcie, my old job disappeared in a budget cut, and
I found the job I currently hold, where I am much happier. I'm
even better off monetarily (even though the new tax laws cause me
to pay a lot more taxes, as is the case with virtually everyone
I know who is in a two-career marriage), since my first husband
was self-employed and did not make much money, and spent what he
did make on stuff he needed for his "business", which never really
got off the ground, rather than on things like household repairs,
etc.
|
| 222.78 | I think Reagan was bad for the environment | PSG::PURMAL | Mending my wonton ways | Fri Oct 07 1988 14:24 | 25 |
| re: .74 Tom
Under the Reagan administration:
o 187 million acres have had their environmental safegaurds stripped
from them.
o His agents have opened more mineral-rich land to oil and gas drillers
than all his predecessors combined since 1965.
o It built 12,000 miles of roads - at taxpayer expense - for timber
companies in national forests. There were 3100 miles built during
Carter's administration. (the 12,000 miles includes roads built
up to 1987, the final total will be higher)
o His administrators have sold more federal lands than any previous
administration. During the Carter administration the number of
acres of federally owned lands increased, it has decreased during
the Reagan years.
You're right that Steve Martin's "prediction" hasn't come true
yet, but I think that Ronnie has moved us closer to that goal.
We won't know the consequences of his actions for years to come.
ASP
|
| 222.79 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Foole | Fri Oct 07 1988 14:50 | 42 |
| re: .74
� Hasn't happened.
. . .yet.
One of the great problems we, as a manufacturing company face is
that there is tremendous financial pressure to perform well in the
short term - gotta make those end-of-week/month/year shipments.
It of course helps the stockholders in the short run, but can have
tremendous negative consequences in the long run. As many, including
Mr.Olsen have observed, the manufacturing threat of the future is
Japan, a country which devised a long term strategy to put it at
the top of the mfg. heap. If the steel, auto, and home electronics
industries are any examples, I'd say the concern is well placed.
In like fashion, focussing on how much better off I am today vs.
where I was "n" years ago may be risky. Perhaps it would be wiser
to look at where we are today in relation to where were going.
True, the ice age is not here today. However, in the last decade,
five of the years have been the hottest in the last 150 years.
There is much evidence to demonstrate that the global climate
is changing, not at a natural rate (e.g. ice ages naturally
take thousands of years to proceed), but within the course of
our lifetimes and that of our children. Yes, some of us may
be financially better off (some, but hardly all) today, but
perhaps one price we are and will be paying is a habitable
planet.
I'm simply suggesting that to focus on being "better off today"
may be a case of winning the battle at the expense of losing the war.
Steve
P.S. Although the "better off" phrase is most commonly associated
with Ronald Reagan, I know the readers of this conference
have enough on the ball to realize that I've not (here or
elsewhere) endorsed any candidate. I feel certain that if
the Democrats felt it could gain them votes, they'd hesitate
not a New York second to use it.
|
| 222.80 | Here's a new sound gulp idea | DECSIM::GREENBERG | Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105 | Fri Oct 07 1988 14:58 | 84 |
| Maybe Mike's advertising people could take a lesson from this.
/Steve
Subj: FYI - DECrap with Rapmaster Ken
[mail headers deleted to protect the innocent(?)...]
Subj: Rap Masters at Digital
Subj: Rap master Ken
Subj: Digital's hip to the standards thing
Subj: *H* - DECrap
Subj: rapmaster...
Subj: Get into the groove!
Subject: DECrap
News item
NEW YORK -- During a creative session at a major public relations firm today
to formulate a new corporate message for Digital Equipment Corporation that
reflects the company's new direction promoting and supporting computing industry
standards, the shopworn phrase "Digital has it now." was replaced by a new
tag line that is more contemporary and tied to DEC's adherence to standards.
"Digital's hip to the standards thing." will become the $11.5 billion company's
new-image slogan. In a radical departure from it's traditionally staid
advertising approach the company will produce a television advertisement built
around a rap music theme played out in a rapidly changing sequence of office and
engineering scenes. In a parody of the commonly used product nomenclature, the
video itself is referred to as a mythical Digital product called DECrap. The
lyrics to the rap music video are published here for the first time.
A DECrap by
Rapmaster Ken
"Digital's Hip to the Standards Thing"
I heard some news just the other day
It sounded kinda strange and I said, "No way!"
But I heard it again from another source
It mighta made sense and I said, "Of course!"
Now computer biz has a lotta confusion
'Cause operating systems abound in profusion.
But there's a whole new wave in data processing
Now that Digital's hip to the standards thing.
(chorus)
Digital's hip to the standards thing!
Digital's hip to the standards thing!
Way back when a long time ago
IBM owned the whole show.
But other dudes saw this proprietary mess
And formed committees to find out what's best.
Some went their own way and built their own software
But users were perturbed, "It's just a different nightmare."
So they got together to look over the picks
Put their down their money on good 'ol UNIX
(chorus)
Digital's hip to the standards thing!
Digital's hip to the standards thing!
Now Digital always kept their users in mind
And pushed VMS as the best of the kind.
A lotta folks agreed but kept askin' for
UNIX support, "We gotta have more!"
Soon DEC saw the light and decided to give
UNIX to the masses, (sorta live and let live).
So DEC's ridin' the wave ahead of the rest
On a backplane bogie board on top of the crest.
No doubt about it DEC's sprouted its wings
'Cause Digital's hip to the standards thing.
(chorus)
Digital's hip to the standards thing!
Digital's hip to the standards thing!
|
| 222.81 | Mass native | DECSIM::GREENBERG | Steve HLO2-2/H13 225-6105 | Fri Oct 07 1988 15:03 | 11 |
| RE: < Note 222.69 by CADSE::SANCLEMENTE >
> p.s. You aren't from Mass are you? You sound like you've been getting
> all your info from network news and dukakis campaign literature.
I was born in Mass. 44 years ago and have lived here for most of my life.
/Steve
|
| 222.82 | | ESKIMO::JULIUS | | Fri Oct 07 1988 16:20 | 26 |
| I don't check in for two days and here I am at .82
responding to .29. It was stated that only two women
had anything to add to this topic. May I call your
attention to .9 where I delivered my speech.
I find it hard to believe that there is a notion that
women have no interest in politics and shouldn't as
it really isn't their business anyway. I think
anyone that believes that is blatantly sexist and
living in the dark ages.
I would like to add to my "shame on this administration
list" but I'm afraid I can't pin this one on the
administration. George Bush must take full credit for
this blunder:
- Dan Quale for V.P. You would think that Mr. Quale
would have anticipated being asked (at the debate)
what he would do if he were forced into the position
of the presidency. After all wouldn't that be his
major concern? Shamefully, he did not have a clue.
Mr. Bush's judgement in this, (actually a first
presidential decision) is very poor.
Bernice
|
| 222.83 | | HANNAH::MODICA | | Fri Oct 07 1988 17:37 | 15 |
| About all I'd like to add as it applies to the original topic
is that it's kinda sad when we've reached a point where campaigns
are concerned about effective sound bites to help them win an
election. Both campaigns are guilty of this and personally I
find it insulting. But then, with the apparent lack of substance
coming forth from both camps, perhaps this is all we'll have with
which to base our opinions.
I also have to wonder just how it is that politics have evolved into
this. The recent Bill Moyers special on PBS concerning the role
of television explored this subject. I found it interesting when
they remarked that the last election where TV acted as an observer
was 1952. Since then TV has increasingly become a part of the election
process. And now we have campaigns whose primary concerns are how
they'll appear on short news clips each night on the evening news.
|
| 222.84 | Jim Henson fro President | VINO::EVANS | Never tip the whipper | Mon Oct 10 1988 11:46 | 16 |
| RE: .83
I agree, Hank. I think that's a large part of why we ended up with
an actor in the White House. It's becoming a matter of who looks
best on TV.
The paranoid side of me can just picture a future in which we have
presidents who look good to the camera, and God-alone-knows-who
behind them, running the country.
Come to think of it, we may already have started.
<shudder>
--DE
|
| 222.85 | Sound-bites 'R Us | BOLT::MINOW | Fortran for Precedent | Mon Oct 10 1988 12:12 | 20 |
| Dukakis appears to lose support in the polls when he talks about issues,
and gains support when he goes into sound-byte-attack mode.
Bush's handlers have learned that lesson, and we seem only to see
pre-digested messages.
This is a clear message of voter interest that both campaigns listen to.
My local paper publishes 2-3 full pages of campaign news per day, (going
far beyond the sound bytes). Network tv news publishes about 400 words
(3 minutes) per day. In order to get anything on the tv news shows, it
appears necessary to squeeze the message into something that matches
the attention span of the viewers.
I think this is our problem, not necessarily that of the campaigns.
(I see the same thing here: I skip over almost all contributions to notesfiles
that are more than 30-40 lines long.)
Martin.
|
| 222.87 | a bumper sticker I saw on Rte 128 | HOYDEN::BURKHOLDER | You gotta let it out, Captain! | Tue Oct 11 1988 07:05 | 5 |
|
DUKE'S A HAZARD
|
| 222.88 | Let's Reorganize | VAXWRK::CONNOR | We are amused | Tue Oct 11 1988 12:25 | 2 |
| Dukakis/Bentson ------> Bentson/Dukakis
|
| 222.89 | why parties | FANTUM::MARCOTTE | | Tue Oct 11 1988 12:53 | 1 |
| I think Bush/Bentson or Bentson/Bush would have been interesting!
|
| 222.90 | Good idea in theory, but... | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | John Wayne should sue for defamation | Tue Oct 11 1988 13:09 | 28 |
| re .88
But then if something ever happened to Bentsen, we'd have:
Mike Dukakis as President!
Tom_K
|
| 222.91 | Some comments | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Tue Oct 11 1988 13:18 | 38 |
| I think that a comment made by Bentsen during the vice-presidential
debates says a lot. Paraphrased poorly: "If you let me write $200
billion in hot checks every year, I could give you the illusion
of prosperity too!"
Another point of view:
I work with a Republican who was very upset with the commission's
conclusions on Meese. It was his interpretation that the report
clearly states that Meese _is_ guilty, but that he would not be
indicted. My co-worker felt it was grossly unfair of the commission
to announce him guilty and not subject him to due process (where
he would have the opportunity to prove his innocence). I suggested
that Meese COULD _insist_ that he be indicted...
The Reagan administration has run up the largest deficit in history.
Yet, repeatedly (at least twice within this topic, for example),
Democrats have been categorized as "big liberal spenders" that ought
to be feared for this reason. This does not compute.
Re .52: Are you saying that the "realists" _know_ that their candidate
can't achieve any of the things he is promising?
Re .71: "President Warren"...I like the sound of that...
Re .86: Eagle, he (.85) was not advocating any of the points you
quoted, just citing his observations.
-Tracy (who _is_ interested in, and knowledgeable about, politics
beyond what the First Lady will wear to the inauguration!)
|
| 222.92 | Is Liberal so bad? | GADOL::LANGFELDT | Flake-brain extraordinaire | Tue Oct 11 1988 13:33 | 14 |
|
Why doesn't Dukakis just quote the meaning of Liberal, and ask George
why he isn't in favor of progress?
liberal: adj. 1. generous 2. ample; abundant 3. not literal or strict
4. TOLERANT; BROAD-MINDED 5. FAVORING REFORM OR PROGRESS
n. ONE WHO FAVORS REFORM OR PROGRESS
source: _Websters New World Dictionary of the American Language_
Sharon
|
| 222.93 | | ATPS::GREENHALGE | Mouse | Tue Oct 11 1988 13:43 | 8 |
|
re: 90
But, we'll have Dukakis anyway.
Thinking positively,
Beckie
|
| 222.94 | I know where *I* place blame... | SKYLRK::OLSON | green chile crusader! | Tue Oct 11 1988 14:12 | 24 |
| re .91- Tracy-
> I think that a comment made by Bentsen during the vice-presidential
> debates says a lot. Paraphrased poorly: "If you let me write $200
> billion in hot checks every year, I could give you the illusion
> of prosperity too!"
> ...
> Reagan administration has run up the largest deficit in history.
> Yet, repeatedly (at least twice within this topic, for example),
> Democrats have been categorized as "big liberal spenders" that ought
> to be feared for this reason. This does not compute.
I fully agree with *Senator* Bentsen that hot checks are no good.
I fully agree that the largest deficit in history is a problem.
But in no way can I agree with your contention that the
administration did this all by itself.
The politics of the budget are ugly and nobody on any side of the
issue is innocent. But I'll sooner lay the blame for the deficits
on a liberal-spending Congress than on a defense-oriented
administration. Its very clear that we have a completely different
view of what "does not compute".
DougO
|
| 222.95 | | RUTLND::KUPTON | The Blame Stops HERE! | Tue Oct 11 1988 14:15 | 24 |
| Heard on the radio this morning.
The Democrats fear that Mike Dukakis may have peaked during his
acceptence speech in Atlanta. The polls show that since the convention,
the Duke's popularity has taken a definite nose dive. The fear is
that he just doesn't look the part of being president, and everyone
knows that the presence an individual projects is very important.
The biggest problem is coming. Friday's "debate" could be the total
ungluing of the democrat hopeful. If he soundly defeats Bush he
has a 50/50 chance of gaining the White House. A tie would leave
him as bland and no better than Bush. A sound beating by Bush would
destroy what is left.
The south is pro Bush and Duke is not even making an attempt to
thrust into the area. Texas looks like it's going to lean to Bush
and that would be devastating for Dukakis/Benston. Benston may not
be re-elected to the Senate either. Dukakis cannot sit in Massachusetts
and spend his time speaking at Tufts when Bush is racing around
the country.
I'll probably write in my own name.........
Ken
|
| 222.96 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | Duke's a Hazard | Tue Oct 11 1988 14:48 | 11 |
| re "hot checks":
Seems to me that holders of the debt of the US ought to be
panicking. According to Sen. Bentsen, those securities are
worthless, and the US has no intention of paying them off.
According to Sen. Bentsen, people considering buying US
Saving Bonds or other government securities should put their
money elsewhere, because the government is going to take their
money, and give them a "hot check" in return.
Tom_K
|
| 222.97 | he condemns himself | NOETIC::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Tue Oct 11 1988 16:08 | 8 |
|
For those of you who feel Meese was given a bad deal by not
getting a trial to defend himself... I can only quote Meese
himself
"If a person was innocent they wouldn't be a suspect", seems he's
quilty by his own standards. liesl
|
| 222.98 | hot checks | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Tue Oct 11 1988 18:41 | 24 |
| re .91:
> The Reagan administration has run up the largest deficit in history.
> Yet, repeatedly (at least twice within this topic, for example),
> Democrats have been categorized as "big liberal spenders" that ought
> to be feared for this reason. This does not compute.
I suppose everyone has forgotten that it is the CONGRESS that writes
the budget, all that the president can do is veto it.
As for Bentsen's debate statement about the $200billion worth of
hot checks, it is CONGRESS that is writing those checks.
Were it not for a Republican president fighting tooth-and-nail to
reduce the budget, the deficit would have been far larger than it
is today. Having a big spending liberal like Du-tax-us leading a
Democratic (un)controlled Congress would be absolute fiscal disaster.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.99 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | Duke's a Hazard | Tue Oct 11 1988 19:09 | 15 |
| re .91
> My co-worker felt it was grossly unfair of the commission
> to announce him guilty and not subject him to due process (where
> he would have the opportunity to prove his innocence).
Clearly your co-worker is a native of one of the many countries
where the justice system is set up such that once indicted, a person
must prove their innocence. You would do well to inform your
co-worker that under the US system of justice, a person need
not prove their innocence, rather, the plaintiff must prove
the defendants guilt.
Tom_K
|
| 222.100 | Meese has a point | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Wed Oct 12 1988 09:32 | 7 |
| re: .99
In the US, we have the press to try and convict you before
you're ever charged with a crime. No need to involve the justice
system at all.
--bonnie
|
| 222.101 | they are vultures | FANTUM::MARCOTTE | | Wed Oct 12 1988 12:52 | 3 |
| re: 100
I agree whole heartedly with your comment......sad but very true.
|
| 222.102 | Hear! Hear! | SLOVAX::HASLAM | Creativity Unlimited | Wed Oct 12 1988 16:49 | 5 |
| Re: .28
What a great idea!!!
Barb
|
| 222.105 | sweeping generalizations | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Mon Oct 17 1988 15:12 | 13 |
| re .104:
> As our society chooses to expend more of it's wealth in space
> exploration and less on Welfare
I think you will find that actually far *less* of "our" wealth is
going to space exploration, and far *more* on welfare.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.107 | | ROCHE::HUXTABLE | singing skies and dancing waters | Tue Oct 18 1988 14:23 | 8 |
| I thought I'd seen figures purporting to show that the money
spent on space exploration returns several times over to the
economy in terms of advances in technology, medicine, etc.
Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, one can prove anything
with statistics...
-- Linda
|
| 222.109 | it wasn't trying to prove that | TALLIS::ROBBINS | | Tue Oct 18 1988 18:03 | 10 |
| Re: .104
(In part about how not being better off is not Reagan's fault)
I can't say I agree with you on this (although I do agree with
much of what you wrote in .104), but the reply you refered to (.44)
was in reference to yet another reply in which the author stated
that we're all better off now than we were 8 years ago. The article
in Time that I referenced was stating that this simply isn't true.
I didn't intend it to prove that this is all Reagan's fault--
simply that most of us aren't better off than we were 8 years ago.
|
| 222.110 | Welfare may be cheaper than building prisons | BOLT::MINOW | Fortran for Precedent | Tue Oct 18 1988 18:07 | 31 |
| As a card carrying liberal, I might point out that "treating the poor"
with respect and decency has a distinct payback in a lowered crime rate
and an avoidance of the "culture of poverty." (I am not claiming that
the American welfare system attains that goal.)
The space program has had many notable achievements, including
Velcro, Teflon coatings for fry pans, and a lot of the seed money
for microelectronics, photovoltaics, and computing. It's major
return on the investment is probably improved methods of viewing
the earth (better weather forecasting, for example).
I suspect that Velcro and Teflon could have been developed for somewhat
less money, and the satellites could have been put up without people.
Because NASA's needs are primarily for size/weight reduction and efficiency,
and not for cost reduction, a lot of very useful technology is put aside.
For example, the cheap solar cells used to power pocket calculators were
originally developed by RCA. They were too inefficient for American use,
and the technology was licensed to a Japanese company. They built a
pilot plant to examine the technology and used its output in calculators.
This was successful enough that they can start "riding the curve" of
manufacturing efficiency. Perhaps, in ten years, we'll be able to buy
Japanese roofing tiles that provide our houses with, say, 20% of our
electrical needs. Then, we can grumble about the balance of payments
and lack of industrial growth.
Don't get me wrong: I think we should be in space; on the moon, on Mars,
and on our way to the stars. But this is a goal that is worthy in its
own right, not as an excuse for non-stick frying pans.
Martin.
|
| 222.111 | so depressing! | TALLIS::ROBBINS | | Wed Oct 19 1988 10:18 | 24 |
| .104 seems to have disappeared, but I just wanted to clear up my reply
to it (that I started in .109).
That article in Time about how the lower and middle classes are
worse off in the past 8 years does not prove that this is Reagan's
fault. However, it did occur during his administration. Even if he
didn't cause these problems, why didn't he do anything about them?
Also, in .104 you say that unless one is a uniquely skilled worker,
one should not be in the "middle class", including owning a home,
and having one of the adults in the family able to be home to raise the
kids.
Americans got used to this after WWII. Now you're saying that we
were spoiled, and that this isn't how life should be. WHat bothers
me about your statements is that you seem to say that we should
accept our destiny to be badly off financially, and that we don't
deserve any better. This seems so pessimistic. Why shouldn't we
always strive for our lives (middle and lower class lives, I mean)
to be better? Why accept such backslides? We want a president who will
help us make things better in this country, not just say "Sorry
you can't have what previous generations had, but they didn't deserve it.
It was a fluke. And it shouldn't happen again." If we aren't always
trying to make a better future, what's the point of living?
|
| 222.112 | Nit alert | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Oct 19 1988 10:35 | 11 |
| Teflon isn't a byproduct of the space program; it's a byproduct
of the Manhattan Project. (It's an organic fluoride compound,
and fluorine was too difficult to handle until we "had" to learn
how to handle gaseous uranium hexafluoride.)
Non-intrusive monitoring of the human organism is a byproduct
of the space program, so the next time you have a disk stuck on
you instead of a wire inserted into you, think of "all" that money
spent -- here on earth -- for the space program.
Ann B.
|
| 222.113 | more to life than more possessions | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Wed Oct 19 1988 10:39 | 27 |
| re: .111
Well, I have to say I'm not living to make my life better in the
monetary sense. I'm living to love my husband and family and
friends, to share and care and enjoy being alive. I'm living to
tell my stories. And to praise God in my life. I hope I can make
life better, easier for those who don't have as much and happier
for those who are hurting.
It's easier to do those things in comfort, I grant you. But I
can't say I'm any happier now in my own house than I was when we
lived in a two-bedroom apartment in south Nashua. I know I
wouldn't be happier with a Volvo in the driveway than I am with a
Dodge station wagon.
I've also seen statistics that say that even though the one-income
family owning its own home is regarded as the norm of the fifties,
it was in fact NEVER the majority family pattern. Those numbers
[they were reported in _Business Week_ several months back]
indicated that more people own their own house or apartment than
ever before. Whose numbers do you believe?
"Better off" has many components. It's just possible that many,
if not most, voters feel that even if their economic situation
hasn't improved, they're better off in other ways.
--bonnie
|
| 222.114 | | RAINBO::TARBET | | Wed Oct 19 1988 10:54 | 6 |
| I think there's some evidence to suggest that "ordinary" people were
indeed able to own their own home during much of this country's
history: look at the occupations of the original owners of the
pre- and post-Revolutionary houses dotting the New England landscape.
=maggie
|
| 222.115 | rents and owns | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Wed Oct 19 1988 11:06 | 24 |
| re: .114
You're right, Maggie, but unless I misread my time line, the
1950's weren't in pre- or post-Revolutionary times -- and the
Business Week article only went back to WWII. And while many
ordinary people were able to own their own homes in various
historic times, I'd have to look up the numbers to know whether
homeowners were in the majority even then. If you wander around
urban Nashua, you see many row houses dating from the mill
days around the Civil war. Those were obviously rental housing.
From the time the U.S. became a primarily urban country (as
opposed to farm country), around 1880-1900, rental housing has
been the norm for the majority of US households.
One of the reasons that owning one's own home became the American
dream was because it was something that you could attain with care
and many years of saving -- unlike the situation in many European
countries, where owning a house was beyond the means of most. It
was also frequently assumed that this house would pass on to your
children and your children's children, not that each child would
have his or her own house.
--bonnie
|
| 222.116 | | 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI | Duke's a Hazard | Wed Oct 19 1988 13:06 | 4 |
| Of course I am better off now than I was eight years ago. Eight
years ago I lived in Massachusetts, and now I live in New Hampshire.
Tom_K
|
| 222.117 | Frightening | SRFSUP::LABBEE | Native Californian | Wed Oct 19 1988 13:06 | 10 |
| I heard a disturbing thing on the radio this morning. The DJ's
were saying that, due to the fact that the media is saying Bush
is leading in the polls, many 'if-y' voters could be swayed to vote
for Bush since he is "going to win anyway".
I certainly hope that voters will stick to their convictions and
vote for who *they* think is the best person for the job. NOT who
the media is touting that person to be.
Colleen
|
| 222.118 | Concerned | AMUN::SMITH | | Wed Oct 19 1988 15:28 | 27 |
| re: .111
It's easy when we HAVE a house and HAVE a car (of whatever kind)
and work, medical insurance, etc., etc., not to have financial
improvement as a primary goal. But when you don't have a house
-- or have it over-mortgaged -- and have no pension and you
hit middle age and see your elderly parents spending all THEIR
savings for health care, and don't know how you will house yourself
in your old age, it is extremely difficult not to become either
(a) chronically depressed or (b) obsessed with improving
your financial condition before you become physically unable to
do so.
I am not at all sure whether my family is better off now than 8
years ago. I definitely have a much better job, but we have had
to draw heavily on the equity in our home during the past 5-6 of
those eight years -- to support ourselves during a year when we
were both unemployed and then to invest in a new business for my
husband. That business, though still hanging in there, is NOT
contributing significantly to our support. He draws a very small
salary. And, if we were to sell it, it would NOT be worth very
much at all.
I think I am more fearful for our financial future now than I was
8 years ago. I don't know how much of that fear is related to our
actual circumstances and how much to being more naive about such
things in the past!
|
| 222.119 | I'm worried too, but lots of people aren't | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Wed Oct 19 1988 16:36 | 23 |
| re: .118
I can see where you're coming from, and I agree that the health
and pensions of our parents' and grandparents' generation is one
of the critical things facing us in the next few years. Child
care for our youngsters is an issue, but it's one that we can cope
with and it only lasts a few years for each family. How are we
going to care for elderly parents with health problems that may
last for 20 years or more?
Physical and monetary comfort is a good thing, no question about
that. I grew up poor and I wouldn't advocate it for anybody. It's
not good for body or soul. But neither is the exclusive pursuit
of and worry over finances.
I'm not saying that you should stop worrying, or that there are
not serious problems. I'm not even saying I think the country is
better off now than 8 years ago. All I'm saying is that there are
a lot of other factors going on in this election, and a lot
of people who are willing to make some tradeoffs on the economic
front for other benefits, some of which don't seem overly clear.
--bonnie
|
| 222.120 | A deeper question? | AMUN::SMITH | | Wed Oct 19 1988 17:59 | 26 |
| I think what bothers me the most ("angers" would be a better
description) is that the question each person/family is supposed
to answer is whether WE or OUR families are better off. When I
hear people use that as their criteria, rather than how they feel
about our society in general, it's very upsetting!
Hmm, what SHOULD the question be? Maybe: "Are we as a society better
off:
- in terms of the weak, poor, and less fortunate (numbers,
percentages, services - whether public or private)
- in terms of the relationship betweens such "groups" as white/black,
etc.
- in terms of our personal freedoms
- in terms of the middle class
- in terms of business growth
- in terms of the deficit
- in terms of national defense (would require def. of "better
off")
Etc.
An individual's answer to this type of question MIGHT be the same
as to "Am I better off..." but at least the focus is different -
toward an evaluation of our need to become, in Bush's words, "a
kinder, gentler nation."
Sorry if I got off the subject here...
|
| 222.121 | those are good | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Wed Oct 19 1988 18:14 | 9 |
| re: .120
I like your amended questions. Those state the issues much more
clearly and succinctly.
And I'm going to have to do some serious thinking before I
try to answer even one of those.
--bonnie
|
| 222.122 | Housing prices have gone through the roof | CADSYS::RICHARDSON | | Wed Oct 19 1988 18:15 | 36 |
| I thought I was better off today (despite the government's efforts)
than I was several years ago. Then I got this year's assessment for my
house!! I hated living in an apartment, and bought a house as soon as
I could afford to do so, ten years ago, even though I had trouble
qualifying for a mortgage because my (ex-)husband was unemployed and my
salary (here at DEC; I've been here for almost 13 years) was not quite
enough to qualify me for a mortgage on even a very cheap house (they
would normally allow you to borrow to buy a house costing up to 2 1/2
times your annual salary). I had to argue with the bank after they
rejected me the first time around, and sell off a bunch of things I did
not want to sell in order to make a larger down payment than I had
planned on in order to get that mortgage (not having any relatives with
money I could borrow!). Well, it is a good thing I perservered and
bought my little house (24x40 feet - not much bigger than the apartment
was, and on a small plot of the side of a very steep hill). My house
is now assessed for four times what I paid for it! That means that if
I were buying it today on just my salary, we wouldn't come close to
qualifying for a mortgage assuming the rules at the bank I borrowed
from have not changed (we *would* qualify with Paul's salary taken into
account; he makes more than I do), for the same tiny house I already
live in! That means we are all losing ground. What is frightening about
it to me is that people just starting out in this industry are simply
never going to afford to buy housing in central Massachusetts, unless
they have relatives with money they can borrow. I don't blame Reagan
for that, or Bush or Dukakis, either, but it isn't a nice thought.
I discussed my feelings about this when I talked with my mother on the
phone last night - she lives in Indiana, and after my father died, she
moved into a smaller one-story house (about twice the size of mine, on
a flat lot) that she could take care of herself (no stairs; she has had
back surgery and can't carry stuff up steps) two years ago, for which
she paid a bit more than I paid for my house ten years ago. Of course,
there is no high-tech industry (or much industry of any sort) where she
lives, but housing prices are still reasonable some places, even though
they surely aren't reasonable around here any more.
|
| 222.123 | Read MY lips! | ROLL::SEAVEY | Do not go gentle into that good night | Fri Oct 21 1988 15:18 | 15 |
| re: .120
Yes it "angers" me too that we keep hearing Bush and supporters say:
"Aren't you better off today than eight years ago!" Why not ask
what we can give up, rather than what we can get, get, get?! The
whole problem as I see it is that that actor in the White House has
polarized the nation into thinking "No Tax", "No Tax". So, read my
lips, I'd like to have our taxes raised! How's that for a shock?
Let's start putting trust back in government and idealistic people!
Let's hear it for progressive liberalism! It's NOT a dirty word.
It's a GREAT word. Of course, I don't want my tax dollars used
for Star Wars, so, here's another source of revenue, in addition
to our back pockets!
--angry-mardie
|
| 222.124 | | LEVEL::MODICA | | Fri Oct 21 1988 16:32 | 11 |
| RE: .123
Though you and I are at opposite ends of the political scale
I can appreciate your views. I also envy you your situation where
you can afford to offer more of your income to help others.
But some of us just can't afford *any more* taxes. My wife and
I are a single income family raising children and to tell you the
truth our budget is about as tight as can be. Any significant
increase in taxes could very well bankrupt us. And I suspect
that there are many more families in similiar situations.
|
| 222.125 | | 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI | Duke's a Hazard | Fri Oct 21 1988 17:54 | 8 |
| re .123
The Federal government accepts contributions from individuals.
If you'd like to pay more to the government, you are certainly
free to do so. But most of us think we are paying too much,
not too little.
Tom_K
|
| 222.126 | Speak for yourself, young man. | ASHBY::SEAVEY | Do not go gentle into that good night | Fri Oct 21 1988 20:14 | 8 |
| re: -0.1
WoW! Tom_K speaks for America!
"The ball game's not over 'til it's over."
-- Casey Stengel
|
| 222.127 | | 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI | Duke's a Hazard | Fri Oct 21 1988 20:27 | 7 |
| re .-1
If you have evidence that the majority of Americans feel
that they are paying too little in taxes, I'd be happy
to see it, and retract my statement.
Tom_K
|
| 222.129 | "Read my lips..." | FSLPRD::JLAMOTTE | The best is yet to be | Sat Oct 22 1988 09:03 | 12 |
| I don't think anyone is going to say that they wish to pay more
taxes.
But some people are saying that there are some major concerns that
have not been addressed or resolved in the past eight years and
if some of us have to pay more taxes to address and work these issues
we are willing to do so.
Bush's "Read my lips"....could convince me to vote for him if
he followed it up with a plan to address the serious issues that
face our economy. But on its own it forces me to vote for Dukakis.
|
| 222.130 | | SKYLRK::OLSON | green chile crusader! | Sun Oct 23 1988 00:00 | 7 |
| re 222.122 by CADSYS::RICHARDSON-
Excuse me? Your house has appreciated 400% in 10 years
and you think you are NOT better off? That you are NOT
keeping up? Did I miss something?
DougO
|
| 222.131 | | 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI | Duke's a Hazard | Sun Oct 23 1988 18:05 | 35 |
| re .130
So the house has appreciated 400%. So the owner decides
to sell it. The owner is then faced with the prospect of
either buying another house at equally inflated prices,
or paying a huge tax on the profit. Some choice.
About the only positive things that come from the appreciation
of the house are:
The increased equity gives the owner a source of
secured credit, if the homeowner doesn't mind
putting the house at more risk than the current
mortgage does. In other words, the homeowner now
has the opportunity to borrow more money, and hence
pay a bank even more interest. Some people view this as
a plus. For example, the owner might use the equity
to finance other investments, or put a child through
college. However, for a conservative person, who wishes
to keep borrowing at minimum, this "benefit" is a no-op.
Should the homeowner desire to sell and move to
an area with lower housing costs, the homeowner may
stand to gain financially. I would argue that this
situation is very rare.
Somewhere down the road, the homeowner may wish to sell
the property to finance his or her retirement. This
assumes that the investment does not depreciate somewhere
down the line.
I like the idea of owning my own home, but the idea of getting
some form of benefit because of property appreciation is to
me, of only marginal consequence.
Tom_K
|
| 222.133 | my experience | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | Purple power! | Mon Oct 24 1988 11:47 | 4 |
| Interesting. In my town, the houses are assessed every three years.
I've always thought that each town was responsible for the rates, and
that the state has nothing to do with the process. I've also found that
at least in my town, the assessment has been lower than market value.
|
| 222.134 | Not so | GIGI::WARREN | | Mon Oct 24 1988 14:36 | 9 |
| I also thought it was the town's responsibility.
In my experience (based on my father's home in Lynn, my husband's
former house in Princeton and our house now in Auburn), the assessment
is generally far below the actual market value.
-Tracy
|
| 222.135 | Every other year where I live | CADSYS::RICHARDSON | | Mon Oct 24 1988 14:42 | 9 |
| My town reassesses every two years, and uses an estimate in the "off"
year - they reassessed this year. As I said somewhere else in this
file, it is sure a good thing I already own the place, because I could
never afford the current prices, but I don't think that is the fault of
the state government - more like the fault of KO, bringing in all us
high-tech workers and overcrowding the housing market.
Where my mother lives, in western Indiana, housing is cheap, but there
are no jobs!
|
| 222.136 | not my house | TALLIS::ROBBINS | | Mon Oct 24 1988 15:06 | 15 |
| Re: .132
> Apparently houses are being assessed according to a formula
> whereby (for TAX purposes) a house escalates in value by
> some amount like 20% per year automatically on the books
> which has resulted in some person being assessed for a house
> that might honestly be worth $90,000 for a tax-base of more
> ($180,000 was mentioned). Another example of the methods used
I don't doubt that you overheard this, but why would you believe
something like that with no further evidence? Especially since it's
so easy to check--ask those of us who own houses in Massachusetts.
(If you want to poll me on this issue, my house and land are assessed
at far below the actual market value. This assessed value hasn't
changed the past few years, but is due to change next year.)
|
| 222.139 | No free lunch | TALLIS::ROBBINS | | Mon Oct 24 1988 17:12 | 32 |
|
> Sometimes it is difficult to imagine anyone on a Digital salary
> being able to afford any real estate at all in Dukakis Country.
You're right about real estate prices being high here. But there
only incredibly high (of course, "incredibly" is a subjective term)
when you want to live in close to Boston. It seems east of 128
is terribly expensive, between 128 and 495 less pricey, and west
of 495 still less pricey. But I attribute it to people wanting to
live near Boston and near their jobs in the 128-area. It seems
a clear case of supply and demand, and not the governor's fault.
I frequently look at real estate prices in Southern New Hampshire,
and they're comparable to areas in Massachusetts further from Boston.
Do you blame the high prices there on Dukakis, too?
As far as real estate taxes go, though, I think that those people
who can afford $250,000 houses are capable of affording their
$2250 annual real estate tax.
One thing I want to add about the "high" taxes in this state. I lived
most my life in Florida, where there isn't a state income tax.
Yes, we saved money. But we still paid: the libraries that did exist
(most towns didn't have them) had so few books you wouldn't believe it.
The educational system is atrocious. The schools had terrible facilities,
were incredibly overcrowded (ever heard of "split sessions?"),
and there was a problem with incompetent
teachers (and, incredibly, even a few barely-literate teachers).
The police departments were understaffed. It goes on and on.
It's just a good thing that the tourists paid taxes--otherwise
we wouldn't have had it as good as we did! Here in Mass, people
take these services for granted. But we pay for them with our
tax dollars, or we don't have them. I prefer to pay.
|
| 222.140 | clarification please? | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Tue Oct 25 1988 08:26 | 14 |
| re: .137
Eagle, I'm not quite sure from your notes what you think is so
terrible about mandating that trucks carry a fire extinguisher in
the cab? That's been a safety requirement for vehicles that go
off paved roads in Montana since I was a small child. I believe
it's a requirement in most Western states.
Are you objecting to the law itself? To the way it was passed? To
the decision to enforce it? Or to being fined for not complying?
Thanks for any clarification,
--bonnie
|
| 222.142 | | LIONEL::SAISI | | Tue Oct 25 1988 09:59 | 8 |
| >> I'd prefer them not to mandate my actions that affect only me.
Ditto. Hence my distress at the support Bush expresses for *mandating*
school prayer. I would guess that the fire extinguisher law is intended
to protect other drivers should your truck go kaboom on a public
highway. Granted, the seat belt law was a misguided attempt to save some
lives.
Linda
|
| 222.143 | fine line | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Tue Oct 25 1988 11:11 | 18 |
| re .142:
> Hence my distress at the support Bush expresses for *mandating*
> school prayer.
While there is a fine line between the two, I do not think that
Bush nor Reagan want to *mandate* school prayer, they only want
to *allow* it, by providing a time in which children *may* pray
if they *wish* to.
Now, I am opposed to this as well, but I do not like *anyone* being
misrepresented, even those I disagree with.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.144 | well, yes and no | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Tue Oct 25 1988 11:28 | 7 |
| re: .143
Well, Bush wants to mandate the Pledge of allegience, which
contains the words "under God," which many people consider
a prayer, so . . .
--bonnie
|
| 222.148 | | SRFSUP::LABBEE | Native Californian | Tue Oct 25 1988 14:55 | 7 |
| re: .146
> "Would you want a President who wants to Fine You $50
> for failure to carry a fire-extinguisher in a pickup" ??
Would you want a President who wants to punish<ment undecided>
You <and yours> for having an abortion??
|
| 222.149 | re .144 | 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Tue Oct 25 1988 14:55 | 8 |
| An important suggestion to atheists: Check all of your US coinage
and paper money. If you see the words "In God We Trust", simply
send these "Prayer Books" to me, and I will see to it that they
are disposed of properly.
:-)
Tom_K
|
| 222.151 | | ATPS::GREENHALGE | Mouse | Tue Oct 25 1988 15:13 | 16 |
|
> For the n^n-th time, Bush does not want to mandate the pledge
> for the students. He feels that the 15 seconds it takes to say
> the pledge should be set aside and the teacher should recite it
> out loud, allowing the class to join in if they so wish.
And suppose the teacher is a Jehovah Witness? It is against their
religion to recite the the pledge of allegiance. At least it was
when I was in school.
Wouldn't this be in violation of that teacher's rights to free
religion? If Mr. Bush expects s/he to go against their religion just
to satisfy his wishes, he has no business being in office.
Beckie
|
| 222.153 | Still have to lead the pledge | IAMOK::ALLEN | | Tue Oct 25 1988 16:40 | 14 |
|
Even if the teacher is a Jehovah's Witness, they must still lead
the class in the pledge of allegiance if they wish to remain being
a teacher. This very issue (person's religous beliefs prevents
them from stating the pledge) was decided in the 1979 Palmer vs
Board of Education of the City of Chicago case. In the deciding
judges words on the ruling, "In this unsettled world, although we hope
it will not come to pass, some of the students may be called upon
in some way to defend and protect our democratic systemand
constitutional rights, including plaintiff's (Jehova Witness Teacher)
religous freedom. That will demand a bit of patriotism."
|
| 222.154 | I thought that's waht I heard him say | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Tue Oct 25 1988 16:45 | 19 |
| re: .151
It's also a violation of the religious priniciples of a number of
sects that practice various forms of isolationism. A Black Muslim
schoolmate in college informed me that invoking God when she's in
the company of unbelievers is considered as much of a sin as
swearing or drinking, since it implies fellowship with the
heathen.
A number of religions, both Christian and nonchristian, believe
it's immoral to pledge allegience to anything but God.
I don't have a transcript of the debate in front of me, but I
certainly thought I heard Mr. Bush say he felt that every
schoolchild should stand up in the morning and declare his
alligience to the country that nurtured him. This does not
seem to allow much room for not participating.
--bonnie
|
| 222.155 | Heard this before.... | CADSE::ARMSTRONG | | Tue Oct 25 1988 17:19 | 37 |
| we seem to be in an endless loop...somebody slightly mis-states
one candidates views and the next 10 replies dump on them
or defend the validity of the intent of the original comment.
any new insight in either candidate?
PBS had a facinating special on last night following the
careers of both candidates. Interesting, from the interview
with the director on 'all things considered', I expected it
to be seriously pro-Bush. After watching it, I thought it
mostly projected Bush's figurehead/yes-man career and
made Dukakis look like someone who has grown and accomplished
real goals in his life.
One thing it reminded me.....do you remember how BAD Massachusetts
politics was before Dukakis?
Here is my most puzzling view on this election: I don't ever recall
two candidates who seemed to be opposed on so many issues, and whose
positions mirrored those of so many people. Note how seldom the
Bush/Dukakis camps can agree on anything at all.
Maybe they are all extensions of the same principles.....
Civil Rights....gun control, prayer in the school, mandatory pledge,
abortion,
Contra support
National Guard in Central America
Death Penalty
Nuclear Power
Peace through strength
Taxation versus increased deficit
I should remember more....but it seems that both candidates encompass
an entire program.....and we are all on one side or the other. I
find that quite amazing.
bob
|
| 222.156 | still a mandate | DATTA::SEAVEY | | Tue Oct 25 1988 17:33 | 19 |
| re: .145
>.144> Well, Bush wants to mandate the Pledge of allegience, which
>.144> contains the words "under God," which many people consider
>.144> a prayer, so . . .
> For the n^n-th time, Bush does not want to mandate the pledge
> for the students. He feels that the 15 seconds it takes to say
> the pledge should be set aside and the teacher should recite it
> out loud, allowing the class to join in if they so wish.
> Ignorance is one thing, misinformation is another.
This is still equivalent to a mandate. If the teacher
"should recite" the Pledge "out loud", does not this become
a mandate to the teacher? Does not this constitute a bit
of pressure on the students? Visualize the situation!
|
| 222.157 | | 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Wed Oct 26 1988 00:24 | 6 |
| On the other hand, if a teacher believes in creation vs
evolution, should the teacher be forced to teach evolution?
The principles involved are identical.
Tom_K
|
| 222.158 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | That was Zen; this is Dao | Wed Oct 26 1988 08:04 | 10 |
| re:.157
No, the principles involved are not identical. Evolution is
a non-partisan subject that is part of the school's provence.
That is not true of the Pledge of Allegiance.
To my mind, a school is intended for teaching knowledge, not
ideology.
--- jerry
|
| 222.159 | More fire extinguisher fines | TALLIS::ROBBINS | | Wed Oct 26 1988 09:34 | 34 |
| Re: < Note 222.137 by AERIE::THOMPSON "tryin' real hard to adjust..." >
(about the $50 fine for not having a fire extinguisher in a pickup
truck with Mass. commercial plates)
This summer I spent a week at a cabin on a pond. We had
a tiny little motor boat to get us from the shore to the
island on which the cabin was located.
The state regulations about boating were explained to us by our hosts.
Here's part of the regulations:
At any time when we were out in the boat, our boat could be
BOARDED and SEARCHED. If we did not have with us a whistle, a
floatation device for each person aboard, and a FIRE EXTINGUISHER,
we could be FINED. The search could occur at any time--not just if
we were violating some boating laws.
What state was this? The communist, criminal state of NEW HAMPSHIRE.
It must have been how Sununu is generating revenue to balance his budget,
huh? Boy that's how stupid he is--insisting that boats have fire
extinguishers when they're surrounded by water! And floatation devices--
what business is it of theirs if I drown? It doesn't affect anyone else,
right?
Okay folks... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) for the attitudes expressed above.
The regulation, however is true.
I just wanted to show Eagles and some of the other folks that Massachusetts
isn't the only state that tries to enforce common-sense safety through
legislation. And also that such legislation doesn't mean that the governor
of the state involved is evil, stupid, a liar, a communist, etc.
Hope no one took those attitudes seriously--but what do you expect
from someone who voluntarily wears a seatbelt? :-)
|
| 222.160 | | 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Wed Oct 26 1988 12:14 | 10 |
| re .158
jerry, I respectfully disagree. The principle is not
what the subject is, rather, the principle is whether
the state can require an employee to do, as part of
the duties of their job, something that is contrary
to their religion.
Tom_K
|
| 222.161 | I am assuming free will here. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Oct 26 1988 12:24 | 9 |
| Tom,
When the state hires someone to teach biology and evolution,
then the employee is contractually obliged to do that. If
it is against a person's religion to teach evolution, then that
person would be wrong to accept a job which involved teaching
evolution.
Ann B.
|
| 222.162 | | 11SRUS::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Wed Oct 26 1988 12:31 | 7 |
| Therefore, it follows that when the state hires someone to
lead the pledge of allegiance, then the employee is
contractually obliged to do that. If it is against a person's
religion to lead the pledge, then that person would be wrong to
accept a job which involved leading the pledge of allegiance.
Tom_K
|
| 222.165 | gee...it looks like we have to many rights | FANTUM::MARCOTTE | | Wed Oct 26 1988 14:50 | 1 |
|
|
| 222.166 | Yeah...that's it | GIGI::WARREN | | Wed Oct 26 1988 14:53 | 6 |
| Re .164:
Well said.
-Tracy
|
| 222.167 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Wed Oct 26 1988 15:30 | 7 |
| re .164
You are wrong, teachers are hired to perform a number of specified
duties, of which only one (albeit, hopefully the most important)
of which is to teach.
Tom_K
|
| 222.171 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Wed Oct 26 1988 17:09 | 10 |
| re .168
I reject your separation of the job into primary and secondary
functions. Your demarcation point is artificial and arbitrary.
There is, in fact, no basis for even making a demarcation point.
The job must be considered as a whole. The analogy, for the
purposes stated, is valid.
Tom_K
|
| 222.173 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Wed Oct 26 1988 17:28 | 8 |
| re .172
> Unfortunately, George Bush, who has slandered the ACLU,
It isn't slander if its true.
Tom_K
|
| 222.175 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Wed Oct 26 1988 17:33 | 7 |
| It's difficult to defend the vague allegation you made.
I grant you that you are not likely to have the material immediately
available for quotation, but I'll take a summary, or would
be happy to wait a few days, if you'd care to be more
specific.
Tom_K
|
| 222.177 | you're both wrong | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Oct 26 1988 18:29 | 22 |
|
Teachers are hired to do a job, period. The employer has the right
to list exactly what the duties of the job are, period. This idea
of classifying duties into primary and secondary is, as Tom_K said,
ridiculous and arbitrary.
However, this assumes that the employer is a private citizen. It
is another matter when the employer is the state. The Constitution
specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion". Reciting the pledge (daily)� has been
determined to be effectively a statement of a secular religion,
and as such, the Congress can not make a law requiring it of anyone,
including its employees.
/
( ___
) ///
/
�I think that it is entirely appropriate to require the pledge upon
becoming a naturalized citizen.
|
| 222.178 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | That was Zen; this is Dao | Thu Oct 27 1988 07:59 | 7 |
| OK, so would you feel the same if the government decided that any
corporation that had federal contracts (eg. Digital) were required
-- if they wanted to keep those contracts -- to have the Site Manager
lead the entire building in a Pledge of Allegiance? Would you feel
that said Site Manager should be forced to do so or quit his job?
--- jerry
|
| 222.180 | | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Oct 27 1988 10:16 | 11 |
| re .178:
Jerry, who are you asking?
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.181 | Pledge | BOLT::MINOW | Fortran for Precedent | Thu Oct 27 1988 11:06 | 9 |
| re .177 (footnote suggesting new citizens should "take the pledge")
Again, the question of the religous basis of the pledge may be a problem
for some otherwise qualified citizens. It would be more realistic to
ask them to make the same promise that the President and members of
the armed forces make: "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign."
Martin.
|
| 222.183 | Distinction | WEEBLE::SMITH | Rel. begins in piety & ends in politics | Thu Oct 27 1988 13:22 | 12 |
| At the risk of oversimplifying:
Bush wants to keep government
_off_our_backs_
but put it
_into_our_personal_lives_
I guess it boils down to which place you'd rather have it...
Personally, I'd rather have the government after my $ than after
my morals!
|
| 222.184 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | That was Zen; this is Dao | Thu Oct 27 1988 14:10 | 6 |
| re:.180
Tom_K
--- jerry
|
| 222.186 | | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Oct 27 1988 15:06 | 26 |
| re .181:
I understood (but of course could be mistaken) that part of the
ceremony of becoming a citizen involved reciting the pledge. My
footnote meant to say that I do not consider this to be "establishment
of religion" whereas requiring its daily recital would be.
The same would be true of the Presidential Oath or any other.
I did not understand the court to be saying that the Pledge *itself*
was religious, but the forced ritualization of it was.
(personally, I too object to the inclusion of "under God" in the
pledge and would like it eliminated, along with the "In God We Trust"
on all our currency)
So, even without the phrase "under God", requiring the daily recital
of the Pledge would effectively be the establishment of a secular
"religion".
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.187 | More than one way to do it | TUT::SMITH | Rel. begins in piety & ends in politics | Thu Oct 27 1988 15:19 | 13 |
| re: .185
There is NO WAY I trust Bush NOT to select Supreme Court justices
based on his (Bush's) own social agenda!! Perhaps he wouldn't,
but why should I believe that? Reagan did, and Bush has changed
his position on so many things so many times, that I can't afford
to take the chance!
If nothing else made me pro-Dukakis (and there is much else that
does), I would have to vote against giving Bush the power to
select Supreme Court justices! THAT is the way, rather than
legislatively, that he CAN impact our personal lives!
|
| 222.188 | You are treading on my Rights! | SUCCES::ROYER | Not strangers, Friends not yet met! | Thu Oct 27 1988 15:31 | 23 |
| I do not want the CIA/FBI looking for everything that goes into my
garbage. That is what things will come to if Ron Jr. (George Bush
to those of you who do not know the Clone.) And I think that if
star wars were such a great thing that we could convince the public
and issue a bond to do the job. And also issue Bonds for Space
Stations and the like. We do not need to increase taxes, but
if It will help, I will pay, even tho it will hurt.
AND I DO TRUST IN GOD AND "IN GOD WE TRUST" IS NOT OFFENSIVE TO
ME. I move that we leave things like the Pledge and Currency alone,
and do some constructive things. What cost to remint all the coin,
and reprint money. Or engrave new plates and dies. For what to
satisfy a few. AND WHAT OF MY RIGHT TO EXPRESS THAT I TRUST IN
GOD! You are stepping on my right to practice my religion.
And if you do not trust God, or want to have it off your money,
then get a bunch of Rubles, I am told they have no statement of
trust.
I like money the way it is and I do not think that I am a Minority.
So let not a vocal minority change things for those of us who
are not Vocal!
Dave
|
| 222.189 | not just 'under God' | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Thu Oct 27 1988 15:32 | 7 |
| I don't like pledging my allegience to any piece of colored
silk (or more likely rayon, these days). My loyalty is to
the country that gave me birth, the land that holds it and
the constitution that embodies what I believe in. But the
flag? No.
--bonnie
|
| 222.190 | Please don't flame me, but IMO | HEIDI::GILLIGAN | | Thu Oct 27 1988 16:14 | 25 |
| RE:.188
I should know better than to reply to this, but.....
All the money that is in circulation eventually wears out and is replaced.
I suppose if there was a change in the currency there could be a phased
implementation. I have no idea what the cost for new plates and dies would
be.
I would never deny anyone the right to express their trust in God, I
am a practicing Catholic myself. However, I really can't see how having money
with a certain pledge on it is practicing religion. Some people see this
saying as a declaration of an "official" declaration of religion for the U.S.
The problem is is that we can't choose between regular money and "godless"
money.
The thing that really bothers me about your reply is the statement that if
anyone doesn't like it they can go to Russia. Why? This country after all
was founded on a principle of freedom of religion, which would include
freedom from religion. If someone chooses not to have a religion or not
to believe in God, the constitution assures it.
No one (I hope) wants to deny you any rights, they just feel that their
rights are being infringed upon by having a statement pertaining to a certain
personal belief being applied to everyone.
My $.02, please don't take this as a personal attack,
Brian
|
| 222.191 | Will we be better off four years from now? | LDYBUG::PARE | What a long, strange trip its been | Thu Oct 27 1988 16:17 | 15 |
|
Last week, on television, Ron Paul (the Libertarian candidate) was
being interviewed. I couldn't believe how impressed I was. He
stated his view on the issues very simply and honestly. I've
decided that a vote for the Libertarian candidate is a statement
to both the Democratic and Republican political machines. It
says that I'm dissatisfied with the political candidates they have
offered me as choices. It also says that I am fed up with the
way politics in this country is going. There is more to value in
our country than just dollars and cents. Quality of life counts
too, integrity counts, environmental issues count, and our individual
rights also are very important. I guess I've changed my vote,
... I'm voting Libertarian.
Mary
|
| 222.192 | | LEVEL::MODICA | | Thu Oct 27 1988 16:44 | 8 |
|
Great note Ms. Pare.
I'm also considering the same.
My political fantasy is that Ron Paul does get elected.
Maybe that would be the slap in the face required to instill
more integrity into our present political election process.
|
| 222.193 | Be careful... | TUT::SMITH | Rel. begins in piety & ends in politics | Thu Oct 27 1988 17:06 | 19 |
| re: .191 and .192
I believe you're wrong. I don't think the 2 major candidates will
give a damn how many people vote any of the multiple "third" parties!
As long as no one third party is big enough to be a threat to the
Democrats or Republicans, it won't be seriously noticed.
If you want to do that for other reasons, fine. But I really don't
believe it will make any difference to Bush or Dukakis. So, a vote
for some "other" will essentially be a vote for whoever actually
wins the election.
I've considered doing that in the past, because some thir-party
candidate more nearly represented my views, but I've always voted
for one of the two majors, even if it was a vote "against" rather
than "for."
Nancy
|
| 222.194 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Thu Oct 27 1988 17:25 | 4 |
| re .178
There are other options available.
Tom_K
|
| 222.195 | Vote your conscience | HSSWS1::GREG | ��s����: ���! | Thu Oct 27 1988 17:32 | 27 |
| re: .193
It sounds like you have come to some sort of defeatist
solution for yourself (at least in the one case you documented).
I sincerely hope all Americans do not share your attitude, or
we will be stuck with these two lame parties for quite some
time.
Personally, I always vote republican. Not so much because
I like republicans, but because there aren't any more conservative
parties around. The Liberterians seem to have some good messages
these days, but I never hear anything about them except here in
notes, so I don't know their candidates. If they turn out to be
as far to the right as they seem, then I will probably start
voting Liberterian myself.
Everyone should cast their vote to suit their conscience,
not to participate in a two-party popularity poll (unless,
of course, that's what your conscience dictates). How else
CAN we send the message to Washington that we want, no, DEMAND
something better!
Of course, if you're happy with the two parties, then more
power to you. Most people seem to be fairly satisfied by
them, so they can't be all THAT bad... can they?
- Greg
|
| 222.197 | | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Oct 27 1988 18:19 | 51 |
| re .188:
> I move that we leave things like the Pledge and Currency alone,
> and do some constructive things.
My comments about "In God We Trust" were statements of personal
opinion and were not intended to to be considered "action items"
for the next President or Congress.
> AND I DO TRUST IN GOD AND "IN GOD WE TRUST" IS NOT OFFENSIVE TO
> ME.
Fine, but whether or not something is offensive is irrelevent to
determining whether it is Constitutional. The Constitution
specifically forbids Congress from establishing a religion. Printing
"In God We Trust" on all government currency in effect establishes
the Christion religion as that of the government.
> AND WHAT OF MY RIGHT TO EXPRESS THAT I TRUST IN GOD! You are
> stepping on my right to practice my religion.
No one is forbidding you personally from expressing your trust in
God. Does the practice of your religion require the phrase "In God
We Trust" to be inscribed on all currency? And what of those citizens
whose God is Allah or Jehovah, or whose religion does not have a
God?
> And if you do not trust God, or want to have it off your money,
> then get a bunch of Rubles, I am told they have no statement of
> trust.
Love it or leave it, eh? Rubles are not allowed out of the USSR.
> I like money the way it is and I do not think that I am a Minority.
> So let not a vocal minority change things for those of us who
> are not Vocal!
Apparently you are unaware that the purpose of a written Constitution
is to protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority. Look
at what is happening in England right now. England does not have
a written Constitution and are now "repealing" the right to not
self incriminate. That is, a defendant's silence can now be used
as an admission of guilt. By not having a written constitution,
rights are subject to simple majority opinion.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.198 | How about "In Cash We Trust"? | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | DECnet-VAX | Thu Oct 27 1988 21:55 | 13 |
| > Printing "In God We Trust" on all government currency in effect
> establishes the Christion religion as that of the government.
Well, not quite. General monotheism, perhaps. I don't see how the
phrase "In God We Trust" is any more Christian than Jewish or Islam.
On the other hand, removing the phrase from the currency would in no
way infringe anybody's "right to practice [their] religion", unless
those people worship money. It's inappropriate, and probably ought to
be deleted.
I can't get worked up over the issue, though. People are still more
than willing to take the bills and coins when I offer them...
|
| 222.199 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Split Decision | Thu Oct 27 1988 22:38 | 3 |
| Or, maybe, "For Cash We Pray"
Steve (for Leonard Pinth-Garnell for "Bad Humor")
|
| 222.200 | | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | Pursuing freedom | Thu Oct 27 1988 23:56 | 41 |
| re .187
Let's take a look at who appointed who in Roe Vs Wade:
For upholding:
Justice Appointed by
Byron White Kennedy(D)
William Rehnquist Nixon(R)
For striking:
William Douglas Roosevelt(D)
William Brennan Eisenhower(R) Democrat appointed by Republican
Potter Stewert Eisenhower(R)
Thurgood Marshall Johnson(D)
Warren Burger Nixon(R)
Harry Blackmun Nixon(R) Authored the majority opinion
Lewis Powell Nixon(R) Democrat appointed by Republican
50% of the votes to uphold cast by Democratic appointees, 50% of the
votes cast by Republican appointees. 30% of the votes to strike cast
by Democratic appointees, 70% of the votes to strike cast by Republican
appointees. Of the Democratic appointees, 66% voted to strike, of the
Republican appointees, 83% voted to strike.
One other note, both Brennan and Earl Warren were appointed by a Republican.
These two justices (Warren was Chief Justice) were stalwarts of the
"Warren Court", considered by liberals to be at the forefront of liberal
progress during the late 50's and early 60's, (Miranda, Desegregation,
outlawing prayer in schools, etc).
Remember, that whoever wins the Presidential election, control of
Congress is unlikely to pass from the Democrats. They will have to
approve any appointment, and, given the recent hatchet job character
assasination of Robert Bork, led by Democrats Joe "You could look it up"
Biden and Ted "You can swim, can't you" Kennedy, it is unlikely that any
conservative nominations will pass.
Tom_K
|
| 222.201 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | That was Zen; this is Dao | Fri Oct 28 1988 07:13 | 14 |
| re:.193
In general, I agree with you, but in the 1980 election, I
decided to bite the bullet and vote for John Anderson (where,
oh, where is he now that we need him?!) despite the fact that
it meant wasting a vote against Reagan.
If, that year, all of the people who said, "Gee, I'd like to
vote for Anderson, but..." had actually voted for Anderson,
he still wouldn't have won, but I think his showing would have
been serious enough that it would've made the Big Two very
uncomfortable.
--- jerry
|
| 222.202 | | CIVIC::JOHNSTON | set___hidden | Fri Oct 28 1988 07:42 | 13 |
| While I really don't care at any deep emotional level whether
"In God We Trust" appears on our currency or not, from a practical
standpoint I think we should keep it on there.
After all since giving up the gold standard, we need to remember
just what our currency is backed by.
Faith.
If the term 'God' is offensive, can I see a show of hands for 'In
Our Government We Trust' ? ;-).
Ann
|
| 222.203 | Abortion positions | MUMMY::SMITH | Rel. begins in piety & ends in politics | Fri Oct 28 1988 08:57 | 5 |
| re .202
The big difference is that neither party had an abortion position
in its platform back then, and justices weren't appointed based
on their abortion views!
|
| 222.204 | never trust the government | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Fri Oct 28 1988 09:08 | 27 |
| re .202:
> After all since giving up the gold standard, we need to remember
> just what our currency is backed by.
In that case the phrase should be, "In Taxes We Trust"
re .198:
> Well, not quite. General monotheism, perhaps. I don't see how the
> phrase "In God We Trust" is any more Christian than Jewish or Islam.
Alright, it establishes monotheism, still it is a religion. What
of polytheists such as Hindi, or nontheists such as Buddhists?
re .202:
I don't really care either whether "In God We Trust" is removed or
not. It's just that I've gotten caught up in discussing the principle
of the thing (as I am frequently prone to do).
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.205 | It's too early to be serious! | ROCHE::HUXTABLE | nurturing change | Fri Oct 28 1988 09:45 | 6 |
| Very nearly the only thing I use cash for regularly is the
candy machine. Maybe there's a deep-seated psychological
connection between the statement of religion on the coins and
the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups on my desk... :) :) :)
-- Linda
|
| 222.206 | "Self-evident" Truths | MUMMY::SMITH | Rel. begins in piety & ends in politics | Fri Oct 28 1988 16:23 | 13 |
| from the Boston Globe:
The News of Southbridge endorsed Dukakis, borrowing a phrase from
the Declaration of Independence, saying it held certain truths about
Bush and Dukakis to be self-evident.
Among them: "Both men are against crime. Both love their families.
Neither can tell a joke well. Neither ignites passion. And neither
man cares so deeply about ideology as he does about winning."
(Sigh)
Nancy
|
| 222.207 | Cuomo in '92 | 2EASY::PIKET | | Wed Dec 07 1988 11:57 | 1 |
|
|
| 222.208 | no way | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Dec 07 1988 15:01 | 10 |
| re .207:
Not a chance. My bet is Sam Nunn or that-N.J.-Senator-whose-name-
escapes-me-at-the-moment.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.209 | or Ann Richards? | GADOL::LANGFELDT | Life ought to be amusing | Wed Dec 07 1988 15:10 | 15 |
|
Bill Bradley?
We'll see -- alot depends on how well Bush does, and if the Dems
think they have a chance at beating him. Who know who'll come
out of the woodwork? I'm not sure if NJ qualifies as NE, but
it seems doubtful to me that another north-easterner will be
nominated.
Maybe Pat Schroeder will get started earlier this time . . .
Sharon
|
| 222.210 | another Geo. | CLT::BROWN | upcountry frolics | Wed Dec 07 1988 15:55 | 5 |
|
Also keep an eye on George Mitchell, depending on how he does as
Senate Majority Leader...
Ron
|
| 222.211 | | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Dec 07 1988 17:50 | 14 |
| re .209:
Bill Bradley is who I was thinking of. The point is not so much
the region but liberalism. Bradley is much more moderate than the
Dems past 5 candidates (all but one of whom lost, and he was a *Southern*
Liberal). Coumo has no more of a chance in the South than Dukakis
did, and you need the South to win.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.212 | pat and geraldine | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Dec 07 1988 17:54 | 13 |
| re .209:
As for Pat Schroeder, I wouldn't bet on it. I think ol' Geraldine
has jinxed the Democrats on women for the next 20 years.
My next prediction from my ACME crystal ball is that the first woman
president will be a Conservative Republican.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.213 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Split Decision | Thu Dec 08 1988 00:13 | 23 |
| re: .212
I'm inclined to disagree with the notion that Ms. Ferraro
has turned the Democrats off for 20 yrs. I'd go so far as
to bet that there's a woman on the ticket in '92 (odds maybe
35 - 65 at the moment, 50 - 50 for '96).
However, Bunco Predictions (a wholly owned subsidiary of
Barking Spider Industries) likes ACME/snark's prediction
for the first "Ms. President". One qualifier though: we
think she'll be more a Moderate, Conservative on some
issues, but in general, not dogmatically so.
Bunco's "yesterday's-news" prediction: the President elect
will find it difficult in the extreme to keep the "Read
my lips. . ." promise even for a year; two years? Not
unless Japan becomes the 51st state.
Jorga Katrasmachuck (a.k.a. The Cosmic Mutton)
for Bunco Predictions reminding you to let the
artists at Bunco paint a rosier future for *you*!
|
| 222.214 | as in "not radical" | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Dec 08 1988 10:30 | 16 |
| re .213:
> One qualifier though: we think she'll be more a Moderate, Conservative
> on some issues, but in general, not dogmatically so.
I agree, I should not have capitalized "Conservative", I meant it
in the "old" sense, before there was a Conservative Movement, that
is, the opposite of radical instead of the opposite of liberal.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 222.215 | | RAVEN1::AAGESEN | strugglin' for the legal tender . . . | Thu Dec 08 1988 11:54 | 6 |
|
re .212 like Jean Kirkpatrick maybe?
|
| 222.216 | Just my opinion... | 2EASY::PIKET | | Thu Dec 22 1988 12:25 | 12 |
|
No way are the republicans going to nominate a woman in the near
future. Maybe in 20 years when cyclically things come back around
to being more moderate, as opposed to the extremists running the
Republican party now.
Same goes for the South. No Democrat will win the south in the near
future, unless he is a reactionary pig like the Democrat who beat
Lowell Weicker in the Connecticut senatorial race last month.
Roberta
|
| 222.217 | MIKE....WHERE ARE YOU... WHAT ARE YOU? | JACKAL::MARCOTTE | | Fri May 05 1989 11:26 | 2 |
| After yesterdays news concerning some of "THE DUKE'S" plans...are
there any Dukakis lovers left out there?
|
| 222.218 | | 25520::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Fri May 05 1989 14:40 | 1 |
| No,... I don't think so_:-)
|