Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    Well, to start I can't seem to figure out how to get a hold of complete
    platform descriptions for either party (in otherwords, what is the
    platform for all the issues the party made takes a stand on).  We see a
    lot about a few (inflammatory) issues, but these can not be enough
    to judge a party (or person) on (Ross Perot, where are you :-).  The
    media is no help, as they choose the same issues to highlight as the
    political parties do.  The most comprehensive I have seen so far was
    listed on MTV, of all stations.
    
    Also, I seem to see much more news coverage of Republican points than
    Democratic.
    
    Beth
    (who's very undecided, and very scared)

I think I have allready discussed in other notes why the Rebublican 
convention made me very scared. It's the feelings that I got when I heard 
all the speaches of getting rid of those who stand in THEIR way and how if 
someone doesn't buy into THEIR view of family values, then it's time for 
them to go.
	Unfornately, electing Clinton doesn't make much of a diference since 
both Clinton and Bush are members of Kissenger's council group along with JP 
Morgan and the other world bankers that really control what goes on. He's an 
insider not an outsider. I think we need some sort of radical change.

Sam

    I have the Democratic Platform, but the Republican Platform 
    is not available.  
    
           ***  Window Users be prepared, the next entry ***
           ***          is over 1000 lines               ***
    
    Joanne

From: [email protected] (Mary Jacobs)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM
Date: 23 Aug 92 09:18:17 GMT
 
SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE
CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT [email protected]
(This information is posted for public education purposes.  It does
not necessarily represent the views of The University.)
========================================================================
                    1992 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM
 
            "A NEW COVENANT WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"
 
 
 
                            PREAMBLE
 
 
          Two hundred summers ago, this Democratic Party was
founded by the man whose burning pen fired the spirit of the
American Revolution -- who once argued we should overthrow our
own government every 20 years to renew our freedom and keep pace
with a changing world.  In 1992, the party Thomas Jefferson
founded invokes his spirit of revolution anew.
 
          Our land reverberates with a battle cry of frustration
that emanates from America's very soul -- from the families in
our bedrock neighborhoods, from the unsung, workaday heroes of
the world's greatest democracy and economy.  America is on the
wrong track.  The American people are hurting.  The American
Dream of expanding opportunity has faded.  Middle class families
are working hard, playing by the rules, but still falling behind.
Poverty has exploded.  Our people are torn by divisions.
 
          The last 12 years have been a nightmare of Republican
irresponsibility and neglect.  America's leadership is
indifferent at home and uncertain in the world.  Republican
mismanagement has disarmed government as an instrument to make
our economy work and support the people's most basic values,
needs and hopes.  The Republicans brought America a false and
fragile prosperity based on borrowing, not income, and so will
leave behind a mountain of public debt and a backbreaking annual
burden in interest.  It is wrong to borrow to spend on ourselves,
leaving our children to pay our debts.
 
          We hear the anguish and the anger of the American
people.  We know it is directed not just at the Republican
administrations that have had power, but at government itself.
 
          Their anger is justified.  We can no longer afford
business as usual -- neither the policies of the last 12 years of
tax breaks for the rich, mismanagement, lack of leadership and
cuts in services for the middle class and the poor, nor the
adoption of new programs and new spending without new thinking.
It is time to listen to the grassroots of America, time to renew
the spirit of citizen activism that has always been the
touchstone of a free and democratic society.
 
          Therefore we call for a revolution in government -- to
take power away from entrenched bureaucracies and narrow
interests in Washington and put it back in the hands of ordinary
people.  We vow to make government more decentralized, more
flexible, and more accountable -- to reform public institutions
and replace public officials who aren't leading with ones who
will.
 
          The Revolution of 1992 is about restoring America's
economic greatness.  We need to rebuild America by abandoning the
something-for-nothing ethic of the last decade and putting people
first for a change.  Only a thriving economy, a strong
manufacturing base, and growth in creative new enterprise can
generate the resources to meet the nation's pressing human and
social needs.  An expanding, entrepreneurial economy of high-
skill, high-wage jobs is the most important family policy, urban
policy, labor policy, minority policy and foreign policy America
can have.
 
          The Revolution of 1992 is about putting government back
on the side of working men and women -- to help those who work
hard, pay their bills, play by the rules, don't lobby for tax
breaks, do their best to give their kids a good education and to
keep them away from drugs, who want a safe neighborhood for their
families, the security of decent, productive jobs for themselves,
and a dignified life for their parents.
 
          The Revolution of 1992 is about a radical change in the
way government operates -- not the Republican proposition that
government has no role, nor the old notion that there's a program
for every problem, but a shift to a more efficient, flexible and
results-oriented government that improves services, expands
choices, and empowers citizens and communities to change our
country from the bottom up.  We believe in an activist
government, but it must work in a different, more responsive way.
 
 
          The Revolution of 1992 is about facing up to tough
choices.  There is no relief for America's frustration in the
politics of diversion and evasion, of false choices or of no
choices at all.  Instead of everyone in Washington blaming one
another for inaction, we will act decisively -- and ask to be
held accountable if we don't.
 
          Above all the Revolution of 1992 is about restoring the
basic American values that built this country and will always
make it great:  personal responsibility, individual liberty,
tolerance, faith, family and hard work.  We offer the American
people not only new ideas, a new course, and a new President, but
a return to the enduring principles that set our nation apart:
the promise of opportunity, the strength of community, the
dignity of work, and a decent life for senior citizens.
 
 
          To make this revolution, we seek a New Covenant to
repair the damaged bond between the American people and their
government, that will expand opportunity, insist upon greater
individual responsibility in return, restore community, and
ensure national security in a profoundly new era.
 
          We welcome the close scrutiny of the American people,
including Americans who may have thought the Democratic Party had
forgotten its way, as well as all who know us as the champions of
those who have been denied a chance.  With this platform we take
our case for change to the American people.
 
 
                         I.  OPPORTUNITY
 
          Our Party's first priority is opportunity -- broad-
based, non-inflationary economic growth and the opportunity that
flows from it.  Democrats in 1992 hold nothing more important for
America than an economy that offers growth and jobs for all.
 
          President Bush, with no interest in domestic policy,
has given America the slowest economic growth, the slowest income
growth, and the slowest jobs growth since the Great Depression.
And the American people know the long Bush recession reflects not
just a business cycle, but a long-term slide, so that even in a
fragile recovery we're sinking.  The ballooning Bush deficits
hijacked capital from productive investments.  Savings and loan
sharks enriched themselves at their country's expense. The stock
market tripled, but average incomes stalled, and poverty claimed
more of our children.
 
          We reject both the do-nothing government of the last
twelve years and the big government theory that says we can
hamstring business and tax and spend our way to prosperity.
Instead we offer a third way.  Just as we have always viewed
working men and women as the bedrock of our economy, we honor
business as a noble endeavor, and vow to create a far better
climate for firms and independent contractors of all sizes that
empower their workers, revolutionize their workplaces, respect
the environment, and serve their communities well.
 
          We believe in free enterprise and the power of market
forces.  But economic growth will not come without a national
economic strategy to invest in people.  For twelve years our
country has had no economic vision, leadership or strategy.  It
is time to put our people and our country first.
 
          Investing In America.  The only way to lay the
foundation for renewed American prosperity is to spur both public
and private investment.  We must strive to close both the budget
deficit and the investment gap.  Our major competitors invest far
more than we do in roads, bridges, and the information networks
and technologies of the future.  We will rebuild America by
investing more in transportation, environmental technologies,
defense conversion, and a national information network.
 
          To begin making our economy grow, the President and
Congress should agree that savings from defense must be
reinvested productively at home, including research, education
and training, and other productive investments.  This will
sharply increase the meager nine percent of the national budget
now devoted to the future.  We will create a "future budget" for
investments that make us richer, to be kept separate from those
parts of the budget that pay for the past and present.  For the
private sector, instead of a sweeping capital gains windfall to
the wealthy and those who speculate, we will create an investment
tax credit and a capital gains reduction for patient investors in
emerging technologies and new businesses.
 
          Support for Innovation.  We will take back the
advantage now ceded to Japan and Germany, which invest in new
technologies at higher rates than the U.S. and have the growth to
show for it.  We will make the R&D tax credit permanent, double
basic research in the key technologies for our future, and create
a civilian research agency to fast-forward their development.
 
          The Deficit.  Addressing the deficit requires fair and
shared sacrifice of all Americans for the common good.  In 12
Republican years a national debt that took 200 years to
accumulate has been quadrupled.  Rising interest on that debt now
swallows one tax dollar in seven.  In place of the Republican
supply-side disaster, the Democratic investment, economic
conversion and growth strategy will generate more revenues from a
growing economy.  We must also tackle spending, by putting
everything on the table; eliminate nonproductive programs;
achieve defense savings; reform entitlement programs to control
soaring health care costs; cut federal administrative costs by 3
percent annually for four years; limit increases in the "present
budget" to the rate of growth in the average American's paycheck;
apply a strict "pay as you go" rule to new non-investment
spending; and make the rich pay their fair share in taxes.  These
choices will be made while protecting senior citizens and without
further victimizing the poor.  This deficit reduction effort will
encourage private savings, eliminate the budget deficit over
time, and permit fiscal policies that can restore America's
economic health.
 
          Defense Conversion.  Our economy needs both the people
and the funds released from defense at the Cold War's end.  We
will help the stalwarts of that struggle -- the men and women who
served in our armed forces and who work in our defense industries
-- make the most of a new era.  We will provide early notice of
program changes to give communities, businesses and workers
enough time to plan.  We will honor and support our veterans.
Departing military personnel, defense workers, and defense
support personnel will have access to job retraining, continuing
education, placement and relocation assistance, early retirement
benefits for military personnel, and incentives to enter
teaching, law enforcement and other vital civilian fields.
Redirected national laboratories and a new civilian research
agency will put defense scientists, engineers and technicians to
work in critical civilian technologies.  Small business defense
firms will have technical assistance and transition grants and
loans to help convert to civilian markets, and defense dependent
communities will have similar aid in planning and implementing
conversion.  We will strongly support our civilian space program,
particularly environmental missions.
 
          The Cities.  Only a robust economy will revitalize our
cities.  It is in all Americans' interest that the cities once
again be places where hard-working families can put down roots
and find good jobs, quality health care, affordable housing, and
decent schools.  Democrats will create a new partnership to
rebuild America's cities after 12 years of Republican neglect.
This partnership with the mayors will include consideration of
the seven economic growth initiatives set forth by our nation's
mayors.  We will create jobs by investing significant resources
to put people back to work, beginning with a summer jobs
initiative and training programs for inner-city youth.  We
support a stronger community development program and targeted
fiscal assistance to cities that need it most.  A national public
works investment and infrastructure program will provide jobs and
strengthen our cities, suburbs, rural communities and country.
We will encourage the flow of investment to inner city
development and housing through targeted enterprise zones and
incentives for private and public pension funds to invest in
urban and rural projects.  While cracking down on redlining and
housing discrimination, we also support and will enforce a
revitalized Community Reinvestment Act that challenges banks to
lend to entrepreneurs and development projects; a national
network of Community Development Banks to invest in urban and
rural small businesses; and microenterprise lending for poor
people seeking self-employment as an alternative to welfare.
 
          Agriculture and the Rural Community.  All Americans,
producers and consumers alike, benefit when our food and fiber
are produced by hundreds of thousands of family farmers receiving
fair prices for their products.  The abundance of our nation's
food and fiber system should not be taken for granted.  The
revolution that lifted America to the forefront of world
agriculture was achieved through a unique partnership of public
and private interests.  The inattention and hostility that has
characterized Republican food, agricultural and rural development
policies of the past twelve years have caused a crisis in rural
America.  The cost of Republican farm policy has been staggering
and its total failure is demonstrated by the record number of
rural bankruptcies.
 
          A sufficient and sustainable agricultural economy can
be achieved through fiscally responsible programs.  It is time to
reestablish the private/public partnership to ensure that family
farmers get a fair return for their labor and investment, so that
consumers receive safe and nutritious foods, and that needed
investments are made in basic research, education, rural business
development, market development and infrastructure to sustain
rural communities.
 
          Workers' Rights.  Our workplaces must be revolutionized
to make them more flexible and productive.  We will reform the
job safety laws to empower workers with greater rights and to
hold employers accountable for dangers on the job.  We will act
against sexual harassment in the workplace.  We will honor the
work ethic -- by expanding the earned income tax credit so no one
with children at home who works full-time is still in poverty; by
fighting on the side of family farmers to ensure they get a fair
price for their hard work; by working to sustain rural
communities; by making work more valuable than welfare; and by
supporting the right of workers to organize and bargain
collectively without fear of intimidation or permanent
replacement during labor disputes.
 
          Lifelong Learning.  A competitive American economy
requires the global market's best educated, best trained, most
flexible workforce.  It's not enough to spend more on our
schools; we must insist on results.  We oppose the Bush
Administration's efforts to bankrupt the public school system --
the bedrock of democracy -- through private school vouchers.  To
help children reach school ready to learn, we will expand child
health and nutrition programs and extend Head Start to all
eligible children, and guarantee all children access to quality,
affordable child care.  We deplore the savage inequalities among
public schools across the land, and believe every child deserves
an equal chance to a world class education.  Reallocating
resources toward this goal must be a priority.  We support
education reforms such as site-based decision-making and public
school choice, with strong protections against discrimination.
We support the goal of a 90 percent graduation rate, and programs
to end dropouts.  We will invest in educational technology, and
establish world-class standards in math, science and other core
subjects and support effective tests of progress to meet them.
In areas where there are no registered apprenticeship programs,
we will adopt a national apprenticeship-style program to ease the
transition from school to work for non-college bound students so
they can acquire skills that lead to high-wage jobs.  In the new
economy, opportunity will depend on lifelong learning.  We will
support the goal of literacy for all Americans.  We will ask
firms to invest in the training of all workers, not just
corporate management.
 
          A Domestic GI Bill.  Over the past twelve years
skyrocketing costs and declining middle class incomes have placed
higher education out of reach for millions of Americans.  It is
time to revolutionize the way student loan programs are run.  We
will make college affordable to all students who are qualified to
attend, regardless of family income.  A Domestic G.I. Bill will
enable all Americans to borrow money for college, so long as they
are willing to pay it back as a percentage of their income over
time or through national service addressing unmet community
needs.
 
          Affordable Health Care.  All Americans should have
universal access to quality, affordable health care -- not as a
privilege, but as a right.  That requires tough controls on
health costs, which are rising at two to three times the rate of
inflation, terrorizing American families and businesses and
depriving millions of the care they need.  We will enact a
uniquely American reform of the health care system to control
costs and make health care affordable; ensure quality and choice
of health care providers; cover all Americans regardless of
preexisting conditions; squeeze out waste, bureaucracy and abuse;
improve primary and preventive care including child immunization
and prevention of diseases like Tuberculosis now becoming rampant
in our cities; provide expanded education on the relationship
between diet and health; expand access to mental health treatment
services; provide a safety net through support of public
hospitals; provide for the full range of reproductive choice --
education, counseling, access to contraceptives, and the right to
a safe, legal abortion; expand medical research; and provide more
long term care, including home health care.  We will make ending
the epidemic in breast cancer a major priority, and expand
research on breast, cervical and ovarian cancer, infertility,
reproductive health services and other special health needs of
women.  We must be united in declaring war on AIDS and HIV
disease, implement the recommendations of the National Commission
on AIDS and fully fund the Ryan White Care Act; provide targeted
and honest prevention campaigns; combat HIV-related
discrimination; make drug treatment available for all addicts who
seek it;  guarantee access to quality care; expand clinical
trials for treatments and vaccines; and speed up the FDA drug
approval process.
 
          Fairness.  Growth and equity work in tandem.  People
should share in society's common costs according to their ability
to pay.  In the last decade, mounting payroll and other taxes
have fallen disproportionately on the middle class.  We will
relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by forcing the
rich to pay their fair share.  We will provide long-overdue tax
relief to families with children.  To broaden opportunity, we
will support fair lending practices.
 
          Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Development.  We
reject the Republican myth that energy efficiency and
environmental protection are enemies of economic growth.  We will
make our economy more efficient, by using less energy, reducing
our dependence on foreign oil, and producing less solid and toxic
waste.  We will adopt a coordinated transportation policy, with a
strong commitment to mass transit; encourage efficient
alternative-fueled vehicles; increase our reliance on clean
natural gas; promote clean coal technology; invest in R&D on
renewable energy sources; strengthen efforts to prevent air and
water pollution; support incentives for domestic oil and gas
operations; and push for revenue-neutral incentives that reward
conservation, prevent pollution and encourage recycling.
 
          Civil and Equal Rights.   We don't have an
American to waste.  Democrats will continue to lead the fight to
ensure that no Americans suffer discrimination or deprivation of
rights on the basis of race, gender, language, national origin,
religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, or other
characteristics irrelevant to ability.  We support the
ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment; affirmative action;
stronger protection of voting rights for racial and ethnic
minorities, including language access to voting; and continued
resistance to discriminatory English-only pressure groups.  We
will reverse the Bush Administration's assault on civil rights
enforcement, and instead work to rebuild and vigorously use
machinery for civil rights enforcement; support comparable
remedies for women; aggressively prosecute hate crimes;
strengthen legal services for the poor; deal with other nations
in such a way that Americans of any origin do not become
scapegoats or victims of foreign policy disputes; provide civil
rights protection for gay men and lesbians and an end to Defense
Department discrimination; respect Native American culture and
our treaty commitments; require the United States Government to
recognize its trustee obligations to the inhabitants of Hawaii
generally, and to Native Hawaiians in particular; and fully
enforce the Americans with Disability Act to enable people with
disabilities to achieve independence and function at their
highest possible level.
 
          Commonwealths and Territories.  We recognize the
existing status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the strong
economic relationship between the people of Puerto Rico and the
United States.  We pledge to support the right of the people of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to choose freely, and in concert
with the U.S. Congress, their relationship with the United
States, either as an enhanced commonwealth, a state or an
independent nation.
 
          We support fair participation for Puerto Rico in
federal programs.  We pledge to the people of American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands just
and fair treatment under federal policies, assisting their
economic and social development.  We respect their right and that
of the people of Palau to decide freely their future relationship
with the United States and to be consulted on issues and policies
that directly affect them.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                       II.  RESPONSIBILITY
 
          Sixty years ago, Franklin Roosevelt gave hope to a
nation mired in the Great Depression.  While government should
promise every American the opportunity to get ahead, it was the
people's responsibility, he said, to make the most of that
opportunity: "Faith in America demands that we recognize the new
terms of the old social contract.  In the strength of great hope
we must all shoulder our common load."
 
          For twelve years, the Republicans have expected too
little of our public institutions and placed too little faith in
our people.  We offer a new social contract based neither on
callous, do-nothing Republican neglect, nor on an outdated faith
in programs as the solution to every problem.  We favor a third
way beyond the old approaches -- to put government back on the
side of citizens who play by the rules.  We believe that by what
it says and how it conducts its business, government must once
again make responsibility an instrument of national purpose.  Our
future as a nation depends upon the daily assumption of personal
responsibility by millions of Americans from all walks of life --
for the religious faiths they follow, the ethics they practice,
the values they instill, and the pride they take in their work.
 
          Strengthening The Family.  Governments don't raise
children, people do.  People who bring children into this world
have a responsibility to care for them and give them values,
motivation and discipline.  Children should not have children.
We need a national crackdown on deadbeat parents, an effective
system of child support enforcement nationwide, and a systematic
effort to establish paternity for every child.  We must also make
it easier for parents to build strong families through pay
equity.  Family and medical leave will ensure that workers don't
have to choose between family and work.  We support a family
preservation program to reduce child and spousal abuse by
providing preventive services and foster care to families in
crisis.  We favor ensuring quality and affordable child care
opportunities for working parents, and a fair and healthy start
for every child, including essential pre-natal and well baby
care.  We support the needs of our senior citizens for productive
and healthy lives, including hunger prevention, income adequacy,
transportation access and abuse prevention.
 
          Welfare Reform.  Welfare should be a second chance, not
a way of life.  We want to break the cycle of welfare by adhering
to two simple principles: no one who is able to work can stay on
welfare forever, and no one who works should live in poverty.  We
will continue to help those who cannot help themselves.  We will
offer people on welfare a new social contract.  We'll invest in
education and job training, and provide the child care and health
care they need to go to work and achieve long-term self-
sufficiency.  We will give them the help they need to make the
transition from welfare to work, and require people who can work
to go to work within two years in available jobs either in the
private sector or in community service to meet unmet needs.  This
will restore the covenant that welfare was meant to be: a promise
of temporary help for people who have fallen on hard times.
 
          Choice.  Democrats stand behind the right of every
woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, regardless of
ability to pay, and support a national law to protect that right.
 
It is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual
Americans -- not government -- can best take responsibility for
making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions
regarding reproduction.  The goal of our nation must be to make
abortion less necessary, not more difficult or more dangerous.
We pledge to support contraceptive research, family planning,
comprehensive family life education, and policies that support
healthy childbearing and enable parents to care most effectively
for their children.
 
          Making Schools Work.  Education is a cooperative
enterprise that can only succeed if everyone accepts and
exercises personal responsibility.  Students must stay in school
and do their best; parents must get involved in their children's
education; teachers must attain, maintain, and demonstrate
classroom competency; school administrators must enforce
discipline and high standards of educational attainment;
governments must end the inequalities that create educational
ghettos among school districts and provide equal educational
opportunity for all; and ensure that teachers' pay measures up to
their decisive role in children's lives; and the American people
should recognize education as the core of our economy, democracy
and society.
 
          Labor-Management Responsibilities.   The private sector
is the engine of our economy and the main source of national
wealth.  But it is not enough for those in the private sector
just to make as much money as they can.  The most irresponsible
people in all of the 1980s were those at the top of the ladder:
the inside traders, quick buck artists, and S&L kingpins who
looked out for themselves and not for the country.   America's
corporate leaders have a responsibility to invest in their
country.  CEOs, who pay themselves 100 times what they pay the
average worker, shouldn't get big raises unrelated to
performance.  If a company wants to overpay its executives and
underinvest in the future or transfer jobs overseas, it shouldn't
get special treatment and tax breaks from the Treasury.  Managers
must work with employees to make the workplace safer, more
satisfying and more efficient.
 
          Workers must also accept added responsibilities in the
new economy.  In return for an increased voice and a greater
stake in the success of their enterprises, workers should be
prepared to join in cooperative efforts to increase productivity,
flexibility and quality.  Government's neutrality between labor
and management cannot mean neutrality about the collective
bargaining process, which has been purposely crippled by
Republican administrations.   Our economic growth depends on
processes, including collective bargaining, that permit labor and
management to work together on their common interests, even as
they work out their conflicts.
 
          Responsibility for the Environment.  For ourselves and
future generations, we must protect our environment.  We will
protect our old growth forests, preserve critical habitats,
provide a genuine "no net loss" policy on wetlands, reduce our
dependence on toxic chemicals, conserve the critical resources of
soil, water and air, oppose new offshore oil drilling and mineral
exploration and production in our nation's many environmentally
critical areas, and address ocean pollution by reducing oil and
toxic waste spills at sea.  We believe America's youth can serve
its country well through a civilian conservation corps.  To
protect the public health, we will clean up the environmental
horrors at federal facilities, insist that private polluters
clean up their toxic and hazardous wastes, and vigorously
prosecute environmental criminals.  We will oppose Republican
efforts to gut the Clean Air Act in the guise of competitiveness.
 
We will reduce the volume of solid waste and encourage the use of
recycled materials while discouraging excess packaging.  To avoid
the mistakes of the past, we will actively support energy-
efficiency, recycling, and pollution prevention strategies.
 
          Responsible Government.  Democrats in 1992 intend to
lead a revolution in government, challenging it to act
responsibly and be accountable, starting with the hardest and
most urgent problems of the deficit and economic growth.  Rather
than throw money at obsolete programs, we will eliminate
unnecessary layers of management, cut administrative costs, give
people more choices in the service they get, and empower them to
make those choices.  To foster greater responsibility in
government at every level, we support giving greater flexibility
to our cities, counties and states in achieving Federal mandates
and carrying out existing programs.
 
          Responsible Officials.  All branches of government must
live by the laws the rest of us obey, determine their pay in an
open manner that builds public trust, and eliminate special
privileges.  People in public office need to be accessible to the
people they represent.  It's time to reform the campaign finance
system, to get big money out of our politics and let the people
back in.  We must limit overall campaign spending and limit the
disproportionate and excessive role of PACs.  We need new voter
registration laws that expand the electorate, such as universal
same-day registration, along with full political rights and
protections for public employees and new regulations to ensure
that the airwaves truly help citizens make informed choices among
candidates and policies.  And we need fair political
representation for all sectors of our country -- including the
District of Columbia, which deserves and must get statehood
status.
 
                    III.  RESTORING COMMUNITY
 
          The success of democracy in America depends
substantially on the strength of our community institutions:
families and neighborhoods, public schools, religious
institutions, charitable organizations, civic groups and other
voluntary associations.  In these social networks, the values and
character of our citizens are formed, as we learn the habits and
skills of self-government, and acquire an understanding of our
common rights and responsibilities as citizens.
 
          Twelve years of Republican rule have undermined the
spirit of mutual dependence and obligation that binds us
together.  Republican leaders have urged Americans to turn
inward, to pursue private interests without regard to public
responsibilities.  By playing racial, ethnic and gender-based
politics they have divided us against each other, created an
atmosphere of blame, denial and fear, and undone the hard-fought
battles for equality and fairness.
 
          Our communities form a vital "third sector" that lies
between government and the marketplace.  The wisdom, energy and
resources required to solve our problems are not concentrated in
Washington, but can be found throughout our communities,
including America's non-profit sector, which has grown rapidly
over the last decade.  Government's best role is to enable people
and communities to solve their own problems.
 
          America's special genius has been to forge a community
of shared values from people of remarkable and diverse
backgrounds.  As the party of inclusion, we take special pride in
our country's emergence as the world's largest and most
successful multiethnic, multiracial republic.  We condemn
antisemitism, racism, homophobia, bigotry and negative
stereotyping of all kinds.  We must help all Americans understand
the diversity of our cultural heritage.  But it is also essential
that we preserve and pass on to our children the common elements
that hold this mosaic together as we work to make our country a
land of freedom and opportunity for all.
 
          Both Republican neglect and traditional spending
programs have proven unequal to these challenges.  Democrats will
pursue a new course that stresses work, family and individual
responsibility, and that empowers Americans to liberate
themselves from poverty and dependence.  We pledge to bolster the
institutions of civil society and place a new emphasis on civic
enterprises that seek solutions to our nation's problems.
Through common, cooperative efforts we can rebuild our
communities and transform our nation.
 
          Combatting Crime and Drugs.  Crime is a relentless
danger to our communities.  Over the last decade, crime has swept
through our country at an alarming rate.  During the 1980s, more
than 200,000 Americans were murdered, four times the number who
died in Vietnam.  Violent crimes rose by more than 16 percent
since 1988 and nearly doubled since 1975.  In our country today,
a murder is committed every 25 minutes, a rape every six minutes,
a burglary every 10 seconds.  The pervasive fear of crime
disfigures our public life and diminishes our freedom.
 
          None suffer more than the poor: an explosive mixture of
blighted prospects, drugs and exotic weaponry has turned many of
our inner city communities into combat zones.  As a result, crime
is not only a symptom but also a major cause of the worsening
poverty and demoralization that afflicts inner city communities.
 
           To empower America's communities, Democrats pledge to
restore government as the upholder of basic law and order for
crime-ravaged communities.  The simplest and most direct way to
restore order in our cities is to put more police on the streets.
 
America's police are locked in an unequal struggle with crime:
since 1951 the ratio of police officers to reported crimes has
reversed, from three-to-one to one-to-three.  We will create a
Police Corps, in which participants would receive college aid in
return for several years of service after graduation in a state
or local police department.  As we shift people and resources
from defense to the civilian economy, we will create new jobs in
law enforcement for those leaving the military.
 
          We will expand drug counselling and treatment for those
who need it, intensify efforts to educate our children at the
earliest ages to the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse, and curb
demand from the street corner to the penthouse suite, so that the
U.S., with five percent of the world's population, no longer
consumes 50 percent of the world's illegal drugs.
 
          Community Policing.  Neighborhoods and police should be
partners in the war on crime.  Democrats support more community
policing, which uses foot patrols and storefront offices to make
police officers visible fixtures in urban neighborhoods.  We will
combat street violence and emphasize building trust and solving
the problems that breed crime.
 
          Firearms.  It is time to shut down the weapons bazaars
in our cities.  We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault
weapons controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and
manufacture of the most deadly assault weapons.  We do not
support efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate hunting
and sporting purposes.  We will work for swift and certain
punishment of all people who violate the country's gun laws and
for stronger sentences for criminals who use guns.  We will also
seek to shut down the black market for guns and impose severe
penalties on people who sell guns to children.
 
 
 
          Pursuing All Crime Aggressively.  In contrast to the
Republican policy of leniency toward white collar crime -- which
breeds cynicism in poor communities about the impartiality of our
justice system -- Democrats will redouble efforts to ferret out
and punish those who betray the public trust, rig financial
markets, misuse their depositors' money or swindle their
customers.
 
          Further Initiatives.  Democrats also favor innovative
sentencing and punishment options, including community service
and boot camps for first time offenders; tougher penalties for
rapists; victim-impact statements and restitution to ensure that
crime victims will not be lost in the complexities of the
criminal justice system; and initiatives to make our schools
safe, including alternative schools for disruptive children.
 
          Empowering The Poor and Expanding The Middle Class.
We must further the new direction set in the Family Support Act
of 1988, away from subsistence and dependence and toward work,
family and personal initiative and responsibility.  We advocate
slower phasing out of Medicaid and other benefits to encourage
work; special savings accounts to help low-income families build
assets; fair lending; an indexed minimum wage; an expanded Job
Corps; and an end to welfare rules that encourage family breakup
and penalize individual initiative, such as the $1,000 limit on
personal savings.
 
          Immigration.  Our nation of immigrants has been
invigorated repeatedly as new people, ideas and ways of life have
become part of the American tapestry.  Democrats support
immigration policies that promote fairness, non-discrimination
and family reunification, and that reflect our constitutional
freedoms of speech, association and travel.
 
          Housing.  Safe, secure housing is essential to the
institutions of community and family.  We support homeownership
for working families and will honor that commitment through
policies that encourage affordable mortgage credit.  We must also
confront homelessness by renovating, preserving and expanding the
stock of affordable low-income housing.  We support tenant
management and ownership, so public housing residents can manage
their own affairs and acquire property worth protecting.
 
          National Service.  We will create new opportunities for
citizens to serve each other, their communities and their
country.  By mobilizing hundreds of thousands of volunteers,
national service will enhance the role of ordinary citizens in
solving unresolved community problems.
 
          The Arts.  We believe in public support for the Arts,
including a National Endowment for the Arts that is free from
political manipulation and firmly rooted in the First Amendment's
freedom of expression guarantee.
 
              IV.  PRESERVING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
 
          During the past four years, we have seen the corrosive
effect of foreign policies that are rooted in the past, divorced
from our values, fearful of change and unable to meet its
challenges.  Under President Bush, crises have been managed,
rather than prevented; dictators like Saddam Hussein have been
wooed, rather than deterred; aggression by the Serbian regime
against its neighbors in what was Yugoslavia has been met by
American timidity rather than toughness; human rights abusers
have been rewarded, not challenged; the environment has been
neglected, not protected; and America's competitive edge in the
global economy has been dulled, not honed.  It is time for new
American leadership that can meet the challenges of a changing
world.
 
     At the end of World War II, American strength had defeated
tyranny and American ingenuity had overcome the Depression.
Under President Truman, the United States led the world into a
new era, redefining global security with bold approaches to tough
challenges:  containing communism with the NATO alliance and in
Korea; building the peace through organizations such as the
United Nations; and advancing global economic security through
new multilateral institutions.
 
     Nearly a half century later, we stand at another pivotal
point in history.  The collapse of communism does not mean the
end of danger or threats to our interests.  But it does pose an
unprecedented opportunity to make our future more secure and
prosperous.  Once again, we must define a compelling vision for
global leadership at the dawn of a new era.
 
Restructuring Our Military Forces.
 
     We have not seen the end of violence, aggression and the
conflicts that can threaten American interests and our hopes for
a more peaceful world.  What the United States needs is not the
Bush Administration's Cold War thinking on a smaller scale, but a
comprehensive restructuring of the American military enterprise
to meet the threats that remain.
 
     Military Strength.  America is the world's strongest
military power and we must remain so.  A post-Cold War
restructuring of American forces will produce substantial savings
beyond those promised by the Bush Administration, but that
restructuring must be achieved without undermining our ability to
meet future threats to our security.  A military structure for
the 1990's and beyond must be built on four pillars:  First, a
survivable nuclear force to deter any conceivable threat, as we
reduce our nuclear arsenals through arms control negotiations and
other reciprocal action.  Second, conventional forces shifted
toward projecting power wherever our vital national interests are
threatened.  This means reducing the size of our forces in
Europe, while meeting our obligations to NATO, and strengthening
our rapid deployment capabilities to deal with new threats to our
security posed by renegade dictators, terrorists, international
drug traffickers, and the local armed conflicts that can threaten
the peace of entire regions.  Third, maintenance of the two
qualities that make America's military the best in the world --
the superiority of our military personnel and of our technology.
These qualities are vital to shortening any conflict and saving
American lives. Fourth, intelligence capabilities redirected to
develop far more sophisticated, timely and accurate analyses of
the economic and political conditions that can fuel new
conflicts.
 
     Use Of Force.  The United States must be prepared to use
military force decisively when necessary to defend our vital
interests.  The burdens of collective security in a new era must
be shared fairly, and we should encourage multilateral
peacekeeping through the United Nations and other international
efforts.
 
     Preventing And Containing Conflict.  American policy must be
focused on averting military threats as well as meeting them.  To
halt the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction,
we must lead a renewed international effort to get tough with
companies that peddle nuclear and chemical warfare technologies,
strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency, and enforce
strong sanctions against governments that violate international
restraints.  A Comprehensive Test Ban would strengthen our
ability to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries,
which may be our greatest future security threat.  We must press
for strong international limits on the dangerous and wasteful
flow of conventional arms to troubled regions.  A U.S. troop
presence should be maintained in South Korea as long as North
Korea presents a threat to South Korea.
 
Restoring America's Economic Leadership.
 
         The United States cannot be strong abroad if it is weak
at home.  Restoring America's global economic leadership must
become a central element of our national security policies.  The
strength of nations, once defined in military terms, now is
measured also by the skills of their workers, the imagination of
their managers and the power of their technologies.
 
         Either we develop and pursue a national plan for
restoring our economy through a partnership of government, labor
and business, or we slip behind the nations that are competing
with us and growing.  At stake are American jobs, our standard of
living and the quality of life for ourselves and our children.
 
         Economic strength -- indeed our national security -- is
grounded on a healthy domestic economy.  But we cannot be strong
at home unless we are part of a vibrant and expanding global
economy that recognizes human rights and seeks to improve the
living standards of all the world's people.  This is vital to
achieving good quality, high paying jobs for Americans.
 
         Trade.  Our government must work to expand trade, while
insisting that the conduct of world trade is fair.  It must fight
to uphold American interests -- promoting exports, expanding
trade in agricultural and other products, opening markets in
major product and service sectors with our principal competitors,
and achieving reciprocal access.  This should include renewed
authority to use America's trading leverage against the most
serious problems.  The U.S. government also must firmly enforce
U.S. laws against unfair trade.
 
         Trade Agreements.   Multilateral trade agreements can
advance our economic interests by expanding the global economy.
Whether negotiating the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) or
completing the GATT negotiations, our government must assure that
our legitimate concerns about environmental, health and safety,
and labor standards are included.  Those American workers whose
jobs are affected must have the benefit of effective adjustment
assistance.
 
Promoting Democracy.
 
         Brave men and women -- like the hero who stood in front
of a tank in Beijing and the leader who stood on a tank in Moscow
-- are putting their lives on the line for democracy around the
world.  But as the tide of democracy rose in the former Soviet
Union and in China, in the Baltics and South Africa, only
reluctantly did this Administration abandon the status quo and
embrace the fight for freedom.
 
         Support for democracy serves our ideals and our
interests.  A more democratic world is a world that is more
peaceful and more stable.  An American foreign policy of
engagement for democracy must effectively address:
 
         Emerging Democracies.  Helping to lead an international
effort to assist the emerging -- and still fragile -- democracies
in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union build democratic
institutions in free market settings, demilitarize their
societies and integrate their economies into the world trading
system.  Unlike the Bush Administration, which waited too long to
recognize the new democratic governments in the Baltic countries
and the nations of the former Soviet Union, we must act
decisively with our European allies to support freedom, diminish
ethnic tensions, and oppose aggression in the former communist
countries, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, which are struggling to
make the transition from communism to democracy.  As change
sweeps through the Balkans, the United States must be sensitive
to the concerns of Greece regarding the use of the name
Macedonia.  And in the post-Cold War era, our foreign assistance
programs in Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America and elsewhere
should be targeted at helping democracies rather than tyrants.
        Democracy Corps.  Promoting democratic institutions by
creating a Democracy Corps to send American volunteers to
countries that seek legal, financial and political expertise to
build democratic institutions, and support groups like the
National Endowment for Democracy, the Asia Foundation, and
others.
 
        China Trade Terms.  Conditioning of favorable trade terms
for China on respect for human rights in China and Tibet, greater
market access for U.S. goods, and responsible conduct on weapons
proliferation.
 
        South Africa.  Maintenance of state and local sanctions
against South Africa in support of an investment code of conduct,
existing limits on deductibility of taxes paid to South Africa,
and diplomatic pressure until there is an irreversible, full and
fair accommodation with the black majority to create a democratic
government with full rights for all its citizens.  We deplore the
continuing violence, especially in Boipatong Township, and are
concerned about the collapse of the negotiations.  The U.S.
Government should consider reimposing Federal sanctions.  The
Democratic Party supports the creation of a South
African/American Enterprise Fund that will provide a new interim
government with public and private funds to assist in the
development of democracy in South Africa.
 
        Middle East Peace.  Support for the peace process now
underway in the Middle East, rooted in the tradition of the Camp
David accords.  Direct negotiations between Israel, her Arab
neighbors and Palestinians, with no imposed solutions, are the
only way to achieve enduring security for Israel and full peace
for all parties in the region.  The end of the Cold War does not
alter America's deep interest in our longstanding special
relationship with Israel, based on shared values, a mutual
commitment to democracy, and a strategic alliance that benefits
both nations.  The United States must act effectively as an
honest broker in the peace process.  It must not, as has been the
case with this Administration, encourage one side to believe that
it will deliver unilateral concessions from the other.  Jerusalem
is the capital of the state of Israel and should remain an
undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.
 
        Human Rights.  Standing everywhere for the rights of
individuals and respect for ethnic minorities against the
repressive acts of governments -- against torture, political
imprisonment, and all attacks on civilized standards of human
freedom.  This is a proud tradition of the Democratic Party,
which has stood for freedom in South Africa and continues to
resist oppression in Cuba.  Our nation should once again promote
the principle of sanctuary for politically oppressed people
everywhere, be they Haitian refugees, Soviet Jews seeking U.S.
help in their successful absorption into Israeli society, or
Vietnamese fleeing communism.  Forcible return of anyone fleeing
political repression is a betrayal of American values.
        Human Needs.  Support for the struggle against poverty
and disease in the developing world, including the heartbreaking
famine in Africa.  We must not replace the East-West conflict
with one between North and South, a growing divide between the
industrialized and developing world.  Our development programs
must be reexamined and restructured to assure that their benefits
truly help those most in need to help themselves.  At stake are
the lives of millions of human beings who live in hunger,
uprooted from their homes, too often without hope.  The United
States should work to establish a specific plan and timetable for
the elimination of world hunger.
 
        Cyprus.  A renewed commitment to achieve a Cyprus
settlement pursuant to the United Nations resolutions.  This goal
must now be restored to the diplomatic agenda of the United
States.
 
        Northern Ireland.  In light of America's historic ties to
the people of Great Britain and Ireland, and consistent with our
country's commitment to peace, democracy and human rights around
the world, a more active United States role in promoting peace
and political dialogue to bring an end to the violence and
achieve a negotiated solution in Northern Ireland.
 
Preserving The Global Environment.
 
         As the threat of nuclear holocaust recedes, the future
of the earth is challenged by gathering environmental crises.  As
governments around the world have sought the path to concerted
action, the Bush Administration -- despite its alleged foreign
policy expertise -- has been more of an obstacle to progress than
a leader for change, practicing isolationism on an issue that
affects us all.  Democrats know we must act now to save the
health of the earth, and the health of our children, for
generations to come.
 
         Addressing Global Warming.  The United States must
become a leader, not an impediment, in the fight against global
warming.  We should join our European allies in agreeing to limit
carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
 
         Ozone Depletion.  The United States must be a world
leader in finding replacements for CFCs and other ozone depleting
substances.
 
         Biodiversity.  We must work actively to protect the
planet's biodiversity and preserve its forests.  At the Rio Earth
Summit, the Bush Administration's failure to negotiate a
biodiversity treaty it could sign was an abdication of
international leadership.
 
         Developing Nations.  We must fashion imaginative ways of
engaging governments and business in the effort to encourage
developing nations to preserve their environmental heritage.
         Population Growth.  Explosive population growth must be
controlled by working closely with other industrialized and
developing nations and private organizations to fund greater
family planning efforts.
 
                           *  *  *  *
 
         As a nation and as a people, we have entered into a new
era.  The Republican President and his advisors are rooted in
Cold War precepts and cannot think or act anew.  Through almost a
half century of sacrifice, constancy and strength, the American
people advanced democracy's triumph in the Cold War.  Only new
leadership that restores our nation's greatness at home can
successfully draw upon these same strengths of the American
people to lead the world into a new era of peace and freedom.
 
         In recent years we have seen brave people abroad face
down tanks, defy coups, and risk exodus by boat on the high seas
for a chance at freedom and the kind of opportunities we call the
American Dream.  It is time for Americans to fight against the
decline of those same opportunities here at home.
 
         Americans know that, in the end, we will all rise or
fall together.  To make our society one again, Democrats will
restore America's founding values of family, community and common
purpose.
 
         We believe in the American people.  We will challenge
all Americans to give something back to their country.  And they
will be enriched in return, for when individuals assume
responsibility, they acquire dignity.  When people go to work,
they rediscover a pride that was lost.  When absent parents pay
child support, they restore a connection they and their children
need.  When students work harder, they discover they can learn as
well as any on earth.  When corporate managers put their workers
and long-term success ahead of short-term gain, their companies
do well and so do they.  When the leaders we elect assume
responsibility for America's problems, we will do what is right
to move America forward together.
 
End of Platform

    How about the Libertarians, Sam?

    How about the Libertarians, Sam?

I guess I don't know enough about them to make a judgement but I thought I 
saw things there too that scared me.

Sam

VS2K::GENTILE 
    
>I guess I don't know enough about them to make a judgement but I thought I 
>saw things there too that scared me.

  What things, Sam?  

    I read the lib. platform and have a few fuzzies.
    
    I'm not sure about eliminating the immigration quotas.
    
    Not sure about their stand on capital punishment.  they are against,
    right?  
    
    Bruce

    I don't know.. I'd have to look it up in the literature.

    If I look at the 2 major candidates, I feel apathy.  But then I
    remember that a couple of supreme court openings are due in the next 4
    years.  So the $64K question to ask yourself is, "Do you want another
    Clarence Thomas in the supreme court?"
    
    Mary
    
    ps I asked 3 republicans this question -- and asked them also
    if they were interested in supporting a lot more unwanted babies after
    abortion was made illegal.  Got them thinking real hard, real fast.
    --mm

    If I look at the 2 major candidates, I feel apathy.  But then I
    remember that a couple of supreme court openings are due in the next 4
    years.  So the $64K question to ask yourself is, "Do you want another
    Clarence Thomas in the supreme court?"
    
    Mary
This is true. I don't care greatly for Clinton but I think Judge Blackman 
(or whatever his name is) is 85 years old and will be replaced soon. It is
important not to have the court go any more to the right than it already is. 
They are in the bedrooms already and little by little our freedoms are being 
taken care of. Unless you're Native American. Then you never had any to 
begin with.

Sam

    I know which way my vote will go! I am a Republican that doesn't agree
    we most of the attitudes I saw at the convention, but I don't think
    that if Bush wins the reb. ticket will be able to follow the line of
    thinking that was being spoken. I work in an area that is bringing in
    revenue in the top 3% for customer services.Most of that is government
    (Defense) spending or Defense contractor(Primes) spending. To me the
    biggest issue is the canidate that will help me keep my job!! Bill
    Clinton is not the canidate. He wants to cut the size of the military
    and cut defense spending-HARD AND SWIFT-.Well if defense /defense
    contracts are cut many people that work for big Co's like TRW,Lockheed
    McDonnell Douglas that do a large portion of Defense contracts are
    going to be layed off. With all those people looking for jobs, where
    are those people that he wants to boot out of the military going to
    work?? This to me is by far the scariest thing I see Bill Clinton
    doing. So I will check the Reb. box in Nov. 
    
    These are my personal opinions and observations and in no way do
    I wish to push these views on anybody.
    -Wayne
    

  ** Stories from CLARInet may not be redistributed to non-Digital **
  **                           employees                           **

Subject: Is Christian Coalition non-partisan?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 12:33:54 PDT
 
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (UPI) -- The Christian Coalition, the conservative
political action operation founded by religious broadcaster Pat
Robertson, now wields more clout than the Moral Majority ever did, its
director says.

Prime examples: President Bush will address the group Friday, and its
members played a prominent role in crafting the Republican Party
platform. It's also raising more money than the Moral Majority did
before it was disbanded.

Robertson's organization, which says it has 250,000 members, has
raised $13 million for political uses this fall. In addition to working
for Bush, the group wants to elect ``pro-family Christians'' to
Congress. It also opposes homosexual-rights iniatives in Colorado and
Oregon, and an equal rights amendment in Iowa.

``I don't want to belittle Jerry Falwell or the Moral Majority,''
Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed Jr. said. ``But the
Christian Coalition as a model represents a more mature, more developed
and more politically sophisticated vehicle for Christian political
activism.''

Activities this year include in-pew registration at churches, the
distribution of 40 million voter guides on family issues, and a massive
phone bank operation on behalf of favored candidates.

Robertson's views have long drawn opposition, but critics of the
Christian Coalition are taking a sharp look at its tax-exempt status. To
keep that status, it must be non-partisan and educational, focusing on
issues, not candidates.

Nonsense, according to Robert Boston for the group Americans for the
Separation of Church and State. Boston told Thursday's Washington Post:
``Their only existence as far as we've been able to determine is to take
over the Republican Party from the ground up. They're running the
Republican Party in certain parts of the country, and they are doing it
all with a tax-exempt status, and the IRS is doing nothing.''

Reed and the IRS confirmed auditors have been looking at financial
links between the GOP and Robertson's group. The coalition filed for
tax-exempt status in 1989, but it has not officially been granted. That
means the coalition may operate like a tax-exempt group but can be
forced to pay back taxes if the exemption is denied.

In addition to finances, there are also comments from Robertson and
other actions. At last year's Christian Coalition convention, officials
passed out manuals on Republican Party delegate selections procedures
and state-by-state rundowns of upcoming conventions.

Robertson also told the group in a speech last year: ``We want ... to
see a working majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-
family Christians by 1996.''

    You're not the only one worried about fanatics in the Republican party.

    As an Englishman who still can't understand why you guys take two years
    for an election campain when we can get it over and done with in a
    fortnight, please assure me that Jerry Brown will never become
    President, ever! He gives me the creeps!!
    
    Ian

    Why does he give you the creeps, Ian?    

    Sorry, Ian, but if a candidate gives you the creeps, that's *your*
    problem.  I plan not to vote for candidates who give *me* the creeps.
    
    Mary
    
    ps of course, there's always the possibility that my vote can be bought
    ;-)

    :-)

    With regards to my earlier (and possibly puzzling) reply on Jerry Brown
    giving me the creeps, I think it was the Dead Kennedys song 'California
    Uber Alles' that kind of turned the tide!
    
    Incidently, maybe taking two years for an election campain is a good
    idea. We might not have got lumbered with old Frau Thatcher, and that
    boring old git, John Major.
    
    Ian
    

    Oh ... I don't know, Ian.... there doesn't seem to be any perfect
    political system.... I doubt if there ever was..

    If there was a perfect political system in the world, we in Britain
    wouldn't have just had our interest rates raised by 7% in one day (i.e
    today!!! - bit of latest news there! Screws up my mortgage no end)
    
    Ian

    Works wonders for my savings, though  :-) :-) :-) all the way to the
    bank

                                       Read 
                                     my lips
                                 I will CUT TAXES,
                              REDUCE the DEFICIT and
                    CLEANSE the MORAL FIBER of this GREAT NATION
               of all the REPROBATES and DEVIANTS who ARE RESPONSIBLE
             for EVERYTHING THAT'S WRONG with AMERICA and that includes 
           the Godless DEMOCRATS, Journalists, TV Reporters and Cameramen,
    Investigative Reporters, Environmentalists, Single Mothers, Non-heterosexuals,
              Activists, Dissidents, Pro-choicers, Health care reformers,
              Flag Burners, Congressman, Pagans, Heathens and Rock Stars.
                I will purge this country of the greatest evil of all, 
         the greatest threat to DEMOCRACY the world has ever seen: LIBERALISM.
                And I will personally direct ALL of my attention 
           to protecting Family Values and The Flag and stopping CRIME
           and drug abuse and child abuse and AIDS and homelessness and
         unemployment and pollution and poor health care and poor education
                    and government regulation and failing banks
             and save the world from itself and people from themselves.
                               I want to be know as
                              the Education President,
                             The Health Care President,
                                The Aids President,
                                   The Law and Order President,
                                The New World Order President,
                                The Peace President,
                             The Democracy President,
                              The Environmental President,
                                       The Economic President,
                                    The Transportation President,
                                       The Jobs President:
                                  The Renaissance President

                    CLEANSE the MORAL FIBER of this GREAT NATION
               of all the REPROBATES and DEVIANTS who ARE RESPONSIBLE
             for EVERYTHING THAT'S WRONG with AMERICA and that includes 
           the Godless DEMOCRATS, Journalists, TV Reporters and Cameramen,
    Investigative Reporters, Environmentalists, Single Mothers, 
Non-heterosexuals,
              Activists, Dissidents, Pro-choicers, Health care reformers,
              Flag Burners, Congressman, Pagans, Heathens and Rock Stars.
                I will purge this country of the greatest evil of all, 
         the greatest threat to DEMOCRACY the world has ever seen: 
LIBERALISM.
                And I will personally direct ALL of my attention 
           to protecting Family Values and The Flag and stopping CRIME
           and drug abuse and child abuse and AIDS and homelessness and
         unemployment and pollution and poor health care and poor education
                    and government regulation and failing banks
             and save the world from itself and people from themselves.

Exactly! That's how I read it. The reason it concerns me so much and why I'm 
NEGATIVE is what they are saying is to eliminate more of my rights. These 
people view the Bill of Rights as a hinderance, blocking them from what they 
think they need to do.

Sam

    Ya left out Murphy Brown.  Gotta cleanse the world of imaginary single
    mothers too, ya know!

    .27  :^)  Mary, you're on a roll today.  :^)

    To correct a minor error, the interest rates in the UK did not jump by
    7% they went up 2% then a further 3%, but this was rescinded and the
    Pound removed from the ERM and allowed to float, a euphemism for
    sinking with all hands. The pressure however is now off the dollar
    which will cheer Mr Bush up .

    Jamie.

    I got the interest news at work yesterday from my manager.
    
    Just goes to prove. Never trust a manager!
    
    Ian

    The way the interest rate was jumping around it was difficult to keep up
    with it. It started the day at 10%, jumped to 12%, jumped again to 15%
    then fell back to 12%. Where is is now I would not like to speculate.

    Jamie.

    Then I guess my boys and I weren't a family all those years they were
    growing up.  Looks like the government has defined us out of existence.
    
    What were we?

have a baby.  The term "family" implies a mother and father and at least one
child, living together as one unit.

    That's the problem with the Reps.  They don't understand 
    what a real family is if it doesn't match their family.
    
    Then you take the Bush family.  Good old Neil is a chip
    of the old block.  Guess that's not my type of values.
    
    Joanne 

    'cuse me, but my dictionary here at work has multiple definitions for 
    family, which includes "a group of people sharing common ancestry" and
    "all the members of a household," "a group of things:class," and "a
    taxonomic category below an order and above a genus."
    
    Mary

    But gee Cliff,
    
    The problem is when the government gets into the business of
    determining what a family is... don't you think?  No one responded to
    you personally... it's the Republican party's involvement in this 
    discussion that provoked the responses.
    
    I mean, gee.... is that the business of government?  Is that why we pay
    taxes and support this system... so it can define our family unit for
    us in such a manner that a lot of us are excluded?  
    
    I don't know...  I guess I just don't understand...
    
    But then... I don't understand much of anything anymore... (as some in
    this file will be glad to attest to) :-}.

    Shucks, now I can't say "But gee Cliff," hmmmm... give it some
    thought...
    
    Well Shucks Cliff, in answer to your first question -- yes.  According
    to my Webster's II dictionary a bunch of people living together are a
    family.  So if that bothers you, take it up with Webster.
    
    Also, what Mary said (the other Mary)!
    
    Mary :-)

    By the way, what's a "great society" anyway?
    
    Mary

    One that cares about it's people... all of them.  One that isn't afraid
    to set it's people free to create and be all that they can be.  One
    that isn't based in greed and corruption and absolute control.  One that
    respects life in all it's myriad forms.. one that is in harmony with
    the Earth..
    
    It is a society that isn't afraid to do the right thing.

Yet another Mary speaks up - 

My 2 small sons and I are a family, now that their dad's out of the house
and the divorce is final.  It's amazing what a dad's (anyone's, actually) drug
use can do to prevent real family values from taking root.  Yes, there are many 
kinds of families, and now, thank God (oh, dear, can I say 'God?'  I mean, I'm a
female head of household, divorced, pro-choice, GDI [g__-dam___ Independent], 
like 'Murphy Brown,' and I'm NOT voting for Bush; somehow I don't think She 
[God, that is] will mind), we're able to enjoy the benefits of a real family.  
We're also able to have normal problems and work through them.  

After hearing the statistics from Washington, DC and Detroit yesterday on how
many households are headed by single women in those two cities, I've come to 
believe the powers that be had better take their heads out of the paper bags 
they're in.  It's time to wake up, Gentlemen (and I use the term loosely).  The
women are already doing the job, and without having a dad in the house, thank
you very much.    

    Oh, but Mary1, didn't you see the commercials?  The gummermint is
    freeing us up to be all the we can be.  Just by joining the army!
    
    Mary ;-)

    Oh yea... that's right. :-)
    
    I have to confess that the Marine's ad... the sort of mystical one
    about the chess game? ...makes me want to go join up myself.  I love
    that ad.

    And while we're on the subject of single-parent families, let's not
    forget the fathers who are bringing up kids on their own, too.  I was a
    widower for a few years, and it was no fun believe me - the benefits
    (pah!) given to women are mostly not available to men.
    
    Brian

RE: .37 (Cliff)

    On what basis do you declare that, that is what "family" really means
    Cliff?  Who appointed you to be the captain of the word police?  Why
    are all the people who use the word in a way different from you wrong?
    And where is the book or other source what they are supposed to mean
    when they use a word?

    Dictionaries have there limitations -- especially on complex terms with
    social or psychological referents.  So I would never say on the basis
    of the dictionary that someone was using a popular term "wrong".

    The definition of "family" rather depends on context -- it means
    something different in a legal context, in an anthropological context,
    in a personal/Judeo-Christian context, in a personal/Shaker context,
    etc.  I would say that the most useful, general purpose definition is
    that a family is a group of people -- cohabiting or not, with or
    without issue, of whatever gender combination. of however many people
    -- who "feel" like a family.  Not the kind of definition you can use
    in a dictionary, but a definition which is least likely to cause
    confusion when other people use the word.  You can use a narrower
    definition in your own speech of course, but do not be surprised if
    other people miss the nuances.

    I have known couples who have all the attributes of a family except
    that they didn't happen to have any kids.  Some of those couples lost
    the sense of being a family when they *had* kids.  I have also known
    couples who really didn't act like a family until they had kids.  But
    I rather dislike the implication that having kids automatically bestows
    on you a social cohesiveness/identity/role (other than parent -- good
    or bad).

    Basic Biology 101 may say something about giving birth, but it does not
    say anything about families.

    And the answer to your question:

>Oh, then the term family means a bunch of people living together no matter
>what their familial relationship.  Is that it?

    is yes, as long as there *is* a familial relationship, except I don't
    think they *have* to be living together (presumably in a house in the
    suburbs).

				    Topher

    Cliff,

    You are more than welcome to your opinion about the causes of the
    decline of our society.  I disagree at least so far as I think that
    what you refer to is only one of many factors -- and included in those
    many factors is also the opposite, a societal mythology of a purely
    fictional time when there was one clear-cut definition of what a family
    "was" and an accompanying imperitive to attempt to force people into
    that mold.  But your stating your opinion about those matters not only
    doesn't bother me -- I am interested in learning of your opinion.

    What does bother me, and what my previous note was about, is what
    I see as an attempt to redefine a particular word to better fit your
    own agenda.  You are, in effect, not just disagreeing with me, but
    attempting to put words in my mouth -- by pronouncing that the word
    "family" really means what you think families oughta' be you are playing
    word games.  The word simply does not mean that in most people's mind.
    If you want to mean it that way, that's fine, but keep in mind that
    there will then only be the illusion of communication: you'll be saying
    one thing based on your narrow, ideosyncratic definition, and the
    people listening will be understanding you to be saying something else.

					Topher

    
    re: .41
    
    And it's a society that doesn't look a bit like this one! ;-)
    
    
    guy

    
    I no longer live with my children (most days), but we are definately
    still a family.  I am not discouraged by narrow definitions of the
    word family.  
    
    And besides, I think that children in this country, or any country 
    with a heavy dose of morality programming concerning what is the 
    "proper" family unit, often have MORE to lose, MORE effect on the
    "decline" of the society when they are forced to live with parents
    who shouldn't or don't want to be together - but stay together "for
    the kids", etc.
    
    I think that kids turn out fine as long as parents do what they know
    is right  -  as long as that includes a heavy dose of *responsible
    action*.
    
    But you have to define "responsible action" for yourself.  A prospect
    far too scary for Republicans. ;-)
    
    guy

    One year in four we in Europe are entertained by the posturing of would
    be candidates for the post of President of the USA. What is amusing are
    the "issues" and where these poor souls "stand" on them. Hysterical
    crowds badger them on whether they are pro or anti abortion. Would they
    have a homosexual in their cabinet or not. Should a woman with her
    child be treated any different from a couple with children. Meanwhile
    the USA economy is going to hell in a hand basket, and no one is paying
    any attention whatsoever.

    Jamie.

In the original version, there I had included single mothers
but in an effort to make the work take the form of a 
mushroom clud, I guess that I accidentally deleted single moms...

I'm glad to see that this strikes a chord in some people...

Ian...about Gerry Brown giving you the creeps...what really scares me
is rumors that Matron Thatcher is wheeling and dealing with an
international tobacco interest...or is it confirmed now? Doesn't someone 
of her station have a responsability to set an example...

That's almost as bad as RRR galavanting across Japan two years ago
giving keynote addresses on how great capitalism is for a mere
7 figures!-Mark

I dno't know about erosion of 'traditional family values'
being the root cause of our problems.

Consider our champion of Family Values. George Herbert Walker Bush.
Lives in Maine. Has a hotel room in Texas and pays no income taxes to
the state of Maine. I could go on forever about IRAN a Scam ...
I'll just induldge in raking him over hte coals on one point...his son:

Niel Bush. Did anyone see Niel before the senate or was it congresinal
investigation of the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal. I didn't. 
just hustled and hushed the whole thing. The fact is that the president
raised a crook. Look up 'low-life-yuppy-scum in the dictionary and
you'll see a picture of Niel.

And did he learn from the Silverado scandal... why yes he did.
He learned that he could take the American public for a ride and
get away with it even if he got caught. He went on to rob you and
me of 2.3 million bucks...he'll argue that it was all quite legal.

Well not quite: he used his 'good name' to get favors that Joe Taxpayer
would have never gotten period. Fact is, the son of our Family Values
champion is a crook: no less morally corrupt than Micheal Milkin
and what has George done to stop this? I bet he's tried his *amndest to
hush it up...
good thing he can't control those Godless investigative reporters.

Where would our moral leader be without those LIBERAL newspersons
watching?

    Re: last
    
    Bush's other son isn't so hot either.  Another yuppie thief.
    
    Mary

AKOFIN::WATSON 
    
>In closing, IMHO, the main reason why we are not such a Great Society these
>days is simply because the traditional family unit* has broken down.  There
>are many reasons why this has happened, but the main one is our government
>has made it virtually impossible to keep one of the parents at home with the
>children while the other makes a decent living outside the home.  I believe
>those days are long gone, unfortunately, and we are headed downhill from here.
>You ruin the family, and you lose the country.  It's that simple.

Cliff,
    
    I agree with your assessment of the situation for the most part,
    regarding cause...however, I don't agree that "those days are long 
    gone".  It is true (in my opinion) that government economic policies
    have contributed to this situation.
    
    It is possible to reestablish an economic system that provides for
    the support of the people.
    
    Mary

 p.s.  I don't particularly like your definition... but I defend to the
       death your right to define it and as always you are a good friend
       whom I respect and care about. 
    
       It leaves me wondering whether the society I live in considers me
       to be a part of it or not though.  I feel left out, Cliff...
       deserted... abandoned ... but... it's always been that way so...
       (in the words of Rhett Butler) "frankley my dear, ...I don't give a
       damn" who accepts my boys and I as a family unit ... I don't accept
       the judgements of other's anyway.. they weren't there to help me 
       when I needed it.  
    
       But the fact remains... that we are in this existence together... 
       we now share a nation...  Will we accept each other and work
       together to our mutual benefit for the sake of all of those children
       out there ...whether they are considered part of a family or not?
    
       You choose... as will the rest of us choose... our
       future is on the line here.
       

    rep .52
    
    I've watched it happen for years and years, Jamie.  The political
    machine is destroying itself.  It reminds me of what happened in
    the Soviet Union.  The propaganda machine succeeds in diverting 
    attention away or surpressing discussion of the real problems
    until it is so out of control that it is a fatal illness.
    
    But that trend isn't confined to America.  You do the same thing
    over there.  
    
    Systems go in cycles... in stages... good ideas flourish and grow 
    until they expend themselves and overstep their bounds and begin
    to be bad ideas... destructive rather than constructive.... then
    they begin to occilate... to wobble.... to spin out of control..
    that's happening now and not just in America, Jamie... surely you
    can see that for yourself.

Re: "Family Values"

What I would like to know is when the people of the world are going to wake up
and see that we are all one people. It is this incessant preoccupation with
making boarders that has caused the "nuclear family" concept which in my opinion
is a complete failure.

WE ARE ALL ONE PEOPLE

    I agree... I tend to see us as a big family unit too, Sergei.... the
    family of mankind.

    Well in the UK the people do not think that the most important thing is
    whether a politician is pro or anti abortion, they are more interested
    in taxation. Labour's promise to raise taxes cost them this year's
    general election.

    I think that the Media in the USA give too much attention to the one
    issue lobbyists. This may be because they make good footage.

    Jamie.

Good Morning,
We are all ONE....that includes ALL Sentient Life, not just the family of 
Mankind.....we are all part of the FAMILY OF LIGHT.

LOVE and LIGHT to you,
I AM
Talligai
******************************************************************************
   <<< Note 1732.59 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>

    I agree... I tend to see us as a big family unit too, Sergei.... the
    family of mankind.

    The claim that the "traditional family" is one mommy, one daddy, and
    one or more kiddies, and one stays at home while the other goes out
    and works is short-sighted to the point of being wrong.  It is a late
    twentieth-century, Euro-American notion.
    
    The *real* traditional family brims over with sisters and cousins and
    aunts�.  And uncles and brothers and grandparents (even if they're not
    in that chorus).  In the `real' traditional family, everyone worked at
    home.  The cobbler may have walked downstairs to his last, or the farmer
    a quarter mile to the lower forty, but essentially, you worked at home,
    or you could at least walk home for lunch.
    
    I exhort you to *never* let anyone define all those useful relatives
    out of the term "family".
    
    							Ann B.
    
    �  "Well, you may not have had a mother, but you must have had an aunt.
    Ah!  I see by your face that you did have an aunt."

    Thanks Talligai, needed that.  
    
    Jamie, basically the reason for the other topics in the
    campaign is because those are the issues that the 
    candidates are hiding behind.  Besides the economy (very
    little outside of war has changed this) personal freedoms
    are important and at stake.  
    
    To everyone,
    
    I'm getting the impression something more is going on 
    here and I'm not sure what it is.  President Bush is not
    a fool and I don't understand why he's campaigning the
    way he is.  It's almost like he wants the election to go
    to Bill Clinton.  He contradicts himself the same day
    (environmental issues that are sure to be picked up by the
    media - he supports Quayle and hits Clintons draft topic
    in a way that shows that both men are similar - he's using
    a religious sect that gets everyone upset - he's attacking
    50% of the population with his women's issues - and he's
    attacking family, a non government body at this time).  
    Something's really wrong.  Got any clues.
    
    Joanne who's really suspicious
    

    My guess is the economy is going to blow and if a democrat is president
    when it happens, then the republicans can blame them more easily.

    Mary,
    
    But are you getting any feeling of what I was trying to say?
    I often don't express myself clearly.  
    
    Joanne

In my estimation, GB is a political animal.
I personally think he's a fool in that he'll do anything
and say anything to get elected...read my lips.

He'll make deals with anyone. He'll play the American 
voting public as fools and so far he and RRR's aproaches
have taken hold.
How in Hades can he stand up before America and say with
a straight face that he's going to cut taxes, cut spending
and cut the deficit. He must share something in common
with Albert Einstein in that he must have failed Algebra.
We'll it actually looks like he failed basic math too.
Or maybe he's just a bit rusty...

Back in 79 he called RRR's economic proposals 'Voodoo
Economics'. He actually coined the phrase.

Within months he was embracing VooDoo economics...
and loving it. 

I don't know what goes through his mind. In some respects
He's completely our of touch with reality: he wouldn't
acknowledge that we have a recession until only a few
months ago!

I had my political differences with Nixon, but I'ld
go into a buisiness venture wiht him any day of the week
before I would with Bush. At least Nixon is a realist.


George Bush is just not presidential material. 

Leader's don't blame the troops
for failing, don't blame the tide, don't blame the wind.
We need a leader right now and George just doesn't
measure up or stand up to srutiny.

excuse me for foaming at the mouth. - Mark

    Joanne,
    
    I, too, am not sure that Bush is not a fool.  One thing I've learned is 
    that just because a person's rich doesn't mean their not stupid.
    
    I think his main goal is to try to keep attention on anything but
    current economic news.

    
    Everytime they report something about Bush lately I say: "There
    it is the LAST nail in his political coffin."
    
    But there's always one more...it's amazing.
    
    
    guy

    .62 has hit the nail on the head. Americans have compensated for the
    loss of all this support by means of a national obsession with both
    'counselling', and the 'New Age' movement.
    
    Laurie.

    Uh, Laurie, for someone who admits hasn't been here, you seem to "know"
    an awful lot about Americans.
    
    I had the requisite father, mother & siblings and grew up in the
    traditional "middle class" neighborhood.  So why am I so screwed up?

    I've got a problem with that, Cliff.
    
    The Federal Government never seems to make things better.. it always
    seems to make them worse... it creates problems and then creates
    solutions that generate even worse problems trying to deal with the
    original problems... 
    
    The following is an example....
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
"There is a bill currently in Congress that will limit our basic rights even
further. Read this carefully, it's pretty convoluted.

S.2 is the Omnibus Education Bill. S.2 was amended to include HB.4323, the
house version of the Omnibus Education Bill. S.2 has also had S.1275 amended to
it, and S.1275, as amended, includes a program called the "Parents as Teachers"
program. Sounds innocuous, right? Keep reading.

"Parents as Teachers" means that a family will have a social worker assigned to
it if:
	o a woman is pregnant
	o there is a child age 0 to 3 years
	o there is a teenager at risk of becoming pregnant

The social worker will come into your home, unannounced, up to 8 times a year
for an individual family "session", and 4 times a year for "group" sessions.
While in the home, they will assess your family to see if the children are "at
risk."

"At risk" has many possible definitions. There is a document published by the
Department of Health and Human Services called "Healthy People 2000" and
written by The American Academy of Pediatrics and other busybody groups, which
includes a long list of criteria, and this is the document being referenced by
the lawmakers when they consider these definitions. This document will be the
template on which the regulations promulgated by this bill if it passes will be
based. This document defines that a child can be "at risk" if any of  the
following conditions exist:

	o The parents aren't using "positive parenting", which means

	   - no physical punishment
	   - no verbal abuse (defined as embarrassment, humiliation, ordering,
	     labeling, nagging, threats, begging, sarcasm, scaring, spoiling,
	     or making the child feel guilty)

	o Either parent has a military background
	o Either parent is a "Fundamentalist Christian"
	o A recent move has occurred in the family
	o a recent career change has occurred in the family
	o the parents are divorced or separated
	o the home is being renovated
	o there is no gate on the stairways
	o there are sharp objects in view
	o any firearm can be accessed in 10 minutes or less

As the bill is written, "at risk" will be judicially defined. Health and Human
Services has indicated that they will implement the list above as regulations.

If your children are deemed by the social worker to be "at risk", there is
mandated foster care, for a minimum of 2 days. (This is under a section
entitled "Forced Parent Support Activities")

Note that as this is written along with current law in NH, a NH social worker 
would then initiate a termination of parental rights petition in District 
Court. Other states may have similar laws. We already know of 3 families where 
they were forced to get rid of guns in order to get their children back. What
will happen if these social workers get into every home where there are
children? As we know, 1/2 of all households have a firearm. Parents will be
forced to choose between their guns and their children!

This is a very serious threat to liberty-loving people everywhere, and it's
also very bad for gun owners, especially those of us with children. We must
call our senators and congressmen to tell them we oppose the "Parents as
Teachers" program in the Omnibus Education bill. We can also oppose the huge
costs involved with this bill, as it forces the states to pick up the full
costs of this intrusion into our lives by year 5 of implementation.

The bill is currently in conference committee, with BOTH parties working to get
it out and onto the floor of both chambers very soon. There will probably be a
vote early next week. It's being kept under wraps (notice there is no media
coverage?).

Call your congressman and Senators today to oppose this bill. Tell them to vote 
against the conference report if it has the "Parents as teachers" language in
it, to vote to sustain a filibuster (i.e. not invoke cloture), and to vote to 
sustain a Presidential veto. Bush will veto it if it has the School-based
abortion clinics in it, but will sign anything else (so he doesn't look like
he's not the "Education President")."

    What!!!???!!!
    
    You mean, if you get a new job, they can come into your house,
    unannounced and uninvited, and take your kids away?
    
    If you're a "Fundamentalist Christian," they can take your kids away???
    
    If you "spoil" your child, they can take your kids away?  (who defines
    the word "spoil" anyway?
    
    My sister once said that she believed that the government should take
    children away from their parents after they were born and raise them. 
    Looks like her dream is coming true.
    
    Ha!Ha!Ha!  I love the irony.  We witness the fall of the USSR, only to
    watch it rise again -- slipping in through our back doors!
    
    Mary
    

    Not only that, Mary... but to my way of thinking the government isn't
    a better parent... every time the government gets involved in things
    like this, it screws up royally... I think of the boarding schools
    the chidren of Native Americans were sent to and all they endured there
    and I get so pissed off.
    
    Do we really need a government?  
    
    I mean... this goes way, way, way, way, way, way, way beyond national
    defense (which is about all any government is good for).
    
    I'm really beginning to lean towards the Libertarians.

    Mary - I LOVED your comment about the rise of the USSR over here!  But
    that's what Christianity really stands for anyway, isn't it?  The line
    between communism and Christianity is so thin it's almost invisible. 
    The difference in the USSR was that they tried to impose and atheistic
    form of communism......   (Methinks this is a very deep philosophical
    discussion that may not be right in this topic.)
    
    My opinion on what's happening in the US is what happens everywhere
    when there isn't a balance.  Here, the Republicans have basically had
    their way for so long (or if Congress syas no, then they throw a fit of
    pique and call "veto") that there is no effective opposition which can
    be used in any balanced way.  So things keep moving so far to the
    right that they come full circle and are indistinguishable from the far
    left.  Same thing happened in Britain under Thatcher.
    
    As to choosing between your guns or kids, then the answer has to be
    obvious - or the question should never have to be asked.  And the NH
    requirement (and even in this bill) is that if you have a gun it should
    be INCREDIBLY difficult to access.  Seems reasonable to me - you want a
    gun, you better be responsible with it.  I'm not anti gun ownership
    (although I won't have one myself), but I do expect gun owners to
    exercise the utmost responsibility to protect others, including my,
    safety.  If they can't, then they are, imo, irresponsible and shouldn't
    have a gun.
    
    brian

DCOPST::BRIANH::NAYLOR 
    
>    Mary - I LOVED your comment about the rise of the USSR over here!  But
>    that's what Christianity really stands for anyway, isn't it?  The line
>    between communism and Christianity is so thin it's almost invisible. 
>    The difference in the USSR was that they tried to impose and atheistic
>    form of communism......   (Methinks this is a very deep philosophical
>    discussion that may not be right in this topic.)
    
     I know you're talking to the 'other Mary' :-) ... but I think that a
     very deep philosophical discussion would be right in this topic and
     wanted to say so.
         
>    My opinion on what's happening in the US is what happens everywhere
>    when there isn't a balance.  
    
     Yes... I agree with you.
    
    >Here, the Republicans have basically had their way for so long (or if 
    >Congress says no, then they throw a fit of pique and call "veto") that 
    >there is no effective opposition which can be used in any balanced way.  
    >So things keep moving so far to the right that they come full circle and 
    >are indistinguishable from the far left.  
    >Same thing happened in Britain under Thatcher.
    
    That's how it seems to go... doesn't it... full circle.    
    
>    As to choosing between your guns or kids, then the answer has to be
>    obvious - or the question should never have to be asked.  
    
     Oh no... it's not "obvious" at all.... that kind of a choice shouldn't
     have to be made.... especially during an era when you may need your
     guns to protect your kids.
    
    >And the NH requirement (and even in this bill) is that if you have a gun 
    >it should be INCREDIBLY difficult to access.  
    >Seems reasonable to me - you want a gun, you better be responsible with 
    >it.  I'm not anti gun ownership (although I won't have one myself), but 
    >I do expect gun owners to exercise the utmost responsibility to protect 
    >others, including my, safety.  If they can't, then they are, imo, 
    >irresponsible and shouldn't have a gun.
    
    This bill isn't about gun safety, brian... this bill is about control..
    it's about whether people and their children are property of the state
    and subject to state control and decision making regarding their
    personal lives.
    
    Which is more important, Brian... the people or the institutions?
    
    If it comes down to a choice (and it appears to be) which do you think
    will survive?  
    
    Look back throughout history and see the reigns of terror that have 
    occurred... who survived ... the people or the institutions?  
    
    The great kings and their men who rode into the country
    side and robbed the people... did their systems survive the test of
    time... or did the people just endure until they too self-destructed?
    
    Look at all of the patterns... the Spanish Inquisition... the rise of
    the Third Reich... as far back as you can trace ...look and consider...
    and yet the passive man just waits... and endures...  and ultimately
    overcomes... that is the Way of the Tao.

    
    rat-hole alert....
    
    If your gun is "incredibly difficult to access", then won't it
    lose its protective qualities?  (assuming one believes in using
    it for protection)
    
    
    guy

    Re: .71
    
    >It's only the latter half of this century that we've seen that
    >trend reverse itself such that it's virtually no longer possible for
    >one
    >parent to work outside the home while the other stays home and raises
    >the
    >children.  This, I feel, is unfortunate..
    
    I disagree with your belief of what the trend is.  We used to be a two
    income family, but the current economic state has made us a one income
    family (and it isn't daddy who brings home the bacon).
    
    But added to this trend of higher unemployment is an insurgence of
    "crafts" businesses: the spouse staying at home turns some craft
    (knitting, artistry, metalwork) into a supplement for the family
    income.  They can do this work at home (enabling them to watch the
    children), and elleviate some of the stress of finance off of the
    emmployed spouse.  Kind of a return to that older family definition,
    where everyone did something to support (house, cloth, feed) the
    family.
    
    Beth

BTOVT::BEST_G 
    
>    If your gun is "incredibly difficult to access", then won't it
>    lose its protective qualities?  (assuming one believes in using
>    it for protection)
    
     There is a happy medium though, guy... lots of variety in gun safes
    and trigger locks and stuff that can be used while still having the
    gun available should it become necessary.... this bill isn't about gun
    safety though.... it's about whether or not your kids are property of
    the state (in my humble opinion).

    Cliff,
    
    I'm sorry if I distracted attention from the message of your note
    with extraneous and irrelevant concerns.  
    
    mary

    
    re: Mary's reply to me a couple back....
    
    You're right.  Let's drop it. ;-)
    
    
    Cliff:
    
    I think you're taking this discussion kinda personally.  I see other
    people expressing their opinions in a sort of open-ended way - not
    particularly targeting you and/or any statements you've been making.
    I don't see people twisting your words around, just using their own.
    
    FWIW,
    
    guy

'ld like to try to the gun laws in perspective here.

There's no doubt that a gun owner should be responsible
with respect to the access he provides children to guns.
Gun safety is something that is stressed by that bastion
of right wing values, the NRA (just kidding). (I'm a liberal
and I own gunS.) Clearly one doesn't leave guns layng about
for a kid to pick up an cause a tragic accident. Following
the rules of Gun Safety, people don't get hurt. It's when
individuals become careless and ignore UNcommon sense that
tragedies occur.

This is true of anything. Knives, powertools, alcohol and
swimming pools. Yes, swimming pools: an evil invention that is
the "cause" of more accidental deaths every year than
guns. Swimming pools don't cause deaths. Stupidity does.
One can easily get involved in a dispassionate
discussion with anyone on swimming pool safety, but not so
with guns. I perceive that guns are an emotionally charged
issue stemming from fear and misperception
that sometimes makes reasonable discussion very difficult
and almost impossible in a public forum. When one
looks at the data, there is a disproportionate investment in
resources in this struggle over gun legislation.
The amount of emotional energy consumed
by this topic could be channeled into other areas and save
far more lives in that way: drugs, aids, alcoholism, eating 
disorders, prenatal care....! 

Some people want to impose waiting periods for the purchase of 
guns. I've got two pistols and a shot gun. How would a waiting
period prevent one of the millions of gun owners like me 
from going berserk with what I've already got? My god, If I
want to kill people mindlessly, a car can be a far more effective
weapon. There's a thousand ways to commit murder: scissors, pens,
candle sticks. almost anyting can be used to commit murder, thus
restricting access of honest  citizens to guns won't affect 
the activities of criminal or insane people. They've got the money
and the time to get anything they want just shy of (hopefully)
plutonium to do whatever they have a mind to.

If one favors restricting public access to guns, I
saw a bumper sticker that one can cogitate on. It reads like
this: If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.

That's a fact.

In 1934, I believe, a federal tax was imposed on the sale of
machine guns. It's on the order of $400. You or I can go out
today and buy a fully automatic weapon: a machine gun!
As long as we do the paper work and pay the tax, we can get one.
The same is true for silencers.

The NRA has stated that since 1934, one crime has been 
comitted by a legally owned automatic weapon.
It was owned by a police officer.

Safety first. Better safe that sorry. Look before leeping.
Think, then act.
Following these simple rules for safety prevents accidents.
No amount of legislation and beauracracy will prevent stupid
people from harming themselves or others. When will people
stop trying to blame (and sue) everyone but themselves for
their own stupidity? 

No amount of legislation can make wisemen out of fools. 
Natural law. Man made law can't change it. No amount
of beauracracy can watch over our shoulders every moment of the
day. I hope that 1984 is behind us. Let's keep it that way.

I don't believe for a moment in the hands-off  damn-the-torpedos
nonregulation approach of Ronald McRaygun. That has gotten
us into some serious trouble, the S&L debacle for instance.
What I do believe is that there is a practical balance that one
can maintain.

I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool idealist.
Reality has tempered it into pragmatism. 
Aim high. Work with the results.
Idealism is good, but reality, wow, what a concept!

    No, I don't think gun laws are an issue this election - yet.  maybe
    Clinton avoided the draft because he didn't want to go kill people? :-)
    :-) :-)   Only kidding on that one - really.
    
    I will get my thought in order on the Christianity/communism issue and
    enter under a separate topic - doesn't really fit with this one.
    
    I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in here so far
    about state control, children and so on.  The issue is abhorrent to
    me, and I presently thank God that our kids are grown (somewhat) and
    independent (less somewhat!).  maybe *we* won't get harrased by the
    social workers ..... but just to help out, my wife was so incensed that
    she phoned the democrats office in our town and has made an appointment
    to go oppose the GOP!  First time since the marches in the 60's.  Yes,
    her first husband avoided the draft, too, but he did it by them
    marrying and having a child .....  Who was guiltier, him or Clinton?
    Hmmmmmm?
    
    Gotta go for now - headed off to SFO for the rest of the week.
    
    Brian

    Lot's of people avoided the draft.  They didn't believe in the war and
    didn't want to kill anyone or get killed themselves.. they were a smart
    bunch of folks (in myopinion)  ...I still don't know why we were in
    vietnam.
    
    I agree with .83 and .84 on the subject of guns and government control
    of families and children.  The government isn't smart enough or wise 
    enough or worthy to take on that kind of responsibility... they'd mess
    up for sure.
    
    I regret if I've hurt anyone's feelings but I'm tired of apologizing 
    for what I am.  My kids and I are doing ok.  they are men now and
    we did it ourselves.  We never cared much what people thought about us
    and to tell you the truth... I'm not about to start caring now.
    If anyone doesn't approve of me for surviving then tough... they
    weren't much of a friend to begin with.
    
    Life goes on... but this time it's going on without the GOP in the
    White House.... and that's a fact, Jack... 
    

    
    Anybody see Murphy Brown last night?
    
    I thought it was fantastic.  Especially the live clip they showed of
    Dan Quayle and his original Murphy Brown 'glamourizing single
    motherhood' comment (she and Miles were watching it from her home). 
    In her pajamas she replies, "Miles, do I look glamourous to you?"  Then 
    she went on the air a few days later, talked about families and how 
    they come in all different shapes and sizes, and then introduced 
    several real life single mothers and fathers with their children on 
    the show...
    
    Cindy

    
    I saw it, Cindy.  I liked it.  
    
    guy

    
    I saw it, too. Talk about a "class act". I really liked when she talked 
    to the baby, and said she'd taken the high road. THen the load of
    potatoes, getting dumped outside some building, either the White House
    or the Vice-President's residence (does it have a name?)
    
    I stayed up late, to see what DQ would say (he watched the show), he
    said he laughed at some parts and was angry at some. He ended by saying
    the "Hollywood still doesn't get it". And he does, right? :^)
    
    I kept thinking how Marilyn and the kids must be feeling, I don't think
    I'd like my husband/dad to be the laughing stock of America.
    
    
    Marilyn

    Loved it.  (just a nit -- it was Frank Fontana watching with her).
    
    My favorite line?  When Frank -- off on his diatribe -- said something
    along the lines of "Hey Murph, this is Dan Quayle.  The guy who said
    'What a waste it is to lose one's mind' to the United Negro College
    Fund...and then spent the entire presidency *proving* it!"
    
    I especially like the way now Quayle is trying to say that he wasn't
    criticizing single mothers.  How can he possibly say that with a
    straight face , when they've showed the film clip of him speaking?  He
    said what he said -- the Murphy Brown mocked the importance of
    fatherhood by becoming a single mother.  And the bit abut family
    values.
    
    I also like the way Quayle is also saying that what happens on Murphy
    Brown isn't important -- it's "just Hollywood" and "They just don't get
    it."  Well, he's partially right.  *Someone* just doesn't get it!
    
    Mary

    Guess I expected more from Murphy Brown.  There were some good
    lines but I really didn't think that it was up to all the talk
    about the show.  Now I know why I don't watch much TV.
    
    I liked the like when the baby started crying and Murphy had
    to get up.  She picked up the baby and aske if he had dreamed
    that Pat Buchannan was under his bed.
    
    Joanne

    The best thing to do with Dan Quayle is ignore him.
    
    Laurie.

    
    But Laurie - he's singlehandedly keeping the US humo(u)r industry in
    business!
    
    Cindy

    Ignore him!  That's no fun. :-)

 re: 1732.91 
 PLAYER::BROWNL 

>    The best thing to do with Dan Quayle is ignore him.

	I seem to remember you Britons getting in a bit of 
	a bind some years ago by adopting a similar attitude
	toward Adolph Hitler...

	-Art

 

Re:  .91, .92, .93


Susan Trausch, a "Boston Globe" columnist, wrote a hysterical column about our
Danny about 18 months ago, wherein she listed several of his more (in)famous 
blunders - I mean quotes - including the one he made about losing one's mind.
While reading this I was laughing so much that several fellow commuters on the
train looked at me rather strangely.  In it Susan suggested making Dan Vice-
President-for-Life as a national treasure who provides much-needed humor to our
nation.  I think that's simply a wonderful idea - but I doubt he'd accept the
post, even if it were created just for him.  He seems to think he can be taken
seriously - he certainly takes himself seriously.

Just remember - as Mr. V. P. Potatoe-head, a.k.a. Vice President Dan Quayle, 
said to the American Samoans, '...happy campers you are, happy campers you have 
always been, and happy campers you always will be.'  At least as long as we have 
Dan Quayle opening his mouth and speaking in public .......

Mary (am I Mary 3, 4, or 5?)

    :-)
    
    I find him rather endearing too... truly a national treasure..

    
    I like to think of him as our National Buffoon, ala National Lampoon.
    
    Marilyn

    :-)

    Did you know that President Bush recently returned from a secret trip
    to Russia?  He met with Boris Yeltsin in an effort to get to know the
    Russian situation better.  
    
    It seems that one day Boris and George went out for a walk on the
    streets of Moscow.  After a few moments George asked, "Boris, how are
    the Russian people really taking this political revolution they're
    going through"?  Boris told him that although things were a little
    rough around the edges he thought that they were adjusting pretty well,
    all things considered.  "After all", he said, "The Russian people are
    very intelligent people".  "How's that" asked George.  Boris responded
    by calling a passerby over to them.  After chatting for a moment, he
    asked the man, "Ivan Ivanovitch, I have a question for you.  Your
    father has a son who is not your brother.  Who is he?"  Without
    hesitation Ivan answered "That is simple.  He is myself."  
    
    Very impressed with the answer, President Bush returned home. 
    
    On his first day back, the President decided to test the mental
    faculties of his Vice President.  He called Quayle into the oval office
    and put the question to him, "Dan, your father has a son who is not
    your brother.  Who is he?"  Well Dan thought and thought and thought
    and thought.  Finally he asked, "Can I get back to you on this,
    George?"  "Sure" replied the President.
    
    It seems that Mr. Quayle thinks best on his feet so for the next few
    hours he wandered around the halls of the White House thinking about
    the question.  Eventually he ran into Casper Weinberger in the halls.
    "Casper" Dan asked, "Your father has a son who is not your brother. 
    Who is he?"  Casper replied, "That's easy.  He is myself!"
    
    Dan hurried back to the Oval Office and excitedly told the President he
    had an answer!  "Ok," said George, "Your father has a son who is not
    your brother.  Who is he?"
    
    With complete confidence Dan replied, "Casper Weinberger!"   
    
    George shook his head sadly.  
      
    
    "No", he said, "the answer is Ivan Divanovitch."

    hahahahahahahaha!  Good one, Nanci.
    

    hahahahahahahaha!  Good ones, Marcos.
    

    Marcos... you're on a roll today. :-)

    re: .97
    
    If Bush were king, Quayle would be the court jester.   8^)

    While I can laugh at the antics of poor old Dan, I am slightly worried
    about the fact that he is VP. The heart problem that Bush has is
    normally not life threatening, but sometimes there are complications
    which can cause sudden death. Should this happen will Dan be as funny
    when he is President Quayle?

    Jamie.

    Oh yes... even funnier... it would be like having Krusty The Clown in
    the White House... it would probably lead to total anarchy ... but that
    has it's jolly side as well. :-)

    One of the tabloid astrologers (forgot which one) has predicted that
    Bush will have a heart attack next month and that one month of Quayle
    as president will insure a Clinton victory in November.
    
    Hmmm... I wonder if that's why Perot got back in the race...
    
    
    Ginny

    Jamie,
    
    Since Bush only has about 6 more "real" weeks as President, let's hope
    his health holds out. The little chance he had of being re-elected,
    were lost the day he decided to keep Dan Quayle as his running mate for
    the second time. IF George kicks it after Nov. 3rd, I think they'd just 
    speed up the inauguration.
    
    (And *I'm* a Republican! I'm just not stupid)
    
    Maybe Dan's been working all this time to get to what he's going to be
    after Nov. 3rd, a lame duck! He's doing great at it.
    
    
    Marilyn

    re .108:
    
    The prediction that Bush will die in office has been circulated in
    astrological circles for quite some time.  This interpretation is
    most directly based upon Bush's natal conjunction of the Moon and
    Saturn in his 8th house.  Aspects and planets in the 8th house often
    indicate the circumstances of one's death.  Since Saturn is there
    a death related to work is suggested.   With the Moon also there,
    the indication of a death in office is strengthened.
    
    If it comes to pass, I hope that he is far from the White House by then ...
    maybe mayor of Kennybunkport in 1993 ;-} 
    
    Todd

    I don't like posting anything about anyone's death, but I couldn't
    resist this (the devil made me do it).  Maybe the death will be
    caused by loss of the election (still work related).  
    
    To get to a more optimistic view on this, could the death be
    related to a change (work, life style)?  When do the charts sug-
    gest a death.
    
    Joanne who wishes him a long and prosperous life outside of the
    white house

	The brother of a friend of mine is a Secret Service agent,
	and is in fact one of Mr Quayle's bodyguards.  He passed on
	a couple of amusing items about our illustrious VP:

	1) The Secret Service assigns code-names to all the members
	of the "royal family."  The refer to Quayle as "Skippy."

	2) The gray hair at Dan's temples is not there naturally.
	His media advisors recommended that he dye it that color 
	in order to appear more believable and "mature."

	-Art

       
    Dave Barry for the weekend:
    
       "He's so dumb, he'd eat bait," is a common fish expression,
        which means that the only fish you're in any danger of catching
        are the total morons of the marine community, which is why,
        when you see them mounted on people's walls, they always have 
        a vaguely vice-presidential expression.
       
        Not that I'm naming names."

    Disagree.
    
    Outlawing guns does not equate to every criminal carrying sawn-off
    shotguns, and the survival rate going down.  You are only considering
    what *might* happen in just one country - the USA.  Most of the rest of
    the world prohibits private citizens from owning guns except for very
    specific purposes (with some notable exceptions like Switzerland, but
    that's different again), and few criminals in those countries carry
    sawn-off shotguns, and the survival rate from gunshot wounds is no
    worse than in the US.
    
    How many people from the US would willingly live in the middle of the
    troubles in Belfast?  Yet there are more people killed by guns in the
    Washington DC area alone each year than are killed in 5 years in
    Belfast.  Tell me which is a safer place to live.......
    
    I'm not anti-gun.  In their place they are a potentially useful tool. 
    But the generalisations banded about on this topic serve only to
    instill fear, leading to a worse problem than existed before.
    
    <flame off>

    
    Washington D.C. has one of the toughest gun control laws in the
    country... and one of the worst problems.. 
    
    States and cities that allow for private ownership of firearms in the
    U.S. have much lower death rates... private ownership of firearms acts
    as a deterrent.. not a catalyst.
    
    mary
    
    p.s.  Watch what's happening in Japan... 

    So what you're implying, Mary, is that the lesser control the lesser
    the problem, right?  I would agree that excess control tends to create
    problems, but ther comes a point where reduction of control also
    increases the problem - it's rather like a hyperbolic curve.  That
    applies to taxation, too, but that's for a whole nother topic ...
    
    

    What I'm saying is that victims have to be able to defend themselves.
    .. to protect themselves.. 
    
    Now I'm not saying there should be *no* control... understand that?
    
    Here in Massachusetts we have a record number of restraining orders
    out... society trying to protect individual's involved in domestic
    violence.. but those who are over the edge pay no more attention to
    restraining orders than they do to convention... 
    
    People shouldn't be prosecuted for defending themselves.. 

re: 1732.115 
HAMER::MONTALVO 
    
>    outlaw guns and the criminals who earn a million dollars a year
>    trafficking cocaine and crack will pay brazil thousnads to import
>    illegal guns. The overhead will be passed onto the consumer...

	This statement confuses me. What overhead will be passed on to
	which consumers ?  You seem to be saying that imported Brazillian
	guns will cause the street-price of cocaine to go up.

>    ........................................................... outlaw
>    guns and every criminal will be toting sawed off shotguns. and the
>    survival rate of shot victims will go down.

	I live in DC, where most of the criminals are carrying 9 mm
	handguns these days, although there are a few Uzi's floating
	around. The survival rate of gunshot victims here is already
	very low.

	-Art

    Did someone mention "Gun Control"?
    
    Laurie.

    .. no.. why do you ask? :-)

    Well it looks like Perot is back in the race. He has pointed out that
    he will not stoop to mud slinging and has promised to stick to the
    issues. This, if nothing else, will make a pleasant change in modern
    politics.

    Jamie.

    A pleasant change would be if Perot would actually SAY something
    instead of pussyfooting around.  All I've heard so far is that "all
    Americans must carry their fair share of the cost".  I LOVE this
    statement ...... 'cos I'm living here and I'm NOT American, so I won't
    have to share the cost.  Right?  :^)
    
    Personally, I wouldn't trust Perot further than I could throw my
    mother-in-law's grand piano ....
    
    Brian

    
    Mary,  what's happening in Japan?  I haven't heard. 
    
    RE: Perot - my great aunt used to live down the street from him in Irving,
    Texas.  She said he was nice on a personal basis, but she didn't think
    she'd trust him to hold money for her.  I still haven't decided,
    myself.
    
    - Russ 

    Oh... they've been getting a lot of handguns smuggled in from the
    former Soviet Union and it's been having an effect on the violent
    crime rate, (cause only the gangsters are armed over there)... and 
    they're blaming America for it (typical... don't accept responsibility 
    for your own conditions)
    

    I thought the only people who might vote for Perot would be those who      
    find the National Enquirer intellectually too demanding.
    

    
    Actually, I can't make up my mind.  The Democratic party is the only
    known demon to me.  I hear lots of nasty rhetoric from the Republicans,
    and nothing from Perot (although personal opinions from grandmothers
    might be helpful ;-).  How can anyone make a valid decision from almost
    zero information?
    
    Beth
    Still "undeclared"

     While the democratic party has had an uneven record over the past few
    years (what party in the world has not?) they cannot be blamed for the      
    shambolic state of the US economy; that is clearly the result of Reagan
    and his cronies ;that is no reason to consider Perot a viable
    alternative.   

    re: .129
    
    I have a few friends who insist that Reagan and Bush are not the
    problem; that the Democratic Senate/Congress are the ones who won't
    agree with Reagan/Bush and are causing all our economic woes.
    
    I'm not sure I agree with this, but I don't have enough information
    (get a headache when I think about politics too much ;^) to make any
    strong assertions against thier conclusions.
    
    What are your opinions?
    
    Best,
    Michelle

RE: .124 (Brian)

>    Americans must carry their fair share of the cost".  I LOVE this
>    statement ...... 'cos I'm living here and I'm NOT American, so I won't
>    have to share the cost.  Right?  :^)

    First off, he didn't say "*only* Americans must carry their fair share
    of the cost."  In any case, American is really an adjective, and while
    you may not be an "American citizen" you are an "American resident".
    So you aren't off the hook. :-)

					Topher

    
    I read an editorial the other day that suggested that special
    interest groups were really responsible for the deadlock in 
    Washington.....more blaming, right? ;-)
    
    
    guy

    
    Well, I talked with someone who has payed a bit more attention to the
    news lately, and his interpretation of Perot is that aside from a great
    economic plan (supposedly got rave reviews from major economists, very
    detailed), he mentions nothing else.
    
    Beth

    I'm afraid that Perot's re-entry into the race will draw off those
    disenchanted with Bush but uninclined to vote Democratic, losing votes
    for Clinton, thus leaving Bush in the White House.
    
    Personally, the more I read about the Libertarians the more I like
    them.  
    
    karl

    The professional analysts seem to think that who will be drawn off by
    the Perot re-entry varies, basically, from state to state, depending on
    the specific reasons for the voters' preference for one or the other.
    It may be a wash.  Texas, however, which some say is absolutely
    necessary for a Bush win, would seem to be a situation where the Perot
    voters will tend to come from Bush.  On the other hand, what do the
    professional analysts really know?

				    Topher

    I was just reading the bit back there on who was to blame for the mess
    America is in and I got to thinking.

    In the UK  we vote in a government and then permit the members of that
    government to elect their leader. In turn the leader selects the
    cabinet. This ensures that the government, the cabinet and the Prime
    Minister are all more or less on the same side, thus we have no problem
    in apportioning blame when things go wrong. It also ensures that the
    cabinet and the government are not usually in total opposition to each
    other.

    It might be interesting to see what happens if Perot splits the vote
    and Congress gets to choose the President. 

    Jamie.                                         

     RE:130  It is in the interest of every Congressman ,Republican or
    Democrat , to gain as much as possible from federal government in terms
    of grants , defence projects , subsidies and so on for their own
    constituencies . Congressmen are elected for the jobs and contracts
    that they deliver ,not for the ideology they expouse . The executive is
    not above using this Congressional self-interest for its own ends .For
    example the Stealth Bomber project would not have gone through the
    legislature had contracts been widely spread ;in fact 49 out of 50
    states have a stake in the B1 .                                             
             To blame the Democrat Congress for the United States economic
    woes , and particularly for the massive budget deficit , is a
    misnomer.The fault lies largely with the system of government itself.On
    top of this there have been Reagan , Bush and some way back Nixon and
    Ford . The problem with Republican presidents (and with Tories here in
    Britain ) is thererefusal to face facts.
             Nixon long maintained US commitment to the Vietnam War but
    refused to raise taxes to finance it. Instead he printed more money .
    This led to several years of severe inflation and sluggish growth .Reagan 
    initiated the biggest military build up in history but refused to raise
    taxes .Instead he borrowed the money and the result has been the
    massive budget deficit which , incidentally , has almost exactly
    matched the increase in military spending .
             The moral of course is do not vote for conservatives (Bush ,
    Major ) if you want sound government.
                                         

re: 1732.136 
HOO78C::ANDERSON 

    In the UK  we vote in a government and then permit the members of that
    government to elect their leader. [...]

    It might be interesting to see what happens if Perot splits the vote
    and Congress gets to choose the President. 

	Actually, if you read some of the papers of the Founding Fathers,
	you discover that it was *never* their intention that the President
	should be elected by the popular vote.  They generally assumed that
	the popular vote would deadlock 9 times out of 10, thus giving 
	Congress the ability to choose the President.  It was apparently
	quite a shock to them all when things didn't turn out that way.

	The best-laid plans, etc...

	-Art

    What I read was that Perot's plan was great for several years back, but
    now that we're in recession it's too late and would be disastrous.

His economic plan may be great but what about his entering bedrooms, spying 
on people, his anti-gay, anti-black comments, etc, etc, etc.....

Sam

    Well I for one don't want him entering my bedroom, he's ugly.

    Jamie.

He sure is -)

    
    Well, see that's what I'm trying to find out about Perot.  Is he
    proposing to make changes to legislation, or is it his personal
    beliefs, which he won't act on as President.  I guess I'm hoping for a
    president who will manage the business of a government and stay out of
    private lives and decisions like abortion, sexual preference, family
    definitions, etc.  There are some things the government should stay out
    of (like bedrooms and minds), and some how this needs defining before
    the government is too entrenched in controlling the masses.
    
    Beth

    >I guess I'm hoping for a president who will manage the business of a
    >government and stay out of private lives and decisions like abortion,
    >sexual preference, family definitions, etc.

    Sitting as I do on the other side of the Atlantic I take an amused and
    disinterested view of the Presidential election. In my opinion the
    candidates would just love to steer well clear of all the things you
    mention Beth. Each of these issues is political dynamite, no matter
    which side you even appear to support it will cost you votes.

    However I notice that the special interest groups try to force all the
    candidates to take a stand. So far no candidate has had the courage to
    say something like, "I don't give didley squat about abortion." Whether
    this would be a vote winner is debatable, but at least it would be
    refreshingly honest. 

    Jamie.

    
    
    
    
    Why is it that Jamie Anderson seems always to have the last word in
    each note?
    
    Guy
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Jamie
    
    

    It has often puzzled me too.

    Jamie.

    
      See 1733.116
    
    
    Guy
    
    
    

From Creation Spirituality, September/October 1992 (Mathew Fox's magazine):

	In the past couple of years the family of President George Bush has 
demonstrated a pattern of conflictual interest which gives new meaning to 
the term nepotism. Curiously, these news items have seen little, if any, 
coverage in the mainstream press. To wit:

Prescott Bush, brother, was paid $250,000 for "investment advice" he gave to 
a Tokyo real esate firm and another company, both of which have ties to a 
Japanese organized-crime syndicate. (San Francisco Examiner, 7/28/91)

Neil Bush, son, as a director of Colorado's Silverado Savings and Loan, 
voted to approve over $100 million in loans to his business partners. When 
Silverado was forced to shut down, regulators were told to delay the closing 
until AFTER election day in 1988. Neil was later hired in July 1991 as a 
director of a cable sports network, whose president has been flaunting this 
inside track to the White House in the cable industry's battle to stave off 
re-regulation. (Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 7/19/91 and 8/6/91)

Jeb Bush, son, as Miami G.O.P. chairman, accepted contributions from a local 
bussinessman who is now serving 23 years for smuggling cocaine and marijauna 
into the United States. This same businessman was also a dedicated Reaganite 
and an active supporter of the Contras. (Spin 12/3/91)

George W. Bush, son, as a director and $50,000-a-year "consultant" to Texas' 
Harken Energy, owersaw the signing of a potentially lucrative contract 
between his company and Behrain,a tiny island off the coast of Saudi Arabia. 
Coincidentally, George W. sold more than 200,000 shares of Harken stock just 
weeks before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, an event which, together with a poor 
earnings report, sent prices tumbling. (The Texas Observer, 7/12/91 and 
9/20/91)

Behind the Bush Administration's increasingly hard-line stance agaainst 
environmental laws and regulations is a little-known but extradordinarily 
influential instution: the White House Council on on Competitiveness, headed 
by Vice President Dan Quayle.
	Item: The refusal of the Admininistion to sign a biodiversity treaty 
at the UN Conference on the Environment and Development. Item: The new 
loophole in the air pollution permit rules under the 1990 Clean Air Act 
ammendments that allows polluters to exceed their limits. Item: The 
weekening of wetlands regulations, opening up millions of acres - formerly 
desginated as wetlands - to development.
	All of these actions had their genesis in influence exerted over te 
the EPA and other agencies by the Competiveness Council, with the full 
backing of the Bush White House.

...During the council's two years of life, the group has successfully 
intervened to weaken important environmental regulations that 
environmentalists have fought hard to obtain. The most notorious action is 
their June 1992 success in forcing the EPA to essentially gut portions of 
the Clean Air Act. Under the final rule, published in June, companies will 
now be able to exceed their air pollution permits by up to 245 tons.

From "Report From Capitol Hill, Council on Competiveness", in Buzzworm, The 
Environmental Journal, Sept/Oct. 1992.

    At the meeting of the Virginia Astrological Society last Saturday there
    was much talk about this subject (surprise!).   There was also, not
    surprisingly, a lot of forecasts of the outcome.  The concensus was
    that the result would still be in doubt until Hawaii declared it's
    results.  HOWEVER, there was also a lot of speculation about an
    interpretation that one respected astrologer did that said the elected
    president, whoever he would be, would be assassinated within 3 months of
    coming into office.  I didn't follow the argument too well - has
    anoyone in here heard about this speculation?
    
    Now, which V-P do we want in office ..... ;^)
    
    Brian

    Re: Sam
    
    "like a steel locomotive, rolling down the track,
     he's gone... gone... nothings going to bring him back...
     .... he's gone"

    Re .148
    
    Regardless of what Neil Bush may have told his cable company boss,
    George Bush did not veto the bill passed by Congress which will
    re-regulate the cable business. 
    
    With regards to his brother, several presidents have been "blessed"
    with less than savoury relatives, Reagan and Carter come to mind.....
    
    I'm not defending Bush, but his presidency should (for the most part) 
    rest on his accomplishments or lack thereof, not on the behaviour of
    his relatives.
    
    
    Marilyn

    I'm not defending Bush, but his presidency should (for the most part) 
    rest on his accomplishments or lack thereof, not on the behaviour of
    his relatives.

Not when we're paying for it with our tax money.

    "... George Bush did not veto the bill passed by Congress which will
    re-regulate the cable business."
    
    That isn't true.  He did veto it.  Congress overrode his veto.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .152
    
    I think the behavior of his sons is certainly important.  Especially
    coming from a president who so strongly preaches "family values" and
    insinuates that only he and his supporters have them.
    
    Mary

I agree Mary, that's why I put un there and also because we will be paying 
for Neil Bush's Savings and Loans fiascos for years.

Sam

>Path: 
sousa.ltn.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!sol.ctr.col
umbia.edu!usc!nic.csu.net!vax.sonoma.edu!feinstei
>From: [email protected]
>Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.drugs
>Subject: Why Not To Vote For Perot
>Summary: No regard for the Constitution
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>Date: 23 Oct 92 05:37:25 GMT
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>Followup-To: alt.activism.d
>Organization: Sonoma State University
>Lines: 122
>Xref: sousa.ltn.dec.com alt.activism:34001 alt.drugs:34585
>Nntp-Posting-Host: vax.sonoma.edu
>This is a flyer published by the Petaluma Peace Group. It has been
>reproduced without permission. Any typos are mine. The Petaluma Peace 
>Group can be contacted at (707) 778-1694. 
> 
>*** This has been crossposted!! Please
>    direct followups to alt.activism.d
> 
> 
>---------------------------- cut here --------------------------
> 
>                PEROT AGAIN??  HERE'S WHY NOT
> 
>"You can declare civil war and the drug dealer is the enemy. There
>ain't no bail. . . [Drug dealers] go to POW camp. You can start
>dealing with the problem in straight military terms."
>   -- Ross Perot on "Today" TV show, 1989
> 
>"Perot suggested 'cordoning off minority neighborhoods and
>conducting a house-to-house search' for narcotics and weapons."
>  -- Newsday 4-12-92
> 
>	Anyone who could advocate suspending the U.S. Constitution
>in such a cavalier manner is a danger to democracy. Here's more:
> 
>  1) On the environment: "If there's a choice between survival and
>protecting the planet, we will pillage and plunder the planet, if it
>gets that basic." [Ross Perot, quoted in the Marin Independent
>Journal 5-30-92]
> 
>  2) "Perot favored the dispatch of a commando team to assassinate
>Saddam Hussein. Under present American law that would be murder, and
>recently Perot has sought to obscure his earlier proposal." [The
>Nation 6-15-92]
> 
>  3) Perot said, "bank examiners should loosen their definitions
>about prudent loans and reduce the amounts banks must reserve
>against potential losses." [S.F. Chronicle 5-5-92] (Where was he
>during the $500 billion savings and loan disaster?)
> 
>  4) "In Texas [Perot] lobbied for a law that would increase the 
>power of the state police to bug and wiretap." [The Nation 6-15-92]
> 
>  5) Perot's simple-minded answer to the deficit problem puts the
>burden on regular Americans instead of the super-rich who were the
>only beneficiaries of the Reagan-Bush economic and tax policies that
>caused the deficit. Please see the Petaluma Peace Group's booklet,
>"The U.S. Economy: What's Wrong, Why and How To Fix It" for further
>discussion of this issue.
> 
>  6) Perot's idea of nationwide "electronic town meetings" sounds
>nice but who will decide what options are allowed to be proposed?
>*He will*. For example, health care: "We'd want to make sure that
>all across America people understood what *we believed* was the best
>way to administer health care for the people of the United States...
>When you really need to start talking _to_ the people is when you
>have something to say." [emphasis added] [Ross Perot on C-SPAN
>5-17-92]. Sounds more like a monthly propaganda outlet than anything
>resembling democracy.
> 
>  Will he let Noam Chomsky or Michael Parenti or Helen Caldicott or
>Jim Hightower or William Greider or Ron Dellunms on the air to 
>present a progressive agenda? Remember, this is a Vietnam hawk who
>spent approximately a million dollars on advertising to support
>Nixon's continued prosecution of the Vietnam war.
> 
>  Will he even allow issues to be discussed that would make a real
>difference in people's lives? To mention just a few:
> 
>  a) Drastic reductions in the military budget. For example, the U.S.
>government will spend approximately $120 billion next year to defend
>Europe against a threat that even Bush agrees no longer exists. Perot
>is mum on this obvious cause of the deficit and the equally obvious
>solution of greatly reducing the military budget.
> 
>  b) Rolling back the Reagan & Bush give-aways to the rich on tax
>rates. "If rich corporations and individuals were paying taxes today
>at the 1979 rate there would be _no_ yearly budget deficit - we'd 
>have at least $300 billion more a year." [Michael Parenti on KPFA
>February 1992]
> 
>  c) Rolling back the Reagan/Bush give-aways to big business by
>re-regulating their behavior on the public interest. The $500 billion
>S&L scandal, big business moving jobs overseas without retraining
>their U.S. workforces, the degradation of the environment, etc. could
>all be avoided if government was performing its rightful function of
>"promoting the general welfare."
> 
>  d) Complete public financing of elections to limit the power of big
>money (including Perot's) in politics for good.
> 
>  e) Proven European and Canadian solutions to health care, drug
>abuse, homelessness, and other social issues.
> 
>  f) U.S. government respect for international law abroad and our own
>constitutional rights here at home.
> 
>     Don't hold your breath. Perot, by the way, made his billions by
>having his non-union companies charge Medicare and Medicaid almost 3
>times their costs to process health care claims (a rate of return 
>usually reserved for defense contractors), amid charges of influence-
>peddling, arm-twisting, etc. "Still, after all these years Perot has
>yet to make money selling anything to the private sector or consumers.
>[The Nation 6-15-92]
> 
>     Control and manipulation seem to be the hallmarks of his business
>style. As Oliver North says in his book _Under Fire_, "I applied for a
>job with EDS, the Texas-based company owned by Ross Perot. EDS has a 
>wonderful reputation and people said it was the closest you could come
>to a military environment within the private sector." Marvelous.
> 
>     Mussolini made the trains run on time, too, *but at what cost?*
>Don't let this ego-maniac buy the presidency. We are in enough trouble
>already.
> 
>A Petaluma Peace Group Publication. For more info, call (707) 778-1694.
> 
>---------------------------- cut here --------------------------
> 
> 
>--
>Josh Feinstein <[email protected]>        I disclaim nothing.
>PGP key available via .plan or email
***********************************************************************
	Sam Gentile
	Digital Equipment Corp.
***********************************************************************

    My prediction for the election is that it will be a 
    Clinton/Gore win and we'll know early morning.  
    
    Mary, keep chanting!!!!  
    
    Joanne

>Path: 
sousa.ltn.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!destroyer!g
umby!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!daemon
>From: [email protected] (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
>Newsgroups: 
misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,bit.listserv.p
olitics
>Subject: Letters To the Editors (2)
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>Date: 25 Oct 92 04:59:56 GMT
>Sender: [email protected]
>Followup-To: alt.activism.d
>Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
>Lines: 77
>Approved: [email protected]
>Xref: sousa.ltn.dec.com misc.activism.progressive:8247 alt.activism:34049 
alt.politics.elections:19225
>Originator: [email protected]
>Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
>Letters To the Editors (2)
> 
> 
>Letters to the Editor 
>[name of newspaper] 
>[address] 
>[city, state, zip] 
> 
> 
>To the Editor: 
> 
>Is it any wonder George Bush is resorting to sleaze and outright 
>lies in his bid for re-election?  After all, it's the family 
>way in the Bush households.  Consider these family scandals 
>while George has been President: 
> 
>* His son Neil was involved in conflict of interest in the 
>  failed Silverado savings and loan, and was fined $50,000 
> 
>* His son Jeb accepted improper political contributions 
> 
>* His brother Prescott had a highly paid role as adviser to 
>  a Tokyo investment firm identified by Japanese police as a front 
>  for the mob 
> 
>* His son George Jr. dumped $848,000 in energy stocks on the 
>  market, prompting an investigation of possibly illegal 
>  insider trading 
> 
>* His brother Jonathan was fined $30,000 for violating securities 
>  laws in two states. 
> 
>Are these the "family values" Mr. Bush is always talking about? 
> 
> 
>Sincerely, 
> 
>[signature] 
> 
>[name typed] 
> 
>[Include your address and daytime phone so the newspaper can verify 
>that you wrote the letter; this information won't be published.] 
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>From:
>Topic 298            SEND THESE LETTERS TO EDITORS! 
>[email protected]    elections.usa    9:19 pm  Oct 16, 1992 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
>Here are some suggested letters to the editor touching on points 
>that may help sway undecided voters toward Bill Clinton.  Note 
>that I am NOT in any way connected with the campaign and these 
>have not been generated, read, or approved by the campaign.  If 
>you adapt the information for your own letters, you should not 
>represent these as the views of the campaign.  (If your letter 
>seems to be part of an organized effort, it probably won't be 
>published anyway.) 
> 
>Letters are the most well-read part of the newspaper (after 
>sports and comics, that is).  You get a chance to say it your 
>way, and your neighbors are impressed by the views of 
>letter-writers, whom they view as peers.  This can be a very 
>effective way to reach people. 
> 
>There usually is a delay of several days between a newspaper's 
>receipt of a letter and publication of it; the letters columns 
>are done in advance.  Therefore, if you intend to use these, 
>DON'T DELAY; take a few minutes with your word processor now, 
>re-word to suit your taste, print them out, and submit. 
> 
>If you use any of these letters please send a REPLY to this 
>message indicating which letter you used and which newspaper 
>you submitted it to; if it is published please post a note 
>letting us know that. 
> 
>-- Steve Freedkin, Santa Barbara, CA ([email protected]) 

***********************************************************************
	Sam Gentile				Aho Mitakuye Oyasin
	Digital Equipment Corp.
	Office and TeamWare Engineering
	Nashua NH
	[email protected]

***********************************************************************

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 Posted by Clinton/Gore Email
 October 25, 1992
 
                   NEW IRAQGATE REVELATIONS SHOW
             HOW FAR BUSH TILTED TO FAVOR SADDAM HUSSEIN
    [Statement by George Stephanopoulos, Communications Director]
 
      George Bush has bragged that foreign policy is his strength, and
 that only he can be trusted to guide the nation's affairs.
 
      If foreign policy is his strong suit, heaven help the economy.
 
      It is now clear that George Bush and his then-Secretary of
 State, James Baker, rammed through a pro-Iraq policy over the
 objections of others in the government and in the face of evidence
 that Saddam Hussein was misusing American aid.  This pro-Iraq
 obsession was visible at the beginning of Bush's term, and it
 extended up until the very moment Saddam's troops stormed into
 Kuwait.
 
      President Bush has claimed that his intent in coddling the Iraqi
 tyrant was merely "to bring Saddam Hussein into the family of
 nations."  But it is now quite clear that his pro-Iraq policy was
 nearly an obsession.
 
 *    According to today's New York Times, Bush's cable to Iraq days
      before its invasion of Kuwait was so weakly worded that the
      Pentagon sought to block it.  The Defense Department's
      objections came at a time when Iraq was threatening Kuwait, and
      had massed more than 100,000 troops on the border.  The State
      Department drafted a conciliatory cable to the Iraqi dictator.
>      "We were already seeing troops moving," Henry S. Rowen, then
>      Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs,
>      told the Times.  "We were getting worried, and we were putting
>      up this piece of pap.  It was just very weak.  We should have
>      been much more threatening."
> 
> *    Secretary of State Baker personally intervened to extend U.S.
>      loan guarantees to Iraq three years ago, despite explicit
>      warnings from a prosecutor that the Iraqis were criminally
>      involved in misusing previous loan guarantees.  Documents
>      released yesterday by the Senate Agriculture Committee show that
>      the prosecutor warned of "criminal complicity" in the Banca
>      Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) scandal by Iraqi officials.
>      Nonetheless, Baker lobbied the Agriculture Department to reverse
>      its objections to extension of loan guarantees to Iraq.
> 
> *    Bush's entanglement with Iraq may stem from his involvement in
>      the arms-for-hostages scandal.  According to an account in the
>      New Yorker, Bush asked Jordan's King Hussein and Egyptian
>      President Hosni Mubarak to pass a message to Saddam Hussein that
>      the U.S. wanted Iraq to step up its bombing of Iran.  A secret
>      State Department memo, which went to U.S. ambassadors abroad,
>      said that Vice-President Bush had been told to "suggest to both
>      King Hussein and President Mubarak that they sustain their
>      efforts to convey our shared views to Saddam regarding Iraq's
>      use of air resources." Within 48 hours after the meeting with
>      Mubarak, the Iraqis began increased bombing of new targets in
>      Iran, flying 359 missions.  Moreover, the New Yorker says that
>      the increased bombing was designed to force Iran to seek more
>      arms, which it would then trade for hostages.
> 
>      If it wasn't clear already, it is clear now: George Bush has not
> told the truth about his administration's actions on Iraq and the
> arms-for-hostages deal.  He has no standing to prattle about trust
> when his own denials are crumbling around him.
> 
>      It's time for George Bush to come clean.  He should start by
> making a full accounting of his administration's actions, and by
> releasing the documents that will reveal the truth about his
> administration's policies.  And he should release the transcript of
> his testimony before the Iran-Contra special prosecutor, and the
> notes of his testimony before the Tower Commission.

***********************************************************************
	Sam Gentile				Aho Mitakuye Oyasin
	Digital Equipment Corp.
	Office and TeamWare Engineering
	Nashua NH
	[email protected]

***********************************************************************

>Here is a press release from the Clinton/Gore Campaign.
> Clinton Campaign Says New Yorker Article Shows Bush 'In Loop' on
>Arms-for-Hostages
> To: National Desk, Political Writer
> Contact: George Stephanopoulos of the Clinton/Gore campaign,
>          501-399-3900
> 
>   LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Oct. 25   -- Following is a statement by 
>George Stephanopoulos, communications director,
>Clinton/Gore campaign:
> 
>   The investigative article in the New Yorker raises devastating
>questions about George Bush's trustworthiness on the
>arms-for-hostages deal, on the policy of supporting Saddam Hussein,
>and on his management of foreign policy generally.
>   George Bush said he was not "in the loop" on arms-for-hostages.
>"I sensed that we were sending arms," he claimed.  "And I sensed that
>we were trying to get the hostages out.  But not arms for hostages."
>[AP, 1/8/88] This article shows that Bush was not only "in the loop,"
>he was a key arms-for-hostages operative.
>   Written by two of the country's most respected journalists, and
>exhaustively documented, the article makes major new charges about
>Bush's role in these scandals:
> 
>   -- It shows that Bush asked Jordan's King Hussein and Egyptian
>President Hosni Mubarak to pass a message to Saddam Hussein that the
>U.S. wanted Iraq to step up its bombing of Iran.  A secret State
>Department memo, which went to U.S. ambassadors abroad, said that the
>Vice-President had been told to "suggest to both King Hussein and
>President Mubarak that they sustain their efforts to convey our
>shared views to Saddam regarding Iraq's use of air resources." [New
>Yorker, p. 756] Within 48 hours after the meeting with Mubarak, the
>Iraqis began increased bombing of new targets in Iran, flying 359
>missions.
>   -- Moreover, according to two top aides to CIA Director William
>Casey, the gambit was designed to increase Iran's need for arms --
>which could then be traded for hostages.
>   -- Policy toward Iran and Iraq must be seen as a foreign policy
>blunder of tragic dimension.  We traded arms for hostages, only
>encouraging Iran to seize more Americans.  And we aided Saddam
>Hussein, helping him build up his military, encouraging him up until
>the moment he invaded Kuwait.
> 
>   It's time for George Bush to come clean on his role in the arms
>for hostages deal.  George Bush should release the transcript of his
>testimony before the Independent Counsel, and the notes of his
>testimony before the Tower Commission.  The American people have a
>right to know the answers to the charges raised today.
> -30-
> 
>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

***********************************************************************
	Sam Gentile				Aho Mitakuye Oyasin
	Digital Equipment Corp.
	Office and TeamWare Engineering
	Nashua NH
	[email protected]

***********************************************************************

    Clinton wins... he might strike a last minute deal for a cabinet post
    for Perot though if the polls look like he needs to... Perot would agree 
    to throwing his support to Clinton, just to spite Bush... if the polls 
    indicate it's unnecessary, then they probably won't bother.... either 
    way.... Bush is history.

    re: way.... Bush is history.
    
    Be careful of writing him off before the polls close on November 3rd. 
    First, remember Yogi Berra, and then particularly remember what a
    sleaze-ball Bush is, and figure if he can do ANYTHING to promote his
    chances of winning, he will.
    
    On the positive side, keep touting positive support for Clinton/Gore
    and the constant barrage of positive thought should win through.  Have
    to read my cards on this one .....
    
    Brian

re: Politski propaganda

I thought:
"
        1.  Subject matter
            
            This conference is for the purpose of discussing the pyschic
            phenomena and related topics. It is not constrained to any 
            particular area, but rather is conceived as a place where we 
            all can benefit from a variety of viewpoints.
        

If I were interested in reading propaganda, I would go to one of those argument-
ative NOTES files. When I open a topic and there are 14 unseen replies, I
suppose my ESP should tell me how many of them are agitprop garbage and how
many are pertinent to the nature of this particular file. My ESP isn't working
for NOTES however (possibly in the next release) and until it does work, I for
one would appreciate a little less of a deluge.

Thanx
Karl

    You see.... propaganda is politically correct, phenomena isn't.