Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Hmmmm.  Is *every* candidate going to have a separate topic?
    
    :^)
    

    I fail to see why anyone feels that Dole has a chance to
    win the White House.
    
    If he's the best the repubs have.....
    
    							Hank

    Why do you fail to see that?  List, say five negative things about
    Dole.  Be serious.

    i don't like his name.  Dole.  Too many people are on it
    already.  Also, he's much too flashy.  he's inflexible -
    he never changes his position on anything.  his wife is
    smarter than he is.  i don't like that.

He never has to borrow a pen.

hth,

Art

    So, what are the reasons Americans should vote for Mr. Dole?
    
    Besides "he's a Republican" and "he isn't Clinton."
    
    -Stephen

He has a military record. I've always admired that in a CIC.

    re. 601.5
    
    That is a pretty cheap shot.  Dole's war wound required numerous
    operations, a year in the hospital, and about three years of
    rehabilitation.  Now, if you are the kind of person who wants to make
    fun of that, fine, but list the sacrifices you have made for your
    country.   Pathetic.

    .8
    
    A CIC with a military record, esepcially a good record, is likely to
    think of diplomatic problems in terms of guns.  Witness Eisenhoover,
    Kennedy, and so on.  I'd prefer a CIC who's NOT a former military type,
    one who talks until talking won't work and then turns his generals
    loose to do the talking.

He makes good pineapple.

    Dole doesn't look like a prez.  Ill-fitted cheap-looking clothing, a
    confrontational manner that's about as diplomatic as Snoop Doggy
    Dogg's, a nitpicking, backbiting personality that quite frankly makes
    me gag, and a holier-than-thou attitude that would scare Bishop Sheen
    out of three sermons at least.

     
    Dole has been a turncoat in the past.  Feels he's entitled to the job.
    I see George Bush the second here.
    
    -Jack

Re: .10 I wouldn't say that Sliq has been all that hesitant to send our
armed forces out to various spots on the globe. 

    dole is just a tired, old Washington insider.

    .14
    
    Being willing to send our armed forces in where they're requested isn't
    quite the same as sending them in where they're not wanted, like maybe
    Haiti.

    He isn't Clinton.
    
    
    Oh, I wasn't supposed to use that one, was I?
    
    Don't really like Dole, but the fact is that I'd vote for him in a
    heartbeat if Clinton was the only other name on the ballot.
    
    
    -steve

    re. 10
    
    You mean someone like Clinton who is sending a re-enforced armored
    division to Bosnia.  

>    A CIC with a military record, esepcially a good record, is likely to
>    think of diplomatic problems in terms of guns.  Witness Eisenhoover,
>    Kennedy, and so on.

Yup. And one without a military record is going to tend to either shy
away from that option when it's required, or misunderstand/misuse it when
it's appropriate. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "thinking" about 
diplomatic problems in terms of guns. It puts you one leg up on the
competition, at worst.

>  I'd prefer a CIC who's NOT a former military type, one who talks until 
>  talking won't work and then turns his generals loose to do the talking.

You may. I wouldn't. There's nothing to prevent a CIC with a miltary background
from acting as you'd like. There's little to suggest that a CIC lacking one
knows how to command.

    
      We have had numerous generals as president, and not a one ever
     started a war.  The war entry went largely to non-career soldiers
     who had done minimal service.
    
      Nor is this just a US phenomenon - note Hindenburg's caution,
     Corporal Hitler's wild attacks.  Career soldiery is a very
     cautious business.
    
      bb

    When Dole gives a prepared statement, he speaks in a monotone.

    It's going to be difficult for him to try to give a rousing campaign
    speech.  His speech writers won't be able to help him much with that.

    Dole was a combat infantry officer, is that right?  What was his
    highest rank? 
    
    Bush, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan weren't career soldiers.  Carter, who went
    to Annapolis, was.  I don't know anything about Ford's military record.
    
    -Stephen

    .20
    
    > We have had numerous generals as president, and not a one ever
    > started a war.
    
    Quite so.  But our ex-military prezzes have done us proud nonetheless. 
    Eisenhoover got us into Viet Nam.  Kennedy escalated our participation
    there.  Bush put us into Somalia and Macedonia.  

I, along with about 38,000 other U.S. Sailors and Marines, was within
radar range (about 20 miles, in fact) of Cuba in April 1962 when
ex-military President Kennedy *didn't* send us in to support the
counterrevolutionaries at the Bahia de los Cochinos. Not very hawkish,
that. Watching the slaughter from our vantage point, we thought it was
kind of wimpy, in fact.

Art

 ZZ    Dole doesn't look like a prez.
    
    Non substantive.  Try again.
    
    By the by, I thought Kennedy got us into Vietnam.

Macedonia?  I musta missed that one.

    
    Eisenhower approved the sending of a very small detachment of American
    military advisers to South Vietnam. Kennedy slighted expanded their
    numbers and scope, but the real mover-and-shaker behind the American
    debacle in Vietnam was Lyndon Baines Johnson, and his crew of McNamara,
    Bundy, Dean Rusk, etc. Johnson, not unlike the present CinC, went out
    of his way during WW2 NOT to get shot or see active, combat duty.
    
    Eisenhower was very very conservative about deploying US troops
    overseas, and repeatedly refused to entertain the possibility of
    sending troops into the Balkans -- which should perhaps give us pause
    at the present moment.

    The Kennedys always had bad luck with pigs

>    By the by, I thought Kennedy got us into Vietnam.

Sorry, whippersnapper. His Republican predecessor is to blame for
not having the good sense to leave alone what the French were wise
enough to recognize as an impossible situation. Saint John of Kennedy
only made it worse, as did his successor, Lyndon "BJ" of Texas.

>    debacle in Vietnam was Lyndon Baines Johnson, and his crew of McNamara,
>    Bundy, Dean Rusk, etc.

... who were carryovers from the Kennedy administration, I believe.

    
    There's a fundamental difference between sending advisers (or is that
    advisors) -- specialists to help beef up the military (e.g. Haiti,
    1995) and deciding to fight the whole war ourselves.

    .25
    
    > By the by, I thought Kennedy got us into Vietnam.
    
    Think again.  And read a history book.  Here's a starter, from
    Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia.  My comments are in brackets:
    
        By 1953 [the United States] were providing 80 percent of the cost
        of France's war effort.  [But no personnel!]
    
        ...the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) was advised by some
        700 Americans, who replaced the French in 1956.  [Our entry - on
        Eisenhoover's watch.

    .26
    
    We are in Macedonia, ostensibly to prevent the spread of the Bosnian
    conflict.

     .30
    
    What a difference the chief executive makes.
    
    It's pure conjecture, but I can't believe Kennedy would have gone the
    bodycount route.

Is the force in Macedonia NATO, UN, or U.S.?

    UN, but the troops are 'Muricans, and they went in at "our"
    instigation.  We have long believed in the domino theory - that's why
    we went to 'Nam.

re: .34, John

>    What a difference the chief executive makes.

I'm no JFK fan, but I have to agree. At least Kennedy had sufficient common
sense and, thanks to his military background, military sense, to not take
the advice of Rusk, MacNamara and Bundy as gospel and goodness. Ol' Lyndon,
on the other hand, having more ears than anything between them, was quite
the pliable patsy to those clowns.

    .38
    
    Ol' Lyndon, FWIW, received a report from MacNamara in which Bob said we
    had two choices.  One was get out while the getting was good.  The
    other was throw another half million men in, and expect a casualty
    rate of 1000/month - with still no possibility that we'd win.  Patsy
    Lyndon, desiring to be remembered as the prez who won the VN war, threw
    in the men.

Which certainly proves the point upon which John and I were agreeing.

Why Vote for Dole? 

	Years of service to his country, both militarily and politically.
	Experienced leader (minority/majority party)
	Experienced in negociations (not always with results to my liking)
	Generally conservative (but not steadfastly enough)
	Does not make snap judgements or decisions (evaluates)

	He understands the scope of the current debt problem and is more willing
		to address it than our current pres.

	He is a republican, which means less gridlock and more progress with
		the current majority in congress.
	
	He is NOT Bill Clinton !!!! (Who has lied more times in three years
		than Dole has in his whole career)

	
WHile he is not my first choice in the consevative pool, he is the one likely
to put forward, and for all his faults, he is far more tolerable and far less
embarrassing than our current CiC.

Doug.

> WHile he is not my first choice in the consevative pool, he is the one likely
> to put forward, and for all his faults, he is far more tolerable and far less
> embarrassing than our current CiC.

Ditto.

    Why I won't vote for Dole:
    
    He's a Republican, and there's precious little of the Republican
    platform I agree with or want turned into legislation.
    
    He's been in the Washington political arena too long - too many 
    connections, too many buddys, too many loyalties.
    
    He changes his mind and his position too often - he compromises
    too much.
    
    His ideas of decency, tolerance and morality and not even close
    to mine.
    
    I've never seen him laugh or tell a joke or even smile.  I don't
    trust a man who can't smile in public once in a while.
    
    Mind you, I'm not poising my pencil over Bill Clinton either.
    I'm still waiting to be impressed by someone, anyone, who is
    fresh, full of ideas and willing to run for president. So far
    all I've seen is 1.) a bunch of tired politicians who've been
    re-treading the same old stump material election after election; 
    and 2.) people with absolutely no political experience who want 
    me to hand them the entire country to run. Nope, there's nothing
    out there to get excited about yet.
    
    Mary-Michael
       
    

re: .43 -- I agree with most of what you say, but it's sad that we might
have to hold our noses and vote for the least offensive. The race will
probably be between Clinton and Dole. In this case my X would go next to
Dole.

Art

ZZ     Years of service to his country, both militarily and politically.
            Experienced leader (minority/majority party)
            Experienced in negociations (not always with results to my
    liking)
            Generally conservative (but not steadfastly enough)
ZZ            Does not make snap judgements or decisions (evaluates)
    
  George Bush

    .44
    
    Dole would be the first step on the path to a Nehemiah Scudder.  Read
    Robert Heinlein's "If This Goes On" - and quake in your boots.  That is
    where unprincipled conservatism goes.

    .46
    good for you to bring in a book that is all a figment of someone's
    imagination -that's called FICTION_ in these parts, and apply that to
    the '96 Prez race...no wonder with voters of the mn mindsets like you
    we have the imbeciles reelected liked tenured public schools teachers
    over and over and over again until a Newt with guts books a bet and
    made it payoff CODA.  
    
    ot Rovre

re:       <<< Note 601.46 by SMURF::BINDER "Eis qui nos doment uescimur." >>>

So, Dick, having read in here of your general support of Slick in the next
election in preference to Dole, I'm left puzzling.

Slick, who gave us the crime bill with the attachments that infringe on
citizen's rights.

Slick, who gave us Janet Reno and her private armies in the Treasury Dept.
that infringe upon citizen's rights.

Slick, who takes every opportunity to convince the sheep that his warped
sense of the first ten amendments is "good for you".

Dick, how on earth do you buy this guy as "preferable" to Dole?

    
    "Quit lying about my record."
    
    Was George Bush lying ?

  My take was that Bush characterized Dole's temperance and time-taking
  evaluation as waffling and yes, this was inaccurate. But Dole has a
  habit, not unlike that of Clinton, to speak to many sides of an issue
  in an effort to evaluate the entire issue, before actually coming down
  with a position.

  Was it a lie? Bush probably knew better. More like and opportunistic 
  unflattering and perhaps inaccurate characterization, but until that
  point Dole hadn't made up his mind (on which issue I forget) so although 
  he hadn't made up his mind he hadn't changed it either, which could
  be considered a form of waffling.

  Were Bush's actions deliberate? yup!

  Doug.

>MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" 
>George Bush

George Bush was a very good president. His failure was talking tough and then
giving in, and then not countering every slick lie that the clinton machine
produced on a daily basis.

Doug.

>George Bush was a very good president. 
    
    Methinks your standards are too low. If foreign policy were the sole
    consideration, then I could agree with you. But domestically Bush
    didn't have the 'nads to stand up to congress' profligate ways. Bush
    could take a lesson from Clinton when it comes to vetoing spending
    bills from a hostile congress.
    
     It would have been interesting to see Bush and a republican congress.
    Then we could have seen some domestic leadership as well from Bush
    (IMO). But it wasn't, and we didn't and we should not gloss over that
    fact. Republican failures are nothing to ignore.

    
      I have to agree with a lot of what's being said here.  But be very
     careful in evaluating any candidate for prex, from anyplace on the
     political spectrum, on the basis of "positions", as opposed to
     "records".  We've had all manner of broken promises from all parties,
     partly because the promises were hopeless to begin with, partly
     because the promises weren't honestly made, and partly because in
     our balance-of-powers system, it is very hard for anybody to deliver.
     Not to mention that situations change, and after the elections, it
     doesn't take much to make the promises look way out-of-date.
    
      Dole suffers from lots of bad things, but he has vast experience -
     he was in Congress when Clinton was on the playground.  Over the
     years, he's changed positions, but who hasn't in 40 years ??  The
     really good part of Dole is that he knows how everything works.
     I would expect a Dole presidency, if it ever occurred, to be very
     uninspiring and very professional, with classy appointments and
     very traditional mildly conservative agenda items, and a complete
     abhorrence for foreign adventures.  An administration to take a
     nap through.  And I could use a nap, actually.
    
      bb   

    .47
    
    I'm going to speculate, based on your notes to date, that you haven't
    the intellect to recognize that fiction often mirrors fact.  Sometimes,
    even, it predicts it.

    .48
    
    I've said before and will repeat that Slick is not my choice.  Not even
    close.   But Dole, with his inconstancy and his repressive moral
    stance, is my enemy - and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    In other words, you prefer a guy who does things which impinge on
    people's freedoms to a guy who says things about how moral he thinks
    some people's choices are.

    Personally, I prefer the con arist whose hands I can follow
    (Clinton) to the con artist whose hands I can't (Dole). But
    I would rather have an straightforward, politically savvy
    candidate with vision, intelligence and the ability to deliver
    an inspiring speech that did not belong to either major party.
    
    And a Jaguar.  I'd like a Jaguar.  And a million dollar house,
    Yes, that would be good too.  And being independtly wealthy.  Yup,
    that would work.  
    
    I know what my chances are. :-)
    

        Jaguars need a large fenced in yard to run around in and a gazelle to
    chase, from time to time. I wouldn't want one, too much upkeep.

    re: .58
    
    No fenced-in yard for my Jaguar, no siree!!  Only the open
    road, with the sun glinting off of her lovely BRG coat. :-)

    
    and they cannot match the cheetahs speed.

    
    BRG
    
    burgundy, well to each his own. I prefer green. :-)

    re: .62
    
    Harumph!  British Racing Green.   Tis the only colour for
    a Jag...... :-)

    ....and the sparks flying off her Lucas electrical system

    
    .63
    
    black and gold works as well.

Bob Dole's speech to the Christian Coalition on September 8,  1995 was
introduced by the former head of the Kansas Christian Coalition who is now
the Chairman of the Republican Party of Kansas.  This is becoming a common
career path.  If the Republican party continues its course of becoming a 
front for the Christian Coalition,  count me out.

Bob Dole states that he "will be proud to stand with you",  meaning the
Christian Coalition.

Ralph Reed boasts that he heads the largest single voting block in the
electorate,  and warns Republicans not to compromise.  It's Ralph's way, 
or else.

===============================================================================

On the other hand,  I supported Bob Dole in 1980 and 1988.  While some of
his recent statements scare the bejebies out of me,  I still remember why I
liked him then,  and still today.

Bob Dole is taking a rather large chance by backing the US involvement in
Bosnia.  While it's the right thing to do,  it makes him a target to stand
by Clinton and agree that Clinton's policy is correct.

===============================================================================

Bottom line,  I don't know if I support him or not.


Phil

    The argument that a Presidential candidate should have military
    experience, because of his role as Commander in Chief of the Armed
    Forces, is interesting to me.  I don't think it would have arisen prior
    to WW2, which is when the era of U.S. global domination began.  Earlier
    U.S. Presidents were able to order the Marines into small foreign
    places, fight the Indians, etc. without necessarily having the benefit
    of significant miltary experience, as far as I know.  In other
    countries, the head of government does not usually hold the title of
    "Commander in Chief," but is nevertheless responsible for foreign
    policy, decisions to go to war, make peace, etc. 
    
    Since Kennedy, almost every President was of miliitary age during WW2, 
    and almost all served in the forces during that war, whether risking his
    life in combat like Kennedy & Bush, or making movies, like Reagan.
    Dole is probably the last of this generation to be a serious
    Presidential candidate.  The Vietnam generation is taking over.
    
    It seems to me there are 2 main ways in which the military experience
    (or lack of it) of a Presidential candidate is important:  (1) How will
    it affect his capacity to perform his duty as Commander in Chief o the
    Armed Forces; and (2) What light does it throw on his character?
    Enemies of President Clinton claim that the way he avoided service in
    Vietnam, 25-30 years ago, shows deficiencies of character.  Do they 
    also claim that this affects his ability to performa as Commander in Chief?
    
    Mr. Dole is one of those members of the WW2 generation who fought and
    was wounded for his country.  His courage and dedication to duty, 50
    years ago, must be beyond criticism.  Does his experience of WW2 combat
    improve his capacity to act as Commander in Chief?
    
    Does a superpower need a person with military experience as its chief
    executive?
    
    -Stephen
      

    

    
  |  But Dole, with his inconstancy and his repressive moral
  |  stance, is my enemy - and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    
     good grief.  dole's panderings to the rr are just that and
     will never amount to a hill of beans when it comes to running
     the country.  what legislative initiatives has dole proposed
     that are so repressive?
      

    You have to understand, saying things supportive of right wing groups
    is much worse than saying things supportive of equally radical left
    leaning groups. It's just the way it is.

    
    
    Dole running against Clinton = 4 more years of Clinton.
    
    none of the candidates interest me.
    
    sos.
    
    

    re. 67
    
    Would you feel comfortable if the Digital BOD hired the CEO of a Candy
    Company to run Digital?  Would you not feel better if the new person
    had experience in the computer industry?  It does not mean that the
    Candy Comany CEO would necessarily fail, but it certainly might
    increase the chance.
    
    War is hell.  It is also very unpredictable.  I believe that Bob Dole
    understands these two facts all too well.  He has the personal
    experience of the whole event.  It gives him a perspective that one who
    has not been there cannot possibly have.  I feel that this is useful,
    but not absolutely necessary.
    
    I think it is a plus for Dole and a minus for Clinton.  It does not
    mean it is a plus/minus for all vets/non-vets, but certainly applies to
    these two.
    
    

>    Would you feel comfortable if the Digital BOD hired the CEO of a Candy
>    Company to run Digital?  

    IBM's BOD hired an RJR person for their CEO.  RJR is a tobacco company
    and not a "candy company", but still ...

    -- Dave

    .71
    
    In your analogy, Digital is a computer company so you want a person
    with experience in the computer biz as CEO.
    
    But the U.S.A. is a lot more than the Defense Department.  One question
    is whether the military part of the job is so important that lack of
    military experience constitutes a major handicap for candidates.  
    
    -Stephen

    I simply asked the person who entered reply 67 if they would be
    comfortable.  It was a question.  
    
    As far as Gertsner at IBM, the jury is still out on him.  He has made
    the short term numbers look good by cutting costs, but the PowerPC is
    not taking off, the RS/6000 gets poor ratings, the Apple deals are
    going sour, OS/2 still loses money, SP2 is a lot of FUD and hype (yes,
    they have sold 700 of them), and they just delayed their PowerPC 64
    -bit chip because it sucks, and on and on.  We will see what happens
    over the next few years.
    
    So I will repeat my questions, would you be comfortable?

    Well, I wrote .67, and I replied to your question by pointing out a
    flaw in the analogy on which it was based.
    
    Would I be comfortable if Digital replaced its CEO with a person with
    no experience in the computer industry? No.
    
    I don't believe this has much to do with whether a person who has not
    served in the military can be qualified to be President,  however.
    
    -Stephen

    
      Article II, section 2 certainly suggests that the framers (some of
     whom opposed the idea of the presidency entirely) thought the office
     to have a substantial military component.  The enumerated powers
     reflect this, but after GW, the early presidents were not military
     men till Jackson, when generals came more into vogue.  After the Civil
     War and again after WWII, military credentials were high on the list
     of political necessities, although Lincoln and Roosevelt won those
     very dangerous contests, and neither was a soldier.  Today, I think
     this is perceived to matter less than it did.  But the festering
     hostility to Clinton is probably not a plus at this time.
    
      bb

    re. 75
    
    Let me correct you.  I believe the question I was replying to was not
    about the importance of military experience to the role of president in
    general, but to the specific role of the president as
    commander-in-chief.  Perhaps you should read the notes more closely
    before responding with remarks that inappropriate for the subject at
    hand.

    
      Oh, and let me give an example of the "festering hostility" to
     Clinton, which isn't just due to the draft-dodging charge.  In
     Powell's book, he tells of a 3-star general who happened to be
     walking out of the White House, in the same direction as a young
     woman on the WH staff.  He said, "Good Morning."  As she turned
     the corner, she sneered, "We don't have to talk with soldiers."
     and walked away.  In a matter of 24 hours, every general and admiral
     in the Pentagon, and many overseas, had heard the story, some with
     ghastly embellishments.  When it came to his attention, then
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Powell IMMEDIATELY called the President,
     who called in the aide and Powell to thrash it out.  Subsequently,
     President Clinton addressed his staff and "encouraged co-operation
     with the armed services".  This was only one of several very costly
     incidents, starting the Gays thing, and continuing till recently.
    
      bb

 >                    <<< Note 601.77 by MIMS::SANDERS_J >>>
 >                         -< Read the notes first! >-

 >   re. 75
    
 >   Let me correct you.  I believe the question I was replying to was not
 >   about the importance of military experience to the role of president in
 >   general, but to the specific role of the president as
 >   commander-in-chief.  Perhaps you should read the notes more closely
 >   before responding with remarks that inappropriate for the subject at
 >   hand.
    
    As I've already said, I'm the author of the note to whom you were
    responding.  Your remarks above seem to indicate that you aren't aware
    of this.
    
    I now understand that you think Dole's personal experience of war makes
    him better qualified than Clinton to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
    forces, thoough not necessarily President.  Your analogy misled me. 
    
    -Stephen
    
    
    
    

    

    re .78
    
    Seems the Forces reacted very quickly and strongly to a slight from "a
    young woman on the White House staff."
    
    It does indeed illustrate hostility to Clinton, and the importance of
    the CinC-ship to the military.
    
    -Stephen

    
    .77
    
    Sanders_J, oh please spare us your holier than thou attitude. Who
    the hell do you think you are, god?? We don't need anymore attitudes
    like yours in here, we have enough as it is, and all applications
    have been filled out.

    .81
    
    you know, mr. battis, with a little work and a little luck...
    replies like that show promise...yes they do.

    You know Blindasabat'sassuscus:
    
    Your kinda fiction falls into the jelly mold; vb  it is very easy for
    the mold to fit want you wanty to fit...therefore, your revisionist
    interpretation is purely poopycok!

>    Seems the Forces reacted very quickly and strongly to a slight from "a
>    young woman on the White House staff."
    
>    It does indeed illustrate hostility to Clinton, 
    
    Here we go, blaming the victim. All it illustrates is that the "young
    woman on the White House staff" has no manners, and behaves rudely.

    Do bad manners on the part of young women on the White House staff
    normally have such dramatic repercussions in the military command
    structure?  If not hostility to CLinton, the incident certainly 
    illustrates a remarkable level of sensitivity to slights from young
    women on the White House staff on the part of the military.  Or,
    nervousness at the change in command (i.e. "the importance of the
    C-in-C-ship to the military.)
    
    -Stephen

    
    .83
    
    Actually sanders, what it does show, is that you are an extremely
    arrogant person. Anyone who doesn't know the renal workings of the IRS,
    is completely beneath you. Well I've got news for you Mr Know it All,
    there are in soapbox land a lot of people far more intelligent than
    yourself, who don't bash people just because they are not experts
    on each and every subject. Binder, Sacks, Levesque, Lady Di, mz_debra,
    I could name many more, but you get the idea. So lighten up, or take
    your sorry arse to another conference.
    
    Your pal,
    
    Mark

<I sense a great disturbance in The Force.>

    
    
    
    This is hilarious. :')

There have been multiple instances of Clinton staffers treating White
House military aids in demeaning ways, including a variety of arrogant
verbal abuse and outright insults. Some of the military people involved
were at the rank of Captain and Colonel, and had a hard time grinning and
bearing insulting behaviour by arrogant young civilians.

Army Times and Navy Times papers have published quotes and descriptions
of actual experiences of senior military people who were being ordered
around as waiters at WH staff parties. (One of the incidents.)

Art

    re. 86
    
    Your comment about re. 83, 83 is SANDERR, not SANDERS_J.  You
    apparently are so quick to attack that if you see the first few letters
    of a persons name, you attack.  I guess your next move will be to
    attack anyone whose name starts with SA.  Perhaps you can reduce that
    to S.  Obviously, you can't read either.

    
    	Please don't reduce your guidelines to names starting with "S".
    	I'm getting yelled at enough already.
    

    
    re:.43
    
    > I've never seen him laugh or tell a joke or even smile.  I don't
    > trust a man who can't smile in public once in a while.
    
    Have you ever seen him make a speech?  I mean in person, not a TV sound
    bite.  I have, and found him to be an enjoyable speaker.  He was witty
    straight forward, and mentally sharp as a tack.  YMMV
    

    Makes me wish there was an American equivalent to Screaming Lord Sutch.
    
    Then I could have a good laugh and protest the present political system
    at the same time. And there's nothing I like more than a good laugh.

    Clinton is as bad as his staffers.  In the bio I read regarding
    Colin Powell, Clinton kept  General Powell cooling his heels
    for close to an hour past a scheduled appointment (with no explanation
    whatsoever).  Powell didn't blow his stack, but he didn't wait around
    until Clinton "found the time" either.
    
    Powell announced his retirement shortly after the incident.  I'm not
    saying this one incident triggered the retirement, but I think the
    good General knew he was dealing with a bunch of idjits and figured
    "who needs it"?
    
    

    Wow- pretty hostile reaction by that thin-skinned CJCS chap.

    He left... doesn't sound excessively hostile to me.  Sounds like the
    President was somewhat rude.  Does Powell claim this behaviour was
    caused by lack of respect for the military?  Does he have any other
    anecdotes about Clinton in his book? I must admit, I paid almost no
    attention to the publicity surrounding Powell's book.
    
    Seems to me I have read that Clinton's unpunctuality is the despair of
    his advisers and staff.  
    
    If Clinton is as inadequate as you folks say, he clearly deserves to be
    voted out.
    
    How is Dole on punctuality?  I assume his staff know better than to be
    rude to military personnel.
    
    -Stephen
    
     

    
    
    
    Dole will have the Republican nomination. I don't even see
    the point of anyone else even trying.
    
    After the nomination what will be fun is watching Dole swing
    back left some more so that he can appeal to the rest of the nation.
    
    It's hard to predict the Clinton Vs Dole results now because Dole 
    has to be hard right to win the Republican nomination.
    

    Stephen,
    
    The story indicated that Powell overheard someone telling an aide
    to remind Clinton that Powell was waiting and then Powell heard the
    two laughing about it.  
    
    I don't think Powell was being thin-skinned; I think it's clear
    Clinton and his cronies were/are clueless as to common courtesy,
    much less protocol; Powell overhead it and he booked it.  He
    refused to play Sliq's silly power game.  There has never been
    anything reported that indicated Powell was less than professional
    in dealing with a President that he didn't agree with politically.
    
    That's why I, for one, was hoping Powell would run for President;
    Clinton was probably sweating buckets when the polls were indicating
    how easily Powell could have beaten him.
    

    .86
    
    Stick to your own arguements with SANDERJ...my discussuon was with Dick
    Binder...
    
    Dick:
    
    Horae fugiunt et imputantur!
    
    Not Roger, but a friend of

    Well, while we debate whether a President should be an ex-military
    man, let's note one President who was not a veteran (except of a few
    days in the militia in the Black Hawk War, which wasn't much of a war)
    and turned out to be a pretty good wartime President....
    
    Abraham Lincoln
    
    Seriously, I think in the end we get the President we deserve and if
    you think about the general tone of discourse in this thread...without
    picking on anyone in particular...what do you think we deserve?
    
    Democracy, IMHO, is based on reasonable discourse, not an instant
    appeal to Argumentum ad Hominem. Too bad there's so little reasonable
    discourse on the political scene today. 
    
    I've tuned out mostly, but not dropped out...yet...

    Like it or not, everyt 4 years, if your favorite candidate isn't
    running, you have to then select "the lesser of two evils."  Since I've
    been voting since 1972, only 3 times during those 6 elections di I have
    my favorite candidate runnning and the choice boiled down to who would
    do the least damage.
    
    The most poignant example of this for me was in '76 when Carter/Mondale
    was running against Ford/Dole.  I wanted Reagan that year so my man
    wasn't in the finals.  I was disgusted w/Carter but I couldn't forgive
    Ford for pardoning Nixon.  Looking at the two VP's, although Mondale
    was a liberal, I felt that Dole was a :new Nicon.  Therefore, after
    looking at all for, I thought that Carter Mondale would do less damage
    than Ford/Little Nixon.  Unfortunately, I was terribly wrong, Carter
    almost destroyed this nation fiscally, and the 8 yrs under Reagan was
    the best this century.
    
    My favorite candidate isn't running this year.  The next choice would
    be Alan Keyes, but he hasn't the snowball's chance.  Graham is good on
    the issues, but all Texans remind me of LBJ.  I hate to think I'll vote
    for Dole since I still think he's a Little Nixon, but I think he's far
    less damaging than the current president.
    
    Like I said, for me it comes down ti the lesser of two evils, and I
    WON'T vote for Clinton.

    Not Roger:
    
 ZZ    Graham is good on the issues, but all Texans remind me of LBJ. 
    
    This is a typical superficial excuse and not worthy of a man of your
    stature.  I despise LBJ too but come on...talk about putting Graham in
    a box here.
    
    -Jack

Billy Graham's running for president?

    He would probably win if he did.

  I don't think you'd hear anyone saying he didn't have a prayer.

    RE: .101

>    and turned out to be a pretty good wartime President....
>    
>    Abraham Lincoln
    
    It's kind of scary when a president's policies can be directly
    responsible for millions of deaths and because of historical
    idiolization have people say he was "a pretty good wartime President." 
    I hope we never have such a "pretty good wartime President" again.

    -- Dave

    Not Roger:
    
    > Gramm is good on the issues, but all Texans remind me of LBJ.
    
    Actually, we Texans sent LBJ to Washington to get him out of the
    state.  You can have Gramm next. He answers to his nickname,
    "Claghorn". 

    that's okay, keep pHIL and Rawsl! with ya'll down thar in Texus!

    
    
    dole --- he just appears too dour. Inflexible. Too much of an insider.
    If we knows so much about the system, I expect to see better results
    from him, like maybe corraling Newt!
    
    he has too many favors to pay... comes with the territory, right?
    
    but the person I CANNOT stand hearing or seeing is Phil Gramm!!
    he is so .... irritating!!!
    
    I like Steve Forbes, don't think he can be bought so easily. Like
    his flat tax position, and he is not thin-skin like Perot, who
    may have had good ideas, but simply not credible.
    
    oops, back to Dole... if you all think that Hillary is "bad" (not
    in my books, though), what do you Elizabeth Dole can and would do
    in the WH? We will then have TWO presidents. Umm, maybe SHE ought
    to be running, not him!

    I told my wife Elizabeth would make an excellent candidate and Bob an
    excellent First Lady

    re: .107
    
    "millions of deaths" --- not even close, even though the Civil War was
    the bloodiest conflict Americans have ever engaged in.
    
    "Historical idolization"? "Idolization" is not a word; its a barbarism.
    But leaving that aside, read the record. Start with Bruce Catton's
    brilliant trilogy on the Civil War. 
    
    Anyway, I guess it all doesn't have much to do with Dole. I don't write
    in this conference very often and I suspect this will be my last note.
    

    
      Here, I'll hold the door for you...
    
      bb

>    "millions of deaths" --- not even close, even though the Civil War was
>    the bloodiest conflict Americans have ever engaged in.

    It's been a while since I sat in history class, but I thought I
    remembered 3 million+ union soldiers dead and 2 million+ confederate
    soldiers dead.

    -- Dave

    re. 114
    
    I believe the numbers were more like 250,000 Confederates and 500,000
    Notherners.  Considering the South only had 9 million people, 250,000
    is a very high number.  The U.S. lost 400,000 (292,000 in combat) in
    WWII.  If you divide the population of the U.S. in 1861 into the
    population of the U.S. in 1941, and multiply that number by the number
    of deaths in the Civil War, you will see that it is the equivalent of
    the U.S. losing 4,000,000 in WWII.  The Civil War was definitely the
    most costly war in U.S. history.

        I believe the numbers were more like 250,000 Confederates and
        500,000 Notherners.
    
        i think those figures are way low.

>    The U.S. lost 400,000 (292,000 in combat) in WWII.

How did the other 108,000 die?

    No, the civil war figures are under 1 mill.  

    My uncle for one died of phenomia (sp) while in training in the Chicago
    area, though my mother has suspicions of something more subtle/devious.
    
    Accidents: The B26 Maurader was called the "Widow Maker" and "Baltimore
               Whore" (because it had no visible means of support). Many an
               aircrew member lost his life especially with that one learning
    
    Steve

    
    Every military aircraft ever flown was called the "Widow Maker" at one
    point or another.
    
    :^)
    

    Here are the cumulative deaths from the Civil War and WWI and WWII.
    All figures are 000's.
    
                 Engaged    Battle  Other   Total   Wounds not      Total
                            Deaths  Deaths          Mortal         Casualties
    
        Civil    2,213      140.4   224.1   364.5   281.9             646.4
    
        WWI      4,735       53.4    63.1   116.5   204.0             320.5
    
        WWII    16,112      291.6   113.8   405.4   670.8           1,076.2
    
    The Civil War produced half the battle deaths but twice the other
    deaths from disease, starvation etc. as WWII.  WWII also had a far
    smaller percentage of those engaged become casualties of some sort. 
    As asserted earlier, The Civil War was far more costly in terms of
    percentage of current population on all counts.
    
    Brian

    Not the Spitfire.

>    I believe the numbers were more like 250,000 Confederates and 500,000
>    Notherners.  

    Ok, I'll sit corrected on the numbers (how many served in each army? 
    Maybe that's the numbers I was remembering).  

    In any event, given the percentage of US deaths during the civil war it
    would be heard to call Mr. Lincoln a good wartime president.

    -- Dave

    re. 117
    
    During training, wrecks, plane crashes (non combat), illness, suicide,
    etc.

    re. 121
    
    I believe your Civil War numbers only reflect the Union Army.

    
    
    okay, okay, okay ..... some of you are truly encyclopediacal (sp?),
    but come on, back to the Dole topic, OK?
    
    

    Don't know what they represent actually.  They are out of the
    information please ALmanac and they do not specify who's side the
    causualties were attributed to.  

    
      i don't believe dole wuz in the war of the rebellion
    
      bb

    Time, Inc.
    
    COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA: GOP frontrunner Bob Dole has declined to join
    a nationally-televised GOP debate scheduled for Saturday in South Carolina.
    Four other candidates have confirmed for the event,
    which will be broadcast live on CNN. While Dole spokesman
    Scott Reed informed state GOP chairman
    Henry McMaster that it was solely a matter of previous
    commitments in Iowa, TIME's Laurence Barrett
    notes: "Dole may feel he has more to lose than gain in a
    South Carolina debate. His opponents would
    probably use him as their sole target for rhetorical flourishes."
    Another factor, Barrett says, is Dole's need to protect his
    flank in Iowa where, despite a lead in the polls, his support isn't
    deep. 
    

    
    Does Dole have a reason for wanting to be president other than
    it being his turn?
    Does he have a vision?
    What are his core principles?

Dole is a politician by trade! Being president is the top of the rung.
No vision other than that is needed.

    
    Dole has a nasty commercial out about Forbes.
    Forbes has a nasty commercial out about Dole.
    
    Guess they cancel each other out.
    
    

    Dole has no real agenda other than telling us how bad the other side
    is.  I have yet to witness or hear him articulate how he will lead the
    country better than the rest of the crowd.  He is the NIH candidate as
    far as I am concerned.  

    
    Those of you kind enough to respond to my query
    have reinforced my thoughts.
    
    Which again leaves me wondering why a man without an agenda/vision
    for the presidency is considered a front runner.
    
    I cringe to think of Dole running against Clinton.

    Clinton will win, if that's the choice. All Bill has to do is smile and
    talk kindly. 

    
>    Which again leaves me wondering why a man without an agenda/vision
>    for the presidency is considered a front runner.
    
     The press put him there and the masses follow?  I have yet to meet
     1 person who says they support Dole. 



Jim

    Personally, I wish Jack Kemp would run though I am not sure how much
    better he would fare.  I have spoken with him and he seemed to be quite
    level headed, definitely intelligent, and fairly pragmatic.  I know he
    supports Newt on many general issues but believes he is approaching
    things the wrong way.  

    as far as foreign policy "vision" goes, we haven't had a 
    a president since nixon who was capable of seeing beyond
    3 months.

    I disagree. George Bush's handling of the Gulf War is indicative of
    vision beyond the end of his nose.

    { my best Reagan impression }
    
    "Ahh, well?"

    i hate the word 'proactive' but i'll use it anyway.
    bush was 'reactive' in foreign policy affairs (like
    most of 'em are).  no one comes close to nixon's 
    'proactive' stance when it came to dealing with 
    China and the USSR.  he initiated; the rest seem to 
    just go with the flow of events.
    
    but then i wonder, without north vietnam in the mix,
    could nixon have carried on so successfully in his 
    dealings with China and the USSR?  nah, i don't think
    so.      

    .139
    
    > I disagree. George Bush's handling of the Gulf War is indicative of
    > vision beyond the end of his nose.
    
    Which is why he left Saddam Hussein in power?  Get a clue.

    
    
    Go back and reread the objectives of the war, Dick.  The overthrow of
    Hussein was not one of them.  If it happened as "collateral damamge, oh
    well......  That's what's wrong with putting our troops under UN
    control.  Had this been a US mission, things would have been different.
    
    
    Mike

 ZZ    Which is why he left Saddam Hussein in power?  Get a clue.
    
    Dick, if things were done your way, more Americans would have died and
    Iraq would now be run by Shiite Moslems.
    
    -Jack

 >    Which is why he left Saddam Hussein in power?  Get a clue.
 
 Dick, While the fact the Saddam is still in power may offend your sensibilities,
 Mr. Bush met all of his objectives, and in the end, made the right call.

 Is this the clue you are refering too?
 
 

    The "objectives of the war" that you people prattle about are not
    indicative of a long-term vision.  The purpose of fighting a war is to
    win the war - that was the "objectives," i.e., to remove Iraq from
    Kuwait.  That argues NOTHING for the long-term future of the countries
    involved or of the world at large.
    
    Perhaps the future would best have been served by nuking Baghdad into a
    sheet of glass.  But you can't with a straight face tell me that the
    people of Iraq are better served by a leader who is content to let them
    die of starvation and disease while he sits in his palace.

    >But you can't with a straight face tell me that the
    >people of Iraq are better served by a leader who is content to let them
    >die of starvation and disease while he sits in his palace.

     The people of Iraq were not (and are not) our concern. There internal
     problems have to be solved by themselves. 

     The people of Kuwait were our concern, and they are far better off 
     today than they were.

     There was a story on Iraq last night. No signs of starvation. Everyone
     looked fit and healthy. Inflation is rampant. Government provides
     the food.

     Doug.

    Dick, as far as the long term, I see your point.  After WW1, Germany
    was deep in debt, racked in super inflation, and impoverished.
    
    Keep in mind however that the coalition put together was very volatile.
    The Saudi's were/are very touchy people...they still share a heritage
    with the Iraqi's and long term enemies become allies at a snap.
    
    -Jack

    >Which is why he left Saddam Hussein in power?  Get a clue.
    
     Did I say his judgment was perfect? No, and he has publicly stated
    that allowing him to remain in power was a mistake. Nonetheless, he put
    together an unprecedented coalition of western and arabic nations
    pretty much all by his lonesome, and that is quite an accomplishment. 

    My favorite Dole quote so far comes from a newspaper editorial
    the other day, in which Dole was quoted as saying (approximately),
    "I can be [like] Ronald Reagan, if that's what you want me to be."
    
    Huh?  What is he, a chameleon?  Did I miss something and tune in
    an episode of "Whose Line Is It Anyway"?  Does he have a consistent
    set of values and philosophies, or is he planning on finding out
    who we "want" him to be, and then pulling out the old vaudeville
    trunk to find the appropriate mask to put on?
    
    The other amazing quote from him concerns the budget deadlock; when
    he started to cave in to Slick, one comment Dole made was along the
    lines of "Enough is enough, we've made our point.  The government
    workers have been out of work long enough."
    
    Huh? (again)  Is this about government workers being out of work, and
    making a point?  Is that really what he thinks?  Does he even begin to
    comprehend what this is really all about?
    
    I've observed (an obvious observation, but what the heck) over the
    years that it's a bad sign if the more I get to know a person, the
    less impressed I am with him/her.  Dole's downward curve with me is
    rapidly becoming steeper.
    
    We still need a good alternative, and I don't think it's to be found
    in either party.  How's that Harry Browne guy doing?
    
    Chris

 Is McBride going to finish .145??

 
    >We still need a good alternative, and I don't think it's to be found
    >in either party.  How's that Harry Browne guy doing?
    
He is still trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states. It may be doubtful that 
he makes it happen. It appears to me that he is like the libertarians past. He
really doesn't think that he can win, so he doesn't seem to try as hard as he 
could.

    .155
    
    > Do you believe the Iraq's would not want us to see
    > suffering children to sway public opinion to loosen the sanctions?
    
    No.  Saddam is a megalomaniac.  Iraqi sovereignty is more important to
    him than humanitarian concerns.  "We do not need a partial relaxation
    of sanctions that would detract from our national sovereignty.  We will
    accept nothing less than a full lifting of them.  And we will hold out
    until that happens."

    no, I deleted it.  My sentiments were expressed by several others. 

    RE: .141

>    i hate the word 'proactive' but i'll use it anyway.
>    bush was 'reactive' in foreign policy affairs (like
>    most of 'em are).  

    If you consider that one of Reagan's main goals as president was the
    destruction of the "evil empire", his actions to bring about the fall
    of the Soviet Union was reasonably proactive.

    On the flip side of the coin, his dealings with Lebanon (to name one)
    was quite reactive.

    -- Dave

    I watched the show on Iraq also; a number of generals who served
    said we ended the war 48 hours too soon.
    
    We destroyed a lot of Iraqi equipment but Saddam escaped with 40%
    of his army's equipment intact and they were using it against
    the Kurds shortly thereafter.  Sites that we bombed and that seemed
    destroyed beyond repair are now shown by aerial photos to be totally
    repaired.
    
    One of Saddam's former generals who defected said Saddam was ready
    to split because he initially thought we were going to push on to
    Baghdad; as soon as he realized we blinked, he dug in.
    
    

>    If you consider that one of Reagan's main goals as president was the
>    destruction of the "evil empire", his actions to bring about the fall
>    of the Soviet Union was reasonably proactive.

Oh, please - let's not start that again.

Ronbo just happened to be in the right place at the right time. His "actions
to bring about the fall of the Soviet Union" are so much mental masturbation.
The Soviet Union was on a death course all on its own even if Ronbo hadn't
remembered how to get into or out of the oval office.

I mean, I'm a good Republican and all that, but let's cut the heroic legends
about Ronbo.

    <---- What he said.  Ron was there to give a nudge as the USSR teetered
    on the precipice.  He did offer support and had the sense not to
    exacerbate the situation by being overly meddlesome.  
    
    Brian

    RE: .160

>Ronbo just happened to be in the right place at the right time. His "actions
>to bring about the fall of the Soviet Union" are so much mental masturbation.
>The Soviet Union was on a death course all on its own even if Ronbo hadn't
>remembered how to get into or out of the oval office.

    The question was whether or not presidents were reactive or proactive. 
    In this case, Reagan was proactive.  Whether or not his actions sped up
    the demise or not of the USSR is irrelevant to this question.

    -- Dave

re:    <<< Note 601.162 by HIGHD::FLATMAN "Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund" >>>

Huh?

You were the one that made the statement regarding his "actions
to bring about the fall of the Soviet Union". Now you're saying
"whether or not his actions sped up the demise or not of the USSR 
is irrelevant to this question."

Either he did something causative, or he did not. I thought your
claim was that he had.

What'll it be?

    RE: .163

    Well, this definitely is getting down to a question of semantics.

    I don't have a dictionary handy, but does "proactive" mean or imply
    "causative"?  I was under the impression that "proactive" was taking
    steps for or against something before the need necessarily arose; i.e.,
    before you had to react.

    If you believe that it is going to flood, can you not take the
    "proactive" step of buying an umbrella?  Note that even though you
    bought an umbrella it still will or won't flood.  Buying the umbrella
    was irrelevant.  A better proactive step may have been to put sand bags
    into place.

    Reagan took steps that he believed would bring about the end of the
    Soviet Union, and he did this in a non-reactive mode.  Does saying
    that he took proactive actions necessitate that his actions caused the
    desired goal versus merely indicate that they weren't reactive?


    Note:  I am not conceding that his actions did or didn't influence the
    fall of the Soviet Union.

    -- Dave

Perhaps, then, "actions to bring about" was a poor choice of words on your
part, if your contention merely related to the "proactive"-ness of Ronbo's
chance movements.

    
      agree with binder, shoulda bagged dad
    
      bb

    RE: .165

>Perhaps, then, "actions to bring about" was a poor choice of words on your
>part

    Ok, I'll buy that.  

<---how much?

    Thanks again, Glen.  8)

	I can't believe I gave up TWO 69 snarf!!!!  I'm slippin

    If Dole's ads against Forbes are as intentionally distorting and
    twisted as they appear to be on the surface, Dole should drop out
    of the race out of sheer embarrassment.  On the other hand, I haven't
    been following it enough to even begin to know who to believe.  What
    is clear, though, is that one or both of them are liars, and that
    doesn't exactly give me a warm glow about the prospect of deciding
    between them.
    
    Can someone who's following these ads more closely provide some
    insight as to who's lying here?
    
    Chris

They're politicians. They're both lying!  HTH

	Dole did not lie. What he said was absolutely true. What Dole did not
do, however, was give all of what Forbes had to say. For example, when Dole
said that Forbes is not in favor of 3 strikes and you're out, that was a true
statement. What Dole did not include was that Forbes said it should be 1 strike
and you're out. That's politics. 


Glen

    Forbes seems to have started the vicious negative campaigning. Dole
    seems to be responding. In the end, they both end up muddied.

>> They're politicians. They're both lying!  HTH
    
    Yeah, I had that one covered, and I figure it's the most likely
    possibility.
    
    
    re: .173  "three strikes you're out" distortion by Dole
    
    Dole's side clearly wanted to leave the viewer with the impression
    that Forbes didn't support the "you're out" part, all the while
    knowing that it was the "three strikes" part that he didn't agree
    with.  I saw Dole's ad first, and came away thinking that Forbes
    might be soft on criminals, apparently the intended effect.
    
    You can say that this is politics, but it still stinks.  It's
    distorting and lying, and the net effect is to make me ignore all
    campaigning, which I pretty much do anyway.
    
    What I'd like to know for now, though, is:  has Forbes' side engaged
    in this kind of deliberate distortion and sleazy-lawyer-style
    manipulation of simple statements and positions?
    
    Chris

| <<< Note 601.175 by AMN1::RALTO "Clinto Barada Nikto" >>>


| You can say that this is politics, but it still stinks.  

	I agree fully. Dole is doing the standard negative campaigning stuff.

| It's distorting and lying, 

	Chris..... I do think it is distorting, but I don't think it is a lie.
Dole's ad never stated anything that wasn't true. He does appear to be part of
the Right, though....or at least he sounds like he is.



Glen

>    Dole's side clearly wanted to leave the viewer with the impression
>    that Forbes didn't support the "you're out" part, all the while
>    knowing that it was the "three strikes" part that he didn't agree
>    with.  I saw Dole's ad first, and came away thinking that Forbes
>    might be soft on criminals, apparently the intended effect.

The intended effect until the viewer sees a Forbes ad which clarifies
the matter, after which Dole looks like an idiot. I'm actually quite
surprised that Dole took that chance, or that he really believed
sufficient people would be stupid enough to buy his premise. Well - maybe
not ...

>    What I'd like to know for now, though, is:  has Forbes' side engaged
>    in this kind of deliberate distortion and sleazy-lawyer-style
>    manipulation of simple statements and positions?

Most of what I've seen from Forbes simply points out the sleaze in the
Dole anti-Forbes smears and talks about the flat tax. Then again, I prolly
haven't seen them all ...

>Most of what I've seen from Forbes simply points out the sleaze in the
>Dole anti-Forbes smears and talks about the flat tax. Then again, I prolly
>haven't seen them all ...
    
     I guess you haven't seen the "typical washington politician" series
    including slams for senate pension increases and tax increases, then.

Politicians usually tell the truth. They're just not honest.

    >>  I guess you haven't seen the "typical washington politician" series
    >> including slams for senate pension increases and tax increases, then.
    
    I've seen all the ads that Jack mentioned, and I've seen these that
    you've mentioned, too.  Does anyone know if these Forbes ads are
    distortions of the truth, lawyerish semantic manipulation, and so on?
    Did Dole actually claim that he was opposed to these senate pension
    and tax increases, and then go ahead and vote for them?
    
    I'm not opposed to candidates reporting on each others' actual
    voting records, particularly if they're into Slicklike "promise
    one thing, do the opposite" behavior.  To me that's a reasonable
    thing to point out to the voting public, if done in an accurate
    manner that actually reflects reality.  That's not necessarily
    "negative campaigning".
    
    On the other hand, "typical Washington politician" is needless
    name-calling.  The ads should just give me the facts, and I'll come to
    a conclusion all by myself without any help from 200-point letters
    on the teevee screen.
    
    Chris

    actually, telling the truth (certain truths) IS consider negative/
    dirty campaigning by some analysts. i have no idea why, but i was
    watching a discussion specifically on the Forbes ads. while they 
    stated that Forbes was telling the truth the ads were considered
    negative. maybe the genre of presentation?
    
     

  >  What I'd like to know for now, though, is:  has Forbes' side engaged
  >  in this kind of deliberate distortion and sleazy-lawyer-style
  >  manipulation of simple statements and positions?
 
   Huh?  Forbes started it! Apparently you didn't see his first few ads.

   Dole is just playing catch-up. 

   One thing has become clear to me. While Forbes' original ads elliminated
   any chance he had at receiving my votes early on, Doles recent behaviour
   as brought me to the conclusion that he will not receive my support in
   the primaries either.

   Isn't politics fun :-)

   Doug. 

	Dole cracks me up, but then again, so don't all politicians. :-)  He
talks about handing Clinton a balanced budget deal with Clinton veto-ing it. So
he puts the blame on Clinton completely. 

	To present a balanced budget is one thing....to present one you know is
going to be vetoed is a waste of time, and is just pure politics.

	Newt was asked on the Today show this morning why they don't just lock
themselves in a room until they have a budget passed. Newt said he didn't think
this was a good plan. Now wasn't it Newt who said no one will leave the floor
until <i forget exactly which bill it was> was passed? 

	A poll this morning said if Clinton and Dole are the candidates,
Clinton wins. But it's early, and Dole is too busy now slinging mud at Forbes.
So for now, it will remain this way.


Glen

    
    And Clinton wants a smaller government, right Glen?  It's all politics,
    plain and simple.  I'll wait until the primaries are over and then see
    who the repubs ante up and then make a decision between the repub and a
    3rd party candidate.
    
    
    Mike

> and then make a decision between the repub and a 3rd party candidate.

Of course, this is exactly what Slick wants to see happen, Mike.

I'm of half a mind to even vote for Buchanan if that's what the Republican
Convention hands us this summer, much as I hate to say it. I don't relish
the idea of him holding that office, but I like even less the prospect of
another 4 years of Slick, under any circumstances.

The saving grace is that Buchanan prolly hasn't a prayer for getting the
GOP nod, and almost anyone else that they come up with is potentially
electable.

    RE: .183

>	To present a balanced budget is one thing....to present one you know is
>going to be vetoed is a waste of time, and is just pure politics.

    First off, no one has produced a balanced budget for FY96 or FY97 or
    FY98 or FY99 or FY00 or even FY01.  Given that Candidate/President
    Clinton has lied about wanting a balanced budget in 5 years, 10 years,
    9 years, or 7 years depending on when you happen to talk to him, what
    makes you think that he would actually sign any balanced budget?

    -- Dave

| <<< Note 601.184 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "be nice, be happy" >>>


| And Clinton wants a smaller government, right Glen?  

	So he says.....;-)

| It's all politics, plain and simple.  

	I believe I have been saying just that.



Glen

>
>| And Clinton wants a smaller government, right Glen?  
>
>	So he says.....;-)

    I loved Tony Snow's (One of the Fox analists) comment after the
    Clinton State of the Union: (something like)
    
    "Well he started the speach saying that the era of big government
     is over, and he ended the speach saying that the era of big
     government is over. In the middle, by my count, he proposed
     16 new govenment programs, and did not suggest eliminating
     any."
    
    

    
    Re .182 - Hi Doug,
 
>   One thing has become clear to me. While Forbes' original ads elliminated
>   any chance he had at receiving my votes early on, Doles recent behaviour
>   as brought me to the conclusion that he will not receive my support in
>   the primaries either.

    At first this was my thought too. Then I realized what kind of crap
    Clinton and his buddies (like the AFL/CIO) will throw at them in
    the general election, maybe someone who can go negative is not all
    that bad. Looking at the lies the AFL/CIO adds are already emmiting
    it's clear that the '96 campaign will be full of negatives.
    
    						Ed
    
    

I have no problem voting for Dole in the election, however, my primary vote
will go to someone else.

In a Clinton/Forbes run-off, Forbes would not get my vote. (That should not
translate into Clinton gettng my vote btw).

I have a few problems voting for Dole in any election.

Dole wants a Constitutional Amendment to allow prayer in the public
schools.   This would allow local school boards to specify the prayer.  


He "opposed the establishment of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting"
and "supports their elimination".  Source:

http://www.vote-smart.org/campaign_96/presidental/republic/dole-npat.html

Notice Dole isn't saying "ending federal funding",  about 15% of their
budget.  He wants to eliminate the whole thing.  


On the other hand,  Dole and Lugar are the only two Republicans that I
trust on foreign policy.  I'll be fair to Forbes and say he is an unknown.


Phil

>Notice Dole isn't saying "ending federal funding",  about 15% of their
>budget.  He wants to eliminate the whole thing.  

 Cow droppings! PBS is a private non-profit outfit that receives a government 
 subsidy. It also has the resources to make a significant profit without 
 sacrificing it's current programing style. 

 Subsidies, when approved, should go to those that really need it.

 BD couldn't shut down PBS if it was his primary goal in life.

 Doug.

>>Notice Dole isn't saying "ending federal funding",  about 15% of their
>>budget.  He wants to eliminate the whole thing.  

> Cow droppings! PBS is a private non-profit outfit that receives a government 
> subsidy. It also has the resources to make a significant profit without 
> sacrificing it's current programing style. 
                                
    Perhaps Phil can back up his assertion that Bob Dole wants to actually
    dissolve the CPB. Phil?

    Isn't there a source cited in .191?

    Dunno what good it is.
    
    404 Not Found
    
    The requested URL /campaign_96/presidental/republic/dole-npat.html was
    not found on this server. 
    

http://www.vote-smart.org/campaign_96/presidential/republic/dole-npat.html

    
    	And where should we add that "i"?
    

RE: 601.197 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448"

URL posted in .196 should work.

    
    	Just checking ... thanks.
    
    	Might want to SET NOTE x.y/TITLE = ""
    

RE: 601.199 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448"

Happy now?

    
    	Ecstatic.
    

    Read the reference, Phil. If that's what you're hanging your hat on wrt
    Dole wanting to eliminate the CPB then you need a dose of common sense
    when you read third person generalities.

RE: 601.202 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

The question.  "Please indicate if you would eliminate the following."

Dole's answer under other was

"Corporation for Public Broadcasting"


Asked to "explain any budget cutting ideas you may have"

"He opposed the establishment of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as
well as the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities and supports
their elimination."

These are Bob Dole's responses.  Why he put it into third person,  I have
no idea.  Can you read these in any other way than "Dole wanting to
eliminate the CPB"?  If so,  how?


Phil

    
    
    I think, if Dole gets the nomination, he better be very wise about who
    he picks for his Vice Presidential candidate.
    
    Mike

    Sounds like you are concerned about his age.
    
    -Stephen

>These are Bob Dole's responses.  Why he put it into third person,  I have
>no idea.  
    
    Mebbe because the responses were actually written by a staffer.
    
>Can you read these in any other way than "Dole wanting to
>eliminate the CPB"?  If so,  how?
    
     It doesn't make sense for Dole to go beyond eliminating public funding 
    for the CPB. What's he going to do once they are no longer publicly
    funded in order to "eliminate" them? No, what makes sense is that they
    enumerated entities be "eliminated" from the budget, particularly given
    the overall context of the comment being one of "things to eliminate
    fromt he budget." The way I see it, either you really believe the
    assertion that he wants to physically eliminate these entities, in
    which case I can't help but question your comprehension of what was
    said and its context, or you really do understand what he's saying and
    you're just pretending he wants to eliminate the entire entities as a
    means of demonizing the man. Do you have another explanation?

RE: 601.206 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

> Mebbe because the responses were actually written by a staffer.

Maybe so.  That way,  if you like them,  he can take credit.  If you don't, 
the staff gets the blame.  Leadership.  Right.  I think more of Dole than
this,  as a general rule.
    

> It doesn't make sense for Dole to go beyond eliminating public funding 
> for the CPB. 

That's what he said he wants to do.  


> What's he going to do once they are no longer publicly funded in order 
> to "eliminate" them? 

Ask him.  


> Do you have another explanation?

Yes.  I think he said what he means.  He said he wants to eliminate the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  If that's not what he means,  then he
had best correct his words.


Phil

    >That's what he said he wants to do.  
    
     Only if you ignore context or if English is your second language.
    

Dole "opposed the establishment of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
as well as the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities and supports
their elimination."

Context.  He didn't want it to start,  and he wants to eliminate it. 

Seems clear to me.


Phil

    
    
    > and he wants to eliminate it.
    
    and just how, in your own words, would good old Bob go about doing
    that?
    
    Do try answering without your usual "ask him" retort...
    

>Asked to "explain any budget cutting ideas you may have"

>"He opposed the establishment of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as
>well as the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities and supports
>their elimination."
    
    From the budget. Elimination from the budget. They didn't ask what he'd
    like to eliminate from existence. But The Great Thinker Philip Hays has
    concluded that Dole would like to eliminate the Corporation for
    Public Broadcasting from existence, though he cannot offer any evidence
    to support how such a conclusion could be drawn _given the facts_ except
    for the flawed understanding he clings to like a life ring. 
    

RE: 601.211 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

>  But The Great Thinker Philip Hays has concluded that ...

Out of ammo,  so out comes the mud,  eh?

Too bad.

In case you didn't bother to read what I said about Dole earlier,  I see a
lot to like in Mr Dole.  For one,  I think he has a very good understanding
about foreign policy,  much better than Mr Clinton has.  Of course,  to the
black and white crowd,  to express any disagreement with Mr Dole makes me a
Scum Sucking Fascist Communist Socialist Liberal Democrat.  SSFCSLD,  for
short.

If I was fairly sure that Congress would go Democratic,  I might vote for
Dole.  It's too early to tell.


Phillip,  with two "l"s.

    
    
    Dear Phillip, with two "l"'s
    
    Would you kindly inform us how Bob Dole is gonna whack PBS???
    
    
    Thanks ever so much..
    
    Andrew (with one "A")
    

Going once,  going twice,

SOLD to the man with the checkered teeth.

    
    Ahhh... succinct and plain as day (as usual)
    
    If, "public" funding is cut off to PBS, it would then revert (or would
    it?) to a private institution (no matter what the "P" stood for)...
    
    
    Correct??
    

PBS    ***IS***    privately run and operated. However, it is the benifactor
of government sponsorship, well beyond the period the originators intended.

    >Out of ammo,  so out comes the mud,  eh?
    
     No, Phillip. Out of patience with the likes of you. Your position is
    untenable, yet you aren't even willing to entertain the notion that you
    should reconsider. This bullheadedness is not something I care to
    bother with. /hth

RE: 601.217 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

> Out of patience with the likes of you.

I don't like Bob Dole's position,  and you think that is "untenable".  

How special.  


Phil

    
    
    Phil,
    
     What do you like about, oh.. say, Mr. Clinton's position that you
    might find "tenable"...
    
    Nothing special will do for starters...
    

    i heard on the radio today that dole's campaign momentum is
    already on the wane...grassroots supporters unenthusiastic
    about his "message"...soso, i guess...

RE: 601.219 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Too many politicians, not enough warrior

> What do you like about, oh.. say, Mr. Clinton's position ...

Mr Clinton has stated he supports continued federal funding of PBS.  I
strongly suspect that he holds this position because 70+% of the voters
support continued federal funding of PBS,  but that's ok.  


Phil

    Actually, I think some of the shows on PBS are quite good.  Lehrer News
    hour comes to mind.
    
    As Dole said a few years ago, Barney the lovable dinosaur has become a
    cash cow...and I believe the millions in revenue made from
    Barney/Sesame Street items should be used to defray the cost of PBS! 
    It isn't my responsibility to help them make a profit.
    
    -Jack

>I don't like Bob Dole's position,  and you think that is "untenable".  
    
    You ascribe to Bob Dole a position he has not taken, hence your
    position is predicated on logical quicksand of your own making. That's
    the part that's untenable. Your unwillingness to even _consider_ that you
    have misinterpreted or taken Dole's position out of context is a
    testament to an ego that even my own finds impressive in size, if not
    justification.

 Mr. Dole's people balked at his appearance at the Nutfield Brewing co
 in Derry NH as one of their products is called "Old Man Ale".  But,
 Bob decided to go anyway.




 Jim

    i also think that negative ad campaigning has seen its
    heyday.  people are fed up and disgusted with it.  there's been
    some so far, let's see if they choose to tone it down or drop
    it altogether.

    
    Bonnie,
    
     What's your definition of "negative campaigning"??
    

    steve forbes is a millionaire!!!
    
    dupont is a millionaire and was recently apprehended
    for the murder of paul schultz, a gold medal Olympic 
    wrestler!!
    
    dupont waged a war of nerves with a 17-man SWAT team 
    until he was wrestled to the ground and put into custody!!
    
    dupont is a psychopathic gun-nut and a millionaire!
    
    steve forbes is a millionaire!!

> Mr Clinton has stated he supports continued federal funding of PBS.

Good lord, Phil - that's hardly a reason to support the yoyo. You want to
ensure that PBS continues to remain funded? Given the pittance from the
Fed budget that goes to PBS, I'd be more than willing to bet you could
start a fundraising campaign within private industry and drum up matching
dollars just on the basis of "Give to PBS and get rid of Slick."

If you have some substantial reason to like Slick, then tell us. But please
don't use rationale that's so easily handwaved as PBS funding is.

RE: 601.228 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

Or perhaps the Republicans might start using their brains.  Or even
listening to the voters for a change.  Might help them.

Oh,  and it sounds like Packwood's seat is the start of a very bad year for
the Grand Old Party.

The Republicans don't care about clean air,  clean water,  protecting the
ozone layer or global warming.  The voters do.


Phil

    
    
    Republicans don't care?  That's out and out BS, Phil.  Perhaps it's 
    not as high on the priority list as it is on the dems, but it's still
    there.  There seems to be some hypocracy on the dems part as well. 
    Clinton is worried about the economy, yet he didn't mind helping out 
    his buddies at Tyson Foods.  
    
    
    Mike 

Bob Dole is now trailing in two of the last three polls here in New
Hampshire.  The one poll he was leading in looked at mainly Republicans, 
and other two looked at likely voters including independents,  who are
going to be mainly voting in the Republican primary as there is no major
challenge to Clinton.

Many independent voters don't seem to like Bob Dole.  Wonder why?

As for me,  I'm thinking about Lugar.  


Phil

RE: 601.230 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "be nice, be happy"

>  Republicans don't care?   Perhaps it's not as high on the priority list
> as it is on the dems,

Yea,  the environment is somewhere below PBS on the Republican priority
list.


Phil

    
    
    So, they are looking to cut out the EPA altogether, eh Phil?
    

RE: 601.233 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "be nice, be happy"

> cut out the EPA altogether

I doubt if they will manage eliminate PBS altogether,  but many of the
Republicans have called for elimination of the EPA.

Check out this year's budget cuts.  Did the EPA get a bigger cut than PBS?
Or a smaller one?

They cut funding for acid rain research 100%.   They tried to do the same
thing on global warming research.  Insurance companies jumped down their
throats.  This was fun to read about.  I really enjoyed it.  The
Republicans tried to abrogate the treaty on reducion of CFC's.  They tried
to find someone vaguely scientifically respectable to testify that CFCs
don't kill ozone.  The closest they could come was Dr Singer,  who whined
that NASA shouldn't have released a bunch of data proving CFCs kill ozone
at a press conference,  but should have published in a scientific journal
first and then had a press conference.  Real amusing.  

You are in Maryland,  right?  Who is your rep?  The local Republicans
Congressmen Morella and Gilchrest have some of the highest ratings (88% and
77%) of any Republican from the League of Conservation Voters.  Bartlett
and Ehrlich with ratings  of 8% and 0%,  are much more in line with the
party.  I live in New Hampshire,  and both of our reps rate 0%.


The Contract on America has a Polluter's Bill of "rights" in it.

1) Polluters could no longer be required to pay for cleaning up their
   mess.  The taxpayers would be required to pay.  This is called "property
   rights".  Gramm has been pushing this,  that's why I will never vote for
   Gramm. 

2) The "unfunded mandates" section would exempt any private entities, 
   local or state government from any new federal regulation unless the
   federal government paid the full cost of the regulation.

Real smart stuff.


Phil

Is requiring a polluter to pay for the clean up of his mess, 
"ecoterrorism"?


Phil

    No.

    
    Seems like some people consider it to be.  I don't understand the
    problem.  My families small engineering company cleaned up their mess,
    and it cost us a small fortune, but it is too much to ask other larger
    multi-national corporations to do same?
    
    meg

So then,  what is the "ecoterrorism" you are complaining about?

Is this the word that is going to be used to replace "liberalism" in the
Republican vocabulary?


Phil

    Eco-terrorism, in the context I used it, refers to the practice of
    considering the environment in matters of public policy without regard
    to other factors. The environment is but a single factor in public
    policy. An important one, but not one which preempts consideration of
    all others. In deciding to ban a particular substance, it must be
    considered how much it's going to cost to find and use an alternative
    substance, how banning the substance will affect the economy, what
    effects consumers/the general public will feel and for how long, what
    is to be gained by banning the substance, etc. It is not sufficient to
    say "substance A has been shown by a study to be harmful to the
    environment therefore it is immediately banned."
    
     An example of a complaint I have is the banning of freon. The way it
    was done created a huge black market. Apparently, it rivals drug
    smuggling as a major black market cash cow (source: Frontline, a couple
    of months ago.) People are making millions smuggling freon into the US.
    meanwhile, consumers are getting socked because they have automobile AC
    that needs freon to work, and the replacement substance won't work in
    such cars. So instead of getting a $30 freon charge, it's a $600 new AC
    unit. Good thinking! And what's the net environmental benefit? Not
    enough for the impacts made. (I'm certain you'l disagree with this. I
    don't care.)

RE: 601.239 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

> Eco-terrorism, in the context I used it, refers to the practice of 
> considering the environment in matters of public policy without regard 
> to other factors....  An example of a complaint I have is the banning of 
> freon.  And what's the net environmental benefit?  Not enough for the
> impacts made. (I'm certain you'l disagree with this. I don't care.)

I know you don't care,  after all this is a real issue,  and it's so much
easier to paint "eco-terrorism" on anyone that disagrees with your world
view than it is to discuss the issue.

I'll discuss this issue more in the ozone topic when time permits.


Phil

    And all this time, I thought "eco-terrorism"  as defined by many would
    be monkey wrenching, such as pouring sand in the crankcases of loggin
    vehicles, spiking trees, pulling down power lines, etc.  
    
    Of course my definition includes clear-cutting forests, oil drilling in
    pristine wildlife refuges, improperly lining leech pits so cyanide and
    heavy metals are washed down stream and leaving the mess for others to
    clean up, dumping toxic waste in the woods, turning off the scrubbers
    in coal-fired generators at night when you are less likely to get
    caught...........
    
    meg

    I see this as no different than any other special interest group
    lobbying for their agenda.  Would you typify the others as tobacco
    terrorists,  gun terrorists,  etc.?  Personally, I think you have
    defined special interest politics tp a tee.  "I don't care what the
    impact on anyone else is just do whatever I/we want and the rest of you
    be damned.  Here's a pile of money to help you see it my way."
    
    Eco-terrorism i.e. actively destroying and disrupting industrial
    projects and activities that impact the environment is quite a bit 
    different from pushing an agenda politically.  I will agree that there
    needs to be a balanced approach to public policy making but that is not
    the way the game is played.

>I know you don't care,  after all this is a real issue,  and it's so much
>easier to paint "eco-terrorism" on anyone that disagrees with your world
>view than it is to discuss the issue.
    
    What I don't care about is the fact that you disagree with me, not the
    issue itself. But you knew that. Just couldn't let an opportunity for
    an undeserved slam slip by. It's just this inability to disagree
    respectfully that makes me not care about your positions. If you can't
    make an intellectual appeal, then you aren't worth my time.

I don't care to have "eco-terrorist" painted on me.  It's a slam,  and
turnabout is always fair play.  Why don't you bother to discuss the issue?


Phil

>I don't care to have "eco-terrorist" painted on me.  
    
    Who did so and where?

    .239
    
        |An example of a complaint I have is the banning of freon. The way
        |it was done created a huge black market. Apparently, it rivals drug
        |smuggling as a major black market cash cow (source: Frontline, a
        |couple of months ago.)
    
        mark, you watch Frontline too?  Did you happen to catch their
        biography on Newt?  Such a shame about the wife and kids...
    
       

601.239

    
      Iowa is a big test for the farm state Republicans, Dole, Lugar,
     and to some extent Gramm.  This matters much more than New Hampshire
     to these guys.
    
      Dole has just got to win the Iowa caucuses, or it may be all over.
    
      bb

    
      Dole won, although not by much, in Ia.  He remains the most
     probable nominee.  New Hampshire will be a test, but he can
     survive even if not first there.
    
      Many Republicans, including me, are inclined very much to Dole.
     He's BEEN THERE.  Through everything.  War hero, in politics since
     1951, seen everything.
    
      Conservatives are that way because they are traditional.  Why NOT
     Dole ?  Because he's boring ?  We like boring.
    
      bb

re: .249 (BB)

Four more years of Clinton because "you like boring."

Thanks a lot.
\john

	bb....not sure if you ever said it, but are you in favor for term
limits? If so, I'm wondering why you would vote for someone who has been in the
frey since 1951? 

Speaking of which, I see Strom Thurmond's getting ready to announce that
he's seeking reelection.  He's 93.

    re:  <<< Note 601.251 by BIGQ::SILVA "Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity" >>>
    
    >> frey since 1951?
    
    
    That's 'fray'.
    
    
    
    Mr. Spell-it-right.

    
      Glen - see 72.97.  We hashed term limits to death in here, I think.
    
      By the way, if you get a chance, read a Dole bio in a mag or rag.
     It is hard for anybody not to be impressed by this guy's life.
     He is also very polite, as 38-year Senators often are.  He will
     turn 73 about convention time.  Reagan alone was ran older (and won).
    
      Also btw - I am not actually registered Republican, but unenrolled.
     I was Republican, but cancelled my membership in 1973 in disgust
     at Nixon's conduct in office.  Though I was very enthusiastic for
     Ron, I've never actually put an 'R' after my name in over 20 years.
    
      I have occassionally voted for Democrats.
    
      bb

  Z   Conservatives are that way because they are traditional.  Why NOT
  Z   Dole ?  Because he's boring ?  We like boring.
    
    I don't believe Dole is fiscally conservative...and this is the turn
    off for me.  I believe Bob Dole is more likely to get in bed with the
    status quo.  I simply don't believe he firmly stands for the interests
    of the Pub Party.
    
    

    If we're faced with Dole or Buchanan, its clear that Buchanan is
    unacceptable and so we must go with Dole.  And of the current crop of
    terribly disappointing candidates he may actually have a chance to beat
    Clinton.
    
    But I thoroughly expect him to drop dead before he gets the chance;
    or, should he survive the race, never finish his term.  This makes
    him a terrible risk in my eyes.
    
    DougO

    
    	How old is he?
    
    	Wasn't Reagan 69 when he took office?
    

    Does he have any serious health problems?  
    
    -Stephen

 Dole is 72 or 73.





 Jim

    
    >Does he have any serious health problems?
    
    No... in fact, he's very fit for a man 10 years younger (don't ask who,
    I never caught his name).
    
    But.. don't let this little tid-bit, and the press stop you...
    

    >> Does he have any serious health problems?
    >
    >    No...
    
    no?  other than no use of his arm due to a war injury, that we know of,
    you mean.
    
    Mitterand's doctor tells us, now that the former president is dead,
    that he's been fighting cancer for more than a decade.  Certainly it
    could have affected the election results when he won his second term
    in the mid-80s.  Don't be too sure that you know all there is to know
    about Dole's health.  
    
    DougO

>    or, should he survive the race, never finish his term.  This makes
>    him a terrible risk in my eyes.

Or, very desireable if he could be convinced to choose a running mate
whom, while not necessarily capable of beating Slick on his own, appears
to be good presidential material.

    
    
    I look for Christine Todd Whitman as his running mate.
    
    
    
    Either that or Dan Quayle..... :')
    

 Z   If we're faced with Dole or Buchanan, its clear that Buchanan is
 Z   unacceptable and so we must go with Dole.
    
    Write in Dick Cheney!

    I hope its not Whitman. She would be hard to replace as our Gov. I`m
    pleased with her and I`ve been msotly democrat.

    
    re: .262
    
    I guess you are unaware of the recent (2-3 months ago) physical he took
    and made public??
    
     It was meant to dispell any notions of ill/bad/poor health that his
    detractors were hinting at subtely...
    
    
    >other than no use of his arm due to a war injury, that we know of,
    >you mean.
    
     Your point being???  Ahhh... never mind... I see...
    
     Sorta like us not knowing how clogged Slick's arteries are due to
    massive inhalation of Big Macs...
    
     

    
    >other than no use of his arm due to a war injury, that we know of,
    >you mean.
    
    	If Silber had had 2 good arms, HE might be the governor of MA
    	now.
    

    No, Silber tripped an fell on his face.  Kind of hard to walk when both
    your feet are in your mouth.  

    Hi Ho Silber!

    re: .256
    
    I'm not sure Dole stands for anything.
    
    Bob

    Dole stands for all the angry old farts in your country who reminisce
    about the old days when men were men, and women and fairies new their
    place.

    
>    I'm not sure Dole stands for anything.
    
 
 He stands to salute the flag!

Did Tsongas release the results of his physical in 1992?

    
    Did Glenn Richardson check the tension on his suspenders this morning??
    
    Film at 11:00!!!
    

    >> other than no use of his arm due to a war injury, that we know of,
    >> you mean.
    >
    > Your point being?
    
    ??  The question was asked, does Dole have any health problems.
    The incorrect answer, given by you, and I quote, was "No".
    
    The above is merely a correction to your error.  That's what my "point"
    is.  Is this difficult for you to understand, that a useless arm can be
    considered a health problem?  
    
    DougO

    
    	Yes ... splitting hairs!!
    
    	I love this conference.
    

    The bad arm won't threaten his capacity to complete his term.  He is
    rather old, I know.  As someone said, his choice of running mate will
    be very imprtant.  
    
    -Stephen

    No doubt he will pick someone who thinks women shouldn't have been given
    the vote, as a running mate. And, dresses should cover the knees!

    hth

    
    	With that bad arm, he's limited as to how he picks his running
    	mate.  He'll have to point with the one he can move.
    

    >The bad arm won't threaten his capacity to complete his term.
    
    How can you say that?  Some senior citizens do fine for decades, then
    suddenly and irrevocably decline, due to complications from seemingly
    trivial problems that wouldn't even slow down a younger person.  Carrying
    around a bumb arm is something Dole has done for 50 years.  Who knows
    whether it or something else will or will not cause him to enter a
    decline?  That's what *happens* to old people.  He is 72!  You simply
    can't predict what will or won't threaten his capacities with any
    degree of certainty.
    
    DougO

    What a bumb!

    i also heard the arm still gives him a considerable 
    amount of pain.

    >Is this difficult for you to understand, that a useless arm can be
    >considered a health problem?  
    
     Wow- this is a significant misunderstanding about the nature of a
    health problem. Or are all disabled people health problems?
    
     It's not like the arm has impeded his ability to serve in the senate.
    It's not like the arm presents a near term or long term health risk.
    The arm's function is impaired. As we do not send our president to
    engage in fist fights or arm wrestling with foreign leaders, it does
    not adversely impact the man's ability to do the job.
    
     I'm really surprised to see this level of discrimination in a liberal.
    So much for being enlightened.

    you had me roaring with that one, Shawn. 

    
    
    
    Good grief, DougO.  Your last note was a shocker, yes it was.......
    
    Talk about reaching.

    >>Is this difficult for you to understand, that a useless arm can be
    >>considered a health problem?
    >
    >   Wow- this is a significant misunderstanding about the nature of a
    >   health problem. Or are all disabled people health problems?
    
    Talk about significant misunderstandings.  The arm is the health
    problem, Mark, not the person.
    
    DougO

    .281
    
    Bingo.
    
    Whe I was 33, I suffered a broken leg.  The injury was of a type
    rarely seen in younger people, and my surgeon wrote me for a 25%
    permanent disability.  The insurance company balked, and he explained
    that there was insufficient literature to suggest what I'd be going
    through 20 years later.
    
    Three months after surgery to reduce the fracture, I was strong enough
    to cycle 43 miles in 2:20.
    
    That was 16 years ago, and for about 10 years afterward things were
    cool - I figured I'd gotten off lucky.  But over the past 4-5 years,
    I've developed disabilities that I can attribute to that leg injury. 
    Others I've known who had been injured years ago have indicated that
    they, too, developed gradually aggravating disabilities.
    
    So as far as Dole goes, he may well sicken and die within a span of
    months.

    
    
    The arm is a diability, Doug.  This does not make it a health problem
    in that it could lead to something which could be lethal.  
    
    
    Mike

    DougO:
    
    None of us can preDict the 'future' Of our health...u Could be hit by a
    Bus when you leavethe office today... a bum arm he'scarried around foR
    50 years doesn'tmean he's in bad Health; it means hE's capable of
    adaPting successfullyto a difficult siTuation....the BobDole of 1996 is
    eLectable as presidEnt; not the Dole Of 8,12 or even 20yrs ago when he
    wAs Ford's running Mate.
    
    FWIW

    He's not electable in my book.  Any candidate who wants to be prez
    because it's his turn...

    .... and wants to shut down those filthy movie houses.

    
    
    Criminy Blinder, you been sniffing the screen cleaner again?

    
    
    shaddup, ya cannuk....

    My mother is 74.  She has dementia.  She went down hill
    very quickly once it started.  Any change in her environment
    sends her for a loop.  I also used to think age doesn't matter,
    but after seeing how quickly it stuck my mother, I'd really
    have to think twice before voting for someone Bob Dole's
    age.  
    
    Mary-Michael

    .293
    
    Nope.  Been listening to Bob Dole.  He's "served his country long and
    loyally for decades in the Senate," now he thinks he's earned the right
    to be Prez.  He was quoted saying this in one of the smalltown Cow
    Hampster noozrags.

    MM:
    
    in case u dIdn't know, there Is a law against aGe discrimination.
    
    FWIW
    

    
    It's a secret code.  It's got to be.
    

    .297
    
    In case you didn't know, the United States Constitution is guilty of
    breaking that law.  Oopsie.

    
    	RE: Age discrimination
    
    	So if Dole loses, he can sue 50% plus of the population for age
    	harassment?
    

    > The arm is a diability [sic], Doug. This does not make it a health
    > problem in that it could lead to something which could be lethal.
    
    First, yes, its a disability.  Second, yes, it is too a health problem,
    it affects his life, his mobility, his ability to dress himself, etc,
    etc, because it is not functioning as it should.  Third, who defines
    that the only health problems we're allowed to discuss are those of
    proven lethality?  That is a useless definition- it is not germane. 
    The fact remains that Dole *remains* affected, has had to live every
    day of his adult life with, the disability.  Who could possibly pretend
    it doesn't affect his health?  Just trying to drive around with a cast
    on my leg and a manual transmission for a month raised my stress levels 
    when I was a healthy young adult, it wore me out.  And as I said before, 
    such problems have more impact on seniors- and can cause them to enter 
    terminal declines.
    
    You don't have to believe me, you know.  I consider Dole to be a big
    risk for the GOP because I think he'll die in his first term, if the
    stress of the campaign doesn't kill him first.  But if you don't think
    so, hey, I don't care.
    
    DougO

    
      Just more slickism.  In a hypothetical Clinton V. Dole election,
     nobody on the Democratic side will mention age or the war wound.
     I think the problem is rather Clinton's lack of both.  It would
     be a HUGE political mistake.  I think many people consider that
     wound a big plus for Dole in the election.  Not so the age.  Dole
     has contributed to his country, all his life, while Clinton scammed
     his country by setting his wife up to bank fraud, after giving aid
     and comfort to his country's enemies.  But I digress...
    
      The age business is more of an issue, and I think a negative for
     Dole.  Buchanan, I know, is 57, which is more about right.  I dunno
     Alexander's age, but it must be similar to Buchanan's.  But Reagan
     ran and won a second term at an older age than Dole.  My guess is
     the political effect is slight.  However, the point about a VP
     choice is a good one.  It should be someone younger, say, fortyish.
    
      bb

    DougO:
    
    WhAt person at ANYage, much less, DOle, is totally prOblem-free?

    
    If Dole gets the nomination, expect a heap of pressure to be brought to
    bear on Colin Powell to serve as VP.
    
    

    there they go again...when I point out the fatal flaws in the current
    GOP approach I get told I'm on the Clinton trail.
    
    Expand the limited dimensions within which you are operating.
    I point out the flaws so that they'll be overcome in time.
    
    If Dole is the frontrunner, but debilitated or dead by the time of the
    convention in August, you won't have to thank me, if you've prepared
    for the eventuality by picking a solid second to take over the
    campaign.  Too bad there's hardly any solid firsts in the race to pick
    from now.
    
    DougO

    >Second, yes, it is too a health problem,
    >it affects his life, his mobility, his ability to dress himself, etc,
    >etc, because it is not functioning as it should.  
    
     Can't say I've spent any length of time watching the man dress, but he
    seems to have overcome the modest inconvenience that the disability
    presents. After all, he's been like that for nigh on 50 years, with
    very little change.
    
    >Just trying to drive around with a cast
    >on my leg and a manual transmission for a month raised my stress levels 
    >when I was a healthy young adult, it wore me out.  
    
     SFW? Maybe he's tougher than you. Maybe a leg impairment is more
    difficult to overcome than an arm impairment. Besides, I imagine that
    in 50 years you'd have discovered that not all cars have manual
    transmissions (had your impairment been permanent.) Maybe you just
    didn't live the with impairment long enough to attain a steady-state.
    
    > I consider Dole to be a big risk for the GOP because I think he'll die 
    >in his first term, if the stress of the campaign doesn't kill him first.  
    
     Now _there's_ a genuine health risk. The stress of the campaign and
    job vs his advanced age. Nothing at all to do with his disability.
    
     It's not as if there are such a dearth of real health issues to discuss 
    that we are relegated to making some up...
    
     The stress of the job is huge. Compare the last few presidents before
    and after their terms. They are aged in a big way. I can't see Dole
    serving a second term (assuming he even got to the first.) I think he'd
    elect not to run for a second term. Even Clinton's showing the signs of
    age, and he's a kid (relatively speaking.)
    

    Well, at least they can still eat solids!

> As we do not send our president to engage in fist fights [...]
> with foreign leaders

Mebbe that's not a bad idea. Since Slick chickened out on the Safire
assault, this might be a way for me to make a case for having him fry ...

    
    
    RE: .301  Doug, you were trying to imply that the arm injury could turn
    into something lethal.  That's bullcrap.
    
    
    Mike

    He certainly won't be pressing any buttons with it.

    
      In a boxing tournament of current world leaders, I'd go with
     John Major, methinks.
    
      bb

  >> I consider Dole to be a big risk for the GOP because I think he'll die 
  >> in his first term, if the stress of the campaign doesn't kill him first.
  >  
  >   Now _there's_ a genuine health risk. The stress of the campaign and
  >   job vs his advanced age. Nothing at all to do with his disability.
    
  I consider this a very peculiar stance.  Fine, you agree with most
  of the factors that make Dole's candidacy a risky strategy for the
  GOP on grounds of the campaign stress, job stress, and his age.  I
  suppose I could stop there.

  But in a parenthetical aside I will say that I find it incomprehensible
  that you would declare his physical disability to have 'nothing at all 
  to do' with that same set of risk factors.  I suppose it is *possible*
  that Dole has reached a 'steady-state', as you call it, wherein the
  stresses of dealing with daily life complicated by the disability have
  been reduced by system, custom, and habit.  But the likelihood seems
  vanishingly small to me.  He's been a scrapper (athlete, soldier, pol)
  all his life.  "Stop lying about my record!"  That isn't the statement
  of a guy who knows how to live with and reduce his own stress levels.
  So it seems to me that the mere fact of his disability gives us a fuller
  picture of what you already admit to be a problematic health situation.
  Your milage may vary.

  > It's not as if there are such a dearth of real health issues to discuss 
  > that we are relegated to making some up...
   
  I don't have to make anything up, Mark.  The disability exists.  The
  health complications it suggests to me can't be wished away.
 
  DougO

    
    
    Nice twist, Doug.  Add a few sumersaults in there and you'll be ready
    for the olympics.  This is the biggest risk, but that doesn't mean it's
    substantial, and that risk will be put to rest if the running mate
    choice is wise.
    
    
    Mike

    > Doug, you were trying to imply that the arm injury could turn
    > into something lethal.
    
    You are invited to re-read .281 for comprehension.
    
    DougO

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 601.281                        Bob Dole                          281 of 310
SX4GTO::OLSON "DBTC Palo Alto"                       12 lines  13-FEB-1996 14:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >The bad arm won't threaten his capacity to complete his term.
    
    How can you say that?  Some senior citizens do fine for decades, then
    suddenly and irrevocably decline, due to complications from seemingly
    trivial problems that wouldn't even slow down a younger person.  Carrying
    around a bumb arm is something Dole has done for 50 years.  Who knows
    whether it or something else will or will not cause him to enter a
    decline?  That's what *happens* to old people.  He is 72!  You simply
    can't predict what will or won't threaten his capacities with any
    degree of certainty.
    
    DougO
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    There it is, Doug.  Perhaps it's not the comprehension, but you just
    are a bit more transparent than you think you are......
    
    
    Mike

  >But in a parenthetical aside I will say that I find it incomprehensible
  >that you would declare his physical disability to have 'nothing at all 
  >to do' with that same set of risk factors.
    
     You definitely do have a problem with the notion that a disability is
    not in and of itself a health problem, that much you've made clear.
    
    >I suppose it is *possible*
  >that Dole has reached a 'steady-state', as you call it, wherein the
  >stresses of dealing with daily life complicated by the disability have
  >been reduced by system, custom, and habit.  But the likelihood seems
  >vanishingly small to me.  
    
     On the contrary, the likelihood of him not having learned to deal with
    the disability after living with it for 50 years seems vanishingly
    small.
    
  >I don't have to make anything up, Mark.  The disability exists.  The
  >health complications it suggests to me can't be wished away.
    
     It's the "health complications" that are made up, not the disability.
    /hth
    
     Frankly, this line of 'omigawd we can't vote for him because he's got
    a bum arm' seems to be one of the conclusion being reached and the
    facts being interpreted to support the conclusion rather than basing
    the conclusion on where the facts lead. YMMV. You don't need an excuse
    to not vote for the guy. They're a dime a dozen. It seems like this
    issue is simply more FUD, which, unfortunately, benefits the incumbent.
    The incumbent LIVES for FUD, because it's all to his advantage.
    

I don't understand all this talk about Dole's Arm. He could be minus all of his
limbs and still be able to have the same BS spewing out of his mouth.

    >> ...limbs and still be able to have the same BS spewing out of his
    >> mouth.
    
    Show me ANY politician that doesn't have 'brown breath'...

Sorry, I can't

    I do so dislike teaching English.
    
    Mike, lets talk about the words "terminal decline".  I used those words
    to describe a very, very common occurence, wherein an elderly person is
    suddenly and irreversibly beset with health problems - none of which
    seem all that serious, if taken alone - but which rapidly add up to tax
    the physical system of the elderly person beyond sustainability.  They
    might be 'complications' from a virus, fluid gathered in the lungs or
    muscle tissues or pericardial sack - they might be broken bones
    resulting from a fall on a weakened hip or ribcage - they might be so
    simple as a loss of energy due to decline of food intake due to loss of
    appetite from medications to control other killers, like hypertension.
    The point is that it usually comes from a multiplicity of factors that
    combine to break down the body's systems.
    
    Whether or not you choose to recognize it, people who go into such a
    decline tend to die.  And it happens a lot.  It just happened to my
    step-grandmother- she was in the hospital for a month last October,
    and never got to go home- caring for her was wearing my grandfather
    out.   She spent her last four months in a nursing home.  He visited
    her every day - they were married a few years after my grandmother died
    of cancer, 23 years ago.  He reports that she was alert, some days, but
    simply not there, mentally, on other days.  She was in terminal
    decline.
    
    Carrying a bad arm and embedded shrapnel around for fifty years hasn't
    killed Bob Dole, yet.  But if he takes a fall, or gets a cold, or both,
    they *would* be additional strains upon his system - and if things go
    far enough wrong, that might kill him.
    
    These are not somersaults, these are not gyrations, these are not
    smears.  These are the health factor risks of the GOP frontrunner.
    Deal with it, Dorothy.
    
    DougO

    
    re: .276
    
    
    >??  The question was asked, does Dole have any health problems.
    >The incorrect answer, given by you, and I quote, was "No".
    
     Incorrect answer?? I would suggest you contact a medical/health
    professional and determine what exactly "health problems" entails..
    (Dick's anecdote aside).
    
    
    >The above is merely a correction to your error.  That's what my "point"
    >is.  Is this difficult for you to understand, that a useless arm can be
    >considered a health problem?  
    
    Correction to my error? Is that from "The DougO Dictionary of Health
    Terms and Conditions"???
    
    DougO

    
    re: .320
    
    >I do so dislike teaching English.
    
    Don't sprain your arm or anything....
    

I think I feel sick, and its getting worse by the minute!!   :)

    Obviously it's not a health problem to those who hate Slick.

    
    
    Just an aside...
    
    I noted last week that my personal choice was Phil Gramm. Dole a
    distant.... third? fourth?
    
    But, given the choice between an old man with a bum arm vs. a younger
    Slick with greasy blood vessels... I'd go with Dole everytime...
    

    
    re: .324
    
    One wonders the energy, time and effort you'd put into your
    notes/replies had you been an American citizen...
    
    Or is American politics aversion therapy for you???
    

    See?

    
    So?

  right, okay, so let's see... Dole is off the list - bad arm, will 
  probably die because of it in the middle of the inauguration ceremony...
  and Forbes is out - just too goofy looking, big sorry.

  this is getting easier.

    Who's to say I'll never be an American citizen?

Was that a request for volunteers?

    Gee Jack, got room for me at your place?

    
    re: .330
    
    >Who's to say I'll never be an American citizen?
    
    
    Oh Good!!!! Someone who's already hard at work practicing!!!
    

    
      This is all a non-issue red herring from DougO.
    
      Dole faces the same problems that any Republican faces.  Does the
     public wish to actually do the things they elected the Republicans
     to do, and Clinton vetoed ?  Or do they really just want to talk
     about it but not do it ?
    
      I think the public basically LIKES gridlock right now.  They don't
     want anything to happen.  Unfortunately, the financials will not
     permit this for very long, and we'll be back and in worse trouble
     four years hence.
    
      It is a matter of communications.  I don't find Dole nearly as
     effective in public speaking as Ronald Reagan was, even when he
     was older.  So it will be tough selling the medicine of fiscal
     responsibility when the other guy just lies, and says you can
     someday get out of debt without reducing anything.  Bob Dole is
     very likely to get flustered in debate when Clinton tells his
     big lies without blinking.  It is a hard dragon to slay.
    
      bb

Actually, Dole's arm is sort of an issue in a roundabout way.  Dole's very
proud of his work in support of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).
Presumably his own disability has something to do with his support for this.
The ADA is anathema for a lot of conservatives.

    Mark, one could suppose he has "learned to live with it" - at least
    you're now admitting there may actually be affects in daily life that
    he has to deal with.  But that won't save him from the debilitating
    burden his system will have to deal with should the stress of the
    campaign strike him down.  
    
    > Frankly, this line of 'omigawd we can't vote for him because of his
    > bum arm'
    
    That isn't what my conclusion has been throughout this string - where'd
    you get that?  What I have repeatedly stressed has been that his is a
    very high-risk nomination strategy for the GOP, for the health issue.
    Braucher has been the only one to begin to address the topic on that
    level, but he thinks I'm rooting for Clinton, too, so his
    perceptiveness is demonstrably limited.
    
    What a disaster, all-around, the current crop of GOP candidates look 
    like.  If Lugar doesn't show well, and soon, we'll be stuck with Dole.
    
    DougO

    
>      I think the public basically LIKES gridlock right now.

	yeah.  i know a lot of my friends don't mind.  the thought
	of a totally republican republic terrifies them much more
	than the prospects of clinton for another four.

> Bob Dole is very likely to get flustered in debate when Clinton tells his
> big lies without blinking.

Come on, now, bb. One doesn't spend as many years as has Dole on the floor
of the Senate and maintain a propensity for getting flustered by liars in 
debate. And that's not meant to be taken sarcastically, either.

    At least he can't thump a bible while he's holding one. Perhaps there's
    hope.

    Oh yes he can.  He can pound the pulpit with it which can be just as
    effective, or ineffective depending upon your perspective.

In Suessian terms, he can thump with stump.

    Well then, there's no hope.

    As President, someone as old as Dole might be a sort of "lame duck." 
    If it were generally expected that he would only serve a single term,
    Republicans in Congress might spend a lot of time manoeuvring to
    position themselves for succession.  Unless the VP were considered
    unassailable...

    <---- What could you possibly know? You're Canadian aren't you?

    >>  Republicans in Congress might spend a lot of time manoeuvring to
    >>  position themselves for succession.  
    
    So, this will be a change then?  

    the ol' buckaroo is a glutton for punishment.  he's tried
    for the presidency twice before!  bob dole can't help 
    himself.

Boy, if there was ever a time when we needed a "NONE OF THE ABOVE"
option, this is it. It's too bad we can't vote to *not* have a
president until someone runs who is worth electing. In the meantime,
the executive branch will be managed by ...

    around here, bill clinton _is_ satan.

    >	yeah.  i know a lot of my friends don't mind.  the thought
    >	of a totally republican republic terrifies
    
     I find this to be an irrational fear. Can you list the reasons why
    this "terrifies" them?

    
    I'd like to hear that as well. Have we not had a totally Democratic
    republic before?
    
    
    

    
    RE: .320  You are rather funny, Doug.....that is if what you spew
    wasn't so pathetic.  Perhaps California English is different from the
    rest.  First you say the arm could cause the terminal decline, then you
    say that you never said any such thing and then you go on (in your
    little english lesson) to explain why it could happen.  I'm not in a
    real forgiving mood these days, Douglas, lot on the mind dontcha know,
    bu I'll consider the source and overlook  your pathetic display.
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    RE: .329 M'Lady, now you're catching on.  And people think wymyns can't
    understand complex things like politics.......  
    
    
    Perhaps if one of them would get a catchy theme song that was easy to
    dance to, that might make the difference.
    
    
    
    Mikey

    listen to Mike, DougO. i know from experience :-)

  Z   I find this to be an irrational fear. Can you list the reasons why
  Z   this "terrifies" them?
    
    Most likely derives from mental midgetry.  Their desperate cleaving to
    abortion and all that good American know how.

    Shaddap! I wasn't asking you.

    Uhhh....sorry

    re: .352 and others
    
    Religious intolerance;
    
    Merging of Church and State;
    
    Enforced standard of morality for homosexuals, lesbians,
    divorced families, domestic partnerships and single people;
    
    Lack of emphasis on eduation and higher education in particular;
    
    Penchant for "saving" low paying, dead-end factory jobs instead
    of working to established skilled higher paying jobs which require
    a more educated work force;
    
    Prepared to axe social programs without seeming regard for the
    consequences;
    
    Party is a haven for the wealthy and home for the industrial
    lobbier;
    
    Little regard for environmental standards;
    
    Little regard for elderly and those living on fixed incomes;
    
    Believes welfare and Medicaid to be nearly entirely poplated
    by cheats and frauds;
    
    Supports the dichotomous position of less government and fewer
    individual rights;
    
    The War on Drugs;
    
    Lack of respect for women and minorities.
    
    That's enough to make me shiver, and I didn't even get to
    the A word.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    That's kinda how it looks to me.

re:     <<< Note 601.360 by SMURF::MSCANLON "a ferret on the barco-lounger" >>>

What a load of BS. Just because that's how _you_ see Republicans, doesn't 
necessarily mean that any of it is substantially true. There are plenty
of Republicans, including many both in and running for office, who don't
stand for or believe in many of those things. Then again, others are pretty
damn good ideas, relative to where the Great Sucking Society has led us.

    Then they should speak out, it might help.

    Cleaving to abortion?  Please cleave to anything Jack, I'd like to see
    that.  
    
    Add to the list of fears, emphasis on incarceration over treatment 
    and/or decriminalization of certain substances.
    
    My fear is that an weighted government skewed so far to either side
    will be enough to light the fire.  Too far to the right and you will
    see real, honest to God, in your face, 6:00 news, combat in the streets.  
    The nutters will get their way, their prophesy of needing to protect
    themselves will come true only it will be self fulfilling.  To the
    paranoid amongst us, don't forget to look within when you are looking
    for threats to your long term health and well being.  You will see more
    folks arming themselves but not against the the "shadow gov't" or
    Trilateral Commission or the usurpers of freedom aka the left.  It will
    be against the far right.  I have often thought about self protection
    but I am still not sure who I would need protect from.  
    
    You will also see the U.S. fall farther and farther from being an 
    economic and military force, globally as we retrench and become more
    protectioninst.  I believe some protectionism is good, too much will be
    very, very bad.  
    
    An unbalanced political system will implode.  IMO etc.  
    
    Brian	

    So what your saying is an unchecked government will run amuck?  That's
    plausable, but please remember that our government has been run by the
    left persuasion for forty...years.  

Mary Michael:
    
ZZ    Religious intolerance;
  
We've been over this before.  The Jewish leadership in New York owes him an 
apology.  He was right about Damyanjuk...they were wrong.
  
ZZ    Merging of Church and State;
  
A president by executive order cannot supercede the Constitution.  Too many
checks and balances.  Never heard him claim he was going to do this.
  
Z    Enforced standard of morality for homosexuals, lesbians,
Z    divorced families, domestic partnerships and single people;
 
Can't legislate morality...or anythingfor that matter.  It would take an act 
of Congress and would be fought in the courts...and most likely defeated.
What would he implement that Clinton hasn't done anything about anyway?
   
ZZ    Lack of emphasis on eduation and higher education in particular;
                                                                    
If you are speaking of weakening the Unions and establishing codes of 
instruction, i.e. keeping the humanists out of the schools....yeah...so? 
Look Mary Michael, I am trying like the dickens to keep my kids out of the 
public schools for that very reason, and as you know, I am a staunch advocate
of keeping you from having to pay for these establishments.  Seems to me like
you would be on Buchanans side here.
  
Z    Prepared to axe social programs without seeming regard for the
Z    consequences;
 
Sorry to dissappoint but everybody is or should be looking to do this.  
The consequence would most likely be a windfall.
   
Z    Party is a haven for the wealthy and home for the industrial
Z    lobbier;
 
Now THIS was a scream.  Mary Michael...wake up call.  Clinton's cabinet is 
full of millionaires.    They are a tad hypocritical in this area.
   
ZZ    Little regard for environmental standards;
  
You mean like getting rid of laws posed by democrats where people were not
allowed to clean the brush on their own property because a certain rat was an
endangered species...then the brush caught fire, five homes burned, and the
rats were toast.  Is this the lack of reagrd your speaking of?  This happened
in California by the way.
  
ZZ    Little regard for elderly and those living on fixed incomes;
  
I hardly call an increase of $30.00 in Madicare payments in the year 2002 a low
regard for the elderly.  
  
Z    Supports the dichotomous position of less government and fewer
Z    individual rights;
 
More government means fewer individual rights.  I'm surprised you clumped these
two together.
   
ZZ    Lack of respect for women and minorities.
  
Oh...because he disagrees with quotas like 80% of the rest of the population?
  
Z    That's enough to make me shiver, and I didn't even get to
Z    the A word.
 
Please, enlighten me as to what the A word is here.  I think you're being a tad 
over reative here...and it has nothing to do with your gender! :-)

-Jack

    re: .364
    
    >An unbalanced political system will implode.  IMO etc.  
    
    Sorta like the past 40 years? :-)
    
    Bob
    

    >Religious intolerance;
    
     baloney.
    
    >Merging of Church and State;
    
     And you base this "fear" on what? The idea that it is ok to set aside
    30 seconds at the beginning of the school day where all the students
    have to be quiet and children who wish to pray to their own God can do
    so? That's the typical response anyway, and it is based on a lie.
    
    >Enforced standard of morality for homosexuals, lesbians,
    >divorced families, domestic partnerships and single people;
    
     Such as? The denial of marital rights for same sex partners? That's
    hardly a republican vs democratic position. (Note that I, a republican,
    disagree with this idea.)
    
    >Lack of emphasis on eduation and higher education in particular;
    
     On the contrary, republicans are trying to do more than simply throw
    more money at the problem. We've been simply spending more and more for
    years, to what end? If you look at what we spend per student vs other
    countries and compare that to what we get, you'll discover that we get
    among the least cost effective educational systems in the developed
    world. Republicans want to change that, democrats claim that all we
    need is more money. So apparently you're siding with the faction that
    believes that our educational problems are nothing that more money
    can't solve.
    
    >Penchant for "saving" low paying, dead-end factory jobs instead
    >of working to established skilled higher paying jobs which require
    >a more educated work force;
    
     Surely you jest. The democrats are in the unions' pockets, not the
    republicans. The democrats are the ones who want to save those jobs- of
    course they want those jobs to pay more, which is one of the reasons we
    are less competitive on the world market than we ought to be.
    Republicans are the ones trying to create an opportunity based society
    vs an entitlement based society. You are dead wrong on this point.
    
    >Prepared to axe social programs without seeming regard for the
    >consequences;
    
     Nonsense, though it's not difficult to figure out where this notion
    comes from. If you watch what the media says as opposed to what the
    republicans are actually doing, you could easily be fooled into
    thinking that social security, medicaid, medicare were being gutted...
    Of course, intelligent people who take the time to find out what's
    actually being proposed know that there are no real cuts being
    proposed. Only cuts in the rate of growth- which means that these
    programs are contuing to grow, just not at such an outrageous rate. In
    fqact, the difference between the president's plan and congress' plan
    is pretty small (in terms of growth rate).
    
    >Party is a haven for the wealthy and home for the industrial
    >lobbier;
    
     Haven for the wealthy is a laugh. The Kennedys and many other rich
    families are lifelong democrats. The Kennedys can afford to give other
    people's money away; they already have more than they can spend. As far
    as "home for the industrial lobbier" goes, that's true. The democrats,
    on the other hand, are the home for the entitlement lobbiers.
    
    >Little regard for environmental standards;
    
     This is an area that can and should be addressed by the republican
    party. I see an overreaction to years of environmental overkill like
    the wetlands protection act and other "we're gonna save the environment
    no matter what the human cost" acts. I see the current republican
    freshmen, unlike the speaker BTW, as being a case of the pendulum
    swinging a bit far in the opposite direction. Clearly what is most
    needed is balance, some that has been lacking for years.
    
    >Little regard for elderly and those living on fixed incomes;
    
     You've got this one backwards, too. It's the democrats that are so
    quick to raise taxes- which affects the elderly and those on fixed
    incomes worst.
    
    >Believes welfare and Medicaid to be nearly entirely poplated
    >by cheats and frauds;
    
     not entirely populated, but overpopulated.
    
    >Supports the dichotomous position of less government and fewer
    >individual rights;
    
     As opposed to what? Bigger government and fewer individual rights? And
    that's not a dichotomy, MM. nice try, though. :-)
    
    >The War on Drugs;
    
     Equally supported by the left. This is an indictment of both parties.
    
    >Lack of respect for women and minorities.
    
     That's a sufficiently nebulous smear as to be impossible to disprove.

>             <<< Note 601.352 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>
>     I find this to be an irrational fear. Can you list the reasons why
>    this "terrifies" them?

	No.  If you want to argue politics with my mental-midget
	friends, I could try to arrange a meeting.

    re: .362, .366, .368
    
    What, you think I make this stuff up 'cause I like yanking 
    your collective chains?  Wake up there, young Republicans,
    this is what it looks like to some of us. If'n it ain't
    what yer sayin' then yer PR stinks.
    
    A few Republicans with good ideas still have that entire
    Republican machine behind them.  And it's the Republican
    machine (and the Democratic machine too, I will grant you
    that) that scares people.  For example, the Republican Party 
    has traditionally attracted the wealthy.  Their platforms 
    which encourage economic growth at the expense of the working 
    man have always tended to attract big business.  When was the 
    last time you ever heard the Republican Party called the mouthpiece of
    the working man?  Republicans encourage growth. This isn't
    necessarily bad.  But they tend to encourage it at the
    expense of the environment, the wage earner and the community.
    This is not good.  That doesn't mean there are not rich
    democrats (however, none of you seem to remember any of them
    except for the Kennedy's, so there can't be that many :-), that
    means that traditionally, more of them are associated with
    Republicans than Democrats.
    
    You don't get a label attached to you because no one's ever
    heard of that behavior being attributed to you before.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    .369  and the first weekend in march is definitely out! ;^)

    
    
    RE: .370  MM,
    
    
    Methinks you aren't listening well enough.
    
    
    Mike

    I see, you don't agree with what we are saying because you haven't
    heard correctly.  Very nice.  

    where do you get these decoder hearing aids, then?

    >For example, the Republican Party has traditionally attracted the wealthy. 
    
     They've attracted people who wanted to improve their position in life
    by earning it. Some of whom happen to already be wealthy. Democrats
    have always been more hostile to such people.
    
    >Wake up there, young Republicans,
    >this is what it looks like to some of us. If'n it ain't
    >what yer sayin' then yer PR stinks.
    
     The republicans don't have as favorable a rapport with the media as
    the democrats do, hence the message is filtered and selectively
    promulgated. And indeed the republicans are not as media saavy as the
    democrats. The democrats have always been excellent at making sound
    bites which demonize the republicans and republican initiatives. It's
    apparently a skill worth mastering.
    
     I'm not so worried about dyed in the wool liberals such as yourself,
    Mary-Michael. You aren't about to be persuaded to abandon policies
    simply because they've failed. I'm more concerned about moderates. And
    republicans aren't reaching them, in very large part due to their own
    ineptitude. It's a big problem.

    re: .373
    
    I am listening, but the words in these Pat Buchanan commercials
    I keep hearing are drowning everything else out:
    
    School Prayer (Muslims need not apply and atheists can't opt out);
    Pro-Life;
    NAFTA (low paying factory jobs).
    
    Nope, so far it doesn't appear I have to force my hand across
    the page yet.  
    
    Now, if you'd just convince Lamar Alexander to go pro-choice,
    I *could* vote for him.
    
    MM
     
    
    

  Z   last time you ever heard the Republican Party called the mouthpiece of
  Z      the working man? 
    
    Mary Michael, remember that sham of a democrat convention in 1992...it 
    started out with about 15 Vietnam Veterans marching on the stage to a
    military song of some kind.  Those poor guys made a grandiose
    appearance...just before the democrat convention shuffled them off to a
    local shelter.  They were quite po'd to say the least.  Felt they were
    treated shabbily and I tend to agree.  
    
    My mouthpiece is the ballot box.  I don't care if the guy looks like
    Yoda...I don't care about his bed side manner or any of those other
    superficial measurements.  I am looking for somebody who best
    represents my interests.  This means getting the obstructionists and
    the bad guys out of the way.
    
    Consider for a moment the Communist party in Cuba.  The sham of this
    institution is that the Communist leaders both in Russia and in Cuba
    have absolutely no identification with the people.  They live in
    palaces they took over and conquered while the people live in shantys.
    They indulge in the height of imperialism and trust me...they are
    inducted into western practices.  They have the furs, the lincolns, and
    the palaces...and could give two doots about the people.  Now compare
    this to the democrat party.  A party that supposedly represents...The
    Little People.  We have HRC, who is obviously an evil Reaganite, we
    have a whole cabinet made up of millionaires and elitists without
    credentials, and we have a senate of millionaires.  Heck Jesse Jackson,
    the speaker for freedom and human rights, lives in a plush part of DC
    and has his children go to private schools.  You think for one moment
    he would send them to those ghastly public institutions?  Heck no...and
    I don't blame him.  But hell, let's not be disingenuous about it.  That
    is the parellel I see between much of the democrat party and communism. 
    Writhing phonies!
    
    -Jack

    re: .375
    
    You got one thing wrong.  You said I'm not willing to abandon
    policies when they've failed.  That's not true.  I'm not
    willing to abandon people because the policy failed.  That's
    called commitment.
    

    >I am listening, but the words in these Pat Buchanan commercials
    >I keep hearing are drowning everything else out:
    
     You hear what you want to hear, just like republicans hear what they
    want to hear from the mouths of democrats. If you are looking for an
    excuse to vote against the republicans, you'll find one. Same goes for
    the other direction. 
    
    >School Prayer (Muslims need not apply and atheists can't opt out);
    
     Since when? Show me a proposal promulgated supported by the
    republicans party to which either of those accusations apply. I bet you
    can't. I also bet it doesn't stop you from repeating that garbage.
    
    >NAFTA (low paying factory jobs).
    
     You just don't get it, if you think that NAFTA is about "low paying
    factory jobs." You really oughtta study economic policy. Seriously.

    re: .379
    
    Don't talk to be able school prayer and this "moment of
    silence stuff".  I live in Merrimack, NH.  I've had it 
    up to my eye teeth this with stuff.  Here, it seems,
    atheists can't opt out.  Muslim's daily prayers, I believe,
    are not uttered in silence.  You are trying to force
    "Godness" on a society which is not homogeneous in their
    beliefs.
    
    MM
    

>    Don't talk to be able school prayer and this "moment of
>    silence stuff".  I live in Merrimack, NH.

Gimme a break, willya? The Merrimack School Board is NOT an extension
of the Republican Party.

    .381
    
    > Merrimack School Board is NOT an extension
    > of the Republican Party.
    
    But it *is* an extension of the Religious Right, which is rapidly
    developing a stranglehold on the Republican Party.

    >You got one thing wrong.  
    
     Not a bad average. :-)
    
    >You said I'm not willing to abandon policies when they've failed.  
    >That's not true.  
    
     Ok, name a policy you are willing to abandon.
    
    >I'm not willing to abandon people because the policy failed.  
    
     Well, you seem to be willing to abandon the working class. That's how
    it seems to me. If you're "poor" then you're willing to (force the
    working class) to help them. If you're rich, you don't need any help.
    If you're in the working class, why, then you're nothing more than a
    pocket to be picked to be given to an underclass that is ever
    increasing, in part due to the policies of pocket picking and "wealth"
    redistribution.
    
     You also seem to be willing to abandon current and future generations
    of wage earners to an uncertain and indeed tenuous future by forcing
    them to "maintain commitments" made by shyster politicians who claimed
    that indeed, you could get something for nothing and not only that you
    can count on getting something for nothing. So current wage earners get
    to involuntarily "contribute" to a system that will go broke long
    before we get a chance to draw from it; in effect our money is being
    stolen because we are never going to get ANY return on FICA.
    
     You may well be a friend to the poor, but you are no friend to the
    working class. 

Nobody should worry any more; Mark in .368 says:

>    >Religious intolerance;
>     baloney.

Uh, Mark?  I know you're not worried.  But from personal experience,
you don't seem very concerned with the bad that Republicans (can) do;
you only seem to see what the Democrats do.

It's amazing to see your analysis of the issues.  Just amazing.  You
either distort the concern (see homosexual section), or you claim the
"they both do it (see WoD section)," or you claim black is white (see
the education section), or you make random vague statements (see
the church-and-state section).  If you really believe there is no
cause for concern in any of these areas, I urge you to provide
documentation or dialogue.  "Baloney" is lunch.

What I'm REALLY worried about is this "veto-proof congress" we keep
being told will solve all our problems.  I noticed the democrats didn't
need this tool to get their agenda through; why would the Republicans
need this unless they had some really whacky stuff to ram through?  
And when the weird stuff DOES start flowing, we'll get the same ol'
response we get from you(all) today: "Why are you worrying?  The
Democrats did this for 40 years; it's our turn!"  I just wish you'd
pay more attention to what's between the lines, and less attention
to deflecting legitimate questions.

    I'm WORRIED about what the republicans will do in the name
        of "family values."

    I'm WORRIED about what the republicans will do in the name
        of "national symbols."

    I'm WORRIED about what the republicans will do in the name
        of "our religious heritage."

    I'm WORRIED about what the republicans will do in the name
        of "national security."

    From the WoD, to TV, to defense, to abortion, to the environment,
    I'm worried.  Their record isn't good, their approach isn't good,
    and their goals aren't good.

Does this list mean I'm happy about what the democrats have done?
I'll let you answer that.

\john

>    But it *is* an extension of the Religious Right, which is rapidly
>    developing a stranglehold on the Republican Party.

Suffice it to say that there are enough Republicans opposed to the 
extremist agenda of the RR, that we'll prevent the stranglehold from
developing to it's full potential.

    .385
    
    > we'll prevent the stranglehold from
    > developing to it's full potential.
    
    The same way the good citizens of Merrimack kept stealth candidates out
    of their school board, right?

    
>    I am listening, but the words in these Pat Buchanan commercials
>    I keep hearing are drowning everything else out:
    


>   School Prayer (Muslims need not apply and atheists can't opt out);
 

     Baloney.  Pat has stated many times (including last night on Larry
     "softball" King, in answer to a question from a caller, that the 
     constitution guarantees freedom of religion and he supports school
     prayer for all religions.


>   Pro-Life;
 

    Yes he is prolife..he also supports post-abortion counseling for those
    who have abortions..


 
 Jim     
    
    

>    The same way the good citizens of Merrimack kept stealth candidates out
>    of their school board, right?

No - I heard that that was accomplished by the majority of "concerned voters"
not having participated in the election, but then getting bent out of shape
after the fact when they discovered the consequences of their apathy.

    
    re: .386
    
    > The same way the good citizens of Merrimack kept stealth candidates
    >out of their school board, right?
    
    
     So????  Live and learn... right??
    
    
    Kick them out next election!!!
    
    What's the big problem??
    

    >Don't talk to be able school prayer 
    
     Spit it out, willya?
    
    >I live in Merrimack, NH.  
    
     Ah, your knee-jerking is explicable. Hey, solve the problem next week.
    
    >Here, it seems, atheists can't opt out.  
    
     What's opting out of a moment of silence? Disrupting others? That's
    hardly the same thing as being forced to utter a prayer to a God you
    don't believe in.
    
    >Muslim's daily prayers, I believe, are not uttered in silence.  
    
    Muslim's daily prayers cannot be uttered in 30 seconds. Nobody is
    talking about performing your entire set of daily religious rites in
    the classroom. What is being talked about is a 30 second moment of
    silence during which those who want to say a silent prayer can do so
    undisturbed. If you find this to be objectionable, they you are the
    problem, IMO.
    
    >You are trying to force "Godness" on a society which is not homogeneous 
    >in their beliefs.
    
     No, that is false. Nobody is forced to say a prayer to their own God,
    much less any other. Students are only required to be quiet, in order
    that those who want to take advantage of the time to pray may do so.
    This is one of those liberal boogeymen based on the fallacious
    "separation of church and state." If there were real "separation of
    church and state" there'd be no day off for government workers on
    Christmas, etc. What was proscribed was the establishment of a state
    religion. As long as all religions are treated equally, there is
    nothing contrary to the Constitution.

>No - I heard that that was accomplished by the majority of "concerned voters"
>not having participated in the election, but then getting bent out of shape
>after the fact when they discovered the consequences of their apathy.
    
     Don't you DARE try to hold the voters responsible for their selection!

    re: .387
    
    Yes, but, if you don't have a religion you don't pray.  How you do 
    get around that?
    

    >Yes, but, if you don't have a religion you don't pray.  How you do 
    >get around that?
    
     You keep your mouth shut and think about something else. Life's full
    of these challenges, isn't it?

    .387
    
    > he supports school
    > prayer for all religions.
    
    Given that more than half the world's 500+ religions don't do silent
    prayer, let's assume that he allows 1 minute each.  That adds up to
    roughly four hours.  Leaves LOADS of time for educational purposes,
    nyet?

    .389
    
    > Kick them out next election!!!
    
    After they've rammed through a Constitutional Amendment.  You betcha.

 Z   Yes, but, if you don't have a religion you don't pray.  How you do 
 Z   get around that?
    
    A friend of mine used to hum..."Cat Scratch Fever" in his mind. 

    
>    Yes, but, if you don't have a religion you don't pray.  How you do 
>    get around that?
    

     should those who do have a religion be prevented from praying because
     of those who don't?
     
     I'm sure those who don't will find something to do.



 
Jim

>     You keep your mouth shut and think about something else. Life's full
>    of these challenges, isn't it?

More lovely Republican advice on "Life in Our Country."

"Let them pray at home" is just too out-of-your-face, I guess.

\john

    re: .393
    
    By setting time aside for "school prayer" you are automatically
    creating two classes of people, those who pray and those who don't.
    By the government sanctioning "school prayer" you are automatically
    saying that the people who use the time for prayer are better
    than the people who don't.  Can't you see that??????
    
    And while I'm thinking of it, where exactly does Pat Buchanan
    advocate a "moment of silence?"  I've always heard "a strong commitment
    to School Prayer"  not "a strong commitment to a moment of
    silence so you can pray to the diety of your choice."
    
    MM
    

>    By the government sanctioning "school prayer" you are automatically
>    saying that the people who use the time for prayer are better
>    than the people who don't.  Can't you see that??????

Geeziz, Mary-Michael - I'm an atheist and I couldn't even draw that conclusion.

And when can we worship the devil?

The day that school sanctioned prayer includes devil worshiping, I'll
believe that school prayer is about First Amendment rights.

TTom

    
    re: .395
    
    Dick
    
    > After they've rammed through a Constitutional Amendment.  You betcha.
    
    
    You betcha is right!!! Or do you know of any other legal process that
    would accomplish what the voters want??
    
    Sheeeeesh!! Even Phil Hays wouldn'ta said that!!
    
    
     

>     should those who do have a religion be prevented from praying because
>     of those who don't?

	 no, they have all kinds of opportunities to pray.  like before
	 going to school, for instance.

    
    re: .402
    
    >And when can we worship the devil?
    
    'scuse me???
    
    Have you been following along or just browsing??
    
    If'n some kid wants to sit there during the 1 minute and conjure up
    visions of Old Hot Stuff and pentagrams and such... he/she is free to
    do so...
    
     Where're you getting this "worship stuff??
    

    
      Gee, I dunno.  In recent organizational meetings of groups of
     adults whose religions, if any, were unknown, moments of silence
     were held for recently departed persons.  I can't imagine an
     adult not being able to cope with moments of silence.  As you
     get older and death all around you becomes common, you better
     be prepared to stay silent, or be suspected of disrespect for
     the departed.
    
      bb

    .405
    
    Andy, none of the satanist cults with which I'm familiar pray silently. 
    Prayer for these people consists, at minimum, of placing certain
    objects on a Black Altar and then chanting certain ritual phrases.  You
    are going to support the installation of a Black Altar in every
    classroom in order to guarantee satanists the right to pray in school?

    
    
    >in order to guarantee satanists the right to pray in school?
    
    Can someone post where this amendment... law... suggestion... whatever
    uses the word "pray"??
    
     I haven't paid much attention, simply because I think it's wrong...
    secondly because I didn't think it stood a snow-balls chance...
    
     Does it say "Moment of Silence"??  "Moment of Prayer"??  What??????
    

    .408
    
    In Pat Buchanan's own words, it says "school prayer."

I've heard all manner of interpretations about what you can do during
this famous moment of prayer. 

I seriously doubt that schools will allow this profession of faith.

"Worship", just like the english language word...

TTom

    
    
    Dick,
    
     I'm talking about whatever it is that Congress, Slick... the crowd
    over in the BeltWay are proposing... it was proposed by some of them
    recently, no?
    
    Pat Buchanan is allowed to say/misrepresent anything he wants with his
    words... He may consider it "school prayer." but what is it??
    

    Z    By setting time aside for "school prayer" you are automatically
    Z    creating two classes of people, those who pray and those who don't.
    Z    By the government sanctioning "school prayer" you are automatically
    Z    saying that the people who use the time for prayer are better
    Z    than the people who don't.  Can't you see that??????
    
    Since Glen is getting his vulva snipped today, perhaps I can make this 
    point for a third time without having to defend myself against
    nonsensical diatribe.
    
    Designate home rooms for children whose parents advocate this sort of 
    thing.  In other words, segregate those who want it from those who 
    don't want it.
    
    -Jack

    the school prayer thing is the the camel's
    nose.  no entrance into the tent, tyvm.

>================================================================================
>Note 601.368                        Bob Dole                          368 of 390
>WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"                      98 lines  14-FEB-1996 10:27
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Whooo, what a republican partisan "Rush BIMBETTE" you are.  A "BIMBETTE" is a
BIMBO in training.  Using groundless attacks and smears as though they were fact.
That is what Rush Limbaugh does on his daily conservative republican TV
infomercial.


	Your scripted attack is done so well, I don't know if any body noticed.
Perhaps, next time you could could like put some information in your response.
If you really believe what you said, then put your money where your mouth is.
I have a considerable pile of legal bills due to the conservative position on
these issues:

    >Conservative supports the dichotomous position of less government and
    >fewer individual rights;

    >Conservative lack of respect for women and minorities.

    >the school prayer thing is the the camel's
    >nose.  no entrance into the tent, tyvm.
    
     That sounds like two noias.

    .416
    
    |That sounds like two noias.
    
    sorry.  no computee.

    
>     That sounds like two noias.

	of course it's paranoia unless the topic is guns.  then
	it's "vigilance".

    >	of course it's paranoia unless the topic is guns.  then
    >	it's "vigilance".
    
     Let's see if I have this right. <ahem>
    
     YAGN! <yawn>
    
    
    My point exactly. The very same people who shout "paranoia" and "nobody
    really wants you to give up your guns" use the camel's nose argument
    when it suits them.

    .413
    
    > Designate home rooms ... In other words, segregate ...
    
    Separate but equal?  What's next?  Designating home rooms for children
    whose parents happen to be religious but still believe in education
    instead of stultification?  Home rooms for children whose religion does
    not allow them to share religious time or facilities with people of
    other faiths?  Home rooms for children who just happen to have Negro
    ancestry?

    >Designate home rooms for children whose parents advocate this sort of 
    >thing.  In other words, segregate those who want it from those who 
    >don't want it.
    
     Nonsense. Teach them tolerance. They're gonna need it.

    >By setting time aside for "school prayer" you are automatically
    >creating two classes of people, those who pray and those who don't.
    
     The beauty is that nobody knows who's who.
    
    >By the government sanctioning "school prayer" you are automatically
    >saying that the people who use the time for prayer are better
    >than the people who don't.  
    
     That says a lot more about your value system than that of the
    government. 

    
    >>The beauty is that nobody knows who's who.
    
    Oh, I dunno.  If half the kids are looking around, and half have their
    eyes closed and their hands clasped, don't you think people will know
    who is who?
    

    .422
    
    > The beauty is that nobody knows who's who.
    
    Ackshully, that's not true.  It'll be really easy to single out the
    satanists, and the practitioners of Voudoun, and most of the Amerinds
    who managed to escape the repression imposed on them by their European
    "friends," and likewise the members of countless other faiths, who do
    NOT pray silently.

    
    >and half have their eyes closed and their hands clasped,
    
    
    	This half can't identify the other half, but the other half can
    	identify this half.
    
    	Unless, of course, this half instead decides to pray while look-
    	ing around the room.  And maybe the other half decides to close
    	their eyes and pretend they're praying.
    
    	It could be quite the psychological game.
    
    	The mind boggles.
    

       |My point exactly. The very same people who shout 
       |"paranoia" and "nobody really wants you to give up 
       |your guns" use the camel's nose when it suits them
    
       yup.  eternal vigilance.  separation of church and state.
       that's what i'm for.  right down the line.  pray at home.

    Jeepers! All I did was go eat lunch and I come back to this :-) !
    
    Ok:
    
    .400
    
    There is a connection I'm not smoking my lunch here.  If you
    have a room of people, half of which are engaging in a government-
    sanctioned activity and half of which are not, don't you think
    the people engaging in the government sanctioned activity are
    going to think they are better, more patriotic, more deserving
    than the ones who refuse to?
    
    .406
    
    There's a difference between a moment of silence specifically
    for the remembrance of the dead, and a moment of silence specifically
    for the purpose of praying to a deity.  One is secular, the other
    non-secular.
    
    .413
    
    Been there, done that, got the bloody T-shirt.  It's called
    segregation. To re-fresh your memory, it was a very bad idea.
    
    .421
    
    One could also apply that response to the ones that want to pray in
    the classroom.
    
    .422
    
    You will know "who's who."  It will "get around".  You will create
    a class system by imposing school prayer in which those who are
    "different" will be penalized.  I'd like to think that as a
    country we'd started to grow beyond that behavior.
    
    MM
    
    

      >My point exactly. The very same people who shout 
      >"paranoia" and "nobody really wants you to give up 
      >your guns" use the camel's nose when it suits them

	oh, so you don't really think it's paranoid -
	you were just trying to make a point?  i see.
	so you agree with Bonnie then?
	

    >There is a connection I'm not smoking my lunch here.  
    
     Well that's one excuse gone. :-)
    
    >If you
    >have a room of people, half of which are engaging in a government-
    >sanctioned activity and half of which are not, 
    
     Here's where you're wrong. They will all be engaging in a government
    sanctioned activity (being quiet), not half of them.
    
    >You will know "who's who."  It will "get around".  You will create
    >a class system by imposing school prayer in which those who are
    >"different" will be penalized.
    
     It's been a long time since high school, eh, Mary-Michael. Let me
    refresh your memory. There are already cliques. Some of which overlap.
    Adding another isn't going to make any substantive difference, even if
    you allow that having everybody be quiet for 30 seconds is going to
    create another clique (which I don't.)
    
     You know, I find it amazing that we can put ramps and elevators in
    public schools to accomodate disabled students, we can disrupt classes
    by "mainstreaming" profoundly disabled students and behavioral problem
    students, we can make all sorts of accomodations that cost all kinds of
    money and reduce the efficacy of education as a whole in the name of 
    "different" students, but we can't have 30 seconds of silence so that
    kids who want to pray can do so. Is it any wonder why society is as
    screwed up as it is?

 Z   Separate but equal?  What's next?  Designating home rooms for children
 Z   whose parents happen to be religious but still believe in education
 Z   instead of stultification?  Home rooms for children whose religion
 Z   does not allow them to share religious time or facilities with people of
 Z   other faiths?  Home rooms for children who just happen to have
 Z   Negro ancestry?
    
    My fault.  I should have thought before using the word,
    "segregation"...knowing the likelihood it would have an automatic
    negative connotation.
    
    I attended Framingham South High School.  Our home rooms were
    segregated in alphabetical order.  We had about 12 language clubs.  The
    choice was given as to what club we would like to attend.  The fact
    that I didn't join the German club had absolutely NO bearing on
    tolerance or intolerance.  It was strictly a matter of preference.
    
    Tying this in with a moment of silence, there are parents who really
    want this implemented and there are parents who really DON'T want this
    implemented.  JUST LIKE THE LANGUAGE CLUB, if it MUST be available,
    then leave the choice up to the students and the parents.
    
    -Jack 

    .430
    
    Jack, I hate to break this to you, but segregation on the basis of
    alphabetical order is worlds apart from segregating based on race,
    religion, or ethnic heritage - which, by the way, is ILLEGAL, even
    in school.

    
    re: .423
    
    >It'll be really easy to single out the satanists, 
    
    Don't care about the others ones, but I sure as hell (pun intended) want to
    know who the satanists are...
    
     You want to include them in your circle of "countless other faiths",
    you go right ahead...
    
     Me? I'll avoid them like the plague...
    

    
    
    Yup, the satanists will be the ones carrying the pitchforks...

>     Me? I'll avoid them like the plague...

I'm glad we're out in the open hereand  that we're not talking about a
First Amendment Right. I mean, why should right of Satanists to free
exercise thereof of their religion be protected.

They're bad, wrong and immoral and shouldn't be allowed to practice
their religion anywhere, right?

TTom

    
      What a sham.  As if the kids don't all already know who goes
     to what church.  They all know what the parents do for a living,
     as well.  Forget about privacy at home once your kids go to
     public school.  Everybody will know everything.
    
      bb

    
    re: .434
    
    
    Are we having a comprehension problem???
    
    What part(s) didn't you understand from my previous??
    
    They want to "pray"... have a moment of silence.. whatever...
    
    Fine... they have every right to do so... 
    
    Where in God's creation did you see that I want to "unprotect" their
    rights???
    
    You cut and pasted my sentiments into .434... and you still don't get
    it!!!
    

Read Mathew 6 of the King James version of the chritian bible.  Christ is in
essence saying not to pray in school.

.427>  If you have a room of people, half of which are engaging in a government-
.427>  sanctioned activity and half of which are not, don't you think
.427>  the people engaging in the government sanctioned activity are
.427>  going to think they are better, more patriotic, more deserving
.427>  than the ones who refuse to?

In a word, "no".

As a matter of fact, FWIW, the very prospect of such an occurrence never
entered my mind till you mentioned it. And, even now, it seems only
quite remotely likely.

Like the Doctah said, who the hell's to know what others are doing with
their silent period? Some may be having religious experiences recalling
the shag they had the night before. Who's to know?

As an adult, I can't imagine anyone setting themselves up as better/etc.
in these circumstances. I'd think that school kids would be even less
likely to do so.

In any event, I think the issue's somewhat moot. For this to happen by
government dictate on a national basis would require a Constitutional
Amendment. Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, that sort of
thing can't be "ramrodded", but needs to pass Congress and then be ratified
by the states. How long for step one? How likely for step two? And, as
Andy mentioned, if it IS ratified and passed, then who are you or who
am I to oppose it? Do we then start whining about the tyranny of the
majority? Why not call for a Constitutional Convention while you're
at it, then?

>    Are we having a comprehension problem???

Don't think so. Are we?

It's a little hard to see how your "solution" incorporates those that you
wish to avoid like the plague. Maybe what's been presented aint a
solution, eh?

The knee is fine but I'm not too sure about the jerk...

TTom

    Jack, it must be difficult to be a republican and an atheist at the
    same time, no?

>Read Mathew 6 of the King James version of the chritian bible.  

As in:

	6:6  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, ...

I think the lasted thing anyone wants is to go back into the closet

    
    
    >Maybe what's been presented aint a solution, eh?
    
    "ain't"  hth
    
    It's my solution... not the nation's, not the Constitution's, not the
    Bill of Rights...
    
    Understand that and you're well on your way to a degree in
    Comprehension 101
    
    
     If you can't understand that I have the freedom to choose my own
    solution then you need a lesson in Civics..
    

    
    I go into my closet and pray... that I can find something to wear...
    
    -b

>     If you can't understand that I have the freedom to choose my own
>    solution then you need a lesson in Civics..

So now you're tyring to force Hondas on us ...

TTom

    Paul Hondasonus
    
    Sounds like a good republican ticket name.

    re: .444
    
    
    Good answer!!!!!
    
    
    >So now you're tyring to force Hondas on us ...
    
    
    Nope... but nice "dodge" anyway...
    

>    Jack, it must be difficult to be a republican and an atheist at the
>    same time, no?

Not at all, Glenn. Having no sense of christian charity, it's quite easy 
for me to rationalize that social welfare programs have no value.

re Nicola::Stacy

>Read Matthew 6 of the King James version of the Christian bible.  Christ is
>in essence saying not to pray in school.

What Jesus teaches is the prayer should be practiced properly, without
ostentation, in the presence of God.

Prayer done to demonstrate prayerfulness to others, rather than to God,
is what he speaks against.

He is not speaking against public prayer done with proper intention.

Yet public prayer alone is not enough, one must also "get alone with God"
as well.

/john

Thanks for being a Trooper with me. I'm starting to see what you're
driving at...

TTom

    .442
    
    Choosing your own solution is a far cry from imposing it on the rest of
    us - which latter you seem to think would be an admirable act.

    
    >Where do you read that Dick????
    
    
    	Ooh, boy ... what a straight line disguised as a badly-formatted
    	sentence.  There's gotta be a Braille joke in there somewhere.
    
    
    
    	And is there a reason that a special moment of silence should be
    	set aside for prayer?  Can the kids sit back and pray, on their
    	own, for a minute or so?
    
    	Homeroom period isn't that hectic that you barely have time to
    	sit down before the bell goes off to signal that it's time to
    	get to your 1st class.  Take a minute or 2 and do what you want
    	with it.
    

    Where do you read that, Dick????
    
    Just the reply number will be fine... thanks...
    

    
    They could pray during potty breaks.  Then they'd be alone and quiet.
    
    

    
    
    Moreso if they were smoking a cigar...
    

    .451
    
    I read it by reading between the lines.  You appear to think it's okay
    to single out the satanists - and by extension the members of any other
    religion that does not indulge in silent prayer.  That, sir, may be
    your personal solution, but it won't wash as a way of setting up
    "school prayer" so that no discrimination can arise from it.

    they could pray the night before, after they've done their
    homework.

    
    They could pray in the morning over their cornflakes.
    
    They could pray on the train going in or going home.
    
    

    they could cram their prayers over the weekend.

    
    
    re: .455
    
    >I read it by reading between the lines.
    
    
    Sure, Dick... sure...  nothing you've ever accused anybody else of
    though... right??
    
    >You appear to think it's okay to single out the satanists 
    
    
     Read slowly Dick.... ***I*** singled them out...
    
    >and by extension the members of any other religion 
    
    I would go back and read my reply again... Maybe the sentence wasn't
    constructed to your liking/understanding???
    
    Did you read between the lines where I gave you the option to include
    them in any tete-a-tetes of your "circle"??

    Dick,
    
     Just for your edification, you mentioned a bunch of religions/beliefs
    in .423
    
    My "ones" below (from .432) was in reference to them....
    
    
    >Don't care about the others ones, but I sure as hell (pun intended) want to
    >know who the satanists are...
    
     You want to include them in your circle of "countless other faiths",
    you go right ahead...
    
     Me? I'll avoid them like the plague...
    

    .460
    
    You can't have it both ways, Andy.  You get the satanists because they
    pray aloud, you get the other non-silent praying types along with them. 
    The sieve isn't fine enough for your liking, I fear.

    I can have it my way, Dick...
    
    I can go to someone who practices Wicca or one of the other native
    religions and probably learn quite a bit about them and their
    beliefs... I may take things with a grain of salt, but that's my
    prerogative...
    
     *I* can draw the line and avoid satanists, even though I believe they
    have a right to believe and pray as they do...
    
    Your contention is that they need to be "aloud" to practice or
    whatever...  I don't buy that...
    
    Christians, and let's use black Baptists as an example, are very vocal,
    animated, loud, joyous, ecstatic in their celebrations and beliefs...
    yet they know how to pray.... boy do they know how to pray! Aloud and
    silently... 
    
     So? Why can't the others? 

    .462
    
    > Why can't the others?
    
    Why can't you worship the devil?  Because the practices of your faith
    don't allow it.
    
    Why can't satanists pray silently?  Because the practices of their
    faith don't allow it.  This is really pretty simple stuff, Andy, and
    I'm sorry it's so far above your comprehension level.

    
    Gee, Dick....
    
    I was thinking the same about your comprehension level and you not
    understanding even though I tried explaining it...
    
    It seems we all have our personal biases.... huh??

    
    Besides, Dick...
    
    I asked a few back about what this "prayer" amendent/law/regulation
    stated and you haven't replied except to tell me what Pat Buchanan
    thinks it is...
    
     If it's a "Moment of Silence" then the satanists can do like some of
    the other ludicrous things suggested...
    
     Maybe they can think, during that moment, about getting home that
    night and dancing around the pentagram in the nude at midnight...

    > First you say the arm could cause the terminal decline, 
    > then you say that you never said any such thing 
    
    'causality' is such a strict concept, Mikey.  I wouldn't
    have misused it in the way you claim I did.  Go ahead,
    prove what you're saying:  quote my words.  I claim you're
    mistaken in your first interpretation of what I wrote, and
    if you go back to the quote, you'll see that.
    
    > and then you go on (in your
    > little english lesson) to explain why it could happen.
    
    If Dole gets ill, the extra strain on his system that the arm 
    *is* *every* *day* could contribute to making that illness terminal.  
    Deny it if you wish.
    
    > Perhaps California English is different from the rest.
    
    I don't use 'cause' inappropriately.
    
    DougO

re: .466

	I agree with .370 and it has nothing to do with any editorialized
information from the conservative media.  If it sounds like heard the stuff
in .370 before, then maybe it is just plain true.

re .431:

>    Jack, I hate to break this to you, but segregation on the basis of
>    alphabetical order is worlds apart from segregating based on race,
>    religion, or ethnic heritage - which, by the way, is ILLEGAL, even
>    in school.

You may find a way for someone to sue that alphabetical order could
discriminate against nationality.  In my high school we were in homeroom
by alphabetical order, and my homeroom had more than its share of
Irish (McXxxx).

Suppose you could have reverse alphabetical order (by last letter)
No, then you'd get half the Polish in one room (Xxxxski) and the
other half in another (Xxxxwicz)

    
    
    <------
    
    My lawyer will be in touch....
    

    
    	Imagine seating all the Catholic Irish students right next to all
    	the Protestant Irish students?
    
    	What a mess that could be.
    

    
    
    I already did, Douglas.  Sorry that you cannot see it.
    
    
    Mike

 Mr. Dole, who whined about Forbes' attack ads, is running same against 
 Buchanan.




 Jim

	He runs negative ads against those he think will beat him it appears. 

	Seems that Weld has given his support to Dole......

> Mr. Dole, who whined about Forbes' attack ads, is running same against 
> Buchanan.
    
     Buchanan's run negative ads against Dole, too. Sounds like a case of
    fighting fire with fire.
    
     Personally, I'd prefer they all stop with the negative ads.

    
    <-- Oh, I couldn't agree more.  Bash, bash, bash.  Whine, whine,
        whine.  They're nauseating.
                               
    

    
    
    <------
    
    You think it's bad now??
    
    Wait'll Slick starts with his!!!
    

> Bash, bash, bash.  Whine, whine, whine.  They're nauseating.

I know.

So, then, how come we all come in here and do the same thing?

    
      Count me in.  Neg ads are the pitz.
    
      bb

    because it's fun?

 Yes, I am also tired of them.  In fact I can't wait til next Wednesday 
 when we don't have to hear any more of them (for a while).



 Jim

    I deleted my .466, since it only indirectly referred to the note I was
    really commenting on (this one).   These are the very points I see
    stressed day in and day out in the liberal media.
    
    .360
    
>    Religious intolerance;
    
    How?  Untenable assertion.
    
>    Merging of Church and State;
    
    How?  Untenable assertion.
    
>    Enforced standard of morality for homosexuals, lesbians,
>    divorced families, domestic partnerships and single people;
  
    How?  Untenable assertions.
      
>    Lack of emphasis on eduation and higher education in particular;
 
    Why do you say this?
         
>    Penchant for "saving" low paying, dead-end factory jobs instead
>    of working to established skilled higher paying jobs which require
>    a more educated work force;
 
    Examples?
       
>    Prepared to axe social programs without seeming regard for the
>    consequences;
 
    This is nonsense.  Cutting the increase in Medica*e from an outrageous
    11% a year to 6% (double the average yearly inflation), is hardly a
    cold blooded act- it is only a first step, and only a small one when
    you look at what really needs to be done to keep America out of
    bankruptcy.
    
    What do you suggest we do?  Business as usual?  Should we cut all the
    military spending?  We could do this, but guess what?  In just a few
    short years- without spending a penny on the military- we would be
    right back in the same position we are today.  What do you suggest we
    tell Medica*e recipients when we run out of money?
          
>    Little regard for environmental standards;
 
    Nonsense.  
       
>    Little regard for elderly and those living on fixed incomes;
 
    Rubbish.
       
>    Believes welfare and Medicaid to be nearly entirely poplated
>    by cheats and frauds;
 
    More assertions.
       
>    Supports the dichotomous position of less government and fewer
>    individual rights;
 
    Less government, by nature, means more individual freedoms.
       
>    The War on Drugs;
 
    This is not just a Republican thing.  
       
>    Lack of respect for women and minorities.
 
    Untenable assertion.
       
    
    
    -steve

> In fact I can't wait til next Wednesday 
> when we don't have to hear any more of them (for a while).

Won't the Boston stations keep running them until after the MA primaries 
in, when? March?

 Eeesh..

    re: .378
    
    Same difference, economically.  Blocking necessary change in not in the
    best interest of America, or those people you are commited to.
    
    Now, read the following carefully:
    
    There is no way we can change these programs without making life more
    difficult for *some* people who depend on said programs.  We can't save
    the world without going bankrupt.  We have to come to terms with this,
    and soon, or this bankruptcy I've been crowing about so often will
    become a reality (and then what happens to the welfare/medica*e 
    dependant?).  
    
    The changes needed are drastic ones.  If we don't start altering our
    course today, the choices we will be left with tomorrow are going to be 
    much more difficult.  The ones who will suffer the most will be those 
    most dependant upon said programs.
    
    You help no one by blocking needed change.
    
    
    -steve 

    re: .385
    
    Just out of curiosity, what is this extremist agenda of the RR that has
    Mr. Binder so wound up?
    
    It seems that the nebulous "RR" tend to vote Republican due to some 
    commonalities in ideology.
    
    
    -steve

Are you people really surprised about negative ads? Negative ads work with the
American voter. If it didn't, politicians wouldn't use them. However the fact
that they are willing to use them, even after complaining about their
opponents using them and then using them themselves, just shows what slimeballs
these guys really are. To even consider that any of these guys might lead this 
country is downright scary.

    
    Who's surprised?  I'm just nauseated.
    
    I want to hear what a candidate has done and what s/he plans to do, not
    how lousy the other candidates are.
    

>    Just out of curiosity, what is this extremist agenda of the RR 

I'm not Mr. Binder, nor do I portray him on teevee, but as I used the
phrase in .386, I'd say it's stuff like the desire to enact laws and
policies which single out the activities of non-heterosexual-christians
as improper or of lesser value, the desire to enact laws and policies
which would instate christian ideals and idols in public institutions,
the apparent penchant for bookburnings, symbolic and otherwise. That sort
of thing.

    
    
    I can understand some "negative" ads, in that I'd like to know how
    well/how badly the person did/didn't do their job...
    
     Calling names is one thing....
    
     But if candidate "X" voted for Prop. "whatever" that only benefitted
    his/her district... etc.... I want to know...
    

>Are you people really surprised about negative ads? Negative ads work with the
>American voter. If it didn't, politicians wouldn't use them.

Current perceived wisdom is that Forbes has slipped because of his negative ads.

    
    I must have missed them...
    
    What negative adds are Pat Buchanan running?
    
    							Thanks
    
    								Hank

In response to .482, it sounds like the conservative media have been misleading
you.


   .482

>>    Religious intolerance;
>
>    How?  Untenable assertion.
>
>>    Merging of Church and State;
>
>    How?  Untenable assertion.

	Both of these are quite tenable.  Recent conventions for the religious
right wing of the conservative movement have featured slick videos and
presentations that demand that we put the conservative "christian god" into
the laws.  Historically, this leads to intolerance without exception.  Christ
faced the hypocrites and intolerance, Spain had the inquisition and this
country was started by people fleeing for religious freedom.  The conservatives
have been debating the intent of the founding fathers almost ad nauseum and
have been focusing a lot on the Madison papers.  Their stated goal is to enact
chritian laws and merge church and state.  Perhaps you should listen to the 
what the conservative republican leaders are saying.


>>    Enforced standard of morality for homosexuals, lesbians,
>>    divorced families, domestic partnerships and single people;
>
>    How?  Untenable assertions.

	Again, since the bible says that most of these are "abhorances",
the religious conservatives want them to be illegal acts.  Arrests have
already been made in many states that are conservative controlled.  In one
state the new repulican majority actually passed legislation to make these
acts illegal.  The conservatives on the supreme court have upheld laws that
attach these relationships.  And in a recent gathering of a repulican fund
raiser, the desire to make divorces illegal was voiced.  Agian, perhaps you 
should listen to the leaders you are supporting.

>>    Lack of emphasis on eduation and higher education in particular;
>
>    Why do you say this?

	Cuts is direct and indirect aid to higer education have already  been
enacted by the conservative congress.  In Michigan, Gov Engler, has
drastically gutted education.  Gov Weld has attempted to allow for non-certified
teachers.  One of the republican presidential candidates has just hired an
advisor that advocates not even attempting to raise the education of blacks
because it is impossible.  This can go on and on.


>>    Penchant for "saving" low paying, dead-end factory jobs instead
>>    of working to established skilled higher paying jobs which require
>>    a more educated work force;
>
>    Examples?

	I don't fully agree with this statement.  The conservatives do want
us to be paid less for any job we do.  This is supported with the repeatitive
attacks on how we are paid to much now and need to become more competitive.
There have been attacks on raising the minimum wage that argue that if it is
raised then a lot of the low paying jobs will go away.  Historically this just
isn't true.  Giving more people some level of discretionary income has always
lead to economic growth.  Ironically, this is actually part of the conservative
arguments for tax cuts.


>>    Prepared to axe social programs without seeming regard for the
>>    consequences;
>
>    This is nonsense.  Cutting the increase in Medica*e from an outrageous
>    11% a year to 6% (double the average yearly inflation), is hardly a
>    cold blooded act- it is only a first step, and only a small one when
>    you look at what really needs to be done to keep America out of
>    bankruptcy.
>
>    What do you suggest we do?  Business as usual?  Should we cut all the
>    military spending?  We could do this, but guess what?  In just a few
>    short years- without spending a penny on the military- we would be
>    right back in the same position we are today.  What do you suggest we
>    tell Medica*e recipients when we run out of money?


	Most large corporations would agree with the liberals on this one.
If we have 50 states with 50 different programs, laws and taxes to support
them, then they have a very difficult situation to manage.  It is already
bad enough for large multinational companies.

	With respect to Medica*e, I agree it needs help.  But you make the
cut sound less caustic than it is.  Medical inflation has been much higher
than other inflation and there is soon to be a large increase in the number
people on Medica*e.  This means that the conservative readjustment actually
translates to a per person cut even though the number of dollars spent went
up.


>>    Little regard for environmental standards;
>
>    Nonsense.

	The most polluted lands are currently going untouched because of the
shutdown.  Last year, a considerable number of the superfund sites were deemed
clean enough and removed from the list even though they had been relatively
untouched.


>>    Supports the dichotomous position of less government and fewer
>>    individual rights;
>
>    Less government, by nature, means more individual freedoms.
>
>>    Lack of respect for women and minorities.
>
>    Untenable assertion.

	Less Goverment, by nature, means more individual responsibility not
freedoms.

	Again, put your money where your mouth is!!  I have considerable bills
that prove you absolutely wrong.

re:                      <<< Note 601.493 by NICOLA::STACY >>>

And you, too, are lumping in the philosophies of the RR as if they were
the cornerstones of the Republican party. They are not. Yes - it is true
that the RR aligns itself with the GOP. Yes - it is true that many vocal
ultra-conservative RR spokespeople are also prominent Republicans. But
to characterize the Republican Party as being principally RR in nature
is as wrong as it is to characterize the Democratic party as being
constituted largely of atheists and gays. Neither are true, and attempting
to concentrate on such chance relationships in order to make a point or
influence an argument is pointless and counterproductive, as it steers
the discussion away from the more important core values which make up the
philosophy.

    re: .494
    
    >Yes - it is true that the RR aligns itself with the GOP. Yes - it i
    >s true that many vocal ultra-connservative RR spokespeople are 
    >also prominent Republicans. 
    
    Uh, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.......
    
    I understand what you are trying to say, but you're not making
    it sound real convincing to those of us who already have 
    concerns.... :-) :-)
    
    MM
    

    Okay...how about this.  The difference between the democrat party and
    the republican party is the pubs are more inclined to be uniform in
    their ideology.  Notice I said "Inclined".  The RR is what you might
    call a special interest group of the party.  However, it is a VERY
    LARGE special interest group.
    
    The democrat party is made up of MULTIPLE interest groups....all
    kicking and moaning over getting their piece of the pie.  The problem
    is their interests on many occasions conflict with each other. 
    Therefore, Clinton either has to not keep a promise...or lie to
    somebody or some such.
    
     

    >I understand what you are trying to say, but you're not making
    >it sound real convincing to those of us who already have 
    
    ...made up our minds.

    Jack, once again you have failed to discern that there is no real
    difference between the parties.  Politicians on both sides pander to
    special interests.  Doesn't make any difference if the bucsk come from
    agri-business, enviro-stremists, or theo-zealots.  Bucks is bucks. 
    Apparaently it is only special interest if it is on the democratic
    side.  They are all for sale.  

Of course they do Brian. It's just that, with the exception of the
religious right, most of the GOP special interests are one's which
I favor whereas most of the ones that side with the Dems are ones
which I oppose.

    
    
    What this country needs is a good revolution!!!!
    

re: .494

	I did not intend to say that all republicans are bowing to the RR, just
that all of the conservative ones are.  I wouldn't be as concerned about the
conservative republicans if they were not so centralized and focused on unity
and following orders from the RNC.

	My response was to show that the "untenable" positions were quite 
real concerns and realities.

    
    
    >just that all of the conservative ones are.
    
    
    Swing that brush!!!!

There are several camps in the Republican party.

Firsted, you got your the fiscal conservatives, like Forbes, and then
there are the social conservatives, like Buchanan. And then there's Bob
Dole who's in neither but is trying to get the votes of each.

If'n Dole gets the nod, I wouldn't be surprised to see not only Perot on
the ballot but also a representative of the RR. Buchanan denies that he'd
run in this slot but you never know....

TTom

>	I did not intend to say that all republicans are bowing to the RR, just
>that all of the conservative ones are.

Well, as they say here in the 'box -



BZZZZZZT! Oh! I'm sorry! Thanks for playing, though.

>    I understand what you are trying to say, but you're not making
>    it sound real convincing to those of us who already have 
>    concerns.... 

Well, I'm not going to stand (sit) here and lie to you by attempting
to tell you that the GOP is looking out for the good of the welfare 
class. It's like the Doctah said ...

I've been a card carrying member of the GOP ever since I first registered
to vote in 1969 and I was one in spirit for a lot of years before that.
I'm not ashamed to admit that. They stand for a lot of things I believe
in. They _DON'T_ stand for the RR, in my mind, nor in the minds of many.
That you choose to see them that way isn't necessarily a valid indictment.

>

	The new and highly organized CONSERVATIVE wing of the republican party
is defining what we see of the republicans.  It doesn't sound like you like that
either and are distancing yourself from them.  Could it be because they scare
you too?

	As for the "Moderate" wing of the party, they have stolen a good many of
your civil rights already.  If you want to disagree with that, then put your
money where your mouth is!  

    Jack,
    
    I don't think glen is going in for Female Genital Mutilation, or
    do you think gay men have both sets of genitalia?  Uvula is what he
    is hving snipped.
    
    meg

re:                      <<< Note 601.506 by NICOLA::STACY >>>

I'll assume you're speaking to me, although it's difficult to tell given
the extensive references included in your note.

No - I'm not at all distancing myself from conservative republicans. I
distance myself only from the RR factions wherever they lie. If you fail
to see that distinction, then it truly baffles me as to why you think
it's me with the blinders on. When it comes to conservative republicans,
if you're referring to fiscal conservativism, I'm here to tell you they
don't get much further right than yours truly.

Moderate repubs stealing my civil rights? Pray tell which ones I'm hurtin'
for havin' lost to their tyranny?

    
      Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't understand the phrase, "Put your
     money where your mouth is" in this context.  Please explain.
    
      As to Dole, he grew up in Russell, Kansas, a small farming town,
     and that's where he got his sense of life.  He isn't the candidate
     of the religious right - they go to Buchanan.  Given the intolerance
     of the Democrats, I imagine people of faith will go Republican in
     November in any case.
    
      The other matters you raise - a federal role in education, for
     example, are not exactly "religious right" issues.  Personally,
     I oppose any federal role in education other than maybe sending
     money.  We should abolish the Department of Education.  That isn't
     a matter of religion.  It's a question of the right way to administer
     schooling.  When I was a child, this was a matter of towns.  Still is,
     mostly.  Still ought to be.  As to the money, maybe plain tax
     relief would be better.  Let people decide locally whether to
     spend it on education.
    
       The environment is another matter.  There is no question we have to
     have a federal role there, since it often isn't a local matter.  I
     very much doubt you could cite any speech or action of either Dole
     or Gingrich that was particularly anti-environmental.  Just a little
     while ago. both of them voted to extend the Enangered Species Act,
     for example.  There is a difference of degree between the parties,
     I suppose.  There isn't any party of pollution.
    
       bb

    >   The environment is another matter.  There is no question we have to
    > have a federal role there, since it often isn't a local matter.  I
    > very much doubt you could cite any speech or action of either Dole
    > or Gingrich that was particularly anti-environmental.
    
     Even some of the typical liberal mouthpieces (like TIME) have commented 
    that Newt is pretty green.

    
      BTW, Dole is a Methodist, Buchanan is Catholic.  I heard, but
     haven't confirmed, that Alexander is Baptist.  As is Clinton,
     I'm told.  Not that it matters to anybody, right or left.
    
      One of the criticisms that's been leveled at Dole is that he's
     changed his views.  But then he entered politics in 1951 !!  It
     would be remarkable if he hadn't.
    
      It never ceases to amaze me the FUD that gets thrown up every
     election year, not all of it by Democrats, although they lead the
     league.  Thus we hear, in every election for county commisioner,
     that the Republican will trample the poor, the halt, the lame,
     and the sick.  Outlaw abortion, sending women to the alleys. Arm
     the world, but withdraw from world affairs.  All to gather all
     wealth for a few billionaires, blah-blah-blah.  Of course, since
     half the incumbents are Republicans, who have done none of these
     things while in office, Chicken Little is hard to believe.  I
     recall that Ron Reagan was "sure" to get us into a nuclear war.
     That one didn't work (as it did in 1964).  Fool me twice, shame
     on me.  Of course, the Democrats must be a bit tired of being
     depicted as being of the "drunken sailor school of economics", or
     of "never having seen a regulation or a tax they didn't like".
     But what would an election year be without the usual vague charges ?
    
      bb

    Z    I don't think glen is going in for Female Genital Mutilation, or
    Z    do you think gay men have both sets of genitalia?  Uvula is what he
    Z    is hving snipped.
    
    Well Meg, you will be happy to know I hold Glen's demise of yesterday
    in high regard.  My new password for my account is
    vulva_avoooooooola!!!  Thanks to Glen!
    
    -Jack

    >My new password for my account is
        vulva_avoooooooola!!!
    
    he lies.
    
    DougO

    Damn....I should have thought about that!  
    
    Oh wait a minute....I still have my AQS account and my AIMHI account.
    
    Ahaaa.

    
    Jack..
    
    Free clue....
    
    Don't ever try to be funny or cute in here... No matter what you do,
    you'll be labeled a liar, kook, thumper, buffoon.. Radical Right
    Republican Welfare-Mother Killer.. no smileys attached...
    
     You're just plain not allowed...
    
    Hope this helps...
    

re: .508/.509/.511



	Strong assertions were made that the conservative republican policies
do not hurt women, children or minorities and that anything to the contrary are
lies from some mythical liberal media conspiracy.  You keep saying that the
fears people are expressing are unfounded and sourced by the organized democrats
or the organized media.  There are consequences to all policies but you want to
deny any negative ones for those that you support.


		In 1995 alone 6000+ familiesin Mass.were negatively
       impacted by the Weld administrations position on discrimination.
       My family is included and doing OK.  Some have lost relatively
       little, some have lost everything.


	Perhaps you would be willing to pay some of the bills for some of
the most devastated of these families?  If you believe what you say, and
your are right, it shouldn't cost you much.

    
    
    Talk about non secifics.......

    
    Yes, let's do talk about non secifics.
    
    What the heck ARE they?
    

    Andy, thanks but keep in mind that people have already for the most
    part formed their opinion of me in here.  Therefore, being cute or
    witty will still give a chuckle to those who appreciate me while those
    who participate in Dance of the Living Dead will always label me, i.e.
    Topes, etc.
    
    -Jack 

    .515
    
    > Don't ever try to be funny or cute in here...
    > You're just plain not allowed...
    
    What he's not, is funny.

    Shaddup cranky!

	>In 1995 alone 6000+ familiesin Mass.were negatively impacted
    
      In what way? To what extent?
    
    > by the Weld administrations position on discrimination.
    
     Which is?
    
    >some have lost everything.
    
     Explain.

| <<< Note 601.515 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "He's no lackey!! He's a toady!!" >>>


| Don't ever try to be funny or cute in here... No matter what you do,
| you'll be labeled a liar, kook, thumper, buffoon.. Radical Right
| Republican Welfare-Mother Killer.. no smileys attached...

	Is this something bad? :-)

    
      What Stacy is referring to is that the Weld administration did
     indeed insist that healthy people go to work.  This "negatively
     impacts" them, because they don't want to - they want a check
     instead.  In STACYspeak, this is discrimination.  For ordinary
     citizens (including many Democrats), this policy was long
     overdue.  We have been suckers for years.
    
      bb

 *gasp*  y-y-you mean they have to work?

>           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
>                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 601.524                        Bob Dole                          524 of 525
>GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise"                  9 lines  19-FEB-1996 09:37
>                                   -< true >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      What Stacy is referring to is that the Weld administration did
>     indeed insist that healthy people go to work.  This "negatively
>     impacts" them, because they don't want to - they want a check
>     instead.  In STACYspeak, this is discrimination.  For ordinary
>     citizens (including many Democrats), this policy was long
>     overdue.  We have been suckers for years.
>
>      bb


	Actually, what the Weld administration has done is sort of the
opposite.  They are supporting an effort to get people out of work or at
least to pay them less if they are at work.   Punished if they are
black, female, over 40 ...  They can keep their jobs as long as they
don't speak out.   Perhaps you should start listening to your leaders, 
instead of creating excuses for them.

    
      Re, making excuses - it is no secret that the goal of the
     Weld administration on welfare is to reduce the welfare
     population.  They even brag monthly about the numbers, and
     intend to use them in appealing to the electorate, which in
     polls find this laudable, as do I.
    
      Speaking out, eh ?  I never heard of whatever case you're on
     about, but I certainly support firing people, like the last
     Clinton Surgeon-general lady, who directly contradict their
     boss.  In your view, was Slick "discriminatory" ?
    
      bb

    Hey Stacy, are you planning on answering the questions posed in .522 or
    what?

 Dole is scared and is grabbing at whatever straws he can.





Jim

>           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
>                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 601.527                        Bob Dole                          527 of 527
>GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise"                 13 lines  19-FEB-1996 10:20
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      Re, making excuses - it is no secret that the goal of the
>     Weld administration on welfare is to reduce the welfare
>     population.  They even brag monthly about the numbers, and


	What has Welfare got to do with civil rights or discrimination?  I
also don't doubt that they brag a lot.

    Dole's continued use of negative campaigning is a strategic blunder. He
    should have stopped the moment that Forbes stopped. 

    
      I'm sorry, I must have missed a note of yours.  Please include
     xx.xxx - I haven't any idea what particular incident you are referring
     to.  It is going to be very hard to convince anybody that any recent
     Massachusetts administration discriminates on the basis of race.
     You will need specifics that are verifiable, and the other side of
     whatever story you are telling.  Unless, of course, you lie.
    
      bb

    
      And BTW (yes, Glen Silva, I'm getting older as we speak), the
     Boston Sunday Globe did a good piece a week ago Sunday on all the
     various strategems both Weld and Kerry are going through in wooing
     the small Massachusetts black vote.  The reputation of both is quite
     good for white males in the black community.  Weld has consistently
     done better than other Republicans among blacks, and is trying very
     hard to match that performance in the Senate election.  As much as
     25% would be a good showing, when Republicans generally get about
     12% here.  Kerry, worried about this, is trying to counter it.  The
     black registration is over 80% Democratic, last I knew.
    
      bb

	BB, why did you mention me in that piece???

    
      Glen - you ribbed me about making two replies in a row, the
     second containing what I forgot in the first.  Well, since I
     just did it again, I was just trying a hopeless preemptive
     strike against the inevitable "first thing to go" attack.
    
      It is important to realize what is happening here, Stacy making,
     so far as I can tell, an unsubstantiated smear of racial
     discrimination against Weld's administration.  So far, neither
     Weld nor Kerry has engaged in negative campaigning of this sort.
     But Stacy, being a Democrat, probably tells fake stories about
     those in opposition while sleeping.  I don't believe a word of it.
     I'm sure the Weld administration would also.  This is certainly
     not the image they convey.  Nor has there been any claim, even
     in the leftist anti-Weld Bay State press that Weld has any record
     of any kind of bigotry.  It's a wild, extremist charge from STACY.
     If Kerry said that, and he won't, it would tend to discredit Kerry,
     just as it tends to discredit Stacy here.  You make serious
     accusations against people without hard evidence, you become
     just more election year dismissable noise.
    
      I know you never made such a charge.  bb
    

re: .522 and .529

	You are incredible.  This string started when there was the assertion
that the conservative republican policies don't hurt women or minorities.  I
disagreed and basically asked if you were willing to take some financial
responsibility for what you say and believe.  It seems that you are unwilling
to actually stand behind what you say and support.  It doesn't seem that
you will take any responsibility.  Sounds like the problem we are having
with the elected officials in general.


	Since coming to office, the Weld administration has streamlined
government.  Among the branches of government that have been streamlined is
the Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD).  It is required under law, that
all complaints of discrimination go through this department.  The general
purpose of this department is to keep frivolous complaints out of courts and
to gather difficult to get information when needed.  Investigators used to
spend about 10 hours a complaint, in the first 6 months to 1 year, to review
the information and determine the general merit of the complaint.  Under the
streamlining efforts, that has been reduced to less than 1 hour and takes
about 3 years to complete. That is, if the complaint is against a corporation.
If the complaint is against things like housing or private organizations, then
the response is much quicker and has a much more thorough investigation. The
details go on and on.  The impact is that the company is encouraged to purge
itself of  anybody involved in an incident, on either side, for deniability.
My family has been hit for more than with $100K because this policy.
There were 6 people who lost their jobs because of 1 person and 1 complaint.
The company is more profitable than ever. The layers made their money.  There
are 6000+ complaints of discrimination lodged to MCAD in 1995. That is up from
the 1500+ in the late 80s.  State and federal agencies  believe the activities
to be poor but have no authority to correct them.  Weld's administration
is proud of what they have done.

    
      I do not understand what you mean "take some financial
     responsibility for what you say".  What ?  Are you asking
     me for money ?  Well, then, the answer is a polite "no".
     My understanding is that solicitation is against SOAPBOX policy.
     I only give to things I believe in, and based on the facts
     you present, I find the actions of MCAD laudable.  Of course,
     in the 80's, when Reagan was president and Dukakis governor,
     Digital, Raytheon, etc were flying high.  Massachusetts had
     effectively no layoffs.  Now Digital has been cut in half, and
     there are layoffs all over the Bay State.
    
      I saw the layoffs - men, women, black, white.  I don't think there
     WAS any discrimination.  If the Weld administration has greatly
     streamlined the dismissal of thousands of frivolous lawsuits, good.
     If your family was hit by loss of income, I'm sorry, but it is
     nobody's fault and you should get nothing.  Try to find another job.
    
      bb

    >It doesn't seem that you will take any responsibility.
    
     I haven't the foggiest idea upon what you base this conclusion. You
    don't know squat about me. This ignorance does not seem to hinder your
    willingness to arrive at conclusions, however.
    
    >My family has been hit for more than with $100K because this policy.
    
     What do you mean by this? Because this policy what? Something is
    missing from this assertion of wrongdoing on the part of the state.
    Don't pretend that we can read your mind- you have to be specific and
    accurate. By what mechanism did the Weld administration allegedly
    deprive your family of $100k?
    
     It sounds to me that you are complaining that people in your family
    were laid off, and that the Weld administration has not deemed your
    family's claim of discrimination to have been meritorious. Is that what
    you are complaining about?

RE:> .538

	I do not want your money.  I appologize for not making that perfectly
clear.  Again, I am sorry.

	I have found that the vast majority of people desire more money than
they do freedom and that they invest in what they really believe in.  I could 
not get you to actually stand behind your labels and claims.  As for the facts,
I suggest that you get them all before you make your judgements.

    |I have found that the vast majority of people desire more money than
    |they do freedom.
    
    i desire both.  the more, the better.

> As for the facts, I suggest that you get them all before 
> you make your judgements.

????

Jim, you haven't been exactly forthright in providing "the facts" for
us in these veiled claims you've been making. Why don't you spell it
out for us? Where do you propose we "get them" from, if you don't
make them clear?

    
      Perhaps the problem here is in the definition of discrimination.
    
      No, people DO NOT agree what it means.  When I say, "There is no
     credible evidence of racial or gender discrimination in the Weld
     administration", I mean such things as, that the Weld administration
     has appointed females and racial minority people in appropriate
     numbers to important office (it has), that the Weld administration
     has undertaken no policy whose intent is to discriminate in this
     way (in fact, that's illegal here), and that Weld himself has tried
     with some success to get women and minority votes, constituencies
     in which he does worse than among white males, but better than most
     Republicans.
    
      On the subject of employment, however, discriminatory behavior is
     a matter of law, not opinion.  You and I have no right to a job,
     either by US or Massachusetts law.  Our boss can fire us for cause,
     or without cause.  However, it is illegal in any business operating
     in interstate commerce to fir people for their race, religion, gender,
     or age, and there are limitations for those with disabilities.
    
      It is legal, and the employer's absolute right, to fire people for
     being "outspoken", even if they speak the truth.  In fact, there isn't
     any US or Massachusetts law I know of which prevents an employer for
     firing you or me for any behavior the employer dislikes.  That just
     isn't discrimination, legally, and a case brought over a firing for
     discriminating against BEHAVIOR is frivolous, because there is no
     constitutional or statutory basis for such a suit.
    
      A priori, when a plaintiff files a wrongful discharge suit under
     anti-discrimination laws (unlike a hiring case), the presumption is
     heavily in favor of the defendant.  After all, the defendant HIRED
     you, in spite of your race, gender, religion, and age.  What has
     changed ?  There is a substantial burden on the defendant to show
     that the dismissal is NOT for behavior, or through business necessity.
    
      Thus, in bringing such a suit, in which the person fired perhaps
     for saying something (as Clinton fired his Surgeon General for saying
     something), it would be in the plaintiffs interest to show that
     saying something WAS NOT the cause of the firing.  If you went
     before MCAD and said, "I was fired for saying something", you would
     in effect be begging them to dismiss your case.  It would be better
     to argue, "I said nothing important.  The firing was because I'm
     whatever".  That is, that there is no rational cause, no logical
     alternative, to blatant discrimination despite nothing in your
     behavior that upset the management.
    
      The way you have described the situation, your case was frivolous
     because it wasn't discrimination.  That's not me talking - it's the
     system.  You, of course, can call it discrimination if you like.
     But that just isn't what the word means in a courtroom.
    
      I'm sorry if I've been harsh, but this year we are hearing all sorts
     of unsubstantiated charges against lots of people for lots of things,
     particularly against the members of opposite parties, but also within
     parties.  Where there's smoke, somebody is disposing of garbage.
    
      bb

re: .542

	If I could figure out a way to condense thousands of pages of legal
documents in a way that gave the issues justice, then I would.  But this
specific case is not the issue I have with the conservative policies or the
issue we started to discuss here.  The issue (among others so long ago) we
started was about the conservative policies impacting civil rights.  If 
you cut people from work then you basically say that their job function is not
needed (if you are an honest buisness).  This can be from lack of demand or
increased productivity.  The same applies to government.  The only place to get
justice is in the courts.  Yeh, yeh I know some of you own guns, but I don't
believe that is the best way of doing every day buisness. So if you cut agencies
that provide justice without increasing productivity, then you are in essense
saying that you do not need justice.  Gov Weld has cut many of the state
agencies including the one that is the first step in providing justice for
discrimination. In that way is promoting  injustice (or maybe promoting
vigilanty capitol punishment). It IS against the state and ferderal law to fire
someone for complaining against discrimination or for commiting discrimination. 
Since conservative policies seek to shrink government, not increase it's
productivity, it is responsible to say that civil rights are hurt by
conservative policies.  Both Weld and Dole are clear on the desire to cut
government.  It could also be said that conservatives are soft on white collar
crime. The cuts are acknowleged from the Gov and the head of MCAD and they are
proud of it.  The Gov has attempted to get Nightline to help him brag about it
in a special on discrimination.  I believe Nightline had problems with the
content after investigating further into it.  I am certain you will hear about
this again.

	Since a lot of the conservative attacks have been vague, strewn with
slurs and name calling, I have been vague on this issue. I've also tried to
keep my rage against two faced, lying, slanderous politicians and those that
defend them, in check. Now, I'm not so angry.  I'm depressed.  Based on some of
what I have been thrown, perhaps we have a representitive government after all. 
 

    
      First, STACY, this is the first time I've locked horns with you,
     so you may not be aware of it, but this forum is for tossing ASCII
     at each other with wild abandon.  If you call me a dingbat or worse,
     I'll respond, but never take it personally.  If you're too
     sensitive for ruff&tumble, try ::FRIENDS.  I was pretty sure the
     phrase "money where your mouth is" was just a phrase, but it isn't
     very clear, and lack of clarity can easily cause a disk to overflow.
     I know it, having been misunderstood repeatedly.
    
      You make a case that ANY downsizing of government must be racially
     discriminatory.  I think you see things that aren't actually there.
     Consider this argument : "Downsizing the army is racist, because it
     will disproportionately unemploy blacks."  "Increasing the army
     would be racist, since it would put more blacks in uniform so the
     government could control them."  "Leaving the army size unchanged
     would be racist, because it would prevent black advancement in one
     area where blacks have had considerable managerial success."  "So,
     ALL possible army policies are racist."
    
      When Weld reduced Massachusetts government size, he did what voters
     wanted him to do, in the wake of Dukakis : get Massachusetts spending
     under control.  The fact is, what happened to minorities, good or
     bad, was a remotely secondary consideration.  Perhaps we need more
     than a single co-ordinate system here.  It may be true that blacks
     would fare best in America if the country went communist.  How do I
     know ?  But, it isn't worth it.  You'd be better off faring badly
     under capitalism than faring well under communism.
    
      I guess I have great trouble with the notion that there cannot
     possibly be a policy benefitting the majority without stressing
     the minority.  If most Massachusetts voters LIKE the downsizing
     of the commonwealth, why shouldn't minorities like it as well ?
    
      bb

re: .545

	No I didn't say that any downsizing of government is racist.  Only
downsizing of the justice system that enforces discrimination without FIRST
improving productivity is discrimiatory.

>Only
>downsizing of the justice system that enforces discrimination without FIRST
>improving productivity is discrimiatory.

I for one want to see any government system that enforces discrimination
eliminated pronto!

re: 547

	OOOPS!!  It should have been enforces discrimination laws.

    
    Bob sucks a big one in New Hampshire.

    Among other things...

    
      Dole got wounded yesterday in a 3-way split with Buchanan/Alexander,
     coming second by 1400 votes or so, but with Lamar right behind and
     the rest noplace.  This in spite of Merrill and Zeliff, both granite
     state heavies, doing yeoman service.
    
      The man just cannot excite a crowd, even a crowd that supports him.
    
      He is going to fight this out to the bitter end.  It's his last
     possible chance at the nomination, and he is stubborn, smart, and
     well organized.  It is painful to watch.
    
      bb

  The scene at his headquarters last night, prior to his speaking
  was rather sad.  The networks would switch over there and there
  were a bunch of people hootin' and hollerin' and jumping around on 
  the stage yelling "Dole 96" while people in the crowd looked at them
  like they were a bunch of nuts.



 Jim

I guess Dole shouldn't have taken NH for granite.

    Dole looked like a big loser on TV last night. He's a loser.

which is why he lost my vote ...

    Dole CAN'T campaign positively.  His reason for wanting to be prez is
    that he thinks he's earned it.

    Bob Dole is beginning to remind me of Moses looking at the promised
    land but not allowed to enter it.  At the rate things are going now,
    though, this election may well send the Republicans into another 40
    years in the wilderness.  
    
    A golden oportunity, a democrat not even most democrats like and the
    party came up with no one with a decnet amount of charisma to overcome
    the factionated Republican party.  Corporations don't like Pat, but
    CC'ers don't like Dole, and Forbes was a one-trick pony.  Alexander is
    another folksy southern governor with much the same baggage as a
    certain former governor from another southern state.  Can't you all
    come up with a decent moderate by the convention?
    
    meg

>    Can't you all come up with a decent moderate by the convention?

Extremism in the persuit of liberty is no vice.

(Paraphrased Barry Goldwater)

 Extremism in the defense of liberty





 Jim

    
    the republican's are going to be the decided underdog come fall. I
    wonder what kind of odds vegas is giving dole?

    Look for a more focused Dole to emerge in the very near future.
    
    He will engage Pat Buchanan, and I think, beat him, in debate and in
    the upcoming primaries.
    
    Buchanan is a protest candidate. Always was, always will be.

    Dole does not do well in debates, though.  He can't 'think on his
    feet'.

    When someone comes at him, he mumbles and sounds very nervous as he
    tries to fend off the confrontation.  If you saw the NH debates last
    week, Buchanan went after him a couple of times, and he interrupted
    Buchanan from off camera (even though it wasn't Dole's turn to speak)
    with some pretty shoddy-sounding denials.

    Dole is like Bush - he has a lot of friends in important places and
    he believes he has EARNED the right to run for President.  He does
    NOT hold up well under fire, though.  He can't speak well, he can't
    think on his feet, and he is easy to knock off-balance when he does
    not have a prepared script handy.

    Personally, I think Buchanan would wipe Dole out in any debate, but
    I also believe that the Republican party will do almost anything to
    keep Buchanan from getting the nomination.

    If Dole does get the nomination, the fall election is going to be
    even rougher for him.

    SuZanne:
    
    You are pathetic comparing Dole to Bush...real pathetic!

    
    
    Oh... oh..
    
    Hey Wanny??
    
    You ready for a penultimate argument???

    dole and bush are cut from the same cloth.

    Okay, Bonnie, give me more of your argument.
    
    Dole and Bush are male republicans...what other similarities are there?

Their names are four letter words.

    
    
    How about a difference rather than a similarity??
    
    One's cripple and the other ain't??? (I'll let the reader decide which
    one's which...)
    

    both are long-time party members, ie both "paid their dues"
    both are not very good at public debate
    both are very well-connected in republican circles that count
    both are war veterans
    both are well-heeled
    both made politics their life
    both thought that the presidency was "due" to them

    Is Dole anti-broccoli?

    Yes, he hates hollywood.

    pro-pineapple.

    RE: .570  Bonnie
    
    Thanks, Bonnie.  Good points.
    
    A very conservative friend of mine added one more to the list:
    
    	neither Bush nor Dole are true conservatives
    
    [This is my friend's opinion as a conservative, not mine.]

    dole's forte is compromise, making the deal.  i hear he's
    very good at it.  i should think you would have to be to 
    survive in that town.  conservative?  who knows?

Both earned, and deserve, a lot of respect from a lot of people in 
this country.
Both are basically good men who may not necessarily be best fitted for
the office of the presidency [although I never considered Bush to be a 
_bad_ president, relative to, for example, LBJ or the incumbent.]

    The 'down' side of politics is that no one can ever be guaranteed
    to get respect or regard no matter what the person ever does.

    One of the 'up' sides about being American is that we aren't
    required to give either of these to any individual politician.

    A former (Democratic) governor of Colorado once came to the very
    conservative Colorado Springs (10 or 11 years ago, as I recall)
    and joked about how the people of Colorado Springs regarded him.
    He said something along the lines of, "I love to come here because
    the people here love me so much.  They give me the peace sign, one
    finger at a time."  :-)

    It goes with the job.