🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct27.173520.12467@ncsu.edu> blaine@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Greyland Blaine Mull) writes:

	Doesn't anyone on this newsgroup want to talk about
	anything but Slick Willie? - What is wrong with you
	people?  Ok, you can dismiss me as just another dumb 21yr old
	college student, but not until you hear me out...

[After reading the rest:] dismissed!!

	TELLING THE TRUTH:
	Hey look, I know that all politicians bend or color the
	truth a little sometimes, but Clinton really goes to
	extremes.  Hey, I don't care if I do not approve of something
	in someones' past (like draft dodging or pot smoking), but AT
	LEAST tell me the truth THE FIRST TIME when asked about such
	things.  And something I do not approve of - Demonstrating
	against one's country in another land.  A man of such poor
	values has no business in MY white house(yes, MY - I pay
	taxes).  Clinton, when asked about pot smoking on the MTV
	special said if he could go back he would have inhaled.  Do we
	need a man in the white house who makes light of illegal drug
	use?

So let me see if I understand you: if Clinton had inhaled and said
so, it would have been (1) ok because that would have sounded like
the truth and (2) bad because the truth would have been illegal.
I've got a question for you: What can Clinton do or say to satisfy you
about the pot smoking issue?  I'll bet that *nothing* can satisfy you.
So why attack him for not doing the impossible?

And as far as demonstrating against one's country inside or outside the
US is concerned, I'm proud to live in a country where we are FREE enough
to do just such things.  And I'm proud that we have Americans who are
courageous enough to exercise their freedoms before your kind can take
them away.

	TAXES:
	Why should the the rich get more taxes, come to think
	of it, why should anyone get more taxes?  "Tax and
	Spend" - that's Clinton (damn demo-rat).

You, I suppose, prefer Reagan/Bush "Borrow from the future and spend now"?
I'm old enough to remember when your kind believed in balanced budgets
and pay-as-you-go.  What happened?

	HEALTH CARE:
	I have the answer - Make all avenues of employment
	insure their workers by law.  BINGO, we all have
	insurance.  Whatever happend to "if you dont work you dont eat"
	- sounds like a good plan to me (neglect the disabled of
	course, that is understood).  What we do not need is socialized
	medicine.  I mean let me ask you, have you been to a hospital
	overseas? - I have been to several and they suck.  It is almost
	like a bus station, or any other public, dirty, hobo-hangout.

You have an "answer"?  That's an "answer"?

I have a couple of American friends who bought land near Chapel Hill
intending to live there when they retired from their jobs in Canada.
Then the reality of our medical system sank in and they realized that
they had to stay in Canada.  Fortunatly for them, because one had a
heart attack recently.

[More junk deleted]

	Nuff Said...

You finally got something right....

##########################################################################
#  George Entenman (ge@mcnc.org)                  			 #
#  MCNC Center for Microelectronics					 #
#  P.O. Box 12889                           Dan Quayle is more stupid    #
#  Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2889    than Ronald Reagan put       #
#  919/248-1953 (voice)                     together. - Matt Groening    #
#  919/248-1455 (FAX)                             		         #
##########################################################################

In article <1992Oct27.214757.6178@mcnc.org>
 ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct27.173520.12467@ncsu.edu>
  blaine@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Greyland Blaine Mull) writes:


[stuff deleated]

>
>	TELLING THE TRUTH:
>	Hey look, I know that all politicians bend or color the
>	truth a little sometimes, but Clinton really goes to
>	extremes.  Hey, I don't care if I do not approve of something
>	in someones' past (like draft dodging or pot smoking), but AT
>	LEAST tell me the truth THE FIRST TIME when asked about such
>	things.  And something I do not approve of - Demonstrating
>	against one's country in another land.  A man of such poor
>	values has no business in MY white house(yes, MY - I pay
>	taxes).  Clinton, when asked about pot smoking on the MTV
>	special said if he could go back he would have inhaled.  Do we
>	need a man in the white house who makes light of illegal drug
>	use?
>
>So let me see if I understand you: if Clinton had inhaled and said
>so, it would have been (1) ok because that would have sounded like
>the truth and (2) bad because the truth would have been illegal.
>I've got a question for you: What can Clinton do or say to satisfy you
>about the pot smoking issue?  I'll bet that *nothing* can satisfy you.
>So why attack him for not doing the impossible?


What?  1) "would have sounded like the truth"  The truth is the truth,
no matter what it sounds like.  Smoking pot is illegal and a someone who
has the possibility to become the most powerful man in the nation
doesn't need to experiment with drugs.  I can't answer for Grey but
neither 1 or 2 satisfies me.  

And what is the talk about doing the impossible.  He shouldn't have
smoked pot AT ALL.  Why do you support him on the pot smoking issue, did
you smoke it and now want sympathy?  Sorry but you won't get it from me.
 

>
>And as far as demonstrating against one's country inside or outside the
>US is concerned, I'm proud to live in a country where we are FREE enough
>to do just such things.  And I'm proud that we have Americans who are
>courageous enough to exercise their freedoms before your kind can take
>them away.
>


I'm proud to live where we are free to protest as well, but in another
country is WRONG!  You really don't seem to understand this do you?
Well my dad fought in the Vietnam War an I'm proud of it!  His life was
on the line while assholes like Bill Clinton were protesting.

 
>I have a couple of American friends who bought land near Chapel Hill
>intending to live there when they retired from their jobs in Canada.
>Then the reality of our medical system sank in and they realized that
>they had to stay in Canada.  Fortunatly for them, because one had a
>heart attack recently.


Well I hope you start packing your bags and head on up to Canada if you
think their hospitals are so great.  I sure as heck would rather go to a
hospital in NC than Canada.  If you get sick please don't go to a
hospital in the States.  Someone who needs the hospital may have to wait
because people like yourself are crowding up the rooms.   
 
>
>[More junk deleted]
>
>	Nuff Said...
>
>You finally got something right....
>
>##########################################################################
>#  George Entenman (ge@mcnc.org)                  			 #
>##########################################################################

Tracy Brooks

fireman@catt.ncsu.edu

/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
|     Tracy Lee Brooks                     fireman@catt.ncsu.edu      |
|     FF/1st Responder                     tlbrook@eos.ncsu.edu       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

fireman@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Tracy L. Brooks) writes:
> [...]  Smoking pot is illegal and a someone who
> has the possibility to become the most powerful man in the nation
> doesn't need to experiment with drugs.  

Experimenting with drugs in the 60s and 70s was as prevalent as
kids having teenage sex is today.  I think it'd be hard to find
someone who *didn't* experiment back then.  That includes people who
would just puff (not inhale) at a party because of peer pressure.

Heck, you couldn't walk 10 feet without falling over a sidewalk Head Shop.
Pot was almost like beer back then... in university towns, at least,
the police would rarely arrest anyone for smoking dope.  They'd just
make sure you threw it away (or gave it to them :-).

> And what is the talk about doing the impossible.  He shouldn't have
> smoked pot AT ALL.  Why do you support him on the pot smoking issue, did
> you smoke it and now want sympathy?  Sorry but you won't get it from me.

I held a Top Secret / Special Intelligence clearance back in the 70s.
This is as high a security clearance as you can get.  Admitting to smoking
pot was *not* a black mark back then... because if they didn't take
people who had smoked in college, there would've been NOBODY to take :)

Let me put it this way.  If you weren't there, you wouldn't understand.
Figure it as if twenty years from now someone pointed *you* out and asked
"Did you ever take a sip of wine or beer, or have sex while you were in
college?"  Should people 20 years from now think less of you if you did?
Would your current friends think less?  No.  They'd understand completely,
even if they also squirmed and told their kids that they didn't do stuff
like that back then (ha!).

> [comments about demonstrating, war, etc] 

Again, you weren't there.  Again, twenty years from now YOUR kids might
look back and ask "Mom, you mean you were FOR the slaughter of Iraqis?"...
and you'd find it just as impossible to convince your kids that such
a simplistic view of history doesn't cover what you felt a few years ago.

You might also change your mind if you were drafted (as I was) late in an
undeclared war which had simply minced up the youth of this country for
a decade... or if your own child was drafted for such a fate.

In other words, don't be too strict... because it's the eternal curse of
history that YOUR actions will also be misjudged by your kids someday :-)

regards - kevin

PS: it's another curse that young people never believe anyone else :-)
So I don't expect you to see the light.  I mean, heck, when I was your
age I used to swear by the phrase, "You can't trust anyone over 30!"  ;-)

In article <1992Oct27.173520.12467@ncsu.edu> blaine@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Greyland Blaine Mull) writes:
>
>	Doesn't anyone on this newsgroup want to talk about anything but
>Slick Willie? [stuff about being a college student deleted]

I agree that we should use this forum to talk about more than Bill Clinton.
Let's talk about Ross Perot or Andre Marrou.

>TELLING THE TRUTH:
>	Hey look, I know that all politicians bend or color the truth a
>little sometimes, but Clinton really goes to extremes.  Hey, I don't
>care if I do not approve of something in someones' past (like draft
>dodging or pot smoking), but AT LEAST tell me the truth THE FIRST TIME
>when asked about such things.  And something I do not approve of -
>Demonstrating against one's country in another land.  A man of such poor
>values has no business in MY white house(yes, MY - I pay taxes).

Please don't get so high and mighty about your whitehouse because you're
not the only one paying taxes.  The rest of us pay taxes too and many
of us feel that Clinton is qualified to occupy the white house.
I also see nothing wrong with demonstrating against one's country.
If we all remain quiet when tyrants are abusing their power and costing
lives then the tyrants will just keep on doing it.  Peaceful dissent
is one of the important rights guaranteed by the Constitution and I'm
glad to see that Bill Clinton exercised that right.

I agree that Clinton shouldn't have evaded these issues or distorted the
facts, but they really aren't that big of a deal to me.  In my opinion
Bush has done much worse by lying about his abuses of power, such as
the Iran-Contra affair, Iraq-Gate, helping his son make big bucks in
the S&L scandal, ignoring the Privacy Act by having State Department
officials investigate Clinton's mother, etc.

>Clinton, when asked about pot smoking on the MTV special said if he
>could go back he would have inhaled.  Do we need a man in the white
>house who makes light of illegal drug use?  

Why not?  Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that everyone
in America is against it.  It just means that some politicians were
against it and made a law concerning it.  Marijuana is not addictive
like tobacco and has less health risks than alcohol.  I would really
like to see someone in authority make light of our country's twisted
definition of what is dangerous.

>TAXES:
>	Why should the the rich get more taxes, come to think of it, why
>should anyone get more taxes?  "Tax and Spend" - that's Clinton (damn
>demo-rat).  Why should the rich carry the rest of the country on their
>backs? - Everyone thinks that someone owes them something.

I agree that high taxes are bad and that making the rich pay a disproportionate
amount of them is unfair.  I think it's sad that the press laughed
at Jerry Brown when he suggested a flat tax rate for everyone.

>Go ahead and tax the rich, make us all equal (sound likes COMMUNism to me).

It doesn't sound like communism to me.  High taxes do not mean the same
thing as communism.  It still amazes me that McCarthy was so successful
at brainwashing our country into equating communism with pure evil.

>HEALTH CARE:
>	I have the answer - Make all avenues of employment insure their
>workers by law.  BINGO, we all have insurance.  Whatever happend to "if
>you dont work you dont eat" - sounds like a good plan to me (neglect the
>disabled of course, that is understood).  What we do not need is
>socialized medicine.  I mean let me ask you, have you been to a hospital
>overseas? - I have been to several and they suck.  It is almost like a
>bus station, or any other public, dirty, hobo-hangout.  

You've hit upon a good point with "if you dont work you dont eat" because
that's really the principal that drives capitalism.  If there isn't a strong
incentive to work, then people won't work as hard.  That's what happened
in the former Soviet Union.  If we have too many entitlements, then we'll
start to feel entitled to them whether we work or not.

>	Sorry, but I think the Clinton/Gore ticket is much to animated
>and silly, apealing to any group they can to get a vote - give me a
>break.  Hillary is who is REALLY running for president, she is the boss
>in that family.  Hey did you know this...Slick WIllie has never ever
>never had a real job(People magazine profiled his life).  He has always
>had a govt position or a job with family, or being a student (which
>really meant trying to smoke pot and demonstrating against the US in
>russia).  

Talk about being too animated and silly.  I haven't seen any evidence that
Hillary Clinton is the boss of their family.  Why is a government job
not a real job?  There are many millions of people in this country who
work for the government who would disagree with you.  I'm also amazed that
you would criticize Bill Clinton for being a student.  You are a student.
Does that really mean that you smoke pot and demonstrate against the US?

>	And lay off Dan Quayle, the media has given him a hard time for
>four years give it a rest.  Ok, maybe he is not a spelling B champ - I
>dont care, neither am I.  But the Bush/Quayle ticket is better than that
>silly, puppet-like, lobby-loyaltist Clinton camp.

I used to feel that way about Dan Quayle too until I actually saw him
speaking on television.  He really is as clueless as the media portrays
him to be.  He has demonstrated too many times just how poorly he
understands the things going on around him.  If this idiot ever becomes
president then he'll end up being a puppet for his advisors.

> Grey Mull	       +Disclamer:  I didn't say it,-+  Macintosh
> blaine@catt.ncsu.edu  |   You didn't see me say it, |       to
> gbmull@eos.ncsu.edu   +---You can't prove anything!-+      NeXT...
>NC State CATT Program				Steve Jobs continues...

Nice disclaimer.  It sounds like something George Bush would say.


Although it may look like I'm a diehard Clinton supporter, I'm really not.
I still haven't decided whether I should vote for Marrou, Perot, or Clinton.
They all have good ideas.  I suggest to everyone that if you didn't know
that Marrou (the Libertarian candidate) was on the ballot in all 50 states
before Perot, then you should learn more about him.


Jeff Butterworth

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."
                                           -Adolf Hitler

butterwo@gamella.cs.unc.edu (Jeff Butterworth) writes:
>I also see nothing wrong with demonstrating against one's country.
>If we all remain quiet when tyrants are abusing their power and costing
>lives then the tyrants will just keep on doing it.  Peaceful dissent
>is one of the important rights guaranteed by the Constitution and I'm
>glad to see that Bill Clinton exercised that right.

It's fine to demonstrate peacefully against one's nation.  Personally,
the fact that Bill Clinton tried pot in college doesn't bother me too
much.  What I take issue with is what you write next:

>I agree that Clinton shouldn't have evaded these issues or distorted the
>facts, but they really aren't that big of a deal to me.

Lying is a very big deal to me.  Mr. Clinton would have done better to
have owned up to trying pot (no, I don't know that he did "inhale," but
he should've owned up to what he did).

I don't take issue with what he did 20 years ago, in college.  It's
what he does about it today that bothers me.  He lied about it.  Plain
and simple.  If you can't hold a man to his word, what is he worth?

I am not implying that George Bush has't lied.  Therefore, I won't
comment on your next statement.

[...]

>I agree that high taxes are bad and that making the rich pay a disproportionate
>amount of them is unfair.  I think it's sad that the press laughed
>at Jerry Brown when he suggested a flat tax rate for everyone.

It is an interesting idea, but from what I can tell it doesn't work.  It
loses a bunch of tax revenues, and while I don't think the taxes of the
wealthy should be used to run the country, I can understand giving those
who WORK, with pay on the lower end of the spectrum, a smaler tax
percentage.

>You've hit upon a good point with "if you dont work you dont eat" because
>that's really the principal that drives capitalism.  If there isn't a strong
>incentive to work, then people won't work as hard.  That's what happened
>in the former Soviet Union.  If we have too many entitlements, then we'll
>start to feel entitled to them whether we work or not.

That's what's happening in this country already.  Everybody thinks the
government owes them something.  There's a statement about owing (the
world owing you, I believe): "The world owes you nothing.  It was here
first." I believe those were Mark Twain's words.

(okay, maybe not Everybody thinks that the government owes them
something, but MANY people do!)

I would like to see people in prisons put to work.  I believe the figure
for keeping someone in prison is around $20,000 a day.  Now, I find that
a bit hard to believe, but the point still stands: we pay megabucks for
people to stay in prison.  With most people (if not all) not serving
their full term, and those on death row getting off, there's really not
much incentive to NOT commit a crime, if you're down on your luck.  To
use the example of a close friend, consider this: you're roaming the
streets, nowhere to go, nothing to eat.  Just commit some crime--voila!
Instant housing and food!

I say, crack down on crime!  Put those guys to work!

>>	Sorry, but I think the Clinton/Gore ticket is much to animated
>>and silly, apealing to any group they can to get a vote - give me a
>>break.  Hillary is who is REALLY running for president, she is the boss
>>in that family.  Hey did you know this...Slick WIllie has never ever
>>never had a real job(People magazine profiled his life).  He has always
>>had a govt position or a job with family, or being a student (which
>>really meant trying to smoke pot and demonstrating against the US in
>>russia).  

>Talk about being too animated and silly.  I haven't seen any evidence that
>Hillary Clinton is the boss of their family.  Why is a government job
					       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>not a real job?  There are many millions of people in this country who
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>work for the government who would disagree with you.  I'm also amazed that
>you would criticize Bill Clinton for being a student.  You are a student.
>Does that really mean that you smoke pot and demonstrate against the US?

I believe Mr. Mull's point was that Mr. Clinton has had a career as a
politician, and not as a private-sector employee.

>I used to feel that way about Dan Quayle too until I actually saw him
>speaking on television.  He really is as clueless as the media portrays
>him to be.  He has demonstrated too many times just how poorly he
>understands the things going on around him.  If this idiot ever becomes
>president then he'll end up being a puppet for his advisors.

And Clinton's not a puppet to the Democratic platform?  Come on!  This
isn't the same Bill Clinton we saw ten years ago!

I respect Dan Quayle more than any other politician today.  Mr. Quayle
stands up for what he believes.  He's not afraid to tell you what he
supports and why he supports it.  Whether or not you agree with what he
says, that simple fact should be enough to earn your respect.

>Although it may look like I'm a diehard Clinton supporter, I'm really not.
>I still haven't decided whether I should vote for Marrou, Perot, or Clinton.
>They all have good ideas.  I suggest to everyone that if you didn't know
>that Marrou (the Libertarian candidate) was on the ballot in all 50 states
>before Perot, then you should learn more about him.

You need to read George Bush's "Agenda for American Renewal."  President
Bush has many good ideas, but unfortunately the democratic congress will
not let him do anything.

Daniel
--
Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Depatment, NCSU / eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
From: Rec.humor.funny:				   "Ich bin ein Adler"
      My unique solution to two of the world's problems:
      "Feed the Homeless to the Hungry"

) In article <1992Oct28.025812.6650@ncsu.edu>
)  fireman@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Tracy L. Brooks) writes:
]] In article <1992Oct27.214757.6178@mcnc.org>
]]  ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman) writes:
}}} In article <1992Oct27.173520.12467@ncsu.edu>
}}}  blaine@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Greyland Blaine Mull) writes:
}}}
}}}   TELLING THE TRUTH:
}}}   [criticism of Clinton for smoking pot, protesting the US government
}}}    in a foreign country, and lying about it all]
}}}
]] 
]]  [defense of Clinton on the pot smoking issue]
]] 
) 
) What?  1) "would have sounded like the truth"  The truth is the truth,
) no matter what it sounds like.  Smoking pot is illegal and a someone who
) has the possibility to become the most powerful man in the nation
) doesn't need to experiment with drugs.  I can't answer for Grey but
) neither 1 or 2 satisfies me.  
) 
) And what is the talk about doing the impossible.  He shouldn't have
) smoked pot AT ALL.

I disagree with your assertion that Clinton shouldn't have smoked pot at all.
In my experience, very few people agree with all laws.  A law is not the
same as one of the ten commandments.  They are made by humans, often
corrupt humans with impure motives.  If a bunch of loony congresspeople
made a law banning recreational computer use would you stop playing
video games at home?  (Pretend for the sake of this point that
we all play computer games.)  I sure wouldn't stop.

Marijuana is much less of a social and health hazard than tobacco and alcohol.
I think it's hypocritical to condemn pot consumers but not cigarette or
alcohol consumers.  Bill probably has just as many brain cells as he did
before he inhaled.

)
) Why do you support him on the pot smoking issue, did
) you smoke it and now want sympathy?  Sorry but you won't get it from me.
)

How juvenile.  Whether the previous poster smoked pot or not has absolutely
nothing to do with the validity of his arguments.  If you have some logical
points to make then please do so, otherwise get a life.

]] 
]] And as far as demonstrating against one's country inside or outside the
]] US is concerned, I'm proud to live in a country where we are FREE enough
]] to do just such things.  And I'm proud that we have Americans who are
]] courageous enough to exercise their freedoms before your kind can take
]] them away.
]] 
) 
) I'm proud to live where we are free to protest as well, but in another
) country is WRONG!  You really don't seem to understand this do you?
) Well my dad fought in the Vietnam War an I'm proud of it!  His life was
) on the line while assholes like Bill Clinton were protesting.
)  

I don't understand it either.  Why is protesting the US government while
in another country wrong?  It's unclear to me what point you are trying
to make about your father fighting in the war.

]] 
]] [stuff about the US medical system not being as good as Canada's]
]]
) 
) Well I hope you start packing your bags and head on up to Canada if you
) think their hospitals are so great.  I sure as heck would rather go to a
) hospital in NC than Canada.  If you get sick please don't go to a
) hospital in the States.  Someone who needs the hospital may have to wait
) because people like yourself are crowding up the rooms.   
)  

Your childish rantings are becoming tiresome.  What is it that you are
trying to say about about NC or canadian hospitals?  All I can gather is
that you don't want George Entenman in the NC hospitals.  Has he done
something horrible to you that the rest of us don't know about?  I suspect
not.  More likely, you are just too blindly patriotic to see that our
country is not perfect.


Jeff Butterworth

Al Franken: Is there a feeling of fear on the floor?
	    Has anyone say, handed you a fetus?
Calvin Trillin: No, the floor has been fetus free.
		Family value day isn't until Wednesday.

From the Indecision '92 coverage of the Republican National Convention

>government owes them something.  There's a statement about owing (the
>world owing you, I believe): "The world owes you nothing.  It was here
>first." I believe those were Mark Twain's words.
>
>(okay, maybe not Everybody thinks that the government owes them
>something, but MANY people do!)
>


Obviously you're just using quotes to sound more intelligent than you
really are.  
You're quote about the world means alot more than having the 
_GOVERNMENT_ owes us.  The world is not supported by our taxes.
The _government_ is.

In a place where freedom and democracy is valued so highly, you're
supposed to get what you pay for.

Under the Bush administration, we get shit for megabucks.

no question about it.

later.

andy.

"We can lick Bush in '92 if we want to."
.
	

All of the ranting & raving about Clinton & Bush on this newgroup is just
basically like the negative ads we see everyday on tv translated into an
electronic medium.  In other words, it got old a while ago.

Maybe if our attention & efforts were turned towards the issues rather than
"outsleazing" each other's candidates, we can actually have a useful and maybe
even (heaven forbid!) educational exchange of ideas & info.

Sanjeev

In article <92304.134934SNOSZB@vm.sas.com>, <SNOSZB@vm.sas.com> (Sanjeev
Banerjia) says:
>
>All of the ranting & raving about Clinton & Bush on this newgroup is just
>basically like the negative ads we see everyday on tv translated into an
>electronic medium.  In other words, it got old a while ago.
>
>Maybe if our attention & efforts were turned towards the issues rather than
>"outsleazing" each other's candidates, we can actually have a useful and maybe
>even (heaven forbid!) educational exchange of ideas & info.
>
>Sanjeev

Thanks Sanjeev.  Properly used, newsgroups like this could be educational.
I suspect there are others like me out there who still aren't 100% sure who
they would like to vote for.  We have a good idea of who it will be, but we
still find ourselves questioning if we are making the right decision.

It is forums such as this that we look to for intelligent discussion of issues.
We want to know where candidates stand, what they propose as solutions to
our problems, etc.  Don't tell us what's wrong with other candidates.  Tell
us what is right about your candidate.

Thanks again, Sanjeev.

Glenn

In article <92304.134934SNOSZB@vm.sas.com>, SNOSZB@vm.sas.com writes...


>All of the ranting & raving about Clinton & Bush on this newgroup is just
>basically like the negative ads we see everyday on tv translated into an
>electronic medium.  In other words, it got old a while ago.
> 
>Maybe if our attention & efforts were turned towards the issues rather than
>"outsleazing" each other's candidates, we can actually have a useful and maybe
>even (heaven forbid!) educational exchange of ideas & info.

I tried to say this but you did it much better.  :^)

I'd also like thank John Tyner for forwarding the info on the Libertarians.
I think the ballot process and media polls are the major obstacles for more
parties (choices!) in politics.  Even if you disagree with them they are still
a national party--on the ballot in all 50 states--and they deserve their share
of coverage.  [one could argue the liberal media is protecting the Democrats
by suppressing minor parties and stomping on Perot, but this thread belongs in
alt.conspiracy][one could the conservative media...]

Anyone agreeing with the post about cutting taxes/privatizing government
functions ought to check out the libertarians.  I will try to post some info on
them before tomorrow's debacle, I mean election.

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

"The government which governs least governs best."
                                      --Thomas Jefferson
"I cannot tell a lie."        
                                      --George Washington     
"I don't remember."
                                      --Ronald Reagan
*****************************************************************************