HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Matthew.B.Berry@dartmouth.edu (Matthew B. Berry)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:20:46 GMT
 <PMETZGER.92Apr6205958@snark.shearson.com>  
 <ru2euINNhve@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <ru2euINNhve@agate.berkeley.edu>
jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:

> So, let the GOP speak, and give us rationale, hopefully other than just 
> party ID.  And let everyone post to "why not vote Bush"
> 
> jason o'rourke

As a Republican who voted for Pat Buchanan as a protest in the New
Hampshire primary, I intend on voting for President Bush in the fall. 
Why, some may ask?

1.  Bush will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices.
2.  Bush is pro-life, Clinton and Perot are pro-choice
3.  While I disagree with some of Bush's foreign policy, I feel that at
least
he will safeguard our national security interests.  Clinton wavered on
the Gulf War, and Perot opposed it.
4.  Bush is less pro-quota than the others in the race.
5.  Bush's economic program is the best of a field of bad proposals. 
Bush is at least interested in creating wealth, while Clinton's main
proposal for economic growth is a redistributionist tax plan which will
do nothing to stimulate the economy.
6.  Bill Clinton does not have the honesty and integrity to serve as
President.  While George Bush is unprincipled, Clinton is unethical.  
7.  I like Barbara Bush a lot more than Hillary Clinton.  Hillary's
comment about homemakers was genuinely offensive to millions of women.
8.  If the Democrats controlled the Congress and the Presidency,
government spending would be even more out of control that it is at
present.
9.  Bush has the most experience.
10.  I HATE BILL CLINTON!
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<PMETZGER.92Apr1155522@snark.shearson.com>
	<1992Apr2.093847.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
	<PMETZGER.92Apr3121333@snark.shearson.com> <bma0hy.ff3@wang.com>
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:32:22 GMT

In article <bma0hy.ff3@wang.com> fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:

   pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

   > We are pro choice. We are against the war on drugs. We are in favor of
   > an end to prosecution of victimless crimes, including the completely
   > innocent things adults may choose or choose not to do in the privacy
   > of their own homes, with or without money involved.

   You are against environmental protection laws.

Completely untrue. We merely feel that government agencies do a poor
job of protecting people from harm. For instance, if someone has
polluted your drinking water, we think thats a matter for a lawsuit or
the local police, and not a matter for some federal bureaucracy that
may or may not even care.

   You are against regulation of businesses,

Thats also untrue. We are merely against unneeded and foolish
regulation carried out by giant federal bureaucratic monstrosities. We
favor the same regulation for businesses that we favor for everyone.
Basically stated, we feel that defrauding someone or doing violence to
them or their property, or defaulting on a contract, are all perfectly
fine realms for intervention. What we oppose is intervention into
peaceful and legitimate activities that people may undertake, whether
individually or when amalgamated in the form of corporations.

   consumer protection

Again, if you are defrauded, we are the last people on earth to say
that you shouldn't be able to sue. What we oppose is setting up big
regulatory bodies that fail to serve their purpose and damage the
economy.

   When will we get a party that's libertarian on civil-liberties issues, but
   regards businesses as potential threats to individual rights, just as the
   government is?  This party would do _very_ well.

Businesses and individuals are not seperable. Businesses have no
existance seperate from that of the people who own and make them up,
except in the grossest sense of the legal fiction of "corporate
persons", which, btw, the LP would abolish. A business like the corner
mom & pop market is a business where you can see the damage
regulations do on an individual level; a business like IBM is still
made up of people even if they are well hidden.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government is best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A suggestion for presidential election reform
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:09:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Apr8.051451.25520@athena.mit.edu>, solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes...
> 
>WRONG! The point of voting is to have some say in how the country is run. If I
>vote libertarian, I will have absolutely no effect on who becomes the next
>president of the United States.

So, does that mean that you'll wait until the day before the election and
check the polls, then vote for whoever is in the lead so it's "your
{wo}man" that's elected?  Does it mean that you'll blindly vote for
whatever candidate, no matter what their views, based on party
affiliation?  If your choices were Hitler, Stalin, or Andre Marrou would
you vote for Hitler or Stalin because they represented the two major
parties?

The country is in complete disarray and getting worse, year by year,
decade by decade.  Bush or Clinton, it really doesn't matter.  They are
more the same than they are different and the country will be pretty much
the same after whomever is President is gone.  What matters to me is that in
1996 it will be Bush-clone vs Clinton-clone, and in 2000, and in 2004, etc.  The
basic path of the U.S. hasn't altered one inch since the depression, and
it won't as long as we keep revalidating the big/intrusive government
views of the Republicans and Democrats.

You are completely right, a Libertarian Presidential vote in 1992 likely won't
have an impact on who the next President is.  What it will determine is
the type of president we could have in the next decade.  Will you still
have little difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates,
or will you have a real choice?  If you want a real choice, then you've
got to start down the road NOW.  Libertarian success will either lead to
election of a Libertarian President, or movement in the Republican and/or
Democratic parties to a more pro-liberty stance.  Either alternative is
better than the current two-party drift to bigger, more intrusive,
government.
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:499 talk.politics.misc:17160
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: LP, GATT, and Beer (Was: Ross Perot)
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:20:43 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

pmetzger@shearson.com writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>   Since the LP is a pro-free market party, could we assume that it
>   would honour GATT if it were in power?
>
>In the sense that the LP would not restrict trade to and from the US
>in any way, yes. In the sense that we would necessarily care if other
>nations had signed a treaty agreeing to this, no. In the sense that we
>would necessarily care about all the details of GATT, no. 
> ...
>Piddling details like beer tax abatements are minor, however, compared
>to the general problem of eliminating our restrictive barriers against
>whole foreign industries.

Actually, this is a major part of the last GATT treaty which brought
down the German beer purity laws that effectively barred non-German
beers from their market, as well as the Canadian provincial barriers.
We're talking about a lot of money moving around a large freer market
right now.  A single clause on beer may seem piddling, but one must
consider that it is only one of many clauses agreed to in the last
GATT round, and the current negotiation deadlock centers around a
piddling clause that can bring down the entire French agricultural
welfare state, and the Canadians have put their/our farm marketing
boards on the block (which is fine with me).

Would I be correct in implying that a Libertarian U.S. federal gov't
would not care about working in concert with other nations to bring
down trade barriers on a global scale, as epitomized by GATT?  What
would happen to American export industries, then, in that case?  I'm
just curious, that's all.  The last couple of follow-ups imply that
party Libertarians do not concern themselves with happenings outside
of U.S. borders ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				U.S. Elections 1992, Vote Now:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		a) Elvis 50's stamp, or
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			b) Elvis 70's stamp?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:10:13 GMT

Well stated.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: fact: Libertarian presidential support since 1972
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<RJBODKIN.92Apr6231053@faust.lcs.mit.edu>
	<7APR92103349@acad3.alaska.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:59:29 GMT

In article <7APR92103349@acad3.alaska.edu> fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan) writes:

   In article <RJBODKIN.92Apr6231053@faust.lcs.mit.edu>, rjbodkin@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ronald Bodkin) writes...
   >It should be interesting
   >to see if the Libertarians can exceed a million votes this year.
   >Ron

   Not with Andre "Oh, you're really a Republican as far as I'm concerned
   and I don't want your support" Marrou, they won't.

   And what's this I hear about Nancy Lord being his girlfriend?  Whatever
   happened to his wife Eileen?  Since he's removed himself from here, we
   don't hear all that much about him, aside from the papers making fun of
   him every once in a while.

Re: Sean's notions about Andre and Nancy's private lives.

Norma Segal, Andre's fiance, would be very interested to hear if Nancy
Lord was seeing him. Nancy's fiancee would also doubtless be
interested in hearing it. I suspect Andre and Nancy would also be
interested in the news that they are an item, given that so far as I
can tell they themselves are unaware of it.

As for the notion that Andre won't break a million votes: he has an
excellent organization, good people working for him nationwide, and we
are likely to be on the ballot in all 50 states for the first time
since 1980. We are using television ads in a big way for the first
time in a decade, Andre and Nancy have almost daily appearances on
Radio and TV talk shows, and we seem to be on target for all our
campaign milestones thus far. I don't know that we will break 1
million votes, but the goal is well within reach.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government is best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Bush supporters should Back Perot
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:03:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <s7go6INN35r@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>With Perot as
>president, Japan and Europe would have to pay us if they want us to
>help in their defense.  With Perot as president, Japan and Europe would
>not be "enemies" (as Pat suggested), but instead would be competitors.
>Probably best of all, Perot doesn't advocate going to war for economic
>reasons.  This, I hope, will be the downfall of George Bush.

  Considering your debating style (and I use the term loosely), I'm not
going to try to clutter up the net too much with a response to your post.

  However, to say that I said that Japan and Europe would be enemies is to
badly misread my post.  Admittedly, I tend to get a bit lax in very clearly
stating my point.  I am used to debating with intelligent people who can
make intelligent inferences.  In this case, I was clearly wrong.

  Although you are clearly biased and uninterested, I will state my point
more clearly for anyone else that is intersted.  You are free
to start using profanity and name calling in rebuttal, however I will not
respond to such.

  Japan and Europe are likely to start building up from being military
midgets.  I consider this good.  I think they need to have a defense 
policy that does not rely solely upon us.  It is true that defense
spending hurts an economy rather than say building VCRs,
however I believe that it is one of the more important functions of government. 

  I have heard others say that we should bring our defense level "down
to that of Japan and Europe".  I believe this would be a mistake.  I
believe the world is still a dangerous place, and we need to maintain
a certain level of defense in order to maintain our security.  I also
believe "our security" starts at our coast no more than it did in WWI
and WWII.
  
   My earlier statements are merely reflective of the above.
It was not saying "we are in an arms race with Japan", but rather we
should not go down to the level where Japan is now.

   I also agree with both Clinton and Bush that our defense spending is 
too high.  If you read other post of mine, I granted Clinton a tie with
Bush on this issue (not just on the amount of money cut.)  I have
no idea where Perot stands.  I can give some details with Clinton and Bush,
Perot (to my knowledge) has offered no such numbers or program cuts.
 
  This lack of information is one of my probelms with Perot in general.  If you
can post his specific stance in terms of dollars of cuts and program cuts I 
would be both very intersted and very surprised.

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us
From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 17:11:57 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In article <1992Apr3.205926.4539@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:

>>I've been curious about this for a while - does the CTJ have any
>>agenda other than fighting Brown's tax scheme?  I mean, what do
>>they feel constitutes "tax justice"?  One does get the strong
>>impression that they are the "People Against Brown" (PAB) rather
>>than the CTJ - somebody please clue me in.

>Oh, come on.  Brown supporters are starting to sound like the
>revisionists -- it's all a conspiracy against them.  

Not at all - I'm not much of a Brown supporter, and I'm
simply interested in being informed.  I'd never heard of
CTJ before Brown's tax proposal.  The media seems to be
a lot more interested in talking about CTJ's slams on
Brown's taxes than they were in Ronald's (but, then,
Ron was popular back then, wasn't he? :-).
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:40:49 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Apr7.071330.13897@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

|> >|> Why is government able to infringe on people's rights?  Because it is
|> >|> big and has lots of power. Major corporations have, or in the past have had,
|> >|> the exact same powers that government has to infringe on people's rights.  
|> >|> That is, they're big and they've got lots of money, which can buy power.
|> 
|> >But they can't force people to buy. The reason why people buy is because they
|> 
|> They can if you need what they're selling.

NO! If you need what they are selling, then you can get it somewhere else. When
somebody makes a perchase, they either A) are stupid or B) believe they are
getting a beneficial deal.

|> 
|> >like what they are getting. People go to work because they like getting money.
|> 
|> The same way people pay taxes because they like staying out of jail.
|> Do you really believe this?  I seem to have missed your smiley face.
|> People go to work because they NEED money, not because they like money.

You do not need money to survive. The proof is the survival of people without any
money. Money is a medium of exchange that allows most people to dedicate their
productivity to a single task, and still recieve a variety of things. People like
being able to do things this way instead of doing everything for themselves. The
latter would be considered an unbearble burden by most Americans. 

|> >|> >Jason W. Solinsky
From: Costanza@world.std.com (Peter Costanza)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The American Way
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:02:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: world.BMEyrn.7MF
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

The American election is a farce.  There is nothing and no one to vote for.
On the other hand, one can argue that a nation that elects its leaders gets
the leaders it deserves.  The best thing most people in the USA could do
with their "choice" this November is walk away from it.  Don't vote, it only
encourages them.

But that's not what people will do.  Not yet.  They'll flame, they'll argue.
Ultimately they will self-righteously cast their vote and fervently hope that
the country will be saved from the bum on the other side.  It won't be.
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: How Perot can make Clinton President
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:10:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <sysmatt.703420285@aix3090b.uky.edu>, sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (James M. Simpson) writes...
>states split closely between  Bush and Clinton, it is possible that neither
>would receive an electoral majority. In this case, the election would be
>decided by the House of Reps. You're probably right that the Democratic

I don't even believe this is clear.  The members of the electoral college
need not vote for the person they are committed to.  In the case of a tie
between two persons, no one is going to switch sides and the choice would
go to the House.  In the case of 3 candidates that isn't the case and
Perot (or Marrou or whoever else had electors) could throw their vote to
one of the other candidates and avoid letting the House make the choice.
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
From: cf@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (CF Snyder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sold Down the River...
Keywords: deficit
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:22:46 GMT

In <1992Apr13.205744.8157@stiatl.salestech.com> gst@stiatl.salestech.com (Greg Tucker) writes:

>The only candidates who have made an issue of the deficit are
>Tsongas and Perot. 

>Others have dodged the issue. Why? Because of the political
>clout of the over 65 retired folks who always vote and 
>want a free ride on the backs of the younger generation.

>Vote for Perot or Tsongas. They are our only hope.

I have excerpted lines which most grabbed my attention.  While
I strongly agree with the basic point that only Tsongas and
Perot are talking about the biggest killer issue, and I am
supporting the "Draft Perot" effort, I think your comment
about people over 65 wanting to ride free on the younger
generations is a little over stated.  I am in my early forties
by the way.  The Gray Panthers are indeed sometimes very
outspoken, powerful, and perhaps a bit worrisome in their
self-protection moves, but why shouldn't they look out for
themselves? After all, they have looked out for us for 
several decades.  I bet you will say, "Look where they have
gotten us!", but they haven't done it alone.  I hope we all
can quit looking for scapegoats and start finding the path to 
recovery.  As H. Ross says, it won't be pretty, it won't be 
easy, but we have no choice but to get to work.

C.F. Snyder

>-- 
>    |\/\/\/|
>    |      |     G. Tucker   uupsi!stiatl!gst 
>    | (o)(o)   
>    c      _)   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Flat Tax
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<1992Apr3.005744.27953@acsu.buffalo.edu>
	<1992Apr6.215234.6361@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:05:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.215234.6361@acsu.buffalo.edu> jadahlin@acsu.buffalo.edu (sm00sh) writes:

   Clinton quoted The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Chicago
   Sun-Times editors as saying that the flat tax will not work the way
   Brown says it will.

Again, I'm not a supporter of Brown, but the Journal had an angry
editorial slamming Clinton for misrepresenting their views. The
Journal supports the idea of a flat tax.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government is best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections