HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:19:37 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov16.013012.21277@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.233206.18833@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov15.212647.17847@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>> Wait, you just said that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because
>> they were afraid that the US would get involved in the fighting!
>> 
>> You can't have it both ways -- the Japanese would no more have attacked
>> a Libertarian States of America than the Nazis would have attacked
>> Switzerland.
>
>  Nonsense. Germany certainly invaded plenty of other "neutral"
>states. 

But they had objectives for doing so.  In each and every one of them.

Japan would not have had designs on a Libertarian States that was its
chief source of oil, and was not at all involved.

>Also, they were putting a good deal our ships to the
>bottom of the ocean at the time too. 

Because we were supplying the enemy.  Under a Lib States, the government
wouldn't be selling arms.

>  In retrospect, Japan bombing Pearl Harbor had to be its
>single largest mistake. Had we entered the war at all, it would
>have been against Germany, and we would have probably ignored the
>autrocities that the Japanese were performing in the Pacific.

I got news for you.  When we entered the war, the primary objective
*was* Germany.

>  We would have probably been drug into the conflict no matter
>what though. In fact, the isolationist tendencies at the time were
>probably as strong if not stronger than any lib government.
>FDR, though he wanted to enter the war, was very much hamstrung
>by public opinion.

Both of the major candidates for president in 1940 were anti-isolationist.

>> >  Has it occurred to you that the Great Depression wouldn't have
>> >happened under a Lib system? Everything about the Great Depression
>> >points to governmental meddling as the root cause. 
>> 
>> Smoot-Hawley.  Perhaps that.  But that didn't change what happened
>> in Europe.  It was a global depression and the LSA would have been
>> swept right along with it just as easily as the USA.  
>
>  Certainly, there would have been a downturn in the US economy
>following WWI. But at that point, the US was *the* dominant economic
>force in the world. It was the US going down the shithole which killed
>off the rest of the world, not the other way around. Pumping up the money
>supply and all the rest of the nasty things that happened in the 20's
>took a probable normal recession and made it into a catastrophe.

Whose theory is it that the money supply caused the depression?  I'm
skeptical.  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Sad comment on democracy
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:04:58 GMT


In article <1dmj55INNktk@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>, 
rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) said:

> > > Barbara Boxer elected to a Senate seat in California, 
> > > despite huge numbers of bounced checks, [Robert J. Skrobola]
> > 
> > Really?  And just what were these "huge numbers," anyway?
> > 
> > (Hint: This is a trick question.)  [wdstarr]
>
> I'll bite. 149 "bounced" (overdrawn) checks..

149 "overdrawn" checks, I'll believe... with the important note that
every one of those checks was honored by the bank and that not one of
them "bounced" in the traditional sense of being returned for lack of
sufficient funds.

From the very beginning, too many people have been recklessly tossing
around the word "bounced," implying, whether intentionally or not,
that the people who were paid via these checks were left holding the
bag, when in fact all that happened was that the House Bank gave its
members automatic overdraft protection, a service which is also
provided by many commercial banks.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Final Results (major parties)
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:57:00 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1dbp93INNeug@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes...
>In article <1992Nov5.030549.4807@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
> 
>|> All plain states and mountain states went to Bush except:
>|> COLO., N.M., Montana.
> 
>Nevada also went to Clinton (38-35). To me, this was the biggest
>surprise of the election.

Nah, you forget - Bill probably knows most the cabaret singers and hookers
in Vegas...


Dave
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Silly Americans!
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:42:00 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <05NOV92.14218920.0112@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>, T3F2@UNB.CA (Andrew Chase) writes...
>The media in the USA dictated who wins the election. I'm Canadian and
>feel Perot would have solved America's problems it faces. However, the
>media doesn't allow for him. 52% would have voted for him if the polls
>did not show him losing. 

Did God tell you this, or do you have some other reliable source?

>Its so egocentric for the canidates to say America is the greatest
>country and people on the face of the earth. Canada by the way was
>ranked #1 country in the world by the United Nations this year.
>Haven't heard about it..... did you expect your media to report it!!!

Oh take off.  OK, with an attitude like that, right?, we're never gonna let you
hosers be a state.

Too bad we'll have a country in four years (in spite of Slick Willy) and
you won't.  Why don't you come back when and talk to us when you've finally
come up with a constitution you can ratify, eh?


Dave
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Election Results - state by state
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:12:00 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <2776@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM writes...
> 
>Hot off the AP wire, here is the results for all 50 states + DC.  Is there
>any other info you people B-) want?
> 
>ARKANSAS
>   Electoral Vote: 6
>   99 percent
>   x-Clinton, Dem 498,548 - 54 percent
>   Bush, GOP (i) 333,909 - 36 percent
>   Perot, Ind 98,215 - 11 percent


Interesting, isn't it, that 46% of the people in Clinton's home state, for whom
he claims to have done *so much*, where he has created *more jobs* than in the
whole rest of the country, where they have had the great fortune of his
*enlightened leadership* for so many years, voted against him.

This must be because they didn't want to lose him as Governor, I guess, right
Dems?


Dave
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:56:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <61808@mimsy.umd.edu> ktaylor@umiacs.umd.edu (Kenneth Taylor) writes:
>In <1dbpanINN6l5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>>In a previous article, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) says:

>>>It's a real landslide for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party!

>>>Right.

>>>What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
>>>believe that Bill Clinton should be President.

>>Funny, it tells me that a resounding SIXTY-THREE PERCENT of the voters
>>do not believe that George Bush should be president; and that a whopping
>>EIGHTY-ONE PERCENT of the voters do not think Ross Perot should be 
>>president. Congratulations, you can subtract. So can I. Isn't democracy
>>wonderful? 

>Yes, but the difference is that neither Perot nor Bush is President.
>We now (or are soon to have) a president whom 57% of the electorate
>has explicitly rejected.  That fact is not changed by the

Not at all true.  The only thing the election tells us is that Bill
Clinton was not the *first* choice of 57% of the population.  It doesn't
say that they rejected him at all.

Actually, given the fact that some people vote 'strategically', it
doesn't even tell us that much.

For instance, I don't *reject* Marrou at all.  In fact, he might have
been my first choice.  But I didn't vote for him, because getting rid of
Bush was my first priority.

>further fact that we have two non presidents who were rejected
>by even more people.  Obviously, we need a run-off if the
>"winner" receives less than 50% of the popular vote.

That doesn't help.  All this is is a fake way of pretending that one
person is supported by a majority of the country.  There is *no* system 
that guarantees that the winner really is supported by more than half 
the population.

Maybe (most likely) the 19% of the country that voted for Perot detests 
both of them equally .  Eliminating Ross Perot from the ballot won't 
change that.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:16:04 GMT

In article <1deejbINNn5r@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.213320.10472@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu  
>(Mmmm... Purple) writes:
>> Laurence Tribe, Harvard: May be too controversial in the wake of the Bork
>> 	hearings, and some of his more recently charged comments in 
>> 	Harvard Law politics.  Clinton could probably force the nomination
>> 	through in the Democrat-controlled Senate, but I doubt he'd want
>> 	to risk political capital when there are easier nominations to make.
>
>I heard that he has a BA and an MA in mathematics, so he couldn't be all that  
>bad.:-)  Refresh my memory: what did he have to do with the Bork hearings?   

Tribe led the charge against Bork in the hearings, and wasn't completely
fair about it.  Certainly Tribe's words wouldn't hold up to the standard
Tribe applied to Bork's writings.

>Also what were his recent comments wrt Harvard Law politics?

In the recent Frug controversy, he compared the Law Revue to the Holocaust.
Perhaps appropos in the charged Harvard Law atmosphere (Reason #579 not to
go there), but won't look good out of context.  Nor will much of his talk
on hate speech laws in general.  It will be very easy for conservatives to
paint him as a PC radical, which won't be particularly fair in and of itself, 
but Tribe will hardly be in a position to complain.

Of course, if for some reason, Clinton really really wanted Tribe, he
should be able to push him through.  I don't see Clinton doing that when
there are equally qualified people out there with similar political
leanings who would be confirmed 90-10 instead of 55-45. 

Other possible candidates:

Patricia Wald (D.C. Circuit)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D.C. Circuit)
Stephen (Steven?) Breyer (First Circuit)
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sad comment on democracy
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:03:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>I keep asking this question and not getting an answer: How is it
>irresponsible to write a check that you know won't bounce?

Uhh...a) because it's un-American?...b) because Dobie Gillis wouldn't
do it (or know how)?...or c) because it plays with the small minds and
fickle loyalty of an easily distracted populace, allowing it to
be diverted from real issues? 

(please choose one of the above.  as a hint, the answer begins
with the third letter of the alphabet).
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:38:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.135520.26946@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >the business.  A monopoly is highly unlikely.
> 
> And who are they buying their airplanes from?  
 
My understanding is that the Pacific Rim airlines buy from both US and
European companies.  However, it's very likely in the near future they
will get in the airplane business in a big way.  God only knows why.  
I think that just points out that MITI isn't as smart as some people give
them credit for.  They also encouraged Japanese companies to make big
investements in ship-building.  Another loser industry.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 14:40:33 GMT

In article <BALDWIN.92Nov6124309@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:

>Apples and oranges.  In 1968, it was abundantly clear to *everyone*
>that every single vote Wallace got came from Nixon.  One can make no
>such determination about whose votes Perot siphoned off.

Humphrey no doubt lost quite a few traditional Southern Democratic
votes which still were not comfortable in the Republican camp, as
well as some populist blue-collar votes.

Got polling data to back up your wierd claim?
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao)
Subject: religions of candidates
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:32:37 GMT


What religious denominations do Clinton, Gore, Bush, Quayle, Perot and
Stockdale belong to? And what about Reagan?
-- 
Robert Chao
Oakland, California
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:33:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.042950.2105@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>Seems to me that if Bush was locked up four years ago a lot people might
>>be alive today who aren't.
>
>Name one, asshole!

Sore loser, eh?

If asked to "name one asshole", I think I'd have to say "Ted Krueger".
-- 
"The day you see me vote for George Bush, you take me out behind the
barn and put a bullet through my brainpan."
                   --Ross Perot (well, almost) Saturday Night Live
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu             _V_a_l_h_a_l_l_a BBS, 217-352-3682, WWIV4.21, 14.4k
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.kibo,alt.sex,alt.postmodern,alt.religion.scientology
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: VOTING ??????
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 18:40:21 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Nov5.065834.16120@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> notbiff@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jake Davis Smith) writes:
>HAY EVERY B0DY T0 DAY I WENT 2 V0TE BUT THE PLACE WAS L0CKED & THEIR
>WAS N0 0NE THEIR ............. THE ELECT0IN IS T0DAY, RITE ????//
>0R IS IT T0M0R0W ??????????
>					-- Y0U"RE PAL, NELS0N !!!
It's saturday.  Make sure you vote 'maybe' on amendment 14.

Big Al.  Don't rock the vote, just shake it a little.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dil.admin@mhs.unc.edu (Dave Laudicina)
Subject: Constructive Discussion
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:27:38 GMT

I would like to attempt to generate a CONSTRUCTIVE discussion
thread. No whining about who's right or condescending attitude
allowed.

Clinton proposes to spend 20 billion on a program to repair the
infrastructure of the US (ie roads, bridges etc.). Having worked
in the RR industry I understand the consequences of deferring
mintenance ie in the long run you spend more the longer you 
defer. Given that there are only two ways the government can 
stimulate the economy with spending controls or interest rates and 
interest rate  controls have been pretty much played out, what
is workable and unworkable about this plan and what are the effects to
the economy?

Some assumptions to consider:

Multiplier affects may bring in more tax
revenues than the amount spent what is right or wrong about this
prposal. 

Assume everyone understands there is a 300 billion deficit
and a 4 trillion debt.

Questions that pop up:

What types of cuts can be made to make this proposal revenue neutral
and what effects will these cuts have on the economy?

Do the multiplier affects truly occur?

Again let's try to generate some constructive discussion and try to
consider both sides of issues and the effects each side will have.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23342 talk.politics.misc:59338
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What is a fiscal conservative? (was Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:13:18 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov10.021714.506@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>There are still some people who actually
>wish the government would take more of their money but they are increasingly
>in the minority.

Actually, I would have said, "There are still some people who wish the 
government would take more of other peoples money."

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: What is a fiscal conservative? (was Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:17:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.055700.6470@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>In article <BxAHHH.2u5@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>  Reagan was a fiscal moron, not a fiscal conservative. I'm not a fiscal
>>...
>>theirs. He just postponed the effects of his borrow and spend approach
>>to come home to roost on somebody elses watch. You can argue about how
>>much fault COngress has, but that doesn't absolve Reagan from clearly
>>unconservative economic policies. 
>
>Historically, people who were fiscal conservatives considered government debt 
>as something to be avoided at all costs except during special circumstances
>(temporary debts during war or recession were OK), and rightly so.

Funny, this is the same drivel that the press tried to sell the American
people on when George Bush rased taxes in 1990 and Pete Wilson raised taxes
in 1991. The result of both tax increases, and indeed all tax increases
throughout 20th century history, was to increase the deficit.

More and more conservatives are giving up on government altogether as a vehicle
for positive change. When you veiw the government as the problem and not
the solution, you are not likely to be overly concerned with its fiscal health.

On the other hand, we will  soon get a chance to find out where the problem
really lies. If, as most reasonable people expect, the Clinton administration
further increases the deficit then that would lend considerable wieght to the
argument that the fault lies with the Democratic congress, not the various
executive administrations.

The modern definition of a fiscal conservative is one who doesn't trust the
government to handle his money. There are still some people who actually
wish the government would take more of their money but they are increasingly
in the minority. The federal government has simply become a big money sink.

The interesting question is this: will Ronald Reagan get the credit for the
collapse of communism in America or with the credit go to whomever is on
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23313 talk.politics.misc:59290
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:34:17 GMT
Organization: Church of Ill-Repute

ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

#   Led by Senator Dole, the media revealed this weekend evidence of a
# smoking gun linking "independant" counsel Walsh to the Clinton Campaign.
# A Clinton press release concerning the new indictment levied against
# Weinberger by Walsh on Friday, October 30, was dated October 29, 1992!
# Bill Clinton refused to comment, while his staff used the excuse that the
# date on the release had been a typographical error.  RIGHT!  And Richard
# Nixon "accidentally" erased some of the tapes.  As further proof of their
# subversion of the Constitution, here is their own e-mail release (again a
# typographical error?).

What are the constitutional issues?

The problem for Bush is that the Weinberger memo revealed the oft-denied
truth that Bush knew about the arms/hostages deal. Bush's deceit makes
him vulnerable to a revelation of the truth. If the indictment and the
memos were somehow fraudulent, then the Bush apologists might have a
better case.

#   Here is documented proof that Walsh and his stooges were working hand 
# in hand with CG/92, giving them inside information and probably handing 
# out indictments on orders from the campaign!  So now we know that Walsh 
# was a collaborator with Clinton and the Democrats to gain control of the 
# White House.

Walsh is a Republican, so arguments that he was pro-Clinton don't add up.

# Is it too early to talk "impeachment"?  I think Congress
# should appoint a special counsel to investigate special counsel Walsh.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton