HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Marrou on Larry King
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:10:43 EST
Distribution: usa
Keywords: Marrou, Libertarian, publicity
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Andre Marrou was guest for the second half of Larry King Live tonite.
(Monday, it's still night for me.) IMHO, he did a very good job of 
explaining the Libertarian position in the half hour he had. It did 
made me realize how far-out Libs must appear to the average person.

At one point Marrou even had King protesting wildly. King suggested
that everyone has a right to education, which Marrou countered by
stating that no such right was guaranteed in the Constitution and
that that was a socialist doctrine. Fortunately, Larry didn't
protest too much and the show went on.

Marrou did an admirable job of making concise statements that addressed
the issues. Even the callers seemed satisfied, although a few sounded
indignant or shocked at first. "Did I hear you correctly? You want
to abolish the IRS? How will we pay for defense?" The way he spoke
reminded me of English politicians, who tend to be more deliberate
and spend less time waffling or posing.

One of the issues that he talked about was the fact that polls don't
include the Libertarian party, and that the lack of publicity there
could effectively "squash" the effort. He asked that CNN include
the Libs in future polls, it will be interesting to see if they do.

The only thing I found disappointing were his opening statements,
in which he sounded a bit paranoid. He clarified later, after Larry 
asked him if he really thought there was some sort of conspiracy.

This is the second time I've seen Marrou speak, and I have this
feeling that were he allowed to debate he would win handily. The 
man's skill at using time and addressing issues is refreshing when 
compared to the rhetoric and innuendo we get from the other 3.

jason

--
 "Why was I cursed with a woman like you? You're my misery! A knife in my 
  heart! Come on, we can discuss this later. Let's just get married."
	                   - Adam, from the best episode of Northern Exposure
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:07:30 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester) writes:
> 
> Ownership of one's self by nature means the right to control one's 
> own body. That includes medicine, recreational drugs, or pregnancy, 
> etc.  Without it there are no rights or freedoms.  That's my 
> reasoning for being Pro-Choice.

usually rights do not apply when they infringe on the rights of
others. if you believe at all that a fetus has a right to life
(apologies to those who don't, this person doesn't seem to have
been reading the complete thread) then it greatly outweighs
9 months of inconvenience.

jason

--
   "I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired
    of being told that ordinary decent people are fed up in this country
    with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired
    of being told that I am!" - Monty Python
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:18:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.163442.10479@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.uto
ledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>i congratulate you on a fine use of irony, but it fails to make
>the point unless you equate "non militant good thing supporter" with
>"bad". i don't really care for militant much-of-anything. sure, if it
>came right down to it, i'd be in the streets with a shotgun &
>plastique. but i find that many times an issue can be solved more easily
>with simple respect and rational discussion.
>
>on an issue like abortion, where people are divided nearly 50-50,
>calm and reasoned discussion is much more conducive to solutions
>than slinging epithets around.

Ah!  This is the source of the problem.  I should have realized that my use of
'militant' would imply bombs and guns and Dobie-o-matics, or at least the
verbal equivalent thereof.  Perhaps I should have picked a better word.  I
meant that I'm uncompromisingly serious about the issue.  I don't run around
screaming and waving coat-hangers, if that's what you were thinking.

[stuff deleted]

>> ATTENTION, EVERYONE!  *This* is why you must have a consistent,
>> rational philosophy before you take up politics!  Every
>> inconsistency is a crack in the foundation of our political
>> movement and can lead to failure.
>
>no, what leads to failure is making a political movement as
>exclusive as possible. we're working in a democratic-republic,
>where things are decided by a majority, and you're not going
>to get tha majority if you exclude half of the population out
>of hand.

No, selling out to please as many people as possible is what's gotten
this country where it is now.  Take this to its extreme and you get
George "Please Be My Friend!" Bush.  I think our positions on drugs,
guns, and welfare probably exclude half the population anyhow.  

A woman's ownership over her body and her right to remove any unwelcome
visitors is just as important as a newspaper's right to print whatever
it chooses, since all these rights are manifestations of property rights.
Compromise on one and you compromise on them all.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:07:11 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> 
> But seriously, condoms aren't 100% effective (nothing is--not even 
> a  vasectomy!) and chastity is not an option.

if condoms aren't 100% effective then use a combination of methods
or get a vasectomy. either way, you're still taking a risk & should
be responsible for what happens regardless.

and chastity -is- an option. it's worked before, it will work in the
future and it's working for me right now.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`  "I'd explain it to you, but your head would blow up." - S. Wright  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Marrou on Larry King Live, Lord on CNN
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:54:16 GMT

From: Stuart Reges <backpack@access.digex.com>
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU
Subject: newsflash: Marrou on Larry King

We got a confirmation late today that Andre will be Larry King's guest next
Monday night (10/12).  We are also scheduled (not entirely by coincidence) to
show the Marrou ad 3 times next week on Larry's show.

--Stuart

p.s. In case it isn't obvious, I'm talking about Larry King Live (the TV
     show) on CNN.
--------
Subject: Nancy Lord on CNN
From: Mike Tanner <Mike.Tanner@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org>
To: Libernet.

Nancy Lord will be a guest on CNN's "Crier & Company" on Tuesday, October 13,
at 11:30 AM (EST).  The topic will be the vice presidential debates.
--------
-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Presidential Debates
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:02:08 GMT

From article <1992Oct6.024226.20659@wuecl.wustl.edu>, by gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon):
>      While Ross Perot will not (as far as anyone can tell) win any states, he
> does have two things going for him :
> 
> 1) He can poll a large enough share of the vote to potentially alter the outcome
> of the Presidential Election in one or more states.  Andre Marrou does not
> have this level of support (1 % vs. 7 % does make a big difference in that
> regard).

1% is speculation.

PROVE IT WITH A SCIENTIFIC POLL.

> 2) Perot was leading the polls at one point in the election, so that could be
> another basis for including him in the debate, current standings aside.  
> 
>     Then, of course there could be the factors of his wealth and his big mouth
> which he continually spouts off against anyone he doesn't like... and perhaps
> the Commission on Presidential Debates (and more specifically one of the two
> major candidates) did want that to be tagged on them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:13:47 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

>But seriously, condoms aren't 100% effective (nothing is--not even a 
>vasectomy!) and chastity is not an option.

Why?

				mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.elections
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Marrou polling 1-3% - Mutual Radio politcal analyst
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:55:56 GMT

I just caught the rerun of tonight's Larry King radio show
(guest hosted by Vladimir Poseur). The guest was Chris Matthews
who is a regular on LK. A libertarian called and asked if
Matthews thought that Marrou should be included in the debates.
Matthews did not say 'yes' but he definitely did not say 'no'.
He said it was good to have more people or something
non-specific like that.  Anyway at one point he said (as best I
can remember) "Marrou isn't getting much more than 2-3% in
polls." and at another point he referred to Marrou having the
support of 1-2 (percentage) points of the population.

I wonder if this confirms what was claimed by the MLC in LP
News or that Matthews thinks that the MLC is credible enough to
quote (I don't know which would be better!).  Matthews did
state that he did not know of the existance of a LP
presidential campaign until a few days ago (he even said "shame
on me" for not knowing about it).
-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Project Vote Smart
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:06:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.072246.1235@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Actually, Vote Smart is the Republican program, while the Democrat's
>program is called
>VOTE STUPID.

This sounds like what Homer Simpson said shortly before burning his
house down: "I'm smart, and everyone is stupid."  Pride goeth before a
fall. :-)

>_____________________________________________________________
>Liberals are but cockroaches before us.
>

Cockroaches will inherit the earth. :-)

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:1503 alt.politics.libertarian:723
From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Presidential Debates
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:02:57 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <1992Oct8.062409.5332@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.020208.3402@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>>
>>1% is speculation.
>>
>>PROVE IT WITH A SCIENTIFIC POLL.
>>
>
>   1 % is a very common estimate from the media and, based on previous
>showings by the libertarians, not out of line.  

I won't argue that 1% is a common estimate, but doesn't it seem just
a *little* curious that media *estmates* of how well candidates will
do are so well correlated with how well they *actually* do?  That, 
IMO, is the whole point of the discussion.  If the media decided
randomly that, for instance, Ross Perot was a serious candidate 
worthy of coverage, then I suspect that his numbers would go up.  In
fact, I think that reality bears this out.  I feel pretty confident
that if the coverage of his re-entry had been "In other news 
tonight, billionare Texan Ross Perot has thrown his hat into the 
presidential ring.  No one expects this to change the outcome of
this year's race.  ... In sports, the Twins lost...." we would not
see Perot with 7% polling numbers.

>[...]

>   We shall see the true results on election day, until then, I think it's
>your burden of proof which is required.

Sure, but this burden isn't independant of media coverage.  Again
I mention that Perot has *never* gotten *any* percentage of any
election.  I would bet everything that if Marrou was given twenty
to sixty seconds on the news every night he would have better 
polling numbers.  *Then* people would babble about how he might
cause state X or state Y to swing away from Clinton/Bush.  Most
polls have shown that something like 55% of voters don't like
Bush, Clinton, or Perot.  That doesn't mean that they would
necessarily like Marrou, but it is very likely that they would at
least pay attention to other candidates if they knew about them.

Sometimes the media covers the news and sometimes it causes it.
Mostly, there is some of both.

>Greg
> 
>*******************************************************************************
>Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
>gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
>Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate


	Mike
	#include <stddisclaimer.h>
	#include <wittysig.h>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:06:27 CDT
Keywords: abortion,platform

In article <1992Oct14.112134.26220@hemlock.cray.com> khj@cray.com (Ken Jopp) writes:
>The libertarian position on abortion has to be pro-choice.
>A fetus is physically imposing itself on its "host."
>She should be under no obligation to indulge the imposition.
>
>Consider:  If my son needs a kidney transplant to live, and I 
>am the only available donor, should I be forced by law to give 
>the kidney?  
>
>So why should a woman be forced by law to give of her body 
>to sustain a fetus?

Bad, bad analogy.  In most cases, the woman chooses to have sex, and,
knowing the consequences of sex, chooses to fertilize her egg.  The
fetus is not imposing itself.  The fetus is a direct result of the woman's
(and the man's) actions.  

If she doesn't want to indulge the imposition, she should either use
birth control or not have sex.  Persons are supposed to be responsible
for their own actions, aren't they? 
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Bodoh                  bodoh@cae.wisc.edu
ECE Department                   bodoh@xraylith.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI 53706
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: jkresse@ptimtc.tadw.panasonic.com (Jim Kresse ATVL )
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Organization: Panasonic Technologies, Inc. Palo Alto, CA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:42:39 GMT

>Chastity is not necessarily _an_ option, it is your option.  Do not presume
>to tell me how I may not express my love to my SO.
>
>Don't tell me what my choices are, I'll make them myself.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but the way I understand the word
"option", it even includes possibilities which any one individual
might not choose.

By no means would I want to make your choices for you, but I fail
to see the harm in listing possible choices, even if you might
not wish to choose some of them.

Jim Kresse
jim@atvl.panasonic.com
Standard disclaimers apply
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:33:06 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>
> ...both partners (or all participants, depending on your lifestyle) 
> should be financially responsible for the cost of an abortion or 
> carrying the pregnancy to term, whichever the mother chooses.  
> Nobody's trying to eliminate responsibility  here, so quit 
> pretending that we are.

again, we're working from a different set of premises. if a fetus/
zygote/unborn child/whatever is not a life then abortion is indeed
a responsible response to a pregnancy.

however, if it -is- a human life, then the people who created that life
should be held responsible for supporting it, or giving it to
someone else who can. i can't see any reason why a fetus is not
a human life. it's living, it's human and unique.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`  "I'd explain it to you, but your head would blow up." - S. Wright  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: The Socialist Guy
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:56:17 GMT

  >  I presume that this is the socialist guy....

  Well, Sanders is one of many socialist guys in Congress.  He does deserve
credit, to be sure, for being the only one who is honest and up-front about
it....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: backpack@access.digex.com (Stuart Reges)
Subject: Hotline for St. Louis debate protest
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:25:06 GMT

Protests are planned for all of the presidential debates.  The candidates will
be present.  A hotline has been set up for those seeking information about the
first debate in St. Louis.  It's an automated voice-mail system that gives you
options for finding out about the protest, places to stay, etc.  The number is
(314) 781-1474.

--Stuart


Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:1509 alt.politics.bush:8280 alt.politics.clinton:9207 alt.politics.perot:1920 talk.politics.misc:50428
From: randolph@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Project Vote Smart
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:48:37
Organization: St. Dismas Infirmary for the Incurably Informed
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: cognito.ebay.sun.com

Tired of not knowing who you're voting for?  Wondering who's behind
them?  Getting those election year blahs?  Have I got a deal for you!
Project Vote Smart, run by the non-profit, non-partisan Center for
National Independence in Politics tracks candidates voting records,
campaign contributors, positions, biographical data, and performance
evaluations by dozens of different interest organizations.

These people seem to be for real.  They have an 800 number you can
call to ask about national candidates (1-800-786-6885) and a 900
number that, for $3.50 will send you an overview of your state's
congressional delegation (1-900-786-6885).  The literature is very,
very concise, and fairly hard to read, but seems to be useful, & far
more extensive than anything I've seen in the press.  In addition,
they run a reporter's resource center, which is also available to
members.

If you think this is a good idea, and would like to join, call the 800
number for information.  A one-year membership is $35, and the address
is Project Vote Smart, 129 NW Fourth St. Suite 204, Corvallis, OR
97330.

__Randolph Fritz  sun!cognito.ebay!randolph || randolph@ebay.sun.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 01:03:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.011659.10539@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
>> bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
>> >
>> >If she doesn't want to indulge the imposition, she should either 
>> >use birth control or not have sex.  Persons are supposed to be 
>> >responsible for their own actions, aren't they? 
>> 
>> Then why isn't the embryo held responsible for its own conception?  
>> After all, neither the woman nor the man forced the ovum and sperm 
>> to become a single cell and start growing.
>
>c'mon. that's absurd. the parents -know- the risks. (and presumably 
>accepted them, or they shouldn't be having that kind of sex anyway.) 
>their actions are the -only- part of the  equation that isn't pure 
>chance. blaming conception on the embryo is silly. but any port in
>a storm...
If you read all three of my posts you'll know i think it absurd, just as
absurd as holding the woman (or the couple - in theory) wholly responsible.
The sex act serves several purposes, only one of which is reproduction.
It is absurd, and even silly, to hold human beings completely responsible
for the results of drives and desires over which they have little control.
It is possible to abstain, but that is not normal, healthy human behavior.
>
>> If she (or he) had used contraception and it failed (since none of 
>> them are perfect) would abortion then be acceptable?
>
>no. contraception is not perfect. it merely reduces the risk.
>you won't find "absolves from responsibility" listed on the back of a 
>condom package.
>
>jason
>
>--
>sorry, my .signature is on strike.

So even if people attempt to behave responsibly, that's not enough - random
chance overrides their best efforts and forces this higher responsibility
on them.  I take it you also oppose abortion in the case of rape, as the
woman could have worn a cast iron chastity belt or allowed herself to die
rather than be raped or just not gone for a walk in the park that late at 
night.  Your notion of responsibility makes no sense to me, since it seems
to be outside of the scope of human control.
-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:40:24 CDT
Keywords: abortion,platform

In article <1992Oct12.014919.615@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>Every political party has its kooks.  Anti-choice Libertarians are
>amoung ours.  If your local party is running anti-choice candidates,
>get involved, get your pro-choice libertarian friends involved, and
>change the state-level platform.

Just because someone has a different opinion than yours does not make
him (or her) a kook.  Can somone explain the reason for the pro-choice
platform?  Aren't there good libertarian arguments to be made for the
rights of the fetus?  Why doesn't the platform explain the rationale
for the pro-choice stance?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou