HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mavalto@sara.cc.utu.fi
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Organization: University of Turku, Finland
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:14:41 EET

In article <l78v10INNt4l@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> Al Date) writes:
> |> 
> |> >
> |> >Regardless of the policies they propose a group like the libertarians
> |> >will cause a disaster. Any group that thinks that the only way to save
> |> >the ecconomy is to apply a theory regardless of the effect it has will
> |> >cause a disaster.
> |> >
> |> 
> |> Oh, you must be referring to the current borrow-and-spend regime.
> |> You're right, it will cause a disaster.
> |> 
> |> The Libertarians want govt to live within its means, just like
> |> everyone else has to do.  We have seen that the only way
> 				     ^^^^
> |> to get democratic govt to do that is to structurally limit its scope.  
> |> Otherwise, the special interests conspire to raid the Treasury. 
> |> 
> Where have you *seen* this?  Where in the world is your model of a
> structurally limited democracy?  How about in the last 50 years?  The
> world is much different that in was 200 years ago, why do you think
> a 200 year old model would work today?

This is implying that you have the ideal form of democracy at present, which
is functioning well. Voter participation in US elections is around 50%, which
would suggest that a significant proportion of the population do not believe
they can influence the political system through the formal mechanisms described
in the constitution. In reality political parties and special interest groups
have an inordinate say in determining government policy. The expansion of the
role of the state in the economy has reached a point were it is stifling the
economy. The government in it's present form is no substitute for the markets
in efficient allocation of resources. No government has the capability to do
that. (Maybe sometime in a science fiction future)
To get back on to a growth path may require extraordinary measures, which calls
for the consideration of unorthodox ideas. 
The present political establishment is certainly not an 'unlimited democracy',
and there is no reason why it shouldn't be modified.

HV
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bill@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Bill Roth)
Subject: Free voter information
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 15:12:16 GMT


There is a lot of FREE PUBLIC information about elected officials and
candidates for the various fedral races.

Information on voting records, funding, etc., can be obtained from 
PROJECT VOTE SMART at 800-786-6885.

A detailed listing of contributors can be obtained from the
FEDRAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION. Call 800-424-9530, and ask for the
Public Disclosure Department.

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Roth,  University of Wisconsin Physical Sciences Laboratory
Internet:bill@psl.wisc.edu. NeXTMAIL blithely accepted. 608-873-6651
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,soc.women,talk.abortion
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:48:55 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
	<l7djatINNd07@spim.mips.com>
Distribution: world

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 29-Jul-92 Re: Pro Choice
Election Strat Michael Polen@gelato.mip (1604)

> But you would not be allowed on a jury, because you would not consider
> *choosing to apply* the death penalty in a particular case.  So this is
> support of the death penalty as long as you don't have to dirty your hands.
> I find that inconsistent.  Just as I find Quayle's position on abortion
> inconsistent (I'm against it as long as it doesn't dirty my daughters hands).

You are the one being inconsistent here.  I do not "support the death
penalty" myself, I personally would never use it, I just don't want to
limit other peoples' choices.

> The difference between abortion and the death penalty, is that one is a 
> personal decision, unless society interferes, and the other is is a societal
> decision.  In the end run, pro-choice is simply the position that says
> society should not interfer in personal decisions.  Abortion is only one
> of the *choices* under attack.

I find your distinction arbitrary.  Why is it a *societal* decision
whether or not criminals can be murdered, but a *personal* decision
whether or not unborn children can be murdered?  Why shouldn't society
have a say in that, too?

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Control of Congress (was: More Bush-it)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:32:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.164609.12143@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>]>CHANGE HA!
>]
>]Republicans "controled" the Senate from 1981 to 1987.  But I wouldn't
>]let a little fact like that stand in your way.
>]
>Gee, maybe that's why the economy did so well in subsequent years, and
>went down the tubes shortly after the democrats got it back!

Well, if you want to play THAT game, we can consider the JFK/LBJ
years with a Democratic congress.  Boom years until Nixon mixed it
up in his 2nd term.  (of course, ignoring such sundries as the war
and the oil shock :-)



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Pro Choice stats
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:34:53 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <saurav.711654560@cory.Berkeley.EDU> saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee) writes:
]
]I think that most people are pro-choice but anti-abortion. Yes,
]there is a difference. The first means that if someone has made
]up their mind to have an abortion, it would be nice if a doctor
]did the abortion and not some guy on the street with a coat hanger.

No, the statistics show that most people do not support unlimited
access to abortion, but that they do support some abortion access. I think
the central position is about the same as Roe v. Wade (or the more
recent decision): abortion cannot be prohibitted until the age of
viability; some restrictions (notification, waiting periods, etc)
are okay.

The extremists fall into two camps:
  -abortion should be absolutely illegal since "life begins at conception"
  -abortion should be absolutely available because it is a woman's "right"

The first view is religous and as such is not negotiable, but is held
by only a few (20%?). The second view neglects the argument that a fetus
may, at some point in development, also achieve rights.

From a political standpoint, the whole issue is bogus unless you believe
that a president will support one of the extremes. We have seen that the
Supreme Court has taken the whole issue out of legislative (and hence,
political) control, so we ought to just ignore it.
>
>I couldn't believe that the Dems didn't let Gov. Casey of Penn.
>speak at the convention about his pro-life stance. That would
>have shown Clinton to be a good moderate and not a leftist pro-abortion
>person. One woman they interviewed on tv said that she was not
>only pro-choice but pro-abortion; now, thats appalling!
>
>							Saurav Chatterjee
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>@ "I'm on a five year plan - BA, MBA, BMW"              ** ** saurav@usa   @
>@                                                       *  * (.ece.cmu.edu)@
>@ 49'ers III-Peat! - never mind                         *  *  saurav@ocf   @
>@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** *  saurav@cory  @
>@      Copyright (c) Chatterjee Enterprises, 1992        * *  saurav@ohm   @
>@             All Rights Reserved Worldwide              * *(.berkeley.edu)@
>@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** **              @
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:35:46 GMT

In article <1682CD348.PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.144156.10133@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>>Frankly, I've always found the whole idea that George Bush would start
>>a war to get reelected just a bit incredible (as in not credible).
>>People have been saying this sort of thing ever since Desert Storm.
>>Personally, if we found ourselves once again in the position of
>>attacking Iraq, I would probably wind up voting for Bush.  Not because
>>of that, but because we would immediately see all these people on the
>>other side coming out with claims about how starting the war again was
>>a 'political ploy'.  I would probably vote for Bush in reaction
>>against those people.
>>
>
>The very possibility (if not likelihood) that so many Americans would react
>the way you say you would -- vote for Bush, in the event of renewed US/Iraq
>hostilities, as a way of expressing support -- is precisely what makes
>it possible (if not likely) that Bush is tempted to pull such a ploy.
>He did say he'd do _anything_ to get re-elected, right?

Nonsense!  That's not even what I said.  Go back and read it again.  I
would probably vote for Bush as a reaction against all the 'Great
Satan Bush' supporters on the other side.  I decided who to vote for
for governor down here by looking at who was throwing the LEAST mud.
Anne Richards got my vote, but just barely.  Is it any wonder that
politics in this country is as screwed up as it is when there are
folks like you out there who think it is somehow 'normal' for a
politician to start a war to bolster support just because he happens
to be someone whose policies you disagree with?

Feh!

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:48:27 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)

Attributes may be messed up ...

In article <l6r82rINN602@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.165847.18870@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>|> In article <3494@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Change huh?  Let's see Democrats have controled Congress for the last 40 years,
>|> >we've had Kennedy, Johnson and Carter in the same time and your definition of 
>|> >change is Bill Clinton.
>|> 
>|> This is inaccurate.  Congress consists of the House and Senate.  The
>|> Democrats only gained control of the Senate recently ... maybe Reagan's
>
>Make that RE-gained control. The GOP had Senate control for 6 years, between
>1980 and 1986. They got hammered by the Democrats in 1986 for trying to
>cut back on entitlement costs, which I am sure, taught them to stay
>clear of the issue, putting a muzzle on the one attempt at some
>kind of fiscal responsibility.

Funny, I thought they got hammered by the VOTERS.  Easy to get
confused, though.  I guess the 6 years the Reps had control of the
Senate kind of balances out the 8 years (including some lame-duck
time) that the Dems were in the White House.

>|> second term?  If Congress is split, you can't exactly say that Dems had
>|> control.  In fact you could make a good case for the opposite.
>
>Read above. Bush has never even had a working majority of Republicans +
>conservative Democrats to pass some of his legislation, like Reagan had
>for some of his first term. Congress controlled by the President? Hah!!

Obviously I didn't mean _today_.  I'm not a complete nitwit (OK, go
ahead :-) ).  "_If_ Congress is split ..."  Reagan had things pretty
good for a while, wouldn't you say?

>|> Of course, if you have a short memory, or limited experience, I guess
>|> you might think that the Democrats were in control.  Oh, and how many
>|> times have they overridden the Presidential veto?
>
>That only means that Bush has managed to prevent some bills from passing.
>It says nothing about the ability of the President to get some of HIS
>bills passed (or even reported out of committee to the House-floor). Bush
>doesn't necessarily need a Republican House for his bills to pass. A larger
>proportion of GOP members + some Conservative Democrats from the Southern
>states will do the trick.
>
>Try and count the number of Republican-introduced bills that are still
>languishing in Committee or have been killed by the Dem. leadership.

Good point.  That is politics.

-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court qualifications
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:56:25 GMT

Chris Waldron writes
> > Nonsense. This was widely reported. I was aware of it and I
> > can assure you that   I don't read 'The Nation' unless I can
> > avoid unduly burdening the conscience of   the editors of
> > that magazine with some capitalist profits.
> 
> Obviously Thomas overturning a $10.4 million damage
> award for the Danforth  family does not disturb you. 
> Obviously the conflict-of-interest and possible
> ethical question does not disturb you.  As well as the
> Senate Judiciary  Committee.  The nonsence is that this
> fact was NOT widely reported.  This was an important
> question that was widely underreported.  Thomas
> committed what  amounted to a violation of judicial
> ethics that should have disqualified from the SUPREME
> Court.  Yet you merely attack the magazine presenting
> this infor- mation and not the individual commiting
> violations of the public trust.

That was not the question. In question was your ludicrous claim that this fact  
was not widely reported. It was, among other sources by the government funded  
hostile media aka PBS. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong ?

> If I correctly assume you are conservative in your
> politics you ought to be TOUGH ON CRIME and demand a
> through investigation of the matter. 

No, I'm not a conservative. I happen to believe that genuine crimes should be  
genuinely punished and that acts which are not genuine crimes should not be  
punished at all. The current judical system errs as often on the first point as  
on the second point. In any case, this is completely unrelated to the above  
discussion.

	Carl Edman
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Pro Choice stats
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:01:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Jul20.163310.19787@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <suL7NB1w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>]Exactly. Only a minority is in favor of completely banning abortion, and 
>]an equally small number is in favor of abortion on demand in every case. 
>]Most people are somewhere in the middle. The bell curve wins another one. 
>
>Which shows the complete lunacy of having this an election year issue.
>
>


Not when the small minority of outright banners of abortion as in
Bush can veto an pro-choice bill (whcih problably wouldnt be sustained)
and appoint another Supreme Court Justice    . . . . . . . .

So the issue is to prevent a minority from imposing its wishes
on you and repressing freedom
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8737 talk.politics.misc:35005
From: raek@athena.mit.edu (Robyn A E Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Obtaining copies of party platforms
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:20:26 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul16.212943.11683@cco.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
>
>	Is there an FTP site somewhere with a copy of the Democratic
>party platform available?  If not, who can one go about getting a copy
>of the Democratic and (when available) Republican party platforms?
>Thanks!
>

This thread has spun off into various arguments over the parties'
positions, but has the original question ever been answered?  I'd like
to know this too.

--Robyn
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Recycling Costs and Libertarian Candidates
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:37:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.195321.14704@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

|> The trouble with this argument is that the person who would be paying
|> for the refuse disposal is not the most most directly responsible for
|> creating the refuse. That is the producer of the products. If I want
|> something that is packaged in plastic I don't have a choice of buying
|> it without the wrapping. If I don't want to save my junk mail I don't
|> have a choice but to discard it. The producers should be the one
|> who pays the cost of the ultimate disposal.

.....yeah, but remember that the only way the producer can get the $$$
to pay for the cost of the ultimate disposal is by charging the
purchaser more for the product.  Ultimatly, consumer's pay the cost
for _everything_.  "Businesses don't pay taxes--they only collect them."

|> 
|> Yes, all of what you say does not require any government action. However,
|> it hasn't happened in the past. It most likely won't happen in the future.

Well it won't if people don't vote Libertarian!!   But it certainly would
if a Libertarian government were installed.

|> It is a chicken and egg situation.

Indeed, but the voters have it in their power to lay the first egg.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Taxing and spending (was Re: Obtaining copies of party platforms)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:45:52 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul20.181508.4037@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]>As has been stated before, the president only as a 1/6th legislative
]>power (the difference between a majority and an override). Furthermore,
]
]let's see... 1/6 is about 18% + 40% republicans in congress gives bushes
]party 58%!!!  wow!!  

Actually, it ain't that simple. The seniority and committee system gives
the democrats far more power. First of all, the 40% republicans in congress
can get NO bill passed. Bush plus the repubs can only defeat a bill. That
means that if he vetoes everything objectionable, either nothing will get
done or some repubs will chicken out and vote to override.

]>the power to veto in this case is the power to shut down the government, not
]>the power to put in one's own program.
]
]i wish he would, but he doesn't have the balls.  

Yeah, me too.
]
]>If you don't believe this, look at what happened when the Republicans
]>actually had a majority in the Senate... some laws (a few) were passed
]>that the President suggested.
]
]>IF YOU WANT CHANGE, THROW OUT THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS! THEN ADD
]>SHORT TERM LIMITS! NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK.
]
]agreed.  maybe a democratic prez and repub congress for a change!
]the seniority system screws things up also.

How about a republican pres and congress? That would give us a chance to
reverse some of the tax and spend changes. We haven't tried that one in
a long time.
]>If Clinton wins, taxes and regulation will go up even faster than
]>they have under Bush. So will the deficit!
]
]i disagree.  taxes rates may go up (and that would be dumb), but the
]deficit will go down.  that is the business cycle:)

I see no reason to believe that the deficit will go down. We raised taxes
in '90 and the deficit went up rapidly. If you mean that a recovery
will reduce the deficit, consider that taxes going up (to finanace
Clinton's plan would require 2/3 of all corporate profits in the US)
are likely to abort a recovery.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8839 alt.politics.clinton:208
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush's appointees, Clinton speculation
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:46:53 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

I think it would be helpful to compile a list of Bush's political appointees
so we can see who could be replaced if Clinton wins.  Can anyone list the
members of the Cabinet?  

Also, who would Clinton be likely to propose to replace each?

This would help highlight the fact that electing Clinton would be a bigger
change than re-electing Bush, who will likely not make sweeping changes in his
appointments.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:29:03 GMT

In article <3573@keele.keele.ac.uk> csp48@seq1.keele.ac.uk (J.W. Kirriemuir) writes:
>My predicitions for what happens between now and Polling Day in
>the USA :
>(1) The USA will take some form of military action somewhere; judging by
>the recent news reports, a sudden air strike against Iraq is more likely
>than anything involving Yogoslavia. A side reason for this (which was
>picked up on in last nights newsnight on BB2) is that Bush's popularity
>would take a welcome boost.

It's not really clear Bush would be more popular if he got us into a
war.  It's certainly possible, but I don't think even he is cynical
enough to take this chance (and sacrifice American lives) for an
uncertain payoff.

>(2) Something bigger and more damaging than before will hit Clinton
>and/or Gore, especially if they are riding high in the polls. Don't know
>what it will be, but it will come (late september / early october).

I'm with you on that.

>(3) Reagan will be drafted in at some point to bolster the image of
>Bush; James Baker will also move into a prominent position (and if
>things get any more desperate, might just elbow DQ out of the VP slot on
>the republican ticket).

Reagan will speak at the Republican convention.  It'll be interesting
to see if his mind has deteriorated past the point of no return.

>(4) Should Bush win (and I am not predicting who will), then sometime in
>the spring of next year, a few persistent stories will break about
>Republican officials underhandedly smearing the opposition.

Well, of course !!! :-)  :-)  :-)
-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight