HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:58:06 GMT

kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>> Can a Perot candidacy do anything other than help Clinton? Supposedly,
>> Clinton's pick of Al Gore was predicated on a three-way race and when
>> Perot dropped out all the anchorpundits deemed that Clinton's strategy
>> was undercut. That assessment changed when Perot all but endorsed the
>> Democratic ticket. Even now, his harshest criticism is reserved for
>> the current administration.
>
>I don't get it, no matter what Perot does he hurts Bush, how is this
>possible. When he dropped out it was said this would hurt Bush, now if
>he gets back in it will also hurt Bush????

When he dropped out, he hurt Bush by citing the "revitalized Democratic Party"
as his reason. His supporters went disproportionately to Clinton. If he
re-enters, and continues to go easy on Clinton while lambasting Bush, then
it seems to me, he will disproportionately attract would-be Bush voters,
especially in Texas. Who knows how he'll really play it though? Maybe he's
looking for deals.
 
>I'll tell you all what will happen, Perot doesn't matter. Bush will hit
>Clinton hard in October (he has gotten an easy ride lately from the press
>and Bush), the polls will even out and Bush will win!! 

Yeah, and Clinton will hit hard back if he drops in the polls. Possible
themes: TV images of a vacant lot in Texas, savings and loans. Should be 
interesting to see how it comes out. 

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: selliott@cup.portal.com (J Steve Elliott)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:24:46 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>  Today in a speech defense expert Bill Clinton referred to Patriot
>missiles as 'being able to go through doors and down chimmenys (?)'.
>Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
>thinking of the cruise missiles which were used in the Gulf war.  It's the
>Dukakis tank ride all over again.

Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
thinking of laser guided smart bombs. Quayle was quick to point out that
he was confused with cruise missiles, which do not go through doors and
down chimneys.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:02:59 GMT

In article <18vj7jINNgpa@news.aero.org>
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>
>In article <1992Sep13.055146.1959@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Betty) writes:
>>rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
>>: In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>>:    To take the case one step futher.
>>:
>>:    Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely
>>:    stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund
>>:    for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
>>:    is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
>>:
>>:    Would this be legal in a libertarian world.
>>:
>>: I would hope not.  In that libertarian world, I would voluntarily
>>: contribute a certain percentage of my personal wealth to help this
>>: woman get back on her feet so she can support her family once again.
>>:
>>Hi Ronald,
>>
>>   I am a mother who loves my children but I'm absolutely stone broke.
>>Please send me a certain percentage of your personal wealth. When I
>>get back on my feet again, I will happily buy into your libertarian
>>fantasy utopia.
>>
>>
>>Kathy
>
>I am waiting with fascination to see how Ronald and any other libertarians
>respond to this post.
>
>Richard Foy
>Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer

     I'm broke, I'm afraid.  With keeping myself afloat and helping out
other members of the family, I'm sort of treading water.  However, though,
I tend to limit myself to people I know when giving out funds.  I'm afraid I've
had my generous side taken advantage of before.
     The point is, though, that a libertarian in Kentucky isn't likely
to be able to help out somebody in California.  The Libertarians are
hoping, probably a little naively, but you never know, for a social
safety net to replace the government one.  There's very little way to
verify whether somebody on the other end of Usenet *really* needs money.
The guy next door who just lost his job and needs help from his neighbors
until he gets another one is closer to home.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
From: sperry@sdd.hp.com (Rob Sperry (Temp))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Date: 13 Sep 1992 00:11:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg23.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep11.222245.17716@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
|> If Voyager found a one month old fetus in the sand of Mars, everyone,
|> including the pro-choice people, would be claiming "life on Mars".


    This would also be the case if fungi, or bacteria were to be 
 found on mars.   Maybe we should restrict people from brushing thier
 teith, in fear of violating the rights of bacteria? no.  How about,
 you can't brush your teeth after eating a chocolate sunday, because
 you knew the risks when you ordered it?

|> However, if Voyager found a one month old fetus in the womb of a
|> woman, it would not be viable and could be burned with a lot of 
|> other medical waste.
|> I do think that abortion, in some form, is here to stay but I wish 
|> that we could understand it for what it is instead of rationalizing
|> a very difficult decision.
|> 
|> Mike Best

  what would you have people do other than rationalize?  How is one to 
 make a decision?


Rob Sperry
-/\-                     Any E-mail follow ups to 
-\/-                     rsperry@athena.calpoly.edu    thankxs.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:38:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <16859CF5E.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.170625.18104@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
>n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>
>>	Give up on the Libertarian vote.  In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>>got less than 1% of the vote.  The New Freedom Party got almost as many
>>votes.  You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
>>statistically insignificant

>     That's OK.  Nobody ever said starting political parties was easy or
>quick.  But then, it's not surprising so few support him, considering so
>few have *heard* of him.  (Ditto for the rest of the minor parties.)
>We *are* living in a country where a significant portion of the population
>think that the major parties are the *only* parties.
>     Hell, Ross Perot was said to be starting "a third party." 

  Nonetheless, Perot achieved very high popularity, at one point leading 
  the two major candidates in some polls.  Moreover John Anderson and 
  George Wallace also had very credible third-party campaigns in the 
  last couple of decades.   And Vermont recently elected a socialist to
  national office.  So it IS possible to run as a third party and get
  heard.   The libertarians are short on voters but they always have 
  ready supply of excuses.   I mean, yes, getting heard as a third
  party is an uphill battle but it's not impossible if you have a
  a compelling message which resonates with the market.

  The fact is that libertarianism has no natural cultural base in the US
  (or anyplace else).   Those who agree with them, say on welfare or free
  markets, are most likely to be Republicans (hence the number of R.<->
  L.P. party switches we've seen over the years) who are still all in
  favor of intrusive Big Government in other areas.   The cultural con-
  ditions for minarchy have not existed in this country since the In-
  dustrial Revolution took hold, and only those ignorant of history
  fail to grasp that prior to this there were other cultural, traditional
  and even institutional forces constraining individuals' behavior.
  There never was a Golden Age of individual liberty, unless it is
  today.   Libertarianism is the political equivalant of "new age"
  music or religion.



---peter

  



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Organization: NASA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:38:34 GMT

Someone writes:
> >>>>> Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...
> >>>>> Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...
> >>>>> Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...

Someone else writes:
> >Clinton is saying that if you apply the formula
> >used by Bush to calculate how many times Clinton raised taxes on
> >Bush's record, you would come up with 327.

Michael Friedman writes:
> Exactly.  That is a lie.  According to the independent group, cited
> above, and which I am researching in response to someone's challenge,
> the total Reagan-Bush record by Bush's criteria is 78.

  No, it's not a lie.  The third party's numbers were obviously not derived  
using Bush's criteria.  If they were, their number for Clinton would be 128,  
not 59.  I don't know the identity of the research group cited, but they were  
apparently using their own criteria.

  At any rate, the _number_ of times a candidate raised taxes could never be  
useful for anything except a political gimmick; it would be much more relevant  
to cite the per capita increase in taxes incurred.  Since Bush chose not to do  
this, it makes his argument look very thin.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
  Will Bush ever actually do anything for education?  Of course not; voodoo  
economics and smoke-and-mirror statistics would never fly with an educated  
electorate.  :-)
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Why I don't trust George Bush
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:38:14 GMT
Organization: Read my Lips
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


* He cannot construct an sentence.  He sometimes makes me wonder
  if English syntax is fractal.  The real reason he won't debate:
  he can't.

* Invasion of Panama to settle account with his old crony Noriega.
  Incident which was given to justify the invasion later turned out
  to be trumped up. Turns out he gave US taxpayers' money to Noriega.
  No drugs found, no drug traffic halted.  Panama is a mess.

* Destruction of Iraq and Kuwait to settle account with his old crony
  Saddam Hussein.  Turns out he gave US taxpayers' money to Hussein.
  Kuwait back in hands of "good" despots.  PG war continues to this day.

* Must have know about Irangate but won't admit it.  If he didn't
  know about it, he should be fired for dereliction of duty.

* Born in MA, but rents a Houston Hotel room one night per year.
  Pays no state taxes as a result.  Legal but shameful.

* Former director of CIA

* One son involved in S&L scam (Silverado), another in insider
  trading (Harken Oil) --say, did any of Bush's kids serve in the
  military during the 14 years of Vietnam?  (Hey! He's the family
  values guy.)

* Makes incredibly bad appointments.  Quayle and Yeutter and
  Mosbacher and Martin and Sununu and Skinner and Sullivan  --he
  just keeps finding the wrong person for the job.
----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

 When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself
 as public property.
    --Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: "Marc VanHeyningen" <mvanheyn@silky.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
X-Quoted: 61%
Reply-To: mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Indiana University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:19:45 -0500

Thus said mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac):
>In article <1992Aug31.225012.5750@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.183835.29002@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac writes...
>> Every time I here
>>>someone bitching because there is not enough student aid or loans available
>>>I recall all the people I met as an undergraduate whose primary purpose in
>>>going to college was to avoid going to work and keep the party from high
>>>school going. 
>>
>>I'm going to assume that you haven't been to school in some time.
>>Becuase school, for middle-class people like me, is something you 
>>fit around work. (I've been trying to put myself through school for
>>5 years now.)
>
>   I got my undergraduate and graduate degrees during the eighties and I
>don't think the general campus atmosphere has changed much.  A LOT of
>partying still goes on in the undergraduate ranks.  I read once that at
>most US schools the trend is that at the end of freshman year, half the
>class is gone, at the end of sophomore year the class is reduced by half
>again, etc..  So the final graduating class size is about 1/16 that of the
>original freshman enrollment.

Where did you read this?  Most Universities/Colleges I know of have
graduation rates around 2/3 (i.e. 67% of the new students graduate
within 5 years).  I certainly know of no place with a graduation rate of
6.25%.  What University has one?  Surely not Case Western...

It is certainly true that plenty of students see college as a way to
postpone employment rather than enrich themselves or acquire skills.  I
don't know of too many people who developed such an attitude through
governmental assistance so much as through parental assistance.
Fortunately, fewer and fewer parents are able to afford to spoil their
children, so I guess that's a good development of the past few years.

>-- 
>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Well, if (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) are moderates, I'm | These pontifications
>a world champion speller." - Vice-President Dan Quayle  |      are my own!    


-- 
Marc VanHeyningen     mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu     MIME accepted


Art is experimental, or it isn't art.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12821 talk.politics.misc:44755 alt.politics.marrou:1109 alt.politics.bush:4684 alt.politics.clinton:4874 alt.politics.perot:1429
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New poll results
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 10 Sep 1992 23:23 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

>In article <16859CF5E.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.170625.18104@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
>>n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>>
>>>	Give up on the Libertarian vote.  In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
>>>got less than 1% of the vote.  The New Freedom Party got almost as many
>>>votes.  You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
>>>statistically insignificant
> 
>>     That's OK.  Nobody ever said starting political parties was easy or
                                    ^^^^^^^^
>>quick.  But then, it's not surprising so few support him, considering so
>>few have *heard* of him.  (Ditto for the rest of the minor parties.)

The Libertarian Party has been around for over twenty years.  Isn't that
enough time to get started?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:08:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.131533.25653@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
 
>     [...]
>Too late.  Ronnie already did that.  Yes, any clueless people who
>might be reading this, RONNIE destroyed the economy, NOT George Bush!
>Does this mean Bush is free of fault?  Of course not.  What did he do?
>Well...nothing.  :)
 
Speaking of clueless! That's the centerpiece of the revisionist 80s
history, isn't it? Reagan presided over the longest peacetime economic
boom in the nation's history-> ergo we will assert it didn't really exist.
The Reagan-era debt was not particularly large historically- so we'll
report it in nominal terms to make it look big.
 
Yes, George, in his bipartisan way, killed the boom. The argument posted
by "bis" and so many others seems to be that if there was a boom, Reagan
killed it (taking twelve years to do so), but there really wasn't a boom,
and Jimmy Carter was a brilliant president.
 
Got it.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Organization: NASA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:18:34 GMT

Steve Davis writes
> [...]
> Stratocaster
> --
> 	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^
>       strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS

  Oh, boy... this is bound to become confusing.  Do you post to alt.guitar as  
well?

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Any undecides out there?
Date: 11 Sep 1992 21:16:04 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

This is purely a matter of curiousity.  Is there any registered
voter reading this group who is still undecided?  Please respond
via email; there is no point cluttering the newsgroup with such
noise.

Fear not, I shan't start mailing you lots of campaign literature.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:08:20 GMT

In article <BuJqxz.L1r@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandros) writes:
>In article <BuI70n.Cp0@chinet.chi.il.us>, katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes...
>>In article <BuFnrA.96E@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandros) writes:
>>>
>>> Libertarians have had to learn how to discuss their ideas persuasively
>> 
>>Not to me they haven't. 
>
>	How many Libertarians have you talked with?

The one I got into the extended conversation with, but I've been
reading the newsgroups, trying to make sense of it all.

I admit, I was in a bad mood when I posted and that's the wrong time
to post anything. My apologies for being so snippy.

I did receive some informative e-mail and I will read it all very
carefully within the next week (I'll hardly have any time at home
for a few days) and will get back to the people who sent info.

At least, I have the guy who I talked with pegged. He's not a
*real* Libertarian, he's a jerk and he's *not* representative
of Libertarians as a whole.

>>I can't even imagine what kind of chaos this country would experience
>>if we ever had a Liberatarian president. It would *not* be pretty.
>>Luckily I don't think we'll ever have to worry about it. 
>> 
>
>	Uh huh...  Would you mind trying to imagine the chaos you are
>talking about and share with us what it is.  I'm curious to hear what
>you think will go wrong.

I'll let you know after I read the Party platform. My vague, ill-informed
(thanks to the jerk) ideas I had should not have been the basis of such
a post. I envisioned anarchy, revolution and horror beyond belief.
Those ideas might stick after I'm better informed, and they might not.
Again, I'll let you know.

>>According to him, Libertarians don't believe in voting. Is this true?
>
>	Hmmm.  No.
>
>	There are some people who are philosophically libertarian who have
>been heavily influenced by Lysander Spooner, a 19th individualist who
>thought that voting protected corrupt government.  Many of these
>"Spoonerians" refuse to vote on principle.  Naturally, they aren't
>members of the Libertarian Party.  I wonder if your "friend" is one of
>these people.

That sounds like him alright! He's not my friend, no way.

>	By the way, I am sorry that he raged at you.  Almost every
>Libertarian that I associate with is very polite and well mannered.
>I am sure that there must be rude liberals, conservatives, and moderates
>too...  First impressions can form one's entire opinion of a group of
>people -- an opinion which can be inaccurate.  I hope you will give
>Libertarians another chance.

Yes, I will. The people, anyway. I have yet to decide about the Party.

>	I hope this helps.  :^)

Thanks.

Vickie

>
>Mark