HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:28:00 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Apr7.154733.18756@athena.cs.uga.edu> brady@coeus.cs.uga.edu (Vote Libertarian!) writes:
>>Using this anecdote to imply that a private-sector solution in lieu of
>>government can provide a social safety net is wrongheaded, IMHO.  Business-
>>men are not in their business to garner love.  They are in it to make $
>>for themselves .... and their shareholders, if they're a publicly traded
>>corporation.  That is their reason for existence.
>
>Business is out to make money... What an interesting concept.  And look
>how much GOOD results from this desire for success.  Take Steven Jobs, for
>example.
	[ a favorable review of Jobs contribution to society because of 
	apple computer's success]


	On the other hand, look at Mike Milken. or Charles Keating, or
many others. Not everyting businessmen do is all good, nor is it all bad.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 10:44:54 CDT
From: John Schulien <U21187@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gators for Perot
Distribution: usa

In article <35027@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, rap@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Ryan Porter)
says:
>
>A bit of news from the Gators for Perot ...
>We had a meeting tonight to discuss Perot's views.  We came
>up short on a few vital points, however ...
>                1) Health System/Insurance
>                2) Environment
>                3) Abortion (more specific than 'pro-choice')
>                4) Energy Policy
>                5) Middle East (specific reasons for
>                                opposition to gulfwar)
>                6) Civil Liberties (has a nasty appearance of
>                                    a gun controlling, drug
>                                    fighting, intruding dude)
> ...
>Any responses?

Just a question. If you know so little about Perot's philosophy,
platform, and goals, then aren't you being a bit premature in
personally endorsing him as a presidential candidate?
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electronic town hall (was Re: Ross Perot)
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:49:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr10.144124.10927@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
|> 
|> Someone referrred to people surveyed and when showed a copy of the
|> first amedment said people cant just say what they want.
|> 
|> In NYC they did a similar survey with the Declaration of Independence
|> and no one cuold identify it and all thougut it was really radical.

Yikes!

|> And Bush's solution to the education problem is to let corporations run
|> our schools. please

Those frightening statistics were produced by the monopolistic, state-owned,
forcefully funded system we have now.  How could a free market solution
possibly be any worse?
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The American Way
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:50:19 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr8.123804.201424@uctvax.uct.ac.za> swjnev01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>From the outside the American election looks like a complete farce. I seems
>that the male who has the most money, who throws more dirt about the sex lives
>of his opponents and who catches the most baseballs in his shirt and tie for
>the media is the winner of the contest. Its a pity that Americans can't be more
>serious about the power that they have. God help the world if Bill Clinton
>makes his gung-ho way into the white house.

No election, anywhere, is pretty or particularly uplifting.  I'll
stand by that statement until and unless someone can give me a
counterexample.  You want dignified rulers?  Take autocracy or
oligarchy, where the issues raised and the subjects discussed can be
effectively controlled.  As long as there are prurient people and a
free press, we'll be treated to the spectacles of mudslinging and
scandal.  19th century US politics included such important issues as
whether a candidate had fathered a son out of wedlock (sample slogan
of the opposition: "Ma, ma, where's my pa?  Gone to the White House,
ha, ha, ha.")  The British party names Whig and Tory were originally
terms meaning Irish horse thieves and Scottish cattle thieves
respectively (or perhaps the other way around).  It's in the nature of
democracy, and though we rightly deplore it, we might worry more if it
seems to be disappearing, as that may be a sign that someone is acting
to "get things under control" in a manner inimical to the liberty of
citizens.

Mike

-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
From: dma@unx.sas.com (Dawn Amos)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: humans as Presidents (was Re: media's misrepresentation)
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:28:25 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: dma@lacewing.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 497

In article <Apr.9.11.10.42.1992.1689@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
|>
|> Of course, the reason that the story resonated was that Bush really is
|> out of touch with the rest of the world.  How long has it been since
|> he's had to buy his own car, let alone go to the grocery store?

Remember the clip with JFK at a press conference explaining
that the cut on his finger was from slicing bread?  What a
refreshing concept!

Wonder if Ross slices his own bread?
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Democratic psyche
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:03:02 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

In article <12422@tamsun.tamu.edu> achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin) writes:
|I just thought of the following analysis of the Democrats:
|
|   Superego:  Tsongas
|   Ego:       Clinton
|   Id:        Brown
|
|What do you think?
|-- 
|Andrew Chin    Dept. of Math.    Texas A&M U.    College Station, TX 77843


I think this analysis is neat.

Richard Foy
From: mas@bucsf.bu.edu (Mark A. Semich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:06:34 GMT
	<PMETZGER.92Apr1155522@snark.shearson.com>
	<1992Apr2.093847.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
	<PMETZGER.92Apr3121333@snark.shearson.com> <bma0hy.ff3@wang.com>
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: The Internet
In-reply-to: fitz@wang.com's message of 6 Apr 92 07:51:33 GMT

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

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

Sounds like the Democrats to me...
--
===========================================================================
                The first step ... shall be to lose the way.
                                                          -- Galway Kinnell
--   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   --
mark a. semich                                                mas@cs.bu.edu
===========================================================================
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:15:32 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Apr13.071317.19709@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.205332.21357@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>
>>
>>What is Bush's economic program? From where I sit, it looks like this:
>>	1) Keep interest rates low.
>>	2) Reduce Capital Gains.
>>	3) War endlessly with congress  so #2 never happens.
>>
>>Is there more to his plan than this?
>
>Perhaps it is Congress that should get down to business.  Bush gave his
>state of the Union address back in January.  He set the March 20 deadline..
>well, where has the Congress been?  
>
>William F. Tell

	Two small points.
	1) Congress doesn't work for the president. They need to work together.
	   The March 20th deadline was just Politics As Usual.
	2) Reagan also had a democratic Congress to deal with, and he worked
at getting his agenda passed. After the 1990 tax compromise, Bush seems to
have given up on Congress entirely.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust)
Subject: Re: How Perot can make Clinton President
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:54:07 GMT

In article <6585@shodha.enet.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:
>I don't even believe this is clear.  The members of the electoral college
>need not vote for the person they are committed to.  In the case of a tie
>between two persons, no one is going to switch sides and the choice would
>go to the House.  In the case of 3 candidates that isn't the case and
>Perot (or Marrou or whoever else had electors) could throw their vote to
>one of the other candidates and avoid letting the House make the choice.

	It's true than an elector can vote for someone other than who he/she
is 'pledged' to, and this has happened from time to time, but usually never
more than one elector (out of 538) per election.  If enough such switching took
place to effect the outcome of an election, it would be the death knell of the
electoral college. 


-- 
Jeff Foust                        Junior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   	        	    jeff@seismo.gps.caltech.edu
"..any DEA agent or drug dealer can tell you that 1 pound equals 2.2 kilograms."
                       L.A. Times, page E1, 8 April 1992                  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust)
Subject: Re: Runoff, Constitution
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:30:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.083837.13309@athena.mit.edu> mjhostet@slayer.mit.edu (Mat Hostetter) writes:
>
>Can someone tell me how each state would decide whom to vote for?  Would the
>Representatives for each state vote by which party had the most Rep's for
>that state or by what their state decided to send to the electoral college?
>Also, I know there are more Democrats than Republicans in the House, but if
>each state only gets one vote do the Democrats still have the majority?  I can
>imagine some large states having mostly democratic Representatives, and some
>small states being Republican, so Republicans might own more states than
>Democrats, even if they have fewer total Representatives.  It seems unlikely,
>but possible.

	The representatives for each state would gather among themselves and
decide (presumably by voting) who to support.  If there's a tie, that state
abstains from casting its vote.  The representatives are not bound to 
select the candidiate that the members of the electoral college from that
state selected.

	In terms of how many states each party has a majority of representatives
in, I posted this breakdown a couple of weeks ago:

	Democrats:	31
	Republicans:	10
	Tied:		 8
	Other:		 1 (Vermont, whose sole representative is an
			     Independent/Socialist - Bernie Sanders)

So, with a straight party-line vote, the Democratic candidate would win.  
However, six of those 31 states have only one-rep majorities for the Democrats,
and an additional 9 have two-rep majorities, so if there were some Democratic
defections to either the Republican or Independent candidiate (probably
unlikely, but who knows...) things could get interesting.

-- 
Jeff Foust                        Junior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   	        	    jeff@seismo.gps.caltech.edu
"..any DEA agent or drug dealer can tell you that 1 pound equals 2.2 kilograms."
                       L.A. Times, page E1, 8 April 1992
From: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot's company standards
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:45:48 GMT
Reply-To: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC



> Article <1992Apr4.062312.6212@zip.eecs.umich.edu> From: baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod)

> In article <1992Apr3.023748.5564@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:

> >                             Elect H. Ross Perot!

> Preserve your right to be thrown in jail for cohabitating before marriage!
> Brad Baillod						baillod@eecs.umich.edu

Because Perot requires his employees to not cohabitat does NOT
mean that he is going to requyire Americans to do the same if
he is elected President!

Perot Systems is a company and you have the right to not
work for it if you choose.  He tries to project a certain
image of his company and wants the employees to reflect that.

-- 
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375   (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091                 (703) 620-1141 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:633 talk.politics.misc:17521
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: media's misrepresentation (was Re: Ross Perot)
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:10:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host) writes:

> Some media reports (including my news radio report) only resported
> at first that George Bush was amazed at the electron scanner.
> Later they added the correction that this was a brand new type
> scanner and thr details.

Even though I've hated Bush since 1980 (I jumped on the bandwagon
before there was a bandwagon), I have to admit that this version of
the story is correct.

This is just another example of the lengths to which the media will go
to make facts fit in with their story of the day. It would be nice if
they would report on substantive discussions of the problems facing
the country rather than break everything down into anecdotes that may
not even be true.

Of course, the reason that the story resonated was that Bush really is
out of touch with the rest of the world.  How long has it been since
he's had to buy his own car, let alone go to the grocery store?

--Scott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: News: NYT 4 Apr 92  Jerry Brown's Tax
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:11:28 GMT

In article <Apr.4.14.10.58.1992.5440@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
|> The New York Times ran some data from an analysis by Arthur Andersen &
|> Co (one of the most respected accounting firms in the US).
|> 
|> It reported that a family of four with an income of $50,000, a single
|> wage-earner making $80,000 or a family with an income of $250,000
|> would all get tax cuts under Brown's plan.
|> 
|> On the other hand, a single parent with an income of $15,000 and two
|> children paying a rent of $450/month would end up paying more in
|> Federal taxes.
|> 
|> The article also noted that Brown's numbers did not calculate in the
|> effect of the earned income tax credit.  Brown's program would kill
|> the tax credit, which mostly benefits lower income people.
|> 
|> (Also, I still haven't seen an adequate rebuttal to the CTJ's estimate
|> that Brown's program would add $200 billion to the deficit, and that a
|> tax rate of 16% rather than 13% would be necessary to equal current
|> income.  This is from the NYT 26 Mar 92 piece.)
|> 

The best rebuttal to the CTJ estimate is the fact that CTJ's estimate
is based on static analysis.  Changing the tax structure would dramatically
alter many peoples behavior.  Fewer people would shelter income which
would result in more income to the treasury.  I can't say for sure
whether there would be an increased or decreased deficit.  I'm positive 
that CTJ's figures aren't reasonable, however.

James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:27:13 GMT


George Bush will win the election.  I can identify his supporters among members
of my family, co-workers, and acquaintances.  They are not very vocal on
issues.  They are content, and content with Bush.  They will admit that he's 
not the greatest president, but he is adequate, a known quantity, a good
grandfather figure, stable...[ad nauseam].  These people will turn out in
droves to reelect Bush.

Now my question is this.  I read here a lot of learned analysis of Jerry's tax,
or Tsongas' health care plan.  There's also a fair amount of Libertarian
Utopianism going on.  I've yet to read (forgive me if I've missed it) an
indepth argument on "Why George Bush should be President of the United States
for the next four years."

I'd love to read some postings from Bush supporters as to why they support him
and why he is the preferred candidate.  Because Bush is going to be president
for the next four and one half years, I'd like some insight on the thinking of
the people who are going to be reelecting him.   Thanks.

** JH
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:39:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.001425.10901@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
|> What got me steamed up was this simplistic notion that less
|> regualiton equal more freedom.  A simple and untrue notion. One
|> must look at the regulaiton and what it is doing.  It can be furthuring
|> freedom.  LIke worker safety standards, or health codes for 
|> restaurants.

OK, lets take these rediculous statements one at a time:

1) Worker safety standards futher freedom.

2) Health codes for restaurants further freedom.

Both prevent people from doing things. My question is, "How do these regulations
increase freedom?"

Jason W. Solinsky
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Date: 12 Apr 92 13:27:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Apr10.193856.15303@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dba3k@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Daniel Burton Avery) writes:
>
>Their study showed:
>
>Changes in Federal Taxes, 1977-1992, as a percentage of family
>incomes:
>
Family Income Group	Average Income	Change
-------------------   	--------------	------
Lowest 20%		$8,130		-.05%  (yes, .0005)
2nd 20%			$20,090		+1.2%
Mid 20%			$31,970		+0.9%
4th 20%			$47,690		+0.2%
Next 10%		$65,700		+0.2%
Next 5%			$84,700		+0.2%
Next 4%			$132,400	-1.2%
Top 1%			$676,000	-12.3% (yes, 12.3 %!!!)
>
>tax rates adjusted for inflation.
>(excerpted from Washington Post, 9/13/91)
>
>
   You wouldn't happen to have these numbers as percent taxed would you?
I hate to ask anyone to type anything in, but it would be nice to have
another column to the above table that says "When all is said and done
the lowest 20% pay X%  in taxes, 2nd 20 pay Y% in taxes, etc."

  Thanks.


Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: The American Way
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:25:32 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Apr8.235019.6066@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.123804.201424@uctvax.uct.ac.za> swjnev01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>>From the outside the American election looks like a complete farce. I seems
>>that the male who has the most money, who throws more dirt about the sex lives
>>of his opponents and who catches the most baseballs in his shirt and tie for
>>the media is the winner of the contest. Its a pity that Americans can't be more
>>serious about the power that they have. God help the world if Bill Clinton
>>makes his gung-ho way into the white house.
>
>No election, anywhere, is pretty or particularly uplifting.  I'll
>stand by that statement until and unless someone can give me a
>counterexample.  You want dignified rulers?  Take autocracy or
>oligarchy, where the issues raised and the subjects discussed can be
>effectively controlled.  
>  [ Points on bad politics being around for a while deleted]

  You forget to mention that dirty politics have been around since the
start of the Republic.  By Republic I mean the Roman
Republic not the U.S. Republic.

  One of the most interesting political articles I've read is Quitus Cicero,
"Handbook on Canvassing for the Consulship.".  It is a brother writing
to a fellow Roman who is doing just what the title suggests.  Written
circa 63 B.C.  The brother suggest that:

1) People remember words more than actions, so don't worry about what
you've done just tell them what they want to hear.
2) Hire spies to dig up dirt on your opponents.
3) Remember everyone's name.
4) Imply (in private) that you are on everyone's side.
5) Make sure everyone believes you are of high character.

  What is most impressive about this article, is the complete lack of
any attention to "taking a stand on issues."

  Dirty politics have been around for a very long time indeed.  Issue
based politics are probably more the exception than the norm.  We, most
likely, live in the most enlightened policitcal times to date.


Pat 
   

-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:41:18 GMT
	<ru1q2INNhs7@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Apr8.063113.27772@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr9.040027.30891@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
	<1992Apr9.054712.14353@athena.mit.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: solman@athena.mit.edu's message of 9 Apr 92 05:47:12 GMT

solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
|Just look at the fraction of all people living in urban areas. It's climed
|tremendously. As is illustrated below, we are distributed horribly. Regulation
|allows people to move together. Without it they can't get too close, but
|regulation costs money. Just look at NYC. It isn't even close to being able to
|support itself. If you look at the net flow of funds, its the worlds biggest
|sinkhole.

As a nice election factoid, this will be the first presidential
election where there will be more people in the suburbs than the
urbans (as it were).

So, in some sense, it's unclear whether the percentage of all people
living in urban areas has climbed as much as one might think.  Of
course, it's unclear how suburbs and urban areas are divived by social
scientists, statiticians and so on so I'm sure if this affects
your argument at all.
--
Peace.
     "The US has a vital interest in that area of the country."
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle Referring to Latin America.
                           ------
Don't just adopt opinions |  \/  | I am Charles Isbell, Homeboy from hell,
      develop them.       |  /\  | living axiom and anonymous absolute ruler
                           ------  of the cosmos.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections