From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:20:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

In article <TOM.92Apr7072157@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:
>gliesche> The LP strives to apply a consistent philosophy to social and
>gliesche> political problems - not just a mish-mash of whatever works for
>gliesche> the current month.
>
>Or, to put it another way, the LP strains to blindly apply their dogmatic
>principles to everything, no matter how little sense it makes in many
>situations.

I thought it would be nice to know where the LP's "dogma" originates 
from.  Consider friend:

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not 
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.

14th Amendment
Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, 
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the 
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State 
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any 
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without 
due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction 
the equal protection of the laws. 
Sect. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several 
States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole 
number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. 
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of 
electors for President and Vice President of the United States, 
Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers 
of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied 
to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one 
years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way 
abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, 
the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the 
proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to 
the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such 
State. 
Sect. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in 
Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any 
office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any 
State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of 
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member 
of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer 
of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, 
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, 

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress 
may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such 
disability. 
Sect. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, 
authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of 
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or 
rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United 
States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation 
incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United 
States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; 
but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal 
and void. 
Sect. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate 
legislation, the provisions of this article. 

>
>I much prefer a candidate who is not welded to some idiotic dogma, but is
>willing to consider innovative solutions to problems based on a case by
>case analysis of the real world problem and an analysis of the proposed
>solutions. I also prefer a candidate who will be willing to do a little
>"outcomes research" on existing programs and stop the ones that aren't
>working and cancel any future programs which don't work out as expected.

We aren't anarchists as you seem to be describing.  I believe that 
most programs today lose as much as 75% in overhead.  If there are
some programs that work better than private industry could, I'm
sure that they would be considered.  If they are effective and need
to be made into an enforceable law...it can be AMENDED.

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections