HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Subject: Re: The final results!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:16:46 GMT

In article <11249@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
   Well, it's been a week sinc ethe election and the local media has still not
   even admitted the existence of anyone beyond Bush/Clinton/Perot.

   Can anyone provide me with the results of the election including all the
   candidates??  I am interested primarily in how Marrou/Lord did, but would
   find it usefull to see any results on people like Bo Gritz as well.

   Has anyone seen a full accounting??
-----
I can't vouch for the accuracy of these numbers, but have seen them posted
on an internet BBS I'm active on. I've added the party affiliations and put in
percentages accurate to votes displayed. If anyone has corrections or additions,
please e-mail me. (I'm particularly interested in who were the American
Independent and Peace & Freedom candidates or party endorsements.) Also, if you
know the difference between the Socialist, Socialist Workers and Labor and
Workers parties, I'm interested in hearing it.

With 99% of the nations precincts reporting:

candidate                    votes        party affiliations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton          43,728,375 (42.910%)    Democrat, Liberal
                          370 EV = (32 states + DC)
George Bush           38,167,416 (37.453%)    Republican, Conservative,
                          168 EV = (18 states)  Right2Life
Ross Perot            19,237,247 (18.877%)    unaffiliated
Andre Marrou             278,528 ( 0.273%)    Libertarian
Lenora Fulani            211,742 ( 0.208%)    New Alliance
Bo Gritz                  97,601 ( 0.096%)    Populist, America First
John Hagelin              44,521 ( 0.044%)    Natural Law
Howard Phillips           39,391 ( 0.039%)    Taxpayers
James MacWarren           27,464 ( 0.027%)    Socialist Workers
Lyndon LaRouche           25,688 ( 0.025%)    Independents for Economic Recovery
Ron Daniels               25,404 ( 0.025%)    Campaign for a New Tomorrow
Drew Bradford              4,605 ( 0.005%)
Jack Herer                 3,452 ( 0.003%)    Grassroots
Helen Halyard              3,068 ( 0.003%)
J. Quinn Brisben           2,789 ( 0.003%)    Socialist?
None Of These [etc.]       2,525 ( 0.002%)    none of these
John Yiamouyiannis         2,316 ( 0.002%)    unaffiliated
Honest Jim Boren             980 ( 0.001%)
Earl Dodge                   953 ( 0.001%)    Prohibition
Delbert Ehlers               876 ( 0.001%)    unaffiliated
Eugene Hem                   395
Isabell Masters              395 (tie)
Robert Smith                 290
Gloria La Riva               178              Workers (all votes from N. Mexico)
                     101,906,199


--
Mitchell Gold, sundance@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: paul@panix.com (Paul Gatker)
Subject: Re: Why????
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:01:27 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov5.165900.2170@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>I think the biggest reason libertarianism hasn't caught on is that nobody's
>heard of the party.
 
 Imagine the percentage the LP would have pulled with the resources of Perot.
Maybe the LP should consider some serious fund raising/lobbying efforts? Or
is this already being done? And if so, why so little money?

 Maybe a good ad agency would help? Word of mouth and the internet just don't
cut it.

-- 
*******************************************************************
paul@panix.com                                    COMPULITE GRAPHICS
Brooklyn NY usa                                Design & Consultation
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: This Stupid "LaRouche is a Lib" Thing
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:10:20 GMT


In article <1992Nov6.200613.2793@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> you write:
>   As I was trying to persuade people to vote Libertarian in this past 
>election, I had as many people as not ask me "Isn't Lyndon LaRouche a 
>Libertarian?" This is a *very* widespread belief.
>   Here are my questions:
>   (1) Has LaRouche ever been a Libertarian? If so, when and what did he do?

No, he has never been affiliated in any way whatsoever with the
Libertarian Party or any of it's affiliates.  I believe he was once
registered with one of the Socialist splinter groups (Workers' World?
something like that) in the early 1970s, but other than that he has
always been a Democrat.  It's useful to tell people this when they
ask, because it's easy to explain afterwards the extreme unlikelyhood 
of a socialist-leaning Democrat being associated with Libertarians.

>   (2) If he has never been one, how did the rumor start? (and please, no 
>unsupported conspiracy theories)

While there *was* one occasion of a LaRouche supporter claiming that
he was a Libertarian, his organization later denied it, and denounced
the Libertarian Party for good measure.

Leaving aside the rather likely possibility of a Republican Party
conspiracy to slander our name by repeating the allegation that this
guy has something to do with us, the only reasons I can think of for
the persistence of the error are a couple of magazine and newspaper
articles from last year which publicized the false information.  These
led to some TV and radio stations repeating it as well.  While all of
these printed or aired apologies and/or reply letters which corrected
the mistake, as with all such things that's always too little too late.

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party     /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)         | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
Member, CA State Central Committee \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.politics.bush
From: yvonne@well.sf.ca.us (Yvonne Lee)
Subject: Re: Politics and Trek (was Clinton's Inauguration Speech *Flames*)
Keywords: politics, Clinton, Bush, Perot
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:55:14 GMT

In <1992Nov3.133226@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU> pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Gilligan) writes:

>I am posting this mostly for the rec.arts.startrek heirarchy, but also
>to those cross-posting from the other groups in the "Newsgroups" line.

>Please keep the political discussion off the TREK heirarchy. Thinly
>disguised political discussion as TREK-talk does not belong on the RAS
>lines. Discussion of current politics as related to TREK philosophy 
>is fine, but please try to avoid making non-TREK political statements
>on this group just to do it.

>Take it to the appropriate group and please edit the "Newsgroups" line.

>Thank you.

>--
>* Phil Plait                 pcp2g@virginia.edu 
>*
>* "To escape from our own island, we must each metaphorically
>*  kill our own Gilligan..." 

Get lost on an island, puleeze!
-- 
*****************************************************************
yvonne_lee@infoworld.com   (preferred email reply address)
yvonne@well.sf.ca.us       (news account) (415) 312-0571 w  (415) 968-3132 h
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: No LP Presidential Candidate in '96!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 07:23:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.051943.18011@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magn
s.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>Why not take the resources that we're dumping into pointless Presidentia
>campaigns and devote them to Congressional candidates?  We might actuall
>be able to make a difference that way.  I mean, if we *must* have a
>presidential candidate, let's just make it a paper candidacy and utilize
>our resources more efficiently.

I don't think there is any way the LP will not run a
presidential candidate in '96 unless _nobody_ is interested in
running or NOTA wins the nomination. I think running people for
president and VP is useful, if only for exposure. We can get on a
lot of talk shows with a presidential ticket that we couldn't
get on otherwise.

I agree that the resources need to go to winnable races (that
means state legislatures, Congress is too expensive for us at
this point). So send your money to candidates that have a chance
of winning, and encourage others to do the same rather than
donating to the presidential effort.

I think the P/VP campaign should consist primarily of electronic
media appearances (very little travelling) in which the
candidates are very respectable and, yes, moderate and plug
local candidates relevant to the relevant listening/viewing
area.
--
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Constitutional Question
Date: 6 Nov 1992 06:26:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


<Deleted:  Article discussing what would happen in the electoral
college if Bill Clinton died between now and the day the college
met.>

I don't think it would still vote for Clinton.  The <Supreme Ct.
has repeatedly rule that states may not "bind" electors.  I think
what would happen would be that the DNC would hastily select a 
replacement...in all lieklihood it would be Al Gore.  The electors
would be asked to vote for him instead of Clinton, and for whoever
was designated as the new VP candidate.  Since electors ar usually
chosen for their ironbound party loyality, it is very likely that
most or all of them would comply, and All Gore would become
president.

Please excuse the typos, but it is late and I am at a dumb terminal.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1644 alt.politics.marrou:2121
From: josh@planchet.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Why????
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:55:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:

>I heard that the Libertarian Party tried addressing the question of
>why libertarianism hasn't caught on more by (probably in a workshop)
>dividing people into four types and coming up with arguments for
>each type. (It seems to be a simplified version of Jungian typology.)
>...

It's a simplification of the Myers-Briggs personality classification
system, which was loosely based on Jungian types.  The groups of M-B
types denoted by *S*P, *S*J, *NF*, and *NT* form the "colors".  The
"native" libertarian type is *NT* (intuitive thinkers).

I was at an ISIL conference where the a speaker handed out the 
four-colored-card sets to the audience and asked them to pick the 
one they matched.  About 90% of the crowd was NT (as opposed to 
10% of the population if I remember right).

--JoSH
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:11:15 GMT

In article 10259@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>What makes you think libertarians don't care.  It's just that we prefer to
>our caring with our own money, not somebody else's.

I'd state that as: we prefer to do our own caring voluntarily, not to
have someone do it for us by force.


---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4
	Did William Faulkner have little creatures on his old typewriter?
	If so, they were the product of whiskey, which addles the brain less
	than cartoon creatures and menus and buttons that send messages to
	the screen demanding: "Abort? Quit? Try Again? Drop Dead? Exit? Go To
	Hell You Schnook?" - Mike Royko

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:37:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.145824.2195@exu.ericsson.se> exumfs@exu.ericsson.se writes:
}Well, you seem to be up on Objectivist happenings since "the purge," so I 
}have a question.  What are some good objectivist writers outside of "the
}inner circle?"  Can you suggest some titles?
}
}I pretty much dropped out (in disgust) following the David Kelley incident 
}(and the local objectivists doing a telephone poll to determine who was "in"
}and who was "out".)

Well, Kelley's are good, but you may be familiar with those.  Do you get
the IOS Journal?  It's quite good.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian - NOT! (was Re: Gun Control)
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:50:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <1992Nov2.115317.3950@memstvx1.memst.edu>, kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
|> 
|> Particularly, the liberatarian principle (at least as it is presented
|> by the LP) would in effect prohibit individuals to voluntarily establish
|> governments which are not libertarian, even on a local scale. I feel
|> that this prohibition is a violation of the right to free association/
|> non association of those individuals who wish not to participate in
|> Libertarian government. (I'm not joking here.)
|> 
|> Libertarianism should include the right not to be a libertarian.
|> 

Libertarianism most certainly does include the right not to be a libertarian.
What it doesn't include is the right for you to tell me I can't be one either.

If you want to have your own government locally, that's fine.  The problem is
when you decide that I have to be a member of your government against my wishes.

You can associate with whomever you please, but you don't have the right to tell
me I have to associate with you or your cronies too.

Why is this concept so hard to understand??  Right of association works both ways.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@cs.uofs.edu         |  This space would be left intentionally blank
                              |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Strategy
Date: 7 Nov 1992 16:10:13 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <5655@sumax.seattleu.edu> spector@sumax.seattleu.edu (Mitchell Spector) writes:
...
>
>>If they did this many people like me would vote differently. For example
>>there was a Religious right, a Democrat, and a Libertarian in my Assembly
>>district. I voted for the Democrat. I would not have voted for the
>>Libertarian no matter how much I liked him. I would have voted differently
>>if my district had been combined with four or five others and there was a
>>a single transferrable vote. I would have voted for all of the candidates
>>in the order in which I actually preferred them, rather than the one I
>>preferred of the two that might get elected.
>
>   If there were, say, 4 seats, don't you think there would be several
>Democrats and several Republicans running (perhaps 4 from each party)?

Of course there would be four each Republicans and Democrats. But lets
assume there was only one Libertarian. Then if there were greater than
25% of the people who preferred the Libertarian candidate over all the 
Republicans and Democrats, the Libertarian would be elected.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

>
>>Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
>
>--
>Mitchell Spector
>Seattle University
>E-mail: spector@seattleu.edu
>


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech *Flames*
Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:24:54 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Nov10.001208.15788@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>
>Strange to see this in rec.arts.startrek.current, but here's my $0.02 worth.

I just took it out. I don't know how it got there.

>
>Richard,
>
>You almost got it right ;-)
>
>It should be "The best motivator of all is a belief in the intrinsic worth of
>what one is doing *and getting paid well for it*"!
>

You almost got it right except for the numbers.-:)

You are talking about two motivators. 1.) Belief in intrinsic worth. 
2.) Monetary rewards.

Of the two intrinsic worth is the best. Furthermore I disagree that monetary
rewards is always the best. I once had a person working for me at another
company, in a small corporate systems engineering group. There was an
opportunity to give him a reasonable raise to reward his performance. He
said he would prefer to be given a high sounding title, something like Director
of xys. We gave him the title. He was happy.

People are all different. I know of high paid union workers who don't perform
very well. I know of lower paid nurses who work much harder than most other 
people I know. I think if you will look around you very carefully at the 
different people you know you will find that most people seem to be working
for the money, but that the best performers are the ones who seem to have some
other main motivation. Things such as the work I am doing is important, it
is interesting, people respect me for the work I do, etc.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer


>Happy Trails, ya'all.
>
>Don Palmrose
>
>
>
>
>
>
>========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
>
>Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
>Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
>implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
>information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
>privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
>endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
>Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
>opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
>United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
>and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1601 rec.arts.startrek.current:17593 alt.politics.bush:13097
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech *Flames*
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 5 Nov 92 02:30:19 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >jcm3r@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Spaceman SPiff) writes:
> ...
> >make it so. the two prime human motivators are greed & fear. 
> >appealing to greed is much more effective. doing the "Give us your 
> >money so we can give it to someone who doesn't deserve it or we'll 
> >take what you own and toss you in jail" thing doesn't work very 
> >well at all...
> 
> This is far too narrow a look at human motivation. Lust is another
> major motivator. Or: Love, Anger, Compassion.

ahh, yeah. the hormone factor. i'd like to think it has nothing
to do with goverment, but i've heard too many people who said
they voted for Clinton simply 'cause he looked better than George.

> Actually fear is a stronger motivator than is greed. 
> 
> If I point a gun at someones head and say give me your money, most 
> people will do so without regard to how much money they have or 
> have not at home or in the bank.

i didn't say greed was stronger. i said more effective. with
fear you have to put a lot of effort into getting people to do
what you want, and they'll rebel at the first possible opportunity.
appeal to greed and not only will they do the work for you, but
they'll continue to do so as long as you provide incentive.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`       "Every great gift is a kind of curse." - Camille Paglia       `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 5 Nov 1992 11:35:21 CST
From: Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gun Control
 <otto-041192174022@hotline.cc.fsu.edu>

In article <otto-041192174022@hotline.cc.fsu.edu>, otto@systems.cc.fsu.edu (John
G. Otto) says:
>
>I think that pretty much any individual has as much right to own any
>of these as the current governments do, more, actually, since the
>government derives its powers from the right of consent of the
>individuals.  Consent implies free will, and the right to withdraw
>that consent.  Once government employees turn on the citizens, they
>must have the means of revoking the government's authority.
>
>jgo   John G. Otto   otto@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

Because of the 2nd Amendment we have the right to own nukes,  that doesn't
mean that the government can't make them cost prohibitive, say $1Billion for
a 1K bomb.  Not many people could afford that.  Of course they must be kept
track of so that a terrorist can't give a person the money and have him buy
one for him.

Wesley J. Bielinski                    | "Gun control is... being able
SGT, USAR       U53734@uicvm.uic.edu   |      to hit your target!"
12th Special Forces Group (Airborne)   |         Support RKBA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc
From: ddsokol@unix.amherst.edu (D. DANIEL SOKOL)
Subject: Criminal Justice System
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:08:43 GMT

	Which is a higher moral value in the criminal justice system:
Truth or Confidenciality?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1720 rec.arts.startrek.current:17763 alt.politics.bush:13468