HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:01:24 GMT

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?

Bush's open nostalgia for the heady days of early 1991 can't help but
raise worries that he yearns for a repeat performance.  He keeps complaining
that he doesn't get enough credit for his "foreign policy" achievements, as if
the fact that the U.S trounced Saddam's pathetic forces is somehow supposed
to erase the fears of all those without jobs or in danger of losing theirs.
In other words, if he showed the slightest interest in addressing domestic
problems, maybe all the scary cynics wouldn't have reason to worry that he'll
try something drastic to divert attention from his failed policies.

>    -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
          Tom G.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (richard.del monaco)
Subject: Re: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:50:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.011345.5306@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>
>We also find evil state capitalists (state-subsidized corporatists) under
>the bed.
>

I am having trouble understanding the Libertarian position.  Is the above
comment supposed to mean that the party is against the redistribution of
wealth to the wealthy as well as to the poor?  If so, can it accurately be
stated that Libertarians are essentially laisser-faire capitalists?

I eagerly await the response of one of the dedicated Libertarian netters.


Richard Del Monaco		rdelmonaco@attmail.att.com
Somerset, New Jersey		    r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
Disclaimer:  I am not an official company spokesperson.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9221 alt.activism:13540 nj.politics:411 alt.rock-n-roll:14193
From: psycho@whitebase.ukp.com (Psycho dude)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady!
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 07:43:26 EDT
Organization: UKP Systems, Middletown, NJ

shea@ntmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes:

> In article <Vyc5NB5w164w@micro-c.mcds.com>, speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E
> >  Funny, I never got the impression that the actual purchase of a 
> >record was to be restricted by age.
> 
> 
> Several states are considering such bills.  Many record stores have
> taken it upon themselves to enforce age restrictions for labelled
> records.
> 
> You see, once you label it, you make the next step sooo much easier.
> 
> -- 
> Ray Shea			
> DoD #0372, '88 Hawk NT650, 	...and a card carrying member of the ACLU...
> founder, Team Twinkie	      		you got a problem with that?
> ntmtv!shea@ames.arc.nasa.gov  

It's really stupid to censor records, etc.  If the kids want to buy it let 
them.  They're exposed to worse in the real world.
L8r
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: 23 Jul 92 06:20:17 GMT

Chris Waldron writes
> Thomas also heard a case on appeal involving
> Ralston-Purina.  Ralston-Purina is controlled by the
> Danforth family.  John Danforth was Clarance Thomas' 
> sponser to his selection to the Supreme Court.  Thomas
> voted to overturn a  lower court award that
> Ralston-Purina was to pay out.  This was important
> ethical question that NEVER came up during the
> confirmation hearings.  Thomas clearly was involved
> with what was a conflict-of-interest and possible other
> ethic violations.  This was reported in _The Nation_
> during the time of Thomas confirmation but was never
> picked up by ma$$ media. 

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.

	Carl Edman
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9363 talk.politics.misc:36610 sci.econ:6612
From: david@mail.sas.upenn.edu (R. David Murray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:15:12 GMT
Reply-To: david@penndrls.upenn.edu
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: University Data Center, University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul29.213007.13093@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.165143.5084@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
> >it was mis-regulation.  If you want to reference a de-regulated
> >banking system, we had one prior to 1933 which operated quite
> >well.
> 
> Really! It worked so well that just many of them were failing, many 
> depositors were losing their money, there were serious runs on the banks
> causing more failures. Perhaps that is quite well in your view. It is not
> in mine. It is quite probable that if FDR had not declared a bank holiday 
> they all would have failed.

Pre-1933 banking /was/ regulated, it just wasn't Federally regulated (much).
Regulation was by state, and the health of the various banking systems
also varied by state.  On the whole, the system was fairly stable (but by
no means perfect, there /were/ bank runs).  The system was well on its way
to recovery by the time the Feds intervened and exacerbated the situation.
The argument can be made (see references below) that it was the nature of
state regulation that allowed the situations to come into existence where
bank runs occurred.

Note that before 1933 many states had tried state deposit insurance, with
uniform results: eventually all the money went to the riskiest banks and
the insurance fund went broke.

You'd think we'd learn....


For more information on this and related topics, see (for example) "The
Free Banking Era: A Re-Examination", Hugh Rockoff (actually this is about
banking pre-civil war), or "Free Banking and Monetary Reform", David Glasner
(though I don't agree with his policy recomendations).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (richard.del monaco)
Subject: Re: Electoral College w/o Perot
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:18:41 GMT

>|>ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu asks:
>|> 
>|> Isn't Florio Republican?  I don't remember.

In article <l6gj3qINNnqc@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) answers:
>
>Nossir. He is a Democrat, and a dude who raised taxes too.
>The result? Last December, voters threw out the Dems. in
>both Houses of the Legislature with GOP veto-proof majorities.
>Of course, the Republicans haven't done anything to REVERSE
>the tax increases, but have pretty much ruined Florio's days.
>(Didn't they just ram thru' a budget over Florio's veto?)
>

In fact the Republicans did override the governor's veto of the state budget.
According to the Newark Star Ledger, there will be massive shortages of funds
for next year's budget which will make this year's fiasco look tame.  I won't
be surprised if the Republicans have to re-raise the sales tax to 7%.  Of
course that wouldn't surprise me since yesterday they broke another campaign
pledge by refusing to support initiative and referendum.  Don't write Florio
off yet...I think the Republicans have made his comeback plausible.

As far as the electoral college is concerned, New Jersey has voted for the
Republican candidate since they went for Johnson in 1964.  Despite this,
all statewide elected offices are held by Democrats (the governor and both
U.S. senators).  I can't guess whether the state will go for Bush or Clinton
this year.  Florio's current unpopularity will undoubtedly help Bush unless
more New Jerseyans wake up and realize that he was right all along.  (How's
that for optimism?).


Richard Del Monaco		rdelmonaco@attmail.att.com
Somerset, New Jersey		    r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
Disclaimer:  I am not an official company spokesperson.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: "Normal *$%^ing people -- hate'em"
From: jfc3@bunny.gte.com (Kim Morrison)
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:15:30 GMT
Organization: GTE Labs

In article <1992Jul23.192317.27328@i88.isc.com> jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan 
E. Quist) writes:
> (If the MoVo bill passed, how many people
> do you think would show up at the drivers license facilities on election
> day?  In spite of some campaign statements to the contrary, the average
> guy on the street isn't really very intelligent.)  

Actually the average guy on the street has average intelligence. 

Maybe we should force people to vote at gunpoint -- so that they can 
participate in the poltical process to protect their freedom.  

Actually, and I mean all this in an interested, humble way, what do you 
folks think?

So often I hear people talking politics and bashing the "average guy".  
Usually, when I hear that, I think people mean the typical working class 
or lower middle class guy (not to mention, woman).  And it's usually either an upper-middleclass academic or professional who says it to me, too and they seem to *like* saying it.  Hmmmm.  It seems to come dangerously close to classism.

If the average guy is so bad, why do we care so much about politics?  I 
think that most people are just trying to live their lives, and because 
the situation is fairly okay for them out there, can't be bothered much 
with the political process. Perhaps the extent to which people can afford 
to be ignorant of the political process is a measure of a country's worth. 
 
I know, I know.  You'll talk about political indoctrination, 
socialization, lack of opportunity, lassitude due to hopelessness...  And 
you'd probably be partly right.  But also partly wrong.  People are making 
decisions about what is important for them to spend their time doing.  (If 
they choose, say, The Price Is Right over C-SPAN then that is their 
freedom.)  To enter into the discussion with the notion that you have to 
somehow *fix* *normal* people in order to make democracy work is to proclaim 
the failure of democracy and to place yourself dangerously far above the 
rest of us.  Shouldn't democracy be based upon the way people are and not 
the other way around?  In some ways, depite it's imperfection, isn't it 
already?  

I don't know.  What do you folks think?

Kim
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9286 talk.politics.misc:36316 talk.abortion:29311 soc.women:14201
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,soc.women
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:33:59 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
|> 
|> RF> Taking the battle to the enemy means demonstrating against the antis; at
|> RF> such places as the home of Operations Rescue people, at the homes of
|> RF> anti-choice candidates, at the functions of anti choice groups.
|>     ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> Again, I point out that this terminology is probably a deliberate attempt at
|> being inflammatory, though I am *not* "flaming" you for doing so.  Still,
|> those who live by the sword (or by fire...) are destined to die by the sword
|> as well.
|> 
|> Prepare to have LOTS of people flame you and call you "anti-life" or
|> "pro-death".  I will not be one of them, however.
|> 
I love this "I won't point out you're an asshole but I figure everyone else
will."   This is trying to be inflammatory while wearing an asbestos suit.
Fortunately in everyone else's eyes, you got burnt.

In any case, pro- and anti-choice refer to positions on law, and pro-life/
pro-death refer to positions on morality.  Anyone that supports the death
penalty is pro-death, for example.  But, of course, everyone knows that
there is only one true religious and moral position.  It's just that we
can't figure out which one it is.

You make the assumption that someone who is pro-choice is pro-death or even
pro-abortion.  Not necessarily true.
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: A clear choice
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:41:53 GMT

RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes
> In article <2A72DAD1.29051@noiro.acs.uci.edu>,cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu
> (Carl Edman) says:
> >
> >Mark Sablow writes
> >    I am amazed at how (almost) anyone will vote for Bush/Quayle this
> >November.
> 
>   This guy is a blithering idiot! I don't want to dignify his inanitiies by
> trying to refute them.

Do you seriously believe that tens of thousands of readers of a  
newsgroup give a damn about the unsupported opinion of some kid from  
stanford about me ? If you feel up to making an argument which interests the  
readers of this group, please do so. Otherwise kindly shut up.

        Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:30:39 GMT

In article <24JUL199213173764@gergo.tamu.edu> dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
#In article <1992Jul24.154016.8370@aero.org#, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes...
##Bush ought to get the UN to hold a Nuremburg like trial of Saddam for
##war crimes, in absentia if necessary. When he is convicted. Put a 
##$1,000,000,000 reward for his capture dead or alive.
## 
##That would solve Bushes Iraq problem.
#
#Not likely -- the tension between the Arab nations (not just Iraq) and
#their feelings towards the US would certainly increase, if not snap.
#The Western countries (ourselves and much of Europe) have meddled in
#Arab affairs for a long time, and nothing has been done to make amends.
#We give the Jewish a homeland in Israel and turn away when they lay claim
#to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (and the Sinai). When an Arab nation
#(Iraq) lays claim to Kuwait, we attack with great force. While I am not
#saying that the idea of Saddam controlling Kuwait is a good thing, I do
#believe that it is an example of Western attitudes towards the Arabs, or
#at the very least it is seen by some Arabs as such.
#
#We cannot continue to act with arrogance towards the Arab nations, or it
#will become much worse. It's bad enough already... 
#
# -                                                                     -
# - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
# - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
# -                                                                     -


I agree completely that the US interferes in Arab affairs far too much.
My post was meant to be a contrast to the action that I think Bush is
far more likely to take which I believe is bombing Iraq.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Recycling Costs and Libertarian Candidates
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:42:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.162222.9403@aero.org>,
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>My city has a recycling progam. I have to seperate waste into three
>categories.
>
>This morning a news item discussed recycling programs. It showed many tons
>of reccyled materials being dumped in land fills. There is not sufficient
>demand for the recycled materials.
>
>I am angry.
>
>Why is there no demand for the recycled materials?
>Why is one required to seperate waste to be hauled to a land fill?
>Who is paying for what?
>If all costs of useage of new materials and of recycled materials, inluding
>disposal, collection etc. which would be cheaper?
>
>What would the libertarian candidates do about this situation, now not
>in some distant future?
>
>Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Well, we definitely wouldn't be forcing people to separate their
garbage if they didn't want to.  What we would be trying to do is
make sure that people had to pay the full costs of disposing of
their refuse.  If recycling is working the money paid to the refuse
collector for the raw recyclable materials should more than pay for
the cost of collecting them.  Refuse costs should include both the
dumping fees for the garbage (which of course should be based on
volume and not be a flat fee for any amount collected) plus an
overhead fee to pay for acquisition of new dump sites if that hasn't
been already figured into the dump fees.

In practice this land replacement cost is rarely figured into the
price that governments charge for refuse disposal so the cost of
dumping is artificially lowered.  The only way to create more of a
market for the recyclables themselves is for individuals to make a
commitment to buying products made from recycled materials.
Unfortunately, in the short term this can mean a commitment to
spending more money since production overhead will be higher for
smaller volume products.  One way to combat this is to line up large
organizations which can use high volumes of some particular type of
recycled material to commit to the program for the PR value even if
it raised their short term costs.  You can also line up pledges to
purchase products made from recycled materials if the supplier can
get the price down to some agreed on level.  A committed market
should encourage both existing suppliers to increase their capacity
and entrepreneurs to look for innovative ways to reduce costs.

Most of this you will note, does not require any action by the
government but only by concerned (and greedy :-) individuals which
is exactly the way that Libertarians think the world should work.

/June
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9162 alt.politics.clinton:754 alt.politics.bush:244
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Date: 25 Jul 1992 03:26:08 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

pat@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:

>sounded a little more alarmist than I really am.  I do *not* think
>Bush would "start a war" to get re-elected.  What I meant was that

Isn't this the guy who promised to do "whatever it takes"
to get elected.

-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: A clear choice
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:03:13 GMT

Mark Sablow writes
    I am amazed at how (almost) anyone will vote for Bush/Quayle this November.

So am I. It is amazing that no other major party managed to come up with  
someone who is better than someone as pathetic as GB. Amazing, but true.

    Clinton is pro-choice.      Bush is not.

Both Clinton and Gore have flip-flopped on this question. If you want to trust  
them not to do that again feel free to.

    Clinton has good education background.

No, Clinton has an absolutely catastrophal education background and plans. As a  
matter of fact it was one of his speeches to the NEA in which he promised that  
he would do their bidding and for which the NEA - arguably the worst opponent  
of education in american - rewarded him with its overwhelming support which  
convinced me that Clinton would be no good even if he was perfect on other  
matters which he isn't.

    Bush said he is our education President? (that's all)

No, Bush is pro-choice. Clinton is anti-choice. Bush has proposed programs  
which would further choice, but even the tiniest of them was shot down by  
Clintons allies in Congress.

    Bush said "no new taxes" (also just lip service).
    Clinton, well, we do not know for certain yet.

We know _perfectly_ well with Clinton. He has _promised_ to raise taxes by  
about $150 billion and government spending by more than that.

    Clinton has Gore, he should make a solid VP.
    Bush has Quayle (proven village idiot)

Gore was the biggest spender in the Senate. Arguably somebody as malicious as  
that is worse than a village idiot.

    12 years of Reagan/Bush/Quayle has left the working
    class over-taxed & the elite given far too many
    advantages at the working class's expense.

The Reagan confronted and brought down the worst enemy this country and western  
civilization has faced in almost 200 years after decades of accommodation  
supported by the Democrats. He helped to stop a half a century of reforming  
this country in the shape of that enemy - again initiated and propelled by the  
party of Clinton.

Not a pleasant choice, I agree, but a clear choice.

	Carl Edman

From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Motor voting
Date: 26 Jul 92  03:10:00 EST

     Mr. Dippold,

     You state that increasing voter registration by using the motor voter method is weak since it seems to translate into only a very slight increase in voting.  But were is the harm???
     It is at least a start.  You pointed out how voter registration increased 19 percent in CO.  That is quite an increase.  And at least it brings more people one step closer to becoming involved.


                              Thank you,

                                          Mark Sablow

     See ya'll on the censorship conference.....

     Save the National Endowment for Arts (NEA)

         **** Vote ****

     ********** CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT ***********

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8929 alt.politics.clinton:333 alt.politics.bush:54
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:04:14 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:
>        If the US attacks Iraq, will that help Mr. Bush?

    Bush may have a "boy who cried wolf" problem if he uses the military
this summer.  The military has gone out on call for Grenada, Pannama
(sp) and Iraq already... Don't you think it will look a bit fishy if
we go back to the place that gave Bush 90% approval ratings just before
the election?  Especially since he needs the boost?
    I bet we do get involved in a shooting war sometime in September.  
Last fall I thought it would happen in August, but Bush is low in the
polls so he needs his boost closer to the election.  I had thought it
might be Cuba, but Iraq is looking very likely.
    I hope the voters will take a good LONG look at why we would get
involved in another adventure overseas.  But then again, no one ever
lost any money betting against the intelligence of American voters...

Tim Smith
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP