HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Lawyers are not Citizens (was: Tyranny of the Majority)
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:37:21 GMT

From article <Bsy5oL.12C@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger):
> In article <1992Aug7.153234.220@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt) writes:
>>Concerning the stability of an individual rights oriented government:
>>
>>It is a good question, how to make it stable.
>>I have a solution, but it violates individual rights:
>>Lawyers should be prohibited from public office!
>>

An amendment was proposed in about 1810 which did this.

Some research shows that it WAS ratified.
Some research shows that they were ONE state short.

The Colorado State Archives (1859) shows that it (the amendment) was ratified.

Call 214-317-7407 for two (2) back issues of the "Anti-Shyster" magazine.

The subject was "The Missing 13th Amendment", (Part 1 and Part 2)


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Building Inspectors' Liability
Reply-To: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
	<1992Jul31.053224.20871@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Aug4.062238.4860@Cadence.COM>
	<1992Aug6.052926.3471@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 19:56:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug6.052926.3471@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
[private inspectors]
   Sure they would be.  Just make the contract unconditional.

   }Or are you saying private inspectors would be so stupid they wouldn't require
   }you to sign a quitclaim before performing an inspection for you?

   I don't know what a "quitclaim" is.

I don't think Pete does either, as far as I know "quitclaim" is a term
of art that refers to a transfer of title or right. The more common
"release" is actually the _mot juste_.

I'd say direct malfeasance by an inspector, such as failing to note an
obvious defect in his report or failing to inform his customer of the
severity of one should be actionable even in the presence of some
piece of paper that on its face releases the inspector from
responsibility for his professional actions. Otherwise, he has
violated principle number one of contract law: he has offered zero
value for the consideration paid. You might as well hire a carpenter
to follow you around and help you do your own inspection, and pay him
accordingly.

It's not hard for a competent inspector to be bonded and insured, and
it's hard for an incompetent to stay that way.

--

And, of course, you have the commercials where savvy businesspeople
Get Ahead by using their MacIntosh computers to create the ultimate
American business product: a really sharp-looking report.
		-- Dave Barry



--
--  *************************-><-*************************
    ** Craig Presson              pressonc@ingr.com     **
    ** Intergraph Corporation             MS CR1104     **
    ** Huntsville, AL 35894-0001     (205) 730-6176     **
    *************************-><-*************************




Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:769 alt.politics.elections:10515 talk.politics.misc:39513
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner)
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:11:22 EST

rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
> I heard on the news that MTV is covering politics rather seriously now,
> in their own unique way.  Since they are anything but "established," it
> seems they would be much more receptive to covering an "alternative"
> choice like Marrou/Lord.  What do you think?
> 
> Comments?

MTV has interviewed Marrou, in about an in-depth a manner as MTV usually
approaches anything. if enough people bugged them they might be willing
to do something more, perhaps along the line of the Clinton show.

anyone want to start a petition?

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "I'd explain it to you, but your head would blow up." - S. Wright `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: media coverage of ... more generally
Reply-To: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 18:36:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug5.172415.14863@uwm.edu> whir@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Rick Allard) writes:
[press mentions:]
   Marrou 6
   Perot 552
   Clinton 2392

[...]
   This is execrable.  Conclusion from this and last night's activity as
   relayed in the original posting, call your media, cite these numbers
   and demand space.

You can do that, but you will likely be told that it works the other
way around: get your candidate to do something newsworthy and they'll
cover it.

-- 
--
--  *************************-><-*************************
    ** Craig Presson              pressonc@ingr.com     **
    ** Intergraph Corporation             MS CR1104     **
    ** Huntsville, AL 35894-0001     (205) 730-6176     **
    *************************-><-*************************




Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:52:23 GMT

After weeks of reading lots of propaganda from Libertarians, I'd just
like to throw out some questions about same.

I remember as early as last year when a friend asked about my general
political stand and I said, "...Fiscally, I agree with the republicans
on small government and low taxes.  In personal freedoms like legalizing
prostitution, drugs, having sex, drinking, etc., I'm very liberal..."

I think a lot of people agree with this general stand.  In other words,
the libertarian platform, if not taken to it's theoretical end (which is
just too radical for most people to accept), is mainstream, if such a
thing exists, but at least as mainstream as the dems and reps.

Enough of the rambling, now for some questions.  First, how come I
haven't heard of LP until recently, and then, only on Usenet?  Sure, I
have heard jokes that used the name when they could have inserted any
other 3rd party, but not in serious conversation.

*If* Marrou/Lord were to get equal press, *and* they didn't appear as
radical as their followers, I think they'd have a good showing, if not
win.  You even have a woman on the ticket!  I'll even dismiss the second
condition since activists of any group seem radical compared to the
status quo.

Are there any press success stories to tell?  Is there any hope
of getting on a national debate?

I'd at least like to see the Libs get more press.  Can't you guys do
some Barnum and Baily style marketing?  Or are Libs too high-brow for
marketing stunts?

I can see one reason for the lack of press: I can see some producer
saying, "We can't cover one of the 3rd parties without covering them
all, and we can't possibly do that, so forget about covering the Lib
candidate, Murphy." :)  But *if* Libs are the only other candidate on
the ballot in all 50 states, that seems newsworthy.

I heard on the news that MTV is covering politics rather seriously now,
in their own unique way.  Since they are anything but "established," it
seems they would be much more receptive to covering an "alternative"
choice like Marrou/Lord.  What do you think?

Again, I think the platform is too extreme to be politically feasible
(even though I agree with it more than any *other* party's), but the
idea of mixing the Rep.  fiscal policy (in word not deed) with the
liberal view on freedoms (not even the democratic view anymore) is a
winner.

Comments?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:835 alt.politics.elections:10895 talk.politics.misc:40521
From: kschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt)
Subject: Re: Lawyers are not Citizens (was: Tyranny of the Majority)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:19:35 GMT


In article <1992Aug14.173721.2188@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael
Lee) writes:
>From article <Bsy5oL.12C@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger
):
>> In article <1992Aug7.153234.220@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kschudt@magnus.ac
s.ohio-state.edu (Karl C Schudt) writes:
>>>Concerning the stability of an individual rights oriented government:
>>>
>>>It is a good question, how to make it stable.
>>>I have a solution, but it violates individual rights:
>>>Lawyers should be prohibited from public office!
>>>
>
>An amendment was proposed in about 1810 which did this.
>
>Some research shows that it WAS ratified.
>Some research shows that they were ONE state short.
>
>The Colorado State Archives (1859) shows that it (the amendment) was ratified.
>
>Call 214-317-7407 for two (2) back issues of the "Anti-Shyster" magazine.
>
>The subject was "The Missing 13th Amendment", (Part 1 and Part 2)
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
>to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
>that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
>---------------------------->
>Michael Lee
>mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
>214-518-3807

       Here i thought i was being original *sigh*.
We have a precedent with the congressional pay amendment, maybe
we should get this one ratified! (no time limit on ratification in 1810)

Karl Schudt
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:02:45 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> This is an assumption it is easy for the Republicans or Democrats to get
|> on the ballot.  Wrong.  The rules are the same.

Please explain.  It seems to me that if Bush or Clinton had to petition
to get on state ballots, we wouldn't have any republicrats to vote for
this fall.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:35:59 GMT

pete@ctdslc.aero.org (Pete Thomas) writes:
|> YES, YES, YES!  Contact MTV!  Get our names known to the 13-year olds, and
|> true political change is less than a decade away!
|> 
|> I ain't kidding.  People's mindsets and thinking are set very early, and most of
|> the time since all one hears about are Dems and Pubs, that's all one learns to
|> think about.

I actually suggested it because I saw a *major network* reporting on
MTV's coverage.  If MTV started covering an alternative candidate like
they cover alternative music, the major networks would cover that, then
voting adults would see the message.  I guess networks figure it's
newsworthy to tell parents what their kids are doing. :)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: PETITIONING WORK TO BE DONE - 38 LIBERTARIAN STATES
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:27:20 GMT


Source: Joe Dehn <Joe.Dehn@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org>

19 Aug 92  12:40:04



        STATUS OF PETITIONING FOR MARROU/LORD TICKET

States where petitioning is going on or could be going on [6]:

              required   collected   est. to go   deadline
               (valid)      (raw)       (raw)

 New York       15000       17500        4500      Aug 24
 North Dakota    4000        2500        3200      Sep 4
 Minnesota       2000         800        2000      Sep 15
 Rhode Island    1000          50        1350      Sep 4
 Virginia       13920       22000           0*     Aug 21
 Ohio            5000       12300           0*     Aug 20
                                       ------
                                        11050


States where petitions have been submitted but we do not have confirmation of
sufficiency from the state [7]:

 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri

States where no more petition-related work needs to be done to put
   Marrou/Lord ticket on the ballot [38]:

 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
 Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
 Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
 New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
 Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
 Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: PETITIONING WORK TO BE DONE - 35 LIBERTARIAN STATES
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:39:48 GMT


Joe Dehn <Joe.Dehn@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org>

11 Aug 92  13:02:47


 
        STATUS OF PETITIONING FOR MARROU/LORD TICKET 
 
States where petitioning is going on or could be going on [8]: 
  
              required   collected   est. to go   deadline  
               (valid)      (raw)       (raw)  
   
 Virginia       13920       12500        8500      Aug 21 
 New York       15000       13566        8400      Aug 24  
 D.C.            3072         100        6900      Aug 18  
 North Dakota    4000         600        5100      Sep 4  
 Ohio            5000        7000        5000      Aug 20  
 Minnesota       2000         400        2400      Sep 15  
 Rhode Island    1000          10        1390      Sep 4  
 Connecticut    14620       22350           0*     Aug 12 
                                       ------  
                                        37690 
 
  ("0*" to go means target has been reached but additional signatures 
   may still be collected before final turn-in) 
 
States where petitioning work is complete but the petitions have not been
submitted to the state [1]: 
 
 Tennessee 
 
States where petitions have been submitted but we do not have confirmation of
sufficiency from the state [7]: 
 
 Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, West Virginia 
 
States where no more petition-related work needs to be done to put 
   Marrou/Lord ticket on the ballot [35]: 
 
 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, 
 Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 
 Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, 
 New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
 South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, 
 Wisconsin, Wyoming 

--- Opus-CBCS 1.13
 * Origin: Dehnbase Emerald (1:104/418.0)


--  
Internet: LPUS.Echo@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: PETITIONING WORK TO BE DONE - 37 LIBERTARIAN STATES
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:18:01 GMT


        STATUS OF PETITIONING FOR MARROU/LORD TICKET

States where petitioning is going on or could be going on [7]:

              required   collected   est. to go   deadline
               (valid)      (raw)       (raw)

 New York       15000       15000        7000      Aug 24
 D.C.            3072         500        6500      Aug 18
 North Dakota    4000        1000        4700      Sep 4
 Virginia       13920       16500        4500      Aug 21
 Ohio            5000        9200        2800      Aug 20
 Minnesota       2000         800        2000      Sep 15
 Rhode Island    1000          10        1390      Sep 4
                                       ------
                                        28890

States where petitions have been submitted but we do not have confirmation of
sufficiency from the state [7]:

 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri,
 West Virginia

States where no more petition-related work needs to be done to put
   Marrou/Lord ticket on the ballot [37]:

 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
 Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
 Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
 New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
 Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
 Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: CONNECTICUT PETITIONS
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:20:46 GMT


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| LIBERTARIAN PARTY                                       Libertarian Party |
| Defenders of Liberty           NEWS              1528 Pennsylvania Ave SE |
|                                ----                  Washington, DC 20003 |
|                                                              202-543-1988 |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


For immediate release.                             FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
12 August 1992                 Gary Johnson, LP Media Relations: 512-441-6378
                        Bruce Baechler, Marrou/Lord Campaign HQ: 202-546-6095
                  Rich Loomis, Connecticut Petition Coordinator: 203-688-6426



           JUST SEVEN 'STATES' TO GO IN MARROU/LORD PETITIONING

                22,000 Signatures Submitted in Connecticut


The Libertarian Party national candidates ANDRE MARROU for President and
NANCY LORD for Vice President are one state closer to their goal of
appearing on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Supporters of the Marrou/Lord ticket today finished submitting over 22,000
signatures to the Connecticut Secretary of State, according to Connecticut
LP petition drive coordinator Rich Loomis.  The requirement under
Connecticut law is 14,620 signatures.  Town election officials still must
check many of the signatures to determine how many are valid, but party
officials expect the number to be sufficient.

The Libertarian ticket is expected to be the only alternative to the
Republicans and Democrats on the ballot all across the country this
November.  All other "third party" campaigns have already missed filing
deadlines in several states.  The Libertarian Party presidential ticket was
on the ballot in 46 states plus D.C. in 1988.

Petitioning for Marrou/Lord is still going on in Minnesota, New York, North
Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

                                   [END]
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1878 alt.politics.perot:1266 talk.politics.guns:19251
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:31:56 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <oeoc808@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>Perhaps the anti-gun lobby should learn something from the anti-smoking
>people.  You have to make it so that people do not want guns.  Then, making
>them illegal is irrelevant.  Of course, to do this, something will have to
>be done about the crime rate (which circles back around to the original
>argument).

No offense, Jeff, but I'm not comfortable with this approach.  I don't
want to "make it" so that people don't like/dislike anything.  I don't
believe in trying to manipulate peoples' attitudes in that way.

   don
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2524 sci.environment:10792
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CLINTON TEXT: ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR ANNOUNCED
Summary: Inappropriate postings for sci; should go to talk.
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:12:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI


Keep this political crap out of SCI.environment.
				^^^
-- 
Russ Cage                  wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (until 8/28/92)
            russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu (until whenever)
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *
                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2304 talk.politics.guns:19665
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:42:12 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: locusts.berkeley.edu

In article <183137@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:

>>>I am not saying if you remove the means for the people to defend
>>>themselves from internal fascism that it WILL happen, only that it
>>>COULD happen.  Why take chances?

>>Precisely the point......

>No, it isn't.  This is no longer a reason for supporting the RKBA.

I'm afraid I don't follow this: Are you saying that the United States is
now totally safe from repressive government, and will always remain
so? I would find this a very difficult view to believe. 
If not, why is a safeguard against such repression (the people's
right to "alter or abolish" any government to which they do not
consent) no longer relevant?

					  Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
					  (even though I'm
					  still using my
					  Berkeley account.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:04:25 GMT

In article <183137@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>In article <wa0m75f.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.211933.27226@gozer.mv.com> klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:
>>>I am not saying if you remove the means for the people to defend
>>>themselves from internal fascism that it WILL happen, only that it
>>>COULD happen.  Why take chances?
>>
>>
>>Precisely the point......
>>
>No, it isn't.  This is no longer a reason for supporting the RKBA.

Bullshit.  It IS a valid reason.  Why don't you take your head 
out of your ass, George?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics