HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,dartmouth.politics
Subject: Re: Tsongas` chances
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:11:56 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <1992Apr12.184336.26165@ncsu.edu> tphili@eos.ncsu.edu (TEEBU  PHILIP) writes:

>I am not real suprised by the NY primary ... Could you have imagined Jerry
>Brown getting a majority in any state ... even California?  I can't.  With
>Tsongas not campaigning, that left only one - Slick Willie.

Um... Yes, I can. Try Vermont. I'd also be un-suprised if it happened in
California.

>Tsongas has a tslim to no chance of winning in '96, for there is no way he
>would win 1 tsouthern primary, much less a tsouthern tstate in the general
>election.  I'm sorry about the extra t's, I had to do it.

His chances are very slim by himself. I wonder how he would do with a
southwestern Veep?

>From what I've seen of Tsongas, he is a man of integrity and especially
>pride.  Monkeys would have to fly out of the Slickster's butt before
>Tsongas took the Veep.  Sorry, just cant help myself.

I hope so but Tsongas seemed to be considering it last week. Ugh.
Well, Clinton-Tsongas would make my voting chaice more of an intellectual
challenge.

>IMHO, it would have to take another Black Monday on the stock market for
>George Bush to lose this year.  With an already slimy Dem. presidential
>nominee, all Bush has to do is link him to Congress and especially the
>House Bank & Post Office.

Clinton is dead meat. The 'Dem vs GOP' stuff will be minor compared to the
personal issues.

>Clinton's attack on Bush as the do-nothing president will be just as 'muddy'.
>I am really tired of these issueless presidential campaigns.

You and me both.

>Tsongas could have effectively run against Washington, but then again there
>is no way the party hacks in Washington would ever let him get the nomination.
>Tsongas would have still lost, but his campaign would have been fun to see for
>he stuck to issues.  Even though I dont agree with many of his policies, he
>raised the level of debate and the tenor of the campaign in the begining.
>I probably would have voted for him, if he got to the NC primary on May 5, just
>because the opposition was SOOOOOOO weak.

You can still do a write-in :-)
I agree, his presence in a national campaign would have been a refreshing
bit of serious competence. Bush would have looked dumb. He would have won,
but he would ahve looked dumb doing it.

-G
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU  -  Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
"The Blues isn't about feeling better, it's about making other people
 feel worse, and making a few bucks while you're at it."
	- Bleeding Gums Murphy, "The Simpsons"
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 92 10:24:14 CST
From:         C05705DA@WUVMD
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:         anyone hear of Bo Gritz?
Newsgroups:   alt.politics.elections

The other day I tuned into a talk show on the radio; and some deligate
named Bo Gritz was on it.  He's a low budgeted independent canidate run-
ning for the presidency.  He is for cleaning out politics, via many of the
people behind the scenes who practicly run the office.  Publish notes the
same way Lincoln did in order to recover from the Civil War.  He has no
political ties.  For what I heard, he made a lot of since; but I heard
only about the final 10 minutes.  I don't remember what else he said.
As for his background, he is a retired military officer.

As for my trival input in politics, I think people should stop knocking
liberals, not democrats.  If it wasn't for liberals and liberal type of
thinking, we would still be governed by tories.

Has it occured to anyone that we spend a lot of money on a navy base in
Cuba that is not needed anymore.  Does Cuba posses a serious threat on
the US anymore?

If American companies in the US have to pay taxes, shouldn't foreign
companies in the US?  If American companies had to pay foreign taxes,
then there may be a little encouragement to stay in the US and employ
ourselves.  The nation is only as strong as the people are.

There are many many many complaints that can be made about the governmnent.
However, some of the blame must go on the people.  Some people believe
that it is governments responsibilty to take care of the people.  For
example, East St. Luis, Ill., the bancrupt city, blame the govrnment for
their position and EXPECT the government to bail them out.  I guess the
fact that they are keeping bussinesses away due to their violence and
endless crime is inmaterial.

I am tired of hearing JFK's "what you can do," speech, but it makes a
lot of since.

The government needs to start governing for the people and not just for
the government's benifit, lobby money, etc.

Politicians should also remember that Bill of Rights was established
to protect the people from the government.  Something went astray
somewhere.

ok, I'm done bitching for now.
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Stop beating the Horse (was RE: regulations)
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:11:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <sauiaINN11m@agate.berkeley.edu> jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
>It's dead.  
>Let's go on to other things in life. 
>
>I must say it is interesting to participate in an ivy debate over whether
>or not Americans benefit from legislation.  (we have MIT, Harvard, Columbia
>and of course, ALWAYS (EVER?) OBJECTIVE Berkeley)  I would say that we 
>are in no way representative, and (beware: eletist viewpoint) that we can
>not possibly have the viewpoint of typical Americans.  This especially 
>applies to you Jason.
>
>This thread has deteriorated into people presenting new arguments to JWS, 
>and him repeated the same things (OVER and OVER !!!!!!)  I do not think
>anyone's mind will be altered.  I do not believe Jason to be lacking in 
>his ideas in economics, that is, people should not suggest he take econ 101.
>
>Economics, like social sciences, can use math, statistics, graphs.  But the 
>premise that life can be governed by simple math like f(c) is laughable.
>Workers have a problem determining f.  Like hell, they just can't find 
>work.  And if they have a job, they will probably keep it as long as possible.
>To change jobs will involve not eating until they get it, plus at least
>a week.  Some people do not have savings, Jason.
>
>Let everyone be glad to be in school.  Finding a full time job to live on
>is a bitch right now.  Now, everyone make their last statement, and let
>it go.  This is me signing out.
>
>jason o'rourke


I agree that this debate seems endless and probably will not change anyone's
mind.  My last comment thenn will be that I originally started this thread
b/c everyone was making the blanket assumption that less regualtinos make
more freedom.

However, it it changed to Jason W. Solinsky's version of the world,
I fail to see how we have more freedom.  Unlimited business liability will
make companies more safe -- it seems to me you have to die or be injured
first to enoforce youir rights.  I like my rights to be tried to be
protected to begin with.  That is how I view my freedom.  At with the
gov't, imperfect as it may be, I rather try to influence them to protect my
rights than rely on profit-seeking only businesses that have no interest
in protecting my rights, hence my freedom.

But as Jason O'Rourke says these various arguments will not change JWS
outlook on life and neither are we going to change our opinions.

The Red SOx home opener is starting, I can hear the announcer, spring 
is in the air and I must do some studying.

Perhaps I will start a thread about the rumors of George Bush's affair
with Jennifer Fitzgerald, former staffer, who he supposedly had
an affiar with for 25 years untill 1988.  Is this relelvant in light of
Clinton and Gennifer Flowers?

Bye for now.
From: William.Brown@bbs.oit.unc.edu (William Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Media Reports (Ross Perot)
Summary: A Place to relay Information?
Keywords: Ross Perot, Contact, Media
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:20:45 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

As the information on this possiable Independant canidate is extremely scarce,
I would like to propose that all public access media (electronic, paper, video          
etc.) have their refeneces posted under this subject heading.

Questions, Coments- William.Brown@bbs.oit.unc.edu




--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: reynolds@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds)
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:16:12 GMT

  Let's see if I got these quotes rght:

+Despite what Clinton says the Value Added Tax is NOT a sales tax,
+it is a tax on the profits of business.

*  You mean Clinton was REALLY lying to us all along?  Again?  The VAT
*  in Europe & Britain is tacked right onto the list price.  The customer
...
*  to me.  How is going to differ in the US?

+This is how it works in Europe, maybe, but as I said, it is a tax on
+the profits of business. A business takes its income, deducts the costs
+of materials, etc, and multiplies by 13%, and that is how it will pay

*This is not true....the VAT is not a tax on profits.  The VAT is paid
*on gross sales less purchases from companies on which VAT has already
*been paid.  It is perfectly possible for a company to LOSE MONEY and
*still owe VAT.

    I heard a discussion about a month ago where Mr. Clinton described
a VAT more-or-less as above and told everyone what a horrible idea
it was for the US. Mr. Brown replied words to the effect that he
never proposed a value added tax. He said he was talking about changing
(again, words to the effect) the current "35% of whatever you have left
after you use all the presumed loopholes" tax to a flat 13% tax --
both on profits.

    His tax ideas sound very much like something told me by a Marxist
professor (yes, I know, Marxism == Communism == Stalinism equals, um,
eating babies or something.) He told me that any time you offer a
tax break for certain desirable behavior; such as reinvesting in
new equipment, or decreasing toxic emmissions; corporations look at
it as a bribe. If they can make more through the tax break than it
costs them to do whatever it is they get the break for, they'll do
it. If they can do something you didn't expect, or even want them to
do in order to get the same break, they'll do that, too.

    Given that you want air-scrubbers installed on coal stacks, we
the people do it faster and cheaper if we just give them to Bob's
PowerPlant than if we offer Bob a large handful of money to do it
in the form of a tax break. Bob may not take the money, and he
certainly won't give us back any extra.

    <disclaimer>
    Of course, Mr. Brown may be thinking something entirely different.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:02:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.162542.16840@aero.org>,
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>Think what might happen if the L's are successfull in their campaigns.
>They gradually get more and more individuals in Congress. They don't
>yet have a majority in either House or Senate. They don't have the
>Presidency. They being a minority have not been able to pass any
>Libertarian legislation. Thay have only been able to impede the
>Ds and Rs. Then one election, things are going bad in the country,
>the L's gain the White Housse, and control of both the Senate and
>the House.

I don't think you have a very realistic grasp of the way things work
in a body like a legislature.  There have never been more than three
Libertarians in the Alaska legislature; there are currently two in
New Hampshire and they *are* getting some, although not all, of
their bills passed.  They are able to do it because they don't try
to write things like "The Omnibus <whatever> Act", but rather focus
on narrow and specific legislation that increases individual liberty
is some particular context.

Of course, all they time they're lobbying for those particular bills
they are also busy educating their fellow politicians on general
libertarian theory and the benefits of its consistent application so
that each successive effort gets a little easier.  By the time the
Libertarian Party has achieved either a majority in both houses plus
a Libertarian President or a veto-proof majority in both houses I
think you will find that the country has become very hungry for
libertarian solutions simply because there will already be a track
record of successes to point to.

>Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

/June
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:53:24 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
	<1992Apr13.175520.21422@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>

 
>Bush has the authority to at least tell them to do SOMETHING. He gave them
>a reasonable time for the passage of an economic growth package.  Congress
>is stalling, hoping to stall the recession of course. They don't want to
>take the risk of having the economy improve so Bush will lose in '92 to
>Slick Willie.
 
>What exactly are you saying?  That the President doesn't have the right to
>tell Congress to act in the State of the Union Address?   And what's so
>wrong with giving them 3 months to act?  It's not like Bush only gave them
>a week.   Of course, the House has been too busy with its scandals to
>do anything useful.
 
>William F. Tell

Bush like any other american has the right to tell congress to do
something. The fact is though he has no more power to force them to act
than I do. 

                                                                Tom Oligino
                                                                Carnegie
Mellon 

 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,dartmouth.politics
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Subject: Re: no new york republican primary
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 18:38:13 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr7.233641.16220@acsu.buffalo.edu> jadahlin@acsu.buffalo.edu (sm00sh) writes:
>since when did new york
>cancel its republican primary?  
>
>okay... so maybe buchanan has dropped out... like i said i haven't heard
>anything lately about buchanan i assumed just becuase everyone knows that bush
>is going to win and therefore spent 90% of there coverage on the democrats and
>therefore i missed the 10% of republican coverage...
>
>jason


Does anyone have any information about this?  I haven't heard any news
about new york republican primaries?  (lots of news about democrat
primaries tho)  If this is true and new york cancelled its primary, then
why haven't we heard anything?  If new york didn't cancell its primary,
then why haven't we heard anything?  This sounds worse than the
old soviet system where they at least got a chance to vote
yes or no.  (remember at the end they were actually voting no in enough
numbers to throw some old guard out.)

david redish
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Somebody please post current Democratic delegate counts
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:42:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: math.Apr.11.12.42.07.1992.16464
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
: jazzman@jazzman.vnet.ibm.com  writes:
: >from the NY Times 4/9/92:
: >Democrats             Pledged     Super     Total
: >-------------------------------------------------	
: >Brown                     267         5       272
: >Clinton                  1029       250      1279    ( 47% of 2689 )
: >Tsongas                   508        12       520     
: >Undetermined              223       395       618 
:                                               -----
: Total allocated.............................: 2689
: >Total Delegate Votes                         4288
: Remaining...................................: 1599
: >Needed to Nominate                           2145
: Additional delegates needed by Clinton......:  866    ( 54 % of 1599 )
 
: So Clinton does not have it wrapped up yet!  (I realize that most
: of the uncommitted Super delegates would _probably_ go to him.)

The proportional representation rules make it a virtual certainty that
Clinton will be the only person within striking distance.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Anrea Marrou and The LP Platform (differences?)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:22:07 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX



  We seem to have a large amount of LPers on the net.  Can any of you tell
me the differences between the LP official platform and ideology and how
Marrou would personally interpret such.

  For example, the LP is against big government, but I heard Marrou say
he would let government dwindle by natural attrition (freeze hiring and 
spending, slowly cut programs).  This sounds much more reasonable than
cutting the whole thing out in one big chunck.(more reasonable IMHO, of course.)

  Is Marrou more reasonable than his party's ideology?

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pinky@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Burbank)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:57:21 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In <1992Apr3.143821.28216@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> rhf@decoy.uucp (25421-flood):

>>Jeez, the discussion in this newsgroup seems to eerily mimic the
>>state of political "thinking" in this country's news media.  (Who needs
>>to work to produce real rhetoric when a sound-bite will do?) People spout
>>opinions, supported (at best) by some ghostly experts or paraphrased 
>>journalism (often from questionable sources), then run off.  Relative to the
>>Brown flat-tax proposal, it would seem that things ultimately boil down
>>to SIMPLE ARITHMETIC.  And as far as I can tell, the SIMPLE ARITHMETIC
>>boils down to a tax-break for the majority of tax-payers in this country.

>Yeah, thats the conclusion many people have come to.  But Brown refuses
>to address it.  (The conclusion being that it's going to add $200 BILLION
>to the deficit.  But Brown ignores reporters whenever they ask him about
>that.  Citizens for Tax Justice suggested that it would take a 16.3/16.3
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
where were these guys when uncle ron was screwing up the whole thing
10 years ago?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jazzman@jazzman.vnet.ibm.com 
Subject: Re: Somebody please post current Democratic delegate counts
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 16:05:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jazzman@jazzman.vnet.ibm.com 
Organization: IBM East Fishkill

In article <1955@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host) writes:
> 
> Can some one post the delgate counts so far? including those for
> the retired candidates?  This type of information would help
> determine if and when Clinton has the nomination locked up.
> 
> [ I believe Bush already has the Republican nomination locked up ]
	
from the NY Times 4/9/92:

Democrats             Pledged     Super     Total
-------------------------------------------------	
Brown                     267         5       272
Clinton                  1029       250      1279
Tsongas                   508        12       520     
Undetermined              223       395       618 
Total Delegate Votes                         4288
Needed to Nominate                           2145

Republicans
-------------------------------------------------
Buchanan                                       54
Bush                                          965
Uncommitted                                     8
Total Delegate Votes                         2209
Needed to Nominate                           1105
From: kyrie@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thomas S. Marlowe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: NH Primary & LP
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:14:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>In article <1992Apr7.211632.11030@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kyrie@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thomas S. Marlowe) writes:

>   And what happens when the Libertarian Party comes to Dartmouth
>   College (NH) and Marrou tells some very excited Libertarians (and
>   some people who were just interested in learning more) that it
>   would be a good idea if we encouraged nuclear proliferation so that
>   if every country had a nuclear weapon, we would be a lot safer (the
>   argument being that it would create a true stalemate if Libya,
>   Iran, Iraq, etc.  had nuclear weapons and the other argument being
>   that it is not fair for only the superpowers to have NUKES.)

>I've never heard any libertarian espousing such things. Are you sure
>you are quoting him accurately?

Dead certain.  We pushed him hard on this because it sounded so damn awful.

If you heard someone claim this (and it were a very small audience), wouldn't
you push him hard to clarify his position?

The worst part was reading people defend the viewpoint.  It seems clear to 
me that you do not.


So far as I can tell, by a careful search of the party's platform
>contains no such section.

>What I am about to post is from an old (1990) platform; exact wording
>in the current platform may differ slightly.

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>[quote from platform deleted]
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if they are that ready to flip-flop on a major issue like this, I 
am frightened by them.  This is not an issue that you should claim one
thing in the platform and say another around the 1992 primaries time.

>This might not have any relevance to the current world situation, but
>I don't think you will find many libertarians arguing that nuclear
>proliferation to nations like Iraq and the like is a good thing.

Hey.  I wouldn't have thought so either.  That wasn't originally my original
dispute against the LP.

>--
>Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
>--
>"That government is best which governs least."
>		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.

Unlike the Libertarian Party nowadays.
--
"He eats the droppings from his own table;
thus he manages to stuff himself fuller than the others for a little while,
but meanwhile he forgets how to eat from the table;
thus in time even the droppings cease to fall." - Franz Kafka
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:433 alt.news-media:159