HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:49:01 CDT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|
|	I guess that's the trouble with our political system. It
|discriminates against third parties. I'm not sure what will change it
|except a revolt against the two parties' leaderships and their desire
|to keep their monopoly on politics. I wonder how many pols will become
|fed up with having to coexist with ideological non-soulmates, as they
|currently have to do. Just consider the divisions in the Democratic
|and the Republican Parties; if multiple parties were allowed, the two
|parties would fragment rather quickly.
|
|	There are a number of routes for making opportunities for
|multiple parties:

As far as I understand it, there are no laws which enforce a two 
party system.  The two party system is basically a result of how 
"majority" is defined in different constitutions.  Define it one
way and you get something like Hotelling's law (in political science)
indicating that each party tries to have the big tent.  Define it
another way and you get multiple coalitions and coalition black-
mail etc.  (Ie: Is in some places "majority" is defined to be 
"more than 50%".  In other places it is "the party with the mostest." ;^)
In this "winner takes all" system, in order to have the majority
you need to invite the most people into your party.  This results
in a drive for a two party system.  If ever a third party is able
to compete then one of the others will die.  (As  happened when
the Republican party was created and (was it the Wigs?) died.)

The risk that Perot posed was the death of one of the parties.  At the
time it was not real clear which party that would be.  When it appeared
to be the Democratic party, Perot pulled out of the race.  When it
became more clear that it would have been the Republican party he
wanted to get back in, but then it was too late.

|	Cross-endorsement, currently practiced in New York State. A
|party can endorse a candidate from another party.

In other words turn the parties into PACs.

|	Proportional representation, practiced in nearly all of the
|rest of the democratic world. Parties would send in legislators in
|proportion to how many votes they received.

And they create conditions ripe for coalition blackmail. 

|
|	Runoff elections. The two top vote-getters would enter a
|second election. If one's candidate loses the first time around, one
|still has a choice of the lesser of two evils :-)
|
|	Does the Libertarian Party have any position on these?

Then we haven't discussed aproval voting.

---
--David C. Adams    dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:11:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.155610.28828@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <Bsy8DI.4xG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>
>> I really was speaking from the viewpoint
>> that most of us in this society hold.  I think most of us are willing to
>> make this assumption as in rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>> happiness.  Please note that the right to liberty or the pursuit of
>> happiness are contingent on the right to life.  The right to life,
>> though, is not dependent on liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  They
>> modify the right to life.  All three have been described as inalienable.
>> But from a logical standpoint the right to life must take precedence and
>> always has in this society.  Note that depriving someone of life can get
>> you the death penalty
>
>Note that the right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over the right
>to life.  E.g., killing a rapist will not get you charged.

In some states, but not others....

As a recent legislative innovation...

For purposes of deterrence...

As an analogy to the abortion issue, this legal factoid has negligible value.

								- Kevin
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 30 Aug 1992 04:55:49 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.173533.564@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>Why?  After all, the vast majority of such people are retirees.  

such = living off capital gains

Documentation, please?

andy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: dnmao%mich.hepnet%LBL.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Subject:      RE: A reply to xpeng's attack
Reply-To: dnmao%mich.hepnet%LBL.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:38:31 GMT

Xiao Deng,

I am really feeling sympathy for you and your family. You must have been
mad for once, either in 1986 or now. Let me tell you a simple fact, you
educated guy: Chen GongBo was one of the twelve (or thirteen?) CCP
representatives at 1th Congress in 1921. However, in his thesis for master
degree at Coulumbia University in 1925, he said almost everything against
CCP. So, do not tell us your glorious history (who knows anyway!) to prove
you are not the son of CCP. You talked about promise in your first mail.
That is kind of promise like 'if you do not shit I won't cut off your ass
hole'. How we should appreciate for the existence of our ass hole! However,
our ass hole is still  not safe because as we all know we must shit and
eventually lose the ass hole. Therefore, do not blame others who lost their
ass hole while you are sitting on your toilet, reading PLAYBOY or something
like that. (Sorry, I could not found any civilized language because it is
already taken by you guys to make shit! --- again, shit ;^) )

BTW, A source told me that your main motivation to participate the student
movement in 1986 was to seduce a daughter of a high rank official. Is that
true? I would rather not believe it so that we can still have the conclusion
mentioned at the beginning of this message. 8-(

Lao Mao (Dongning)

P.S. You might call me another attacker, and I might be. But my target is
here, not in the CCP's prison.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: CNEWS@conan.ie.orst.edu
Subject:      Re: The 4th IFCSS Council News Release CN4005
Reply-To: CNEWS@conan.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:40:57 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

> Date:       Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:44:00 EDT
> From:       HWANGK%VTCC1.BITNET@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
> Subject:    The 4th IFCSS Council News Release CN4005
>
> Dear IFCSS Members:
>
>     The First Teleconference of this term of IFCSS Council began at 10:00
> EDT on August 15th was adjorned at 1:00 EDT on August 16th. Enclosed
> please find what have been done in the Conference. Please express your opinion
> to the Council members of your area(find their adresses at the end).
>
>                        Kai Hwang(signed)
>
> =============================================================================
> 1. The IFCSS Annual Budget For Fiscal Year of 1992-1993 Proposed by IFCSS
>    Headquarters was approved by IFCSS Council.
> ==============================================================================
>
>                       IFCSS Annual Budget
>                     Fiscal Year of 1992-1993
>
>
> A.   Revenue (Estimated)
>                                                        Annually
>
>      Donation from Society                             $170,000
>
>      Student Service                                   $100,000
>
>      Grant from Foundations                            $100,000
>      ----------------------------------------------------------
>      Total Revenue                                     $370,000
>
> IFCSS Annual Budget For Fiscal Year of 1992-1993 was approved
> by IFCSS Council through Ananimous Consent on August 15th,1992
> =========================

    Where is the money left from the 3rd term IFCSS HQ?
    According to the financial report dated June 15 by Mr. Geng Xiao,
    the balance then was about $92,000.

=======================
ZK Xu
Oregon State University
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Zhang Yun Fei <zhang@BUAST7.BU.EDU>
Subject:      Re:  China's Interests
Reply-To: Zhang Yun Fei <zhang@BUAST7.BU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:05:26 GMT

William Deng wrote:

> No matter who do something harmful to China's interests, I will fight against
> him/her.

How about CCP? Are you dare to fight as you claimed? :-)

> I am against anybody who try all means to pursue his ends, whenever his
> behavior doesn't hurt China's interest, Chinese people's interests.

Are you one of that "anybody" who is doing shows over China-NT while claiming
interest somewhere else?

> I knew that my post would make some netters who are very urgent to make
> S.1216 law hate me, because to their eyes ST event help S.1216. See how
> quick a new open letter to Bush emerge. Relax, you will be green finally.
> And I also support S.1216 and acted showhow as a local coordinator.

Good, you did not forget you were among a "handful" "very urgent" people.
However, you seems already forget why you needed the "protection bill". Do not
be shy away from the word "protection bill", use S.1216 will not solve your
problem. Could you sleep soundly after you claimed benefits from both sides?

> But where is China? Are you still Chinese? When NBC slapped Chinese in its
> Olimpics coverage, why didn't I see any quick response from you and S*VD?

Where are you then?

> William Deng

Yun Fei Zhang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xpeng@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      Re: China's Interests
Reply-To: xpeng@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:33:41 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

>The definetion of China's interests: the accumulation of all Chinese'
>interests.  W.Deng

You forget that most of the interests are controlled by CCP and their children
or addopted children though they are the products of ordinary Chinese efforts.

>It is very strange that so many CSS enjoy bashing China while China ... -Deng-

Bashing CCP is NOT equal to bashing China.  If you like to be confused it's
fine.  It has been a consistant fomular for you.  So when you say you love
China it means you love CCP to me.  So when you are talking about the China's
interest it sounds like CCP's interest to me.  No wonder you will fight for
it.  I had been trained for many years that China = CCP, Love CCP = Love China
= Love Socialism and China's interests and CCP's interests are above
everything (Of course including the Chinese people's lives since they are not
the interests).

Who is going to be blamed for the risk of losing MFN?  The victims of 6.4?
Wang Jun-tao and other prisoners of conscience?  Shen Tong and other
dissidents?  Why not.  They can not even argue with you.

>Yes, I share Mr.Bao's points.   W.Deng

Of course.  You don't need to say that.  You you said NO do you expect netters
would believe so?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "~{QG9p~}" <yawei@BRONZE.UCS.indiana.edu>
Subject:      China's "interest"
Reply-To: "~{QG9p~}" <yawei@BRONZE.UCS.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:50:25 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

There seem to be some VERY confused people on CHINA-NT.

Let's assume that there is such a thing as "China's interest."  Let's
assume again that getting MFN status from the US is in the best of China's
collective interest.  Let's assume further that anyone endangering
China's "interest" should be condemned.  There, have we had enough of
a common ground to carry out a conversation?

Now, who was it that really "endanger"  China's "interest?"  Was it
Shen Tong in trying to set up a Democracy for China Fund office, or
was it CCP's arresting Shen Tong?  Isn't the answer obvious?  [Oh,
Come on!  Supposed CCP just leave Shen Tong alone instead of arresting
him, then the MFN status wouldn't be endangered, right?  Why can't
CCP just leave the kid alone?  What could he have done? ]

Now that we have firmly established who was it that actually endangered
China's "interest", would William Deng and his cohorts join me now
in condemning the CCP's silly acts?

I make no secret of my overwhelming distaste of overzealous patriots,
but I also don't like to spare any overzealous patriots that I can
make fun of. Thanks for the opportunity, guys.

Now if you'd all forgive me, I've got to sign myself off here [hope I
have stayed long enough for this article to go through.]  I'll see
what you have to say on usenet.

  Ya-Gui Wei
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: 89P2820@CSDVAX.CSD.UNSW.EDU.AU
Subject:      Re: a reply to xpeng's attack
Reply-To: 89P2820@CSDVAX.CSD.UNSW.EDU.AU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 07:25:20 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Subj:	A reply to xpeng's attack
<	To clear my name and avoid further personal attack, I have to reveal
<some of my previous activities so you could judge whether I am qualified to
<call myself a demcracy-fighter:
<	In 1986 students movement, I was the first guy in the whole movement
<who stood up to call students to demonstate in the street. When: Dec.4,1986.
<Where: School hall of USTC (KeDa), Hefei. Audience: almost all KeDa people.
<I was also a major organizer of the first demonstation in the 86 movement
<which was held on Dec.5,1986 in Hefei, Anhui, and a major dialogue
<representative to have dialogue with officers held in the Anhui provincial
<headquarter at the same day.

<William Deng

To clear one's name, behave oneself. Past is past, nobody will be care that
much !

Yaming
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Ming Cheng <cheng@CS.BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject:      Li Peng and Shen Tong
Reply-To: Ming Cheng <cheng@CS.BUFFALO.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:34:11 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

 I very respect Shen Tong's brave action and wuold like to signe
my name on the protect letter for Shen Tong.  W. Deng's first
message could be questioned for the attitude of the post.
 But at thist criticle moment of China's reform, Shen Tong's
plan may not be best one, Such high profit action may be a excuse
of Li Peng et al hard line to block any progress of the reformer.
Should we give some sort of "support" to the reformer ?
Of cause I may be wrong, but such question shuld be allowed to
addressed at China-net.
 I though W. Deng's second " clear" post may also be necessary.
If you have some argument for your point, just let us know.  The
history can not prove what you are doing now is right, that should
be hold for anyone, include TAM heros.
Let us try our best to get Shen Tong back, and They should be
more carefuly when take next action, not only for themself.

Cheng Ming
Buffalo
Sorry, " may also be" should be " may be not"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: HE@NIEHS.BITNET
Subject:      Response to W. Deng 's "Today's CCP is not the old CCP"
Reply-To: HE@NIEHS.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:10:00 GMT

Dear Mr. Deng:

I do not agree on your conclusion that Today's CCP is not the old CCP", but
I do agree on that "Today's CCP" is no more a communist political party.  I also
believe that the "old CCP" was not a cummunist political party either"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: "New" policy" and "Shen Tong was arrested"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.040423.6258@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, yongbai@physics.su.OZ.AU (Yongbai Yin) writes...
>	Can the "New Policy" be applied to the case of Shen Tong?  Apparaently,
>Shen had not got chance to do something "harmful" to China during this returningHave a look on what kind of excuses would be found for Shen.  Probabily, CCP
>will argue:
>		1.	He is not CSS.
>		2.	Crime was found after returning.
>		3.	"New Policy" does not concern what CSS have done
>			before left China.
>		4.	"New Policy" is not a law formulated by legistive, so
>			the "New Policy" is not necessarily followed by
>			executive department.
> 
>		5.	The "New Policy" will be executed after approved by
>			the "Rubber Stamp".
>		6.	"New Policy" can be only applied to 95% of CSS, but
>			not the rest.
> 
>		.........
> 
There are plenty excuse CCP could find: Shen did not denounce and quit
the organization (Democracy for China Fund). He "snecked" back, probably
with fake document (my guess, otherwise, why is "sneck"). He went to back
for "counterrevolution activity (setting up office for DCF)" etc.
All of them were not permitted in the New Policy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: YANPEI DENG <YD2%ORNLSTC.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
Subject:      Shen Tong's Message
Reply-To: YANPEI DENG <YD2%ORNLSTC.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:43:00 GMT

        At about 7:35 am (ET) this morning, ABC's Good Morning
America broadcasted a short video message left by Shen Tong before
he went back to China. "I was a student leader in Tiananmen Square
in the spring of 1989," he introduced himself, "I will go back to China
and fight for freedom."  He said "I don't know what will happen to
me after I go back" on the video tape.

* * * * * * *
        The quotes aren't exact the original words.  And, it looks that
it's part of a campaign to encourage people to vote for the
upcoming elections because it showed a logo at the same time on the
video having words such as, Vote for the Dream, on it.  I might
be wrong on this.  The tape also showed the armed soldiers, tanks,
and the fire at that 6.4 night.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Bo Xiong <xiong@BSU-CS.BSU.EDU>
Subject:      Who Is In Control in MFN Issue vs SHEN Tong's Case?
Reply-To: Bo Xiong <xiong@BSU-CS.BSU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 07:48:41 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

It's amazing that some dude like William D. is only able to see one side of
the story with one eye while raising both hands: left one to grab greencard
and right one to apologize for the Chinese government with whom he himself
doesn't want to live and seeks the protection bill from U.S. congress as
a local coordinator.

Who is "well prepared" ?

W. Deng said it's SHEN Tong, fine, no argument on that, but the hell full
truth /picture is that the government has been MUCH BETTER prepared for ANY
political arrest since 1949! The stupid ST at most had three years to prepare.

Look at ST's case: why he was not arrested until a few weeks after he
returned?   Wasn't the arrest a well scheduled one?  Apparently the then
anti-CCP W. D. completely "forgot" to keep his another eye on this, doesn't
look like he had any experience with CCP's nastiness at all ... :-)

Who Is In Control from very beginning of the case?

The poor guy SHEN Tong who is under house arrest?  No kidding, what he
could have achieved if he had not arrested? (His arrest doesn't necessarily
mean that he has achieved anything though)

Had CCP quietly expelled him or simply let him safely leave (and then
quietly arrest his contacts left behind in China as they have been doing),
would the Government/China be in danger of losing something as big as MFN?

The neo-economist W. Deng further sought into absurdity and figured out that
ST was to help Bill Clinton to defeat Bush, come on dude, go to PRC Consulate
General at Los Angeles and tell them that they CCP really bungled things in
ST's case concerning their helping Bush to get re-elected :-)

By the way, is your Chinese name "DENG Gang"?  A CSS I know of has been
wondering for quite long time that how come a guy named DENG Gang in Univ.
of Arizona told someone else that the PRC Consulate in L.A. wouldn't extend
his passport not long after he mailed his passport to L.A. Consulate
(he was/is NOT in Univ. of Arizona but not too far from W. DENG) ...

Finally, I have NO stand on the MFN issue, just can't help thinking WHO is
in control of the situation in the MFN vs ST case as the neo-economist is
so concerned about ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bo Xiong in Chicago
From: zeng@mth.msu.edu (Zhonggang Zeng)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:      IFCSS Statement on Shen Tong's Arrest
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:01:59 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University

In article <1992Sep3.060200.933@nntp.hut.fi> ldong@hila.hut.fi (Liyun Dong) writes:
>In article <BtyJCw.7w1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
>>
>>
>>I would think Shen Tong's case tells us that if one still have
>>"anti-government" thought in his mind, he will be watched if not
>>arrested. 
>  99 percent of Chinese may have this kind of thought. But they seem
>  not worry about being arrested.

You are wrong, friend. Because they are worrying of being arrested, so
they just keep the thought in mind. One the other hand, the 1% people's
worrying is enough to justify the need of freedom. Everybody can someday
become the 1%.

>>
>>But there is a reality. The reality is that 6/4 Massacre is a
>>crime, the Chinese government is guilty, some leaders are especially
>>guilty. Unless justice is done, there will always be an outcry
>  Chinese Government is only guilty by US laws. But US laws does not 
>  apply in China. 

Even based on China's law and constitution, CCP committed a lot crimes!

>  You have your freedom to choose whether to outcry or not.
>  I think Mr. Shen is a brave guy. But his action may not be proper.

What kind of "not proper"? Moral? Legal? Or Stratigical? If you think
his action is morally or legally not proper, please enlight me. If it
is stratigical, let's leave this to Shen Tong to calculate. I think
it is not proper to say another one's moral action "not proper", at
least at this moment.

>>
>>Xiao Li
>
>  Huachen Pan
>  Finland
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Gu yeming <yeming@SCLERA.PHYSICS.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject:      What are we debating
Reply-To: Gu yeming <yeming@SCLERA.PHYSICS.ARIZONA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:20:18 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

Dear netters on China-net,

After going through the flooded messages in the past few
days, one can see that many of us are much better in finding
difference than finding common ground, and many are easily
guided away by some misleading questions and arguments.

One trigger of the debate is a posting of W Deng, which
started with the question "Come on, what protest for?"
Many would agree that the answer is too obvious --
protest the human rights violation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It seems this should be the end of any debate on whether
we should protest.

However, some people keep trying to mislead the issue to
Shen Tong's motive, to the timing of the event, to the MFN,
to personal glorious history, etc., and more and more debates
have been on these issues.

Someone said: "People have no principle have no class."

I believe the principle of the current issue is: human rights.
We should not trade this principle for anything else.

If we have learned anything from the bloody history of modern
China, it is that human rights and "science & democracy" should
not be given up for anything.  No excuses.

Some may benifit by tolerating dictatorship and human-rights
violation at certain times; but the tragic, horrible thing
may happen to you tomorrow, if you don't raise up and fight
against it today.

If someone tells us that we should forget about human rights
now, because it's against the inerest of China, could any of
us believe it?

If someone tells us that we should ignore Shen Tong's case,
because he might have improper motivation to get his human
rights violated (??), or, because his bad "timing", could
we agree with him?

Let's spend more time and energy to do something helpful,
to Shen Tong and his friends, to ourselves.  Let's respond
to the calls of IFCSS and SVDC, and ignore those senseless
questions and conspiracies.

Y. Gu
U. of Arizona
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china