HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: MLC PR: LP has over 500 candidates
Apparently-From: microsoft!tomis
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:34:59 GMT

Marrou/Lord Campaign  1528 Pennsylvania Ave SE  Washington, DC 20003

For Release: July 21, 1992      Contact:   Me-Me King - (602) 325-0647
                                           Bruce Baechler - (202) 546-6095


        Libertarians field over 140 Congressional Candidates

     Over 140 candidates for Congress will join standard bearers
Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord on the Libertarian ticket this Fall,
Party officials announced today. Altogether over 500 Libertarian
candidates, including a number of incumbents, will run for office in
every state.
     "We expect to win races in several states and to at least mount
strong challenges in many others," said Stephen Dasbach, National
Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party. "In 1990 we only ran 60
candidates for Congress but they still received over two million
votes. This year we expect to do much better. We have more than twice
as many candidates and people are fed up with the two incumbent
parties."
     "Running candidates at all levels is what distinguishes an
ongoing political party such as the Libertarian Party from a flash-
in-the-pan like Ross Perot," continued Dasbach. "When we elect a
President we will already have a large number of Libertarians in
Congress who will work to support his or her programs. Perot was just
a protest movement -- we are an effective alternative to politics as
usual."
     Andre Marrou, Libertarian Party nominee for President, is a
former member of the Alaska House of Representatives, serving from
1985-87. His running mate, Dr. Nancy Lord, is a practicing attorney
who also holds a medical degree.
     Andre Marrou and Libertarian Party National Chair Mary Gingell
will hold a news conference Friday, July 24 at 11:15 AM to address
the Perot withdrawal and other issues. The conference will be held at
the Lisagor Room on the 13th floor of the National Press Club
building. 
     The Libertarian Party is the nation's third largest.  It's
platform supports civil liberties, economic freedom and a non-
interventionist foreign policy.  Over a hundred Libertarians have
been elected to office across the country.  

                           # # # 30 # # #


Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:44:05 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: What is Marrou's position on research and space exp?
	<1992Jul28.094213.25829@techbook.com>
Distribution: usa

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 28-Jul-92 Re: What is
Marrou's positi.. Nick Szabo@techbook.com (975)

> In article <AeQjeK600h5y4jBu9e@andrew.cmu.edu> Conrad Poelman
> <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> >Since the government
> >actually buys our defense systems from private companies, shouldn't the
> >companies be doing the research to develop technology for the
> >next-generation fighter/ship/satellite/communications systems/whatver
> >themselves instead of some bureaucratic government agency?

> They do this now, to some extent, and the incentives for that might be
> increased.  Potentially, we could set up a system where the government 
> competitively buys finished products, instead of giving detailed 
> specifications.  That might get on the Libertarian list of experiments to 
> try, but for now I don't think it's a major priority.  The major Libertarian 
> defense plank for reducing defense costs is to stop defending Germany and 
> Japan.

Well that's all well and good, but in your post you kept referring to
the goal to "eliminate government non-defense research".  Now you say,
in the long run maybe we could eliminate government defense research
too, but not for now.  Well, why eliminate non-defense research now?  By
having the government sponsor research, we allow it to be freely
distributed rather than be proprietary.  This eliminates wasted
duplication of effort, and helps research in general progress at a
faster pace than if everyone was keeping their results for a single
company.  I don't dispute your claims about how government bureaucrats
sometimes focus research in the wrong areas, but how do you know that
this waste is more than the waste of five different research teams all
working on the same project and keeping their results secret from the
others?

By addressing the issues that make eliminating defense research
difficult, not addressing the issues that make eliminating non-defense
research difficult, and calling for elimination of all "non-defense
research", you make youself sound like a Republican. (Gasp!)

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.censorship
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady!
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:14:28 GMT

In article <l6hq3uINNa3t@alcor.usc.edu> rone@alcor.usc.edu
(Ron Echeverri) writes:
>In article <XDc5NB3w164w@micro-c.mcds.com> speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>>If there were no movie rating system, how would you stop a 8 year old
>>from seeing "Silence of the Lambs" ?  

When I was 8, how did my mother stop me from using "dirty words"?

A: She told me not to.

If the 8 year old were my child, I'd stop him the same way I'd stop
him from doing anything else I didn't want him to do.  If he weren't
my child, then it's not up to me to stop him.

>How many 8 year olds would actually understand it?

A pornographer once defended himself by saying "If children can't
understand it, then it's not corrupting them.  And if they can
understand it, then they can't be corrupted any further."

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dtl8v@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Heraclitus)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:19:00 GMT


  There may be a case that ANY President would use war as an election
tool to hold on to power.  That does not make a whole lot of sense
today, when people care more about money than about war abroad.  War
with Iraq did not give the economy the boost it was expected to, and
new war wouldn't do any better.  In fact, it would be hard to go back
in and attack Iraq again even with the new problems the UN has
encountered over there.
  As to the UN, no President in history has followed its directives
unless it suited the interests of this country.  The U.S. is unique in
its influence on the United Nations, admittedly, and we have the power
to make or break it.  Fortunately, George Bush has found a way to
revitalize it in recent years, although that support is fragile at
best.
  Bush's record on diplomacy is outstanding, whether you consider way
a method of diplomacy or not.  He's not Richard Nixon, perhaps, but
he's been lucky enough to avoid a Watergate such as Reagan, Carter,
Kennedy, and even LBJ had.  Of course, it's an anachronism to go that
far back in the past, but all Presidents in all places on the
political spectrum have had problems under public scrutiny.  And some
fared better than others during but not after their terms, after but
not during their terms, and even neither.  Few in history have fared
well both ways.

Doug Lamb
University of Virginia
dtl8v@Virginia.EDU
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8991 talk.politics.misc:35530
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Adviser on _The Plan_
Date: 23 Jul 1992 16:01:39 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <18503@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|> barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
|> 
|> } thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> } 
|> } >In article <1992Jul17.223615.27187@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.
|> } >>The top 1% and the top %10 pay a larger share of income taxes
|> } >>(percentagewise) than ever before.
|> } >I'd like to see a source for this.
|> } 
|> } Of course they are paying a larger percentage of the total tax 
|> } collected.  Their incomes were the only ones which went up
|> } significantly during the reigns of Reagan/Bush.  They still
|> } paid a smaller percentage of their *own* income in taxes after
|> } the rule of idiots.
|> 
|> So what?  If the proper role of a tax is to raise money for government,
|> and rich people paid more in taxes, why should anybody care whether
|> or not they became better off in the process?
|> 
|> Or are you one of these people who believe in the superstition that
|> the country over all would be better off if rich people weren't, and
|> toward that end, the proper role of a tax is to make people less
|> well-off than they otherwise would have been?

Nice shot but you missed.  No one cares if the rich get richer. 
The complaint is that government takes everyones taxes and use them
to help the rich get richer.  The American Dream assumes we all have
a reasonable opportunity to get rich.  If the government, through
economic policy, protects the fraternity of the rich, then it is in
essence stealing from the poor and violating the principles the
country was built upon.
From: csp48@seq1.keele.ac.uk (J.W. Kirriemuir)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Predictions for USA campaign
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:13:33 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England


Just thought I'd add my two cents worth.

My predicitions for what happens between now and Polling Day in
the USA :


(1) The USA will take some form of military action somewhere; judging by
the recent news reports, a sudden air strike against Iraq is more likely
than anything involving Yogoslavia. A side reason for this (which was
picked up on in last nights newsnight on BB2) is that Bush's popularity
would take a welcome boost.

(2) Something bigger and more damaging than before will hit Clinton
and/or Gore, especially if they are riding high in the polls. Don't know
what it will be, but it will come (late september / early october).

(3) Reagan will be drafted in at some point to bolster the image of
Bush; James Baker will also move into a prominent position (and if
things get any more desperate, might just elbow DQ out of the VP slot on
the republican ticket).

(4) Should Bush win (and I am not predicting who will), then sometime in
the spring of next year, a few persistent stories will break about
Republican officials underhandedly smearing the opposition.


Personally, I hope that Bill wins; should people start deciding in large
numbers whether he is worthy of office because he MAY have had his pants
down in the region of women other than his missus, then I think they are
making a big mistake; witness what is currently dominating the news
headlines over here, in the first few months of the new term.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Upcoming debates?
Organization: Clark University
Date: 22 JUL 92 00:18:37 GMT

Does anyone know if there are debates scheduled yet for any of the candidates?
I haven't heard any mention of it recently.

Strangely enough, I'd almost be more interested in a debate between the
vice's than the presedential candidates. Despite Quayle's frequent
blabberings and misspellings, I find him to be (gasp) more articulate
and more aggressively Republican than Bush when it comes to discussing
GOP policies.

..not that Quayle wouldn't get grilled by Gore...

Bart
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul)
Subject: Re: Arsenio Hall is a hypocrite
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 19:42:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.163536.27502@bradley.bradley.edu>, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
|> In <1992Jul21.015812.1090@leland.Stanford.EDU> jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:
|> >Either Hall is afflicted with Alzheimer's disease or he's a
|> >blatant hypocrite.
|> 
|> Or maybe he's just a little petty and pissed at Bush.  What is your
|> problem with the man to make a mountain out of such an anthill?

He made it sound as it Bush was being a jerk for saying he wouldn't go
on his show when he invited him.  If Hall is going to use his show as a
political soap box and point out the failings of others he ought to have
the integrity to attempt to be consistent.

|> -- 
|> Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                           An honest relationship.

-- 
| James W. Brown                | Grad school is like drugs--   |
| Chemistry Grad Student        | it's for those who can't      |
|                               | handle the real world.        |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Control of Congress (was: More Bush-it)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:15:09 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <3494@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, psg+@pitt.edu sez:
>Change huh?  Let's see Democrats have controled Congress for the last 40 years,
>we've had Kennedy, Johnson and Carter in the same time and your definition of 
>change is Bill Clinton.
>
>I hope you don't CHANGE your clothes they way you want to CHANGE your governmentotherwise your underware must have the stench of 40 years of rot.
>
>CHANGE HA!

Republicans "controled" the Senate from 1981 to 1987.  But I wouldn't
let a little fact like that stand in your way.

-- 
		       Apres moi, Les Etooges.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dude@okcorrall
Subject: Re: Query...
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:35:44 GMT

In article <14mhcpINNa3g@network.ucsd.edu> erwin@bend.ucsd.edu (Sean Erwin)  
writes:
> When was the last time there was a Democratic President and Congress?
> 
> ---Sean
I presume you mean both "a Democratic President and Congress".
That would be the Carter era.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court qualifications
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:31:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <2A6E4FA1.22322@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>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

Obviously Thomas overturning a $10.4 million damage award for the Danforth 
family does not disturb you.  Obviously the conflict-of-interest and possible
ethical question does not disturb you.  As well as the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.  The nonsence is that this fact was NOT widely reported.  This was
an important question that was widely underreported.  Thomas committed what 
amounted to a violation of judicial ethics that should have disqualified from
the SUPREME Court.  Yet you merely attack the magazine presenting this infor-
mation and not the individual commiting violations of the public trust.

If I correctly assume you are conservative in your politics you ought to be
TOUGH ON CRIME and demand a through investigation of the matter.

ChrisWa.

 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Re: Iraq, Uraq
Organization: Clark University
Date: 30 JUL 92 02:51:29 GMT

What I don't understand is why it's taken so long for the GOP's pampering
of Saddam Hussein up until the war to receive publicity. Maybe there's
sommething to the notion that an Iraqgate investigation is politically
motivated to an extent, but it would seem deserving (to put it lightly)
of an investigation.

And our government (and the UN) has been so slow-footed in responding to
Hussein's disregard for the UN conditions! Of course he'll let us search
Iraq's agriculture dept. now, he's had at least three weeks to hide or
destroy incriminating evidence.

I guess it's unfair to assume the election has an effect on Bush's actions,
but then again, he said he'd do (or not do) whatever it takes to win.
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A clear choice
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:28:41 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In article <2A72DAD1.29051@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>
>Gore was the biggest spender in the Senate. Arguably somebody as malicious as  
>that is worse than a village idiot.

What do you mean "Gore was the biggest spender in the Senate"?  He was able to
appropriate funds singlehandedly?  Didn't other senators and representatives have
to agree?  Didn't Bush have to approve it?  And since when is government
expenditure considered "malicious" regardless of what the money was spent on?

Enquiring minds want to know...

At least we agree about the current VP, though.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: bks@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Time/CNN poll 18th July
Date: 27 Jul 1992 02:18:16 GMT
Organization: Psephology Today
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

P. I. Arasu wrote:
>>...
>>Bill Clinton 	49%
>>George Bush	29%
>>Undecided 	22%
>>...

and Stephen Tice responded:
>...
>Polls are bullshit unless they tell how big the population was, who
>participated, and something about the questions. Natl Enquirer material
>otherwise.
>...

What would be more interesting would be to see statewide polls!  It is
electoral votes that will determine the election.  For example, one
of the CNN talking heads today said that Clinton was ahead in Orange
County (CA)!  If this is true, then as long as Clinton doesn't wrap
aluminum foil around his head and start muttering about doppelgangers
from Dogon, the contest is over.

It's a safe bet that Bush will try to use the military to get back in
the race if he has not regained a lead by Labor Day.  His epicenic
veneer hides the animus of a true bully.
--------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Opinion is ultimately determined by the feelings, and not by
the intellect.
    --Herbert Spencer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ric@yuma.acns.colostate.edu (Ric Miller  ACNS)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:40:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election

In article <1992Jul22.144156.10133@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>[I don't plan on voting for Bush, but I don't subscribe to this 'the
>other side is the Great Satan' philsophy of political though, either.]

I agree with you. 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: belli@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jack Belli)
Subject: Re: What is Marrou's position on research and space exp?
Organization: University of Hawaii
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:17:03 GMT

In article <keRe2ZK00h5y9Cn6Fv@andrew.cmu.edu> cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman) writes:
>having the government sponsor research, we allow it to be freely
>distributed rather than be proprietary.  This eliminates wasted
>duplication of effort, and helps research in general progress at a
>faster pace etc.
    This person has no experience working with the NSF or working under an NSF
grant.I do.Most (conserv.est.70%)of the money from Gov't.research grants goes
to administering the grants.Precious little actually goes into research.Also
it takes years for any new ideas to get past the old boy network and actually
get funded.Gov't.sponsored research could care less about research it is just
so much more bureaucratic turf to be maintained.
   Have a nice day,ALOHA,
                  JACK
Disclaimer:The Gov't. is paying for this post so I shouldn't complain too much

Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:34:46 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
	<14lbejINNlns@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 23-Jul-92 Re: Bush in 92
?!?!?! Rob Ryan@brown.edu (1808)

> >Extremely unlikely.  If Bush dumps Quayle his standing with the
> >conservatives will plummet.  Spelling a speedy end to his chances of
> >re-election.  Someone on CNN referred to Quayle as Bush's heat shield.
> >Sounds about right to me.

> I'm sorry.  Are you suggesting that all these conservatives are going to
> vote for Clinton if Bush dumps Quayle?  No, of course not.  Are they going
> to simply not vote (and risk Clinton winning)?  Probably not.  If you are
> conservative, Bush is probably your only real alternative.

I'm sorry, but I disagree.  Why should conservatives fear Clinton so
much over Bush?

Let's see, conservatives have long been critical of letting people spend
there lives doing nothing while being paid by the taxpayers ... Clinton
favors making welfare recipients work.  Bush?  Some rhetoric, but no
action.

Education?  Conservatives are advocates of school choice in order to
improve education.  Clinton proposes *public* school choice, which is a
step in the right direction, while Bush only offers $1,000 vouchers for
private schools (a tiny step in the right direction).

Taxes?  Clinton's tax-the-rich-just-for-rich-bashing may not be popular
among conservatives, but I think they realize that it's just a political
ploy - sure he'll implement the taxes, but it's only to 38% and only on
$100k+ earners.  Bush's "No New Taxes" pledge gives him no credibility
among conservatives on this issue.

Defense?  Clinton talks a lot about cutting it, while Bush talks a lot
about ensuring a strong defense, but Clinton's cuts are only a few
billion dollars per year more than Bush's.

The budget?  Neither is going to do anything about it.  Real
Conservatives concerned about this issue will probably vote for Perot in
protest.

Health Care?  Clinton scares conservatives a bit, but I think everyone
realizes we have to fix the problem, or else it will just get so bad the
Liberals will win their drive for socialized medicine.  Bill's plan
isn't *that* bad.

In short, if Bush "moves to the center" by replacing his conservative VP
with someone more moderate,, conservatives will have no reason to prefer
him to Clinton.  His only hope to attract conservatives then will be to
persuade voters that Clinton's a "closet liberal", which may(?) prove
difficult.

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections