HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdale@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert Dale)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SLOW DOWN!!!!
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:47:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University, W Lafayette IN

I use the threaded news reader (trn) and I understand that there are
some other programs that let you read posts by topic... Helps in large
volume groups.

Rob
--
Robert P. Dale                          <>      rdale@attserv.atms.purdue.edu
Purdue University Atmospheric Sciences  <>      74010.302@compuserve.com
West Lafayette, Indiana                 <>      N8GSK@K9IU.IN.USA.NOAM
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:47:56 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Rich and Fair Share
Distribution: usa

 
>Who decides which persons are "rich"?  Who decides what is a "fair
>share"?  Oh, I see, if you have more "guns" then I have then you are poor
>and I am rich and you'll take from me whatever you want.THAT IS EXACTLY
>WHAT THE DEMOCRATS, AND YOU, ARE SAYING.  "Fair share" is just a code
>phrase for "you've been more successful than me and I want to live off of
>your success".  You are just a greedy bastard.
.............................................................................
 
>Hal Berenson	



    I think it's pretty obvious from all available data that the
wealthiest top few percent of the population have been living off the
other 97-99 percent of this country for the last 12 years. The top few
percent have seen their wealth  surge dramatically while that of the
middle class and the poor has diminished. The most recent stat is that
the top 1% has the same total assets as the bottom 51 percent.
    Class warfare is the cry anytime some one asks to redistribute a
portion of the wealth. Well it's pretty clear that the class war has
been raging for years and the the politically disenfranchised poor and
the apathetic middle class have been getting slaughtered. It's high time
our goverment reverse the trend that the Regan/Bush era began with it's
trickel down policies and force the rich to shoulder a greater load in
finacing this country that has allowed them to become so rich. 

Tom Oligino
Carnegie Mellon University
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:18:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

I am afraid I detect a bit of sarcasm coming from JWS about us not
getting out and around in Cambridge, MA.  Could this be b/c he is
at MIT and we are writing from Harvard and he feels a twinge of 
competition b/w the schools?  I would hope not.

First, of all this is not ANthony Koumis writing as I said in
other postings but his wife.

Second, of all I am afraid that he has not read what I say about
regulations carefully.  I am not taking his stand as either
for or against them  and that is that.

My point has been all along that it is simplistic and irresponsible
to say abolish all ergulations and we will get more freedom.

Instead, one must look acrefully at the regulation and what it
is supposed to be doing and how it works.  

I will not get into a debate about rent control since aboviously there
are alot of pros and cons.  BUt one thing is I would not take at
face value a claim by realtors that it is too expensive to upkeep
buildings.

Some rent control (like in NJ) have provisions for guaranteeing
landlords a certain percentage of profits.  So it could work
out that the poor sections of society have a place to live (instead
of being homeless) and landlords can ensure a profit.

Rent control has the laudable aim of trying to ensure housing for
low income people.  THereby, helping to "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness"  instead, of ending up on the street where
there seems to be alot in this happy era of dereguation by Ronnie.
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: fact: Libertarian presidential support since 1972
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:33:49 GMT
Reply-To: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Fairbanks, Alaska...no wait, that's not right...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a3

In article <RJBODKIN.92Apr6231053@faust.lcs.mit.edu>, rjbodkin@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ronald Bodkin) writes...
>It should be interesting
>to see if the Libertarians can exceed a million votes this year.
>Ron

Not with Andre "Oh, you're really a Republican as far as I'm concerned
and I don't want your support" Marrou, they won't.

And what's this I hear about Nancy Lord being his girlfriend?  Whatever
happened to his wife Eileen?  Since he's removed himself from here, we
don't hear all that much about him, aside from the papers making fun of
him every once in a while.

************************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan*****Internet: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
WWIVnet: 220@9704*CFN: au414*IRC: RadioKAOS, Aoxomoxoa*Ph: (907)488-8365
BITnet: FSSPR@ALASKA****Snail: P.O. Box 83381, Fairbanks, AK  99708-3381
*Call me Pastor - Pastor - Pastor of Muppets I'm pulling your string...*
I'll do a disclaimer when they pry my cold dead hands from the keyboard.
From: jimj@engin.umich.edu (James Joseph Jewett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Tax, investment
Date: 4 Apr 92 02:47:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: engin.jQh+yFC
Reply-To: jimj@eecs.umich.edu
Distribution: usa,na
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Apr3.205140.28355@terminator.cc.umich.edu> rjs@home.merit.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) writes:

>The main problem I see with the flat tax is the potential for taking the
>incentive away from investment.

err ... hunh?

When you get money, you pay 13%
If this goes to the 16.3 CTJ claims they need, it is still less than the
rate most people eith money to invest are (nominally) paying.

When you spend it in consumption, you pay another 13%.  (And there have
been suggestions, apparently including one from Brown, to raise that by
a percent or so.)

When you invest it, you *don't* pay this 13%, if it goes to jobs.
If it goes to buying equipment, you still pay the 13%, but no more
than you would if you were spending it on consumption.

If you simply save it, so that interest rates go down, and other people
can invest (or buy, which does at least spur the economy), then you 
*don't* pay this 13% yet.

How is this a discouragement to investment?  The only negative I can see
is that putting it in a bank is more attractive -- but if interest rates
go down, the market should take care of that.

-jJ

jimj@eecs.umich.edu		Take only memories.
user6r4q@um.cc.umich.edu	Leave not even footprints.
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gators for Perot
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:12:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <35027@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, rap@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Ryan Porter) writes:

|> Another potential vp candidate (but not the one on the forms) is 
|> a man named Warren Rudman, of whom I know absolutely nothing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Rudman, the budget controlling senator who
recently resigned his seat because he said he was sick of Washington and pissed
that they didn't take care of the budget? That would be a PERFECT match. On a
side note, I think that most VP candidates should be senators (or former
senators) since they spend much of their time in the senate.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: aboufade@math.rutgers.edu (Edward F. Aboufadel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:57:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



In <804@niktow.canisius.edu>, tami@niktow.canisius.edu (Tami Crawford) writes:


>Why is it considered bad to want to be president?

	I don't think it is considered bad to want to be president.

	I think it is bad to be obsessed with becoming president, to
the point that most or all of your personal decisions (choice of
friends, etc.) are influenced by this desire.

>Maybe Clinton won't be able to make a difference, but it
>seems that he *wants* to and that he *believes* he can.
>I would argue that wanting and believing are 
>necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for being
>a good president.

>I think Bush wants to be president, but does not believe
>he can make a difference.  That's why he is making
>so many obviously politically motiviated moves - he
>wants to win but has no particular agenda to pursue
>so does whatever he thinks will aid him politically.

>I think Perot wants to be president because he 
>thinks he can make a difference.

	If someone is obsessed with becoming president, then I wonder
if he or she really wants to make a difference or instead simply has a
lust for power.  This is your (and my) perception of Bush.  Bush
strikes me as wanting to be president so that no one else is.

	If you want to make a difference, then there are plenty of
ways to do so other than being president.  Consider Martin Luther
King, Jr.


Ed Aboufadel
Rutgers U.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:55:00 GMT

In article <visser.702600386@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
|> In <1992Apr6.190958.27793@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

|> 	1. Shareholders are directly liable for actions of the company.
|> 	Shareholders will function as the "deep pockets" for corporations 
|> 	who cannot meet their obligations.  Shareholders who, for example
|> 	held the stock for any period of time while a company was
|> 	polluting (for example) a river, would be liable.....not just
|> 	the "current" set of shareholders.

You can't do this for several reasons. 1) you can't make shareholders liable ex
post facto. 2) when you sell something, you sell the debt with it. This includes
fines for pollution, ect.

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:20:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Apr11.180226.11490@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr9.130641.25637@chinet.chi.il.us>, 
>pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) said:
>
>> 3) Bush is as good on foreign policy as we are likely to see.
>> (Except for China :-) ).  This is still very important in our
>
>This has always puzzled me -- Bush's reputation as being strong and
>competent on foreign policy.  This is, after all, the same guy who
>  [Well thought out content deleted for space]


   I think describing Bush's only success as the Gulf War is incorrect.
I agree about China and the Japanese "trade" trip, but I think
his standing up to the Israel lobby and getting the Mid-East
Peace conference is difficult to ignore.  (Of course, maybe you
think he screwed up there too).   Whether or not you agree with this issue,
I would hope that you would concede that it takes skilled foreign policy
to get it to happen.


  I think the Gulf War is oversimplified in general in this thread.  
Hindsight is great, but perhaps someone can tell me what they would
have done instead.  Feel free to start in 1988 and go from there (since
we are talking about Bush.)  Also, bear in mind that Bush couldn't have
operated from hindsight as we can now.  

  Also, no matter what you think of the Gulf War, I would think that
you would concede that building an international coalition is tough work.

  I'm not particularly enamoroured of Bush's handling of the end of the
Cold War, but I'm much happier with it than say FDR's handling of the
beginning of the Cold War.  

  Also, I give Bush a great deal of credit simply for not being an
isolationist.   He seems headed in the "right direction" on trade,
keeping NATO, attention to weapons proliferation.  (We'll see how
he handles N. Korea.  That is one very tricky problem to which I
have no good solution.)

  To be fair, I suspect that Clinton also is headed in the "right
direction" on foreign policy.  I have nothing to back that up, but the 
impression he gives is positive.

  Mostly, the problem is how can I compare Clinton to Bush?  Clinton
was a governor of Arkansas who has (as far as I know) issued one speech
on foreign policy.  Maybe someone could tell me where he stands?  I
really have little information on such.

  I also guess I may have implied more than I meant to.  My feelings are that
I think Bush is "as good as we are likely to get" mostly because I haven't
heard but one speech from Clinton on this issue.  Since foreign policy
is the one area the President really does have control over, I consider
it a very important issue.

  In the future, Clinton's views are likely to become more known.  Perhaps,
I will change my mind at that time.


Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Bush and the Adultery Question (was The Character Issue...)
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:14:05 GMT

In article <Apr.4.13.45.22.1992.5080@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
|> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|> 
|> >   George Bush:
|> >     If he lied to the country, will he lie to his wife?
|> 
|> Have any reporters asked Bush the "have you ever" question?  Rumors
|> that I've heard include affairs with a current White House protocol
|> officer, an ambassador and a judge (all three of whom gained their
|> positions by Bush appointment).  
|> 
|> My understanding is that these rumors are well-circulated among
|> Beltway reporters, but that no one wants to look into them for fear of
|> attracting the wrath of a sitting President.
|> 
|> To be honest, this sounds a bit lame to me, since a reporter could
|> really gain a reputation if he or she came up with anything.

This is called `pulling an Archie' in the trade -- after Archibald Cox.

The fact that I haven't even seen anything[1] in the alternative press on
the subject, which usually doesn't care about raising the ire of a sitting
president, leads me more to believe that, if there is any truth to the
rumors, the Bush people have squelched all the reliable sources and most
or all of the could-be-made-to-seem-reliable sources.

I think that's more likely than a conspiracy among Washington reporters
to avoid embarassing the Persident.



[1] I think the San Jose Metro, or something like that, recently rehashed
the allegations made in 1982[?] by the British press, but added nothing to
it.
-- 
James Woodyatt  Space Systems/Loral   Palo Alto, CA   bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com

``And when he dreamed his ears drooled thirty weight engine oil
He took personality tests and stapled them to his lower lip''
				    --Stan Ridgway,
				      `Jack Talked (Like A Man On Fire)'
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:955 alt.individualism:2465
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.individualism
Subject: Andre Marrou Nationwide Radio Appearence
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:03:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

Andre Marrou, Libertarian Party candidate for President, will be on Tom
Snyder's syndicated radio call-in show tomorrow (4/15).  I don't know the
distribution of Snyder's show, but here in Colorado Springs it appears to
start at 8:00 PM Mountain Time (KVOR 1300-AM).

Here is one (of many) chances for people to hear Marrou's ideas and call
in to ask questions, challenge him, etc. 
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,soc.culture.usa
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: A few questions for President Bush
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:36:23 GMT

gary@clarinet.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga) writes:
>"liberal democrat" and "liberal press" are not only the worst imaginable
>epithets, but also form unbreakable compound nouns.  What's the problem?  The
>liberal press is doing blah blah blah.

Well it certainly excludes the non-liberal press... National Review,
American Spectator, I'm sure there are many others.
-- 
Keep punishing yourself.  You probably deserve it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gary@clarinet.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot on social issues
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 17:56:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr1.132640.25043@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr1.041620.16360@seq.uncwil.edu> harrist@seq.uncwil.edu (Trey Harris) writes:
|> >I am sure that Perot Systems is on USENET.  Would any Perot Systems
|> >employees care to comment on the above?
|> 
|> From what I've heard about EDS, I'm under the impression that any
|> Perot Systems employees would be very afraid to comment on the above.
True.  I worked for EDS for three years and I wouldn't want to comment.  Of
course, that's what forging messages is for - if anybody from Perot or EDS
wants help on message forging, e-mail me.

-- 
Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org)

P.S. I realize this is against the normal "if you don't know how, we're
not going to tell you" but if it helps get a response ...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:19:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.191149.13306@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr12.182123.15725@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
|> >The motivations of government are power and popularity.
|> 
|> John Kenneth Galbraith makes a strong argument against this
|> in his new book, _The Culture of Contentment_.  Should I start
|> citing?

Yes
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:49:05 GMT


In article <1992Apr13.071317.19709@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, 
c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) said:

> Perhaps it is Congress that should get down to business.  Bush
> gave his state of the Union address back in January.  He set the
> March 20 deadline..  well, where has the Congress been?

I think that mostly they've been standing around, staring at George
Bush as if he was some strange visitor from another planet and
wondering from where he got the weird idea that the Chief Executive
has the authority to set deadlines for the Legislative branch.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 11 Apr 92 12:08:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Apr11.005251.10946@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:

|> Hello, Jason W. Solinsky.  Safety standards and health restaurant
|> safety standards further freedom by the simple fact that they
|> enable people to be safe at work and not die.  And not die by
|> eating in a unhealthy restaurant.

As I wrote earlier, DEATH IS A CONSEQUENCE OF FREEDOM.

We constantly have chances to choose a riskier (often cheeper) option, or the
safe road. Regulations take that choice from the individual. Regulations tell him
"you can not choose. You must take the safe road, because I don't want to have to
read about you dying everytime you take the riskier path". That is unfair and
selfish.

Something to remember. Every new regulation maskes it more expensive to hire
people, and decreases the number of jobs. Every minimum wage law, makes it more
expensive to hire people, and decreases the number of jobs, sometimes completely
replaceing the people with machines. Every health regulation means that spoiled
food is thrown out instead of given to the hungry and homeless.

|> I believe that
|> we should be free to work and eat in safe environments.  That people

All of us were free to do this before there were any regulations.

|> should not be taken advantage of by working in a place that they
|> may have no idea is unsafe (toxic waste etc.).
|> 
|> THerefore, I live a safer and healthhier life.  Your vision of 
|> freeedom entails people running around ignorant of dangers
|> before them.  Running to court to protect rights that they probably
|> no longer have anymore b/c gov't regulation has been
|> abolished in an effort to make themselves more free.

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE. Whoever said that, put it better than
I ever could. If you like freedom, you CAN NOT be ignorant. If there were no
regulations, people who were not willing to pay this price could pay an annual fee
for stupidity insurance so somebody could tell them everytime they were about to
do something stupid. The stupidity insurance company (run by eternally vigilant
people) could make quite a profit this way :-) HOWEVER, I am willing to pay that
price, and I don't want anybody forcing me to subscribe to their stupidity
insurance company (the US Govt.), pay their fees (taxes), and listen to their
suggestions (regulations).

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc