HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:39:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: World View of America
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Brett:

Most black South Africans are adamantly in support of sanctions against
South Africa.  It's pretty much an urban myth that a lot of Black South
Africans are opposed to sanctions.   The number of black people actually
_employed_ by the companies that would be affected is exceedingly small,
aproximately 45,000 people, compared to the complete population of South
Africa.  I'll respond to your other points in another note.

--Julie
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:59:45 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: What a flat tax isn't

In article <01GQX2GDNH9S0029JW@drew.drew.edu>, PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET says:
>
>X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30617
>
>>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
>>Subject:What a flat tax isn't
>>Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:25:42 EST
>>Message-ID:<tfilt380591@drew.edu>
>
>>From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
>>
>>                    GIVE US A FLAT TAX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>           [stuff deleted]
>>
>>>Here is a fair proposal for a flat tax:
>>
>>>  All income up to $12,000 -             not taxed
>>>  income from $12,000 to $20,000         5%
>>>  income from $20,000 to $50,000         8%
>>>  income from $50,000 to $75,000        12%
>>>  income from $75,000 to $200,000       14%
>>>  income over $200,000                  17%
>>
>>What exactly does Paul think the words "flat tax" mean?
>>
>>It is logically impossible to have a flat tax with 6 brackets.
>>
>>Jamie
>
>I was implying a progressive flat tax, without any loopholes, flat tax
>may not have been the proper term but you understood the point.

There is no such thing as a "progressive flat tax". Flat tax means a common
tax rate for everyone, it is the antithesis of what you suggest which is a
"progressive" or "graduated" income tax.  "Progressive flat tax" is an oxymoron

>
>Paul>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:24:24 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

From: "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

>Can we, at least, try to be factual.  Boxer bounced 143 checks.  This
>is significantly less than "hundreds of checks".

No, not really.  Anyway, Paul's original point was that Boxer bounced a hell of
a lot of checks.  Your # of 143 helps him make his point.

>  As for the corruption
>line, I think that people who deliberately bounced checks were corrupt.
>I don't put Boxer in that category.

Oh come on.  If she had bounced a check here and a check there, I could buy the
explanation that it was inadvertant.  But I find it hard to believe that ANYONE
would keep making the same mistake over and over again 143 times.

In fact, you might be better off admitting that she did it on purpose.  Any
other explanation makes her look like a moron.

>Jonathan

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: America Has Spoken
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:46:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

(Hope my History Czar boss won't mind the presumption)

Dear Jayce:

        One of the problems I have noticed with the whole darn junior-nazi

movement in America (besides the lack of creativity in their Public Service

Announcements - on the other hand - how many times can you talk about

efficiency: "...only 2.6% of your donations go to overhead and administrative

costs.  The rest, we assure you, go to needed services such as crew cuts,

our Brown Shirt laundry bills, boot polish, and goose-step lessons at Arthur

Murray.  We're even more efficient than The United Way...") is their complete

and utter disregard for the German language.  I don't know - it's a

generational thing.  These young Nazis come in - they don't care about the old

ways - they don't want to know from beer halls and rail transportation and

bunker strategy!  They just want to go out and kick some ass!  That's not how

it used to be with the Nazis - we never confronted our enemies with our plans

until we had tricked them out of their towns and villages and had 'em at

gunpoint.   Geesh!  Kid-nazis these days!  I tell you....

        The correct usage is not "Hail Hitler" - to Nazis, Hitler's great,

but he's no Virgin Mary - it's "Heil Hitler".  Get it right next time.  You

junior nazis have no respect for the old ways.  Tradition!  Tradition!

Tradition!


Herr -T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:00:59 EST
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: 'President Clinton'

>>
>>If you continue posting to the list, I expect vast numbers of POLITICS
>>subscribers will flock to VAL-L.  Also your spelling and grammar leave much
>>to be desired.
>>
>>james
>>
>Listen DICK, You talk about grammar and spelling, don't you know that proper
>nouns (for example your dumb liberal ass name).  So shut up.
>                                        Jayce

little testy today are we? Just as a helpful hint, you might want to
try proofing your posts before they go out...When you don't finish
a sentence, it can make you look powerful stupid. It also "may"
make you the laughing stock of the list.

now, i would like to know more about this "liberal dumb ass name"
of James. While i know several James's, some of them liberal,
some of them dumb and most of them asses, i would hardly say
that the name connotes (denotes?) 'liberal dumb ass'ness...

anyone want to speak up on this? Jamie? Jimbo? james?

jcs "i had a dog named james, and he was dumb, but he was very
      conservative.  He was  a toy poodle and had a tiny little
     brain, so he was a republican"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:26:46 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Re: That irony can be pretty ironic sometimes
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>I was just wondering if somebody might have some stats on how much the
>government subsidizes farmers and to whom the money goes; in particular
>I am wondering if Bush's activism on this issue has more to do with
>Archer Daniels Midland than your average small farmer.

>-other Andy

The only information that I have here at work is as follows:

Of total farm income (U.S.) in 1989, the distribution was

                      Total:  $159,173,000,000       (100%)
                      Crops:    75,449,000,000       (47.4%)
                  Livestock:    83,724,000,000       (52.6%)
        Government Payments:    10,887,000,000       (6.8%)

I know that this doesn't answer the question of to whom the money goes.  I do

From: SLOFFER CHRIS A               (ENGVAX::GA82428)

To:   VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE            (IN::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet")
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:23:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>Bill Clinton-- He'll do for America what he did for Arkansas.
>you mean unemployment will be down from the time he takes office?

Hey unemployment went down the day after he was elected. Atleast the liberal
media finally admitted it even though the news had beenavailable before the
election. I had to laigh when I watched CNN ---The Day After--- and suddenly
everything wasn't so bad. They finally admitted that the economy was improving.
And lets not forget who is still president.
--mike..
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:09:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: This is depressing

dear kat,
don't worry sweety....its just post-election blues .... or maybe its the
weather.
anyway, have a beer. i'm sure the rest of the public will screw up royally and
you can again be a proud outcast.

:)

-linda
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: A simple Joke
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:11:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>From:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"      "Forum for the Discussion of Polit
ics"  6-NOV-1
>Subj:  RE: A simple Joke
>From:         "(SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)"
>In article <POLITICS%92110418352893@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
>CLARK@EVMSVMS.B
>ITNET writes:
>>A more complex joke:
>>
>>OCTOBER SURPRISE        IRAN-CONTRA     IRAQGATE
>>
>>Thankfully though, this joke is OVER.
>>
>BUT, A BIGGER ONE WILL BEGIN ON JANUARY 21.
>
>HOPEFULLY, SOMEONE IN THE MAFIA OR THE CIA WILL
>
>END THIS JOKE BEFORE IT CAUSES TOO MUCH HARM.


Uh, anybody thinking what I'm thinking?  Is there something in the drinking
water up there at Lehigh?  (Not to offend the one or two rational humans post-

ing from Lehigh).  This is ridiculous.

Listen, Shawn, do they have a free clinic at Lehigh?  Why not stop and visit it
sometime soon?  There will be some nice people who might be able to help you -
what do you say?

-T.
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:34:29 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110920102601@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, CLARK@EVMSVMS.B
ITNET writes:
>I am no great expert on the Soviet Union, but wasn't it the RIGHT who led
>the coup against Gorbachev?  Hasn't it been the RIGHT that has sponsored
>Communism all these years?  Wasn't it the LEFT who successfully put down the
>coup and are now leading the people towards democracy?
>
>All corrections welcome, as I plead ignorance on the issue.
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>-T.
>
The RIGHT in the ex-Soviet Union corresponds to our LEFT, and vice versa.  I
read this info in Tom Clancy's Cardinal of the Kremlin.  This is one fact that
confuses many Americans as they are "opposite" us.
                                        Jayce
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:58:27 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
              10 Nov 1992 11:19:00 EST from <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

> I have a question-- is the House Bank run on taxpayer money or is it a
> private institution run off of the funds of its members?

As far as I know (and no, I won't provide any cites) none of the
funds were public.  However, the government paid for the salary
of the House Bank, electricity, phone, ......, basically
operating costs.

> --Julie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:18:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchanan

Evelyn:

        Croquet away!

(thanks for understanding and replying)


-T.
+++ATH0
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:28:15 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"

Hi, there.
>I don't like sexism either. How you can call my joke sexist really
>bewilders me! Did you not se my joke about Bill looking old? Why is it that
>every time anyone makes a joke about a female they are stereotyped as
>'sexist'? I find YOUR reply to be stereotypical of the feminist reply to
>any negative remarks made about females: 'it's sexist.' Perhaps if I were
>a female and made the same remarks then I would not be sexist. If this is true
>then it is YOU who condone a sexist attitude.
>No, I don't like sexism. I think it's aweful that songwriters, script writers,
>and authors have discriminating attitudes. However it is just as bad for you
>to point the finger at me and call me a male chauvenist pig when, in reality,
>you know absolutely noting about me. For you to call me sexist reflects back
>on your own prejudices. Please refrain from labeling me as a bigot until you
>fully know and understand my motives and attitudes. Until that time, you have
>no right to judge. Think about it

I'll try to take this a point at a time.  I considered the joke sexist
because of its implications (ability to get dates = worth; ability to get
dates is predicated on looks; women who aren't beautiful are dogs).  These
are common stereotypes that demean women and cause much harm.  I think that
covers the first part.

I never referred to the author of the original post as a male chauvenist
pig; nor did I call him a sexist or label him a bigot.  That would
certainly have been presumptuous on my part.  I *did* refer to the joke as
sexist, for the reasons mentioned above.  I *do* feel I am justified in
pointing out sexist remarks, if only to help folks understand that some
forms of commonly accepted humor are degrading and offensive to some.
Consider it a public service :)

I hope that clarifies my intent.  Off now to class, there to try to dissect
grasshoppers.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:33:55 MST
From:         "(Roger)" <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Presidential Debates - 1996
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Thoughts from Arizona:

I would hope that in 4 years we would be able to form a debate commission
that would allow appearances of ALL candidates running for the presidency.
The bipartisan debate commission is an oxymoron, if membership is controlled
by the two major parties.  At least, let ALL candidates on 50 state ballots
take part in the debates.

                                             ---roger

BTW, heavy speculation here that Bruce Babbitt will be in Clinton cabinet,
probably Interior.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:42:19 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      BC?

From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET

>About tradition, the Church does have certain traditions that
>date back to 300 A.D. (B.C. is one of the political correctness
>crowd's really pathetic changes),

Paul,
could you explain what you meant by that? The parenthetical
part, I mean.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:56:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: sarcasm

Why should we have to use %-) for something that should be evident in our
prose?  Of course, one of the advantages of a really good jibe is when others
notice it and the person to whom it was directed does not.


-T.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: A Referendum
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:28:41 GMT

erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU writes:
>Aside from your personal opinion what problem do you have with the
>Religious Right? More exactly, what has the Religious Right done that goes
>against any laws, against any people, or against any part of our Constitution?
>--Steve

I'm going to take this opportunity to do my part to return this list
to a semblance of balance and rigor after the grueling election season.

Some people ought not to read the following.
--------------------------------------------------
List old-timers:  We've tolerated, and (yes) instigated quite a few
of our current list-oriented problems.  The inside jokes are great,
grand, and let's not stop them... but let's start to insist loudly
and publicly that the bounds on rational discourse that we follow
in our own private discussions be adhered to _on_ the list.

We won't be one-hundred per cent successful, of course.  But we
are (many of us) educators, and one thing we ought to be able to
do is get across a fundamental premise of social interaction:
tolerance for the opinions of others which are founded in
argument.

And, for our purposes here, that should suffice.  We need not
require a high level of education or dedication.  But we ought to
be able to require (or at least conspire to inspire) most list
members to live up to at least that much.

I'll start with the above post.  Watch my method, and give me
pointers.  My objective here is to try to turn Steve's obvious
excitement about finding this list into a constructive conversation.
--------------------

Steve,

You ask what problem someone has with the Religious Right.  Of
course, I can't speak for whoever it is you are addressing.  
(As an aside, notice that when you don't include more information
about what you are responding to, it is difficult to hold a
continuous conversation!).  But anyhow, I think that your question
could be more profitably phrased.

I'm not sure that any reasonable person has any out-of-context
'problem' with the Religious Right.  I have some problems with the
positions advocated by the Religious Right.  I think that they base
many political positions on an ethical theory that is plainly false
and internally inconsistent.  But I don't think that they should
be forbidden to put forth their ideas.

Other people have different objections to the Religious Right.  But
I'll let them speak for themselves.

But let's start a conversation.  Tell me some particular position
of the Religious Right, and I'll tell you if I agree with it.
And, more importantly, I'll tell you why.

--Jimbo, list president






Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:54:32 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Ok, now that we have been analytical about it all dear Andy, do you mind
droping this subject. My joke was NOT sexist because it does NOT carry any
underlying sexist motive or attitude on my part. Perhaps in its connotation
my jokes could have been considered sexist, and I agree that two wrongs do
NOT make a right. But this is simply some aside humor that has absolutely
NO bearing on my views of women, men or the elderly, has NO bearing on my view
of the Clintons and has NO bearing whatsoever on this list. Now, we have more
important things to talk about....like how our country will sffer for the
next 4 years under the policies of Govenor Clinton. Care to discuss that instead
of poking more cheap shots at me?
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: VAXF::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: PKASSOVER
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:45:19 -0700
From:         PKASSOVER@CCNODE.COLORADO.EDU
Subject:      Re: Flowers and Hill
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I have obviously subscribed to this list in error.  As a college administrator
with degrees in political science and sociology who vastly enjoys the lists
associated with my current profession, I thought it might be intellectually
stimulating to join a list of my former discipline.  I was wrong.  After just
one day and 40 or so messages I realize that I have stumbled onto some
private discussion between individuals who do not have a serious interest
in politics but just desire to blow off what sounds like very youthful steam
....I'll leave you to it.  Disappointedly yours, Phillippa Kassover
							Colorado College
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: "President Clinton"
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:16:41 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110411515061@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, BRIDEC92@IRLEAR
N.UCD.IE (james p mcbride) writes:
>On Wed, 4 Nov 1992 10:25:12 CST <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU> said:
>>
>>If Hiallary becomes President, I expect mass numbers of Americans flocking
>>to Canada or other countries. Also, neither Hillary nor Chelsea even look
>>very pretty.
>
>If you continue posting to the list, I expect vast numbers of POLITICS
>subscribers will flock to VAL-L.  Also your spelling and grammar leave much
>to be desired.
>
>james
>
Listen DICK, You talk about grammar and spelling, don't you know that proper
nouns (for example your dumb liberal ass name).  So shut up.
                                        Jayce

                                        
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:31:44 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>There's a clear difference between an overdraft and a bounce. If you write a
>check for which you do not have sufficient funds, have no way of making up the
>difference, and do not inform the person to whom the check was made -
> it bounces
>!  THAT'S a bounced check.  It is illegal to knowingly bounce checks and not
>repay the difference.

>Nothing remotely close to this occurred with the House bank "Scandal".

Hmmmm.  Maybe you could remind me when I claimed it had.  Again, one last time,
I never claimed that any laws were broken due to the House "bank" fiasco.  I
have to wonder why you keep trying to get me to say that, when you know I
haven't.  I have a wild hunch that you're incapable of refuting the actual
arguments I've made, and are therefore trying desperately to distort my
opinions into something you can rebut.  Nice try, but no cigar.

>It's NOT a question of "differing terms".  That's the argument of a person
>who sees they have clearly lost.

Uh, whatever.  Why don't you try adressing the claim I made posts and posts
ago?  For your sake, I'll repeat it one more time:
        The house bank scandal is important because it shows that the
        Congressmen in question either A) are incapable of handling their
        personal finances and are therefore unfit for office, B) are
        unscrupulous enough to abuse a handy priveledge at possible expense
        of their colleages for their own personal gain, or C) both of the above.

Unlike some people, namely Kerry and KAT, you have yet to adress this argument,
and have instead vainly attempted to change the subject.  Now which tactic
really typifies a person who has already lost? :)

>-T.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:51:08 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Libertarians

On the subject of the Libertarians, does anyone out there know how many
votes they received on Tuesday?  All the papers over here concentrated on
the main three candidates, and surprise, surprise, their percentages added
up to 100.  I refuse to believe that no other candidates got any votes, so
if anyone has the stats, I'd be grateful if they would post them.

thanx,


james
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics