HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: saf@netcom.com (Steve A. Feinstein)
Subject: Larry Agran?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 07:50:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


Tonight I saw a show on PBS called _The 90's_ this eppisoe revolved
around the election.  In the course of the show they talked about a
Candidate named Larry Agran.  He was on the primary ballots in 40
states, but aparently the media ignored him.  Even going so far as to
crop him out of pictures in the N.Y. Times.

I was very intrigued by this story and I'd like to learn more, does
anyone know more about this, and perhaps is there an address where I
can write to find out what this guy is/was all about?
-- 
 Steve A. Feinstein | saf@netcom.com | When a man points a finger at someone
  360 Cowper Street |================| else, he should remember that four
Palo Alto, CA 94301 |                  fingers are pointing at himself.
     (415) 326-8224 |                                          - Louis Nizer


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14378 alt.politics.clinton:7399 alt.politics.bush:6848
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush and Iran Contra
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:32:39 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep27.022554.16175@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <19vqb2INNaa8@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>>General Secord said Bush is lying about his role in Iran Contra.

>	Why discount it? There was nothing wrong with Iran Contra but the fact
>that it violated 'proper routes.'

Perhaps because of your youth, John peter, you've seem not to know what
Iran-contra was about. Let's look at the first part of the program. We
wanted help from the Iranians in releasing American hostages held in
Lebanon (preferably in time for the midterm election -- remember the one
hostage we did bribe free was feted on the White House Lawn). To do this
we decided to sell arms to Iran, led by Ayatollah Khomeini.

However, we had declared an embargo on Iran. In fact, at the same time
we were secretly sending arms to Iran, our officials were complaining to
our European allies that they weren't being strict enough with Iran.

In fact, sending arms to Iran WOULD have been illegal, except that
Ronald Reagan, Mr. Tough Talk, signed an executive order permitting it.
At least, he might have. It was retroactive, it was initially given
orally (? -- my memory on this is hazy), and when examined on the issue
later, he had forgotten everything. It has, of course, become clear
that Mr. Reagan was pretty out of it mentally by the end of his terms.

George Bush said that he (with  secys Schultz and Weinberger) was
against this stupid, craven [do you know the word, jp] attempt to bribe
Khomeini. But now the facts out: he thought it was peachy-keen and cool.

I wonder what you would say about that Great Satan Jimmy Carter if he
had pursued the same policy. Probably called him stupid and cowardly.
And you would have been right.

Hope this fills in your memory lacunae.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:04:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.223843.3746@telesoft.com> trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite) writes:
>In <Bv1pH2.4L9@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep23.163832.3411@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep22.170300.6608@Princeton.EDU> David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>>You still don't get it. The problem with the present system (the process,
>>>that is) is that you CAN'T VOTE SOMEONE OUT OF OFFICE. You can only
>>>VOTE SOMEONE IN.

>>   But what does it mean to "vote someone out of office"?  Does it
>>   mean that that particular seat is unfilled?

>No, voting the incumbent out usually must involve eliminating him or
>her in the party's primary election.  As already discussed, incumbents
>have such a favorable monetary and name-recognition advantage that it's
>extremely difficult to eliminate them in the primary.  It's even more
>difficult in the general election, because then that party's voters
>have to ask themselves whether it's worth electing an official that
>doesn't represent their beliefs just to get throw out the incumbent.

>I like term limits because:

>  1. I'm cynical, so I think even an effective and ethical public servant
>     will not likely remain so.

But how does term limits solve this problem?  The next guy is just as
likely to be corrupt.

>  2. I'm cynical, so I believe many voters don't research all of
>     the candidates.  Finding themselves unprepared, they vote
>     strictly along party lines (usually this leaves the incumbent
>     in office).

A-hah!  So the real issue ISN'T "advantages that incumbents have," but
"voters not researching the candidates."  That's what I've been saying
all along.

>  3. Adding a "none of the above" category is just an admission that
>     the primary frequently doesn't select the party's best candidate
>     (just the most electable one).  I'd rather solve the real problem
>     than work around it.

How does term limits solve the problem of the primary not picking the
best candidate?

>  4. Public assistance for the challengers increases government
>     spending, and that's a problem we don't want to worsen.

Not really.  We could fund every congressional race for less than a
billion dollars.  That really isn't much.  Kill farm subsidies and
you'll save tens of billions of dollars.

>Another real alternative would be to place spending limits on all
>campaigns.  This is a bit difficult to enforce, however.

Yeah, and a bit unconstitutional, too.  (Buckley v Valeo)

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:46:28 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu>, shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
> In article <28SEP92.22145685@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>The columnist had an amusing editorial the other day. The general point
>>involved the irony of the chairman of the President's Council for Physical
>>Fitness making movies in which he (Schwarzenegger, not the Presid) breaks
>>into police stations and uses an automatic weapon to mow down officers.
>>
>>Of course Bush shouldn't be expected to control what roles Arnold plays,
>>although the actor is recognized as an outspoken Bush supporter. This
>>circumstance serves onl to degrade the already-pointless attack by Quayle
>>on the "Hollywood elite." IMO Dan Quayle calling _anyone_ elite is a
>>joke in itself.
>>
>>Bart
> 
> What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
> _bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
> is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
> difference, but still it's an important one.
> 

Lets not forget that this movie (Terminator) is SCIENCE FICTION, not an
attempt to depict real life as in a show such as Murphy Brown.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gl1@cec1.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: Scheduled times for debates?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:50:56 GMT

Ken Willing writes:
>Could someone post the scheduled local times for the presidential debates in
>St. Louis, Richmond and E. Lansing?   Thanks -- I want to try to listen in
>on the Voice of America, which has carried the debates live in past
>elections.
>Ken Willing   <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
>

  The St. Louis debate will start at 6 PM Central Daylight Time.

I believe the other two start at 8 PM Central Time.

Greg



-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore)
Subject: Re: United We Stand And Deliver
Keywords: politics masses economics wealth
Followup-To: t.p.misc
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:41:48 GMT
Summary: that's what politics is for

In article <1992Sep26.165110.29951@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>It used to be that the wealthy were those who lived an extravagant
>lifestyle (or could afford to). Now we are defining the wealthy as anyone
>who is moderately successful in a profession? I suppose this is what
>the "balance the budget on the back's of the wealthy" naturally leads to:
>anyone over "average" by some sense is wealthy. How convenient... as soon
>as we label someone wealthy, then we are morally justified in extracting
>their money.
>
>Sigh.... the politics of envy really suck.


What other kind of politics is there.  Historically the role of democratic
politics has been to check the otherwise uninhibited growth of elite power.
The fact that the Reagan/Bush doctrine has created so many people that
consider moderately successful people as wealthy should give you some idea
about how the politics of this country is going to be carried out for the 
next generation.  The only way the shrinking middle class has any hope of
survival at this point is to ally with the new poor to extract the money
from the ultra-rich who have benefitted from the last twelve years of theft.
The numbers are here somewhere but off the top of my head I think the top
5% of the population now controls 40% of the wealth.  And the top 2% controls
20% of the wealth.  The income distribution in the rest of the world 
moved toward equity while the US erased the middle class.  This does not
bode well for civility as the LA riots indicate.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot's Re-Entry: What's the Possible Electoral Effect?
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:05:48 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct2.124348.12393@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:
>
>So I'm a little confused.  If Texas is a "must-win" for Bush (with
>its ~34 electoral votes), why isn't it a "must-win" for Clinton?
>Ditto for Florida.  And what about those midwestern states?

Listening to the news, you'd think every state is a must-win state
for candidate X.

Certain states can be considered "Republican" from voting history and
demographics.  It is perhaps more of a guage of support among a
party's core voters than anything else.  Someone in Utah remarked that
Bush support was more or less invisible.  If I were the Shrub, I'd
take that as a very bad sign: the most conservative state in the
nation isn't a whole-hearted supporter.

If Bush has to fight for his "home" (I use that term loosely) state of
Texas, he's in deep doo doo.


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
From: mancini@fysik.uu.se (Derrick C. Mancini)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Veto Override
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Date: 6 Oct 1992 20:13:29 GMT
Organization: Fysikum, Uppsala Universitet
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: usx215.fysik.uu.se

In article <1992Oct6.050303.23654@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec2.wustl.edu
(Greg Lyon) wrote:
> 
> 
>   If you haven't heard already, the Cable TV Re-regulation bill became the 
> first bill to be have a veto by President Bush overridden.  The votes were
> something like 75-24 (Senate) and 308-114 (House).
> 
>   Any comments on possible effects on the upcoming election ?
> 

I think it is the first indication that if buy some fluke Bush is
re-elected,
he will have a most cantankerous congress, and will likely be a very in-
effective lame duck president.

Derrick C. Mancini
Fysiska Institutionen  -  Uppsala Universitet
Box 530  S751 21  Uppsala  Sverige
mancini@fysik.uu.se
---------------------------------------------
"Are we having fun yet?"  -  Zippy
From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Mr Bush or Pres. Bush?
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:31:22 GMT
Organization: Nat'l Center for Supercomputing Applications

In article <1992Oct05.165519.4109@watson.ibm.com>
born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:

   Mr.  Bush or President Bush?  About 3-4 weeks ago in US News and
   World Report's Washington Wispers column reported that the Clinton
   campaign was putting out the word that they wanted to stop
   referring to Bush as President Bush and start referring to him as
   Mr. Bush, to help diminish his stature.  Supposedly, the media has
   come on board with this.  Has anybody noticed this usage
   (blatantly) by the media?

   If this is true, it is real sneaky!

Gee oh gee oh gee.

The NYT has alternated between President Bush and Mr. Bush for years.

Marc

--
Marc Andreessen
Software Development Group
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:14:20 GMT

From article <1ad7v3INN7ep@eagle.natinst.com>, by chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz):
> In article <1992Sep30.092137.1439@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>  Pat, stupid question of the month #4097:
>>
>>  Do you think that there are that many people that want Perot out??
>>
>>  Maybe on the USENET news, yes, but ....
> 
> Actually, yes.  I think there are lots and lots of people who want
> Perot out of the race.  I know quite a few.  I don't know anybody
> who supports him (at least nobody that will admit it).  Perot has
> the potential to throw the election into the House of Representatives.
> Many people think this is a real bad idea.

I wouldn't mind seeing the election thrown into the house.  Maybe then
people would finally step up and demand that the electoral system be
abolished.



"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.192058.23973@cs.mcgill.ca>,
costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN) writes:
>>Bush's position is that a woman should be forcibly prevented from
>>paying someone to perform an abortion, even if she considers it morally
>>permissible to do so.  Clinton's position is that a woman should be
>>forcibly compelled to pay someone to perform an abortion, even if she
>>considers it morally reprehensible to do so.  Neither one of them is
>>pro-choice.
>>
>        Please explain what you mean by forcibly compelled. How can
>        Clinton force a woman to get an abortion? I don't get it.

He didn't say "force a woman to get an abortion" he said said forced
to pay for "someone"'s abortion.  This happens when abortions are
financed with tax dollars since the government does not provide any
moral exemptions from taxation.

/June
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Party Registration
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:29:42 GMT

tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>I believe that in some places you can register or change your
>affiliation when you vote in a regular election.  I don't think you can
>do this at the primaries and then vote in the party's primary right
>then (it's not 50 days prior to the primary).

In Ohio, you just walk in the polling place, sign your name in a register,
and tell them whether you want to vote in the Republican or Democratic
booth. Maybe selecting one at this point is a de facto registration,
but you can change the next time around with no paperwork.

The parties must be able to get a list of who voted in what primary, as
I get mailings from the Democrats and never from the Republicans (whose
primary I have never participated in).

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Rightwing Ideologues
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:22:49 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <13956.2ac140db@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
]Is everyone at Anasazi Inc right win idealogues or it just a coincidence
]that every post from Anasazi sounds like regurgitated propoganda from the
]Neuremburg (er...) RepubliCon?
]
]Maybe its some sort of requirement to work at this place? 

Yes, we have affirmative action at Anasazi. Surveys have indicated
that conservatives are underrepresented in certain professions, so we
are making up for that with jobs quotas. Certified conservatives are
given hiring preference. [this is a JOKE, folks, don't sue us!]

Seriously, there are several of us who are conservatives or 
libertarian conservatives, and we like to respond to some of the
liberal flood of opinion that surrounds us. There are also some
of liberals at Anasazi, but they don't post as much. Probably because
their opinion is so well represented already on the net and throughout
the mass media, while ours is underrepresented.

And, to imply our rhetoric is Nazi (the way you did with your
"Neuremburg" reference) is offensive.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dgp@ee (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Reply-To: dgp@ee
Organization: ESSRL -- Washington University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:27:03 GMT

6940@pwcs.stpaul.gov, (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> Do you mean Golden Turkey candidates like "The Silent Scream?"  If that
> little critter in there is a person and abortion is murder, doesn't that
> make "The Silent Scream" a prime example of snuff porn?

[ Accepting premises for sake of argument... ]
 
No more so than the footage I saw months ago on 60 Minutes of men being
burned alive by government death squads in some South or Central American
country (I forget which).  Both seek to call attention to the human rights
abuses of the unjust killing of human life.

[ Just to be crystal clear for the a.p.e. audience not familiar with my t.a.
  history, I'm not making this argument.  I'm accepting the above premises
  for the sake of argument, and based on them defending "The Silent Scream"
  against the claim that it must be considered "snuff porn" in the eyes
  of its distributors. ]

BTW, I'm supposed to be on vacation from t.a.  Do these articles need to
be cross-posted to alt.politics.elections?

---
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:31:31 GMT

dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:

>As far as *frightened*, you're right, at least in my case.  I am
>afraid that if the American public continues to ignore the 
>destructive policies and actions of our government, our children
>cannot look forward to a better life.

>Dave

Very well said. I agree with Dave completely here, and whether or not
Perot is optimal vehicle by which to persue the goal of bringing our
government under control is a side issue. The important point is
keeping the defecits in the political discourse, something that both
established parties (because they are responsible for it) want out.

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: Line Item Veto
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 15:40:05 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Sep29.193552.864@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep24.202912.824@webo.dg.com>, lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:
|> >Couldn't that be rectified by making the congress only need a simple majority to
|> >override a veto of a single line item, as opposed to the 2/3 needed for a 
|> >veto override of an entire bill?  That way we could force congress to justify
|> >the things that it is funding.  As it is now, every congressman can disavow
|> >a lot of the spending, but stuff still goes through, because of the omnibus
|> >nature of the budget.  I believe that the line-item veto, with this stipulation,
|> >could go a long way toward helping rid the budget of much of its pork.
|> 
|> Wouldn't this idea of simple majority override for a line item veto render the
|> line item veto meaningless?  If Congress has enough votes to pass a bill then
|> there would be enough votes to override any partial veto by the President, 
|> unless some who originally voted for the bill vote against the override.
|> 
|>   -- Scott

I don't think so.  How many legislators are willing to stand up and be counted
on funding for a Lawrence Welk museum?  Or a study of cow's flatulence in regard
to "greenhouse gasses"?  My guess is that it would be far fewer than the number
which would support a budget bill that happened to contain those items.  At
the very least, we can force them to support the "pork" items in the budget.
As currently structured, any rep can disavow responsibility for any line
item, and not have to take a stand which may not be favored by his district.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14755 talk.politics.misc:48780
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 30 Sep 1992 16:58:59 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Sep30.092137.1439@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>  Pat, stupid question of the month #4097:
>
>  Do you think that there are that many people that want Perot out??
>
>  Maybe on the USENET news, yes, but ....

Actually, yes.  I think there are lots and lots of people who want
Perot out of the race.  I know quite a few.  I don't know anybody
who supports him (at least nobody that will admit it).  Perot has
the potential to throw the election into the House of Representatives.
Many people think this is a real bad idea.

>
>						Mike Falkner
>


-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections