HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Date: 14 Sep 92 05:54:13 GMT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>
> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
> : In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> :    To take the case one step futher.
> : 
> :    Suppose there is  a mother who loves her children but is absolutely 
> :    stone broke desparate. Someone offers her a $10,000,000 trust fund 
> :    for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
> :    is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
> : 
> :    Would this be legal in a libertarian world.
> : 
> : I would hope not.  In that libertarian world, I would voluntarily
> : contribute a certain percentage of my personal wealth to help this
> : woman get back on her feet so she can support her family once again.
> : 
> Hi Ronald,
> 
>    I am a mother who loves my children but I'm absolutely stone broke.
> Please send me a certain percentage of your personal wealth. When I 
> get back on my feet again, I will happily buy into your libertarian
> fantasy utopia.

Hi Kathy,

It's rough out there sometimes, isn't it?  We do not have anything
remotely resembling a libertarian society, and yet your situation is no
fantasy, and this is anything but a utopia.  The government has already
come and taken a certain percentage of my personal wealth, such as it is,
and they said they would give some of it to you.  Did you receive it yet?

No?

Sorry to hear that.  I'd gladly stop giving them that certain
percentage, and send some of it to you, but they said that if I
refused to cooperate, they'd put me in jail.

Of course, the people who really have some wealth to give have enough
of it so that they can afford get out of paying very much at all, if
anything.  If I had that much wealth, I would get out of paying it to
them and give some of it to you instead.

I guess they fibbed a little when they promised to give you a certain
percentage of my wealth.  People are like that sometimes.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A guess at the electoral votes (was Re: Some state polls)
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:53:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>> [lots of stuff deleted]

>For comparison purposes, here is the current electoral situation as 
>proclaimed by a map in the New York Times, 9/6/92:

Well, guess I gotta run to the library...

> Republican leaning states:
>        Dukakis
>         1988     electoral    cum.
> st    plurality    votes      votes
> [stuff deleted]
> SD       -6.4          3        175

(I'll be darned:  SD--home of George McGovern)
 
> Democratic leaning states:
>        Dukakis
>         1988     electoral    cum.
> st    plurality    votes      votes
> TN      -16.4         11        233

(So far, the NYT is painting a much darker picture for George Bush then I
did, because we now have the toss-up states, deleted thanks to rn, but:

Yow.  If NC, NJ, DE, and KY are considered toss-ups, then this would
change my view of things somewhat.  (But I was out of the loop--nobody
is giving me any polling data...)

>Assuming that the NYT leaning category is equivalent to your 
>advantage+lock categories combined, and their toss-up equals your 
>swing category, the differences with your assessment are:
>                    jking                 NYT
>                    =================     ===============
>VT                  Clinton advantage     toss-up
>MT                  Bush lock             toss-up
>ME NJ NM LA NC DE   Bush advantage        toss-up
>PA IL               swing                 Clinton leaning
>OK GA               swing                 Bush leaning

Looks pretty good to me, except for MT.  When was the last time the
Republicans lost MT for Pete's sake?  But I see that they weren't big
for Bush in 1988, so the NYT could have a point.  I guess I still
would be pretty surprised to see Bush lose more than say one of the
jking-Bush-advantage/NYT-toss-up states.  Well, maybe 2; NM is leaning
Clinton by one net.source.  And we all know that ME goes, so goes the
nation.

I guess I'm pretty happy not to have totally butchered this, but I'm
not sure any of this analysis means very much in an election that projects
to be so close.  1980 was projected to be (electorally) very close until
the last week, and we know what happened there...

(Thanks for the informative post; there's way too much flaming in this
 group.)

jking
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: New Electoral College Predictions
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:39:54 GMT

gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>   Today's (9/14/92) St. Louis Post-Dispatch provides an "assessment based on
>voter surveys and predictions by experts".
>
>...
>Likely Republican
>
>Kansas
>...
>Any comments ?

After watching Larry King's town meeting in Wichita last Sunday, I wonder
about Kansas. There were thousands of people assembled in a domed arena,
and I doubt that the crowd was totally "stacked" with partisans one way
or the other. Anyway, the crowd was definitely pro-Clinton. They talked
about economic issues primarily (gee, no mention of "draft status"). King's
panel had one die-hard supply-sider Congresswoman from Kansas who got
booed off the stage every time she tried to utter "family val..." BOOOOO!,
"homosex..." BOOOOO!, or "morali..." BOOOO! Kansans are not willing to be
diverted from the real issues on their minds with this Bush campaign pap. 

When Larry King asked the crowd to applaud if they are going to vote for 
President Bush, there was some moderate applause. When asked who would 
support Governor Clinton, the applause was enthusiastic and clearly in 
the majority. The Congresswoman got flustered and exclaimed something 
like, "Well, you... you can vote for him, but he's going to take this 
country down the tubes!"

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Perot Again?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:49:59 GMT



  I was just watching PBS last night and the anchorpundit (or whatever)
said she had been tipped that Perot was calling a news conference
Friday and will probably re-enter the Presidential race.

  I'm not sure how much (if any) difference it will make, but I thought
people might like to know.

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:31:14 GMT
Organization: (none)

In article <Sep.9.09.12.52.1992.28929@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>
>> In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
>> any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party.  In 1980, Ed Clark
>> got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).  
>
>Didn't Anderson outpoll the Libertarians in 1980?

Of course.  But he was either an "independent" or a Republican.
Either way, he was not a "third-party" candidate.

I think he was still serving as an elected Republican member of the
House of Representatives while he ran.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:56:43 GMT

stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
: The last extended conversation I got into with a Democrat was very
: confusing indeed.  I still can't get over
: the fact that he raged at me because I thought it was rude to belch
: in public.  According to him, Democrats believe this is aristocratic.
: Is this true?  It's no wonder the Party gets such a small percentage
: of the vote with such a wacky belief.  If it's not true, then I wonder
: if this Democrat is in any way representative of the party as a whole.
: If so, I shudder.  If not, I still wonder why he would say such a thing.
: No, I didn't ask him because I got fed up with him and broke off
: contact.
: 
: Either way, I hope I'm long dead and gone before Democrats get
: anywhere near the Presidency.
: 

If you are a representative of the intellectual capacity of Republicans (and
I think you may be, given the intellectually bankrupt nature of the Republican
Platform this year), it is absolutely imperative for us to remove you bozos
from positions of power. Can you spell "potatoe?"


Kathy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13176 alt.flame:12845
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:07:55 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.043230.13481@wixer.cactus.org> lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
>From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
>Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
>Date: 15 Sep 92 04:32:30 GMT


>Okay the President is responsible for none of the US problems.  

Oh, hold it.  I didn't say that, either.


>Reagen
>and Bush nonetheless _are_ taking credit for ending the Cold War.  

For which they deserve part credit.  One of the roles of president is 
diplomacy.

Unfortunately, they have been lax in this role at home, IMHO, or we
would not have had the LA riot and several other similar incidents.

>Please explain just what a Republican President does to obtain
>this unique position.  If, as you seem to suggest, the President
>has no effect on laws or the economy, than perhaps Bush shouldn't be 
>talking about taxes and creating more jobs, and Reagan shouldn't be
>taking credit (or given credit) for tiny improvements in the
>economy.

He has an effect.  Sure he is partly responsible.  But, since we're all
apparantly agreed that there is a problem, let's look at _all_ the possible 
sources, and fix the squeaky wheel.

Plain fact is, the same idiots have been in Congress (for the most part) for 
a long time.

Let's get some people in there who can balance their own checking accounts. 
Maybe they will figure out a budget, even.  I don't even care who's 
president if we can get this done.

There, I said it.  It's just not that powerful an office.  Sure he can "do" 
things.  But it takes "an act of Congress" to really do something, doesn't 
it.  Let's get a Congress that will ACT.

<fanfare, ticker tape, etc...>

Thank you for listening...

>Just a few thoughts and questions.

> 
>======================================================================
>"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
>midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
>persists."

>"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
>                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

>"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
>                                                             ME!

>lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
>Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
>512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:58:53 GMT

In article <16862D41C.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.101741.12698@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
>sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
>>
>>
>> [...an answer about what happens to schools abandoned by voucher kids...]
>>
>>
>Thank you for the response, but you did not quite answer the question I
>asked.  I asked what if a *majority* of the students abandoned the
>public schools, what do you do with those that are too poor to afford
>an alternative even with the voucher.  I repeat:  What do we do with
>them?
>

I think the idea is that if there are kids with $2000 dollar vouchers around
waiting to be educated, and the public school fails because it's been
abandoned, and existing private schools cost, say, $3500 +, then
some private entity would see a profit in reviving the public school,
perhaps buying the facilities, hiring teachers, and running it better than
the previous public school council had done--for $2000 dollars or less per
student.  They would make money and the kids would get a better education--
at least, those of them that wanted it.  Let's not everybody forget that
as cliche as it is, and education has to start at home, and kids have to
_work_ for it....it can't be stuffed down their throats by mega-teachers.


>Jim McMaster


Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu




Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12461 alt.rush-limbaugh:4293 talk.politics.misc:43844
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:20:25 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Phil G. Fraering) writes:
|> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >In a previous article, jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western) wrote:
|> >>Los Angeles (UPI) - This morning, in a speech to Southern California
|> >>aircraft workers, President George Bush announced the sale of 50
|> >>ultra-tech F-15E fighter planes to Iraq. The fleet will replace Iraq's
|> >>air force which was stolen by Iran during the Gulf War. Each plane
|> >>will be delivered with a complimentary, specially-tooled version of
|> >>The Club anti-theft device. "I want to be the Jobs President," said Bush
|> >>to the cheering throng.
|> >>
|> >Each plane will display a yellow Gulf War ribbon, hand-painted by Dan Quayle.
|> 
|> >I saw part of Bush's speech to a similar crowd about sales of fighter 
|> >planes to Taiwan (I think). 
|> 
|> >As we know, nobody in this election has a monopoly on pandering...
|> 
|> >-
|> 
|> Yah, god forbid we should sell fighters to a country which will
|> use them to maintain their national security and identity separate
|> from such a paragon of virtue like Communist China.
|> 
|> Let's not forget that this is the first time Bush has risked
|> pissing off the Communist Chinese. And what happens but all
|> the retarded liberals start attacking him for it...
|> 
Let's not forget that Texas airplane building employees vote.  Let's
not forget that Bush promised not to do this.  Let's not forget...
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Reagan Admin. agrees with Hillary (was: Whatever happened to ...)
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:14:15 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Sep12.042018.18142@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>"When [minor] Walter Polovchak's Soviet emigre parents sought to
>return to the Soviet Union in 1980, he refused and was granted asylum.
>When they sought police help to take him back to the Soviet Union, the
>Illinois courts deprived the parents of custody.
>
>"On appeal, the Reagan-Bush Justice Department filed an amicus brief
>supporting Walter Polovchak's right to seek asylum, though he was a
>minor."  [The decision is reported at 774 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1985).]
>
>
>I guess this desire to let children assert independent positions in
>intrafamily disputes makes Ronald Reagan and Ed Meese ultra-liberal
>castrating feminist scholars too.  Right?

No, it just means that Reagan and Co. were doing everything in their
power (and some things not in their power) to destroy the evil empire,
if only symbolically. Nothing else got in their way in their efforts
to achieve this goal.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
From: dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Summary: yet another proposal  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Electoral College President election
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:49:00 GMT

[Quote of previous discussion deleted.] 

	If we are worried about giving small states influence in the election
of the President, why not simply scrap the Electoral College (which does not
adequate protect small states for reasons already discussed) and go to a
popular election with the proviso that, to win, a candidate must get a
majority vote in a majority of states as well as a majority of the total vote?
In case nobody wins (unlikely), have a runoff between the candidate who won the
most states and the candidate who won the most votes.
	I admit it's bizarre, but no more so than the present system. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK-GALLUP Poll on GAY RIGHTS in America
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:22:16 GMT

scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:

>This is an interesting poll.  Am I the only one who finds it 
>self-contradicting?

Nope.

>Then we get to the issue that some folks believe that gay rights
>are *not* a threat to the family yet still consider homosexuality
>an unacceptable lifestyle.  This probably does nothing more than
>demonstrate the emotional quotient of buzz words such as "family"
>and "lifestyle".  I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what
>the hell is a "homosexual lifestyle".

In reality, it's EXACTLY the same as a "heterosexual lifestyle"
except the people involved have their sexual relations with people
of the same gender instead of the opposite one. Other than that,
there is no specific predisposition to a certain type of personality
or risk-taking or anything else, based on sexual orientation.

>Is there a *substantial* difference (from a legal standpoint)?  I guess it's 
>the word "marriage" that presses emotional buttons.

Sorry for accidentally deleting the line above. The "difference" refered
to is a difference between heterosexual marriages and homosexual ones.
Scott's last sentence hits it right on the nose.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL
CLARKSON '95
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE ACLU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
 speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the 
 moment, unpopular."		---EDWARD R MURROW
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: defense cuts (was Re: Clinton/Gore on foreign policy)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:35:52 GMT

king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:

I wrote -
>>Seems he was pandering to the union vote in Connecticut.  This will 
>>probably be his primary defence spending principle - jobs in Democratic 
>>congressional districts. 

>Oh, sure.  There's just a huge union vote in Connecticut.  And there
>are just so many Democratic congressional districts in Connecticut.
>(There are 3 Democratic and 3 Republican, btw, and I don't know whose
>district builds the subs off-hand.)

This happened while Brown was giving Clinton a run during the
primaries. Connecticut does have some democratic party members, and
they do hold a primary. This statement just about wrapped up Brown.

>And speaking of pandering, which presidential candidate has been going
>around to defense industry company towns announcing the sale of jet
>fighters to one place or another?  Hint:  it ain't Clinton.

I don't particularly care for this either, but there are more uses for
fighters in the post Cold War, and we do need to keep some capability
of manufacturing them. Subs whose only purpose is to track nuclear
subs from a nation which can't afford to sail them anymore is another
thing all together. But, this is my point, there are good and bad
trade offs when we downsize the military. We had better make the right
decisions. An historical case in point is the RAF in England after
WWI. The English were mighty glad they didn't completely gut the RAF
when Hitler rose to power.

>If you like.  BTW--what about the B-2 and Star Wars?  Clinton *is*
>against those, and I'm sure that there are lots of voters out there
>who owe *their* jobs to these projects.

See above.

>jking

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:06:53 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep12.163721.25209@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:

>Speaking of simple-minded blind partisanship.  Has it never occured to
>you that economic policies can have *future* rather than immediate
>repercussions?  No, obviously not.  If the economy looks fine, then
>the current policies are fine.

>CLUE:  There was no "boom" in the 1980s!  The economic "prosperity"

Ohmigod, the clue-monger is loose again!

>Clearly you live in the media's litte black-and-white world of right
>and left, and of neatly predifined opinion-packages.  If someone
>states an opinion that belongs to a certain opinion-package, then you
>can take it for granted that that person subscribes to that opinion-
>package, and if you attack any of the package's contents, whether they
>have anything to do with what the person actually said or not, then
>you weaken that person's argument.  Extremely simple-minded, but
>unfortunately most people think in those terms.

<snicker>

>>and Jimmy Carter was a brilliant president.

>Did I say Jimmy Carter was a brilliant president?  Did I even *imply*
>that was just a *good* president?  No.  So why did you assume I think
>so?  Because you're a simple-minded idiot.

>>Got it.

>No, obviously you don't.

What a comeback.  Such brilliance.  Such perception.  Such topicality!

Nothing left but a sizzling pair of shoelaces.  ;-)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se