HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Greg Paul)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady! (Was: Clinton's VP list gets shorter
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: paul@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Greg Paul)
Organization: Arizona State University, College of Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:22:50 GMT

   Anyone watch the coverage of Frank Zappa ripping Tipper Gore and her
tea party commision on the whole record thing several years back?
I have to say it was refreshing to hear someone actually say what so 
many people were thinking.


   What the hell is the problem with people?  You want to limit children's
access?  Why don't parents look after their own kids and take some time
to set rules for them?  There's this screwed up mentality that "we" know
what's better for you and yours than you do, so just let us take care 
of you.  Throw on another screwed up concept that every single special
interest group seems to have this idea that all the problems of society
stem from the fact that we just haven't quite passed the right law yet.
So much of the country wants the easy way out, and our leaders are 
constantly helping by introducing rules and such which seem to start on
the basis that we're all blithering idiots.  You can't shape morality
by legislative action very easily, and in fact establishments like the
welfare system and many other entitlement programs are having a very 
adverse effect on it.

   What this country really needs is another legislative body which 
can toss laws out on a 1/3 majority or something simliar.  Give the 
president back the line item veto, and let's at least try to get
someone in government with some semblance of answerability to the people.


p.s.  In retrospect I suppose there are some unintentional twinges of 
    libertarian ideas in here, but the republicans seem to be floundering
    without direction, and it was sick watching the democrats'
    presentation of "unity" by trying to hide half the party in the
    wings at New York (ack, it's bad enough watching Teddy "what this 
    country needs isn't less government, but more government" Kennedy,
    and having Maxine Waters speak during the nominations, but thank God
    they locked up Tom Foley (sp?) and the other pork barrel cronies).
--
========================== Will be President for food ==========================
Greg Paul  (Mouser)		  |  paul@enuxha.eas.asu.edu  GO SPARTANS!!
MSCS student, Insight technician  |     Triangle Fraternity
____________ "My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout..." -JT ____________
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:33:07 GMT

In article <5174@transfer.stratus.com>,
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>> Sounds like snake oil, to me.  Those pesky codes aren't designed to drive up
>> the cost of housing, they're there to ensure safety.  Should people be allowed
>> to live in unsafe housing just because they can't afford safety features?
>
>Yeah, I'm so sure.  Try telling it to a guy who was told he had to put a
>full $4,000 foundation underneath a $1,000 prefab toolshed because "anything
>over 100 square feet falls under the residential code."  Just making the
>world safer for your lawn mower, Ma'am.

This reminds me of another example right in my neighborhood.  A guy
down the road collects old cars and built a 4000 sq. ft. steel
garage to keep them in.  Of course, in the best traditions of us
rebellious mountain folk :-) it was all done without permits and now
the country has caught up with him.  They're not claiming there is
anything structurally wrong with what he's built (he spent $60K
building it), but they're saying he has to install a full sprinkler
system "to bring it up to code".

Not only that, but since the local water company (Kings Mountain)
doesn't provide enough pressure to run such a sprinkler system, they
have to install a full pressure system as well.  Remember, this is
for a metal structure on a slab which will house mostly a bunch of
other metal.  Estimates for bringing the garage up to code are about
another $40K.  Meanwhile over on the coast you can still but up an
"agricultural barn" which will house living animals and lost of
flammable stuff like hay and not put in any sprinkler system.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:09:47 GMT

In <1992Jul26.235859.24281@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>The incomes of all groups in the 1980's rose, although some more than
>others, I'll admit. Now, while we should always try to help all the classes
>improve at the same rate, I won't complain as long as all groups are
>improving. I don't agree with the politics of envy.

And the prices stayed the same, right?

No.


So tell me, what meaning is there in increased wages that don't keep
up with inflation?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                     Life's a sham and every move is wrong
                  We've examined every move as we move along.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: The Myth of the Spendthrift Democrat
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:10:28 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>In article <1992Jul16.193744.284@uunet!tellab5!odgate>, mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>|> gee, that means if all goes well, that Clinton's deficit would be down to just
>|> about where the Democrats left it in 1980, before the Reagan-Bush
>|> team took charge.  As I recall, the deficit in Carter's last term
>|> was somewhere around $70 billion.  It would be a good reelection
>|> slogan: in four years, we reversed the damage that the Republicans
>|> managed to do in twelve.  

>Wishful thinking.  We will still have to pay of the extra debt built up
>by all those bloated deficits.  My guess is it would take at least a
>Trillion dollars to get back to 1980 deficit and debt levels.

Anyone else heard about the 3 military bases we own that if sold at
assessed value, would generate $3 trillion revenue, thereby eliminating
3/4 of the *debt*.  I beleive one was near San Francisco, one in Hawaii,
and one somewhere else in California.

---------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- It's heeeeerrrreee!!!!!-----------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "I'm speechless...               
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |      I am without speech." - George
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Winner-take-all elections
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:08:03 GMT

In article <711798888.0@iphase.FidoNet.Org> Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP
(Tom Cavender) writes:

>There are some interesting ideas floated in
>the new issue of THE ATLANTIC.  The author favors proportional
>representation in Congress, in which several congressional districts
>would be bound together and representation would be based on the
>percentage of the vote received in each region (superdistrict?)  The
>way I read this, you might have 9 representatives for one "super
>district". Kind of like the Israeli system, except that there would
>still be direct election of the President.  I don't buy into this,
>because I like the idea of one representative being responsible to me
>for what he does, although I'm sure the intent is to have several
>representatives responsive instead of one.  The idea also seems a
>little too party-responsive rather than individual candidate based.
>
>Still, it's interesting, and worth a look.

I just read the article last night.  I think the author fails to go
into how Presidential and Senatorial elections would be impacted by a
disintergration of the Democrats.  A form of moderate Republican party
(one without the more rabid conservatives, who would move to a new
Conservative party, nor fundamentalists, who would gravitate towards
some sort of Praise the Lord Party) would become the nationally
dominant organization.

I'd also question how the representation of small, minority parties
would work out.  Yes, they would gain seats in the House, but what of
it?  The way the author has it figured out, they would have negligible
voting power in the face of two strong centrist parties that would
control some 70% of the seats between them.  A voice perhaps, but what
of it?

But, yes, it is an interesting article.
From: blosser_cy@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: PEROT-SUPPORTERS WERE ROYALLY SCREWED!
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:24:21 GMT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

So Perot dropped out--er--I mean WIMPED out. Big deal. The guy obviously
couldn't face the people or make a direct stance on the issues. I didn't 
like him anyway...the stingy, money-grubbing capitalist *pig* could give 
Congress a crash-course in greed. 

Those suckered into Perot's schpiel were royally screwed. Just like any-
body who falls for the dirty insidious schemes of stupid politicians. =)

Have a nice day. Feel free to flame...

						     Christopher Blosser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: posting to this newsgroup
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:37:24 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <Jul.29.10.29.43.1992.26548@andromeda.rutgers.edu> dowzycki@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ken Dowzycki) writes:
>
>   If anyone can see this posting, please, please, contact me
>either as a follow up or by e-mail.  I can't seen to get 
>through to any newsgroups.
>
>   This is being posted on July 29, 10:33 AM, EST.
>
>   If you would be so kind to reply please include the date and
>time you are reading this.  Thank you.
>
>Email     dowzycki@andromeda.rutgers.edu



30 July 1992,  3:38 EST




















Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8664 alt.activism:13195 nj.politics:404 alt.rock-n-roll:13956
From: speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady! (Was: Clinton's VP list gets shorter
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 12:06:55 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd) writes:

> speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
> 
> >korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:
> 
> >> Labels on movies and records limit artistic freedom by imposing the
> >> opinion of some governemt bureucrats on the rest of the society.
> 
> >advising ME as to what type of movie I can find where.  How is
> >one persons OPINION about the content of the movie HARMFUL???
>  
>  In the case of records it is harmful because many malls and chain stores
> will not carry labelled records.  In the case of the malls, many mall 
> owning companies have stated that they will not renew leases with stores
> that sell labelled records.  If you don't see something wrong with some
> mall owner dude laying down policy like that in conjunction with some
> religious group like the PMRC (let's not forget that the DK album over

 I was not aware that PMRC was a religous group.  Is it really?

> which Jello was busted had a sticker on the front saying that a poster
> was enclosed by Swiss surrealist painter HR Giger that some may find
> offensive "life can sometimes be that way", they pressed the charges
> against Jello & Co despite their claims of only wanting to label records.
> (The sticker put on by the record co was on the fromt of the record & the
> PMRC guidelines (I guess religious group guidelines count as law in the
> U.S.) stated that warning stickers be placed on the back of the records).
> The role of labelling in it's proponants is to control access to ideas.
> If that power residing in the hands of self appointed guardians of morality
> does not scare you then you fit my impression of a typical american citizen.

  What scares me is when a "self-appointed guardian of morality" tries
to put into LAW their morality.  I think a store owner or mall owner
who bows to the visible views of the few are to be flamed for their
actions.
  The nonsense that the Meese commission did put pressure on stores
like 7-Eleven to remove magazines from their shelves.  Meese's actions
were repressive, but 7-Eleven should be flamed for bowing to such
stupidity.
  People in this country should be educated as to the meaning of the
first Amendment and should know better than to bow to the 10% americans
who have no tolerance.
  Yes, we should not succumb to the 10%, but we should not endeavor
to suppress their views.  Instead, if they have an honest concern,
we should listen, and help find an answer.
  What is the answer?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll,alt.censorship
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore and "Jazz From Hell"
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:42:27 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit
Followup-To: alt.censorship

In <hurd.711658189@sfu.ca>, hurd@fraser.sfu.ca sez:
>speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>
>>  Correction:  VOLUNTARY Labeling.
>
>Gee, they only sued the pants off people who didn't do it voluntarily.

Source, please, lest we begin to suspect that you possess only the
most tenuous grip on reality.

-- 
	It may be a police state, but it's *our* police state.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll
From: cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 26 Jul 92 02:40:55 GMT
	<1992Jul24.193435.24058@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 24-Jul-92 Re: My thoughts
on Clinton'.. Tony A. Gibbens@hermes.e (2649)

> How about the fact that nearly ALL private schools support some type of 
> political view, religious view, or some other type of dogma.  I know of only
> one private school which tries to completely neutral with respect to religion,
> politics, etc. 
I believe this is factually *very* innacurate.  Most of the private
schools that I am familiar with do not have any religious or political
affiliation.  I certainly acknowledge that there are a large number of
private religious schools, but what do you mean by "political view" or
"other type of dogma"?

Also, the goal of allowing private schools to compete with public
schools is that over time more private schools will be created to fill
the demand for quality education.  If there are enough people who want
non-religious, non-biased private schools, more will be created.

>  Personally, I do not want public money being used in 
> non-neutral structures. 
So, then, you oppose government funding for the NEA or PBS?  I'm sure
you would be appalled to know that federal student aid goes to students
attending such universities as Notre Dame and Holy Cross!  How are
private K-12 schools any different?

>  i realize that many public schools are not totally
> neutral, but at least their stated objective is to be neutral
A)  Who has ever stated this objective, besides you?  I don't recall
seeing it any place official.  B)  What does it matter what the "stated
objective" is if the reality is different?  As long as a private school
"states" that they are not providing religious indoctrination, then
you'd approve of giving them funding no matter what their practice?  My
experience was that public high school teachers were relatively
unbiased, or at least admitted their biases.  However, I recall several
middle school teachers who presented particular political views as if
they were fact, and pressed these views onto the students.  I've heard
of grade school teachers pressing controversial views about nuclear
weapons, sexual orientation, animal rights, and the environment onto
very young, impressionable students.  And I've never heard one saying
anything disparaging about labor unions.  Public schools can be
politically biased, though they generally try to be very careful
concering religion.

So I'm curious, would you support a voucher system that specified that
no federal funding be used to pay for religious classes or activities?

--Conrad
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9251 talk.politics.misc:36180
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:38:42 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <rdippold.711666458@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>] doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>
>>] >I'll vote Clinton, so that in 1996, their will be no doubt which of the
>>] >Big Two deserves the credit or blame.
>>]
>>] Good idea.
>
>>There we have it : Ron Dippold endorses Clinton. I knew he was a liar.
>
>Hee hee, this is great.  The level of desperation is palpable for you
>to try something like that.  But don't give up hope!  Perot is now
>playing electorial kingpin for congressional races.

You may be a Libertarian Ron Dippold, but your actions cause me to
turn my back to you. 

Otherwise known as a "kill" file.

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:42:08 GMT

In article <BruKIK.3yr@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <kePRZ7i00UhWQ5v5Vu@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>>Nah, that would be too disruptive. Much better to re-run the Iraq war! Have
>>>you seen CNN tonight? Old familiar faces are everywhere: Pentagon
>>spokespeople,
>>>mideast experts, Saddam strutting around, militant Iraqis, Bush standing
>>>firm by UN resolutions and issuing ultimatums. CNN's expert reminds us that
>>>Hussein again seems out of touch with reality, he must be receiving bad
>>>advice. There you go again, Saddam, let us into that building or we send some
>>>of our troops back in (now at 3% of wartime peak).
>>> 
>>>Oh, and you know why Saddam is taunting us like this? According to CNN, he
>>>is taking advantage of President Bush's current political weakness.
>>>How could we have been so fickle? Time to rally behind the chief again,
>>>before somebody gets hurt.
>>> 
>>>I don't think the thyroid operation took.
>>>---
>>>Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
>>
>>If we do hit Iraq again and we see a surge in the presidents popularity
>>I give up on the voters in this country. All an air strike on Iraq
>>should do is point out how Bush has screwed up evry thing he's done with
>>respect to Iraq.
>
>    This is an unlikely scenario, because if we hit Iraq (and miss Saddam) 
>    again, the oil prices would surge, and the stock market would take a 
>    nosedive.
>
>    On the other hand, toppling Saddam could bolster Bush's re-election
>    campaign, hence no US intelligence operative in Iraq will be spared 
>    to achieve this goal.
>
 
   Another excellent ploy would be to stage an assasination attempt 
on President Bush.  And this can be really easily done. Just make sure
the President is not really or seriously shot.  His popularity will
be dramatically increased.  
 

   Okay, this is a bad observation of US socity and US politics. 
 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Causes of the "Cultural Elite"
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:46:38 GMT

In article <rdippold.711922999@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com
(Ron Dippold) writes:

|>mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
|>>I would say that in today's world libertarianism has taken the
|>>place of socialism as the trendy ideology. The same sort of
|>>nerdy types who a few years ago would have been loony
|>>socialists are today loony libertarians.
|>
|>Oh yeah, those who advocate the destruction of freedom would make just
|>great defenders of freedom.  Libertarianism has been around for at
|>least 200 years.  Socialism only 100.  You're seeing the retreat of it
|>because it doesn't work.

Not so, free-market libertarianism has only existed for thirty years
being dreamed up mainly by Hayek in his dotage. Socialism has existed
over two hundred. Check the dates of Robert Owen. Remember that Marx was
criticising a mature ideology, he had to distinguish his `Scientific
Socialism' from Owens established rather paternalist variety.

Mills refers to socialism in `On Liberty'. Since this is the seminal
text in the area there is little point in trying to antedate Libertarian
ideas to before socialist ones.

If you draw your definitions very widely, ie you don't care about the
ideas bearing any relation to those of the present you can dredge up
some precursors of the French revolution. Unfortunately the Marquis de
Sade is hardly a great prize, you may take him with our compliments.


On the other hand, let us imagine that the authour is correct and rabid
looneytarian thinking has a 200 year old pedigree and socialism was
discovered only 100 years ago. 

	First it places the birth of Socialism after the death of Marx and
disproves the old and boring Socialism== Stalinism argument. 

	Secondly it means that the ideas of Socialism were so vibrant that they
immediately created a major political movement whereas Libertarian ideas
have been rejected and derided over two centutries, managing to only
foster one party which gains less than 1% of the vote in elections.

	Thirdly it means that Socialism is not as everyone had hitherto
beleived a reaction the displacement of the existing social structures
by the industrial revolution but a byproduct of the late imperial age.


Nice try, pity your argument is not supported by the facts.


Phill

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot