HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: [FWd] Libertarians Expect To Earn Major Party Status [Washington State]
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:03:20 GMT
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Aparently-From: Tom Isenberg <tomis@microsoft.com>

Washington Libertarian Party * P.O. Box 20732 * Seattle, WA 98102 * 
206-329-5669
For Immediate Release                                                   
           Contact:   Tom Isenberg   (206) 936-7359
									
Libertarians Expect to Earn Major Party Status

	Officials of the Washington Libertarian Party expect that their party 
will earn legal recognition
as a major party in Washington State come November, by receiving at 
least 5% of the vote in any
statewide office. Major party status removes the legal obstacles minor 
parties currently face getting on
the ballot and funding their own candidates.
	The Libertarians are fielding candidates for four statewide offices, 
including Lt. Governor,
Secretary of State, State Auditor, and Commissioner of Public Lands. In 
the primary election, these
candidates averaged more than 3% of the vote, sometimes running against 
as many as eight competitors. Art Rathjen, the Libertarian candidate 
for State Auditor who received over 3% of the vote in his five-way 
primary race, is confident that he and the others will exceed the 5% 
requirement in November's three-way races.
	"We will win major party status and we will use that increased 
recognition to promote equal
treatment for all political parties," Rathjen said. "The Republicans 
and Democrats in Olympia have
exempted themselves from the many onerous regulations they impose on 
their competition." For
example, while the Libertarian Party is prohibited from donating more 
than $5,000 to Rathjen's campaign
in the 21 days before the election, the Republicans and Democrats can 
donate as much money as they
want to their candidates. "This is just one of  many ways they have 
rigged the game," Rathjen said.
"We're looking to reform the democratic process in Washington."
	Minor parties are also prevented from fielding candidates for precinct 
leader, an integral part of
any political party's grassroots organization, and from running more 
than one candidate per office in the
primaries. In addition, minor parties, unlike the Republicans and 
Democrats, are not invited to add their
candidates to the ballot after the filing deadline, for races in which 
it turns out their party was not
represented.
	The Libertarian Party is the nation's third largest party. Over 200 
Libertarians, including State
Legislators, have been elected nationwide.  Their platform advocates 
free markets, civil liberties, and a
non-interventionist foreign policy.

                                                                        
             -- 30 --
From: howie@voodoo.boeing.com (howie)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:00:13 GMT
Organization: Boeing Graphics project, Bellevue WA

In article <3144@voodoo.UUCP> mnb@voodoo.boeing.com (Mike Burr) writes:
>What?  If you don't think Clinton offered much in the way of specifics
>how can you say Perot was fantastic?  The most common line I heard from
>Perot when pressed for specifics was "Just send me to Washington and we'll
>get it done".  Mark, it appears to me that you're applying a double standard 
>here....
>
>-- 
>Michael Burr   mnb@voodoo.boeing.com  | Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA


CNN is reporting that the debating experts from Oxford University rated the 
three participants as follows:

	Perot:   was the clear cut winner
	Bush:  did "so so"
	Clinton:  failed miserably


-- 
				       howie              

				       howie@voodoo.boeing.com
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:57:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: gibdo.1992Oct12.224304.4117
Organization: University of Washington

kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
| Well, if I were running one of these gun buy-back programs, I'd modify
| the final step, destroying the accumulated weapons, to *sabotaging* said
| weapons, then, reinserting them back into the black market.  Note that
| people who acquired their weapons through non-black-market channels would
| be unaffected; the latter can afford to have their weapons tested by a
| gunsmith anyway.  This way, a black-market weapon stands a pretty good
| chance of damaging the user when the trigger is pulled.  Over a period of
| time, could the proportion of sabotaged or bogus weapons out there rise
| to as high as 10 percent?  Would that change the incidence of violent crime?
| Or would that have any impact at all on a pool of people, most of whom,
| have nothing to lose anyway?  Would there be a shift to other kinds of
| weapons?  If more knives were used, say, rather than guns, I'd reluctantly
| have to count that as a gain of some kind.

  I'll give that idea high marks for humor and originality, but I've got
  another more practical idea.

  Just watching on television, some of the guns that were turned in looked
  pretty decent.  How about instead of destroying the guns, turning around
  and offering to sell some of them to legitimate gun dealers, then using
  the money to buy back more guns?
  ==

  Bob
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.admin
From: tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Newsgroup Creation (Was Proposal for pnw.motss)
	<BvvI0A.GwG@ars2.uucp>
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:14:58 GMT

>>>Specifically that votes be held according to the newsgroup creation
>>>guidelines and that instead of the 100 votes with a 2/3 majority we
>>>use 25 votes with a 2/3 majority.
>>
>>I think this is overkill, requiring 25 votes. [method deleted]
>>Thus with 4% of the computer population (based on uucp maps) this proposal
>>would require 25% of the worldwide vote.

I wouldn't look at it that way; the 100 number was never derived from
the population of the net and is thought by many to be too low for
worldwide hierarchies now as it is.  If you'll pardon the crudeness,
it is piss in the ocean when thought of as a percentage of the 60 000
active posters in USENET or the even larger number of people who just
read.

This is not a statement for or against the various proposals being
floated now.
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala)
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92 (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Organization: I/Ovations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:03:27 GMT

In <43850@ogicse.ogi.edu> kimf@ogicse.ogi.edu (Kim Flowers) writes:

>In addition, if firearms are available, criminals no longer have to be
>strong, skilled or numerous to be able to commit crimes successfully (I
>guess firearms kind of lower the minimimum ability requirement to be a
>criminal :). This opens up the potential to be a criminal to a lot of
>people who wouldn't have had the guts or the ability to be a criminal
>otherwise.

I don't follow your logic.  I would bet a year's salary that taken as a
whole, "most" criminals are unarmed.  Certainly most burglars know better
than to do a job armed: if caught burgling unarmed the penalties are low,
if armed, penalties are severe.

If firearms were, indeed, nonexistent, then a weasel-necked geek with the
criminal brains to steal, extort, or sell drugs, for enough profits to hire
a couple of armed thugs, is still big man on the block.

-- 
Jack Pospyhala                                    uunet!pilchuck!fnx!jp
There is no gravity, the world sucks...
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:31:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: master.3760
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

In article <DUMP.CLINTON.BUSH@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes:
>|
>| The big winner was Perot.  He was fantastic.  I don't think he's going to be
>
>  Perot, in contrast, was a breath of fresh air.  He stuck to the issues,
>  and talked straight, and more importantly, he talked sense.
>
>  I'm going for Perot.  I wasn't happy with his quitting the race,

Granted, Perot made the most sense. But, just let him try to impose the subsidy
reductions, tax increases, and changes to the status quo that he proposes.
Neither the American power structure nor the American public
would stand for it. At best he'd be impeached on some trumped-up charge. At
worst he'd be assinated.

Kennedy also threatened the status quo, and see what happened to him.

Americans like to hear gutsy toughtalk, as long as it doesn't apply
to them!

Mike
From: kimf@ogicse.ogi.edu (Kim Flowers)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:31:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.43850
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

It has been pointed out to me (and I freely admit my ignorance in the
area) that many 3rd World countries are manufacturing their own
firearms, thus my argument that if "civilized" countries stopped
manufacturing firearms the world would be a whole lot safer loses a lot
of its validity.

In article <1992Oct08.165916.1422@microsoft.com> davidst@microsoft.com (David Steckler) writes:
>In my mind, there are two _very_ legitimate reason for a law-abiding person
>to own a firearm, even if we could somehow successfully remove firearms from
>all criminals. Self-defense and the principles outlined in the 2nd amendment.
>Self-defense because if two 250-pound goons enter my house with knives and
>baseball bats, my only chance to defend myself and my family is with a firearm.
>I'm no match for multiple opponents, perhaps well-versed in the use of a bat
>and knives. In my mind, the 2nd amendment arguments are less of an issue, but
>still valid: our government is less-likely to become completely totalitarian
>if members of our society are armed.

Of course, if guns are available, then the criminals are much more
likely to have them than you, and aren't likely to be as discriminating
in how they use them. From society's viewpoint, it would be better to
restrict both you and the thugs to clubs and knives, since they would
only be able to kill you and your family at a time, whereas with
firearms they are quite likely to kill you and your family and many
more people in the local neighborhood, with little or no effort.

With clubs and knives, they're restricted through physical limits on
how many people they can hurt at a time.  Your chance of running away
is a lot better too.

Of course, society's best interests often do not coincide to the best
interests of the individuals in the society.

In addition, if firearms are available, criminals no longer have to be
strong, skilled or numerous to be able to commit crimes successfully (I
guess firearms kind of lower the minimimum ability requirement to be a
criminal :). This opens up the potential to be a criminal to a lot of
people who wouldn't have had the guts or the ability to be a criminal
otherwise.

I can't really argue against the totalitarian government problem,
except to note that the ability to bear arms doesn't seem to have
helped much against totalitarianism enforced by bureaucracy. Nobody to
shoot, I guess :). The United States is unique in its philosophy that
the citizens should be allowed to bear arms in case the government goes
bad.

K. Dorian Flowers
kimf@cse.ogi.edu
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg)
Subject: Re: VP debates
Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:32:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.152208.28902@u.washington.edu> monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
>...
>Jim Stockdale had a terrible habit of pausing,
>as if he were actually thinking :)

I sensed some of the personal leadership that allowed Admiral Stockdale
and the other POWs to survive the Communist torture in Hanoi.

He is not a political animal.  He didn't pull any Clintons.

I don't know if this is what we need, or a debilitating occupational liability.

-- 
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf 
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Newsgroup Creation (Was Proposal for pnw.motss)
Date: 9 Oct 92 04:25:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: gibdo.1992Oct09.041527.17655
Organization: University of Washington

Randal L. Schwartz (merlyn@ora.com) writes:
| You know, for all the noise this proposal has generated, it's probably
| going to be five times the amount of traffic that the group being
| discussed will generate.
| 
| I have half a mind to let loose a newgroup ctl just to stop the discussion!
| 
| Will anyone back me on that?

  Yeah, I'm with you on this one.  We're not ready for the extra bureacratic
  hassle.  Those guys sound like they're trying to figure out how to vote
  on how to vote.  Well, I vote that we don't vote.
  ==

  Bob
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:33:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: kopachuk.1992Oct13.183342.1652
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.

In article <4828@crl.LABS.TEK.COM> ellis@daffodil.LABS.TEK.COM (Cynthia Ward) writes:
Deletions...
>
>>Bush ignored the Russian revolution until the reality slapped him in the
>>face, while coddling China's dictators after they massacred they students.
>
>I thought Bush REALLY blew this one by not supporting Gorbachev with $$$$
>while he was still in power. If Bush had given him some money, just a
>fraction of what was wasted on the Persian Gulf War, the Soviet Union 
>might well still be united, and I think this would have cut down on the
>bitter ethnic civil war that we're seeing all over Eastern Europe, IMHO.
>Even if it had been decided that it would be better to not have Gorbachev
>remain in power, the transition could have been managed better.
>

Seeing as how the Soviet Union was assembled through conquest, and
the warring factions were only kept away from each others' throats
through the use of centralized state police power, *any* increase in
freedom in Soviet Union would have probably had the same result.
Gorbachev was ousted in the coup because the leftists (the ones the
press calls the "conservatives" :-)  ) thought he wasn't doing enough
to combat these ethnic movements.  Any major support of Gorbachev would
have been hitching our foreign policy wagon to a falling star - if the
money had been sent in before Gorbachev's departure, it would have
fallen into the hands of the leftist totalitarians who would have used
it to either postpone the inevitable breakup of their corrupt regime,
or finance the biggest genocidal crackdown since Stalin.  Gorbachev
sealed his own fate, and that of the Communist party and the empire
which served it (the state served the party, *not* the other way
around), with his glasnost and perestroika policies.  Nobody wanted
the Soviet Union to stay united except the ruling elite of the Soviet
Union.  What we're seeing in eastern Europe today are the final
skirmishes of World War I.  Better to have them shooting each other up
now than to wait until some of them get their hands on nuclear or
biological weapons.

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      |  "Nylok lock nuts lose their  |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232    | binding strength after 1 use!"|
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:04:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: gibdo.DUMP.CLINTON.BUSH
Organization: University of Washington

Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes:
|
| The big winner was Perot.  He was fantastic.  I don't think he's going to be
| able to win the election, but you can't feel guilty about voting for Perot
| after tonight.  Whether the Bush-man or the blow-dried JFK-wannabie win, the
| next four years are going to be nasty.  A Perot voter will have the
| satisfaction of knowing it isn't his fault.

  I agree completely.  Both Bush and Clinton came off as total products
  of the political system.  Both were boring, neither was believable
  and they both continued to snipe at each other.

  Perot, in contrast, was a breath of fresh air.  He stuck to the issues,
  and talked straight, and more importantly, he talked sense.

  I'm going for Perot.  I wasn't happy with his quitting the race,
  but he didn't quit on the POW/MIAs and he didn't let the country
  quit either.  To me, it is the Democrats and the Republicans, and
  not Ross Perot, who have quit on the country.


  Note: Tuesday (4pm): vice-presidential debate
        Thursday(6pm): next presidential debate
  ==

  Bob                                           Seattle, Washington
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the VP debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:38:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: Celestia.1992Oct16.153844.3467
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA

In <iaZosB4w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

............................
:Stockdale was the only one who (at least) tried to answer the queries put
:to him. He would, however, stumble off into a void though, nullifying his
:answers. But Gore and (especially) Quayle did a reprehensible job with
:their questions. I don't know what all the fuss, oooohs and aaaahhhs are
:about. I've seen more substantive debates in kindergarten playgrounds
:over who gets to play with the dumptruck.

......................deleted
:MODERATOR: "The audience shouldn't hiss like that..."

:QUAYLE: "Neener! Neener!"

:PUBLIC-1: "Quayle wins!"

:PUBLIC-2: "Gore wins!"

:PUBLIC-3: "Stockdale wins!"

:This debate only offers us a choice of what level of mental incontinence
:we'd like to have guiding our country. Let's hope that which-ever of the
:choices makes the trip to Washington lays in a goodly supply of Brain
:Pampers, a kind of Depends for the Mind.

This is exactly the impression I got of the VP debate... a couple
of 5-year olds fighting over the toy with Stockdale looking on in
amazement at the antics of Dole (Mr Tipper) and Quayle.

The more I see of this election, the more I want a None of the
Above choice and throw all the bastards out!

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.admin
From: mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:06:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: Ikkoku-K.MS-C.718924000.377401575.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: Mike Burr <mnb@voodoo.boeing.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

Michael Burr -

     Clinton talked a lot about how he was going to tax the wealthy, and
bandied the $200K/year annual income figure as the only people who would get
hit; yet at the same time he claimed to get an incredible amount of new tax
revenue that way.  Bush is right; bleeding the rich isn't going to get all
that much income.

     At least Perot's gas tax plan makes sense; and there are no pretences
about the purpose of the tax.

     Clinton talked a lot about jobs, yet he seemed to be much more concerned
with government doles for the unemployed, new job training, etc.  At least
Perot's job proposal made sense; you reduce unemployment by expanding US
industry, not by creating highly-trained unemployed people to compete for jobs
that don't exist.  [Bush's idea of creating lots of minimum-wage jobs is a
poor substitute.]

     However, most of this talk is academic.  We will soon see how disasterous
a Clinton presidency will be.  While Clinton is clearly better than his three
predecessors, a combination of the plasticity of JFK (few people remember how
amazingly *unpopular* JFK had become by the fall of 1963), the dishonesty of
Nixon, and -- I predict -- the ineptitude of Carter, is not going to lead us
to a happy four years.

     People had better start thinking about keeping Pat Robertson out in 1996,
when `Anybody But Clinton' becomes the rallying cry.
From: markz@ssc.com (Mark Zenier)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Proposal for pnw.motss
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:11:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: ssc.1992Oct06.181133.1412
Organization: SSC, Inc.,  Seattle, WA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:
: In <1992Oct5.045443.1553@seanews.akita.com> billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:
: 
: >I propose that we adopt a protocol similar to the mainstream Usenet
: >heirarchy, adapted for the fewer readers of the pnw newsgroups.
: >Specifically that votes be held according to the newsgroup creation
: >guidelines and that instead of the 100 votes with a 2/3 majority we
: >use 25 votes with a 2/3 majority.
: >Comments?
: 
: I think it's sad that we have to go to a formal procedure, but if indeed
: we must, this one sounds reasonable.

A quick grep of just the UUCP maps showed 15453 entries for the 
entire database and only 305 for the state of Washington.
Assuming the ratio of uucp sites to domain addresses sites is
the same locally as worldwide, and the ratio of news sites to listed
sites is the same:  I'd say that the 25 voter requirement is too
high, if you require the same (low) percentage participation as a 
worldwide vote.

Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: VP debates
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:47:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: tau-ceti.2736
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <1992Oct14.152208.28902@u.washington.edu> monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
>Jim Stockdale had a terrible habit of pausing,
>as if he were actually thinking :)

More like he lost his train of thought (no smiley).  I felt a hint of
Reagan in the air when watching him. 

-- 
+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC-Bunker Ramo
! II      CC     !  TAF-C8;  Spokane, WA  99220
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.isc-br.com)
! II      CCCCCC !  (509) 927-5757
+----------------+
			"PC's --- the junk bonds of the computer industry"
From: dxxb@hardy.u.washington.edu (David Barts)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:15:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct12.041515.5397
Organization: University of Washington

Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes:
> [ edited ]
>The big winner was Perot.  He was fantastic.  I don't think he's going to be
>able to win the election, but you can't feel guilty about voting for Perot
>after tonight.  Whether the Bush-man or the blow-dried JFK-wannabie win, the
>next four years are going to be nasty.  A Perot voter will have the
>satisfaction of knowing it isn't his fault.

Nah, just cast a write-in vote for "Benito Mussolini".

-- 
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195