HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:20:35 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>rf> Richard Foy

>rf> [W]ould libertarians allow dueling? If not why not?

>  Who cares? With all the serious issues facing the US these days, you want to
>  know what libertarians think about *dueling*? Why don't you ask us how we
>  feel about witch-burning, since both practices are so common these days.
>  
>  Geez.

A more direct answer is yes, as long as there was no cheating.  The
platform says that suicide should be legal, and gambling, too, so a duel
is like combining the two. :)
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Fundies distort republica
Date: 08 Sep 92  18:50:00 EST

-> On the other hand, we can address:
-> -the damage to our society caused by the rejection of many
-> traditional moral (NOT religious) values. We can oppose
-> immoral governmental programs without making immorality
-> illegal.
-> -the democrat emphasis on "rights" without responsibilities -the
-> moral repugnance of abortion as a method of birth control, and the
-> reasons that there should be some, but not too many,
-> state restrictions on it.
-> -the anti-family, anti-moral extremists who have gained such a loud
-> voice in the democratic party.
-> -the legitimate gay issues (end of discrimination and condemnation)
-> as contrasted to the illegitimate gay issues (gays as a legally
-> priviledged
-> minority groups; equal time to gay viewpoint in schools). What government programs are "immoral"?  What anti-moral, anti-family extremists have seized control of the democratic party?  And, just what are legitimate gay issues?

I am very concerned that we are seeing, in the GOP, a return to the good olddays of Joe McCarthy.  George Bush's Sunshine patriotism and Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan's activities are, I'm sure you agree, repugnant to most of America and most Republicans.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
(Democrat)

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Education (WAS: Re: Educational Spending)
Date: 8 Sep 1992 17:19:57 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu

r2d@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (richard.del monaco) writes:

| MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
| > 
| >An important difference is that the parents of private school students
| >actually care about their children's education. Unfortunately the poor
| >parents who are about their children's education can't do anything about
| >about it as they have middle-class liberals to protect them from school
| >choice programs.

| This may come as a shock but there are parents who send their kids to public
| schools and actually care about their education.

| Kindly explain to the tax payers on the net why we should give a tax break
| to the wealthy so that they can send their kids to private schools.

This may come as a shock but the wealthy _already_ can send their
kids to private schools.

The point of school vouchers/credits is to permit middle- and lower-
class parents to send their kids to better and/or private schools.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:54:14 GMT

In article <NEERI.92Sep3183718@iis.ethz.ch>,
 neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>
>BTW, the next two candidates [after Ron Paul, in terms of votes cast]
>in '88 were Leonora Fulani and David Duke.

(Note that Fulani was on all 50 state ballots while Paul was on 46,
outspent us by a factor of 2-to-1, and yet got half as many votes as
we did.  As for Duke, he was on a very few ballots and polled just a
bit over one-tenth what we did; even so I find his total shocking and
disgusting.)

>Are you suggesting that they also be included in the polls ?

If you had read the remainder of my previous posting, you would have
noticed that I stated my criteria: any name which will be in front of
the really overwhelming majority of voters (I used the figure 90%) on
November 3rd should be included in the polls, otherwise the polls are
dishonest and manipulative.  I further noted that since Marrou's name
will probably be on all 50 states (the machinations of the Republicans
in Alaska are the only thing keeping me from being sure of that) then
his name belongs in the polls.  Fulani can't possibly be on the ballot
in more than 43 states (missed the other deadlines) and may be on
fewer as events unfold; however, if her name will be in front of more
than 90% of the electorate on November 3rd then I would also argue for
her inclusion.

If you had read the rest of my posting, you would also have noted my
comments about Perot, which I think are more responsive (and less
inflammatory) to the issue you raise than the names you chose.

Polls without all the names are dishonest and manipulative.

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Hershensohn: Hoist with his own petard
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:20:49 GMT

I'm just back from the "statewide forum" of United We Stand America,
the successor organization to the California Perot Petition Drive
Committee where I and many other third party candidates were invited
to share our positions with the delegates.

I appeared on a panel with Genevieve Torres, the Peace and Freedom
Candidate, and John Cortez, an independent running a write-in
campaign. Barbara Boxer declined to show up.  Bruce Herschensohn
was there too but he REFUSED to appear on the same panel with the
rest of us.  Instead he manipulated the organizers of the convention
into putting him on by himself with not one, but two warm up
introducers.

I don't know what Bruce thought he was going to get out of pulling a
stunt like that but it clearly backfired.  There were numerous
comments not only from the panel but from members of the audience
to the effect that they did not care for Mr. H's grandstanding.

This was first time I'd had a chance to meet Genevieve Torres.  We
have agreed to work together to protest the exclusion of third party
candidates from the fall debates.  I invite you to join both of us
outside the San Francisco Hilton on Monday evening, September 21st.
For further information please call my state headquarters at
1-800-894-JUNE.

/June
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:11:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep7.181148.22935@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>   I have an alternative suggestion: why not dump both the electoral
>   college and the run-off idea and simply declare the candidate with the
>   most popular votes to be the winner?

>Quite simply because the people of the state of Wyoming would have their
>legitimate interests subordinated to the interests of, say, New Yorkers.
>Some columnist brought up an interesting thought on this a couple weeks
>ago.  (Sorry about the lack of refs)  He showed how 51 votes in the state
>of Alaska could elect the President.

Doesn't it work that way anyway?  Doesn't each state have a number of
electoral votes based on their population?  

Of course, I'm only pretending to understand this process.  If someone
could recommend the source of a coherent explanation, or explain it
to me themselves, I'd be very grateful.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12979 talk.politics.misc:45135 ca.politics:7720 alt.politics.correct:5301
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
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: 13 Sep 1992 14:29:07 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Sep13.055146.1959@auto-trol.com> 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.
>
>
>Kathy

I am waiting with fascination to see how Ronald and any other libertarians
respond to this post.

Richard Foy  
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Silly Season '92
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:08:22 GMT

This quote seems applicable to the current debate(s):

For a long while before the appointed time has come, the [presidential]
election becomes the important, and so to speak, the all engrossing topic
of discussion. Factional ardor is redoubled, and all the artificial
passions which the imagination can create in a happy and peaceful land
are agitated and brought to light. The President, moreover, is absorbed
by the cares of self-defense. He no longer governs for the interest of 
the state, but for that of his re-election; he does homage to the majority,
and instead of checking its passions, as his duty commands, he frequently
courts its worst caprices.

As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of
the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each
of which assumes the name of its favorite candidate; the whole nation glows
with feverish excitement; the election is the daily theme of the press,
the subject of private conversation, the end of every thought and every
action, the sole interest of the present. It is true that as soon as the
choice is determined, this ardor is dispelled, calm returns, and the
river, which had nearly broken its banks, sinks to its usual level, but
who can refrain from astonishment that such a storm should have arisen?

                                            Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Government and Religion (was Re: Republican platform)
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:51:28 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <Bu47F1.A8p.2@cs.cmu.edu> dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:
>In article <Bu29t0.7pu@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.171132.21604@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>> [deleted]
>> [personal anectdote deleted]
>
>This is a dangerous attitude, as someone who went to public elementary
>schools in the early 70s, I speak from experience that I never said
>the pledge with "under god".  (I was a pretty militant atheist, when
>I was young, especially in elementary school.)  I also simply omitted
>the words.  I don't remember any teacher making a big deal about it
>at the time.  What is important is that even now, when I read
>the pledge, (as in the above article) hear it anywhere, or even
>say it myself, I always hear "under god" between "one Nation," and 
>"indivisible."  It is all well and good to say "I won't say it wrong,"
>but we must realize that what children hear when they are young
>settles in their minds for all their lives.

I must confess that this happens to me as well.  I suppose the point
I'd really like to make is that it is important to know that the two 
words are _not_ inherent in any "love of country", but are in fact in
diametrically opposed to some of the fundamental principals upon which
this nation was founded (this being the connection to my Civics
lessons).

This religious pollution also stains the recitation of the oath
of office for the Presidency.  George Washington set an unfortunate
precedent by appending "so help me God".  Of course, to deny him
the right to do so would be equally opposed to the aforementioned
principals.

Maybe when you're elected President, David, you can put an end to
the streak :^)

>
>avoiding the pledge of allegiance like the plague,

If the goal is to foster "love of country", the schools would be
much better off attempting to instill a true understanding of the
great political documents of this land (particularly the first ten
amendments to the Federal Constitution), and to their notable
predecessors.  

Parrot-like repetition of dogma is worse than worthless.

IMHO, of course.

>david redish

Thanks, David, for a personally enlightening post.

   Dave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: New Electoral College Predictions
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:07:15 GMT

Greg Lyon (gl1@cec2.wustl.edu) wrote:
:    Today's (9/14/92) St. Louis Post-Dispatch provides an "assessment based on
: voter surveys and predictions by experts".
: 
: The assessment groups states into one of five categories :
: 
: Likely Democratic
: Leaning Democratic
: Toss-up
: Leaning Republican
: Likely Republican
: 
: Note : There is no description of what these designations mean.
: 
: The breakdown of states is as follows :
: 
: Likely Democratic            Running Count of Electoral Votes
: 
: Washington		       	11
: Oregon			 	18
: Minnesota			28
: Iowa				35
: Arkansas			41
: Wisconsin			52
: West Virginia			57
: New York			90
: Massachusetts		       102
: District of Columbia	       105
: Hawaii			       109
: 
: Leaning Democratic	
: 
: California			54
: Illinois			76
: Michigan			94
: Tennessee		       105
: Pennsylvania		       128
: Maryland		       138
: Rhode Island		       142
: Vermont			       145
: 
: Likely Republican
: 
: Nevada				 4
: Idaho				 8
: Utah				13
: Nebraska			18
: Kansas				24
: Oklahoma			32
: Mississippi			39
: Indiana				51
: South Carolina			59
: New Hampshire			63
: Maine				67
: 
: Leaning Republican
: 
: Alaska				 3
: Arizona				11
: Wyoming				14
: North Dakota			17
: Texas				49
: Louisiana			58
: Alabama				67
: Georgia				80
: Florida			       105
: Virginia		       118
: Delaware		       121 
: 
: Toss-up
: 
: Montana				 3
: Colorado			11
: New Mexico			16
: South Dakota			19
: Missouri			30
: Kentucky			38
: Ohio				59
: North Carolina			73
: New Jersey			88
: Connecticut			96
: 
: Any comments ?
: 
: 
: Greg
:  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mcmanus@rajeesh.WPI.EDU (Pat McManus)
Subject: Re: Winning with a small % of the popular vote (was Re: New poll results)
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:53:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.200839.21592@udel.edu> lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.215454.17091@beaver.cs.washington.edu> greg@cs.washington.edu (Greg Barnes) writes:
>>
>>Another technicality that could get you elected with 0 popular votes is if
>>your opponents' electors in the electoral college decide to give their 
>>votes to you instead.  There's nothing that binds the electors to vote for
>>who they're supposed to vote for.
>
>Not on the federal level, no. But I believe that many states have requirements
>on their electors. I'm not sure which states, and what the penalty is, but
>I'm almost sure that at least half makes the electors pledges binding.
>
>Brian Lintz
>lintz@udel.edu

There are several (although I don't believe 1/2) states that do have this
as law. However it is widely believed that if challenged the law would
be struck down as unconstitutional because of the constitution's mandate
that the electors choose the president and the people (or states or whatever)
choose the electors. The electors are clearly given the power in the 
constitution to vote for whom they choose, so these laws should not
be considered binding and you could still win (only theoretically) with
0 popular votes.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'He who governs least, governs best.' - no attribution
Pat McManus '96 CS..... 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 11:16:15 GMT


We've all heard it from J. Q. Pundit: "Clinton has wavered and waffled on his
'draft status' [what an idiot phrase] and has never come to grips with his
decision. For example, he tells the American Legion that he 'honored' their
service, but if you look at his 1969 letter, he states that he 'loathes'
the military."

Where do they get this stuff?

from Clinton's speech to the Legion:

    But I want you to know this:  I was never
    against the heroic men who served in that war.  I
    honored your service then, and I honor it still.

from Clinton's 1969 letter to the ROTC Col.:
    ...
    One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat 
    palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, 
    it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known 
    a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities.
    ...
    And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been
    good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am
    writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help
    you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to
    find themselves still loving their country but loathing the
    military, to which you and other good men have devoted years,
    lifetimes, of the best service you could give.

Not to be nit-picky, but just where is the contradiction between honoring
the men and loathing the military? And did Clinton even say that he himself
loathed the military?

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: swami1@troy.uucp (22535-swaminathan)
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 17:36:15 GMT
Keywords: yes

In article <21.X92001@ramona.com> jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western) writes:
>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.
>
>        - Jim Western
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  "Remember, if you have an agreement with someone and you think they owe
>   you money, don't take the law into your own hands. Carve their fucking
>                              organs out."
>                                              - The Bizarro Doug Lewellyn

He doesn't have to sell anything to Iraq.
In the pretext of containing Iraq (or for that matter any pretext)
he can always sell to the Saudis and also send our troops to fly
them. This time around it should be good for another $10Billion as
the last time.
Anything to improve our trade balance, keep the engineers employed,
and our defence industries profitable. so, what's wrong with that?
As long as we have the Saudi king ready to finance?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12665 talk.politics.misc:44313 alt.politics.marrou:1086 alt.politics.bush:4446 alt.politics.clinton:4495 alt.politics.perot:1414
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:12:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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?

--Scott
From: mobej@thaad-1g%hac2arpa.hac.com (Mario Obejas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:13:11 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
[...]
: 
: Now, do all the electoral votes from one state have to go to one candidate?
: Is is a winner take all situation?  Or are they distributed based on the
: popular vote.  i.e., if a 3 vote state voted 1/3 for Bush, 2/3 for Clinton,
: would the electorals be split accordingly, or would Clinton get them all?
: 

Winner takes them all. And hence the concentration of the candidates' attentions
on the undecided states with larger vote counts. 

It really should popular vote - period. I know there have been several (a
handful) of elections where the candidate with the largest popular vote has
LOST due to insufficient EC votes. Why isn't it changed? Try this on: it
requires an amendment which has to be passed by at least a 2/3 majority (or is
it 3/4?). Currently, due to demographics, the EC works to the advantage of the
Republicans (i.e., certain key states have sufficient Republican margins to
assure a Republican win). It is a small advantage but an advantage nonetheless.


--
Mario Obejas    mobej@thaad-1g.hac.com    (714) 732 2954
                mobej@thaad-1g@hac2arpa.hac.com   if the above doesn't work
Hughes Aircraft 676/Z341, P.O. Box 3310, Fullerton, CA 92634
ex-THAAD sysadmin: will work for food or Internet address
Disclaimer: my opinions are mine, not necessarily my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc