HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:41:29 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: New Tax Structure

>From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>

>is this like a giant federal sales tax?

Sort of.
The main difference is that it could be progressive, in a certain way.
You tell the government (in effect) how much money you spent this
year. If it's a whole lot, they tax it at a higher rate than they
do if it's just a small amount.
Can't do that with a sales tax.

>so i would deduct my paltry savings (600 per yr) from my paltry pay, and then
>pay a tax on the difference?

Right.

>no deductions for kids?

Oh, yeah, there were supposed to be deductions for kids. "Exemptions,"
they're called. The proposed restructuring would maintain the
exemptions.

>what if i had a big savings account (so, i can dream can't i??) that was
>bigger than my income. would the irs pay me?

Nope.
You don't get to deduct your whole savings, only the amount you saved
in the given year. You couldn't save more than you took in. (Gifts
would count as income.)

Jamie

(I have no response for JasonZ, who has recently insulted me
in private correspondence, doesn't bother to spell my name right,
and wouldn't know a "semantic argument" if it slapped him in
the face.)
From: ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just as carl has quieted down
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:01:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

All right!  Its J-A-M-I-E!  Excuse me for making typos!

And all right, Jamie (note the spelling) is a HE!  (For the record, this is not
my first gender mixup -- I think I went along for months calling Kerry a he).

Yours truley :)
Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:14:04 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: New Tax Scheme

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

> What we really need is a flat tax on all income from every source. What we do
> NOT need is another scheme to control human behavior via the tax code, which
> this consumption tax seems to be.

So I suppose you will also tax capital gains at the same flat rate,
right?

If you want to be really "fair," you should tax wealth too.

> Let the semantic arguments begin, Jaime.

That copyrighted guy (Larry?) beat everyone to it.

> Jason

--KAT

BTW: the other Senator was Dominici (sp?).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:32:10 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 'air' baker and the debate debate

>As far as debates go, it looks like there will be four, one a'Sunday from
>Oct 11th to Nov 1st.  Clinton has been publically insisting that the
>debates begin this Sunday, the 4th, as the last of the original debates
>was schedule for then, but he has his people negotiating with Bush's people
>on striking a debate deal.  Guess he's prepared.
>
>Also, is Perot going to be included in this new schedule of debates?  What
>of the vice presidential debate that so many of us slaver for?
>
>Whatever transpires, it should be interesting to watch.  I hope they add a
>canned laugh track, as it would be entirely appropriate for the atmosphere
>of this election.
>
>Gary W. Olson

They're now saying that there's a tentative agreement that there will
be three debates among the Presidential candidates--one with a single
moderator, one with a panel, and then one that is split (now that there
are three candidates, I think that they ought to do the third debate
in the style of the TV gameshow Jeopardy--"I'll take the Baltics for
$300, Alex").

Of course we can only speculate what effect Perot will have on the
debates, but I think that his mere presence helps Bush--Perot has the
potential for turning these things into a circus sideshow, which I
think Bush can be "presidential" in.

And you're right that a laugh track would be appropriate--I'm just
not so sure that it needs to be canned--a live audience might be better.

...Rick
From: FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: H. "You People" Ross "I don't want to be a spoiler" Perot
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:58:32 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

So, Perot seems to back in.  The CNN poll I saw had Clinton at 52%, Bush at 35%
and Perot at 7%.  Clinton's numbers actually seemed to go up because of this.
Huh?  I (and I think everyone else) was predicting that he would hurt Clinton
more than Bush.  After all, didn't his pulling out help Clinton?  Maybe I'm
missing something crucial here.  Any thoughts on the matter?
        Okay, now for my ideas of what will happen to Perot:  He'll get 5-10%
of the final Pop. Vote, and simply be another John Anderson -- not making any
difference in the race, but making the margin a bit narrower.  If, by some
miracle, he were to get any electoral votes (Tx. could be interesting), he may
try to be a power-broker -- and that, I assume, is his motive.  3rd parties have
never done well in the U.S., and that's not going to be changing very soon.
Although -- if, say, the Demo. and Repub. parties were both split (Jerrry Brown
and Buchanun/Duke, perhaps), Perot could have a chance.  But he doesn't.  I
wouldn't be particually suprised if he were to drop out before Nov 3. again.

Be Seeing You,
Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:37:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Playing Poker

> Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:20:05 MST
> From:         "(Roger)" <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
> Subject:      Playing Poker
>
> >Bush apparantly suggested that he would do two debates Clinton's way and two
> >his way.  Sounds fair, I guess, and with each debate we would hear different
> >questions.  Now Clinton is balking and wavering.  Why?  If two debates are
> >in his favored style, via the committee, why worry?  Did he have the debates
> >planned out already his way?  This little slam-dunk by Mr. Bush is the
> >mark of Baker.

     And it is brilliant.

> >
> >Sue Clark
>
> The Bush/Baker slam-dunk Sue talks about is actually more of a last second
> shot from the mid-court stripe.  First, Bush believes he will recover in the
> polls immediately following the RNC and refuses to debate Clinton, fearing
> it will make his opponent look "presidential".  Second, the Bush White House,
> which previously endorsed the work of the Presidential Debate Commission,
> finds out they will have to debate to try to recover in the polls, but
> see they will be at a disadvantage with the chosen Democratic candidate.

   Actually it will be an advantage.  On the Charlie Rose show on PBS one
   commentator mentioned that this will effectively keep Clinton from being
   able to do alot of campaigning.  Clinton will be too busy preparing for
   the debates.  If Clinton refuses to debate, then people will wonder why
   when he pressed the debate issue.  In a sense Clinton was am"Bushed."

> Third, as always with the Bush/Baker duo, they attack and throw up
> smoke screens.

   And as if the Democrats do not do the same thing?

>
> Maybe Clinton is right.  They should all go on Larry King's show.

   They could bill it as "Circus of the Politicians."

>
>                                                   ---roger
>
>    Another in the series of topical Dan Quayle quotes...
>    ..(thanks to Gary Stephens - Dublin City University, Ireland)
>
>         " Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
>                    -- Vice President Dan Quayle



Carl-----------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:18:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: 1-800-Perot

"Tell them to send me a letter."
        Did he say what his address was?  I think we could arrange something.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:12:32 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Smoking
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              29 Sep 1992 15:02:41 EDT from <CCCS%VTVM1.BITNET@O
              HSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:02:41 EDT todd pukanecz said:
>Reprinted without permission from the 9/29/92 issue of the Collegiate
>Times, Va Tech's bi-weekly, student-run newspaper.
>
>CANCERLESS CIGARETTES INVENTED, NOT RELEASED
>
>Durham, NC - Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. researchers said they developed
>a cigarette in the late 1970s that eliminated cancerous tumors in test
                                    ----------------------------

This is misleading.  Worded in this fashion, one could believe this
was a cure for cancer, not a cancer-less cigarette.

Can anyone say "urban legend" ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:32:31 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: perot

>The New York Times lead editorial this morning sums up the Perot
>effort as "Tease, tantalize, talk" and asks "What, really, could Mr.
>Perot now bring to the debate besides eleventh-hour confusion?"
>
>The only realistic potential effect I can see of a Perot candidacy
>is to screw-up Bush in Texas.  But I don't think that that is too
>likely.

I agree.  I think that what Perot is doing is highly irresponsible.
If he really cared about the country and its future, he would have
stuck with the race and been a little more forthcoming with an
explanation of his vision, rather than just preaching the need for
change, blah, blah, blah.

Anyhow, I think it's too late for Perot.  I think that many people
will see him as incredibly selfish, a little bit loco and not a good
candidate for the White House.

>...Rick

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:20:14 -0400
From:         "If I Were A President,
              There Would Be 2 States: Sanity and California!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Virtual election comment ...

we got them already in my state... along with all those other
horrible vices... drinking,smoking, and gambling.. that's why
Kentucky has such good politicians.. we've got to to keep all those
horrible things legal... of course with a couple of hundred dollars
you could by one too.. so........!!!!


   John Stith(stustith@eku)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:43:38 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: H. 'You People' Ross 'I don't want to be a spo

>        I think that Clinton has a great deal that he can say in the area
>of foreign policy, but perhaps he ought to save it for the inauguration
>speech, because right now it might do more harm than good.  Time is short
>and he doesn't really need it so why shoot himself in the foot.

My guess is that Clinton will prominently feature foreign policy
in any debate as Clinton would be a fool not to exploit the unfolding
Iraqgate revelations.

>                                        Chris Morrison

-other Andy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:57:03 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: HR 1674
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              28 Sep 1992 09:16:30 CDT from <SPRG0002%TULSAJC.BI
              TNET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:16:30 CDT Dr. Gizmo said:
>"Airwaves as public property" has been an issue relating to radar detectors
>also.  Some states have been successful in banning the devices.

Or they plan to post beacons which emit the radar pulse for a short distance
at random intervals making motorists think they are near a speed trap.
(according to the news stories I read several months ago about this,
 the ACLU <who else> vowed to fight this)

The entire principle of the radar detectors depends upon signal spread and
some of the new laser-based systems have minimal spread, making the
old detectors obsolete.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: jbm@panix.com (John Mignault)
Subject: Re: Rush
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 03:24:10 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <POLITICS%92092512210741@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:

>Kai & MacPhil:

>You bet Rush's book is selling.  It's number one on the NYT Best Seller
>list, and it's practically impossible to get.  And let's not forget
>that the radio show has 14 million listeners.

Really? Number 1? That's interesting. I haven't seen the store's
advance copy for this Sunday, so I could be wrong, but last Sunday's 
book review had him at #6, just below Gore's Earth in the Balance (hm.)


>--Missy P 2 B

--John Mignault
  jbm@panix.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:27:43 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Shall We Dance?

>>1) Who would be the 'single' moderator?  A member of the media?  A non-
>>media political anaylist?
>
>Me. No seriously, a non American, who's not as bogged down in all the
>political baggage associated with the thing.

I think that this is a great idea.  I do wonder however, if there
wouldn't still be some political baggage attached to someone whose
country does care who gets elected president of the US.

>>Sue
>Dunstan

j.b.
From: E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Andrew Allen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Jefferson's new party affiliation
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:31:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>gee.... slaves ... hmmmmmm sounds just a little self righteous!

Nope, just pointing out that times change and peoples values tend
to change with them. I suspect that Jefferson would find precious
few gentlemen/farmer/scholars within either party today, or much
value placed upon such a concept.

Now if you wanted to argue that if A. Hamilton were alive today
he would be a Republican, I'd be inclined to agree. B)

>john

-other Andy
From: RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET (Rick George)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Perot--in, out, what?
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:50:14 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>Wasn't it cool when Mike Wallace called up and accused Perot of avoiding
>the real press and Larry of "tossing softballs"?  That was neat.  They
>both acted like they'd been caught at something.  (I also think it's odd
>how people like Cher and Mike Wallace call in to the Larry King show,
>when the talk show format is supposed to be for the people--you know,
>"the Owners of the Country.")

I was hoping that someone would call up and yell out Howard Stern's name,
like happens every now and then on Larry's show.

>BTW, I think I missed something.  Does Perot have a VP?  I know he must,
>but I don't know who it is.  I heard rumors it was going to be Jackson,
>but I'm sure I would have *heard* about that if he'd actually been picked.
>
>
>--Missy P 2 BzP3xdm~q%ck6$Pw

Perot's VP candidate is the well-known James B. Stockdale.  Quoting
the New York Times, Stockdale is "...a former Navy pilot who was shot
down in the Vietnam War and spent more than seven years as a prisoner
of war.  Mr. Stockdale, 68 years old, retired from the Navy in 1979
with the rank of vice admiral.  He is currently a senior research
fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, a conservative
think tank.  Mr. Stockdale, a graduate of the Naval Academy, was shot
down over North Vietnam in 1965.  His efforts in resisting his North
Vietnamese captors earned him a Medal of Honor and led to a book and
television movie.  He was a vocal critic of the way American officials
conducted the war."  (Oh, THAT James Stockdale.)

He was in that audience of "paid volunteers" that Larry and Ross were
cooing to last night.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:47:37 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject: monroe, truman, hegel; or, leaving well enough alone

in answer to lance:
no.  the u.s. is not justified in meddling in the internal affairs of other
states.  if you are interested i can give you the whole philosophical
justification for this, but since this list has seen this from me before, i will
   spare everyone the pain.

on the rossy-crucifixion:  well, who knows?  i, too, am inclined to think
that, on some levels, perot's "bowing out" of the race was a wise and
economical decision.  it's not like the man has suffered from a dearth of
media coverage in the intervening months.  i think, however, his method
of leaving everyone kind of high and dry for a few months was not the best.
i think he was badly advised...or else he was just so royally pissed with
ed rollins and hamilton jordan that he just did it that way because they
told him not to.

jimbo wales is funk king west of the rockies.

                                    anneliese "perot-noia will destroya" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:41:00 EST
From:         YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET
Subject:      Re: U.S Military Intervention

Here is another thing I wished to bring up on the matter of whether
U.S Military INtervention in the Internal Affairs of other COuntries is
justified.
I was reading about how the intent is crucial to look at when judging the
legitimacy of U.S intervention. One of the reasons why the U.S intervenes in
principle is to care for the welfare other human beings. This comes into
view when the U.S intervenes to stop bloodshed and killing in cases of human
rights violations. In other words, U.S military intervention is essentially
part of a communitarian principle of that individuality (in this case national
sovreignty) should be subservient to general welfare of people.
Now at first when I read this, I thought this a bit too much based on principles
and values, but to an extenet it does make sense and it could be a justification
for intervention.
However the problem comes about when intervention is not just for the good
of people  (strike out "just") but rather for the welfare of the greedy. SUch
instances come about when the U.S intervenes to increase the political
power of a certain politician. What do you people think of all this.
Lance
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Perot--in, out, what?
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:44:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>       I don't get it and I doubt that any of you are older
>       than me...

ginny, so how old are you?

-linda (please oh please let her be older than me :))
From: CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU (VALENTINE M. SMITH)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Virtual election comment ...
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:27:10 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

I would offer this to the bEEr issue - all bears are of interest, and this
candidate visited a micro-brewery in Lawrence, Kansas, just two weeks ago,
sampling the wonders of whEat bEEr. I do not indulge as much as in younger
years, but suggest ALL bEEr is fun, in moderation, and everyone should as
much as they'd like to have, of whatever kind. Better bEEr than cigarettes!
ValeNtiN
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just as Carl has Quieted Down
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:14:39 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Jason:
>I'm not sure of Jamie's knowledge of game theory, but he never seriously
>rebutted my claim that profit maximizing firms would break his convention.  I
>openly admit that I know only a little game theory, but it seems to me that his
>hypothetical example's real-world relevence is refuted by the existence of the
>basic "Prisoner's Delimma" (which was what I was trying to argue earlier, but
>didn't remember the name of the phenomenon I was thinking of -- I don't mind
>occasionally looking up info I'm not that familiar with).  I know Jamie never
>explained why this isn't an analogous situation.

I'm reasonably familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma, and with the "tit-for-tat"
strategy that maximizes outcomes from playing that game.  I don't see how
PD is at all analogous to the situation Jamie was using -- could you please
clarify?

Thanks
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  SABOE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:43:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: new energy bill

>this:  "deregulating the electrical power companies could have an impact
>greater than deregulation of the phone companies and airlines *combined*"
>(emphasis mine).

oh great, extremely high prices for what will end up to be increasingly
shoddy service, which could end up (and probably will) putting the public
in more danger than airline deregulation did.

>Does that scare anyone besides me? :)

where's a slow boat to iceland when you need one?

>Kerry

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:35:25 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

> Jeanne Kirkpatrick is to smart to be a vice-president.  ...............

As opposed to Dan Quayle who is dumb enough....?

--KAT :-)