HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:04:36 GMT

In article <38800@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

|>fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
|>
|>>Am I accusing Perot of running a similar campaign to Pat Buchanan's...i.e.
|>>Buchanan ran to defuse a potential thorn-in-the-side, in-for-keeps campaign
|>>by David Duke...I think the answer is "yes." Perot's former supporters
|>>split almost 4-1 for Clinton when Perot dropped from the race. He is
|>>in there solely to re-elect George Bush.
|>
|>But H. Ross Perot hates Bush with a passion. He also dropped out of
|>the race on the eve of the Democratic Convention, saying that he
|>"didn't need to run, since the Democratic Party was rejuvinated." This
|>is as close as you can get to an endorsement without actually saying
|>it. A month before Perot dropped out, Clinton was running third. 

Ross *claims that he hates Bush. There is no evidence to sugest that this is the
case. Both are right wing populists who would promise anything to get elected.

Perot makes a big thing about "making hard choices" etc etc. Yet what is his
plan to balance the budget? He wants to extort $200 billion per annum from
Europe and Asia to cover the deficit. Does that sound remotely like a hard
decision?

Both candidates in the 88 race knew that the US had to either raise taxes or go
bankrupt. The problems the US is facing are hardly a surprize. Regan's lotus
eating scheme of raising spending and reducing taxes was crass stupidty from the
start. Where are the on the record statements from Perot condeming these
policies five years ago?


|>I think that Perot is serious about the defecit problem, and he cares
|>enough about it to get back in the race. He feels, somewhat correctly,
|>that the issue will not be seriously addressed unless he does.

I can give dates and times for speaches that I gave five years ago in which I
accurately predicted the effect of the "new right" grab what you can "greed is
good" ecconomics, can Perot?

Just for the record I will make a few more predictions for the future:

	1) Perot will back out at the last minute and support Bush
	2) IBM will either stop manufacturing computers or file for
	   chapter 11 by the year 2000 (when I first made this 
	   prediction in the mid 1980s it was thought impossible,
	   now it is considered rather less likely.
	3) Saudi and Kewait will have revolutions within ten years.



|>"Did you see that press conference? I think it's disgusting that both
|>the major parties have to kiss that little guy's butt. He doesn't
|>derserve it, he's a quitter, and shouldn't be in the race!"
|>
|>I thought it was quite funny, but I bet his remarks will gain a few
|>more Perot votes - political elitism is not popular this year.

If Perot was a housewife from middle America running a genuine grassroots
campaign this might be true. As it is the *ONLY* reason why Perot gets given
time of day is that he is very, very rich.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: hbr@iccdev.indcomp.com (Howard Richter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Email address for Bush
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:42:56 GMT
Organization: Industrial Computer Corp.

Is there an email address for the bush camp. Or is he still not 
computer Literate ??
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed Sep  9 11:19:03 EDT 1992
If I could get my membership fee back,
I'd resign from the human race.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Parents Beware, Sex Education
Followup-To: rights & responsibilities...
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:15:40 GMT

In article <BvCrr9.L79.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|> 
|> I understand that one of these people (it could be Bailey) won
|> the primary.  I'm not sure if he ran the ads during the
|> primary race or not.  
|> 
|> Nightline did a segment on the use of the ads.  The "politicians"
|> were fairly upfront about not wanting to be elected, really, they
|> just wanted to air their ads.  The last I heard of this whole
|> thing was that one of them had bought time during the ABC
|> "Afterschool Special" or some other program that targeted
|> children.  Parents were complaining that they didn't want
|> their kids to see the bloody fetus pictures, and the "candidate"
|> answered that "children need to know what abortion really is."



|> I'm willing to bet that this guy would oppose sex education
|> in schools because only he should decide when his children
                                                 ^^^
|> are ready to know about sex and what they should be taught
       ^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
|> 
|> Susan

Are you saying that people do not have the right to decide
what their children are taught?  You say this statement as if
you think its unusual for a parent to want to influence their
child's education.

PARENTS OUT THERE, BEWARE!  Your rights are being eroded by
people like this, who believe they know better than you "when (your)
children are ready to know about sex..."!


-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
Rice University                    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
XUV Holographic Microscope Project 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14728 talk.politics.misc:48740
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:21:37 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Sep30.015238.19372@b30.ingr.com>, pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald) writes:
> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> 
> 
>>Over 500,000 calls were logged in the first 30 minutes and over a million
>>calls by this morning.
> 
> I read in the paper that some people are upset, because they called the
> number to tell him _not_ to run.  The number is just an automated counter,
> so they inadvertently logged a "yes" vote.
> 
> So take the above numbers with a grain of salt.

  Pat, stupid question of the month #4097:

  Do you think that there are that many people that want Perot out??

  Maybe on the USENET news, yes, but ....

						Mike Falkner

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15352 alt.society.civil-liberty:6164 uiuc.civil-liberty:56
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Perots book "UNITED WE STAND" is a best seller.
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:16:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Sep24.174308.11263@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> All followups PLEASE to 'alt.politics.elections' only.
> 
> "UNITED WE STAND" by Ross Perot is compelling reading and has topped
> the bestseller list for 3 weeks in a row now. Its only $4.95 and
> is money well spent in this election year.
> 
> If you haven't read it - go get it.

I haven't read it yet. Can't decide whether to read it or not. I've sent
questionnaires out to all my friends and neighbors and pending what they
say I may read it. If they tell me to I will. 

It's in the peoples hands. 

:) <-(for the humor impaired)


-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bkonarsk@Condor.mcs.kent.edu (Beirne Konarski)
Subject: Re: FOR TRADE: Bush 800- for Clinton 800-
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:25:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.220223.13193@col.hp.com> tbc@col.hp.com (Tim Chambers) writes:
>I saw an ad by Bush giving a toll-free number to call to request his plan.  I
>called and have since received it.  Then about a week ago I saw a similar ad
>by Clinton.  I called and apparently wrote it down wrong -- I got the Holiday
>Inn customer service line!  (So it's NOT 800-272-9273.)
>
>Bush's number is 800-368-1200.  Anyone know Clinton's?


Clintons was 800-272-9763 but when I called it tonight I got a recording 
saying that it was no longer active.  The recording referred me to 
(501)-372-1992 which I am too cheap to call since I have already tried to 
get Clinton's plan once months ago but haven't seen anything.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Debates!
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:24:50 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University


Seems that Bush was just waiting for the debates scheduled by the
bipartisan commission to expire:

Just heard on the news that Bush and Clinton are actually going to
debate, on every Sunday from October 11 on until Election Day.  Don't
know what the format will be, but it appears that Clinton accepted, or
at least didn't reject it.

Clinton did note that the baseball playoffs will be on during the
debates, given the scheduling.

Perot will be invited, if he chooses to re-enter.
--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:52:38 GMT

aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert Daniel West) writes:
>[...]The result
>of this will be that Perot will pull enough votes away from Bush
>in Florida to throw the state to Clinton; he will narrow the race
>in California, though Clinton will still win; and he'll give Bush 
>a great scare in Texas. In the other closely divided states, his 
>presence will throw the states to Clinton, contributing to an
>electoral college landslide.

After seeing his press conference just now with the Democrats in Dallas 
(C-SPAN), I no longer doubt that whatever he's doing, it's in the benefit 
of Bill Clinton. He more or less endorsed the Clinton side of the question 
of whether we should have an activist government program to revive the 
economy. He also acknowledged that there is some reasonable question as
to whether right now is the time to apply the "brakes" or the "accelerator"
(i.e., government investment).

Maybe he's slippery enough to fawn all over the Republicans too, but I
doubt it. C-SPAN hasn't shown the Republican press conference yet though.

Consider even this possibility: the pundits say that the Bush campaign does
not want to set a date for a debate right now because that would freeze
public opinion when they desperately need to move up in the polls. Isn't
Ross Perot's dilly-dallying around ("I let you know Thursday") 
accomplishing the same thing?

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14672 talk.politics.misc:48640
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush knows those numbers
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:54:17 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Sun Microsystems

During a Bush whistle-stop the other day, he told the crowd that,
if Clinton is president, he will raise taxes on everybody making
over $36,600.

On another one, he said, if you're making $22,400, you'll pay
another $460 in taxes.

Where does he get these numbers?  I know having exact numbers makes
it appear as if you know what's going on, but does making them up
count?

Is Bill Clinton's economic plan really so well defined that GHWB could
get these exact numbers?  If it is, how can George say he has as
well-defined a plan as Clinton?

C'mon, George, you can't win on BS and imaginary issues.

Although you _did_ do it in '88.

--f2
----------------
  Bush-Quayl '92
  It's a mistake
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: The Question Bush Will Not Answer
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:53:48 GMT

In article <1aq088INNbnc@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>If you see Bush being interviewed, note that Bush's conditions
>for interviews currently state that no questions may be asked
>about his role in the illegal sale of weapons to Iran.
>

	Welp, seein' as he promised to take real live calls on
his next Larry King appearance, I'm sure that he can be asked.
How much does an auto-dialer cost, anyway?

>--Brad Sherman
>

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
		Don't trust anything with an odd number of lips
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Party Registration
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:18:46 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 13701@cbnews.cb.att.com, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>Simple question:
>
>Often people will say "I'm a registered Republican" or Democrat, Independent,
>whatever.
>
>But I can't remember ever registering as the member of a party. I'm looking
>at the Ohio voter registration form right now and nowhere is there any 
>question about party affiliation. 
>
>So how do all these people "register?" 
>
>---
>Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com


Some states require party affiliation, some request it, others have no
requirement.  When I lived in NY, party affiliation was required, altho
"Independent" was allowed.  In VA, no affiliation is required.

--f2
-----------------
  If abortions are outlawed,
  only outlaws will have abortions.






Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:33:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.152826.29155@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:

>There's no question that Perot has and had his overzealous supporters,
>but then so do the Republicans and Democrats.
>...
>Suggesting that Pye and
>Strattocaster are somehow more vehement than the well known zealots
>from the various ends of political spectrum that populate the net is
>ridiculous.

It's also quite irrelevant.  Perot is a *person*, an individual
candidate; the Republican and Democratic parties are entire ideals, as
are the "various ends of the political spectrum."  It's not uncommon
for people to be zealous about specific political goals or ideals, for
that's the nature of politics.  However, specific supporters of Bush
or Clinton rarely (ever?) get as single-minded as the Perotistas.
When someone's support for a specific candidate rises to the level of
support that Perot has marshalled, we call that dogmatism.

>Back when the pathological Perot haters were regularly bashing Perot
>for his "lack of policies," supporters explained (quietly and
>rationally) that according to Perot, detailed policies were being 
>formulated and would be announced well in advance of the election.  

What basis did they have to believe this?

I don't care that Perot later published his stands.  It remains that
people supported him -- to an alarmingly unqualified extent -- before
he did so.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot's book profits
Date: 1 Oct 1992 20:20:45 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

Where are the profits for "United We Stand" going?

--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14344 alt.politics.bush:6796 alt.conspiracy:10819 alt.activism:16803
From: spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Secord says Bush is lying about Iran-Contra
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:21:09 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: szechuan.ucsd.edu

In article <cortez.717570954@milton> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>Some time after Nir died in a plane crash in Mexico, his widow's home
>in Israel was ransacked and his personal records collection stolen.
>The thieves took nothing else of value.

His personal records?  Oh my, I hope that they didn't get the complete
Elvis collection.

:-)

							spl



-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@dim.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"When the cells are talking, you have to listen to them..."
                            - Liz Yoder, UCSD Neuroscience graduate student
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: New Illinois Poll
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:18:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.161748.1597@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>   New Chicago Tribune Poll (asked with Ross Perot in the race) :
>
>Clinton : 46 %
>Bush    : 26 %
>Perot   :  7 %
>
>  If it was a two man race, Clinton would still lead Bush by 20 %.  The poll
>also stated that support among candidates is "firming up"... people are 
>becoming less willing to switch to another candidate.
>
>Greg
>
>P.S.  A new poll from Missouri is due out tomorrow evening.
>

With 21% undecided, it can hardly be said that support is "firming up."
Any time a large portion of the sample is undecided it suggests that
a large portion of those who claim to have made up their mind are not 
really sure either.

-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: unrzc7@daphne.rrze.uni-erlangen.de (THOMAS LUBANSKI)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Organization: Rechenzentrum Erlangen
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 10:33:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.015704.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>Hmm... Adam, buddy, I think you completely missed the point. You see, the
>United States hasn't been invaded since the Spanish American war... what I was
>talking about OBVIOUSLY is Clinton's DODGING OF THE DRAFT! In your 24 years, do
>you remember Vietnam? That's right, we had a WAR in the sixties, that Mr.
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, wrong. At least the USA never declared a state of war with Vietnam. 
So if Clinton did dodge the draft for not to fight in war that wasn't 
declared, IMHO it was a very reasonable thing to do (but then again, I'm 
only a sissy German).
 

>Clinton seemed to have convienlently missed. That is what I was referring to.
>As for his wedding, the "church scene" that I described is taken from the very
>mouth of Mr. Clinton (well, not exactly) during a Democratic debate with the
>other Democrats running for President. As for the drugs... man, you have lived
>a sheltered life! I come from a small town in southern Wisconsin, not too far
>from Chicago and Milwaukee... and I hate to shatter your world like this, but
>there are drug rings out there, I've seen them pal. True, you make a point that 
>for me to say that drugs run our streets is a bit pessimistic, but I'm not
>running for President. The last person in the world to undermine the ability of
>Americans should be the President, or anyone who wants to be the leader of a
>nation. What sort of leader believes that his following is second rate? If Mr.
>Clinton cannot believe in me or the abilites of the people of this nation then
>I CANNOT believe in him. And nor should anyone else. I hope this helped. Try to
>follow a little closer next time.
>Here endith the lesson.
If you give any lessons, at least get your facts right.

>                --VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
> 
Thomas

"What would Janna say about it?"


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
Subject: Re: Lets not blame Reagan for everything....
Organization: Bis Information Services
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:17:32 GMT

In article <exuptr.533.716420718@exu.ericsson.se> Patrick Taylor writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.171711.25763@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>
>>The Cuban Missile Crisis only served to show just how stable the Cold
>>War was.  The nuclear deterrent was SO strong that the Soviets backed
>>down even though it meant an MONUMENTAL political defeat.
>
>Yeah, stable.  What would have happened had we not spotted the missiles?

They would have stayed there.  So what?  Oh, let me guess, you think
they would have given the Soviet Union a big advantage in that nuclear
war we had with them, right?

This guy is a riot.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Debating the debates debate (was Re: Chicken George, where are you?)
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:40:14 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
> [...] I can just imagine the negotiations occurring:
> 
>      BAKER:  If you don't like Sunday nights, how about Tuesday nights?
> 
>      CARVILLE:  Can't do it -- Clinton watches "Full House" on 
>                 Tuesday nights.
> 
>      BAKER:  How about Monday nights?
> 
>      CARVILLE:  Nope -- Monday Night Football.
> 
>      BAKER:  How about Saturday nights?
> 
>      CARVILLE:  Let me see... YES!  Saturday nights are fine.
> 
>      BAKER:  O.K., we need to set a time.  How about 7:00 PM?
> 
>      CARVILLE:  Sorry, but many of Clinton's supporters watch 
>                 "Hee Haw" then.
> 
>      Is is time for us now to debate about the debates debate?  (Yes,
> Baker/Carville should be debating about the debates, -or- no, they
> should not be debating about the debates.)   :-)

  Big smiley!!!   That sounded a lot like the negotiations between a young lad  
and his somewhat reluctant prospective date.  It fits the debate debate pretty  
well, IMHO.

  Of course, I hope everyone realizes that Clinton mentioned the World Series  
not because _he_ wanted to watch it, but because he feared those good-ole-boy  
Reagan Democrats would much rather watch a good game of baseball than some  
boring debate.  And he can't afford not to reach them!

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections