HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ken@batman.austin.ibm.com (Ken Goach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DON'T VOTE FOR A QUITTER
Date: 20 Jul 92 19:53:07 GMT
Reply-To: ken@batman.austin.ibm.com (Ken Goach)
Organization: IBM Austin, TX

jacksonk@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) posts:

#To those who supported Perot, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!!! (his name is on the
#ballot in 24 states, at least.)  It would be a nice protest, except for the
#fact that he's a quitter.  DON'T VOTE FOR A QUITTER!!  Bush is a wimp, but
#he doesn't quit campaigns (though he does quit fighting on important
#legislation.)  Clinton isn't a quitter -- he's be physically devastated
#from all the campaigning and he keeps going.  Did you notice the bags under
#his eyes during his acceptance speech?


I agree that people should not vote for Ross Perot, but not because
"he's a quitter." It is evident that he does not want to be president -
the man said so on TV. He's reluctant to take the job, he's cutting
his losses since he most likely can't win, so drop it.

This is a pretty critical election year. I think it will wind up being
a lot closer that people think in the end. Every vote will count - will
be continue in the Reagan/Bush direction for 4 more years, or will we
try something different with Clinton/Gore?

Don't waste your vote trying to make a "statement." We know the system's
screwed up. You've already made your point.


THIS POSTING DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF MY EMPLOYERS.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"... watch from high atop Tokyo Tower as the twisted world
you created explodes in rivers of blood and endless pain..."
    -Tom Servo, announcer, monster action playset commercial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: gstory@netcom.com (Glenn Story)
Subject: Re: Where to now?
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 15:33:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Jul16.173413.9895@wpi.WPI.EDU> padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:
...
>
>But if you happen to agree with Marrou or Agrans or Fuliani or whomever,
>why couldn't you give that person your vote? I don't understand why we
>have to feel we have to pick the winner rather than vote for the person
>we think is best. This is an election, not a horse race.
>
Well, it's not a popularity contest either.  You *are* helping to pick 
the winner.  I believe that voting for someone who has no chance of winning
means taking your vote away from someone who does have a chance of winning.
I'll vote for a third-party candidate when the projected results are very
one-sided (and I like the positions of a third-party candidate.)  But if
the race is close, so that I feel my vote could actually affect the 
outcome, then I'll vote for the major candidate that comes closest to 
my views.

...
>
>Seriously, though, something seems wrong when people won't vote for a third-
>party candidate and news reports won't cover a third-party candidate because
>they "won't win", but they won't win if nobody covers them and nobody will 
>vote for them if nobody covers them, and nobody covers them because nobody
>will vote for them..... 
>
>Or perhaps it would be too incovenient for the media to cover more
>than one candidate. They'd have to spend more money, we'd all have to
>think a bit harder, or whatever. Boo hoo.
>

This seems odd in a newsgroup about Perot.  Perot's [non-]campaign is 
proof that the media *will* cover a third-party candidate--if he has
enough popular support to be a significant factor in the election.

>Perot, then, is proof that one needs lots of money to run for president
>effectively. No common people need apply.
>

Sad, but true.
...
>
>Peter

Glenn

Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:1051 talk.politics.misc:35571
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's Spike
Date: 23 Jul 1992 18:00:02 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Ron Dippold (it think) writes:

>Interesting graph in Time.... Perot's popularity goes up, up, up,
>up... right to the point he hires Rollins and Jordan, and then it goes
>down, down, down, down until he bails.

So Perot is smart enough to make $3 billion and smart enought to be 
president.  But when he (in his wisdom) decides he needs professional,
it is the professionals fault when they give him the advice he paid
for.

This is really good stuff.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:1125 talk.politics.guns:18175
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Rights Advocates -- descriptive name
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:15:02 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Jul25124233@heron.cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

> How about "gun rights advocates"? 

My personal choice of descriptor would be "unindicted accessory."

-- 
Bob Munck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: PEROT OFFERS TO BANKROLL COALITION
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:43:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.224720.2241@access.digex.com>,
breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt) writes:

|>If we have to rename it in context of this discussion, lets call it
|>something else, but let's get on with it before the opportunity
|>slips away.  If we keep crying about what might go wrong, we'll
|>never do anything.  We can't keep complaining about what the
|>"politicians" are doing to this country if we don't try to do
|>something about it.

Having had experience of a similar third party situation, I would
suggest that you set up the party making no special provision for Perot
at all.

We had real problems after Dr David Owen decided that he wanted to
sabotage the party he was leading. He reduced a 25% standing in the
polls to 5%.  Perot may be useful initialy to get such a party going but
I would keep the man himself firmly out of all the decisions.

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:1131 alt.religion.kibology:3260
From: mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu ("[*] Foo")
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: KIBO FOR PRESIDENT
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:34:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.perot
Organization: Eaters of Wisdom
In-reply-to: SML108@psuvm.psu.edu's message of 17 Jul 92 19:42:12 GMT

In article <92199.154212SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>   7) An authentic turtleneck worn by KIBO for most of his sophomore year!

Must smell pretty bad by now.
--

                And for to see, and eke for to be seye
Mark-Jason Dominus 	  			    mjd@central.cis.upenn.edu 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:989 alt.activism:13233 alt.politics.elections:8768 talk.politics.theory:2968 misc.headlines:4941
From: rnewman@athena.mit.edu (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: PEROT OFFERS TO BANKROLL COALITION
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:24:36 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul20.014121.22149@access.digex.com> breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt) writes:

>"After shutting the door on his presidential bid -- and a day later
>cracking it just enough to try to keep his band of followers
>together -- Ross Perot met yesterday with a group of his state
>coordinators and told them he would bankroll and act as national
>coordinator for a new political reform movement."

Yeah right.  If it's no longer a movement to elect Perot, what
is it a movement for?   Your candidate never got around to saying
what his platform was;  when the time came that he had to have one,
he quit instead.    Without a candidate OR a platform, what is
the purpose of your "political reform movement" ??

>CAN ANYONE SAY "NEW POLITICAL PARTY" -- this is what I've been
>writing and talking about the last few weeks.  I definitely believe
>this is the right direction to take.

Maybe we could use a few more parties in this country, but the last
thing we need is yet another party with no definite purpose
or positions.   What does the Perotista Party stand for?



--
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
From: saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee)
Subject: Perot's Economic Plan 
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:45:12 GMT


Last night I heard about Perot's economic plan. The major part is as follows:

	o income tax increase for $100,000 or above
	o cut in social security
	o $0.50 tax on gasoline

I think that the last tax (the gas tax) is regressive because it
hurts poor people more than the rich. Personally it would have been
nice for me since I walk to school. 

The sad thing is that I would have switched from Clinton and voted
for Perot if he had stuck to this economic plan. Of course, now that
he quit, I think he is a wimp.

							Saurav Chatterjee

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ "I'm on a five year plan - BA, MBA, BMW"              ** ** saurav@usa   @
@                                                       *  * (.ece.cmu.edu)@
@ 49'ers III-Peat! - never mind                         *  *  saurav@ocf   @
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** *  saurav@cory  @
@      Copyright (c) Chatterjee Enterprises, 1992        * *  saurav@ohm   @
@             All Rights Reserved Worldwide              * *(.berkeley.edu)@
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** **              @
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@




Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Perot supporters -- we can still take the country back
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:45:23 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>No, Libertarians (learn how to spell your own party's name) want to limit the
>size and scope of government to **what they believe** the original framers
>of the constitution meant.  I find it hard to imagine that the original framers
>comprehended what the US has grown to today.  I find it even harder to 

Ernt.  Libertarians want to limit the size and powers of government to
only that which is necessary, and feel that the consitution and bill
of rights as originally formulated were an acceptable, although not
perfect, plan for this.  If the consitution were totalitarian, or like
Canada's or the Netherland's, which allows the government to suspend
rights on whim, that would be something else.


>Why look further?  Maybe the constitutional framers were "Liberals."

They were, in the classical sense.  Not like the authoritarians who
have taken the name today.
-- 
"Have you lived here all your life?"  "Oh, twice that long."
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:49:06 -0400 
From: "Donpaul C. Stephens" <ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: the wasted vote theory
	<1992Jul22.161643.26260@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>
Distribution: usa

m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson) said in his reply to
Re: the wasted vote theory

> 
>Wasted or not - I'm voting for Perot (It has been announced that he will
>still be on the ballot in Colorado). The average American is very ignorant
>about how our government works. For example - when I start talking about
>how the NSC (National Security Csomething) should be uprooted completely
>because they hold tons of power AND they are not elected OR appointed - they
>just "continue" from admin to admin and cause major problems for the prez -
>my cube neighbor just laughs and calls me "paranoid". That person has no
>clue and is very representative of the U.S. population in general.
> 
>I will make my "little personal statement" by voting for Perot and against
>most incumbents. Our country is in poor shape - ECONOMY GOOD OR BAD !!!
>Our government lies to us.
> 
>To quote Ross Perot from a Larry King show "There's coverup going on that'd
>make ya sick".
> 
>Wake up America. You are being HAD !!!
 
Sad, but true.  The political parties Democratic and Republican both are
taking us for a ride.  Perot's money is nothing to theirs.  His
influence in the lower levels of politics is nothing compared to the
parties.  What he has behind him is the people's knowledge that he would
do his best to fix the ugly mess we are in

He said he didn't want to be president, he said he would run.  He is now
reportedly helping his supporters get elected in the house and senate. 
Seeing the current mess the two main candidates are waving, he very well
might be back as a true candidate.  If he doesn't, we are in trouble. 
This election might then be won by a `landslide` for either of the two
parties of 20% of the populace

We the People... ARE SICK OF BEING HAD!!  Perot was honest with us, and
i'm sure he will remain so, whether he comes back or not.  I'll trust a
man who will tell us that the job is one he doesn't want but would work
to cure it.

What can we do if none of us who want change to reality can enter the 2
main parties due to their organization, or have the popularity and some
money to put toward a campaign?  We will be had, and Had, AND HAD. 
Until someone like Perot can break the cycle.


Some people who tried running this year might have taken this role. 
Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas come to mind ever so well, but they didn't
have the support of their party's old-school.

As the days tick off toward the election, it looks more and more like
one of two bombs will go off by the ammunitions dump.  And the
bomb-expert was screwdly escourted from the building
        tick...tick...tick...tick

Donpaul C. Stephens
***************************************
Ross Perot in '92
    - the only candidate that realizes the govn't needs fixed...not tweaked

Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:1149 talk.politics.misc:36763
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot supporters -- we can still take the country back
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:40:48 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <l6odjdINNpfi@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.231452.15480@otto.lvsun.com>, rex@otto.lvsun.com (Rex Jolliff) writes:
>|> In article <l6drjeINNjve@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>No, Libertarians (learn how to spell your own party's name) want to limit the
>size and scope of government to **what they believe** the original framers
>of the constitution meant. I find it hard to imagine that the original framers
>comprehended what the US has grown to today.  I find it even harder to 
>imagine that the Libertarian Party has found any of the originals framers
>still alive who can tell us how to interpret their work in light of todays
>national and international conditions.
>
>The Libertarian Party is based upon the arrogance that its leaders alone
>have the true interpretation of the constitution.  This is much like each
>of the hundreds of religions that uniquely know that they have the only
>true interpretation of the bible.

The Libertarian Party is based upon a long look at today's government and
how it has failed the Constitutional tests that founded the government.
After a long hard look, the libertarians decided that despite the turn
of events since The Great Depression that the people that wrote the
Constitution were right, what they wrote is almost entirely applicable
to today's world and today's government almost entirely goes against
what our government stood for.

>The Democrats and Republicans only disagree on how to interpret in light of
>todays environment.  Neither believes that the last word on government was
>written 200 years ago.  Actually, I am surprised that Libertarians only go
>back that 200 years.  They could go back to Atilla for governmental strategy.
>Why look further?  Maybe the constitutional framers were "Liberals."

Sorry, Democrats and Republicans only disagree on how to gain more power
for the government, and how to overspend the massive amount of money
they bleed from us today.  I'm surprised that you haven't read any
background on the Libertarians before posting such an uninformed post.
Maybe the constitutional framers WERE "Liberals", but today that name
no longer means what it did then, to find a similar meaning for what
they were in today's world you must decide libertarian.


-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:13:27 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Perot supporters -- we can still take the country back
	<22535@oasys.dt.navy.mil>

In a decent explanation of why the government needs to do some
investments, Timothy Smith says:

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 22-Jul-92 Re: Perot
supporters -- we .. Timothy Smith@oasys.dt.n (2006)

>     Also, many truely worthwhile investments are beyond the means of 
> even the richest people and corporations. For example: the military, 
> our freeway systems, major dams and flood control systems, the space
> program and other "big" science, agricultural research, medical research,
> the national park system, etc.

I don't think *size* is the real issue.  The issue is that companies
wouldn't be able to make a profit from these investments, so even if
they're "worthwhile" to the country as a whole, no one will make the
investment.

Take national parks, for example.  Could you really buy some huge area
of land, preserve and manage it, and take in enough in camping fees to
turn a profit?  I doubt it.  However, there are plenty of individuals
and companies large enough that they *could* do it for an individual
park.

I think the same is true of dams and flood control systems.  Plenty of
companies could afford to build a dam, but who are you going to charge
for them?  There's a serious free rider problem, in that some people may
benefit from the flood control but choose not to pay for it.

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,misc.headlines
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: PEROT OFFERS TO BANKROLL COALITION
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:37:47 GMT

In article <3465@charon.tegra.COM> glen@tegra.UUCP (Glen Osterhout) writes:
>The problem with using Perot supporters to form a new party is that they
>seem to lack any specific agenda.-- 
	
	Actually, Perot's supporters generally had two agendas, borrowed
from two democratic primary candidates: The Jerry Brown "the process
is corrupt, we've got to throw the high-moneyed special interest out" agenda,
and the Paul Tsongas "this country's economy is going downhill, and drastic
changes, involving sacrifice is necessary" agenda.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:987 talk.politics.misc:35031
From: ses@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Darlene Wiedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Missed point
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:06:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.perot

I watched Ross Perot on Larry Kings's show last Friday night.
I was curious to find out the real reason Ross decided not to run for
President.

During the show he stated that he was "incidental" in the campaign.  He was
right.  WE ARE THE ONES HOLDING THE POWER!!!!!!!!! 
        ^^
           WE vote the politicians into office based on our belief
	   that they will carry out their campaign agenda.

How many of us bother to follow the progress of our elected officials once
they are in office?  How are they voting on issues?  How good is their 
attendance?  Are they doing what they said they would?  If not what are
YOU doing about it?
^^^
I suspect that the majority of us never find out what our elected officials
are doing (or have done) until the next election.  By then the damage is
done, and we have no one to blame except ourselves.

I think the point most people missed from Perot's appearance on LK's show
was exactly that.  20 million people came together because of Ross Perot's
ideas.  Well, those ideas are the real issue, not the man.

We have strength in numbers.  After we cast our vote (be it Democrat,
Republican or Libertarian) our job has just started.  If we stop there
then WE ARE THE QUITTERS!  

So, stop bitching about what the politicians are doing unless you are
willing to put a stop to the problem.  In other words, "If you're not
part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
**************************************************************************
Darlene Wiedman                         "It goes to eleven."
darlene@flash.ATC.Olivetti.COM       --Nigel Tufnel, Spinal Tap          
***************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:156 alt.news-media:819
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Ballot Access Obsession
Date: 23 Jul 92 08:11:43 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

>In article <19920718114425ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:

>}Perhaps the answer lies in establishing a libertarian newspaper with
>}a national base, like USA Today or the Wall Street Journal.

WSJ is about as libertarian as a major newspaper gets, but not enough
to mention the Libertarians.  Maybe we need to recruit some famous
CEOs.  Anybody know how T.J. Rodgers is voting this year?  He's famous
for bashing Sematech et. al. as socialism.  Also, wasn't Alan Greenspan
a follower of Ayn Rand?

For slicks, the National Review edited by William F. Buckley is 
reasonably libertarian, but still conservative Republican.  The best 
libertarian slick is Reason, but even _they_ don't mention the party 
very much.  A good strategy might be to kiss and make up with these folks 
who are pretty much on our side, but probably don't want to be seen
as fringe.  (Dang!  There's that chicken-egg issue again!)

>Well, you won't have much luck picketing until we can get more people able to
>show up, which means selling liberty first, which means learning and practi-
>cing how to do this first.

Actually, it would be kind of fun to dress up in liberty caps, drag
along a paper-mache of the Goddess of Liberty, and picket when Al or
Tipper Gore come to town.  Especially Tipper, we could get the 
MTV "rock the vote" folks out there with us.  

We gotta think PR! You hafta believe most ad agencies are libertarian
in their soul.



-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections