HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:21:57 GMT
	<bblF02VMbfsK00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<APPEL.92Apr6192928@con.xcf.Berkeley.EDU>
	<1992Apr7.051311.3767@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division
In-reply-to: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu's message of 7 Apr 92 05:13:11 GMT

gliesche> The LP strives to apply a consistent philosophy to social and
gliesche> political problems - not just a mish-mash of whatever works for
gliesche> the current month.

Or, to put it another way, the LP strains to blindly apply their dogmatic
principles to everything, no matter how little sense it makes in many
situations.

I much prefer a candidate who is not welded to some idiotic dogma, but is
willing to consider innovative solutions to problems based on a case by
case analysis of the real world problem and an analysis of the proposed
solutions. I also prefer a candidate who will be willing to do a little
"outcomes research" on existing programs and stop the ones that aren't
working and cancel any future programs which don't work out as expected.

I don't know if Ross Perot is such a candidate, but I know damn well none of
the democrats, republicans, libertarians, greens, or new alliance folks come
close. The doubt about Ross Perot leaves open the hope that he may be such a
candidate. The fact that he managed to amass a couple of billion dollars
also leaves that hope open. It seems unlikely he was always right about
every decision he made, and it seems just as unlikely he could be so
successful without being willing to recognize mistakes and change bad
decisions.

Blindly applying dogma leads to idiotic crap like Lysenkoism in the Soviet
Union, the "cultural revolution" in China, the Keynesian deficit spending
practiced by the democrats during times of economic growth in the USA and
the cut taxes and increase spending voodoo Reganomics which was supposed to
balance the budget.
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Flat Tax
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 04:20:18 GMT

In <1992Apr6.215234.6361@acsu.buffalo.edu> jadahlin@acsu.buffalo.edu (sm00sh) writes:
>Clinton quoted The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Chicago Sun-Times
>editors as saying that the flat tax will not work the way Brown says it will.

Not to cast too many aspersions, but when did editors become tax experts?

I mean, everything I've heard about it has been VIOLENTLY bad.

Does someone actually have figures written down, or are they all going
crazy over back-of-the-envelope calculations?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
              I pick the goddam terror of the gods out of my nose!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Rich and Fair Share
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:36:08 GMT

In article <Edvkhdu00iUyA4MZxf@andrew.cmu.edu>,
to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Oligino) writes:
>My only point is that the policies enacted by the regan/Bush
>administrations allowed the Very rich in this country to increase their
>wealth enormously.I believe that the policies should be changed to take
>back some of what was-given- to these people.

"what was given"?!!

Whose money was it in the first place?  The Reagan tax changes did
not give anything to anyone they simply stopped taking away as much
as had been done previously.  The rich had been, and continue to,
pay a larger percentage of their income for the same services
available to other people for a lower percentage of their income.

Besides, it really doesn't matter if the rich get richer.  That
just means they'll have more money to spend on things that could end
up benefitting the poor.  The fact that the rich are getting richer
also doesn't necessarily mean the poor are getting poorer; sometimes
it just means that the poor aren't getting richer as as fast as the
rich are getting richer.

Unfortunately many of the poor and the middle class *are* getting
poorer.  In fact, many of the rich, measured before taxes, are also
getting poorer because of other government policies which have
crippled the economy and everyone's productivity and incentive.
There in no reason to scapegoat the rich for the failures of the
politicians we helped to elect.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:39:40 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:54:58 GMT

	I've seen and read much on Ross Perot, and I'll agree with those
who say his policies are vague. Fortunately, I won't have to vote for
or against him for another six months. I'm hoping his plans are fleshed
out by then. Already, he seems to have more concrete policies than Bush.
But those on the net that take the little he's said and extrapolate the
extreme case are doing themselves a disservice. None of the stuff I've
read seems to imply running roughshod over the Constitution. The Electronic
town hall seems no less constitutional than Polling is. I really haven't
heard much on his stance on the War on Drugs, but it doesn't seem much
different from Clinton or Bush. For those Perot-bashers: in what way is
he worse than Clinton or Bush? If he isn't why not attack these two in
the same way? 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Question:  Brokered Democratic Convention
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:52:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.153845.17788@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, winstead@faraday.ece.cmu.edu (Charles Holden Winstead) writes:
|> What does a brokered democratic convention mean?  What are the circumstances 
|> that would lead to it, and how is it handled?  I hear the press talking about
|> it because people seem dissatisfied with all the candidates.  I thought that
|> if Clinton gets x amount of delagates, that he automatically gets the 
|> nomination.

True, but he isn't going to get that many delegates, or even close. If doesn't
capture enough of the uncommited and super delegates (something that will likely
happen) then it will be brokered.

Jason W. Solinsky
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:460 talk.politics.misc:17025
From: appel@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Shannon D. Appel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:29:28
Organization: xcf
Distribution: usa
	<1992Apr6.055137.6789@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
	<bblF02VMbfsK00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: con.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: fierro@uts.amdahl.com's message of 7 Apr 92 00:37:48 GMT

In article <bblF02VMbfsK00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
->  Again, another Libertarian bashing Perot; what gives???  My theory 
->still holds... :-)
->
->  You have obviously read/heard nothing about Perot.  Why don't you read
->the Larry King interview that has already been posted here twice?

It actually really surprises me that this would occur.  I would think that
Libertarians would support Perot because it would prove that an independent
could win/do-very-well and thus bring more support to independents and minor
parties in the coming years.  Seems quite strange to me.

[Oh, and I think that Perot sucks, but I wouldn't mind others than the two
 major parties having some clout]

Shannon

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dan@ektools.ssd.kodak.com (Daniel P. Schaertel)
Subject: Re: Electronic town hall (was Re: Ross Perot)
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 14:31:11 GMT

In article <MAS.92Apr7215508@csa.bu.edu> mas@csa.bu.edu (Mark A. Semich) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.192135.415@leland.Stanford.EDU> ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour) writes:
>
>   Furthermore, Perot doesn't want dictatorial powers, he
>   wants to educate the public so they can make informed, rational decisions
>   about the issues that face our government - note the electronic town
>   hall concept.
>
>   Bob
>
>
>It seems to me that this electronic town hall idea may sound good, but
>has an enormous potential to be mis-used.


You are forgetting one other important matter.   Not everybody owns a
TV.  Is Perot ready to buy everbody one ?  It seems to pull this off we
have to let him get into our houses and tell us what to do.  That isn't
my idea of freedom.   


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:40:17 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PAC's Lets have a real democracy
	<1992Apr14.181239.11094@husc3.harvard.edu>
Distribution: alt

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 14-Apr-92 Re: PAC's Lets
have a real.. Anthony Koumis@husc4.har (1889)

> We definitely need campaign finance reform.  Get rid of T.V. ads - make
> them have to give a certain amount of t.v. ad time to candidates
like they do in Britain and other places.

Your second sentence contradicts itself.  I like the first half better -
ban all political T.V. ads.  Your post really talks about two different
issues:
	1) Candidates seem to simply sling mud at each other and not talk about
the issues.
	2) The person who manages to raise the most money has an advantage by
being able to buy more TV ads.

If we simply banned all T.V. ads, I think we'd find less mud slinging. 
The problem is that the most effective message that can fit into a
15-second spot is an opponent-bashing ad.  If you had a half-page of a
newspaper, you could very clearly explain your views.  Plus, since
newspapers are a lot cheaper, the amount of money a candidate could
raise would not be as much of an issue.

Simply providing "free" T.V. times raises several questions: 1) who pays
for it? 2) how do we determine who gets it? 3) what makes you think ads
will be any more constructive?

--Conrad
From: dfl@panix.com (Danny O'Bedlam)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Natural Law Party (UK)
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:13:18 GMT
Organization: Panix, (New Yawk City)

Tonight C-SPAN ran one of their programs about the British election
thursday, and discussed the media and press.  After the discussion they
showed the full "Party Political Broadcast" films for the major parties
in the election:  The Tories (conservative), Labour, Liberal Democrats,
and the NATURAL LAW PARTY.  The NLP (sic?) had among other spokespeople,
Doug Henning (apparently one of their big-wigs), describing how Science
and 'natural law' will make the country and the world a better place.
Actually, this party is run by followers of the Maharishi, and they
apparently have a lot of candidates running... er, flying.
-- 
***********************************************************************
* Danny O'Bedlam  = dfl@panix.com = cmcl2!panix!dfl = Danny Lieberman *
* PO Box 3131 Church St Station, New Yawk, New Yawk, 10008-3131 (usa) *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Against Government Regulations
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:23:44 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


In response to Joe Collins attempting to claim that suits cann
be used to protect us from gov't interference.  Mr. Collins
said lawyers can take suits on a contigency basis if somweone
cant afford to sue.

True but the problem is most of these type of cases are not going to
be big damages cases that lawyers would make any money off a contigency 
share.  Damages against a company a consumer protection statute
is often very little.

The real point is however, that people DONT KNOW THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS!!
Why rely on a system that people have to sue to protect their rights
instead of just outlawing saying intrusive credit investigations
into your life that report on things that have nothing to do
with your creditworthiness.  They do that all time.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 12 Apr 92 11:26:57 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

It is me again.  Once again, I am replying to JW Solinsky.  Your
vision of society being free to choose to eat helathy or
unhealty food, to buy safe or unsafe cars is premised on the idea
that everyone will have perfect information about the products
that they are buying.  

No has perfect information and without some neutral (but not alwys since
gov't is too influenced by big business) standards no one could judge
what they were buying.  ANd it is extremely inefficient not to say a waste of
time and money to make each individual consumer have to run around and
investigate a car aor house or food they are buying to make sure that
it is a good and safe products. 

I much rather be free to buy food knowing it wasnt full of vermin and
spend my time more profitably like having long political
converstaions on the net. :-)

I think with no govt regulation we would run around being slaves 
to big business and monoplies instead of to the govt like JSW feels
we are.

The gove is supposed to be working in our interest (And Here I agree
with JWS it hasnt done a too good of a job there lately)
big business is out to make a profit.

So bring back the combines, bring back the Robber Barons.

I do think that govt subsidies to farmers are a waste.  If it is so
important to amke sure they can compete in the world (we are
dealing with a world economy) at least buy the excess grain and
give it to Ethiopia or maybe poor Americans.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot's 1-800 number
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:31:49 GMT
Reply-To: fierro@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


  (Stefan, my mail bounces back when I try to mail to your address)


  The 1-800 number for Perot is:

  1-800-685-7777

  It is a fully-automated system, so don't expect to talk to a person.
According to Mr. Perot on last night's interview with Larry King, his 
1-800 number is the busiest 800 number in AT&T's history.  At peak times 
as many as 30,000 calls an hour were being made (I'll have to check this 
of course :-)

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: dletcher@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Drew Letcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Iowa Political Stock Market
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:45:40 GMT
Organization: U of Iowa, Iowa City, IA


ANNOUNCING:       THE IOWA POLITICAL STOCK MARKET  (IPSM)

Here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is!

The IPSM is a real (non-profit) securities market exchange.  Where people
can invest from $5-$500 and trade in political candidates.  The premise
we are trying to prove is that a stock market where people have money
on the line will be more accurate in predicting election outcomes than
the opinion polls you see in the news media.

There are currently two different markets one for the Democratic Primary
and one for the November Presidential Election.  The current prices in US$
as of Wednesday April 8, 1992 are:

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY                   PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
                                     Bush                0.501
Clinton         0.904                Clinton             0.405
Brown           0.008                Brown               0.008
Tsongas         0.025                Tsongas             0.033
Rest of Field   0.050                Rest of Democrats   0.037

(The prices can be interpreted as percentages by multiplying by 100.)

TELNET ACCESS TO THE IPSM:

To see the current prices and to check out the IPSM trading program you can
telnet to the following Internet address:

     IPSM.BIZ.UIOWA.EDU   128.255.44.2

After you connect just follow the prompts.  You'll need a full screen
terminal such as a VT100.  The IPSM supports over 30 different terminal
types.  For more information write or call to the following address.

IPSM
556 Phillips Hall
University of Iowa          phone: (319) 335-0881
Iowa City, IA  52242        email: ipsm@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu
From: to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Oligino)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Rich and Fair Share
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:31:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>What an irrelevent figure!  If the top few percent got their assets by
>sending goons with guns and clubs to take the money from the other 97-99%
><then you might have a case.  But that isn't what happens.  These "evil"
>rich people aren't generally increasing their wealth by means of force or
>fraud, although in the cases where they are they should be called to task
>for it.  What you are really saying is that people should be punished for
>success, whether honestly or fraudulently obtained.  You essentially
>equate Ivan Boesky and Sam Walton and claim that since both are in the
>top 1% they should be punished via taxation. 
>Hal Berenson	

Much More of the above deleted.

My only point is that the policies enacted by the regan/Bush
administrations allowed the Very rich in this country to increase their
wealth enormously.I believe that the policies should be changed to take
back some of what was-given- to these people.They could not have gained
so much with out the changes ushered in by the republicans and I see
nothing wrong restructuring the taxes codes so that the seperation of
the very rich and very poor is not further extended.
   I believe that people making a lot of money should pay more taxes.
Read alot of money as anything over 250,000 dollars in TAXABLE income.
So that even after they have deducted and Tax sheletered every thing
they can it is clear that they are making a lot of money. A surchage on
all Taxable income above 1 milion and a increase in inheritance and Gift
taxes for large amounts should also be in place.

   If the present trend in the seperation of the classes continues the
results will be a poorer and less safe country for everyone. 
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: regnery@wpi.WPI.EDU (George Matthew Regnery)
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:02:47 GMT


Let's suppose that Jerry Brown gets elected  (a frightening thought, I know).
How is this tax of his going to be implemented without the support of any
current members of congress.  (Correct me if I am wrong, but I have heard of
no congressman that supports Brown's plan).  Brown needs to have 200+ reps
and half the senators to support him on this.  They don't.  He's got no way
of implementing the flat tax.  I like the flat tax, but I think Jerry Brown's
other views are too weird for me, or for the American people.


-- 
GEORGE M. REGNERY Worcester Polytechnic Institute '92 Operations Research
I like  investing, international   ** Investitionen, internationale Wirtschaft,
economics, Conservatism and elec-  ** der Konservatismus, und elektronische
tronic music.  I can speak German. ** Musik gefallen mir.  Ich kann Deutsch.
From: f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Democratic Candidates: New Yorkers' Opinions
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:42:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: violet.1992Apr14.004220.1
 <1992Apr7.234954.27482@igor.tamri.com> <1992Apr8.140932.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> <167C88255.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67709317

In article <167C88255.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, 
MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.140932.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
> f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes: 
>>In article <1992Apr7.234954.27482@igor.tamri.com>,
>>donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>>> Of course, EVERYBODY has character defects.
>>> Do you really think people are expecting to find people who don't??
>>
>>Well, yes, I do.  Some voters are looking for JFK all over again....
>>
>>For better or worse, he is the standard against which all political
>>aspirants are compared.  That is why voters consider modern candidates
>>a collection of evils, not a collection of goods.  That's the way it is.
>  
> But even Kennedy was an adulterer, and had other character flaws as
> well.  He has been canonized since his assassination, but even John
> Kennedy was no John Kennedy.

But who knew that while he was President?  All we knew was that we had
lost some sort of Camelot after his assassination, and the wave of
popular sentiment reached so far as to propel a well-known sleazy
pol to victory the next year.  Sadly, plenty of Americans will always
consider him the perfect President, and so Clinton doesn't get compared
to the real JFK, but to the JFK we idealized.  (My guess is that
the Oliver Stone film will perpetuate this "canonization" forever.)

I claim that this is why the voters, helped along by the news media,
are concentrating so closely on character defects of the candidates in
this campaign.

> For better or for worse, Bill Clinton is the Democratic nominee this
> year.  Now we all have to decide if he is better than Bush.  I
> personally think he is.

I'll be waiting a bit longer to decide on that.....still over 6 months
to go.
-- 
Greg Franklin                             "Death is everywhere,
f67709317@ccit.arizona.edu          there are fries on the windscreen."
From: c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:07:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: pasteur.1992Apr13.180710.22279
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <18059@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:


>
>    They passed an economic program before the bogus "deadline."
>
>    Bush vetoed it because it would have increased the tax rate on the 
>top few percent of the population (his power base).  Mexican standoff.
>    Oh, and congress has been fighting off the attacks regarding 
>"rubbergate."  Looks like a typical divided government election year
>so far.  A republican president working with republicans in congress
>to make congress look bad, so that the president looks good in comparison.

>Tim Smith

Oh sure, the "soak the rich and give everyone a $300 tax cut" deal.
How is that supposed to stimulate the economy?   The capital gains
tax cut was not to be found in it either.  It would have lowered it
maybe one or two percentage points.  

I think Clinton and Tsongas said that if they were President they would
veto what the Congress passed. 

WFT