HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Perot's Actions vs. Political Rhetoric.   (was call 1-800...)
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:12:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
>

>nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>|>

>|>It's interesting that you should mention Perot's "lack of policies."
>|>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.  

>|>Now we know the the truth.  It wasn't a con job.  Perot's detailled
>|>policies were completed and released only a few weeks later. 
> 
>I am still waiting for them.
> 
>In his polemic he is trying to straddle the fence. United we stand has two mutualy contradictory themes:-
> 
>1) That the US has stopped investing and that unless investment restarts will  continue to decline.
>2) That the government should in no case interfere with business.

Investment? Sorry substitute for real products.

The most direct way to spur activity is to cut government involvement.

With the incentive of actually keeping a greater portion of the fruits
of your own efforts -- there is reason to act. 

The partisan actions offer no hope of freedom, even 3 generations from 
now. And their rhetoric is proven meaningless by an unwillingnes to cut 
(government) forced spending. 

Actions are what matters.

Perot said that elections take too long -- so *his* major effort is 
starting now (5 weeks out), and it would have been useless to try 
without the support of the volunteers.

Perot said that he wouldn't go to an Iraq-like war without the strong
support of the people. And he has demonstrated a commitment like that,
by leaving the political campaign mostly in the hands of the volunteers. 

Perot gave the dominant parties an opportunity to focus on America,
rather than a mock(*) competition between themselves. (* - my opinion)
They didn't. He's back, and willing to be a voice for many of us who
have never before been represented -- ever.

Our society can not be renewed from the top down -- it's too complex.
Unlike war, (distruction being much easier than building), government 
can only "coordinate" in peacetime. I expect President Perot to get out
of the way when we don't need him, and jump back in when we do.

To me, Ross's actions speak a whole lot louder than his words, Phill.

-- Stephen   "obligatory personal attacks omitted"

(ps. I saw your answer about S. Africa in the *smile* post.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:29:29 GMT

In article <1ad7v3INN7ep@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>
>Actually, yes.  I think there are lots and lots of people who want
>Perot out of the race.  I know quite a few.  I don't know anybody
>who supports him (at least nobody that will admit it).  Perot has
>the potential to throw the election into the House of Representatives.
>Many people think this is a real bad idea.
>
	While I don't doubt that many people want Perot (or Clinton or
Bush) out of the race, he couldn't throw it into the house without alot
of supporters - He'd need to get at least 33% in one state to do that.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Party Registration
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:50:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.151114.13701@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?"

Voter registration is a function of state law.  In California you
check the appropriate box on a Voter Registration postcard.  I
believe that some states have no such thing as declaring your party
registration (I'm fairly certain this is true in Texas which is why
Ross Perot's previous political affiliations could not be pinned
down).  I'm not familiar with Ohio law but the national authority
on this stuff is Rich Winger from Ballot Access News in San
Francisco.  If I can reach him today I'll ask about Ohio and post
his response.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: New CNN Poll
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:07:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.142329.28826@cs.rochester.edu> fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
>
>I just saw it reported last night; as I recall.:
>
>Clinton 44%
>Bush    31%
>Perot   17%
>Undecided 9%
>
>Clinton's lead over Bush only shrank by 1 point with Perot included;
>this was emphasized in the story, as meaning that Perot was having
>relatively little effect.
>
>The margin of error (whatever that means? s.d.?) was 3 points.  Numbers
>add to 101 because of rounding.

Even so, these numbers are not that meaningful.  Perot's presence could
tip the balance in states such as Texas, despite a small overall effect.

--
"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
From: jelleb@cs.umr.edu
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:45:03 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri's Technological University

In article <1a7dsoINN4ak@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert  
Daniel West) writes:
> 
> Projection: Perot will pick up about 15% of the vote in California,
> do well in  Texas and Florida, and score abovee 7% in scattered midwest
> states, but get less than 5% of the vote in the other states. 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.

Your probably right...
But what scares the heck out of me is that Clinton is for more spending  
and bigger GOVERNMENT!

That really scares me!!!!!!!

Jeff
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:26:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.230436.2195@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>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.
 
        Try again, certain press reports state that some people *claim Ross  
hates Bush. He's never stated this sentiment publically.j 
 
>
>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?
 
        The number is $100 billion. No, it's not a hard decision. The hard 
decision is to tax social security benefits, raise the gas tax, reduce the 
COLAs on retirement accounts, and others.  
 

>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?

	There was an article that came up in july, written in 1987, where
Perot said something like "We're going to have to cut spending and raise
taxes " or something like that. Is this what you're looking for?

>
>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.

I doubt your predictions, but for the record, here's mine:
	
	After getting torn to shreds in at least one debate, Perot
	will back out again, still trying to straddle the issue
	of who he supports.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: afarquha@cs1.uct.ac.za (A J Farquharson)
Subject: Waste of time!
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:09:12 GMT

To us here in South Africa it seems as though the American elections are a 
waste of time.  You spend so much money on trying to elect either Bush or 
Clinton, when in actual fact nobody really 
cares!                             Simpson, Bart
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Waste of time!
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:33:17 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 0@cs1.uct.ac.za, afarquha@cs1.uct.ac.za (A J Farquharson) writes:
>To us here in South Africa it seems as though the American elections are a 
>waste of time.  You spend so much money on trying to elect either Bush or 
>Clinton, when in actual fact nobody really 
>cares!                             Simpson, Bart




*sarcasm on*
The list of over 2000 positions that the president will appoint is about
to come out.  That's at least 4000 people who care.  2000 of them will have
bs jobs at our expense; 2000 won't.

*sarcasm remains on until further notice*

--f2
------------------------
  "Bum knee, gotta run"
  --Pat Buchanan to his draft board
From: slack@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (David Slack)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: DOUBLE the size of GOVERMENT!
Date: 25 Sep 92 17:39:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID


	Okay, I hope I have your complete attention.  No.  Oh well! 
With the elections cumming up soon, I thought some of you might be interested
in a new book that is out on what our goverment does with a lot of the
money that it gets from US taxpayers.

	The book is very easy to follow, just simple numbers and some ideas
on a few solutions.  Covers almost all the agencies and branches of gov.
Some of the things that is points out are:

	$ spent on consultants in one year - 4.9 BILLION
	$ spent on flying any gov. person free on the taxpayer - over $25,000
	  per person per flight.  (at least 20 times any commercial flight).
  	$ on repairs and alterations to Building #6 at the World Trade Center -
          a building that the gov. doesn't even own - 1.6 million.
	$ on cars for the congres - $7000 for lease and upkeep, times 340,000
          cars.

	This is just some of the items in the first 50 pages of 270 that show
the unbelievable waste that the goverment reps. justifiy by keeping it under
their hats. 

	I heard about the book on CSPAN one mourning when they were interviewing
the author.  The book is;

	The Government Racket, Washington Waste from A to Z
	Bantam Books, $7.99 US
	Martin L. Gross
	ISBN 0-553-37175-4

	In all honesty, I was begining to believe that our only way to solve the
national debt was to raise taxes.  No I am a lot more aware of what we have been
paying for.  As pointed out in the book, there is no reason for agencies like 
the dept of ag. to have 60,000 employees for only 2.1 million farms.

	"At the turn of the century, the Department had 3000 employees to   
handle 5 million farms, what were to become the breadbasket of the world.
By 1935, there were 6.3 million American farmers and the D of A had 20,000 
employees."  The punch line today, "The number of farmers has dropped      
preciptously to 2.1 million, half ow whom are part-timers.  Meanwhile, the
number of government farm employees (excluding Food Stamp and Forest Service 
personnel) has grown to 60,000".  And in the future, "By the year 2040, the
number of full-time American farmers will be down to 150,000, while the number
of D of A workers will have reached that same level."

	Just think of, 1 person in the goverment for every "working" taxpayer.
NOW THATS JOB SECURITY. ;^(

	In any matter, no matter how you feel about social programs, you should
be aware of how YOUR money is being spent.

BTW, be sure to read the part about where Mr. Gross got his info.

Dave 
"Sorry Perot!, I am quickly becoming a Libertarian, goverment should govern 
                  NOT DICTATE!!!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Organization: Clark University
Date: 28 SEP 92 22:14:56 GMT

The columnist had an amusing editorial the other day. The general point
involved the irony of the chairman of the President's Council for Physical
Fitness making movies in which he (Schwarzenegger, not the Presid) breaks
into police stations and uses an automatic weapon to mow down officers.

Of course Bush shouldn't be expected to control what roles Arnold plays,
although the actor is recognized as an outspoken Bush supporter. This
circumstance serves onl to degrade the already-pointless attack by Quayle
on the "Hollywood elite." IMO Dan Quayle calling _anyone_ elite is a
joke in itself.

Bart
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:57:33 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dont@want.email.sent writes:


>I think Bush will win, because Clinton will lose most of his votes to  
>Perot.  Looking at the poles before Perot dropped out supports my  
>conclusion.

Oh, what a social scientist you are!  The polls before he dropped
out are completely irrelevant now.  Perot pissed off a lot of people
when he dropped out.  He betrayed their trust.  He told them that if
he was supported he would run.  They supported him, and he dropped out
anyway.  They were furious!  How many do you think still trust him?
Imagine, he's breaking promises to the people before he's even in office,
what will he be like when  he gets in?

BTW, you said that Perot will enter the raise if Bush and Clinton do not
discuss the economy to his satisfaction?  Let him?  Who ever said tha
Perot was the leading authority on the economy.  Who ever said that he
even had a grip on it besides him?  The United States of America is not
a corporation, nor should it be treated as such.  Granted, he has the
"gumption" to "clean out the barn", but does he even know how to do it?

I don't think so.


>God Bless America!!!


So, you're happy at the thought of another four years of economic hardship
and lip service.  Well, good for you.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Mr Bush or Pres. Bush?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:13:16 GMT

born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
>Mr.  Bush or President Bush?  About 3-4 weeks ago in US News and 
>World Report's Washington Wispers column reported that the 
>Clinton campaign was putting out the word that they wanted to 
>stop referring to Bush as President Bush and start referring to 
>him as Mr. Bush, to help diminish his stature.  Supposedly, the 
>media has come on board with this.  Has anybody noticed this 
>usage (blatantly) by the media?
>
>If this is true, it is real sneaky!

Wouldn't it be just like the Democrat Party to play subliminal semantic
games like this!

----
Joe Knapp      jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: Rightwing Ideologues
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:30:30 GMT

In article <13956.2ac140db@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>Is everyone at Anasazi Inc right win idealogues or it just a coincidence
>that every post from Anasazi sounds like regurgitated propoganda from the
>Neuremburg (er...) RepubliCon?
>
If you have a UNIX machine, just try this:

echo Anasazi | sed 's/nas/ N/g'

Norm
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14822 talk.politics.misc:48904
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 1 Oct 1992 16:11:49 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
|> Chris Bartz) writes:
|> > 
|> > If I really wanted Ross Perot to run I'd call the number hundreds of times.
|> > Why not - he's paying for the call.  It doesn't take much effort to dial
|> > a number, wait for a machine to answer, and then hang-up.  I'd be willing
|> > to bet that there are quick a few people doing some serious calling.
|> > Add to that the number of people who called to say DON'T run and your
|> > 'poll' is pretty useless for telling how many people want him to run.
|> > Ross Perot may call the number himself a few hundred times :)
|> 
|>   OK.  Let's assume, therefore, that 10% of the callers actually want Perot
|> out.  And that each person calls an average of 10 times.
|> 
|>   That's still 90000 people in just 12-16 hours.
|> 
|>   And I think that there are a lot more than just 90000 people that want Perot
|> in.
|> 
|>   <Just trying to apply some logic>
|> 
Your logic and arithmetic are fine.  What is being measured isn't.  This
is a great example of data creation.  First, there are certainly more
people who want him in than out of those who called.  The question is
how do the "outs" register their position.  Second, what are the motives
of those that want him in.  There is no indication they want him in
because they believe he can win or that he should win (this may be the
case, but there is no data to support or deny it).

Basically, if I spend $10 million on convincing people to like me,
and then I pay them (800 number) to call me and tell me they like
me, all I am going to find out is how well I spent my money.  Big deal.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: (#2) (#3)
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:51:56 EST
Reply-To: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

(Continued from the previous message)


Their mouth pieces, the media, will talk about a Perot who is going to 
lose.  They will play that line like a broken record.  It is their 
conviction that much of America is only serious about beer, football, 
and maybe a two week vacation in Las Vegas...and of course, a winner. 
They will insist that Perot has no program, that he is thin skinned, 
spies on workers, is engaged in frivolous campaigning to get even with 
George Bush, is autocratic like Hitler, is buying the election, is a 
QUITTER, is a stupid billionaire with no politicAL savvy, is an 
egotist, and is  generally a no-goodnik.


If you or a family member have lost your job recently, had to take a pay cut
to stay employed, cannot afford to send your kids to college, or have lost
your farm or home as a result of the now almost-acknowledged triple dip
recession...you'll think about Perot long and hard.  If you've seen your
job move south of the border and have become medically indigent...you'll
think about Perot long and hard.  If you and your spouse are working longer
and harder and seeing each other and your kids less and less...you'll think
about Perot long and hard. If you are concerned with whether your adult
children will be able to hold on to their jobs and advance, you will 
think about Perot long and hard.

Many of us have come to the place where we recognize that we must
reorder our priorties unless it is our intention to allow vast
numbers of Americans to either mark time in place or slip further down
the economic ladder. If you know that we as a nation can do very much
better, that the loss of American dignity and respect was not due to the
ruthless Communists but to the victorious international corporations who
support BOTH political parties, and have no loyality to you and yours...
you'll keep an open mind and think about Ross Perot.

October 5, 1992

-lois
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #10184  Watch the polls change now that Perot is back!
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:52:38 GMT

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.
--
   ______   |o| Patrick Fitzgerald     |o| Mailstop GD3002
  / ___  )  |o| pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com  |o| Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
 / __)/ /__ |o| Sr. Software Analyst,  |o| VOICE: (205) 730-3741
(_/it(_____)|o| Intergraph Corporation |o| FAX:   (205) 730-3300
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: beast@netcom.com (Master)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc 
Organization: Belle & Philippe, Pty. Ltd.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:31:42 GMT

In article <1ad7iaINN7ce@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>
>If I really wanted Ross Perot to run I'd call the number hundreds of times.
>Why not - he's paying for the call.  It doesn't take much effort to dial
>a number, wait for a machine to answer, and then hang-up.  I'd be willing

Why not just use your computer as an auto-dialer?  You could register 300
calls an hour! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton