HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Perot drives Limbaugh NUTS!!!
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:56:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.184742.25671@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>First of all it is a 10 cent per year gas tax hike over five years NOT a
>50 cent a gallon tax hike.  If you don't see the diffrence your fault
>not mine.  Secondly, most large trucks, trains and busses run on DESIEL
>not gasoline.  
>
	Actually, 10 cents per year for five years is a 50 cent a gallon
tax hike. The five years give people time to buy more fuel efficient cars
when the finally get around to buying a new car, reducing their gas consuption
and reducing their expenditures. Your second point is mostly valid.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: rod@unislc.uucp (Robert Despain)
Subject: Yet another old fart memory failure
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:56:57 GMT

On the basis of issues and such, I can't really tell whether or
not I'm a supporter of RP or not.  It's a mixed bag for me (I kind
of like the idea of the increasing the gasoline tax since I bike
commute; am unsure if reducing the deficit helps me or harms me
-- probably harms me since I'm an old fart with no
kids/grandkids).

Who RP reminds me of is a character in an early Beatle's movie
(thinking "Hard Day's Night"), known (I think) as Paul's
Grandfather (or Granpa).  When ever he was introduced to anyone
else in the movie, they always said "Well, he's clean."

Paul (or was it Ringo?) would always warn people off: "Look out
for 'im; he's a master mixer."  Which he was: pointed out to Paul
(or was it John) that George Harrison was always going around
"being taller than you."

Without this geezer, there would have been no movie worth
watching.

Cheers,
R.O.
-- 
R.O. Despain                  |
Mature Products Group         |  Internet: rod@unislc.slc.unisys.com
(801) 594-4633                |      UUCP: ...!{sun, uunet}!unislc!rod
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: motta@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nazare Motta)
Subject: CONCERNS
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:14:49 GMT

I don't know why Bush and Clinton voters are so "into"
attacking Perot in this newsgroup.

Save your precious time to work for YOUR candidate. 
If you are carefully reading all the articles in this
group you'll see that Perot may have plenty of
supportive articles  but they are all signed Bob
or Rob. (A very small fan club!)

Forget the man...

(Ooops, if he is reading this he may unplug my computer...)
From: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: bend over...
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:58:24 GMT
Reply-To: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Organization: Columbia University

>In article <1992Sep25.121707.25761@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

>>Please, people, don't vote for Perot unless he guarantees not to transfer any
>>electoral votes he receives to either Clinton or Bush.  If he puts on a good show
>>between now and Nov. 3, he could well have enough electoral votes in his pocket
>>to select either Bush or Clinton.  Don't give him the power to decide this
>>election.
>>

Honest question here: would he really have this power?  My understanding
was that if no candidate captures a simple majority of electoral votes,
the election is decided in the House of Representatives.  I wasn't under
the impression that any candidate could "transfer" his electoral votes
in one direction or the other.  Do clarify.

Of course, if he *does* have this power, it's a bit easier to see why
both Bush and Clinton have operatives pandering to Perot at this point.

Rob L.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: gl1@cec1.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Keywords: Ditto
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:33:30 GMT

In article <dougn.717866427@convex.convex.com> dougn@convex.com (Douglas Nieb) writes:
>In <1992Sep30.141734.24557@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>
>>  The problem is that a computer answers the number and says something to the
>>effect of "Thank you for showing your support of Ross Perot.  Your vote has
>>been counted....*CLICK".  You don't have a chance to say anything !
>
>>  Just another example of how Perot doesn't want to hear anything bad about 
>>himself.
>
>>Greg
>
>As was clearly stated several times during the Larry King show, only people
>who wanted to SUPPORT him were told to call.  Those who didn't want to 
>support him should have listened and not called the number.
>
>Doug

   Thank you for exactly making my point... Perot doesn't want to hear anything
bad about himself.  I wonder what will happen if he by some terrible twist of
fate gets elected and then gets nothing accomplished.  I can see two 
possibilities... 1) He'll resign or
		 2) He'll impose censorship on the media to prevent bad
 			things from being said about him.

Greg

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Yet another old fart memory failure
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:58:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.152233.26808@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
|> why the hell would you be for increasing gas tax...so what if you bike or
|> commute or whatever...gas tax is regressive and why should we finance the
|> wasteful spending of government with gas tax.  gas tax should only go to 
|> maintaining roads.  i don't care that our gas is cheapest is the world or that
|> we import 40% of our oil.  those are not reasons for a tax.  lets enjoy the
|> cheap gas and burn up the middle-east supply as long as it is cheap...if it
|> gets too expensive...then we will start drilling here again.  and don't tell
|> me we might be "held hostage" by middle-east oil...we just proved we can go
|> kick ass anytime we are concerning about oil!!!!
|> 

Perot's proposal IS to use the gas tax for INFRASTRUCTURE improvements.

I am not even going to get started on that last statement.

Doug

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt)
Subject: Re: Re-Entry??
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:53:33 GMT

In article <selckW200WB5AOR3oo@andrew.cmu.edu> Srinivas Inguva <si24+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>I've been hearing in the news about the possibility of Perot's re-entry
>into the race... being a math type person, I normally don't delve too
>deeply into the realm of politix, but this interested me and I was
>wondering what people who have been following the ups and downs of this
>edition of ye quadrennial slugfest think of it.. do you think he has a
>reasonable chance of election anymore? didn't some of the states where
>he got on the ballot take his name off?
>   Whatever..hope to get some input...
>        
>Later..
>
>        
> (Direct flames to alt.brainless.newtswith.flamethrowers ...if you really 
>    don't have anything nice to say, let me continue living in my own
>li'l         dream world..)

Well I see two things here.  If voting for Perot instead of Bush or
Clinton is the right thing to do, then it's the right thing to do
regardless of if you *think* he has a chance or not.  He certainly
does not have a chance if everyone thinks he won't win, so instead
votes for someone most likely to win, which just increases that persons
chances...which is what you (assuming) don't want.

The other thing is that POLLS are like assholes, everbody has one.
They say that Clinton has xx% and Bush has yy% and Perot has zz%
(*if the election were held today*).  There's five weeks left.  Time
enough for a lot to happen, including every demopublican's nightmare.

*******************VOTE PEROT IN 92***************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Perot drives Limbaugh NUTS!!!
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:48:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.133137.9408@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.215644.4157@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.184742.25671@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>>
>>>First of all it is a 10 cent per year gas tax hike over five years NOT a
>>>50 cent a gallon tax hike.  If you don't see the diffrence your fault
>>>not mine.  Secondly, most large trucks, trains and busses run on DESIEL
>>>not gasoline.  
>>>
>>	Actually, 10 cents per year for five years is a 50 cent a gallon
>>tax hike. The five years give people time to buy more fuel efficient cars
>>when the finally get around to buying a new car, reducing their gas consuption
>>and reducing their expenditures. Your second point is mostly valid.
>>
>Not in '92 dollars.  Factoring in inflation, albiet low inflation, it
>will end up being something less.  It also means that it is only 8% the
>first year, 7% the second, etc. (assuming of course the current base
>cost of gasoline remains stable).  
>

	I stand corrected. With a 5% inflation rate, a 10 cent per year
gas tax for five years means a total of  a little over 45 cents per
gallon in current dollars, five years out. 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Perot drives Limbaugh NUTS!!!
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 13:31:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.215644.4157@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.184742.25671@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>
>>First of all it is a 10 cent per year gas tax hike over five years NOT a
>>50 cent a gallon tax hike.  If you don't see the diffrence your fault
>>not mine.  Secondly, most large trucks, trains and busses run on DESIEL
>>not gasoline.  
>>
>	Actually, 10 cents per year for five years is a 50 cent a gallon
>tax hike. The five years give people time to buy more fuel efficient cars
>when the finally get around to buying a new car, reducing their gas consuption
>and reducing their expenditures. Your second point is mostly valid.
>
Not in '92 dollars.  Factoring in inflation, albiet low inflation, it
will end up being something less.  It also means that it is only 8% the
first year, 7% the second, etc. (assuming of course the current base
cost of gasoline remains stable).  

>
>


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: rod@unislc.uucp (Robert Despain)
Subject: Re: Whut?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:17:35 GMT

Hey, I lost track of who said what.  So here's some stuff:

:            This was one about how he successfully lobbied for the FAA to
: approve the building of an airport in Texas. It just happened to be close to
: some 17,000 acres of Perot owned land. Strange that once approval was 
: granted, the saleable value of the land doubled? 
: 
: If this article is correct, then isn't this surely an prime example of
: the special interests that HRP complains about, the same ones that control
: the Government?

I still don't know whether I favor Perot or not.  Still this one
looks like this: how do you choose between the whores who sell
out the public interest or the john who buys it?

NoCheers,
R.O.
-- 
R.O. Despain                  |
Mature Products Group         |  Internet: rod@unislc.slc.unisys.com
(801) 594-4633                |      UUCP: ...!{sun, uunet}!unislc!rod
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:29:05 EDT
From: <SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: bend over...
 <Bv51vo.7H1@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>
 <1992Sep29.155824.10588@news.columbia.edu>

In article <1992Sep29.155824.10588@news.columbia.edu>,
rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux) says:
>
>>In article <1992Sep25.121707.25761@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>>>Please, people, don't vote for Perot unless he guarantees not to transfer
>any
>>>electoral votes he receives to either Clinton or Bush.  If he puts on a good
>show
>>>between now and Nov. 3, he could well have enough electoral votes in his
>pocket
>>>to select either Bush or Clinton.  Don't give him the power to decide this
>>>election.
>>>
>
>Honest question here: would he really have this power?  My understanding
>was that if no candidate captures a simple majority of electoral votes,
>the election is decided in the House of Representatives.  I wasn't under
>the impression that any candidate could "transfer" his electoral votes
>in one direction or the other.  Do clarify.


In the United States, when you cast your vote for President, you are actually
voting for someone to represent you in the Electoral College.   The election
results are NEVER official, until the Electoral College convines and votes for
president.  So, if Perot were to garner say, 25% of the electoral
representatives, he could simply ask those Electorates (or whatever you would
call them) to vote for Clinton or Bush   .... and maybe sway the election.
Absolutely ingenious!   To sum it up:  Just because someone is elected to
the electoral college to vote for a presidential candidate does not mean that
they _must_ vote for the candidate that the public wants them to.  Technically,
someone could get 0 percent of the popular vote, and everyone in the electoral
college decided to vote for that person, he/she would become president.
From: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Subject: Perot: Getting it done?
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:10:44 GMT

Just a question for Perot supporters, and an honest one, not at all
intended as a flame:

How can Ross Perot get anything accomplished, exactly, given the
fact that neither political party is willing to support his agenda,
and the US Senate and House of Representatives will still consist
entirely of Democrats and Republicans?  Without *any* kind of 
support in Congress for a large portion of his ideas, wouldn't
we just be setting ourselves up for four more years of logjam in
Washington (i.e. President Perot proposes something to Congress,
Congress shoots it down, nothing substantial gets accomplished, and
nothing at all changes)?

Just wondering,

Rob L.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Perot drives Limbaugh NUTS!!!
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:47:42 GMT

In article <168726B5E.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
|> In article <1992Sep30.064359.4587@gibdo.engr.washington.edu>
|> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
|> 
|> Do you really expect a majority (or even a plurality) to vote for
|> a 50 cent per gallon tax hike on gas?  Poor people would get a whole
|> lot poorer, since EVERY commodity comes to us via gas-operated
|> vehicles at some point.  The cost of living would skyrocket.  Then
|> we could tax everyone on their social security benefits.  The ones
|> that they already paid for (many times over) and were taxed on
|> anyway.  Perot is no threat due to his ill-thought-out ideas.
|> But the two major parties are not above rummaging for votes.
|> Ah, politicians.  You gotta love 'em.  Perot is a politician.
|> Just ask Richard Nixon and George Bush.

First of all it is a 10 cent per year gas tax hike over five years NOT a
50 cent a gallon tax hike.  If you don't see the diffrence your fault
not mine.  Secondly, most large trucks, trains and busses run on DESIEL
not gasoline.  

OK, let's not tax Social security benifits.  Let's just take them
completely away in 10 years.  Let's not cut the size of the cost of
living increases in entitlements, let's cut them to nothin in 10 years.

I mean people wake up.  At some point other countries are going to
consider us a bad risk and quit lending us money.  As the intrest on the
debt begins to eat up larger and larger portions of the federal budget
(it is already the LARGEST peice) hte amount of services provided by the
government must drop off.  Wouldn't it be better to do this gradually
rather than all at once.

Do you have any better ideas than what Perot has published.  If you do
why don't you express them here instead of whining about it.

Doug

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: rod@unislc.uucp (Robert Despain)
Subject: Re: Ross for What??
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:32:57 GMT

D. wrote:
: All this talk about Ross.  But does he want to be president?  Does he want it?
: I know that there are alot of people out there who want him to be president,
: but does Ross want it, too?
: 
: I was willing to give the man a listen as his campaign got going but his
: dropping out really said a lot to me.  It told me that he did not want to be 
: president.

Will some other old fart help me out by remembering who it was
who said "Anyone who *wants* to be President should be
disqualified on the grounds of insanity"?

This is not an exact quote; time was in the late sixties, early
seventies.

If memory serves, whoever said it was killed by the press on the
grounds that he didn't have the requisite "Fire in the Gut" (tm).

Cheers,
R.O.
-- 
R.O. Despain                  |
Mature Products Group         |  Internet: rod@unislc.slc.unisys.com
(801) 594-4633                |      UUCP: ...!{sun, uunet}!unislc!rod
From: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: washington post on pe
Date: 28 Sep 92 08:36:41 EST
Reply-To: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

GL>In article <199220.1305.362@channel1> "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com> writes:
>He is on the ballot in all fifty , no minor accomplishment, and I for
>one will continue to favor this man who is practical, gutsy and
GL>                                                       ^^^^^
>honest.  I don't expect to agree with everything he does but I do know
>that he is going to try to address the important issues of the day.
>
GL>   I know I'm probably setting myself up for attacks, but how can people
GL>call a man who drops out of a race because he cannot win "gutsy" ?  It just
GL>doesn't make sense in my book.

It depends upon how one defines gutsy!  In our society being different
sets one up for all sorts of grief. I think it took courage to get rid
of Rawlins in the face of conventional wisdom.  The kind of campaign
Rawlins runs is mean....effective but mean.  Is winning at ALL costs
the way to go?

That's what's wrong with the Democratic party.  They have become like
the GOP and want power for its own sake

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Keywords: Ditto
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:36:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.133938.26296@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John 
Switzer) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.113002.27005@crd.ge.com> /dev/null writes:
>>In article 7724@gibdo.engr.washington.edu, bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>>>
>>> To vote for Perot resuming the campaign, call 1-800-925-1300.
>>>
>>> This is more of a show of support than a vote.  Please call.
>>> ==
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>It's too bad that he didn't set up an 800 number for people like me to point out
>>that, according to the latest poll which shows 17% support *for* him, that there are
>>83% of the voting public who would opt to have him NOT enter the race. The Martian
>>and his robot, Larrie King-2-D-2, are on such Ego Trips!

>Call anyway - Perot has to pay for the calls, so it's just as valid to call 
>the number and say you think Perot is scum.

It was my understanding that the 800 number does not accept input from the 
caller. Isn't it just an automatic registration of affirmation?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: azzarito@cse.fau.edu (Doug Azzarito)
Subject: Re: Perot: Getting it done?
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:12:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.161044.10886@news.columbia.edu> rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux) writes:
>
>How can Ross Perot get anything accomplished, exactly, given the
>fact that neither political party is willing to support his agenda,
>and the US Senate and House of Representatives will still consist
>entirely of Democrats and Republicans? 

We've seen one thing from Perot that we haven't seen from the other would-be
presidents.  He can motivate the people to ACT.  Perot supporters have gone
through more for their man than either the republicans or democrats.  If
Perot can continue to motivate the people, we have NOTHING to fear from a
half-thousand dolts in Washington.  Remember, they are OUR servants up there,
and if Perot can show us how to "fix things," the people sitting on the hill
had better listen!  Sure, it will be difficult.  But Perot has said this, and
his supporters know it.  That means we're ready to fight for what we need,
in spite of the fact that we've sent some lard-butt to Washington.




>support in Congress for a large portion of his ideas, wouldn't
>we just be setting ourselves up for four more years of logjam in
>Washington (i.e. President Perot proposes something to Congress,
>Congress shoots it down, nothing substantial gets accomplished, and
>nothing at all changes)?
>
>Just wondering,
>
>Rob L.
>
>
From: louis@cs.mcgill.ca (Louis LECLERC)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Looking for Perot people on Internet
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:38:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada


I'm looking for somebody / volunteer / student who is associated with
the Perot movement (preferably a student of a Perot club at a US
university). If you are such a person, could you please email me
and include the name of the organization you represent as I would like
to talk to you.

Louis Leclerc

louis@cs.mcgill.ca
-- 
<><><>
Deny you children a job...    ... buy imports!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Subject: Re: Child Abuse in Arkansas
Reply-To: rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:00:45 GMT

In article <31102@goofy.Apple.COM> (Rebecca Rhodes) writes:
>Why would anyone wish to support a governer [Clinton] who's state is one of
>the leading states in corporal punishment?  You know, where they paddle
>public school children's behind with a wooden paddle heavier than a wooden
>baseball bat and wider.  Sometimes with holes in it so it stings?
>
>
Unless this is a plank in the party platform, I don't think 
it's real relevant in the larger scope of things.  There
*are* more pressing issues at stake.

Rob L.