HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re:    WAKE UP CALL ON STOCKDALE
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:04:13 GMT

In article <92288.212743JJB133@psuvm.psu.edu>, <JJB133@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>     AAAARRRRGGGHH!
>
>    I FULLY recommend everyone who thinks Stockdale is somewhat daffy
> to go to the video store/library and check out the entire series of
>  "I, Claudius" for a refresher course in substance over style.
> 
>   For those who are unfamiliar with the story... 

Worth mentioning that Graves' book, while fascinating and a great BBC
series, is not history.  It's an interpretation of historical fact ...
literally, a story.  There is no consensus that Claudius was a brilliant emperor.

I also find it unsettling that the best comparison found for Stockdale
is a Roman emperor.  From all his comments during the debate, I thought
he was running for "sovereign," not Vice President.  Does anyone else
out there remember that the Caesars were the inspiration for Hitler's
and Mussolini's symbols?

"Economy broke?  Fix it.  Drug problems?  Solve 'em.  Trains don't run
on time?  _Make_ 'em run on time." 


*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye)
Subject: Stockdale's Style
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:45:21 GMT

It makes me sad to see the reaction to Stockdale.  Yes, his style is 
halting -- so is Jimmy Stewart's. You just want to pull the words out 
of him faster. Are we so dependent on the smooth newsanchor 
presentation style that we can't hear the thoughts?

I read the text this morning:

..a woman's body is her own, period.  Why does it take Qualye and 
Gore so many additional minutes to state their positions on abortion? 
 For the drama, for the joust, for the game.

..the trouble with health care is that the incentives are in the 
wrong direction for the patients and the doctors. No more ammunition, 
folks. That's it.  No need to ramble on peripheral points. "I'll take 
his time," said Gore.

Yes, he made a couple of factual trips.  But I knew he meant standard 
(not cost) of living had doubled.  Didn't you?  Did he feed us 
contrived half-truths or misrepresentations? Where was his blatant 
page 304?

And I was particularly interested in the answer he started to give 
about an element of human nature, (which he knows so well from his 
gruesome experience), that can be tapped to restore our country.  He 
was discouraged from continuing.  Nothing sappy about the human 
soul, Admiral.  Next.

The man is in good health and good spirits.  His mind is fertile and 
fit. He has unparalleled leadership skills and wisdom.  Is there a 
man among the candidates to compare to his trustworthiness?  He, the 
man who kept Lyndon Johnson's black, black secret out of loyalty to 
country.  He, the man sent to hell by a Congress who's latter-day 
pups pander on a stage before him.

I am ashamed for allowing myself to be disppointed last night.  Now, 
a day late, I've regained my self-respect.

Anne Hopkins

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Debate
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:40:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.180252.27682@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>, azzarito@cse.fau.edu (Doug Azzarito) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct12.034059.10275@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> >I cannot wait for the next 30 minute Perot spot.  He had some strong things to
|> >say tonight about how to fix the problems which he addressed in the first 30
|> >minute spot.  
|> 
|> Let's just hope everyone who says Perot doesn't give specifics will be
|> watching!
|> 
|> >
|> >While I do not discount Perot's chances of winning in November, I must agree
|> >with one of the media personnel who was interviewed on CNN after the debate
|> >who stated that if Perot had not given signals in July that he would not 
|> >run, that this would be a two man race between Clinton and Perot, with George 
|> >Bush as an also ran.
|> 
|> I don't think so.  Perot got a good dose of campaign-blues before he announced
|> he didn't want to run (remember, he had never announced his candidacy).  After
|> that he was able to go back home, re-think his attack, and come out fighting. 
|> I think the timing was close to perfect.
|> 
|> Now our BIGGEST problem is what I've termed "The Perot Paradox."  Popular
|> opinion (and especially the post-debate commentators) agree that Perot gave
|> the best showing in the debate.  His plans make sense, his style is
|> refreshing, and his "fix-it" track record is just what this country needs.  To
|> put it simply, he's the best man for the job.  But, each voter says "I'm not
|> going to vote for him, because he can't win."  
|> 
|> When are we going to wake up and realize that if EACH PERSON votes for the
|> best man, HE WILL WIN.  Should I vote for Clinton, just because I hear he has
|> a lead?  Sheesh, I'm not a lemming.  It would be cute to have a "Don't blame
|> me, I voted for Perot" bumper sticker, but there's just one problem...
|> 
|> WE DON'T HAVE 4 YEARS TO WASTE ON A BAD PRESIDENT.
|> 
|> The problems facing this country must be addressed NOW.  A "Perot in 96"
|> campaign would be nice, but unless our government buckles down NOW, the next
|> president may find it's too late to do anything.
|> 
|> Let's all take a personal poll.  Ask your friends and co-workers if they'd
|> consider voting for Perot because he sounds like the right man, even though
|> the "experts" say he can't win.  I think the results will surprise you.  It
|> almost sounds like a good reason to keep the electoral college around! :-)
|> 
|> 
 
 I totally agree.  I have taken a poll of co-workers, friends and
 family.  All but two say they are going to vote Perot.  I think there
 is a point that is well taken about this election in other posts and
 that is the Perot voter is a motivated voter.  I would guess close to
 100% Perot voter turnout in November.  If he can get close to 30%
 support this will turn into 60% OR MORE IN NOVEMBER.

 DOUG

Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:2284 alt.politics.elections:17303 talk.politics.misc:52449
From: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate Qualifications
Date: 16 Oct 1992 17:44:58 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

>>
>>All "third" parties are not populated by communists and extremists.
>>
    [stuff deleted]

>>Everything you said there applies equally well to Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord.
>>
>I was wondering how many ballots in the 50 states
>these other candidates are on.
>
>Also, is that some sort of qualification for
>appearing in the debates?
>
>Thanks


Before the debate, one of the members of the debate commission said that
being on the ballets on all 50 states was a requirement but also that the
candidates had to have a "reasonable chance" of winning in November.  This
sounded vague and subjective to me and seems to perpetual another vicious
cycle  (no exposure, no votes, no votes, no exposure).

Perhaps the first debate should be open to all candidates on the ballet, then
weeded out.  Then people would at least be exposed to varying viewpoints.
A few years ago, a Libertarian candidate was actually invited to participate
in a congressional race debate here in Milwaukee.  Before then, I had 
associated Libertarians with socialists--boy was I wrong!  Although I didn't
agree with the Libertarian candidate's platform, I am very glad he was there
to dispell my admittedly ignorant preconceptions.

Mary Hammes
Marquette University
Clinton/Gore '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Debate Related Questions
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:17:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.052732.24498@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>2 questions:
>
>1.  What school did Sen. Al Gore go to?  Just curious.
>
>2.  Who taugt the Admiral to speak?  He is a terrible public speaker.
>But what I really want to know is what are his thoughts.
>I understand that you dont have to be a perfect speaker
>to be good administrator.  What are his thoughts?
>He seemed to just plug perot and not speak for himself at all.
>I realize that is kind of the point, but it made it seem
>like he was just a dummy pulled with strings by perot.
>I think that Perot - Gore would have made a damn good ticket,
>in either order you put it!
>
	I thought the opposite. To me, it seemed like stockdale was
speaking for himself at least the few times he came out with stands
on the issues. I've never heard Perot state that he favored school
choice (other than to try it somewhere, as UWSA states), or that
we have to be careful on how fast we downsize the military. 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Libertarian platform (was Re: 1-800-925-1300)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:28:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.013808.1036@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
>
>Come on.  Have you read the libertarian platform?

Sure have.  What about it?

>Holy Bejezus, talk about absolute anarchy.

I think you either don't understand the Libertarian platform or the meaning
of the word "anarchy".  But I'll be happy to let you prove me wrong.

>These guys would destroy this country in a heartbeat.

How?

>I voted libertarian in the last election as a protest vote,

Always a bad idea, in my opinion.

>but this year I read the California platform.  It was a sick joke.

Haven't seen it, but I'd like to hear more about it and what you found
offensive in it.

>>>Vote with your mind this year.
>>
>>I always do.
>
>Read the platform.  I think oyu will finds that you are out of your
>mind, or will at least agree that they are.

I've read it and don't think I'm insane, as if that's any way to tell.  I
don't want a Libertarian revolution--Libertarian president and congress
overnight--but I certainly *do* think that we need to head in that
direction.

	much smaller government
	much lower taxes
	more personal freedom
	no foreign wars
	legalized drugs (the only way to win the War on Drugs)

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: vjrao@owlnet.rice.edu (Vinay Julapalli Rao)
Subject: Re: Stockdale's Style
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:11:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.094521.17018@netcom.com> mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
>It makes me sad to see the reaction to Stockdale.  Yes, his style is 
>halting -- so is Jimmy Stewart's. You just want to pull the words out 
>of him faster. Are we so dependent on the smooth newsanchor 
>presentation style that we can't hear the thoughts?
>
>I read the text this morning:
>
>..a woman's body is her own, period.  Why does it take Qualye and 
>Gore so many additional minutes to state their positions on abortion? 
> For the drama, for the joust, for the game.
>
>..the trouble with health care is that the incentives are in the 
>wrong direction for the patients and the doctors. No more ammunition, 
>folks. That's it.  No need to ramble on peripheral points. "I'll take 
>his time," said Gore.
>
>Yes, he made a couple of factual trips.  But I knew he meant standard 
>(not cost) of living had doubled.  Didn't you?  Did he feed us 
>contrived half-truths or misrepresentations? Where was his blatant 
>page 304?
>
>And I was particularly interested in the answer he started to give 
>about an element of human nature, (which he knows so well from his 
>gruesome experience), that can be tapped to restore our country.  He 
>was discouraged from continuing.  Nothing sappy about the human 
>soul, Admiral.  Next.
>
>The man is in good health and good spirits.  His mind is fertile and 
>fit. He has unparalleled leadership skills and wisdom.  Is there a 
>man among the candidates to compare to his trustworthiness?  He, the 
>man who kept Lyndon Johnson's black, black secret out of loyalty to 
>country.  He, the man sent to hell by a Congress who's latter-day 
>pups pander on a stage before him.
>
>I am ashamed for allowing myself to be disppointed last night.  Now, 
>a day late, I've regained my self-respect.
>
>Anne Hopkins

As a followup to this excellent post, I would like to add this about
Admiral Stockdale.  Many "post-debate analysis" shows claimed that the
constant walking around the podium Stockdale did was a sign of his 
uncomfortableness up there and so forth.  The Admiral suffers from constant
pain in one of his legs as a result of the torture he endured as a POW
and was pacing about for that reason.  Because of this condition, he was
offered a stool instead of a podium but declined since the other candidates
would also be behind a podium.  It disgusts me that the press so 
misconstrued his behavior in regard to his pacing.


-- 
*************************************************
Vinay Julapalli Rao         vjrao@owlnet.rice.edu
*************************************************
From: skrenta@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rich Skrenta)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: PEROT TV SPOTS (16/17 OCT)
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:25:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

f435@cs.utexas.edu (Fall Class Account) writes:
> Here in Austin, TX (central time zone) the Friday, Oct. 16 info-mercial
> airs at 9:30 on NBC.  I can't find a lising for one on Saturday (probably
> since I'm looking at a paper printed Oct. 11).

A recording at 1-800-685-7777 claims that the 30 minute spot on Friday
is on at 8:30pm CDT, "just before 20/20", on ABC.  Perhaps this ad will
be repeated at 9:30 on NBC...?

It also mentioned that Perot would be on Good Morning America on Friday
at 7am.

--
Rich Skrenta
From: jerry@ee.rochester.edu (Jerry Seward)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Perot won the debate!!!!
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:43:19 GMT
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

In article <1992Oct12.015752.19994@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> maos@nyx.cs.du.edu 
(Mike Aos) writes:
>
>Well as we all know by now Perot won the debate and is going to be the 
>next president.

I think that all the candidates handled themselves very well, but it was
clear to me that Perot had the best answers and delivered them with panache.

I'm looking forward to the next debate on Thursday evening to see if he can
maintain the 'lead' I believe that he acquired this evening.  It was obvious
that Bush and Clinton were polished and rehearsed, and that Perot spoke from
his heart.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Fact, Fiction and the VP debate
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:59:19 GMT

During the VP debate I was wondering what was fact or fiction since there was
quite a bit of "You're going to do this!" and "No I'm not!" or "You wrote
this!" and "No I didn't". Well here is a bit of info I gathered from the
Houston Post and CNN after the debate:

On whether the US used tax dollars to subsidixe the export of US jobs to
foreign countries. Quayle said NO, BUT the US has given 100 Billion to and
economical development organization in El Slavador.

Did Gore vote for the Caribbean Basin Initiative? Gore denied it, BUT he did
indorse it on April 24, 1990. In fact the Senate voted 92-0 for it. BUT in its
previous form, Gore voted against it in 82 and 83. Only after major reforms did
he vote for it in 90.

Did Gore Propose a 100 Billion foreign aid program for global enviromental
progress on page 304? Quayle said he did, BUT Quayle grossly distorted the
proposal. CNN noted it was a very very far stretch of the imagination to come
to that conclusion.

Does C/G plan propose to raise taxes by 150 billion? Quayle says it did, BUT he
 omitted the offsetting tax cuts proposed in the plan as well. The plan calls
for 146 billion from raising taxes on those making 200,000 or more AND higher
taxes on corporations. As well as cutting $92 billion from income taxes paid by
families making $60,000 a year or less. Again CNN called the equating of this
to taxing everyone making $36,000/year a stretch.

Did Gore support not using Government money for abortions? Qualye said he did
and could provide a letter so stating. AND according to CNN Gore actually wrote
that he did not see it fitting to use Government money to support abortions.
(I'm not sure what Gore now thinks about this subject.)

Anyway thought the info above was interesting.

*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************


*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************
From: mcmullen@mindvox.phantom.com (John F. McMullen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: bend over...
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:27:43 GMT
Organization: [Phantom Access] / the MindVox system

The TV show last night was outstanding and should, at a minimum
sharpen the focus of the public
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:47:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.193504.27591@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
>
>1)  I don't think he will resign.  When he starts something he follows
>through.  Cite one example where this has not been the case.

Here're two: his candidacy and his tenure at GM.  Pulling out of the race at
the height of one's popularity and re-entering one month before the election
is *not* how one follows through on one's pledge to run a world-class
campaign.  Accepting a huge sum of money for one's resignation is not how one
reorganizes a large corporation.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: I SUPPORT PEROT, but HE DOESN'T GO FAR ENUF, _NO ONE DOES_
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:57:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

Face it!  Perot is the only canidate for REAL change.  The problem with 
both Clinton and Bush is that they want to patch bugs in the system.

Sometimes, as a lot of you know, it's better to scrap the code and re-write
from the beginning cuz to fix the current version will take too much time
and money.  This is the problem we have in the USA.

Perot says that the our tax system is like a inner-tube with a thousand
patches on it.  I do him one better:  our system of government is like an
inner-tube with a million patches on it.

Perot is the only canidate that is proposing BIG CHANGES.  He may be wrong.
But, he is closer to right than Billy boy or Mr. George.

H O W E V E R!!

PEROT WILL NOT BE ELECTED!!

The general population doesn't want to think for themselves, they don't 
realize just how bad things are:

   o  In Bosnia-Hertz-a-govina (whatever, heh, heh) over 200 people were 
      killed last month in the fighting their.  We as a nation are very
      concered about this, airlifts, mil-support, etc., we (the Gov.) is
      considering more involvement politically, economically, and with
      big guns and the like.

      Over 500 people were killed in the months of July and August in the
      streets of L.A. for gang violence.  I think this kind of human
      tragedy is MORE important to our survival than what goes on elseware
      in the world.  We need to clean up our own house, before we can
      tell someone else how to take care of their business.

WE NEED A REVOLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY.

BUT THE PEOPLE, in general, DON'T YET BELIEVE IT IS NECESSARY!

   our rights in this country are slowly being taken away with the complete
   stripping of our rights from both the IRS and the DEA.  I won't go into
   details now in regard to these issues.

The USA is too big for one government.  We need to split into seperate
governing regions, BUT IT WILL GET WORSE BEFORE IDEAS LIKE THIS ARE SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERED!  However, Alaskans have given serious attention to the idea
of separating from the USA.

I WILL VOTE PEROT, even if he won't be elected.  In a few years into Clinton's
reign we may look back and say, "Please help us, it's not working like they
all promissed."

-- 
Ken Waletzki Consulting, 2525 Arapahoe #E4-107, Boulder, Colorado  80302
303-494-8953, email kenw@csn.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: jejensen@alfred.carleton.ca (John Jensen)
Subject: United We Stand still available?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:23:48 GMT

A few weeks ago someone uploaded the complete text of Perot's _United
We Stand_.  I was wondering if someone would be kind enough to mail
that to me, or at least tell me where it is available for anonymous
ftp.

Thanks

John Jensen
jejensen@ccs.carleton.ca

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: barich@ravel.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:54:19 GMT

>|> (For the humor challenged: the president is elected by the Electoral College
>|> if and only if a candidate receives 270 or more votes.  If no candidate is
>|> elected by the Electoral College, the House of Representatives elects the
>|> president.  We, the people, don't elect the president directly.)
 

>Here is my reasoning behind >50% of the vote:  The electors that we send
>to the electorial college do not comprise the whole electorial college.
>Each Congressman and Senator and a few others, maybe govenors, get to
>vote.  Well none of the congresscritters or the govenors are going to
>vote for Perot so there for for him to win he must have gotten

Since there seems to be some confusion about the electors......

There are 435 Representatives in the House.
There are 100 Senators in the Senate.
Washington DC gets 3 electors.

Now, for each member of Congress a state has, it gets an elector.  So,
for the 535 members of35 members of Congress, plus 3 for  538 electors.
An elector IS NOT (nor can he/she be) a member of Congress.  Now, by
needing a majority vote in the Electoral College, you need 270 votes.

OK?

Sorry if this message is somewhat scrambled, the terminal I'm on is not
behaving properly.

Dewey


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot