A USENET Guide to Ross Perot
James P Doherty
You may have noticed the sharp contrast between what Ross Perot does and
says and what USENET claims he does and says. You are probably thinking,
"Hey, that looks like fun. How can I get in on the act?"
Well, it's best to learn from past examples:
-----
Perot: Revealing presidential election results on the east coast before the
polls have closed on the west coast can influence voting.
USENET: Perot is a fascist dictator that wants to cripple your right to
free speech and use the Constitution as toilet paper.
------
Perot: This country would be better off if young people did more community
service.
USENET: Perot is a fascist slave trader that wants to force our children
into servitude and use the Constitution as toilet paper.
-----
Perot: We could save a lot of money by getting the IRS a real computer
system.
USENET: Perot is a fascist tyrant that wants to create a "big brother" to
watch our every move and control us. He'll probably use the
Constitution as toilet paper while he's at it, too.
------
Perot: You can't appoint a gay man to lead a group that bans gays as
members.
USENET: Perot is a fascist homophobe that wants to forbid gays, lesbians,
bisexuals and adulterers from all levels of government. Where's
that toilet paper?
------
If you can't find any quotes to distort, just make something up! You know,
something about "cordoning off minority neighborhoods, kicking down doors
and tearing apart homes to look for drugs" or something. Keep repeating
yourself and people will start to believe you.
Long live USENET!
--
Jim Doherty
j...@kepler.unh.edu
Douglas Meier
>In article <1992Jun2.1...@nic.unh.edu>, j...@kepler.unh.edu (James P Doherty) writes:
>|>
>|> Perot: You can't appoint a gay man to lead a group that bans gays as
>|> members.
>
>he's running for President. He's boasting about being able to
>fix the system. He says the system is broke. He says that
>fixing the system is the reason he's running.
>
>So why is it that in this particular case, he's hiding behind
>the system, and pretending that he's bound by something he's not
>bound by.
>
>Can you imagine Lincoln claiming: "I can't free the slaves: what
>would people say?"
>
Lincoln said he WOULDN'T free the slaves while he was running for office. It
is only after his election and the civil war started that he said he would
emancipate the slaves in order to gain some national unity. Lincoln believed
slavery was immoral; however, he wasn't planning to do anything to stop it
until the issue tore the country in two.
--
Douglas C. Meier | Remember to vote this election year,
| you probably won't get another one.
I don't claim them, they don't |
claim me....... | dme...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Barry Shein
VOTE USENET!
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Ted Frank
>Well, it's best to learn from past examples:
It's true that people have been exaggerating what Perot has said. But
what Perot has actually said is frightening enough, despite the Perotists'
attempts to downplay it. For example, on the only policy Perot has gone about
proposing so far:
>Perot: You can't appoint a gay man to lead a group that bans gays as
> members.
The solution to this is not that a second wrong will be a right, as Perot
wants. It's to get rid of the first wrong.
--
....................................
ted frank | th...@midway.uchicago.edu
the university of chicago law school
down from your tree-house condominum
Douglas Meier
(Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Jun3.0...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>dme...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>|> In article <liu...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com
>|> (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Can you imagine Lincoln claiming: "I can't free the slaves: what
>|> >would people say?"
>|> >
>|> Lincoln said he WOULDN'T free the slaves while he was running for
>|> office. It is only after his election and the civil war started
>|> that he said he would emancipate the slaves in order to gain some
>|> national unity. Lincoln believed slavery was immoral; however,
>|> he wasn't planning to do anything to stop it until the issue tore
>|> the country in two.
>
Congratulations. There may yet be hope for you.
> b) So what?
So I was showing where your analogy falls short. You tried to use Lincoln as
an example of someone who was not bound by tradition. That's horse shit.
Just as Perot is trying not to buck the system too hard by not allowing gays in
the military, Lincoln was trying not to buck the system too hard by leaving
slavery as it was. You tried to show how they acted differently in similar
situations when it is quite obvious that they both reacted basically the same:
for continuum of status quo.
So, jon, for the analogy of the week award, YOU LOSE.
This in no way means I support Perot's position. I just recognize his attempt
to maintain order in the system.
Have a pleasant day.
Jon Livesey
|>
|> Perot: You can't appoint a gay man to lead a group that bans gays as
|> members.
Like I said before, Perot's not offering to run the Public Library:
he's running for President. He's boasting about being able to
fix the system. He says the system is broke. He says that
fixing the system is the reason he's running.
So why is it that in this particular case, he's hiding behind
the system, and pretending that he's bound by something he's not
bound by.
Can you imagine Lincoln claiming: "I can't free the slaves: what
would people say?"
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> >
|> >Can you imagine Lincoln claiming: "I can't free the slaves: what
|> >would people say?"
|> >
|> Lincoln said he WOULDN'T free the slaves while he was running for
|> office. It is only after his election and the civil war started
|> that he said he would emancipate the slaves in order to gain some
|> national unity. Lincoln believed slavery was immoral; however,
|> he wasn't planning to do anything to stop it until the issue tore
|> the country in two.
a) Yes, I know that.
b) So what?
jon.
Emmett Kilgariff
and didn't he do it so that the blacks could join the army? Before freeing
them, didn't he suggest deporting them to their own country, colonizing
part of South America? And didn't he say that he wasn't going to free
the slaves for a long time before he did?
The fact is, Lincoln though holding the union together was
more important than ending slavery. So I guess you could say Perot
could be another Lincoln :-).
>jon.
-Emmett
Doug Fierro
>In article <liu...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>In article <1992Jun2.1...@nic.unh.edu>, j...@kepler.unh.edu (James P Doherty) writes:
>>|>
>>|> Perot: You can't appoint a gay man to lead a group that bans gays as
>>|> members.
Just for the record, Perot did NOT say that above sentence.
>>Can you imagine Lincoln claiming: "I can't free the slaves: what
>>would people say?"
>>
>Lincoln said he WOULDN'T free the slaves while he was running for office. It
>is only after his election and the civil war started that he said he would
>emancipate the slaves in order to gain some national unity. Lincoln believed
>slavery was immoral; however, he wasn't planning to do anything to stop it
>until the issue tore the country in two.
>
>
>
>--
>Douglas C. Meier | Remember to vote this election year,
This is an excellent example, Douglas; indeed Lincolon did not want the
Civil War centered on slavery; for a long time he kept insisting that
the war was over preventing states seceeding (sp?) from the Union.
Doug
--
Doug Fierro
|\ UTS System Software
O __________|_\______ CASE tools development
\_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */ fie...@uts.amdahl.com
__\____ |=================/ (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doug Fierro
Well, for one Jon, it completely discredits your accusation (and others)
that Perot would not make serious changes in government for fear of what the
popular perception might be. Lincoln was used as a very good example.
Lance Visser
+>You may have noticed the sharp contrast between what Ross Perot does and
+>says and what USENET claims he does and says. You are probably thinking,
+>"Hey, that looks like fun. How can I get in on the act?"
>Well, it's best to learn from past examples:
+>-----
+>Perot: Revealing presidential election results on the east coast before the
+> polls have closed on the west coast can influence voting.
+>USENET: Perot is a fascist dictator that wants to cripple your right to
+> free speech and use the Constitution as toilet paper.
Real Perot: We need to stop exit polls.
Other: Well Ross, might it not be better, rather than stopping exit polls
to go to something like uniform poll closing times.
+>------
+>Perot: This country would be better off if young people did more community
+> service.
+>
+>USENET: Perot is a fascist slave trader that wants to force our children
+> into servitude and use the Constitution as toilet paper.
What you left out here is that Perot is not proposing voluntary
service.
But of course, Ross didn't really say that because Ross has never
really said anything at all. Ross is just Ross who deserves your vote
because he is ross.
I sort of thought that Ross was proposing this massive social program
that would capture all 18-19 year olds for a year of government work doing
menial jobs. Cost of course is not an issue.
I think this country would be better off if certain people like
Ross Perot would get out the checkbooks for things like lets say summer
activities/sports programs for urban areas. One such private program in
Dallas announced sunday that it will not operate this summer for lack of money.
+>-----
+>Perot: We could save a lot of money by getting the IRS a real computer
+> system.
+>USENET: Perot is a fascist tyrant that wants to create a "big brother" to
+> watch our every move and control us. He'll probably use the
+> Constitution as toilet paper while he's at it, too.
Ross Perot is of course an expert in this area having founded EDS
which specializes in low-cost computing solutions for big government.
Would it not be wonderful if a private company like lets say Perot Systems,
EDS or arthur Anderson had the information collected by the IRS at its
disposal.
For the benifit of those with weak stomachs, I will not go into
what Ross means by a "real" computer system.
+>------
+>Perot: You can't appoint a gay man to lead a group that bans gays as
+> members.
+>USENET: Perot is a fascist homophobe that wants to forbid gays, lesbians,
+> bisexuals and adulterers from all levels of government. Where's
+> that toilet paper?
Perot: You can't have a man with a beard program computers for us or
hold really any sort of position at all with EDS. Anyone who
grows a beard should be fired.
+>If you can't find any quotes to distort, just make something up! You know,
+>something about "cordoning off minority neighborhoods, kicking down doors
+>and tearing apart homes to look for drugs" or something. Keep repeating
+>yourself and people will start to believe you.
Several reputable people have, of course verified the "cordoning
off minority neightborhoods" talk that Ross was spouting in Dallas a few
years back. But since Ross denies it, they must all be part of the
grand conspiracy against him right? I mean this is THE ROSS PEROT that
we are talking about. The ROSS would never say something like that would he.
+>Long live USENET!
The criteria for Supporting Ross Perot seems to be the ability to
shut ones brain down and let "daddy" Perot do the thinking.
"Boss" Perot sits on the fence with his image people, pollsters and
media people pretending that he is something that his entire history shows
him not to be.
Stephen Tice
>
>
> VOTE USENET!
>
>--
> -Barry Shein
for VEEP
< Stephen D. Tice > | < >
) ( -- S -- ) Go Perot & No mo' Status Quo (
< Arlington Texas > | < >
Patrick J. McGuinness
>In article <liu...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>
>>Can you imagine Lincoln claiming: "I can't free the slaves: what
>>would people say?"
>>
> Didn't it take until Lincoln's second term to free the slaves?
No. He did it in 1863, with the emancipation proclamation.
>and didn't he do it so that the blacks could join the army?
No. That was a separate issue. I believe free blacks served prior
to the emancipation proclamation. (See the movie Glory.)
> .... Before freeing
>them, didn't he suggest deporting them to their own country, colonizing
>part of South America?
^^^^^^
Try Africa, not America. Slaves were freed and sent to Liberia in
1820, but for the 1 million slaves in the 1860s, this was, how would
Perot put it, ... 'impractical'.
> .. And didn't he say that he wasn't going to free
>the slaves for a long time before he did?
He was less radical than his other friends in the Republican party, yes,
but it wasn't enough to prevent many states from seceding simply
because he was elected. Other Republicans, including Seward,
a competitor *who he appointed to be Secty of State*, favored
abolishing slavery.
> The fact is, Lincoln though holding the union together was
>more important than ending slavery.
And he was right. After all, slavery wouldn't end in a disunited
America. But Lincoln did both - he saved the union, he ended slavery.
> So I guess you could say Perot could be another Lincoln :-).
Pathetic. If several states in the union secede simply because Perot
is elected, then it might be apt.
On the other hand, their conceptions of leadership and politics are too
different for their to any real comparison.
>
>>jon.
>
> -Emmett
>
Abe Lincoln for Pres. '92
mp...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Would it be possible for the President (and not just President Perot,
but President Carter, Reagan, & Bush) to reverse the military's ban
on gays? Most likely - if they tried hard enough.
Would this be a good thing for President Perot to do? I dunno. I don't
think, however, that Perot considers gay rights of the same importance
as fixing the deficit/debt problems. We can keep going on the same track
we're on right now for only so long. We have a good chance of fixing the
deficit/debt right now. If we wait, it's going to be much more dificult.
The gay rights problems can wait. The economy can't.
Now after the economy's fixed, which of the three candidates would I give
the best chance of equalizing gay rights. Yes, that constitution basher
himself - Perot.
---
Michael Pye
email: mp...@csupomona.edu
Emmett Kilgariff
>In article <1992Jun3.1...@kpc.com> emm...@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>>In article <liu...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>>
>>>Can you imagine Lincoln claiming: "I can't free the slaves: what
>>>would people say?"
>>>
>> Didn't it take until Lincoln's second term to free the slaves?
>
>No. He did it in 1863, with the emancipation proclamation.
I know, I realized that after I posted the article.
>
>>and didn't he do it so that the blacks could join the army?
>
>No. That was a separate issue. I believe free blacks served prior
>to the emancipation proclamation. (See the movie Glory.)
>
But black slaves from captured areas of the south couln't
serve until freed. It was one of the reasons he freed them.
>
>> .... Before freeing
>>them, didn't he suggest deporting them to their own country, colonizing
>>part of South America?
> ^^^^^^
>Try Africa, not America. Slaves were freed and sent to Liberia in
>1820, but for the 1 million slaves in the 1860s, this was, how would
>Perot put it, ... 'impractical'.
From the PBS Civil War Documentary, I remember Lincoln, as President,
suggesting deporting slaves to their own country in South or Central America.
I think this is a different case then you were referring to.
>
>> .. And didn't he say that he wasn't going to free
>>the slaves for a long time before he did?
>
>He was less radical than his other friends in the Republican party, yes,
>but it wasn't enough to prevent many states from seceding simply
>because he was elected. Other Republicans, including Seward,
>a competitor *who he appointed to be Secty of State*, favored
>abolishing slavery.
>
>> The fact is, Lincoln though holding the union together was
>>more important than ending slavery.
>
>And he was right. After all, slavery wouldn't end in a disunited
>America. But Lincoln did both - he saved the union, he ended slavery.
>
>> So I guess you could say Perot could be another Lincoln :-).
>
>Pathetic. If several states in the union secede simply because Perot
>is elected, then it might be apt.
>On the other hand, their conceptions of leadership and politics are too
>different for their to any real comparison.
Note the smiley. If some people can be "Pathetic" enough to compare
Perot to Mousolinni and Hitler, I'll take a streach and use Lincoln. Besides
the orignal post was saying that Lincoln say the racial equivelent to Perot's
"gay" comments, which was basically wrong.