HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:47:08 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov5.160816.17514@news.acns.nwu.edu> matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Matthew Olson) writes:


|>I hope everyone who dislikes the fact that Bill Clinton won the election at
|>least gives him a fair chance to work for us Americans. The American public
|>needs to put the election behind them, and work hard with the new president
|>to try and get our country back on its feet. If President Clinton fails in
|>his new job, then everyone can complain. But we need to give him a chance
|>first.

We promise to give him just as much time as the media gave Reagan.  Between
three and six hours.

During Reagan's first inaguration (sp?) out of the hundreds if not thousands
of pictures they had available.  The Atlanta paper choose the one in which
Reagan was doubled over in a cough to print as its cover picture.

-- 
Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
Sometimes they don't even reflect the views of the author.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:43 misc.test:12717 talk.bizarre:36899
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:04:47 GMT
Organization: SSESCO

In article <Bx9F6o.Mx.1@cs.cmu.edu>, hopkins@cs.cmu.edu (Don Hopkins) writes:
|> Michael Le Houllier writes:
|>    >> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
|> 
|> If *THAT* is the best reason you can think of to re-elect that liar, 
|> then you should be glad that he got what he deserved! 

This was one of my problems with this election.  You shouldn't vote
for someone because you hate Bush.  You should vote for someone because
you want them in office.  Many of the Clinton votes I saw (not necessarly
you) were actually anti-Bush votes.  I don't consider that right.

|> But it sounds to me like you're just repeating the words they put 
|> into your mouth.  Learn to think for yourself. 
|> 
|> 	-Don
|> 	 (who wore his warm and fuzzy "FUCK BUSH" t-shirt to vote)
|> 	 (let me explain: fuck is warm, and bush is fuzzy)

-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:296 alt.politics.elections:23426 alt.politics.clinton:16788
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:51:12 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <10NOV199200505371@zeus.tamu.edu> san7675@zeus.tamu.edu (STEPH) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.144058.22315@crd.ge.com>, joseph@emmax5crd.ge.com
> (joseph) writes...
>
>> Then I have an explanantion
>>why you voted for Clinton.  All of them universities are known to
>>be havens for left wing bleeding heart liberals who want to tax
>>everything that moves and somethings that don't move and take that
>>money and spend it on the welfare population.  Obviously you had
>>to vote for Clinton to achieve your goal.
>>
>>   So there !!
>>
>>james joseph                   joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com
>
>Joseph -
>
>Obviously you have never visited Texas A&M University... The home of the
>stalwart Repubs, the largest College Republican chapter in the US...
>
>Yes, I'm a democrat and this is where I am seeking my higher education.
>
>For those of you who may not remember my school that clearly - perhaps you
>recall allegations of sexual harassment in our Corps of Cadets last year, or
>perhaps the more recent racist theme party given by one of our fraternities?
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When did this occur. I don't think I heard about.
Simon
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:11:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.221021.4361@galois.mit.edu>, kumar@carleman.mit.edu (Sanjay Kumar) writes:
|> nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
|> >he kept his state
|> >at the bottom, he can do the same for the country. 
|> 
|> This is just a  rheoteric. Clinton was not exactly handed over a first rate
|> going state with glowing statistics. It was in deep trouble and Clinton has
|> laid down a foundation for things to improve and he did it in an age when
|> federal money was not flowing into his coffers. He also had to function
|> under a limiting state constitution which limited ways in which he could
|> deal with the things.

Yup he wasn't handed anything good then and he's not being handed anything
good now.  Didn't do much with what he had.  May not (I pray I'm wrong) do
much with what we've given him.

|> 
|> I am not expecting miracles from Clinton, <Reagan - Bush> have put this
|> country into DEEP SHIT called 4.5 trillion dollars national debt and 
|> Clinton is no magician to make that and other problems disappear. It is
|> going to take time..

I'm not defending Reagan/Bush.  I'll give him 3.5 years to show improvement.

|> 
|> BTW, dealing with severe problems (bottom,near bottom rankings in
|> Arkansas) has probably given Bill Clinton the right kind of training
|> for troubles he is going to face now. HE IS  TESTED and EXPERIENCED.

Tested and experienced?  Well yes.  Problem is that he didn't pass the
test (IMHO).  Experienced?  Well yes.  He has had 12 years of experience.
In that magical 12 years of experience, he didn't show us much.  Experience
doesn't mean good experience.

Like I've said before, when this election stuff settles down, I won't be
as critical of Clinton.  There is the common cause of getting this country
straightened out.  I may not like him, but I'm stuck with him and have to
deal with it.  Give me a couple of weeks.

-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:130 alt.politics.elections:23046 alt.politics.clinton:16327
From: joseph@emmax5crd.ge.com (joseph)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:40:58 GMT
Reply-To: joseph@emmax5crd.ge.com (joseph)
Organization: GE Research


In article <BxAxJC.DFJ@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>I'm a professor of genetics and I voted for Clinton. I guess I must be
>uneducated!

   I think I am going to have to contact the election commission.
There must have been massive fraud in the elections.  These Canadians
(and possibly Iraqis and everybody else who wants to see the U.S.
go down) voted for Clinton.  No wonder George Bush lost.  How
could you come out and publicly say that you committed this act
of fraud on the U.S. ???

   Now, for argument sake, let us assume that you did not commit
fraud, you are indeed a U.S. citizen working in Canada. And let us
assume that you are really a professor.  Then I have an explanantion
why you voted for Clinton.  All of them universities are known to
be havens for left wing bleeding heart liberals who want to tax
everything that moves and somethings that don't move and take that
money and spend it on the welfare population.  Obviously you had
to vote for Clinton to achieve your goal.

   So there !!

james joseph                   joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:13:06 GMT

In article <10356@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <8NOV199220404721@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu> agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
>
>|>seems a smaller transgression than Bush claiming we were not
>|>in a recession at all a couple years ago (I never heard what his
>|>qualifying statement was that redefined recession).
>
>Bush was using the classical economists definition of recession.
>(2 quarters in a row of negative GNP growth?).

Classicists don't believe recessions can last very long because they
assume that prices adjust very quickly.

The "2 quarters" thing is more like a media definition of a recession,
because you can put in on the evening news more easily than a host of
economic statistics.  I believe economists tend to look at a broad
spectrum of data, and not GNP/GDP.  The National Board of Economic
Research (?) (NBER in any case) decides when a recession has begun,
and when it has ended.  I believe they declared that the latest one
started in the summer of '90 (I forget which month), and they haven't
decided whether this one has ended or not.  Most economists believe it
has ended (though I'd venture that most don't think we're smelling
like roses, either), and NBER tends to be very tardy in making its
annoucements (they announce things months after the fact, which makes
their analysis somewhat less than evening-news worthy).



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Welfare, here it comes!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:37:32 GMT

gonorth@cs.montana.edu (Spicher) writes:

> Now that Clinton will be letting those Hatian boat people into the country,
> they should have good public medical care.  Gee, was that somebody picking
> my wallet just now?

Somebody call the Inquisition!  Spicher's Holy Wallet is being defiled!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
  "If God had meant for women to be doctors, He would have fixed it
      so men could have babies!" -- from the TV comedy 'Dream On'
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:28:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.121251.7690@linus.mitre.org> can@mitre.org (Chris) writes:
>In article <BxFtF3.B3H@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
>(Shawn Green) writes:

[My description of Rush Limbaugh ripping Chelsea Clinton on his TV show deleted]

>If you don't like it then why the hell are you watching it? Is your hand
>crippled?

Rest assured, it was purely mishap that I caught some of his show while channel
flipping.  And thank you for your touching concern about my health.

Since this topic is no longer even marginally concerned with Bill Clinton,
followups to alt.rush-limbaugh.  Or /dev/null.


Shawn Green
greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.190917.22273@nosc.mil>, reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL writes:
|> As to why people watch Rush Limbaugh the obnoxious; it's human nature to
|> be curious about THINGS...like traffic accidents, fires, floods, hurricanes,
|> and the National Enquirer.  In that jerk's case, I think some of us can't
|> help wondering how he gets sponsors.

Perhaps Neilsen noticed that you, and all the other curious humans, were
watching?
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Allberall und ewig blauen licht die Fernen!  Ewig... ewig... earwig... O!
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:22:28 GMT

In article <1dphssINNkdp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>>
>>Maybe true.  A cut in gov't spending will make the downturn (or
>>whatever it really is) worse.  That's the reason for the pump-priming
>>to start with.  Deficit reduction will be less painful with a growing
>>economy.  That's why whatever legislation and spending measures he
>>proposes should be tied to deficit reduction programs that start up
>>once the economy gets going.
>
>
>       " once the economy gets going ".   hehe.  I would have thought
>that it would be clear by now.  This economy isn't going anywhere.
>Clinton will be "priming" a dry well.  You only have to look at the 
>past 5 years or so.  The only force driving the U.S. economy has 
>been the deficit  Uncle Sam sucks out wealth from the rich, giving
>them the illusion they still have money, and gives it to the poor, 
>giving them the illusion of redistribution.  Meanwhile the poles
>grow farther and farther apart, ergo a rapidly acclerating deficit.

Heh, heh.  What are your solutions, or are we in for a Weimaresque
collapse?


And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:32:01 GMT
	<1dk143INN4cl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	<1992Nov10.202606.19090@fid.morgan.com>
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

>>>>> Regarding Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton; joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) adds:

joec> Please post an address of how to reach Bill Clinton and the team.
joec> I voted for Perot as did most of my family and friends - ALL because
joec> of the Deficit as the primary reason. 

joec> Lets bury them in letters...

Well, the campaign headquarters mailing address probably still works.
It is at:

   Candidate: Bill Clinton
   Phone:     (501) 372-1992
   Addr:      Clinton For President
              P.O. Box 615
              Little Rock, Arkansas  72203
--
======================================================================
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.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: nuke@wam.umd.edu (root)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:07:37 GMT

In article nyh@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Nevo Y Hed) writes:
>
>that aside,  now I'm pondering [sp?] these questions:
>
>   1.	Who sill run for the Reps next time? 
>		[Danny, Baker, Kemp, Rush, Weld???]

Tsongas... definately Tsongas.  ;)

>   2.	Isn't it nice to see Iraqies celebrate democracy?

Yes and no.  Ideally, they would have no interest in our elections
at all.  For those wondering:  democratic US = non-intervention in
the rest of the world.  republican US = meddling of some sort.  
For this reason, countries who are at odds with the US want the 
democrats to win.   

>   3.  The GOP can't stay ''moderate'' it has to either go left or
>right on social issues.  It either has to stop associating with right
>wing religious groups OR it should endorse them even more.  Which way
>will it be?

Hopefully, they will become socially neutral, and focus on economic and
policy issues alone.  Hopefully, the democrats will do this, too.

>   4.	Is the Perot phenomenon here to stay?  [not he himself
>neccesarily but a new powerfull and influential party - UWS]

I don't know.  I'd like it, if it did.  
If they don't have a party, I'm never voting independant again.
Really depressing that so many people voted for one party or another,
and couldn't even tell me what positions their candidate had.
Argh!  Most of the Clinton voters I've talked to voted democratic
because of Bush's "family values" crap, and had no knowledge of *any*
other issues.  Upsetting.

>And last but not least ....
>
>   5.	Having been exposed to a parlamentary system as well as the
>American one and having seen that only 43% actually voted for the
>winner, I'm wondering if it is not time to change some rules - is/was
>there any movement to modify the method in which a president is
>elected?  

Ideally, you would go by popular vote.  One reason for the electoral
college system, as it is, is so that the electorial votes come in
large chunks.  This throws the election further to one side or another,
and gives the winner a feeling that he has a "mandate" from the people.
A popular vote wouldn't do this.  What 'cha gonna do?  <shrug>

>Nevo Y. Hed ............. nyh@wpi.wpi.edu | nyh@cs.wpi.edu.....................

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:03:34 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov9.012737.3867@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Nov8.183418.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1dk6e8INN7ud@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>
>>> I suspect that this man [Clinton] BELIEVES he has a mandate from 
>>> FATE to be president.
>>
>>     I have not heard anyone else make such a comment, nor have
>>I thought in such terms, but this is an *excellent* hypothesis
>>(considering his meeting JFK at a young age, his concern for his
>>political viability during Vietnam, etc.)!  Although, obviously, 
>>one cannot prove it, we should be able to see if his presidential 
>>demeanor in consistent with such thoughts of pre-destination.
> 
> Really?  My impression was that Clinton ran this year to position
> himself in '96.  Remember, Bush was soaring as little as a year ago,
> and all the Democratic heavies were bowing out.  I don't think he
> thought he had a chance to win when he declared, or even in the early
> days of the campaign.  That game was to gain name recognition and
> campaign experience.

     I was considering Clinton's (hypothetical) a posteriori belief
rather than his a priori belief.  

     C. Perttunen
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Perot
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:00:17 GMT

a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
| his admin. in some capacity, think again.  I'll tell you why:
| At the time that Clinton made the comment about a possible Perot role
| in his admin., Perot hadn't yet started to be negative about Clinton.
| Then Perot started making chicken plucking jokes, and airing that 
| infomercial twisting Clinton's record in Arkansas.  Not to mention the
| fact that Perot cost Clinton a majority victory, now forcing Clinton
| to deal with republicans claiming that they represent 57% of the voters.
| The first and major indication that Clinton is pissed off at Perot?
| Notice that he NEVER mentioned Perot or the people who voted for him during
| his victory speech.  This is definatly a sign.  

  Clinton and the country could gain a lot from Perot's help.  To hurt
  the country because of some stupid personal reasons is typical and
  indicates that we will continue with politics as usual instead of
  earnestly solving the country's problems.

  I'll say it again: We Perot supporters *want* Bill Clinton to 
  succeed even if it means we will be weaker or even irrelevant the
  next election.  We just don't think it will happen under the current
  system and the people who are leading it.
  ==

  Bob                                        Seattle, Washington

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:33:14 GMT

In article <1dkinjINNfft@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>
>>Agreed on the debt, but I'd also add that people did not feel that
>>Bush knew what he was doing.  He did not present an overarching
>>idea of government to justify, direct and inspire his administration.
>>He in fact disdained of the "vision thing."  When 75% of the public
>>believed our country was on the wrong track, the lack of weight in the
>>administration must have been at least part of the reason.
>
>
>
>     Yes, I've heard this one too.  Even if I believed that the 
>general uneasiness ( or consumer confidence ) was the *only* thing
>causing an economic slow-down ( which I do not ), merely electing
>Clinton does not solve anything.  For one reason:
>
>    The great majority of Clinton supporters, who presumably will now
>rush out and boost the economy with optimistic spending...
>
>     have no money.  They are largely made up ofthe lower class, 
>moneywise.  

Clinton's coalition is fairly broadbased, though, admittedly, it leans
a bit more towards the lower end of the spectrum.

Assumedly, there would be Keynsian-style pump priming in the
short-run.  Money can be freed on all sorts of construction projects
that are planned and on the books but haven't gone from lack of funds.
Whatever stimulus Clinton proposes should be tied with long-run loop
hole-free deficit reduction legislation.  If not, we're in trouble,
though I think Clinton's too smart (given that his economic advisors
aren't total fools, and Perot's insurgency) not to do this.

Hmm.  A similar simple blanket statement about how people haven't
spent because they don't have money can explain why the Fed's interest
rate cuts haven't done anything: business see people aren't spending,
so they're not responding.

And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:21:50 GMT

In article <1dkj1vINNfm8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>
>      You're really missing the point here.  What does it matter
>if he was to be elected in 1992 to 1996?  He's clearly demonstrated
>a pattern since he was 16, in aspiring to become president.
>

And now there's something wrong with aspiring to be President?

Oh, I remember: 'the man who most wants to be President is precisely
the one who is least qualified'.

Sorry.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:110 ba.politics:6850 ca.politics:9395