HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 20:57:04 GMT

In article <9NOV199216564315@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <BxF61A.ABH@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v557nv8k@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) (G) writes...
>> 
>>The Republicans were in power for 12 years.  During that time, the
>>rich got richer and the poor poorer.
>
>Don't you consider that over 30 years of unbroken Democrat control of the
>House of Representitives (and nearly as long in the Senate) qualifies them for
>a bit of credit for the shape we're in too?

The Democratic Party has tended to be two parties instead of one,
whatwith the liberal, northeastern wing, and the Dixiecrats.  The more
conservative Dems were the ones who sided with Reagan in '81, and gave
the administration a workable majority in the House.  Reagan, of
course, had the Senate until '86.  And, yes, I think the Dems should
accept some blame (and there were hints of it in Barbara Jordon's
speech at the DNC), something Bush has refused to be burdened with.

In any case, as I've noted, for the next 4 years, the Democrats will
have no one to blame but themselves, and this is an exhilirating
opportunity.

>
>I was highly amused by Slickness' line in the last few days of the campaign
>"As you can see, I've nearly lost my voice in order to give you a voice in
>Washington."  Was he saying the 300+ Democrat Congressmen and Senators there
>are completely ineffective?  Whatever else you say about him, he sho 'nuff
>is slick.

What was Bush's veto count?  Hmm, one overturn out of around 36?



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]
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:42 misc.test:12716 talk.bizarre:36898
From: bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:25:36 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <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.
>
>Matthew Olson
>Northwestern University
>matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu


I agree with you.  As a foreigner myself, I am scared of the republican. 
They seem to compete for the fall of their opponents, not for the sake of
this country.  They sound like the party of hatred, not hte one of
compassion.  I hope you Americans do not forget the latest Republican
convention.  I must admit that I felt threatened after watching their
cultural and religious war declaration.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:48:26 GMT

In article <FOX.92Nov7015958@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>In article <DBROOKS.92Nov6225716@penge.osf.org> dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>
>   Maybe my memory is playing tricks, but I don't recall quite this level of
>   hysteria and juvenility in 1980, 84, or 88.  Yes, fun was poked at Reagan,
>   and yes, people were genuinely scared of war in 1980, but the level of
>   attacks seems to me to have reached a new low.
>
>Usenet was a very different place in 1988, and in 1980 it didn't
>exist.  This is the only place I've seen much hysteria.  But maybe
>I'm missing something.

I guess you're right, although I was also thinking of the radio distortion
industry, and private conversations.

I hope it won't be seen as a highlight of Usenet: giving public voice to
ill-mannered, incoherent and illiterate verbal brawls.  But I guess it's
way too late.
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Shall I eat a peach?
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:293 misc.test:12926 talk.bizarre:37591
From: phil@seidel.ucsb.edu (Philip Papadopoulos)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:29:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton

nuke@wam.umd.edu (root) writes:


>>   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.   
If you believe that democrats are non-interventionist, then you
are an idiot!  Look at the past policies of the few democrats
that have held the white house in the last 30 years.
     Kennedy -  let's mess with cuba and other central american countries
     Johnson -  He started Vietnam!  Nope. no interventionism there.
     Carter  -  Let's prop up the Shah in Iran.
Interventionism (I believe to be a wrong policy) has been U.S. foreign 
policy. Doesn't matter who's in the White House.  My belief is that
the power of the Presidency clouds the judgment of the "leader of
the free world" and leads one to believe that democracy is the only
moral system and that it must be foisted upon other countries
whether the people want it or not.

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

Almost certainly.  It is very unlikely that the Dems will be able
to come up with a consensus on how to reduce the deficit over
the next four years.  Remember Gramm-Rudman-Hollings,  the federal
budget deficit (not the national debt) was supposed to be
reduced to zero by fiscal 1992 (300 Billion is a LONG way from zero).
THe old leadership in Congress is already indoctrinating the new
members (read your local newspaper).  People want a change in 
Government.  If Clinton is to do it, he's going to alienate many
of the old guard Democrats (who retain a great deal of the party's
power).  I wouldn't be surprised if six-months after inauguration,
we're back to "gridlock."
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:08:27 GMT

If Clinton is such an asshole, and will hose the nation like all of
the people on this thread claim, then why did he BEAT THE HELL OUT OF
BUSH IN THE ELECTION. People aren't stupid.

Followups to this group, flames to /dev/null

-Jr


-- 
Windows...It's like a stale cookie.    | #include <~os2/personal.opinion.h>
OS/2..."It's like buudaah" (SNL quote) | John Reynolds stimpy@jupiter.nmt.edu

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:305 talk.politics.misc:59547
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Perot
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:20:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.155519.1988@wam.umd.edu>, haas@wam.umd.edu (The Future Mr. Graf) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov9.045855.619@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >To all the Perot supporters thinking that Clinton would put Perot in
|> >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.  
|> >
|> 
|>      As I recall, Bush made the same pledge.  If reelected, there would
|> be a place for Perot on his team.  Perot hurt Bush, both by taking some
|> of his votes and by slamming him during the debates.  Now somehow I just 
|> don't think that Bush would be scooping up Perot if he had won.  Bush 
|> only reason for saying what he said was so that the Perot supporters who  
|> were expected to change their minds at the last point would switch and 
|> vote for Bush, with the idea that Perot would at least have a spot on 
|> his ticket.  Bush is JUST as guilty of that...  NEXT DISCUSSION

I didn't realize that you were in charge of when a discussion was over.
Well, I'm going to take a risk and ignore you command.

Who the hell said that Bush wasn't guilty of that?  I don't remember Bush
being mentioned in the origional article.  Don't make it a Bush/Clinton
issue.  Many of your points are valid, but It's a Perot/Clinton issue for
crying out loud.  Please treat it as such.  If you want to start another
Bush/Clinton thread, feel free.

BTW: Clinton DID mention Perot during his victory speech!

Thank you for your attention.

-- 
I disclaim.

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
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:00:16 GMT

jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>I've not heard Rush speaking of cutting throats.  Where do you get this
>from?

(probably intended metaphorically)

>  What would you say his message is and upon what statements of his
>do you base this statement?  Perhaps you've misread his sarcasm and satire
>at times?  Are you aware that he is sarcastic and satirical?

That's an easy excuse, easily made by anyone who is truly bigoted and
slanderous.  Furthermore, Rush Limbaugh must take responsibility for what
he says and does: many of his followers are genuinely of that stripe, and
draw inspiration from him.  To suggest otherwise, and to suggest that he
doesn't know it, is naive.
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Allueberall und ewig blauen licht die Fernen!  Ewig... ewig... ewig...
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Promises, promises
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:03:25 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov12.190631.703@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.154836.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> 
>> [some of Clinton's promises, as given in the NYT, deleted - cdp]
> 
> 	And if he accoplishes even half of them he'll be doing more
> than George Bush has done if four years, or would have done in a
> second terms. 

     Then, why not go all the way -- have Clinton promise to end AIDS, 
end all wars, feed everyone on the planet, etc.  The "if he accomplishes
even half of them" argument doesn't recognize that these are *promises*,
not merely recommendations.  There was one major promise that Bush
made in 1988 -- no new taxes.  He reneged on that promise, and because
of that, he didn't deserve a second term.

> 	Funny, how suddeny high hopes are something to be scoffed at,
> and how suddenly conservatives think it silly to believe that things
> could be made even better than they are. 

     We all have high hopes, but we all do not guarantee things
that we cannot deliver.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:04:28 GMT

In article <Bx9G31.KGK@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>
>
>
>>Like I said over there to those wankers in alt.politics.bush and alt.fan.rush-
>>limbaugh, 'tain't nothin' like a little gloating.   HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
>>Bush lost!!!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!
>
>Because fewer people voted for Clinton than for Dukakis, but a third
>candidate split the vote, Bush lost.

 Actually, Clinton did outdraw Dukakis albeit by only a few hundred thousand
 votes.  Whats far more fascinating is the *fall off* in support for the 
 the Republicans.  Exit polls showed Perot's voters were selecting Bush and
 Clinton about evenly as their second choice.  Add that 10% to Clinton's 
 vote and he comes out at 53 to 47, exactly the same as Bush did in '88.

>Well, at least we know the caliber
>of at least one Clinton booster.

 Oh, dry up.  Caliber, my butt.  Repubs. were besides themselves in '84
 and '88.  A little gloating is in order.   In fact, damn it...HAHAHAHA
 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

   -William
--
 Funny, Saddam Hussein has a job and Bush doesn't.  I wonder what happened..


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth)
Subject: Re: Solutions not more problems Was Re: A Layman's Questions 
Keywords: job loss, recession
Organization: internet
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:18:43 GMT

....

|> What we can do now is take the next step and push the technology further with
|> all of the high tech people from the defense industries. We can channel them
|> into space related communications technologies and other growing space 
|> related fields where we still dominate. If we do this right everyone will 
|> always be playing catch up and we will be making the bucks! The space
|> communications arena is growing at 20% per year right now, what other market
|> is growing that fast. WE dominate this market now and can do more. Think about
|> it.
|> 
|> 
 The question here is: who is "we".  If is a panel of government experts then we
will create another Dept of Energy.  If we means us folks out here as investors,
workers, engineers, etc, then we will get the best of whatever the future
economy brings.

The problem with change today is that it is much faster than in the past.  Even
though we've lost millions of jobs in farming, blacksmithing, buggy whip production,
ect in the past it was not that big a deal because it took place over decades or
generations. Now it happens in a few years.  Many people are uncomfortable
with this kind of change and it fills their lives with uncertainty.  Even though
we've had a solid economy by traditional measures in the 80's many
people see the decade as a failure.  The bottom line is the number of low skill/high
pay jobs is rapidly declining.  The quesiton for the future is: what will
replace them?  If a small percentage of the population
can produce, through high productivity, more goods than the rest of us want or need
then what does everybody else do?  Of course, the same question could have been
asked about food in 1900.

  

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own and do not reflect those of my employeers....
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:28:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.162150.4177@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>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.

       Aspiring to be President has nothing to do with qualifications.  If
does, however, make you wonder what other ambitions he has.

       Somehow I doubt Clinton wanted to be President when he was in his
twenties to heal the wounds of the Reagan era.  :-)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: The "Third" Reich -- Economic Modeling
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:25:51 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     In yesterday's (11/12) press conference, President-Elect Clinton
said, "We've been in this *deep* recession for a long time now." 
But, on Sunday's (11/8) This Week with David Brinkley, Robert Reich
(who is now the head of Clinton's Economic Policy Council) said
that this recession is "*not* as deep as the 1981-1982 recession."
But then again, during the campaign, we heard Gore refer to this
recession as a "deep depression."
     Question for the technical types: If we mathematically modeled 
the economic stance of the Clinton administration, do you think we 
would find pairs of poles on the imaginary axis in the s-plane?  Or, 
even worse, in the right-half of the s-plane?

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:21 misc.test:12691 talk.bizarre:36842
From: nyh@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Nevo Y Hed)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 1992 16:53:20 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

In article <1992Nov5.060913.10011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>
>
>Like I said over there to those wankers in alt.politics.bush and alt.fan.rush-
>limbaugh, 'tain't nothin' like a little gloating.   HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
>Bush lost!!!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!
>
>
>Ta-ta for now,
>M


heheh and speaking of Gloating ...  Clinton didn't hire any fat lady to
sing...  I guess he didn't wanna hurt  Rush Limpfart & Bush's egos
too much :)


that aside,  now I'm pondering [sp?] these questions:

   1.	Who sill run for the Reps next time? 
		[Danny, Baker, Kemp, Rush, Weld???]


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


   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?


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

	
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?  


-- 
Nevo Y. Hed ............. nyh@wpi.wpi.edu | nyh@cs.wpi.edu.....................
++1-508-754-2491 ........ CS grad student, Worcester Polytechnic Institute ....
"I like my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth from time to time" G.Marx .
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:59:58 GMT

In article <DBROOKS.92Nov6225716@penge.osf.org> dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks) writes:

   Maybe my memory is playing tricks, but I don't recall quite this level of
   hysteria and juvenility in 1980, 84, or 88.  Yes, fun was poked at Reagan,
   and yes, people were genuinely scared of war in 1980, but the level of
   attacks seems to me to have reached a new low.

   Of course, my bias may be showing, so I pause before claiming that we
   Democrats are a more civilized lot.  Anyone agree?

Usenet was a very different place in 1988, and in 1980 it didn't
exist.  This is the only place I've seen much hysteria.  But maybe
I'm missing something.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:90 talk.bizarre:37074
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 15:39:13 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test,general,alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:
> trinas@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Speedy Gonzalez) writes:
> >In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.ed
> >>It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
> >>be an American......
> 
> >It is men like himself that give this country the reputation it has,
> >and it is men like himself that will eventually bring this country
> >down with its hatred of people within.
> 
> Eh?  I'm confused. I didn't see any hate in the fellow's message.

Who, 126580828?  Craazy name, craaazy guy!  No, he's just another nationalist
shit-head.  All nationalists are shit-heads.

> You must be one of those people, like Clinton, who think the United States
> worthy of disgust.

No, the USA is just peachy.  I love to be mugged, I love to be shot, I love to
bomb civilians, I love to suck up to the Chinese...

>                  If it's so bad here, you're welcome to move to, say,
> the remains of the Soviet Union, South Africa, Angola, China, Bosnia,
> all those bastions of free men where socialist and dictatorial policies
> were proven to cause social breakdown.

Yeah, right.  South Africa, that noted Socialist dictatorship.


mathew
[ The one consolation is that all these shit-heads are cross-posting to
  misc.test. ]
-- 
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
 -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hellmerj@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Jeffrey N Hellmers)
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:58:48 GMT

>   In <1992Nov5.063938.11566@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pfinerty@nyx.cs.du.edu (big daddy hate box) writes:
>
>   >i want bush's head on a pike stuck in my front lawn. fucker. i hate that
>   >man more than anyone i don't know personally. i want quayle to be pres for
>   >a couple of weeks and then we kill him and let foley do it for a while.
>   >then we kill him too and give it to baker. yeah, i say we take the
>   >opportunity to really fuck with D.C. 

Well, as many people have pointed out, this is probably not a wise thing to
say.  It is also inaccurate.

The poster, when talking about killing our nation's top leaders, incorrectly
lists the line of succession to the presidency.  It should be Bush, Quayle,
Foley (speaker of the house) and then President Pro Tempore of the Senate, NOT
Secretary of State Baker.  Baker would come after the President Pro Tem. of the
Senate, who I believe is Robert Byrd, but I could be wrong.  

See the Constitution for more details.  


-- 
         Jeffrey Hellmers            "Trouble is son, the farther you run, the
        hellmerj@stolaf.edu           more you feel undefined, for what you have         St. Olaf College             left undone, and more, what you've left
       Northfield, Minnesota          behind." Stephen Sondheim, INTO THE WOODS

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc