HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pld@fc.hp.com (Paul_Dineen)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:09:26 GMT
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Michael L. Le Houllier (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu) wrote:

: And when the economy sees unheard of lows as a result of Clinton's
: policies, Republicans will take the Congress for the first time in 40
: years and Jack Kemp will take the White House to begin another long
: period of Republican administration, this time without that bothersome
: Democrat Congress.

  I voted for Clinton.  I know he promised a lot (Bush would have too,
  if he were the challenger), and I can't say how well he will handle
  the economy.  But, at least he's not so out of touch that he will
  *ignore* such domestic problems, as Bush did.  (Why didn't Clinton's
  campaign show the film of Bush bewildered by the idea of checkout
  scanners?)
  
  Perhaps more that that, I welcome the relief from the assault on our
  civil liberties.  The Republicans typically glorify the individual,
  but they immediately start hacking away at anyone who's left of Pat
  Buhannan.  The American people have had 12 years of Republican
  leadership in hatred and intolerance, and have had enough of that too.
  (And wasn't Bush's campaign "kinder and gentler"?)  Despite the appeal
  of *some* of the Republican economic principles, I could never become
  a Republican because I can't countenance hatred.

     "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, 
     nor should they be considered as patriots.  This is one nation 
     under God."
	    -- Republican Presidential Nominee (1988) George Bush


  Yes, I'm from Colorado.  And yes, I voted against amendment #2.  Clinton
  only won a plurality in Colorado.  Meaning that a majority voted against
  him (at least not for him) and a majority voted for #2.  You figure it
  out.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:76 misc.test:12770 talk.bizarre:37051
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:26:06 GMT
Organization: SSESCO

In article <1992Nov6.042542.11477@umbc3.umbc.edu>, williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper) writes:
|> In article <Bx9K01.2B5@ssesco.com> nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
|> >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.
|> 
|>   William, you missed Bush's campaign somehow.  Bush's closing strategy was
|>   to get out the anti-CLINTON vote.  A lot of people voted for Bush because
|>   he convinced them that Clinton couldn't be trusted for any of a number
|>   of reasons Bush laid out.  The Republicans have made an art form of negative
|>   campaigning.  One of the proudest moments for the Democratic Party this cycle
|>   was Ron Brown's decision to ask Democratic partisans not to go ahead with 
|>   their plans to start a Brent Bozell look alike organization to parallel 
|>   Bozell's dirty tricks operation.  Even though I confess I thought it a 
|>   mistake not to fight fire with fire it sure paid off in the end.
|>            Stay Easy__
|>                William

Let me clarify.  I did not say that it didn't work the other way around.
I understand that it did occur, to a certain point, for all candidates.

I also need to clarify for other rebutles I've seen.  I do understand why
people do vote like that.  I just don't agree with it.  I know my method
often results in failure, however I am a person that stands on principle
and am willing to "throw my vote away" to make a statement.  You may
not.  I accept that.

-- 
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:256 alt.politics.elections:23331 alt.politics.clinton:16680
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:43:13 GMT
Organization: VTT

In article <BxAxJC.DFJ@ccu.umanitoba.ca> frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>One final observation. I practically gagged when Clinton said he smoked
>pot but didn't inhale. My respect for him went down. 

My initial reaction was similar.  When I got to thinking i realized that
he was a guy who didn't want to smoke but found himself in situations in
which "everyone" else was smoking and felt pressured to join in.  So he
faked it and passed on the joint.  He took some smoke into his mouth
and tried not to inhale.  I know a woman who said that she behaved
exactly the same way in that sort of situation (and from knowing her, i
believe her).  So i don't think Clinton was lying.

I do think he was stupid not to come out immediately and say what had 
happened.  He certainly tried to avoid the issue, which only made it
worse.

>Brian Fristensky                | 
>Department of Plant Science     |
>University of Manitoba          | I'm gonna miss DAN-O! 
>Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2  CANADA    |  
>frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca          |   :-)  :-) :-) 
>Office phone:   204-474-6085    | 
>FAX:            204-261-5732    |


-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:40:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.185923.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>In article <8NOV199215560982@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:

>> When the economy
>> experiences a deep but short-lived drop it can recover but if the
>> drop is shallower and longer a recovery may not be able restore
>> what you lost.

>     You correctly state that two measures of a recession are
>length and depth, and you try to justify the "worst-economic- 
>conditions-in-50-years" theme given by the Clinton campaign.
>I am not trying to dispute your argument -- but, is this
>the same argument given by the Clinton campaign?

I thought it was.

>Gore kept 
>saying that we are in a depression (yes, he used the word
>depression) because "everything that should be going up is 
>going down, and everything that should be going down is going
>up."  I'm sorry, but my definition of a depression would include
>a deeper recession than 1982.  

I don't remember if he said "depression" but I'll take your word
for it.  Given the description following that term I suspect that
Gore was engaging in classic political rhetoric - use a word that
other people associate with something then redefine it in a
qualifying statement.  I can't agree with him on that but it
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).

>Moreover, how come they never said during the campaign that
>the depth of this recession is not that bad?

I thought they did about some points.

Part of this problem is semantics; okay I take that back, the
problem is politics mis-using language.  When I think about it
words such as recession, depression and trashed carry lots of
emotional effect and so their deployment or avoidance is
carefully attended.  Sigh.

>According to Clinton, the country is already trashed (if, at
>most, you have a 50-year memory).  I hope Clinton succeeds, but
>I'm concerned that his campaign was disingenuous.

I thought they approached some things disingenuously.  So maybe
I voted for the ticket that committed less of it than the other
two.  I should add that part of the reason I voted for Clinton
is that his expected approach to social non-economic issues will
probably be closer to what I want than what Bush was expected to
do.

Will we ever get ingenuous Presidential campagins?  Perhaps
that's a rhetorical question.

-=] Steve [=-      AGOODRID@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
Strategy (stolen from Mae West):  When faced with two evils
pick the one you haven't had before.

These opinions don't represent ... etc.

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: tlhouse@nyx.cs.du.edu (fiver)
Subject: Re: Gloat
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 12:28:12 GMT


One monkey out of office .. put another monkey in the office .. 

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Fallacies 
Keywords: Fallacies 
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:11:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.095644.6228@csusac.csus.edu> chena@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Ender Wiggin) writes:
>I'm looking for several Fallacies that Clinton or Bush has said
>throughout the Campaign.  So I would appreciate any help on this report
>of mine.  Thank you.
>

> Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
                                    ^^^^^^^^^
Here's one that you committed. But fan mail's always nice to get.

mdw

-- 
Matt Welsh    mdw@tc.cornell.edu        +1 607 253 2737
Systems Programmer, Cornell Theory Center
  "She's like jelly roll, like sculpture!"
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:33 misc.test:12704 talk.bizarre:36877
From: 185422285@ucis.vill.edu (Alec D. Plotkin)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:35:00 GMT
Organization: Villanova University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu>, 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes...
>In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes...
>>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!!
>>>
>>And when the economy sees unheard of lows as a result of Clinton's
>>policies, Republicans will take the Congress for the first time in 40
>>years and Jack Kemp will take the White House to begin another long
>>period of Republican administration, this time without that bothersome
>>Democrat Congress.
>> 
>>>
>>>Ta-ta for now,
>>>M
>> 
>>God bless,
>> 
>>Michael
>> 
>>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>-- 
>> Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
>> (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
>> GO BLUE JAYS!!!   BEAT THE BRAVES!!!!
>> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
>Michael,
> 
>It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
>be an American......
> 
>The Matador of M83
> 
> 

People like the above make me sick.

later

alec
<==============================================================================>
Disclaimer = I speak for myself and my views are my own. Villanova University
or its computing departments take no responsibility for what I say. 
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:291 talk.politics.misc:59447
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:50:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:

>In article <1dn6l6INNadr@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.


     Here, flat statement. Keep it to say I was wrong.   

     The deficit will continue to accelerate.  Cutting back will become 
even more difficult.  The deficit will never be cut.

 
>

>One point of curiosity: you're rejecting Keynsian arguments, and
>you're saying that we shouldn't decrease the deficit in the
>short-term?
>



       No, I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce the deficit.
   I'm saying that those who have a say, will say " no reduction"

>
>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:51 talk.bizarre:36928 alt.rush-limbaugh:9084
From: jon@zeus.med.utah.edu (Jonathan Byrd)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:24:06 GMT
	<1992Nov5.145747.26765@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Organization: University of Utah

In article <1992Nov5.145747.26765@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

   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. 

   Congratulations.  You just violated Federal law.  You might want to
   check into laws regarding remarks about killing public officials,
   particularly Presidents.

   You better hope that all the conspiracy theorists that claim that NSA
   and such monitor the net are wrong.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that I have NEVER met
Pat Finerty.  NEITHER do I want to kill Bush and place his head on a
pike in my front yard.  NOR do I wish to mash Bush's testicles between
two bricks, pull out his fingernails with pliers, and shove a hot
poker up his rectum while I sing "Bess, You Is My Woman Now."

In fact, I ABSOLUTELY ABHOR the idea of plucking out Bush's eyeballs
and snipping off his nose with hedge clippers.  I would NEVER consider
smearing him with grape jelly and tying him to a fire-ant hill.

Only a SICK, DERANGED person would string Bush up in a tree, and gut
him like a deer.  No one in their RIGHT MIND would want to lower our
President slowly into a vat of concentrated nitric acid.  I could
NEVER advocate any of these horrible things.

I just wanted to make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that I am an ordinary,
peaceful, law-abiding, God-fearing citizen with ABSOLUTELY NO VIOLENT
INTENTIONS WHATSOEVER.  Thank you.

--
jonathan byrd
jon@apollo.med.utah.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Organization: VTT
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:43:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.020059.18890@leland.Stanford.EDU> fmr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Francis M Rotella) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.094830.14055@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> crwilson@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
>>I find it very difficult to believe that someone would vote for a person who
>>committed adultery, and lied, about the same thing, three times!  This is
>>living proof that christian, or even pseudo-christian, morals have no place in
>>America.

Why pick on Ronald Reagan?  He did end up marrying the woman that he got
pregnant out of wedlock.

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:362 alt.politics.clinton:16989
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ***STOP THE NONSENSE, ALREADY***(was Re: Not a president yet)
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:28:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) states
>In article <1992Nov9.102517.19427@gagme.chi.il.us> 
>wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) writes:
>
>> Bill Clinton's message was one of unity, shared purpose and a strength
>> that is borne out of a pooled effort.  
>>
>>      [.. huge amount of feel-good cheerleading deleted ..]
>> 
>> I ask you all to listen to your candidate and start PUSHING.  You all
>> voted because you love your country.  The process elected Bill, but
>> you are STILL Americans.  If you loved your country on Nov 3, continue
>> to love it now and pull together.  We can build a better tomorow.
>
>Does anyone else feel nauseous upon reading this impassioned
>huggy-feely ``government can do no wrong'' cheerleading?  I feel
>dread at the prospect of the Democrats taking control of the  
>country.  George Bush screwed up a lot of things, but he said
>one thing right: government is too big, and spends too much. 
>Unfortunately, Bush never had the balls to back up his words.
>
>Now with the Democrats in control, they're going to unleash 
>all the years of pent-up frustration and hungering for social 
>programs and public mandates at a time when we need them the
>least. The new burdens that Clinton and Congress will place 
>on businesses, such as mandated health care and family leave, 
>are going to hurt US competitiveness and drive the economy 
>into the ground.  
>
>What can be done to de-rail the Democrat's efforts to turn
>this country into a socialist's paradise?  There doesn't
>seem to be anyone capable of stopping the Democratic tax 
>and spend juggernaut. 
>
	When in the course of human events.........


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.
The meek can _have_ the Earth, the rest of us are going to the stars.(Heinlein)
		*** H. Ross Perot in '96 ***
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 01:36:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.192932.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.223956.185@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>> This is quite true.  Further, Alan Ehrenhardt noted in a NYT Op-Ed
>> last week that it isn't just the economic conditions.  He argues that
>> there is a pervasive lack of faith in future improvement, in being
>> able to hand down to our children a better life.  This is the first
>> time since WWII and the Great Depression that Americans have this
>> general uneasiness, even though we've had higher unemployment, lower
>> growth, etc.
>
>     I agree with the observation of general uneasiness, but
>we should ask what are the causes of this uneasiness.  I contend
>that the debt burden is either directly or indirectly the major
>cause of economic anxiety.  The debt reduces the amount of money
>capital available to the private sector, it increases the prospects
>for tax-hikes and higher interest rates, etc.  If we see any
>significant increase in inflation (caused, say, by Clinton's
>fiscal stimulus plan), we should also expect to see the Fed
>raise interest rates.  This would immediately hurt the bond
>market, and after a couple hikes in interest rates we
>could see a major correction in the stock market.  (This is
>just one scenario, of course.)
>     I have some thoughts about the media too, but I'll spare
>you of those.  :-)

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.



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:80 misc.test:12772 talk.bizarre:37056
From: waddell@ed.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott V Waddell)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:05:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <VAITKUS.92Nov5105106@ceres.lexmark.com> vaitkus@ceres.lexmark.com (Keith Vaitkus) writes:
> [loads of Bush bashing rhetoric deleted...]

>I guess my bottom line is that all US citizens, regardless of
>party, should get together and decide on a coherent, consistent
>approach to foreign policy. AND we should be more aware, as
>citizens, of the actions, and inactionsm that are committed in
>our name by our elected government...

Couldn't agree more...
>
>Flames are nice -- but we really ought to grow up as a society and
>take more responsibility for our actions. Partisan politics really
>have nothing to do with this... It isn't what Democrats and Republicans
>do that matters -- What matters is what the USA does. We are ONE
>country. ONE people. And maybe, ONE day, we will act like it.
>
>
>
>                                              /\    Keith Vaitkus
>                                             //\\   
>                                            ///\\\  Lexmark International
>                                            \\\///  email: vaitkus@lexmark.com
>                                             \\//   voice: (606) 232-4382 
>                                              \/
>

Speaking of taking responsibility for our actions...We just elected
an adulterous, combat evading, pot smoking, liberal to office who
can't seem to take responsibility for HIS actions and shouldn't
have been given the opportunity to act on behalf of our nation!!
   Maybe those of you who support Clinton/Gore didn't notice the
market went down the day after the election due to an expected
increase in the federal budget deficit during a Clinton presidency.
   Maybe you didn't notice the liberally biased press finally asking,
"How is Clinton going to keep all those promises?"
   Maybe you didn't notice because you're the kind of people who
want to hire someone to fix the country instead of accepting some
of the burden and helping to fix it yourself.  At least Bush and 
Perot were realistic about the situation.
   As for foreign relations...God help us.

Scott Waddell
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:344 alt.politics.clinton:16930