HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Perot
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:58:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.045855.619@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson) 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.  
|> 
|> 
|> -Chris
|> 
|> 

Sounds like Clinton (by what you posted) is a sore winner.  Do you believe
that?  If you do, then you may be right.  If he isn't a sore winner and
really puts the country first then it may happen.  If he doesn't put the
country first, he's not worthy of being President.  (Don't read into this
that if he doesn't put Perot in his admin that he doesn't care about the
country.)

-- 
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,talk.politics.misc
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: Network projections
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A726D35287010826@alimac28.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:12:18 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:12:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.175741.15449@oz.plymouth.edu> Michael L. Le
Houllier, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu writes:
>As for the matter of a lawsuit of some poorer school districts,
there
>is nothing in the New Hampshire that says the state government must
>provide for equity in funding of education.  And this comes from
>someone who lives in one of the poorer cities of New Hampshire.
>
Equal access lawsuits.  Not surprised that you haven't heard of it. 
A parent's group is taking the state to court for failing to provide
a tax mechanism that equalizes school funding.  It is pending in the
courts right now in NH as well as other states.  I will keep you
posted.   

Oh, BTW, glad to know that you consider property taxes that are 2
1/2 times the rate that Taxachusetts residents pay (on average) are
only "slightly higher".  Guess living in NH has dulled your sense of
what a reasonable tax really is.  Don't worry though you could
always achieve some tax relief by moving a little south to MA.

>A broad based tax will hurt our tourist industry and the flow of
>businesses fleeing northward from Massachusetts will end.

Ah honey, that exodus ended long ago.  Maybe you haven't heard but
NH is the personal bankruptcy capital of the US.  Oh yah, and what
percentage of NH residents work in MA industries?   If the MA border
was closed what percentage of New Hampshire folks would find
themselves out of a job.  Could it be that MA industry is a major
source of jobs for New Hampshire.  

Have a good one.

TerriB.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:47:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.153326.26055@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>
>In article <YOUNG.92Nov8121945@ssdd475a.erim.org>, young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>> 
>> I'm glad to see that someone has finally acknowledged that Reagan's
>> greatest ability was as a professional actor. Yes, he could take his
>> years of training and practicing in celluloid fantasies and overshadow
>> the amateur capabilities of most politicians.  
>> 
>> It reminds me of the old joke, "I'm not a president, but I play one on
>> TV."
>
>Or, in Reagan's case, "I'm not a president, but I played one in the Oval
>Office."
>
>Ray Lang
>lang@cs.tulane.edu

And the Democrats call it "ancient history" when the Republicans bring up
Jimmy Carter. Guess what strategy the Dems will use in Clinton's re-election
campaign.

------------------
J.R. Ordon

The views expressed here mine & not my employers.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:40 misc.test:12715 talk.bizarre:36895
From: weekslb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:56:22 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Matthew Olson) once wrote: 
>
> If President Clinton fails in his new job ...

Not 'til the Electoral College votes. Clinton is still just Governor,
and Bush is still President. Who knows, the electors could have a
change of heart? :-)

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "The American Republic will endure, until
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  politicians realize they can bribe the people
-------------------+  with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
"The truly ignorant +-------------------------------------------------
 in our society are those people who would throw away the parts of
 the Constitution they find inconvenient." 
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: trinas@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Speedy Gonzalez)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:20:25 GMT

In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes:
>It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
>be an American......
>The Matador of M83

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.


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:55:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New York University

Just some minor corrections...

ross@BofA.COM (Ross Lefstin) writes:
>I have seen a lot of talk about the supreme court.  The current justices and
>(IMHO) their stand RELATIVE TO THE CURRENT COURT is as follows:

>Blackmun - Liberal		[Nixon]
>White - Liberal [I'd say conservative]		[Kennedy]
>O'Connor - Moderate		(Reagan)
>Souter - Moderate		(Bush)
>Kennedy - Moderate		(Reaan?)
>Thomas - Conservative		(Bush)
>Scalia - Conservative		[Reagan]
>Rehnquist - Conservative [Nixon originally, Reagan elevated him to Chief]
>Stevens - Conservative	[moderate-liberal]	[Nixon]

Blackmun and Stevens will probably retire soon, and Rehnquist keeps
talking about retirement (he's getting old, too). O'Connor has been
talking about retireing, too.  White has obviously been around for a
while, so I wouldn't bee surprised if he retires soon.  So I wouldn't
be surprised if...

>Clinton will probably get 3-5 Supreme Court appointments, ...


David
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:263 alt.politics.clinton:16699
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ***STOP THE NONSENSE, ALREADY***(was Re: Not a president yet)
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:43:22 GMT
Organization: SSESCO

Bill Pfeiffer Writes:
>In article <Bx9Exz.E4.1@cs.cmu.edu> hopkins@cs.cmu.edu (Don Hopkins) writes:
>>nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
>>
>>Bush supporters: did you actually think that SLEAZY campaign would
>>work?  Do you actually think winning the election would justify the
>>SLEAZE?  Or do you just get off on having your Bigot Buttons pushed?
>>
>>	-Don
[Bill continues to voice his opinion]

I just wanted to make it clean that although the above indicates that I
wrote those words, I did not.  It is misleading in the way it is placed
in Bill's post.  I'm sure it was not intentional, but I have already 
been flamed once for it and do not need any more.  I have been making an
effort to note come off like an ass.

Thank you.
-- 
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:169 talk.politics.misc:59004
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:34:18 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1dk6e8INN7ud@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

  [everything deleted but one line -- cdp]

> 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.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:43:13 GMT

In article <Bx97AA.482@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Duncan Peter G. Thornton) writes:
> In <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
> 
> 
> Average growth in GNP during four-year Republican administrations
> since 1949: +9%
> 
> Average growth in GNP during four-year Democratic administrations
> since 1949: +20%
> 

I notice you specifically left out in your post what the interest rates
and inflation rates and the unimployment rates were.

Alabama under the last demo pres had 17% unemployment 13% inflation and
21% interest rates for new houses.  If you pick one thing to base the
whole world on you can find stats to prove whatever you wish.

How long did it take you to find something to make demo look good???
Weeks??? Months??? Years???

> 
> - Duncan                    
> 


Larry Billings
---

Well, with the election over it's time for a new .sig [not that the old one
is not appropriate, it's even more appropriate] but let's review it.

Most of us are sad,

[Well, the rest will be soon enough]

No one let's it show,

[And you will have no money to show]

I've been shadows of myself,

[But could still see my position better than most]

How was I to know?

[Can't answer that, but I did know]

*******************************************************************************
NEWSIG
Wantad: Single White Male "WITH" job seeks Single Female with job and 2 or
more kids.  Object: Marriage so we can avoid Clintons tax increases.
*******************************************************************************

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:306 talk.politics.misc:59548
From: iba@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Iba)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:08:49 GMT

fmr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Francis M Rotella) writes:

>note: notice the follow-up groups ----> sorry to take up space in rec.humor!! 

>In article <1992Nov4.094830.14055@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> crwilson@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
>>It has finally happened.  The uneducated finally voted.  I can't think of
>>anything funnier than what happened on Nov. 3, 1992.  I heard this on the news,
>>honest, Mr. Bill "Why no, I didn't inhales, why do you ask?" Clinton received
>>more than 50% of the votes from people who did not graduate highschool.
>>

>first, i'm a phd student in EE at on of the top ranked school in the USA,
>Stanford.  i voted for Clinton and a poll of students here had 70% voting for
>Clinton!!!  we are definitely not un-ededucated!!!!

Then apply some of that educated critical reading/thinking; the first 
statement does not say that if you voted for Clinton, then you are 
uneducated.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:7 misc.test:12667 talk.bizarre:36805
From: jhakala@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jay S. Hakala)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:14:45 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

>>>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
>
I agree!!!!!!!!!!

Clinton is a farce, I'm really scared about what is gonna happen
to this country, with him in office.....*shiver*

Clinton promised everything to everyone,,,,He can't deliver...
^^^^^^^--->"READ my lips 'A fucken lot of new taxes!!!!'"

JAy
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Re: The Sinking Ship (was Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:42:44 GMT

lancer@pitt.WPI.EDU (Stephe Lewis Foskett) writes:
| I voted for Clinton
| now not because I think he is a great guy, but because I believe he
| had the best plan (in terms of workability) for economic growth _and_
| the growth of fair services for the people of this country.  Need I
| remind you of Mr. Perot's health care plan?

  As it turns out, Bill Clinton didn't have a specific health care 
  plan either, other than some vague notion of price controls on the 
  insurance and medical industries.  There is nothing ready to be
  implemented.  This is something that will still take a lot of work
  and planning by Clinton and Congress before a specific plan is
  formulated. 

  Perot was right on this one and I hope Bill Clinton takes his advice.
  Any meaningful healthcare program will entail significant changes in
  the industry and most people will find some aspect of it to be unhappy 
  about.  You can't just force something like this on people.  The 
  government should first inform people of what the situation is, what
  the possible solutions are and what it will cost different groups.
  Then after getting input from the people, build a consensus behind
  a specific plan.  People will be more willing to sacrifice if they
  are brought into the process and they know why they are doing it.

  Without this consensus building, politicians (Congress and Bill
  Clinton) will be too scared of getting people pissed off and we will
  end up with cosmetic changes that will not solve the problem.

  Perot had other smart ideas like first running a pilot program
  before committing $200 billion and screwing up an entire industry
  on a plan that doesn't work.  But the important one is that in order
  to implement significant solutions to big problems, you have to bring
  the people it will affect into the process and form a consensus. 

  I hope Bill Clinton takes Perot's advice.  We Perot supporters would
  rather see the country succeed under Clinton even if it means we won't
  be as strong the next election.  But in order to succeed, he should 
  start taking a look at some of Perot's sensible solutions.
  ==

  Bob

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:58 misc.test:12739 talk.bizarre:36948
From: alaric@sti.com (Phil Stracchino)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:35:01 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.

In article <1992Nov5.214148.21960@wam.umd.edu>, gatsby@wam.umd.edu (Ravindra Pillalamarri) writes:
] In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
] >(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
] 
] 	You know a friend of mine was at my house with some book or other, and 
] in it, the author states that the McCarthy era served to transform patriotism
] into a sort of twisted, jingoistic anti-communism.  Now I see why.


I recall a comment from someone, a while back - sorry, I don't remember
who - who said something to the effect that "there is nothing wrong with
patriotism when defined as 'love of one's country'.  The problem arises
when 'love' is defined as 'blind worship' and 'my country' is defined as
'the man in the White House'".

Unfortunately, there's been a lot of this lately.  The single quote that
sums it up is the famous "My country, right or wrong" line.

Fortunately, there are an increasing number of people who aren't prepared
to be suckered that way any more.


-- 
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
          Public key and info available by fingering alaric@sti.com
Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : Software Transformation Inc
     Free Cyberia!!  :::  Committee for a Free and Independent Cyberspace
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:34 misc.test:12708 talk.bizarre:36882
From: bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:06:25 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

trinas@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Speedy Gonzalez) writes:

>In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes:
>>It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
>>be an American......
>>The Matador of M83

>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.  I saw
a lot of talk about conservative economic policies.  Conservative economic
policies work, unlike tax-and-spend.  Now, trouble is, Bush didn't
have a conservative economic policy- he didn't have one, period.

You must be one of those people, like Clinton, who think the United States
worthy of disgust.  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.  Get a life, "liberals".

"I remember a time when liberals were generous with their own money."

-- 
 Jawaid Bazyar              |   Ask me about the GNO Multitasking Environment
 Procyon, Inc.              |   for the Apple IIgs!   
 bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu         |   P.O Box 620334
 --Apple II Forever!--      |   Littleton, CO 80162-0334   (303) 933-4649
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:229 talk.politics.misc:59207
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:22:30 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

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?).

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:56 misc.test:12737 talk.bizarre:36942
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:59:44 GMT
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.

In article <1992Nov5.205504.6971@cs.ucla.edu> jperry@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (John Perry) writes:
>m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) (the L is for Loser) writes:
>>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.
>>
>
>  Loser.  Nothing that Clinton could possibly do would even come close to 
>more than quadrupling the national debt, which is the main thing that George
>accomplished in his 12 years in the White House.  At least Bush had respect 
>for the man who beat him with an honest campaign, and congratualted him.  
>Clearly, from the glut of obnoxious posts from snotty nosed mama's boys who
>can't remember what it's like to have a president who isn't itching to find
>a war to jump into all the time shows that his constituency isn't nearly as
>good a losers.  But you are just that.   Loser.

Let's see.  First of all, Bush was only president for FOUR years (he
was VP for 8).  Second, Congress passes spending bills, including the
pork that creates a large portion of the deficit.  Third, DEMOCRATS
have been in control of the Congress for THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS.  Sure,
may be time for change according to many, but only change the
Republicans.  Seems intelectually (sp?) dishonest and hypocritical.

God bless,

Michael


-- 
 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!!
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: yost@adobe.com (David Yost)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 03:28:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.002459.7350@rti.rti.org> jbp@rti.rti.org writes:
>Clearly, there are many of you that who are not very happy with the fact
>Clinton will be the President shortly.  In the spirit of the time- 
>honored American tradition of non-violent protest, let me suggest a way 
>that _any_ individual can protest this silently and effectively.
>
>Join the National Rifle Association.  The NRA is committed to
>preserving the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution -- the right of
>citizens to bear arms.  Even if you don't have any weapons yourself,
>it is easy to recognize that this amendment is a powerful symbol of 
>individual liberty and freedom in the land.  And what better way to
>protest a Clinton victory than to help champion individual liberties?

It would be a sad state of affairs if many people believed that belonging
to an organization whose primary purpose is "preserving the 2nd Amendment
of the US Constitution -- the right of citizens to bear arms" is viewed as
a form of political protest, especially non-violent protest, no matter how
valid that right may be in the Constitution.  There are so many other
issues and principles one could found an organization around.

 --dave yost
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:16 talk.bizarre:36828 alt.rush-limbaugh:9034