HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:16:12 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes:
> 
> Or maybe it's just that most people in this country do not favor 
> what the Libetarians stand for.  I believe the average voter is a 
> bit more intelligent than some of you credit him for, I don't think 
> that the people vote for whomever the press tells them to vote for. 
> Most Americans do know how the parties stand on major issues such 
> as abortion, gun control, and social programs.  Most people I have 
> encountered do recognize that the libertarians favor less or no 
> government regulation, legalization of drugs, are isolationalist, 
> and are pro-choice and are agaisnt government sponsered welfare.  
> It's just that most people do not support the Lib's planks. 

"most" people know what libertarians stand for? i've met only 2 
people not on the net who had even know the LP exist, much less know 
what the platform is. even considering the major parties, i've
met a more than a few people who don't vote on anything vaguely
resembling issues. the -only- reasons i've heard to vote for Clinton
(from Clinton supporters) are "he's not Bush" and "he looks like
Kennedy". people on the net tend to be more concerned with issues,
but when it comes to statements about Joe Random Voter i'd be willing
to bet he's probably as stupid as most Libertarians give him credit 
for.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "True love is better than anything, except cough drops."            `,`
`,`                     - The Princess Bride (book), by William Goldman `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:00:22 GMT

In article <1diocbINNa2b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>  I can't believe it.  President-elect Bill Clinton's mistress, Gennifer
>Flowers, posing nude in this month's Penthouse.  We have gone from the
>envy of the world to the butt of it's jokes.  Even if you don't believe 
>that she was his mistress, she was a close confidant whom he trusted.
>If his judgment allowed him to choose for a close trusted friend a person 
>who would spill true or untrue details of an intimate relationship to the
>press and embarrass him by posing nude in a magazine, what kind of people 
>will he pick to help him run the country using that same "judgment"?
>I guess one thing we'll be short of during the next four years is family
>values at the top.  I just hope he doesn't turn the White House into a
>brothel like Kennedy did.  What a black eye on the United States of
>America.  Oh, the shame of it all!

Look at Fergie.

Anyway, I think Bush yelling at a man dressed in a Giant Chicken Suit
is probably one step up on the "butt of jokes" scale.
     


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]
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Republicans -- the new affected group
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:09:48 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.


Joseph M. Knapp (jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com) writes:

>Oh boy, here we go... Clinton announced yesterday that his Administration
>will "look like America" and will even include some Republicans.

>In other words, Republican quotas! Now, no doubt there are some qualified
>Republicans out there, but they should compete on their own merits and not
>depend on any beneficence from the new President.

Well said.  Unfortunately, most of the soreheads out there
aren't in the mood for gentle irony.

There are also of course serious questions involved.

For one, there's the built-in contradiction between the
Chief Executive and the Head of One's Party.  Hire the best
or hire one's pals?  If the answer is: the best, what
happens if the best are disloyal?  So maybe it's better to
surround oneself with friends?  Maybe.

But then there's the tension between Party Head and
President for all Americans.  If one's friends are (as has
been said of the Bushies) a white-bread male Protestant
crowd, what about the rest of the country? If the
Presidency is an institutionalized role that calls, among
other things, for the manipulation of symbols of national
unity, etc., how can this be done if White House passes are
limited to some groups and not others?

So maybe Clinton _should_ do some affirmative action
searching for capable Republicans (of whom there's alas no
shortage).  Note that such a search would _not_ be carried
out in the name of finding the best people for the job,
though in some instances that might turn out to be the
case.  The search would be in the name of inclusiveness. In
short, as Joe Knapp,suggest, a quota.

I hope Clinton does it and here's my reason.  Anything that
maximizes Republican discomfort at being so labelled will
hasten the day when _all_ of us recognize how specious is
the notion that justice is blind and how untenable our own
claims that we have fairly earned our positions in the world.

>Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

Norman Miller
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 16:43:08 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: I just happen to have that on tape.  I suspect you're playing the old
: game that the press is so good at and taking something out of context
: that was a thoughtful answer and using it to 'prove' something.

Clinton really did say that he and Ross Perot disagreed on how much to raise
taxes on the middle class.  It was in the closing statement.  I think he
*meant* that Perot wants to raise them and he doesn't, but that's not what he
said.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a 
 building?" -- TMBG
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23455 talk.politics.misc:59552 tx.politics:7193
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:43:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <BxH0Fo.9G5@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.051618.5992@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>> I think Clinton will do a pretty good job.  My guess is we can expect the 
>> Democrats to control the White House for 8 to 16 years.  The reason it is
>> so unlikely the Republicans will win in 1996 is because that election
>> will be a mirror of 1984.  The Republicans will not have yet figured out
>> that the rightwing extremists in their party are making them unelectable.  
> 
>As much as I agree that the rightwing extremists in the Repub Party are
>disagreable, there isn't any evidence that they made any difference
>in the election.  This was an economic election and issues like abortion
>were pretty far down the list.  

Exit polls showed that some 25% of the people voting were "strongly
influenced" in their choice of candidate BY THE CONVENTIONS.  After
seeing that Republican Convention and listening to some of those ultra
right wing speakers, I wouldn't vote for a Republican if you paid me.
It's the same way I used to feel about the Democrats back when all
their speakers were ultra left wing.  It looks like now the
Republicans are going to have to learn what it took the Democrats
around 20 years to figure out -- the people who elect candidates won't
vote for those extremists on a national level.  It's the Center that
elects Presidents, and Bill Clinton was a hell of a lot closer to it
that George Bush was.

And issues like abortion weren't pretty far down the list, either.
For people who voted for Clinton, I think issues like abortion came
something like second (with the deficit 3rd).  Perot voters showed the
deficit as first and the economy as second; Bush voters showed 'family
values' as first.

Sounds to me like people were pretty concerned about social issues
there, except for people who voted for Perot.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 17:53:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
:                One is that someone much more inimical to our interest
: than the Saudis could wind up sitting on top of all that oil -- which
: would be a very bad thing.

Not for long.  Sitting on top of oil doesn't do you any good if you don't sell
it, and we're the biggest oil consumer.  We also have a lot of oil that we're
not pumping because we'd rather import it.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: January Surprise
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:57:45 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections

In article <Nov.8.13.13.19.1992.11541@cadenza.rutgers.edu>,
masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) wrote:
> 
> crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen) writes:
> 
> [ Bush torpedoes GATT and starts a trade war with Europe ]
> 
> >I state flatly that this is a political maneuver directed by the Republican
> >Party to stall the early days of the Clinton Administration.  Nice move.

Most of the GATT negotiators said Bush was fully justified in what he did. 
We went through every procedure, every avenue only to be ignored by the
French.  I don't blame him.

******************************************************************************
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Boxer.
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22579 alt.politics.bush:13119 alt.politics.clinton:15743 alt.politics.perot:5140
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: LANDSLIDE IN THE MAKING!!!!!!!!!!
Date: 4 Nov 92 13:42:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <1992Nov4.024644.4864@athena.cs.uga.edu> stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton) writes:
>In article <griffinb.720704607@unix1.tcd.ie> griffinb@unix1.tcd.ie (brendan james griffin) writes:
>>FUCK YOU!
>>Brendan.
>>
>
>Sore loser, are we?
>
>Cat
>

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that there will be alot of "sore
losers" who voted for Dr. Semantics within the next 3 years.

I predict that Perot will be the "woodstock candidate" in all this.
When people look back, and are asked who they voted for, many more
people than actually did it will say "Well, I voted for Perot, so
you can't blame me for this...".

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion - not my employer's
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23140 talk.politics.misc:58960
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The Decline ...)
Date: 8 Nov 1992 19:02:53 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Patrick J. McGuinness writes:
>but he's back as a Congressman this year.  If Carter could get numerous
>under-qualified people through without problem, so can Clinton.

(The above is probably a rare point of agreement between me & Patrick
McGuinness)

One thing about judicial appointments -- they are sometimes, I have
been told, done as favors to the congressional representatives who
overlap the judicial district.  I wouldn't be at all surprised
if some of these are done as deals -- I'll nominate your pal, you
vote for my legislation.  Given Carter's problems with Congress
I wonder if that took place.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: A New Slogan For Clinton Supporters (Was: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop)
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:23:04 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

>In article <bill.721344029@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:

><   Got any more self-righteous accusations?
> 
>	Tsk. It would seem that certain people aren't going to
>	enjoy the Clinton Administration as much as they had 
>	planned to....

>	But thanks, Eldridge, for the New & Improved slogan
>	for Clinton supporters.....


Happy to oblige.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: esp51@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:17:36 GMT

.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
>I don't know any Panamanians personally, but I can think of at least 300
>(Pentagon estimate) to over 2,000 (independent estimates) who probably would
>still be around if Bush hadn't ordered the invasion.
>
>How's that, asshole?
>
You forgot the 150,000 dead in the Iraq War.

I've apparently touched a raw nerve when I recently included Billy
Graham in my collection of republican Nazi hate mongers along with
Pat Bucannan, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.  If this distracted anyone
from gloating over the recent overthrow of the Bush/Reagan regime, I
apoligize.

I do not, however retract my statement.  Billy was Bush's spiritual
advisor during his reign, giving him comfort and spiritual absolution
as he gave the orders to kill 2000, then 150,000, not to mention
his efforts to ban abortion and ERA.

I am indeed qualified to start a newsgroup "televangelical hatemonger"
whereby we would chastize these worthless snakeoil fire and brimstone
Jeeeesus bleeding on a Jetski salesmen.

Please direct flames to email, let us not detract from anyones deserved
political gloat.

Scott Park
Opinions are mine, I am not company spokesman.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Harvard (Was: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court)
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 11:38:28 GMT

thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Perhaps appropos in the charged Harvard Law atmosphere (Reason #579 not to
>go there), but won't look good out of context.  Nor will much of his talk

Is there any reason *to* go to Harvard, other than their reputation, which
should help in the job market?

Just how much difference is there really between law schools in, say, the
top 10, and, say, the next 20.  For that matter, how much real difference
is there between the top 10 and the bottom 20 of ABA-approved schools?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@isis.cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:14:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.191815.12420@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
>Could you tell me exactly where your posted press
>release on the Weinberger case came from?  It wasn't actually
>posted electronically on the 29th was it?
>

i recall reading this article in the NY Times and later
reading it on the net. i dont think it was posted before
the news release.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:18:32 GMT

In <BxDKq3.I1y@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.023919.15460@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> >> [Actually, base population figures don't look that different, but I
>> >> seriously doubt if the Saudis would want to resort to the sort of
>> >> measures that Iran and Iraq have in order to field a comparable
>> >> military force.  It also would not be in OUR interests if they did
>> >> so.] 
>> Gee, where'd I say THAT?
> 
>Right up there.  You said "I seriously doubt if the Saudis would want to
>resort to the sort of measures...".  We certainly wouldn't want to
>inconvenience anyone else, since it's only our money, right.

Let's try and follow through on the thought a little bit.  Obviously
any nation which doesn't plan on engaging in some sort of system of
conquest would prefer not to expend too large a portion of its wealth
on military goods.  The Saudis already spend over twice what we do,
measured against their GNP.  Now, if we don't chip in to support OUR
interests in the area (and yes, we have some, unless you don't use
electricity, heat, air conditioning, internal combustion engines,
plastics, or a number of other things), there are several things that
could happen.  One is that someone much more inimical to our interest
than the Saudis could wind up sitting on top of all that oil -- which
would be a very bad thing.  Another would be that the Saudis would
find it necessary to get the additional resources to do all this stuff
themselves from SOMEWHERE, and would wind up paying the price and
having no say at all in the policies -- which would be a bad thing.

> 
>> >Let's remember that one of the countries that was fueling Iraq's big arms
>> >grab was Saudi (because they hate the Iranians).  I'm not
>> >sympathetic.
>> 
>> I suppose you have numbers to back up this statement?
> 
>You must not have been keeping up with your reading on the Middle East. 
>SA's funding of Iraq is pretty well known.  For that matter, Kuwait has
>been a fairly big contributor to Iraq as well.  They decided they'd rather
>fund Iraq than fight Iran.

Well, so did we, to some extent.  You have dollar amounts and just how
significant a portion of Iraqi military spending they amounted to,
what they bought, etc?  Or are you talking about funds the Iraqis
received for OTHER purposed (than military)?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ozone Man theme song
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:06:45 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sl930@cc.usu.edu writes:

>Sung to the tune of "Nowhere man" with extreme apologies to the Beatles:

[very childish and silly song parody deleted]

>(couldn't resist)

Too bad.

>Colin Murcray and Joel Poppleton

It took two people to come up with that?  I guess extra small brains
have to team up and work together.

By the way, how old are you two?  Does you're mother know that you're
playing with her net account?  Actually, most children understand the
importance of preserving our environment.  They are taught about it
in school.  I'm at a loss.  I can't imagine what kind of mind(s) would
make up something like this.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: heidi@wales.net.com (Heidi Wolf)
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Organization: N.E.T., Redwood City, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.213320.10472@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
writes:
>Anyone want to make some guesses? [several interesting suggestions follow]


National Public Radio had a brief item about this on today's [11-10-92]
morning broadcast.  In addition to mentioning several of Ted Frank's
possibilities, they also mentioned Marion Wright Edelman (head of the
Children's Defense Fund); Senators George Mitchell and Patrick Leahy;
the woman who is Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court; and
several other names, including at least one lawyer or judge with an
Hispanic surname.  

Comments from the NPR newscaster included the following:

1) Justices who might retire in the near future:  Blackmun; White;
   [drat, can't remember the 3rd person; he's in his 70s].

2) Justices who might have chosen to retire if Bush had won:  
   Rehnquist (has stated that he would like to teach); O'Connor.
   
3) the current Supreme Court is unusual in not having members
   who have spent time in public office (other than O'Connor, for
   a brief time only -- in an office not named in news article).

Sorry not to be more precise, but the morning commute is not an
ideal time to take notes.  


Heidi Wolf

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics