HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: PRESIDENTIAL DOOKIEHEADS
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:59:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.150724.460@lrc.edu> dorham_r@lrc.edu writes:
>
>Democrat = idiot = stupid = pigface = pondscum = cvcc graduate
>
>
>
>
>I KNOW THAT YOU'LL VOTE REPUBLICAN NEXT TIME !!!!!!!

I hope this guy was joking (even without a misc.test in the follow-up
line), but...

Sore losers and sore winners abound on both sides, though I'd venture
that the losers have more vitriol at the moment.



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: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Date: 9 Nov 1992 13:50:28 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov9.053758.15624@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <STEINLY.92Nov6185405@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.201258.15504@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>
>>   In article <MDL.92Nov5144420@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>>   >In article <rabjab.201.720915937@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>>
>>   >   Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?
>>
>>   >Dan Quayle will get the fuck out of it and maybe they'll let
>>   >Richard Truly (a great American) run it like he's paid to do.
>>
>>Goldin, Truly is gone.
>>
>>   >   Given the finite amount of money available and the rather heavy list
>>   >   of social programs he plans to begin, I can't see any alternative to cuts,
>>   >   probably delay or cancellation of the Space Station, the super-collider
>>   >   and other major projects.
>>
>>Pah!
>>
>>   >Clinton is on record as supporting the super-collider
>>
>>   I was always under the assumption that a Democratic administration would
>>   be hostile towards any technological development.  Like the space program
>>   in general.  Were the delays in the shuttle program in the late '70s
>>   caused by Carter or was this just a coincidenc??
>>
>>Actually I believe the shuttle first flew in 1981? That would suggest
>>that the bulk of development and construction was under Carter. For all their
>>rhetoric the Republican administrations don't exactly have a stellar
>>record on space issues, a lot of the NASA malaise looks from here to have
>>developed under Nixon and Reagan more than anyone else...
>>
>Then perhaps what we need is a spce program t that can go beyond partisan
>politics.  This should apply to any large scale government project.
>
>Simon

For once Simon, I agree with you...there's hope for you yet...:-)

John


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ballard@panther.adelphi.edu (Terry Ballard)
Subject: re:Bush supporter blatherings
Organization: Adelphi University Swirbul Library
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:23:07 GMT


   The things I have been reading and hearing for the past few days 
demonstrate clearly why the Republicans are now the minority party in every 
since of the word.  They have had it so good for the last 12 years that they 
think they should just keep on winning every time.  Hey - they don't have to 
do a good job.  They just have to get up and call their opponents liberals 
and that should be enough.
   The other night on CNN I saw congresswoman Molinari talk in the most 
depricating terms imaginable about the majority of voters who put Clinton 
into office.  With utter contempt for the American voter she said that 
people voted for what they think they want.  Maybe you should just give them 
what they really want and need, Congresswoman.  To do that you will have to 
tear up the constitution and set up the Republican party as emperors of 
America, so we don't have to worry our poor little heads about who can 
really govern us.  After all, you know what is better for us.
   Give up, Republicans.  Your guy lost.  It is time to get on with your 
lives.  Maybe you need to go back to the center.  You've got time to think 
about it while you're on the sidelines.

                                                  Terry Ballard
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: damon@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. Damon Kelly; ACS (RJE))
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:30:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.165130.27624@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:

[Russia is ready to EXPLODE in the worst way!]

Uh huh.  And how would Bush have handled this situation better than
Clinton would?  Based on the last few military adventures into the
world in the last 12 or so years (such as Central America and the
Middle East), I seriously doubt that the Reagan Democrats would *not*
want to intervene (and could be prevented from being involved) in such
a situation.  We're not dealing with Carter's Congress here.  (Or are
we?  Time to read the papers, just to see how many of the
Congresspersons who were hanging around during Carter's term are still
around.)

-d

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: mancur@vccsouth22.its.rpi.edu (Rick Mancuso)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:31:03 GMT

>Not, it is not acceptable to raise their taxes just because they are a
>minority.  It is acceptable because they can afford it.
>
>Why do so many common people defend the rich?  I think many Americans
>expect that one day they will become filthy rich, through no means that
>they have planned.  "It just could happen somehow."
>-- 
>Tom Reingold
>AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
>tommy@boole.att.com or att!boole!tommy

The majority of people who are rich got that way through hard work and plain 
old smarts.  I think everybody aspires to be rich.  The notion of becoming
wealthy is what separates capitalism from socialism.  To take your argument
one step further, why not just decree that no one can make more than a
million dollars.  Who the hell could possibly need more than a million dollars?
Its an alluring argument.  But, that is what separates this country from
socialism.  Why the hell does our government spend so much money anyway?  
You'll have a hard time convincing me that we can't run this country on one
trillion dollars.  Being from Massachusetts, I'll tell you first hand what 
will happen if Clinton tries to balance the budget with tax increases 
(Dukakis attempted this three times), it simply won't work.




-- 
mancur@rpi.edu	     "Uh...had a slight weapons malfunction. 
Rick Mancuso	      But, uh, everything's perfectly all right now.  
		      We're fine.  We're all fine here...now...thank you.  
		      How are you?"  *wince*
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16652 alt.politics.democrats.d:413 alt.politics.elections:23314 ba.politics:6945 co.politics:1738 ne.politics:2847 nj.politics:630 or.politics:541 ny.politics:153 talk.politics.misc:59292
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton isn't Carter
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:54:47 EST
Summary: No, and he's no Ronald Reagan, either.
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.130328.25689@njitgw.njit.edu>, aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters) writes:
> In article <Nov.5.23.12.10.1992.29424@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>>I am only 29, but I do remember the Carter Administration and the
>>effects it had on the country, my family, and myself.  It was very
>>tough financially for many of us....
> 
> I remember Carter too, and my family did very well thanks.
> We locked in government securities at mafia rates just in
> time for inflation to drop (which was the result of Carter's
> policies, by the way -- unpopular policies that ensured
> his unelection).

	Carter did not initiate deflationary policies, Paul Volcker did. 
Carter didn't even want Volcker as chairman of the fed.  He was forced to pick
Volcker when his first pick declined.  Volcker initiated tight money policies
against the wishes of Carter.

> It's possible that Clinton won't be reelected, but that will
> be because the mess that Reagan and Bush left (quadrupled
> deficit, rusting infrastructure, moribund financial system
> tattered cities, burgeoning underclass
> -- all direct results of Reagan/Bush policies) require some
> tough and unpopular medicine that may not pay off within 4 years.

	Now I've heard everything.  If Clinton messes up, it's Reagan's fault. 
Yeah, right.
	Reagan's policies did a world of good for the US economy.  If Clinton
is lucky, he might come close.  But I doubt he will.  He doesn't understand
what tax cuts do.

> He won't be unelected because he's like Carter though.
> Unlike Carter (and Bush) he has been a very effective arm twister and
> deal maker who (I believe) will play hard ball with Congress.
> This is one of the reasons people call him slick.  He may
> be the most effective executive since LBJ.	-a.

	Scary.  Guns N Butter all over again.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush Tampering with Key Economic Figures
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:03:20 EST
Summary: Exposed as Yet Another Economic Lie
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov11.125843.8731@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
> In article <1dopg6INNims@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
...
> |> a much-too conservative estimate, and that when the revisions are made after more
> |> complete data come in, they will probably be UPWARD revisions. He also said
> |> something about the New York Post being about as good at economic reporting
> |> as they are at news reporting, which was bad (his opinion, not mine).
> |> 
> 
> That's an interesting opinion, but the market tends to vote with is
> dollars. The period after those figures came out was business-as-
> usual despite the expressions of surprise about how high the figure
> was. If the market believed those figures, where was the market
> activity? An article I read (I believe it was the NY times) interviewed
> wall street economists who said the new Bush figures didn't reflect
> how bad the economy was, and didn't change their view. Market activity
> corroborates this story alot better than it corroborates the John Liscio
> story you told.

	Actually the fact that the market didn't nosedive after the election is
because the economy is doing so well and all indications are that Clinton is
not going to mess with it.  Talk about Volcker as Treasury Sec. is also helping.
                                       
Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:36:54 EST

In article <rabjab.229.721103085@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>>I was always under the assumption that a Democratic administration would
>>be hostile towards any technological development.  Like the space program
>>in general.  Were the delays in the shuttle program in the late '70s
>>caused by Carter or was this just a coincidenc??
> 
> I dimly remember technical problems with the main shuttle
> engines (one or two exploded under test) and with the tiles.
> Remember it was Kennedy who sent us to the moon.  Maybe Clinton, 
> late in a possible second term, will make popular the notion
> of going to Mars (assuming he succeeds with his social programs).
> 
> ------------
> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu

I clearly remember being at JPL in 1986 (I was doing research there) and
got the great opportuinity to be there during the Voyager II encounter with
Uranus. Fascinating. A shuttle mission was planned to go off a few days after
that.

The weather in Florida was very cold and the engineers were talking about
it over the closed circuit system TV system they had at JPL. The engineers
were concerned about a possible failure with the O-rings at 37 F, it was
freezing in Florida the day before. It was assumed that the mission would be
delayed until the weather warmed up into specs.

I also remember that the day after the launch was Ronald Reagan's state of
the union address featuring the first teacher in space.

Alot of strings were pulled. The Reagan administration ordered that shuttle
to go up (for their propoganda etc etc) INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT EVERYONE
AT JPL ADVISED AGAINST IT.

I was there and saw the whole thing unravel.

-Garrett
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: January Surprise
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:01:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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.

And expect more. George Herbert Walker's last three months in office
will be spent in rigging a January surprise for Clinton. If he gets
away with it, there will be no transition, just a debacle.

One thing he's already done is to commit a lot of money for porkbarrel
projects (rebuilding Hanscom Air Force base in Florida [which was
scheduled to close before Andrew levelled it], building the V22 Osprey
helicrasher [which the DOD says it doesn't want], etc.). To have a
hope of reducing the deficit, Clinton will have to cancel these, to
the chagrin of those living in the areas affected. Republicans will
then start hollering about how Clinton's destroying jobs.

Also remember that he was CIA director under Ford. So he's got some
ties to the boys with the black bags, too, and will probably keep on
pulling them after he's out of office. On a happier note, the CIA's
charter prevents them from conducting domestic covert operations
against U.S. nationals, so they couldn't possibly be doing anything
like pulling media strings or sabotaging the economy.

Right.

Any speculation on what else it will be?


      _/_/_/    _/_/_/_/    _/        _/  Stephen P. Masticola          .^.
    _/         _/     _/   _/_/    _/_/  ProLangs  Research  Group     /   7
   _/         _/     _/   _/ _/  _/ _/  Dept. of Computer Science     (   C
    _/_/     _/_/_/_/    _/  _/_/  _/  Rutgers University              \   `J
       _/   _/          _/   _/   _/  Hill Center, Busch Campus        ,>   /
      _/   _/          _/        _/  New Brunswick,  NJ  08904        (    //
_/_/_/    _/          _/        _/  masticol @ cs.rutgers.edu          \  //
                                   Voice:   (908) 932 - 4070            `U
                                  Fax:     (908) 932 - 0537              '
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15827 talk.politics.misc:58198
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:21:09 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <sulkanen.720974900@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
> cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
> 
> >In article <sulkanen.720886922@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
> >> 
> >> 1. US News & World Reports notes in "Washington Whispers" that the Hillarator
> >> will be an integral part of the nomination & appointment process. So much for
> >> the campaign's "Donna Reed" transmorgification.
> 
> >Good.  I've been looking forward to Hillary Clinton as First Lady for
> >several months.  Bar and Nancy always had their say; at least Hillary
> >has a first-rate mind.
> 
> It is specious logic to infer this from an Ivy-league law degree.

I have no opinion on the Ivy League; I'm comparing her legal opinions
with Barbara's autobiography of a dog and Nancy Reagan's horoscopes.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: statz@gagme.chi.il.us (Louis B. Del Boccio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: *+* NEWSFLASH *+* MUST READ !
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:06:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Originator: statz@gagme

In article <1992Nov5.223619.26614@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.055052.1764@gagme.chi.il.us> statz@gagme.chi.il.us (Louis
>B. Del Boccio) writes:

>>Please except my apoligy for *+* NEWS FLASH *+*
>>
>>
>>
>Oh! and to think, I actually responded to this post...(sorry to wast your time
>
>Louis, would you please get a grip.You are beginning to act like Bush prior to
>his defeat. Have a bit of dignity. Pitch in or shad up.:It,s pitch in or shape up
>
>
>*****************************************************************
>John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
>NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
>(713)483-9357
>
>"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
>*****************************************************************
>
To all those I have touched in regards to my article I posted
I'm sorry ...What I should of done was to take this lost as well
as my candadent did Perot.I just lost it for a minute and I have
a good grip on the matter now.ouch that hurts ...statz
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17023 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8489 alt.rush-limbaugh:9575
From: wglee@eceris.ece.ncsu.edu (William Gary Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prayers in school (Was: What is a Conservative?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:08:00 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <BxKCIz.C1C@ns1.nodak.edu> jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:

   some text deleted ...
>
>FORCED?????   I don't think that the push for prayer in schools would FORCE
>students to pray.  It's more of a quiet-type time.  BUT you can pray if you
>want.
>


RIIIIGHT! I can just imagine the loving gathering....

	'Now class, lets all set in a circle and join hands
	while Rush Jr. leads us in the Lord's Prayer...that is
	all except for little Mohammed, who doesn't believe in
	our true Saviour and hence will never enter Heaven.'

I'm sure that prayer in schools would *really* be voluntary and would
help us to be a more moral and loving nation; that it would
show our children that acceptance and understanding will make the
world a better place.


	Gary Lee
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16136 talk.politics.misc:58540
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:28:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <eagle.720807302@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:

>drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>>Daniel said:
>>>More police: you shouldn't need more police at all.  You should just
>>>start enforcing the laws you have.  There are no criminal rights--the

>>Dan, how do you 'enforce' laws without cops?  We went from a one
>>criminal : 3 cops  ratio to  one cop : 3 crimes ratio.  Cops in
>>just about anywhere in the country can do little but clean up and
>>take notes AFTER a crime has been committed.  They can't effectively
>>patrol and prevent.

>Mr. Drevik, my name's Daniel.  I understand that we now have more crimes
>than cops.  The problem is the other end of the judicial system: the
>courts.  We have courts that let people out of prison after serving a
>very small fraction of their term, if any at all.  That's not right.  

>Just recently, here in NC, there was a guy executed for murders he
>comitted TEN YEARS AGO!!!!!  Now, I understand the thing about certainty
>before an execution, but TEN YEARS is _much_ too long.

>Those people on death row should be executed.  Those people in prison

Oddly enough, I favor the death penalty as a deterent - it deters the
criminal you execute. But I have one small problem - how do we go
about providing restitution to the ones that turn out to have been
innocent? When someone can provide an iron clad guarantee that our
judicial system is 100% perfect, guess I'll just have to wait for
a country wide death penalty.

>should stay there for the entirety of their term--they've all already
>demonstrated that they are incapable of maintaining a normal life as a
>member of society.

>Daniel
>--
>Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Depatment, NCSU / eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
>From: Rec.humor.funny:				   "Ich bin ein Adler"
>      My unique solution to two of the world's problems:
>      "Feed the Homeless to the Hungry"

I hope there is a job waiting for you when you graduate, and I hope
you never know the hopelessness of looking for one in vain.

Ciao;
Bob.
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's other last name?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 14:00:45 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <8691@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> ns@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Nancy M. Schnepp) writes:
 >What was Clinton's last name when he was born?
 >I saw it on the news this summer but I sure can't
 >think of it now.  Thanks in advance.
 >
 >Please e-mail. 
 >ns@physics.purdue.edu
 
Bill Clinton was born William J. Blyth.




-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE volunteer
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15842 talk.politics.misc:58218 talk.politics.drugs:7296
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:45:22 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>I think everyone should be left alone as long as they
>aren't hurting anyone else.

Everyone should be left alone as long as they aren't
non-consensually hurting anyone else.  It's OK to
"hurt" someone who has *freely* agreed to it.
-- 
	Truth is an evaluation of a statement within a context.