HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: at the risk of sounding repetitive...
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:03:45 CST

In article 3199@gvl.unisys.com, train@gvls2.gvl.unisys.com (Herbert Rutledge) writes:
|In article <1992Nov5.060351.24196@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu 

||> America: prepare to impeach Hillwilly & Al before it's too late!
|
|
|   Like I said, sore loser.
|

I can remember quite clearly how "gracious" the Democrats were when Bush
won in 88.  Continuous comments like, "There will be no honymoon."  "We'll
give 'em hell for 4 years."  That is exactly what they did.  Now should they
expect any better respect?



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: No Liberals here! (was Re: Hey! Now It's ALL CLINTON's Fault!)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:53:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.052821.19082@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.172852.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.192448.16136@odin.corp.sgi.com>, archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:
>>> There hasn't been a real leftist involved in presidential politics since
>>> Eugene Debs.
> 
> Liberal does not equal socialist, since we still believe in
> capitalism.  Learn a little more political history, and what the
> little labels you bandy around actually mean, OK?

Dbes was a socialist, true. Who disputes that? But what I replied to was
"leftist" involved in presidential politics. Are all these candidtes to the
"left"... yes. That was my point. Does "leftist" equate "socialist" no. where
do I assert that? I thought that I was decent on my pollitical history, what
was the point in attacking that? Obviously the original poster was a little
deficient in political history.... Re-read my post, and then lighten up. Switch
to de-caff or something, my post was intended for humor. There was no reason to
attack it.
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:39:48 GMT

In <1992Nov5.200049.24939@netcom.com> dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk) writes:
>ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>(some stuff deleted to save space)

>>Big winners:

>>Alan Specter - Put the left wing in it's place by trouncing someone who
>>thought they could win soley on the Anita Hill issue (More than 60% of the
>>women in this country sided with Thomas).  Only 5 of 13 women won in senate
>>races yesterday, and those that did won on merit, not on this phony Hill
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>martyr issue.

Arlen Specter won 51-49.  That's hardly a trouncing.

>Pray tell me what exactly is Barbara Boxer's merit?  She had 143 overdrawn
>checks, was one of the highest (if not the highest) spender in Congress.  In 

At least you didn't call them bounced checks, since they weren't.  Why
is that an issue, though?  How does that reflect on her merit?

And the fact that she's a big spender in Congress *IS* merit to those
who voted for her.  Ideologically most people are opposed to big
spenders, but practically a LOT of people *like* all that spending for
their own districts.

>her "victory" speech she gloated and gloated and jabbed at her opponent some
>more.  Not that I have any love for Herschensohn, but when Boxer gloated
>about how her victory proved that "smear campaign didn't work", she quite
>conveniently forgot that her campaign against Herschensohn was not that 
>clean either.  And of course, she promised goodies for everyone (the rich,
>the poor, and, and, and the middle ) except the neighborhood dog.  I guess when
>the choice came down to people like Herschensohn/Boxer, whoever could do
>sweet talking most would win. 

Isn't that *always* the way it works?  Whoever does the most sweet
talking wins EVERY election.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13292 alt.politics.clinton:16002 alt.politics.elections:22806 talk.politics.misc:58407
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:04:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.200049.24939@netcom.com> dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk) writes:
>ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>(some stuff deleted to save space)
>
>>Big winners:
>
>>Alan Specter - Put the left wing in it's place by trouncing someone who
>>thought they could win soley on the Anita Hill issue (More than 60% of the
>>women in this country sided with Thomas).  Only 5 of 13 women won in senate
>>races yesterday, and those that did won on merit, not on this phony Hill
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>martyr issue.
>
>Pray tell me what exactly is Barbara Boxer's merit?  She had 143 overdrawn
>checks, 
 
Well, you must admit, she must be an awfully good campaigner if she
overcame that publicity minus and still went on to win an upset 
victory in the primary and withstand an relentlessly negative campaign.
She has a reputation as a strong advocate for working women and women's
health care issues.  She's also a strong environmentalist.

>was one of the highest (if not the highest) spender in Congress.  

According some conservative publicists yes.

>In 
>her "victory" speech she gloated and gloated and jabbed at her opponent some
>more.  

You're exaggerating here.  Though, it obviously wasn't the most gracious
acceptance speech, the gloating mostly amounted to generalizations once
she got there.  However, she should have said something kind about
her opponent, but maybe she hasn't gotten over the bitterness of 
the campaign.  And, as any Californian whose seen the news or a
newspaper, must know - it was a wholly negative campaign.

>Not that I have any love for Herschensohn, but when Boxer gloated
>about how her victory proved that "smear campaign didn't work", she quite
>conveniently forgot that her campaign against Herschensohn was not that 
>clean either.  

Well, without a doubt, the negative campaigning and the nastiness
began with Herschensohn.  Also, without a doubt, the Democrats
(probably without Boxer's approval) threw the nastiest sludge.


>And of course, she promised goodies for everyone (the rich,
>the poor, and, and, and the middle ) except the neighborhood dog.  

Actually, she seemed to promise virtually almost nothing 
very specifically.  Her promises were pretty vague, I thought.

>I guess when
>the choice came down to people like Herschensohn/Boxer, whoever could do
>sweet talking most would win. 
>

That must be it.  Herschensohn sweet-spoke 0.275 words/day.
                         Boxer sweet-spoke 0.333 words/day,
and eked out the win.


John D.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13788 alt.politics.clinton:16904 alt.politics.elections:23528 talk.politics.misc:59670
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Response to WHY WE SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON
Date: 12 Nov 1992 04:37:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: maelstrom.berkeley.edu

In article <22125@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:

>Why?  The costs of protecting wealth is not proportional, let alone
>progressive, to the value of that wealth.  It costs no more to protect
>$100 than it does to protect $10.

Not true. Why do people rent safe deposit boxes for their valuables but
not for their cheap stuff? For $10, I might not care at all about
protecting it; for $100 I might invest a little time and effort in
protecting it; for $10000 I sure wouldn't carry it in my wallet.

The rest of Olson's posting is deleted.

Net readers:
Keep your eye out for the bogus-ness in the "conservative" economics.
Sometimes it's well-hidden.

andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13463 alt.politics.clinton:16321 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8135 alt.rush-limbaugh:9209
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Individual rights Re: Mr. Waffle King
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:41:28 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
> 
>  
>  In article <1992Nov2.152813.21375@anasazi.com> Mike Best,
>  best@anasazi.com writes:
> > >Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
> > >individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
> > >the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
> > >at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
> > >todays portion of happiness.
> > 
> 
> Conservatives give you rights if you are
> a) wealthy
> b) Christian 
> c) white
> d) heterosexual
> e) male

FALSE. Conservatives don't GIVE people ANY rights; Conservatives believe
that we were ALL born with EQUAL rights, and deserve equal opportunities.
(Notice that I don't say "equal results"; results come from what you DO
with your opportunities.) 


Also please note that I, a Conservative, don't meet your criteria A or B. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Dear Democrats & Repubs too
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:09:04 GMT

In article <Bx6EtJ.Myz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Paul Nosek) writes:
>	Yes but also:
>
>1)	No more control of the executive and judicial branches by the radical
>	religious right. (ie, SAY GOODBYE TO PRO-LIFE-OSITY!!!)
>			and	gay bashing
>			and	the sex police
>			and	rejoining of church and state
>			and 	I could go on and on...
>
>
>2) 	Better funding for schools. (ie, us college students will get a break)
>
>	- And America will get a break in global competition because of a better
>	educated work force.
>
>3)	You were right to point to inflation - but not to unemployment.
>
>	Democrats tend to sacrifice inflation from empolyment.
>	Republicans - vice versa.
>
But how will small business fair under Clinton??  I hope to start a small
deskstop publishing business over the next few months, but what will the
economic climate be like for small businesses under a Clinton administration.?

Simon   (not a sore loser but concerned for the future)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Net Shills for Bush-Quayle: Caught Ya, Guys
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:05:23 GMT


Well, well, well.

The Newsweek Election issue arrived today, and confirmed what I have long
suspected:  many of the posters on the net that supported Bush were
shilling pre-packaged attack strategies straight from the Bush-Quayle
campaign.  

See if the following isn't a trip down memory lane for some of our dynamic
Bush-defenders:

"His (Bush's) mini-surge stopped dead; Clinton's lead, in Bush's own
polling, started up again and by the weekend was back in double digits.  In
something near desperation, Dan Quayle lobbied hard for Bush to open a
tougher, more personal line of attack on Clinton--to suggest that he be
subjected to the same tests of character that the Democrats had used to
block the nomination of former senator John Tower for secretary of defense.
The disqualifiers had included womanizing, among other weaknesses of the
flesh."  (Jim Baker nixed the idea)  "For Quayle, taboos were for the faint
of heart.  "This," he told an aide, "is why we're going to lose."" pp. 94 -
95.

Isn't it amazing that some very creative people on this net came up with
*exactly* the argument that Dan Quayle wanted to use in the final days of
the campaign?  Isn't it even more amazing that they came up with it at
exactly the same time Quayle was trying to sell it to Baker?

Isn't it the *most* amazing thing that Baker and the campaign staff
rejected the line of attack as too vicious and inappropriate (pretty
remarkable for that campaign staff) and only Quayle's people and their
shills here on the net were willing to sink into the sleaze?

Synchronicity, man!  What amazing coincidence that the independent thinkers
of the net came up with an *identical* argument!  And it wasn't the first
time, either.  I bet we could come up with at least a dozen tacky attacks
that Bush-Quayle planted on the net thru their willing mouth-pieces, but it
would probably be more in the spirit of gracious winning to just note it
and move on.

I expect all you folks who pushed the Quayle party-line (sent to you via
e-mail not doubt) will now insist that the tactic was legitimate.  I can't
wait to see what your handlers give you to parrot back so you can sound
like people who think for yourselves.  You are unmasked, folks, and having
allowed yourselves to be used as shills for Quayle in a line of attack even
the Bush campaign rejected as inappropriate, your credibility is in the
same condition as the Bush reelection bid:  non-exisitant.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz)
Subject: Re: Ozone Man's Theme song
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:49:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.020950.60451@cc.usu.edu> sl930@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>Sung to the tune of "Nowhere Man" with extreme apologies to the Beatles:
>

Original                         New and improved lyrics

>He's a real Ozone Man,          He's a real closed eye man
>Living in his Ozone land,       living in his closed eye land
>making all his nowhere plans    making all his closed eye plans
>for nobody.                     for nobody
>
>Has a warped point of view      Thank God his brand new point of view
>knows not where he's going to.  Means unemployment for him too
>He's not a bit like             Now perhaps the sky'll be blue
>you and me.                     with our new crew
>
>Ozone Man please listen,        Closed eye man, didn't listen
>you've got brain cells missing. Epidermal cells are missin'
>Ozone Man, the world doesn't    Closed eye man, your world didn't 
>like your plan.                 Have a health plan
>
>He's as blind as he can be,     Skins are crisp as they can be
>all he sees are CFCs.           His  world was one big KFC
>Ozone Man can you see           Closed eye man, you couldn't see
>truth at all?                   the paint peeling

>
>(Couldn't resist)                          Me neither
>Colin Murcray and Joel Poppleton           Gary Dietz
>SL930@cc.usu.edu    SLTXH@cc.usu.edu       garyd@netcom.com
>


-- 

   "To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."  -Plutarch
   "Why do better when you can just blame it on the democrats?" -G.H.W.Bush

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13264 alt.politics.clinton:15967 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7975
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Now, to start working on the downfall of the USA
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:54:47 GMT
 <1992Nov4.054132.6645@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
 <1992Nov4.055022.6777@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world, na, usa

In article <1992Nov4.055022.6777@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) says:

This is funny:

>1) Raise every bodies taxes by 50%
>2) Tax corporations at a rate of 100%
>3) Pass laws requiring Homosexual Prayer in school
>4) practice witchcraft, kill our children, break up families
>5) put Gorbachev in the Supreme Court

And this is either frivolous or condescending, depending on whether
you actually -mean- this...:

>(And if anybody actually believes this post... shame on you.  Clinton is
>duly elected by the people.  Time to get used to it, pull together and try
>to heal the country from the ravages of 12 years of "borrow and spend" and
>wedge issue divisivness.)

Do you -really- think someone believes this???

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: Net Shills for Bush-Quayle: Caught Ya, Guys
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:47:36 GMT


By this logic, I wonder if "Eileen Simpson" is a real person at all.  Isn't
it a wierd coincidence that she started posting 'disillusioned Republican'
messages at the same time that the Dems were trying to push this Republican
bandwagon idea?  Hmm? [*]


* As another poster said, read as much humor into this as you want.

-- 
ssc@nwu.edu | Quid est, Catulle?  Quid moraris emori? (Catullus 52)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Re: Net Shills for Bush-Quayle: Caught Ya, Guys
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:54:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.200523.10283@nntp.uoregon.edu> 
eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
> I expect all you folks who pushed the Quayle party-line (sent to you via
> e-mail not doubt) will now insist that the tactic was legitimate.  I 
can't
> wait to see what your handlers give you to parrot back so you can sound
> like people who think for yourselves.  You are unmasked, folks, and 
having
> allowed yourselves to be used as shills for Quayle in a line of attack 
even
> the Bush campaign rejected as inappropriate, your credibility is in the
> same condition as the Bush reelection bid:  non-exisitant.

I'm sorry Eileen, but your credibility is dubious.  I, for one have never 
had any contact by E-Mail or any other 2 way channel from anyone in the 
Republican Party or the Bush-Quayle campaign.   As my sig says...My 
opinions are my own.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:19:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.153313.174@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>
>In a perverse kind of way, it is sort of a relief that the left now runs 
>the White House AND the Congress.
>

a southern baptist from arkansas who favors capital punishment is the
"left"?!@!@?! get real. 98% of all democratic and republican politicians
are centrists whose main job is resisting real change in the system.
wake up and smell the coffee.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: How times change
Date: 6 Nov 1992 21:22:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) says:

>In article <1dbftuINNse3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
>ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>> Gee, isn't it strange that when the stock market drops 30 points the
>> day after Clinton is elected we don't hear the "honorable" Clinton
>> forces coming out and saying that business has rejected Bill Clinton.
>
>The St. Louis Post had an article yesterday comparing the stock market
>activity the day after presidential elections beginning with the 1948
>Truman victory.  The market went down .9 percent after Clinton's win,
>which they said was a fairly small movement.  By far the largest decline
>was after the Truman upset of Dewey (I believe it was -3.7 percent).
>With the market as high as it is, a 30 point movement up or down isn't
>that unusual.

I agree with you.  I don't even think a 50 point drop is anything to 
get excited about.  My point was that when the market dropped 20 points
one day about a month ago, Clinton and the "unbiased" media used it to
condemn Bush.  If they are going to use that criteria to judge Bush, then
they also have to apply it to Clinton.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1460 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: pat is back!
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:03:30 GMT

In article <mlt2001-111192225454@m248-113.bgsu.edu>, mlt2001@andy.bgsu.edu (the big steak!) writes:
>  PAT BUCHANAN IS BACK ON THE MCLAUGLIN GROUP.  THE ANTI-SEMETIC IS BACK IN
> HIS GLORY.  THE MAN WHO RAN FOR PRESIDENT AND HURT GEORGE BUSH IN THE
> PRIMARIES.  WHY DID THIS RACIST RETURN TO THIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM? 
> BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE WILL LISTEN TO HIM, EXCEPT MICHAEL KINSLEY OF CROSS
> FIRE!  WHEN WILL PAT LEARN THAT HE WON'T WIN ANY SUPPORT OF ANY SORT WHAT
> SO EVER.  THIS SHIRT STUFFING CONSERVATIVE HAS NO FUTURE.  UNTIL JOHN
> MCLAUGLIN REALIZES THIS WE'LL HAVE TO PUT WITH MORE PAT!  I RATHER WATCH
> MEET THE PRESS!

Quick pointer for all newbies. SOMETIMES, PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO LAZY WILL LEAVE
THE CAPS KEY LOCKED AND GIVE YOU HEADACHES, BECAUSE SOMEWHERE IN THE BACK OF
OUR BRAINS, OTHER NET.USERS THINK THAT CAPS MEANS YOU ARE SHOUTING AT US. I'm
not going to respond to your rather dead-beat attacks on Pat Buchanon... I...I
have to lie down for awhile. Besides, even if he was an anti-semetic, racist,
 "shirt stuffing" Conservative, character doesn't matter right?
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard
		Jack Kemp in '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh