HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rick@seminole.b30.ingr.com (Rick Hopkins)
Subject: Clinton won; maybe (was Gloat)
Reply-To: rick@seminole.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:35:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.181512.5296@dsd.es.com>, sbender@navajo.dsd.es.com (Steve Bender) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.160816.17514@news.acns.nwu.edu>, matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Matthew Olson) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> I hope everyone who dislikes the fact that Bill Clinton won the election at
|> |> least gives him a fair chance to work for us Americans. The American public
|> |> needs to put the election behind them, and work hard with the new president
|> |> to try and get our country back on its feet. If President Clinton fails in
|> |> his new job, then everyone can complain. But we need to give him a chance
|> |> first.
|> |> 
|>

I agree.  Hopefully the economy can withstand some of his ideas.
 
  Although doubtful, I hope that with
|> a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and Presidency - the combination
|> will be overwhelmingly successful.  (I'm not so vindictive that I should wish
|> doom and gloom on our country just for the sake of a '96 candidate).
|> 
|> Nevertheless, the "Will of the People" has spoken, and we are certain to
|> reap what we have sewn.

I'm not sure of the numbers but these may be close,

Clinton  43%
Bush     36%
Perot    19%

So 57% of the people who voted, voted against Clinton.  So perhaps the will
of the people have spoken but the end result may not have been what the 
majority of the people wanted.  In other words the majority of the people did
not want Clinton.  Yes, I know, 62% voted against Bush, but this is a moot 
point since he lost anyway.  Of course you could argue that 62% voted for 
change.

Just random thoughts,

rick hopkins
rick@seminole.b30.ingr.com
|> 
|> -- 
|> Steve Bender
|> Evans & Sutherland
|> (801) 582-5847
|> Salt Lake City, UT 84108
|> 
|> sbender@dsd.es.com
|> 
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:20:58 GMT

In article <12NOV199214223558@sscvx1.ssc.gov> seitzler@sscvx1.ssc.gov (JOHN SEITZLER) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.190917.22273@nosc.mil>, reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL                  writes...
>>As to why people watch Rush Limbaugh the obnoxious; it's human nature to
>>be curious about THINGS...like traffic accidents, fires, floods, hurricanes,
>>and the National Enquirer.  In that jerk's case, I think some of us can't
>>help wondering how he gets sponsors.
>
>----------
>
>Then you must indeed be ignorant.  Notice I used the word ignorant.  That
>is not a personal slur, just a statement that a person is unaware of the
>facts.  Rush gets sponsors BECAUSE HIS SHOW IS HOT!!!!  Why? For the same
>reason his book is selling so quickly.  People want to hear what he has to
>say and agree with him.  You know he has a large viewing audience because the
>one thing that even the networks will not deny is profit.  And Rush's show
>is making them MONEY.  People are starved for 'equal time' with the liberal
>media and as Rush says "I AM equal time".
>
>John SeitzLer

Excuse me, but this has NOTHING to do with alt.president.clinton!!!!!

Alex

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:198 talk.bizarre:37367
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 9 Nov 1992 14:18:04 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <8NOV199221263279@cats.ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes:
>In article <3NqTTB26w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes...
>>bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:
>>> trinas@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Speedy Gonzalez) writes:
>>> >In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.ed
>>> >>It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
>>> >>be an American......
>>> 
>>> >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.
>> 
>>Who, 126580828?  Craazy name, craaazy guy!  No, he's just another nationalist
>>shit-head.  All nationalists are shit-heads.
>
>Hey Smart ass, I am no nationalist! I am an American citizen who is sick and
>tired of our countries morals being flused down the toilet by pablum-puking
>liberals like yourself! You live in NYC under Dinkins and Cuomo for four years
>and see how you like your money dissapearing to local taxing!
>So, do not put me in the same category as that slob Buchannan! The Republican
>party is diverse, not all of us are extreemists, unlike the Dems, who are
>left-wing Communist scum!

Funny, Clinton and company had problems because they were *too* conservative. 
As far a all republicans being extremists, no, not all are...but I would tend
to classify YOU as an extremist who has bought into the right-wing christian
fundamentalist concept that Christianity is the only *true* religion and everyone
else is a heathen, and that *your* christian morals are the only ones that
are important...

John



Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:67 misc.test:12753 talk.bizarre:36992
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:22:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: chinet.BxA729.B6L
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Matthew Olson) writes:
>
>I hope everyone who dislikes the fact that Bill Clinton won the election at
>least gives him a fair chance to work for us Americans. The American public
>needs to put the election behind them, and work hard with the new president
>to try and get our country back on its feet. If President Clinton fails in
>his new job, then everyone can complain. But we need to give him a chance
>first.

What are you, some kind of starry-eyed dreamer ???    ;-)


-- 
"I wouldn't want to ruin such a        | Dan Hartung               |  Ask me
lovely recession...er, reception."     | dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us |  about
    -- George Bush                     | Birch Grove Software      | Rotaract!
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:164 talk.politics.misc:58988
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 8 Nov 1992 22:33:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) says:

>
>It sounds like you're hoping for the worst.  Do you dislike
>Clinton that much that you are be willing to hope the country
>gets trashed?

        The country is already trashed.  Any attempts to even
reduce the rate of growth of the deficit will create a greater
recession than we've seen so far.  I'd just like to see someon
who would make the hard decisions, cut the deficit, endure what
would probably be somewhat akin to the Great Depression, and
that someone is NOT Clinton.
>
>Steve      AGOODRID@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
>
>

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:176 talk.politics.misc:59020
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:34:27 GMT
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>Agreed on the debt, but I'd also add that people did not feel that
>Bush knew what he was doing.  He did not present an overarching
>idea of government to justify, direct and inspire his administration.
>He in fact disdained of the "vision thing."  When 75% of the public
>believed our country was on the wrong track, the lack of weight in the
>administration must have been at least part of the reason.



     Yes, I've heard this one too.  Even if I believed that the 
general uneasiness ( or consumer confidence ) was the *only* thing
causing an economic slow-down ( which I do not ), merely electing
Clinton does not solve anything.  For one reason:

    The great majority of Clinton supporters, who presumably will now
rush out and boost the economy with optimistic spending...

     have no money.  They are largely made up ofthe lower class, 
moneywise.  

     And that 2% who are about to be taxed will most assuredly 
cut back on spending, as will a large percent of the middle class
who fear a Clinton presidency.  Like I do.  In fact, most of my 
cash is out of the banks now, and I'm trying to decide where to 
dump it.

>
>
>
>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]
>
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177)
Subject: '92 Election Rhyme
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:53:41 GMT

         `92 Election
         -------------
Democracy is tested, our voters are wore,
 we have elected Clinton and Gore.
Tis time that we give the donkeys a try,
 the Bushies let this one slip ... right on by.

An ass be the donkeys if they screw up this time,
 to build a dream that is both yours and mine.
For if they can't fix the problems they've named,
 our people are worse, and our economy mamed.

Clinton ran a good race in the campaign's last days,
 and voters were looking ... three different ways.
Change was the theme the voters did yell,
 not just in Congress but the White House as well.

A word of advice to the president elect, 
 don't let your constituents suffer neglect,
We republicans admit when we've taken our licks,
 but watch out for Kemp when it comes '96!

------------------------------------------------------
               -Thomas C. Noyes


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:22:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.233707.13713@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes...
>In article <9NOV199216564315@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>In article <BxF61A.ABH@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v557nv8k@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) (G) writes...
>>> 
>>>The Republicans were in power for 12 years.  During that time, the
>>>rich got richer and the poor poorer.
>>
>>Don't you consider that over 30 years of unbroken Democrat control of the
>>House of Representitives (and nearly as long in the Senate) qualifies them for
>>a bit of credit for the shape we're in too?
> 
>	Sweet Bleedin' Jezus! I am sick to death of hearing the
>Republicans blame Congress for everything. I'm sick of hearing
>everyone blaming everyone else for everyting. In his entire term Bush
>only had one, count it, ONE veto successfully overidden, and that was
>during the campaign. I take that to mean that at least SOME of his
>program, whatever it was, managed to get through.

No, it tells me that he was effective in preventing legislation he was opposed
to from passing there is a big difference.  I would wager he had a far worse
success rate at getting bills from "his program" to pass in the first place.


Dave

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Clinton = Hitler (was: A New Reich)
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 23:42:05 GMT

In article <1drb15INNgij@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Broward Horne) writes:
>       Clinton has already promised to make me a criminal.  Yes,
>      I'm writing him off.  Read the "Crime Bill" which will pass
>      next year.

I assume you're talking about his support for the Brady Bill here
(California has a waiting period 3 times as long as BB and it hasn't done
any good) or his dangerously vague talk about semi-automatic weapons
with no sporting purpose.  These are also concerns of mine.

>      A government by fanatics.  For convience.  The Future.
>
>      Personally, I don't care about the abortion thing.  But it does 
>      serve a useful purpose.  Consider this:
>
>      For "pro-choice" people, abortion is a matter of CONVIENCE.
>      Didn't feel like wearing a condom.  Oh, spur of the moment, you	     
>      know.  Government should pay.
>
>      For "pro-life" people, it is a matter of deep convictions.

You're making a generalization here that isn't legitimate.  Just as the
Second Amendment is vitally important in spite of the people who abuse it,
it's vitally important that abortion remain legally available in spite
of the people who might abuse it.  Personally, I'm pro-choice in ALL
respects...and I look at people who want to further restrict either
guns or abortions as two variations on the same sort of simplistic fool.

>    A government run by whiny people, who want everything now, because
>    it's convienent, our historical rights be damned, we'll sell them
>    we'll sell them, we'll sell out CHILDREN, WE WANT IT NOW NOW NOW.

Baloney.  I've been working my ass off ever since I got out of college,
10 years ago and I've been watching the country go to hell in a handbasket.
I haven't needed or wanted any kind of handout.  What I want is to live
in a place where it's safe to walk down the street.  Where friends who have
AIDS don't have their insurance benefits cut from under them.  Where the
police don't come on like thugs, staging no-knock raids on the wrong
houses and shooting innocent people, in the name of President Bush's "War
on Drugs".

>      Sure, I'm giving Mr. Bill a chance.  I'm also preparing now
>   to go to South America, probably Uruguay.  I'll to brush up on
>   my spanish.  But I'll take my quiet, responsible ways with me,
>   I'll take my technical skills with me.  It's quite obvious that
>   our congress intends to make responsible, self-reliant people
>   carry everyone else on their backs, while repealing what's 
>   left of our Bill of Rights, for the good of the people.

Hey, if you';re going to give up that easily, we don't need you here
anyway.  There's serious work to be done and it requires people who
don't run away when the going gets tough.

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:245 alt.politics.clinton:16650
From: jh507@ripplegeosc.psu.edu (John Hammer for GEOSC 507)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:22:18 GMT
Organization: Penn State University, College of Earth & Mineral Sciences

There has been WAY too much Clinton bashing here.

And way too much GOP bashing.


I'm about to follow those that are sick of the mindless,
extremist crap that seems to be the mainstay of this 
group by unsubscribing.  ( I'm talking about BOTH extremes 
before anyone gets smug. )

Flame away I won't be here.

John Hammer
EMAIL: hammer@geosc.psu.edu
NEVER vote straight ticket, you never know WHAT might be hiding in there.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: terryk@encore.com (Terence M. Kelleher)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:27:39 GMT
	<1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu>
	<1992Nov5.161512.6902@klaava.Helsinki.FI>

In article <1992Nov5.161512.6902@klaava.Helsinki.FI> leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti) writes:


   PS.  Here's George's comment on the status of God in politics:

   "I was shot down, and I was floating around in a little yellow raft,
    setting a record for paddling.  I thought of my family, my mom and dad,
    and the strength I got from them.  I thought of my faith, the separation
    of church and state."

      -- George Bush, in a speech relating his experiences as a World War II
	 fighter pilot, 5 December 1987.

If nothing else comes of this election, I find it VERY refreshing that
we elected someone who knows how to speak.  

--

                                 +----------------+
Terence Kelleher              +--+-------------+  |
Encore Computer Corp.         |  | E N C O R E |  |
terryk@encore.com             |  +-------------+--+
607-687-2644                  +----------------+

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:59 misc.test:12740 talk.bizarre:36949
From: alaric@sti.com (Phil Stracchino)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:44:59 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.

In article <Bx9K01.2B5@ssesco.com>, nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
] In article <Bx9F6o.Mx.1@cs.cmu.edu>, hopkins@cs.cmu.edu (Don Hopkins) writes:
] |> Michael Le Houllier writes:
] |>    >> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
] |> 
] |> If *THAT* is the best reason you can think of to re-elect that liar, 
] |> then you should be glad that he got what he deserved! 
] 
] This was one of my problems with this election.  You shouldn't vote
] for someone because you hate Bush.  You should vote for someone because
] you want them in office.  Many of the Clinton votes I saw (not necessarly
] you) were actually anti-Bush votes.  I don't consider that right.

It may well not be.  In a perfect world, everyone would have a candidate
who exactly matched their ideal of what they wanted to see in a President,
and everyone could vote for their perfect candidate...
    ....and the vote would be split a hundred ways, not three, and no-one
would have a clear enough advantage over anyone else to get elected.

Let's try again:  In a perfect world, there would always be one candidate
who met everyone's ideals of what they wanted to see in a President...
    ....except it is written, "Thou mayest not please all of the people,
all of the time."  So sayest the prophet Murphy.

Let's try again:  In a perfect world...
   ...but wait a minute.  We're not *living* in a perfect world, so all
of the 'in a perfect world' arguments are meaningless anyway.  So why
bother?

The simple and honest fact is, sometimes you just can't *get* what you
want.  Sometimes you just have to settle for the lesser of two (or more)
evils.  Sometimes, you can't vote in the candidate you *want*, because
none of the candidates is really ideal; or because you don't know enough
about all of the candidates to *know* for sure whether any one of them is
"the candidate you want"; but you can damned well vote *OUT* the candidate
you've learned through hard and bitter experience that you don't want
*another hour* of.

This is real life.


-- 
      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:17 talk.bizarre:36829 alt.rush-limbaugh:9036
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:05:30 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Nov5.063938.11566@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
pfinerty@nyx.cs.du.edu (big daddy hate box) writes:
> i want bush's head on a pike stuck in my front lawn. fucker. i hate that
> man more than anyone i don't know personally. i want quayle to be pres 
for
> a couple of weeks and then we kill him and let foley do it for a while.
> then we kill him too and give it to baker. yeah, i say we take the
> opportunity to really fuck with D.C. 
> --
>              PJF--->BIOCHEM GRAD. STUDENT--U of UTAH oh yeah 
>                "i am such a stupid,ignorant son of a bitch.
>                            please kill me now."
>                                                           "React with 
this!"

You know, somebody on alt.society.revolution had a visit from the Secret 
Service after comments similiar to this were posted on the net.  Maybe 
it's time to have Big Daddy undergo some serious probing of what little is 
left of his mind.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:40:12 GMT

mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:



>Like I said over there to those wankers in alt.politics.bush and alt.fan.rush-
>limbaugh, 'tain't nothin' like a little gloating.   HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
>Bush lost!!!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!

Because fewer people voted for Clinton than for Dukakis, but a third
candidate split the vote, Bush lost.  Well, at least we know the caliber
of at least one Clinton booster.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Perot
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:39:41 GMT

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.  


Umm, which victory speech did YOU watch? I saw the one at the Governer's
mansion in Arkansas, and he most definitely DID mention Perot. He said
something about working with Perot on election reforms. I don't have the
transcript of the speech handy, but I distinctly remember him mentioning
Perot and election reforms. Perot's ideas in this area are all sound, and it
seems Bill knows a good thing when he sees it. Clinton pissed off at Perot?
Probably not. Campaigns are like sports (sad but true), you do anything to
win, and hate your enemy, but when it's over you shake hands and don't hold
a grudge. Clinton is a good man, not the vengeful person you make him out to
be.

-Brian Harper




Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:56:00 GMT

In article <BxF61A.ABH@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v557nv8k@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) (G) writes...
> 
>The Republicans were in power for 12 years.  During that time, the
>rich got richer and the poor poorer.

Don't you consider that over 30 years of unbroken Democrat control of the
House of Representitives (and nearly as long in the Senate) qualifies them for
a bit of credit for the shape we're in too?

I was highly amused by Slickness' line in the last few days of the campaign
"As you can see, I've nearly lost my voice in order to give you a voice in
Washington."  Was he saying the 300+ Democrat Congressmen and Senators there
are completely ineffective?  Whatever else you say about him, he sho 'nuff
is slick.


Dave

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:70 misc.test:12758 talk.bizarre:37010