HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Presidents
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:01:37 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <BxuKAt.ME2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Looking for intelligent women here in these US) writes:
>I don't care if Bill is president or not, I will still refuse to call him
>the President of these United States.

    Well, I'm sure Bill will be just heartbroken to hear this.

>Best lie:  Interviewer: "You were asked by <soandso> about running for
>			 president in 1992...is this true?"
>           Bill:        "No...if I am elected govenor of Arkansas I will
>			 remain the govenor of Arkansas for four years"
>           ---- October 14, 1990 

    Right, he should have refused to run when it became obvious that his
time had come.  You want much better lies, try "no new taxes", or "Clarence
Thomas is the best-qualified person for the Supreme Court in the entire
country - race was not a factor", or any of a bunch more.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael J Anthony Maggio)
Subject: Re: Duh (was: Presidents)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:11:00 GMT

aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:


>In a previous article, mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Looking for intelligent
>women here in these US) says:

>>I don't care if Bill is president or not, I will still refuse to call him
>>the President of these United States... 

>       All right!  DENIAL, that's the ticket!

>>                                         A few nights before the election
>>I heard that Arkansas was at the or near the bottom of the list in many
>>categories...is this true??? How could it be possibly true that they were
>>I think 48th on the list of HS graduations?  

>       It's like this, Einstein.  There are 50 states in "these US," as you
>put it above.  If you rank them from 1 to 50, one of them will be ranked
>48th.  I know that sounds incredible, but it's true.  Really.

>>                                             This man will be in the office
>>for four years...Let's keep it to the bare minimum...

>         We'll see.  It worked for Bush, at least.

>>Best lie:  Interviewer: "You were asked by <soandso> about running for
>>			 president in 1992...is this true?"
>>           Bill:        "No...if I am elected govenor of Arkansas I will
>>			 remain the govenor of Arkansas for four years"
>>           ---- October 14, 1990 

>          I won't flame your spelling of the word "governor," but I will
>point out that this "lie" pales in comparison to the ones Bush told all the
>time, such as calling Clarence Thomas the most qualified person in the
>country to sit on the Supreme Court, his many waffling statements about his
>role in the criminal Iran-Contra scandal, and so on.  You want a list of
>lots more?  Let me know & I'll post it here within 48 hours.
>-- 
>     Vern Morrison               ______________________________________    
>     aa680@po.cwru.edu          |                                      |       
>     vern@cray.csuohio.edu      | thank you America: Clinton/Gore '92! |  
>     Parma, Ohio: the 'burbs    |______________________________________|       

Sure I'd like to see what else you have of our President and Bill does not 
even deserve the misspelled word of governor of the Armpit of the US we call
Arkansas...

MJM---
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Duh (was: Presidents)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 17:29:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Looking for intelligent
women here in these US) says:

>I don't care if Bill is president or not, I will still refuse to call him
>the President of these United States... 

       All right!  DENIAL, that's the ticket!

>                                         A few nights before the election
>I heard that Arkansas was at the or near the bottom of the list in many
>categories...is this true??? How could it be possibly true that they were
>I think 48th on the list of HS graduations?  

       It's like this, Einstein.  There are 50 states in "these US," as you
put it above.  If you rank them from 1 to 50, one of them will be ranked
48th.  I know that sounds incredible, but it's true.  Really.

>                                             This man will be in the office
>for four years...Let's keep it to the bare minimum...

         We'll see.  It worked for Bush, at least.

>Best lie:  Interviewer: "You were asked by <soandso> about running for
>			 president in 1992...is this true?"
>           Bill:        "No...if I am elected govenor of Arkansas I will
>			 remain the govenor of Arkansas for four years"
>           ---- October 14, 1990 

          I won't flame your spelling of the word "governor," but I will
point out that this "lie" pales in comparison to the ones Bush told all the
time, such as calling Clarence Thomas the most qualified person in the
country to sit on the Supreme Court, his many waffling statements about his
role in the criminal Iran-Contra scandal, and so on.  You want a list of
lots more?  Let me know & I'll post it here within 48 hours.
-- 
     Vern Morrison               ______________________________________    
     aa680@po.cwru.edu          |                                      |       
     vern@cray.csuohio.edu      | thank you America: Clinton/Gore '92! |  
     Parma, Ohio: the 'burbs    |______________________________________|       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Presidents
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:05:23 GMT

In article <BxuKAt.ME2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Looking for intelligent women here in these US) writes:
>I don't care if Bill is president or not, I will still refuse to call him
>the President of these United States... A few nights before the election
>I heard that Arkansas was at the or near the bottom of the list in many
>categories...is this true???

A man knowledgeable in current events....





In fiscal year 1991, the government agencies classified as secret a
total of 7,107,017 documents.  This marks the first time that the
total number of reported classification decisions in a year is a
palindrome.		-- 1991 Information Security Oversight Office
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Presidents
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:39:03 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <By04FG.Eor@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael J Anthony Maggio) writes:
>
>I don't care if any of you people blast my views or not... I just know
>that many people around my village think that Bill is the worst person that
>could have ever become president of the US... At least we will accept
>Al Gore... he is much better than Bill... I have not heard much about
>VP Gore...      I kinda like him better... 
>I wish he ran for pres... Id vote for him.
>
>The views expressed above are the views of my family and the people in the
>village of Misquamicut, Rhode Island.  If you have anything to add please
>do... I would like input on all views and opinions on political topics...

    Try making an intelligent case, rather than essentially unsupported
opinions that you claim are shared by your "village".  At this point, there
is nothing to respond to.


-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: YET MORE DEMOCRATIC MISINFORMATION, Was January Surprise
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 23:01:16 GMT

nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:

>The reasoning behind the tariff was a little (just a little) more complicated.
>Even though white wine is made all over the world, hardly anyone imports white 
>wine from anywhere but France.  But lots of people import Chianti from Italy.  
>So the tariff on white wine won't hurt any EC country but France, whereas
>a tariff that included red wine would hurt Italy too.

Selective "hurting" to benefit... ummm I forget who stands to gain from this
policy ?  Certainly not the people who _buy_ white wine who "should" be
able to purchase products from whomever they decide offers the best product
for their money.

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: R0664@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: Not Even Inaugurated, Breaking Promises Already
Organization: CSU
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.142348.281@hsh.com>
paul@hsh.com writes:
 
{stuff deleted}
>
>
>One can only conclude that Clinton and his were completely ignorant of reality
>-- and/or that they lied outright.  And before I get flamed, yes, of course,
>Bush lied; bringing that up only beggars the question before us.
 
Clinton and his what?
Ignorant of reality, how so? They won.
Flames?? too easy
Bush lied; so what's new?
Q. The beggars question.
A. USA politics: The Ultimate Panhandling Exercise??
 
Richard Cole
The Urban Center
Cleveland State University  (CSU is not responsible for my thoughts)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: What is a Conservative?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:19:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.162122.19319@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.212811.5278@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>>I think that you are taking an anarchist approach to conservatism which
>>is not, IMO, the modern definition.  Perhaps modern is the keyword.
>
>    I think that you do not know what "anarchist" means.

Libertarianism verges into anarchism when pushed to the extreme.
This is a more rightish flavored anarchism, though.  Do you mean
the more leftish flavored, socialist/Communist anarchy, then?


In fiscal year 1991, the government agencies classified as secret a
total of 7,107,017 documents.  This marks the first time that the
total number of reported classification decisions in a year is a
palindrome.		-- 1991 Information Security Oversight Office
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Not Even Inaugurated, Breaking Promises Already
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:26:52 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <7323@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>I don't like the name-calling routine myself. However, I don't see how
>the Democrats called Reagan or Bush "ozone" or "feminazi." 

    They didn't.  During the last week of the campaign, George referred to
Gore as "ozone" *every single time* he mentioned him.  He called Clinton
and Gore "those bozos" when claiming that his dog knew more about foreign
policy than they did.  "Feminazi" is George's good friend and Republican
platform-builder Pat Buchanan's term for feminists.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: How times change
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:37:34 GMT

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.

Well, I read in this group earlier a post from an "honorable" conservative 
that said the economy is improving "all by itself", now that Clinton is 
president-elect.  The implication I got was that if the economy improves, 
it does it on its own and if the economy worsens, its due to Clinton.

I guess this sort of idiocy swings both ways.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: What is a Conservative?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:20:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.202908.4713@muddcs.claremont.edu> jason@jarthur.claremont.edu (Jason Merrill) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.181951.28129@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>Libertarianism verges into anarchism when pushed to the extreme.
>>This is a more rightish flavored anarchism, though.  Do you mean
>>the more leftish flavored, socialist/Communist anarchy, then?
>
>What do you mean?  As far as I can tell, all of the Communist governments
>over the years have epitomized Big Goverment.  Just how do you get anarchy
>under the auspices of a totalitarian regime?  Perhaps Marx's ideal of happy
>people working together because they feel like it could be considered
>anarchy, but who believes in that anymore?
>
>And anyway, what use are labels like right and left here?  Anarchy is
>minimal government, whether you want to label it Liberal or Conservative.

My "left/right" spin is in terms of property ownership.  A
libertarian anarchic society would have private property ownership,
the socialist one collective.

If you want to see one of these collective anarchists, consider Howard
Zinn (He's a historian.  The best book to look at would be
_Declarations of Independence_.)  This society probably does look a
lot like Marx's notion.

I'm not arguing whether any of these ideas are realistic.  I'm just
splitting hairs with definitions.



In fiscal year 1991, the government agencies classified as secret a
total of 7,107,017 documents.  This marks the first time that the
total number of reported classification decisions in a year is a
palindrome.		-- 1991 Information Security Oversight Office
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: No Liberals here! (was Re: Hey! Now It's ALL CLINTON's Fault!)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:19:41 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1140@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov6.184827.7666@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
|> cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
|> >(1) You never mentioned the word "leftist".  You only wrote about
|> >liberals ... but you wrote as if you meant leftist.  McGovern was
|> >not leftist, he was liberal.
|> >
|> >(2) "Leftist" DOES mean "socialist".  Check it out sometime.
|> >"Liberal" does not.
|> 
|> Wereever did you get this idea?  From "The Dictionary of Cultural
|> Literacy", E. D. Hirsh Jr, J. F. Kett, James Trefil, 1988, page 296:
|> 
|> 	Leftist: One who holds a LEFT-WING viewpoint;
|> 		someone who seeks RADICAL social and
|> 		economic change in the direction of
|> 		greater equality.
|> 
|> 	Left-wing: A discriptive term for LIBERAL, Radical,
|> 		or revolutionary political views,
|> 		particularly the view that there are
|> 		unacceptable social inequalities in the
|> 		present order of society.  COMMUNISTS and
|> 		SOCIALISTS, as well as moderate liberals,
|> 		come under the term Left-wing.  Left-wing
|> 		groups are sometimes known collectively
|> 		as the Left.

Sounds good to me.  What was your big point?  Most people
think that there are many inequalities in our current 
society.  Most people aren't wearing blinders and know that
this country has been screwed up for years.  Returning to 
the 1950's isn't going to fix it.

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13942 alt.politics.clinton:17366 alt.president.clinton:503
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: YET MORE DEMOCRATIC MISINFORMATION, Was January Surprise
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:33:29 GMT
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering

In article <LARRY.92Nov12134528@boris.webo.dg.com>, larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
|> 

|> The tariff was quite ingenious, actually, specifically targetting
|> white wine, a purely French product while excluding Red wine that
|> primarily comes from other sources including Italy.
|> 

Not quite right...  Germany makes a lot of white wine, Italy makes
white wine, and I suspect that most white wine drunk in the US comes
from California.  White wine is made wherever the appropriate grapes grow.
The tariff will apply to German and Italian and any other EC white wine.
Also, much red wine comes from France (you've heard of Burgundy, haven't you?
that's a region of France).

The reasoning behind the tariff was a little (just a little) more complicated.
Even though white wine is made all over the world, hardly anyone imports white 
wine from anywhere but France.  But lots of people import Chianti from Italy.  
So the tariff on white wine won't hurt any EC country but France, whereas
a tariff that included red wine would hurt Italy too.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Why Bush Lost
Keywords: bush clinton presidents politics election
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:33:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.054303.22272@starbase.trincoll.edu> jay.wise@mail.trincoll.edu writes:
>	Bill Clinton today showed exactly why he beat George Bush 
>November 3rd. 
>	It was in the way he walked the street in a Washington neighborhood--
>the kind that aren't visited by tourists because they're afraid of the
>"wrong element."

  Hey, I'm a Clinton supporter but let's not apply for sainthood yet !
*I'd* walk the streets in that area of D.C. too if I had a Secret Service
escort. I'm not so sure otherwise.

>	It was in the way he talked to people, the way he mingled with crowds,
>the way he stopped for a full five minutes to discuss small businesses
>with a passing gentleman, cornering him and discussing intricate details
>of public policy.

   Let's see how often he does this after he's actually put something into
law and then have people crtiticize for not doing enough. 

>	It was in the way he talked to the press afterwards, speaking in 
>paragraphs, with finely tuned syntax, perfect grammar, elegant diction.

   Is this a new requirement for President. Ronny wasn't to bad is this dept
most of the time. Of course, he had to be programmed for it.

>	He demonstrated, in short that the age in which a President can be a
>cold-war caretaker, content to let public policy to the pundits and 
>pollsters, is over. George Bush lost because he was obsolete. And in the 
>end it was the "vision thing" that beat him.
>	Bush's vision was one whose time had passed, a vision of a world that
>needed no vision, whose direction had been firmly set by his predecessors.
>	And Bill Clinton won exactly because he understood that the country
>needed to break from the basic cynicism on which the Republican philosophy
>is founded. His vision is one of dynamism and action, and a realization
>that there are times when that old hobgoblin--government--comes in handy. 

    George Bush lost because he put his manhood in a blind trust ((c)
Garry Trudeau) in order to be Reagan's VP and when the inevitable business
cycle took things down a little, there was not money left in the budget/
debt/deficit to get it out with fiscal stimulus - Thanks to RR's assinine
economics. BUt it was too late for George to take his manhood out without
looking like an ambitious syncophant (which he may have been) and admit
it.

>	Surely there are times for the kind of leadership that Bush offered.
>But he was trying to be Ike Eisenhower when we needed Franklin Roosevelt.
>	Or, even better, Bill Clinton. 

  Interesting enough, I seem to recall George saying, sometime near the
beginning of his adminitration that Eisenhower was one of the Presidents
he most admired and wished to emulate. Eisenhower had his big recession
at the end of his second term, however. Bush wasn't so lucky.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Still here????
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:13:45 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Nov15.031851.17410@penet.fi> an103@anon.penet.fi (Dr. Gon zo) writes:
>This BBoard still exists???  Can't figure out why?  Shoulda gone
>tactical.  Question of Character.  Now gone fishing with Barr and dog.  
>
>(Maybe _you_all_ should be getting on with your life's work now too.)

    What the hell is this supposed to mean?

    You must be some weirdo to feel you have to post anonymously to this
group.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jay.wise@mail.trincoll.edu
Subject: Re: Presidents
Reply-To: mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Organization: Trinity College
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:53:27 GMT

In article <BxuKAt.ME2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Looking for
intelligent women here in these US) writes:

>>Best lie:  Interviewer: "You were asked by <soandso> about running for
>			 president in 1992...is this true?"
>           Bill:        "No...if I am elected govenor of Arkansas I will
>			 remain the govenor of Arkansas for four years"
>           ---- October 14, 1990 
>
Just wanted to clear this one up. In a well publicized series of town meetings
throughout Arkansas, then Governor Clinton went asking his audiences permission
to renege on his pledge, because the state of affairs in the country had become
so dismal. He won near-unanimous approval everywhere he went, and made it clear
that had he not, he would not have run.

>I don't care if Bill is president or not, I will still refuse to call him
>the President of these United States... A few nights before the election
>I heard that Arkansas was at the or near the bottom of the list in many
>categories...is this true??? How could it be possibly true that they were
>I think 48th on the list of HS graduations?  This man will be in the office
>for four years...Let's keep it to the bare minimum...
>
Certainly Arkansas was at the lowest in many categories: including resources.
If you look at what President-elect Clinton did as Governor with what little he
had, you can't help but be impressed, especially what with Ronald Reagan only
increasing the burden on state governments during Clinton's tenure as Governor.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush