HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: A Layman's Questions (was A "New" Reich)
Keywords: job loss, recession
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:50:07 GMT

In <1992Nov9.033530.8727@umr.edu> wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent) writes:

>	How do the loss of American factory jobs and the recession relate
>to each other?  Did one come first and perhaps cause the other?

Hmm? Chicken or egg? Not being an economist, but one who does read
several magazines which publish economic figures, I would think the
loss of jobs came first and led to the latter.

It seems to be accepted truth that our economy is two-thirds (or
thereabouts) driven by consumers. Published statistics state that
wages and salaries are below 1977 levels. Add to that all of this
'let's get lean and mean' workforce reduction, and it would seem
highly likely that consumers have fewer dollars to spend (what
the pundits call 'confidence').

So in the process of becoming competitive (that's what they call it),
we eroded our local consumer base to the point that they had little
choice but to buy cheaper imports, thus accelerating the workforce
reductions, and in some cases closing down whole industries.

In effect, we took dead aim - and shot ourselves in the foot!

>	I've got a lot more I'd like to ask but in the interests of
>minimizing bandwidth... 
>--
>wdechent@clciris.chem.umr.edu    "I know I'm a flamboyant person.  But I don't
>lie, I would never steal a penny from you.  I'm a good person."  -Cher
>(taken from Larry King Live on CNN, 10-26-92)   

Bob.

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: raistlin@wixer.cactus.org (Eli Boaz)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 14:21:43 GMT

In article <1des8vINNfmb@fido.asd.sgi.com> autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.200827.18159@nmt.edu> stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds) writes:
>>If Clinton is such an asshole, and will hose the nation like all of
>>the people on this thread claim, then why did he BEAT THE HELL OUT OF
>>BUSH IN THE ELECTION. People aren't stupid.
>>
>>Followups to this group, flames to /dev/null
>>
>>-Jr
>
>You were obviously not around in 1974 were you?  Ford was defeated
>for two reasons; one, he pardoned Nixon; two, the economy was in
>trouble.  However, by the time Carter was finished with the country,
>inflation was 20+% and unemployment was out of sight.   Now THAT, was
>an economy in trouble.  In my opinion, the best person for the job is
>never the one running for office.  The fact that Clinton got elected
>has nothing to do with whether he will hose the nation.  AND, the
>newly elected "rubber-stamp" congress will help one way or the
>other.  I did not vote for him but I do hope that he does a good job
>for the majority of citizens.
>
>--
>Larry Autry
>Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
>autry@sgi.com 


-- 
ttyl,     | "My friends, no matter how rough the road maybe, we can and we  |
Eli Boaz  +---------------\ will, never, never surrender to what is right." |
raistlin@wixer.cactus.org  \ -- Former VP Dan Quayle to Christian Coalition |
wixer!raistlin@cs.utexas.edu\-----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdb@crane.cis.ufl.edu (John Brothers)
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:57:03 GMT


>As for how they found out, I have no idea, but my hunch is someone
>on the net sent them a copy (rather than them monitoring everything).

maybe they have a newsfeed, which they filter the incoming articles:

cat {new article} | grep $BIG_CHEESE | grep 'kill'

(If I knew more about newsfeeds, I'm sure I could be more technically 
accurate)
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:44 talk.bizarre:36900 alt.rush-limbaugh:9069
From: stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:39:33 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Nov5.160530.2685@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>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.
>
	Seeing as how he's using an nyx. acct, I'm not sure HOW
	easy it would be to track him down.  Nyx seems to me, at
	least to be VERY loosely regulated.  He could have enter-
	ed compltely bogus information about himself.  They would
	only have an IP address or a machine address to go on.

	ob presclinton:  Thank God :):):)
	See us commie libs DO believe in God and furthermore, I'm
	a BRAVES supporter so whoever has that really diabolical
	.sig can take a hike, one up to Canada, for at least another
	four years.

	Cat
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:227 alt.rush-limbaugh:9322
From: MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:39:52 GMT
 <1992Nov8.200206.29910@umbc3.umbc.edu> <BxFt5E.AnM@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
 <BxFtF3.B3H@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1992Nov9.121251.7690@linus.mitre.org>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

In article <1992Nov9.121251.7690@linus.mitre.org>, can@mitre.org (Chris) says:
>In article <BxFtF3.B3H@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
>(Shawn Green) writes:
>>                          How desperate is this jerk for material when he has
>> to resort to picking on a 12 year old child?  Especially considering the
>> fact that he isn't exactly Adonis, to put it politely.
>>
>> Rush Limbaugh is a total ass who should pick on someone his own size.  Like
>> Chicago Bears defensive tackle William "Refrigerator" Perry, for example.

>If you don't like it then why the hell are you watching it? Is your hand
>crippled?

For the same reason that people rubberneck out their windows for half a
mile as they pass a car accident on the freeway. You don't _want_ to see it,
but there's a certain horrid fascination...

(hee, hee... it was just too easy. I couldn't pass it up.)

 "But Dr. Radium, was that necessary?" "Rez, _everything_ I do is necessary."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: laurie@renoir.sfc.sony.com (Laurie Bloomgarden)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:01:46 GMT


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.
|> 
|> Matthew Olson
|> Northwestern University
|> matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

This is about the most-level headed, non-hated filled statement I have read.  Whether or not you like Clinton, the bottom line is that he is our next
 president.  If we don't at least try to work together and use our differing  
  opinions to come up with thoughtful policies, we won't have a chance in hell at doing anything successful with the US.  Make that NO ONE--democrat, 
republican, libertarian, independent, or anyone else, will be able to begin
to solve our countries problems, whatever you think they may be.  If we at
least try and give Clinton a chance and he succeeds, look how much better for
it we will be.  If he fails, at least both Clinton and we tried something,
 hopefully something new, and  maybe we will be able to learn from our mistakes.
But, please, let's try not to condemn Clinton to failure before he even begins,
after all we are all in this country together.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:22:43 GMT

In article <mjenkins.721264271@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>
>I am getting a little tired of the Democrats unwillingness to accept a joke.

Have we seen a good one? :-)



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,talk.politics.misc
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:37:07 GMT

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.
	If this recession is anyone's fault it's everyones fault.
Every single one of us, myself included. You see, in this country we
have a wonderful way of thinking that we should simply inherit the
earth on merit.  We Americans tend to want an awful lot, but we also
tend to be a bit fussy about paying a fair price for it. That goes for
everything from used cars to health care.

>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.

	Great. So now we know that Democrats can have teflon too. 


-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:280 alt.politics.clinton:16731
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re:  PROVE IT
Date: 10 Nov 1992 21:35:05 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov10.182019.19393@nb.rockwell.com> vincent@nb.rockwell.com (Bret Vincent) writes:
>
>In article <BxIApx.9pH@scd.hp.com>, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>
>
>< stuff deleted >
>
>> The idea is to put as many people on non-government payroll as possible.  How,
>> exactly, to do that is unknown.  We're going to try something other than
>> Reagan-Bush economics for a little while.  Deal with it.
>
>
>I voted for Bush, and would have given almost anything not to have Clinton win.
>But, Cliton did win, and he will be the President, and I will support him as our
>President.  But, let's get one thing straight.  The present condition of the 
>economy is not a Reagan-Bush failure, but is a Reagan-Bush-Democratic Congress
>failure.  In the last 12 years we have not seen what would happen if we had had pure
>Reagan-Bush economics.  The congress would not pass their, Reagan-Bush, budgets
>without adding alot of their own stuff to it.  The problems that Reagan-Bush faced

Ummm...I guess Congress *removed* a whole lot more from Reagan-Bush budgets than
they added...considering the budgets returned by congress were *consistently*
smaller than the budgets plans suggested by Reagan-Bush...

>in actually implementing their plans, should hopefully not be a problem with 
>Clinton.

 I agree with you on this...

>
>But, it Clinton fails, which the US cannot afford, it will be a Clinton Economic
>plan failure.  Since, he should be able to get his plans through Congress unchanged.
>
>You cannot put all the guilt of our current economic woes on Reagan-Bush without 
>putting some of the blame on the Democratic Congress.  
>
>All i am trying to say is that the current economic problems are as much the
>democrates fault as the republicans.

Very good!!!

>
>We all want change, which is why Clinton won.  So, let's work together to make this
>country great again.
>
>
>                          Bret
>-- 
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| Bret Vincent       | (714) 833-4589   vincent@nb.rockwell.com      |
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| Opinions expressed |        If you are not willing to              |
>| on USENET are my   |	      become part of the solution,           |
>| own and are not    |        don't complain about the problem!      |
>| necessarily those  |-----------------------------------------------|
>| of Rockwell Int.   |        This space for rent.                   |
>|--------------------------------------------------------------------|


Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:237 talk.politics.misc:59243
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton = Hitler (was: A New Reich)
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:05:15 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>     I want someone who will listen, but have enough strength to
>make the hard decisions, for the GOOD of the country.  I don't 
>want someone who *pretends* to listen until elected, then makes
>decisions based on looking good in the history books.  This man
>sees himself as a savior.  Let me remind you of a few historical
>personalities who felt the same way:  Hitler, Jim Jones, Mussolini,
>Michael Milkin, Pat Robertson.              

Geez, the guy hasn't even taken office yet, and already he's
a Hitler.   Hitler, Jones, and Mussolini all promoted 
"hard decisions" and "self-sacrifice for the good of the country."
They didn't seem to care about how they looked in the history
books.

Based on WHAT do you make the accusation that Clinton sees himself
as a savior?  During his campaign, I noticed a distinct LACK
of claims of personal greatness or mission.  Whenever he
approached grandiose statements (e.g. "The New Covenant"), he
backed down.

Clinton strikes me as someone who is very intelligent with a lot
of political skill.  He's a politician- a good one.  A good
politician is going to be calculating at times.  He's going to be
a wheeler-dealer at times too.   All politicians are like that,
including Perot.  Quite frankly, we need a guy like that now.
We need someone who can get real legislation through Congress.

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:02:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.230016.22195@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>>I've not heard Rush speaking of cutting throats.  Where do you get this
>>from?
>
>(probably intended metaphorically)
>
>>  What would you say his message is and upon what statements of his
>>do you base this statement?  Perhaps you've misread his sarcasm and satire
>>at times?  Are you aware that he is sarcastic and satirical?
>
>That's an easy excuse, easily made by anyone who is truly bigoted and
>slanderous.  Furthermore, Rush Limbaugh must take responsibility for what
>he says and does: many of his followers are genuinely of that stripe, and
>draw inspiration from him.  To suggest otherwise, and to suggest that he
>doesn't know it, is naive.

  Amen to this.  Limbaugh knows what he says and means what he says.  He is
  well aware that much of his audience does the nudge and wink routine when
  he says "just kidding folks"...yeah right.
                -William
--
Recession: your friend loses his job.  Depression: you lose your job.
Recovery: Bush loses his job"
My name is William and I am a recovering depressive.

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: picard@engin.umich.edu (Ronald V Picard)
Subject: Re: Subject: A "New" Reich        
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 07:38:03 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov9.201907.22803@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.124336.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>     On This Week with David Brinkley, Clinton economic advisor
>>Robert Reich said that the current recession is not as deep
>>as the 1981-1982 recession.  This does not seem consistent
>>with the "worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme I 
>>continually heard from the Clinton campaign.  Secondly, Reich
>>said that although Clinton did promise a middle-class tax
>>cut, it really wasn't a *salient* point.  Once again, I remember
>>Clinton campaign ads *trumpeting* that the middle class would
>>"get a break" under a Clinton administration.
>>     Just think what we'll hear *after* the inauguration....
>>
>>     C. Perttunen
>
>
>I believe you're wrong on both counts. First of all...
>
>Secondly, Clinton de-emphasized the middle-class tax cut shortly
>after the New Hampshire primary, and began stressing other elements
>of his program, such as education and infrastructure investment.
>I heard a number of Clinton speeches during the latter phase of the
>campaign, and heard not one reference to a middle-class tax cut.
>
>
>Don Pajerek

Sorry, I must have missed the speech where he said only the stuff
from here on out counts.  I didn't stay up for his acceptance speech
though.

Ron Picard
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:69 misc.test:12757 talk.bizarre:37007
From: mzraly@ra.cs.umb.edu (Michael S Zraly)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:03:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UMass/Boston

m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>
>	[...]
>
>God bless,
>
>Michael
>
>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)

Perhaps *a*constitutional would be a better word for it.

Worship any god or gods you like.  What and whether I worship is,
of course, none of your business.

-- 
Mike Zraly		An effective way to deal with predators
mzraly@cs.umb.edu	is to taste terrible.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:120 misc.test:12816 talk.bizarre:37135
From: johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM (John Chandler)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:45:22 -0800
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes...
>>In article <1992Nov5.060913.10011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>>>
>>And when the economy sees unheard of lows as a result of Clinton's
>>policies, 

or Reagan's legacy of debt,

>>Republicans will take the Congress for the first time in 40
>>years and Jack Kemp will take the White House to begin another long
>>period of Republican administration, this time without that bothersome
>>Democrat Congress.

Then the wealthiest 1 percent can get what they've always wanted -- a
country with NO MIDDLE CLASS WHATSOEVER, just their own kind and millions 
of job-hungry peons to park their cars, clean their toilets and carry 
their golf balls.

>> 
>>God bless,
>> 
>>Michael
>> 
>>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)

Which state church do you favor?

>> 
>>-- 
>> Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
>> (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing

Beijing, H'mm, isn't the Bush family doing some business with them?

>> GO BLUE JAYS!!!   BEAT THE BRAVES!!!!
>> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
>Michael,
>
>It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
>be an American......
>
>The Matador of M83
>

Yeah.  Nice to see someone whose belligerence is untrammelled by 
any observation of reality.  Here's a mantra for you, sorry, a creed for
you to profess: 

"I believe in a country as strong as it is blind."

>

John C

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:177 talk.politics.misc:59024
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 9 Nov 1992 02:39:59 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, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:

>In article <1992Nov8.183418.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1dk6e8INN7ud@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>
>>  [everything deleted but one line -- cdp]
>>
>>> I suspect that this man [Clinton] BELIEVES he has a mandate from 
>>> FATE to be president.
>>
>>     I have not heard anyone else make such a comment, nor have
>>I thought in such terms, but this is an *excellent* hypothesis
>>(considering his meeting JFK at a young age, his concern for his
>>political viability during Vietnam, etc.)!  Although, obviously, 
>>one cannot prove it, we should be able to see if his presidential 
>>demeanor in consistent with such thoughts of pre-destination.
>
>Really?  My impression was that Clinton ran this year to position
>himself in '96.  Remember, Bush was soaring as little as a year ago,
>and all the Democratic heavies were bowing out.  I don't think he
>thought he had a chance to win when he declared, or even in the early
>days of the campaign.  That game was to gain name recognition and
>campaign experience.
>

      You're really missing the point here.  What does it matter
if he was to be elected in 1992 to 1996?  He's clearly demonstrated
a pattern since he was 16, in aspiring to become president.

>
>
>
>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]
>

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:9 misc.test:12670 talk.bizarre:36814