HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: freewill@carson.u.washington.edu (William Kaufman)
Subject: RE: As the Sun Sinks Slowly in the West
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:14:03 GMT



  mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:

> According to another poster, from USA today:

> How voters say they would feel about a Clinton victory

> Excited				16%
> Optimistic but not excited	        26%
> Concerned but not scared	        26%
> Scared				28%

> Which puts the concerned or scared portion up over 50%.

  I assume quite a few of those people are scared shitless most of the
time, but I won't get into a existential discussion here. However, it
does help explain for me the "politics of fear".
                freewill



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Bush picks up a Key Endorsement!
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 07:17:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.163044.10773@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>
>From the People's Republic of China, which said that they hope Bush would
>win. So if Bush pulls off the big upset, will there be a rockin party
>in Tienamen Square?

Our Boy George is very popular in Russia, too.

I have a number of friends from Russia who are attending the UO.  They
wanted to know why Americans didn't like Bush.  I explained that Bush was
"our Gorbachov" and that he had done as much for our economy as Gorby did
for theirs.  The light went on in their eyes and they started to laugh.

We decided that Gorby and Bush should trade countries:  each could be
reelected by the other's citizens, but not by their own.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13317 alt.politics.clinton:16025 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8024
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:43:05 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Nov3.183832.8448@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Results of the 1992 US Presidential Election:
>
>               BUSH DEFEATS CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>               FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Yes, the media has egg uopn its collective face, along with the Democrats!!
>
>The media thought they could get Clinton elected, but in the end the American
>people had the last word!!!

Which planet is this guy on?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|		"Life is uncertain.  Eat dessert first."  - Anon. 	   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: How times change
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:41:39 CST


In article <1dbftuINNse3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
> 
>   Remember how a few weeks ago when the stock market had an overall 
> drop of 20 points for the day, the Clinton "we're not going negative" 
> campaign yelled that the business community had rejected the Bush
> Presidency, and the "unbiased" media led the evening news blasting Bush 
> for the stock plunge.  Gee, isn't it strange that when the stock market
> drops 30 points the day after Clinton is elected

And rebounds ~20 pts the next day...
>                                                    we don't hear the
> "honorable" Clinton forces coming out and saying that business has rejected
> Bill Clinton.  Why isn't he withdrawing from the Presidency?  After all, he
> is already a failure based on his own criteria.  And isn't it funny how the
> "we're defenders of truth" media relegated yesterday's stock plunge story
> to a ten second slot right before a commercial, halfway through the news?

Read the Wall Street Journal.  It will refute your premise...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13286 alt.politics.elections:22796
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Date: 6 Nov 92 05:45:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <1992Nov5.150214.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.203511.12221@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> vsg001@acad.drake.edu (Vince)  writes:
>> 
> 
>> Remaining in power is problematic considering that the White House and
>> Congress will both be controlled by Democrats.
>
> Here you are in error. The people that voted against Clinton are in a mjority
> still. Therefore, by definition, WE are still inpower. 

How is he in error?  What he says is correct. 
Who is WE?  I have this strange suspicion you speak for 
very few people.  I'm afraid you lost the election, though,
and you aren't in power.

>Last time I checked the
>US is still a democracy. You know, "Rule by the people." 
>   

Actually, we are a republic.  The government makes decisions based on
the votes of representatives of the people.  The power to write,
enact, and execute laws will be prodominantly in the hands of 
Democrats, as they control the executive and legislative branches.

>> They rejected Democratic ideals by electing Democrats.  Interesting.
>
>"Have" is a PAST-TENSE word. If you could go back and study those difficult
>sentences, you would find that I was refering to the past 12 years when, and I
>know its hard, the voters rejected Democratic ideals. You see, that's why
>Republicans have been in charge of the executive branch (that's the president)
>for... you guessed it, 12 years.
>

Why have they been in charge of the legislative branch all those years?
Oh, they haven't.
Why have they been in charge of the majority of state legislatures all
those years?
Oh, they haven't.
Why have they been in charge of the majority of state governor's
mansions all those years?
Oh, they haven't.


John D.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:30:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.223028.24445@lclark.edu> matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander) writes:
>In article <lefty-061192172006@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.183832.8448@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>>>
>>> Results of the 1992 US Presidential Election:
>>>
>>>                BUSH DEFEATS CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>                FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Yes, the media has egg uopn its collective face, along with the Democrats!!
>>>
>>> The media thought they could get Clinton elected, but in the end the
>>> American people had the last word!!!
>
>I've heard of denial, but this boy needs help.
>
>--- Matt Alexander
>
Alright already!! I said I'd cut back on that type of posting.  I know that
message ended up looking like "Dewey defeats Truman" photo from 1948.

That message was posted around 11am or so on Election Day, not the day
after.

Simon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13282 alt.politics.clinton:15992 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7993 alt.rush-limbaugh:9105
From: mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Individual rights Re: Mr. Waffle King
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:18:45 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College


 
 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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13446 alt.politics.clinton:16291 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8116
From: csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Date: 7 Nov 92 05:28:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Nov4.152623.13597@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <Bx6CAM.AxI@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>
>>>Uh, Simon -- the polls are open for another five hours in this time
>>>zone...and *ten* more if you're in Hawaii.  You might want to wait until the
>>>polls are *closed* before announcing the results...:-)
>>
>>Why should he wait?  The media doesn't.  That's right, all you people
>>in Hawaii can forget voting.  Bill Clinton has been declared president.
>>YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT.  GO HOME.
>
>IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS, CHANGE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM, DUMMY.
>
>its not the fucking medias fault. why should they not tell facts that they
>know> the fault lies in the e.c. system, under which it is possible to
>receive ZERO votes west of the mississippi river and still win the
>presidency. dont blame the press on this one; they called it even
>earlier in 1988......

You seem to have missed my point.  While I AGREE that the electoral college
system needs to be changed,  that has little to do with the point I was 
making above.  If the pres was elected completely by the popular vote that
would not prevent the media from predicting the outcome of the election.
And predicting the outcome does influence the people who have not voted
yet (how much I don't know).

Changing the electoral college is a separate point.  I have been saying
for a long time that the electoral college system should be dropped and
the pres should be elected by the popular vote.  I think that the EC just
distorts the people's votes (although the outcome of the election this 
time would have been the same).  Despite the fact that I HATE Perot, I
find it ridiculous that about 1/5 of the voters (who voted for perot)
had their say reduced to ZERO by the electoral college.  Their 1/5 was
thrown in with the candidate who one the state. Basically, I view it 
as the state saying that "since the majority of us in the state want
candidate X, you have to vote for X also."  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Dilemma in Republican (Toga) Party
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:27:53 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:


  >The Right Wing will not be weakened as a force in the Republican Party
  >as long as moderates seem to be losing control. Moderates like Gov. Pete
  >Wilson in California and Gov. Thompson (?) of Illinois must succeed in
  >passing their moderate agendas through and making them work. Wilson in
  >particular is in trouble because of his relative moderate stance that
  >reflected George Bush's political moderation. That is the only real way
  >the moderates can win control of the Republican Party.

  >Open for comments...
  >-- 
  >Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
  >	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
  >I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
  >good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.

Comment #1:  It's Gov. _Edgar_ of Illinois.

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
From: catstyle@cathouse.aiss.uiuc.edu (Jason R. Heimbaugh)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:28:22 GMT

In article <adams.720979002@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|> trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear) writes:
|> 
|> >Bill Clinton -- Democrat          43,713,885
|> >George Bush -- Republican         38,150,812
|> >Ross Perot -- Independent         19,228,530
|> >Andre Marrou -- Libertarian          234,413 <----- This is a disaster...
|> >Bo Gritz -- Populist                  95,640
|> >Lenora Fulani -- New Alliance         70,810
|> >John Hagelin -- Natural Law           31,408
|> >Howard Phillips -- Wash. Taxpayers    29,677
|> >Lyndon LaRouche -- Independent        25,063
|> >Ron Daniels -- Independent            24,997
|> 
|> I had hoped better for Marrou.  He was hurt by Perot and the close race
|> between Bush and Clinton.  But to get only .2% of the vote...ouch.
|> 

Marrou was hurt BAD by Perot.  Perot likely got 99% of the protest
vote.

-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Net Shills for Bush-Quayle: Caught Ya, Guys
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 17:16:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.171657.227@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>
>What I find repugnant is this smug air of moral sanctimony.  Would you care to
>pretend to some objectivity and decry the second indictment of Weinberger, just
>four days before the election, using old, stale, and dredged-up materiel?  And
>don't bother to mouth the liberal epiphany ("sent to you via e-mail, no doubt"
>to quote your other post) that "Walsh is a Republican."  Walsh admitted MONTHS
>ago that his #2 man has been running the show for a year, and he (and his law
>firm) contributed *heavily* to the Clinton campaign.  (And, of course, the IRS 
>and the Justice Dept are investigating both of them for tax evasion... oh, but 
>of course, 'character is not an issue.')
>
>Or is it too much to ask for you to admit that liberals can be sleazy, too? 
><slick grin> 

Guess I just lack you ability to see holding someone accountable for
perjury as being "sleazy."  Weinberger's notes are in direct contradiction
to his sworn testimony.  Where I come  from people get indicted for that.

Of course it *is* sleazy for Bush to let Weinberger take the fall for
Bush's stupidity in supporting the arms sales/hostage trade and his lack of
candor on the issue.  

Seems to me that this whole thing is the result of "poor planning on Bush's
part."  If George didn't want to have this come back to haunt him in the
campaign he couldn've done any number of things differently to avoid this
outcome.  You can start with following the law against the sales, move on
to letting the truth out at the start, or not screaming about 'character'
and 'who(m) do you trust' throughout the campaign when his flank (if not
butt) was exposed.

It is rather amusing to watch a party that defended the midnight raids on
Clinton's and his mother's passport files on the grounds that it needed to
get done before the election was over because of the public's right to
know (until it turned out they'd also raided Perot's files and the 
plausibility of that defense was gone) scream like wounded boars over the
indictment being handed down before the election.  

Face facts:  if Bush had told the truth the indictment and the notes would
have been old news.  Since he didn't, I am glad he was nailed as a liar by
having the actual note made available to me before the election.  The note
itself was qualitatively different evidence of Bush's dishonesty and
manipulation of the facts, and I do not agree it was old news.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:10:11 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <YOUNG.92Nov10103441@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>Ok, Greg, time for Lesson 1 of Econ 101.  And I'm asking.
>
>Number 1: where does the guy have his million dollars before
>investing?

In government bonds. Maybe he won the lottery. The million is an arbitrary
amount; insert one to your own liking.

>Second: I thought the Capital Gains Tax is on assets that are sold?
>Do they also apply to income gained from running a business as well?
>Or that derived from stocks?  If the tax is on assets that are sold,
>then I can't see how they help spur investment.  I can only see a spur
>to disinvestment: sell your assets while you can get out with lower
>taxes.  

A sincere tax break on dividends is always a good idea. But a healthy,
trading stock market also helps.

Anyway, it's a moot point. Slick Willie has said he will cut the capital gains
tax. So clever of them Dems.

				- greg
-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13524 alt.politics.elections:23111
From: dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:00:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

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

-- 
------

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent --Salvor Hardin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: check THIS guy out
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:58:34 GMT

In article <BxB5FL.Kur@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>In article <exuptr.213.721002835@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.173736.20522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>>>WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, BUTT-CHEESE.
>>
>>>BUSH LOST. He lost in the popular vote, he lost in the electoral vote,
>>>he lost in the east, and he lost in the west. bush will no longer be
>>>president in two short months.
>>
>>He didn't lose in Texas ;-)  Maybe we'll secede and make him OUR President.
>>
>>Get rid of Ann Richards NOW!
>
>I got an idea -- how about Dallas County secedes from Texas?  I never have been
>able to accept those spoiled brats up there as fellow Texans, anyway.
>
>--PLH (you can have Bush, too -- get him out of just five miles away from *my*
>southwest Houston neighborhood...)

  How about this,  Fort Worth secedes from Dallas ?  It's so un-natural to 
say Dallas-Fort Worth.  
 
  Just kidding.
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY: Fact Sheet - 10/19/92
Summary: How Bush lies
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:49:48 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct30.221248.4628@nptn.org> tmg@nptn.org (Tom Grundner) writes:
>
>            PRESIDENT BUSH: SOLID ON SOCIAL SECURITY
>
>     The truth is that President Bush has promised to keep the
>system just the way it is.  In fact, in announcing the
>entitlements cap at the Republican Convention, the President
>specifically excluded Social Security.

He did not, however, exclude Medicare.  Since he included Medicare in 
his entitlements cap, and since medical costs have been growing faster 
than inflation, he would be cutting Medicare.  Many elderly do not 
view Medicare as being distinct from Social Security, and were being 
deliberately misled about whether the *entire* system would stay 
"just the way it is".  Not surprising, since Bush opposed Medicare 
from the beginning. 

This is typical of the way Bush tells what I call "Ivy League Lies".  The 
statement is true, but is constructed so that people will ignore important 
qualifying adjectives and thus believe Bush said something other than 
what he really meant.  Recent examples:

Bush said he did not lie about his role in the Iran and Iraq arms 
deals "under oath".  He did, of course, lie about them to the American 
people and will not be happy when his actual testimony becomes public. 

Bush did not know that Weinberger and Shultz "strenuously" objected 
to trading arms for hostages.  He did know it was a trade, and did 
know they objected, just not strenuously.  

As an old debater, I hear these qualifiers all the time when Bush speaks 
about touchy matters like this.  Most journalists, and certainly most 
people, do not notice these details.  If you do, what Bush says takes 
on a very different tone and betrays his actual thoughts. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh