HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Date: 16 Nov 92 07:41:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1992Nov7.230016.22195@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) write
s:
>jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>>  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
I don't think Keith meant that as "Where's the proof?", a retort popular
MOSTLY with liberals from what I've seen on this newsgroup.  By the way,
while I'm at it, how about the `naive' crack? (Below.)  It certainly
seems to me that there are many more "You fucking idiot" strains started by
people of liberal persuasions than of the conservative type.  Oh!  But I'm
sorry; now I'M starting to sound self-righteous!  And I was hoping for
good discussions/debates, 100% of the posts.  Le sigh.  Maybe I'll `u'.

>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.
Maybe I'm missing something here Dave, but since when are people who love
satire and biting sarcasm bigots?  Is Garrison Keillor a bigot?  How
about columnist Lewis Grizzard?  Paul Hogan??
Or do you just have no funny bone?

>-- 
>David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
>Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
>Allueberall und ewig blauen licht die Fernen!  Ewig... ewig... ewig...

Jennifer, proud originator of the "President Clinton" thread on alt.rush-l.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Forget Rush and the Comedy Channel!  What's DOONESBURY (Trudeau) going to do?
I'd prefer he go on the lecture circuit, instead of more stupid cartoons
about that quintabizillionaire that lives on an island with his plain assist-
ant.  Wouldn't it figure I'd have to join alt.poltics.flame.flame.flame. to
spawn my first thread?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:572 alt.politics.perot:5586 talk.politics.misc:60981
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:36:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.082257.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>     3.  Wouldn't it be interesting to see an updated "if the election 
>were held today, for whom would you vote" poll?  Do you think Clinton
>would win?
	I have no doubt.  And if you tossed Perot out of it, Clinton 
would still have won, from the analyses I saw.

>     4.  The Clinton supporters are going to have to learn how to 
>defend Clinton without mentioning Bush.  Based on their campaign 
>tactics, I suppose that this may take some time....

Well, gee, Bush had to bash Carter to defend himself, and Carter's 
been out of office for 12 years!  So I guess that means we can use Bush 
as an excuse to vote Democratic until 2004!  :-)



-- 
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.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 20:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.144549.14983@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.173318.20580@leela.cs.orst.edu> casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass) writes:
>>>
>>If these letters are to be believed then the Democrates and Bill Clinton
>>are personally responsible for every disaster since the War of 1812.
>>
>It's true. I have evidence that they were involved in the bloody TaiPing
>rebellion in the 1870's. Don't tell me the liberal media doesn't know
>about this.

Thats a good one, the Deathocrats behind a rebellion with a Christian
root.  *SURE*
>
>Alan
>


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-1-2)
 Great job this season girls.  Get U MASS Dartmouth back next year!!!!
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:472 alt.politics.elections:23938 alt.politics.clinton:17269
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:55:34 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov10.194409.17740@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pat@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:

|>	In his interview with David Frost, Clinton explained
|>that was trying to inhale but, having never smoked before, found
|>himself unable to.  More to the point though, when Frost asked him
|>about his evasive-sounding answers about drug use, Clinton said
|>that he (Clinton) was "dumb as a post" for not just laying out
|>the facts at the beginning.

More likely, he has just gotten so used to being evasive, that the slick
answer was the first thing to come to mind.  Reflexes don't you know.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:515 alt.politics.elections:24076 alt.politics.clinton:17396
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:40:06 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> 
> The Democratic Platform says:
>     We will relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by 
>     forcing the rich to pay their fair share.

"forcing", eh? why does this conjur up images of a highwayman with
a mask and a pistol? ahh, but why should i worry, i'm a poor, underpaid
student, they won't bother me...

> But yesterday "he raised the possibility of making ALL Americans 
> give up something...'The American people will be much more willing 
> to accept the argument that ALL HAVE TO SACRIFICE AND CONTRIBUTE 
> over the long run if they believe we're starting from a fair tax 
> system' ".

oops. looks like they will. *sigh* business as usual.

jason

--
 "Why was I cursed with a woman like you? You're my misery! A knife in my 
  heart! Come on, we can discuss this later. Let's just get married."
	                   - Adam, from the best episode of Northern Exposure
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:57:21 GMT

In article <10536@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.194409.17740@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pat@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:

>|>	In his interview with David Frost, Clinton explained
>|>that was trying to inhale but, having never smoked before, found
>|>himself unable to.  More to the point though, when Frost asked him
>|>about his evasive-sounding answers about drug use, Clinton said
>|>that he (Clinton) was "dumb as a post" for not just laying out
>|>the facts at the beginning.

>More likely, he has just gotten so used to being evasive, that the slick
>answer was the first thing to come to mind.  Reflexes don't you know.

But, as I and many others have pointed out, that answer *ISN'T* slick.
It's dumb; it's easily criticizable; it's fodder for Jay Leno and David
Letterman.  That, in and of itself, means it ISN'T slick.

As opposed to, say, "I've answered questions about this before, under
oath.  This is nothing new."  (Bush, on Iran-Contra, especially the
Weinberger memo.)  That *is* slick.  It makes you think he's answered
the question, when all he's done is give a vacuous statement with no
content to it at all.

Of course, one question is about the conduct of someone on a non-issue
23 years ago, as a student, while one is about the potentially criminal 
behavior of someone as Vice-President of the United States.  We all know 
which is more important.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton
Date: 17 Nov 1992 02:31:07 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, hall@pisces.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Hall 283-4031) says:

>
>>It is widely assumed that if this were to come to pass, the US
>>government would fall, or at the very least enter into a crisis
>>of nearly unimaginable proportions.  No one really knows what
>>would happen then.
>
>>   ---Roxanne Rohmann
>
>Actually, it's pretty obvious what will happen. Every country which has
>encountered this problem - and there's a long list of them - has reacted
>by simply printing more money. Of course, inflation goes through the roof
>and the standard of living of the population goes through the floor.


       Actually, I've been studying up on this, since I expect
       retribution within my lifetime.  Most of the South American
       countries have instituted military rule for a period of time.
       
       Usually the "communists" get purged.  In our case, these would
       probably be the people advocating free health care. :)

       Interestingly enough, many of the South American countries
       are turning towards Britian's solution, privitization.  I 
       doubt that this will solve the problem though.  During the 
       1930s, South America as a whole did fairly well.

       They just defaulted on everything. 
>
>Then some demagogue comes along and promises to fix it as long as he
>gets to be dictator for life. 
>
>Sound familiar?
>
>
>Philip Hall
>

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: N336BZ@tamvm1.tamu.edu (MLee)
Subject: Re: Promises, promises
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:57:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.154721.3141@anasazi.com>
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
 
>Keywords:
>
>In article <1992Nov11.153740.28365@mksol.dseg.ti.com> rbeck@mordor.dseg.ti.com writes:
>]In article <1992Nov10.154836.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>]|>      On the front page of the 11/9/92 New York Times, there is a
>]|> piece entitled "Clinton, After Raising Hopes, Now Tries to Lower
>]|> Expectations."  In this piece, the major campaign promises made
>]|> by President-Elect Clinton are summarized as follows.
>]|>
>]|>      1.  He said he would end welfare "as we know it."
>]He'll probably call it by some other name.
>Let's hope he changes it to workfare or whatever, but to do so he will have
>to stab some of his supporters in the back.
 
*Which* supporters would those be?
 
>]
>]|>      2.  He would restore America's industrial manufacturing base so
>]|>      that good, high-paying jobs are widespread.
>]
>]This should be interesting.  With companies "downsizing", "rightsizing" and
>]automating the majority of the manufacturing tasks, how will he "create"
>]high-paying jobs?  It's the consumer who ultimately pays for it all.
>
>Not only that, it is a dumb idea. We are rapidly entering the "post-industrial"
>society. Technology has brought us to the place where we don't need high
>paying workers to do most manufacturing - machines do it. The US has the
>HIGHEST productivity in the world, and that means we need the fewest
>workers per unit output. If Clinton wants to increase manufacturing,
 
The major problem with saying that we have entered into a post-
industrial society lies in the fact that we would need a post-
industrial economy to support such a society.  No one knows what
such an economy would look like.  _No_ manufacturing base?  One
lesson the U.S. has learned in the past two decades is that a nation
that cannot produce a product is in a *very* bad postition in world
markets for that product.
 
The question of the hour becomes, are there any _limits_ to
substituting capital for labor?  As long as a nation has credit
in world financial markets to support deficit spending, perhaps not.
 
**stuff deleted**
>
>High paying jobs of the future will be in either information related or
>personal service fields. Those in the information related areas
 
Again, the assumption that all one nation needs to produce is
services.  Without a manufacturing base, *what* is being serviced?
 
>
>Hey, I'm one of those rich people also! I guess I should be ashamed of
>my hard work that got me here. I should give my money to the government
>rather than spending it on an expensive education that will allow my daughter
>to better contribute to society. FAH!
>
Hard work is not shameful.
 
However, neither is poverty shameful for the people who have not.  A
poor man shames us all.
 
 
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The "Third" Reich -- Economic Modeling
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:14:52 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov22.230241.21503@wam.umd.edu>, haas@wam.umd.edu (The Future Mr. Graf) writes:
> In article <1992Nov13.082551.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>     In yesterday's (11/12) press conference, President-Elect Clinton
>>said, "We've been in this *deep* recession for a long time now." 
> 
>    A="We've been in a deep recession for a long time now."
> 
>>But, on Sunday's (11/8) This Week with David Brinkley, Robert Reich
>>(who is now the head of Clinton's Economic Policy Council) said
>>that this recession is "*not* as deep as the 1981-1982 recession."
> 
>    B="not as deep as the 1981-1982 recession"
> 
>    A union B = "We've been in a deep recession for a long time now, but
>                 it's not as deep as the 1981-1982 recession"
> 
>    Ok, so where is the problem?  What this means is, Things under the Bush
> administration are FUCKED, but they are not quite as FUCKED as they were
> under the Reagan administration.  Did I clear that mathmatical equation 
> for you, asswipe?

     I'm afraid you didn't clear that up for me.  First of all, the
"union" operator in your set-theoretic argument should represent "or" 
rather than "and."  So, using your definitions of A and B, one would have

     A union B = "We've been in a deep recession for a long time now,
                  *or* it's not as deep as the 1981-1982 recession."
 
I think you must have intended the "intersect" operator.

     A intersect B = "We've been in a deep recession for a long time now,
                      but (and) it's not as deep as the 1981-1982 
                      recession."
 
Note: I would have employed propositional calculus connectives rather 
than set operators.  For the sake of consistency, I'll use your set
operators.
     Secondly, it's too bad you deleted the third statement.

     C = "This current recession is the worst in 50 years" -- Gore

The real question is: what is A intersect C intersect B?  I'll even answer 
it for you....

     A int. C int. B = "We've been in a deep recession for a long time
                        now, with this recession being the worst in
                        50 years, but it's not as deep as the 1981-
                        1982 recession."

In "The New Reich" thread, Clinton supporters were saying that this 
current recession is a relatively long recession, but not a relatively
deep recession.  (They said this before the Clinton comment that you
designated by "A.")  The intersection of this with the above (A int B 
int C) looks hauntingly close to the empty set (or "false" if using
propositional calculus, which I would have used).

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:32:29 GMT

joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:

>He also said:
>    * Line item veto. To eliminate pork-barrel projects and cut government
>      waste, I will ask Congress to give me the line item veto.

>Bill has now backed off on that by changing the rules for Congressional
>overrides of this line item veto fromt he normal 2/3 to a simple majority.

>Bill now says he he no longer has a timetable or structure to 
>follow regarding relaxing the ban on homosexuals in the military.

>But yesterday "he  raised the possibility of making ALL Americans give up
>something...'The American people will be much more willing to accept the
>argument that ALL HAVE TO SACRIFICE AND CONTRIBUTE over the long run if
>they believe we're starting from a fair tax system' ".

>but it is starting to look like politics and spending as usual and he is not
>even President yet...


I too am getting a little miffed at Clinton's inconsistencies.  When
I saw him speak in Missouri, he promised to "soak the rich and the
rest of us will live in hog heaven", later he promised a "new and
painless existence for every man, woman and housepet", and then on
the David Letterman show, he said he would ram his ideas through
Congress "like a spit-slicked pig's bladder", and if they tried
to change even one iota, he'd have them forceably removed from
the chamber on treason charges of tampering with success.

Let's hang him now and impeach him later, shall we?

(To any Secret Service informers on the net, and to everyone
else as well, the preceding line is NOT an invitation to
do anything to the president-elect, and I sure as hell don't
have intentions of doing anything of the sort myself.  Though
I might tickle his feet with a feather, given the opportunity.)

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:483 talk.politics.misc:60480
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:42:13 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov16.171539.17361@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:

|>In article <10421@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>>
|>>But who are you borrowing the money from?  The government (left pocket)
|>>has borrowed the money for the people (the right pocket).
|>>There is no new money.

|>Really?  How is money supply calculated?  Isn't there some sort of
|>velocity term involved?  Couldn't the government increase the velocity
|>of money and thereby the money supply?

If the velocity of money were to increase, that would increase the effective
money supply, but you still haven't made anybody any richer.

Increasing the money supply faster than the rate of increase in the economy
just leads to inflation.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:660 alt.politics.elections:24280 alt.politics.clinton:17702
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:04:38 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jmalloy@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joseph Malloy) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> >> 
> >> The Democratic Platform says:
> >>     We will relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by 
> >>     forcing the rich to pay their fair share.
> >
> >"forcing", eh? why does this conjur up images of a highwayman with
> >a mask and a pistol? ahh, but why should i worry, i'm a poor, 
> >underpaid
> 
> It 'reminds' you of that because you wish to think of it that way.  
> You readily overlook the many tax breaks the wealthy have enjoyed 
> un the Regan/Bush duo and are happy with the situation in which the 
> rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  In other words, you're a 
> Republican, sorry to insult you! 

golly. so many assumptions, so little time. first off, i am most 
emphatically NOT a Republican. i'm a libertarian. (even worse!) i don't
believe -anyone- should be "forced" into giving the government anything.

the issue is not rich vs. poor. both work for what they get. the poor
have little enough already, (i should know) and any system that runs 
on the logic that the successful must be penalized will soon find 
itself devoid of success.

it's time to get the government out of the position where it regularly
resorts to forcing any segment of the population into anything. there
are better ways.

jason

"first they came for the rich, but i wasn't rich, so i didn't say anything..."

--
 "Why was I cursed with a woman like you? You're my misery! A knife in my 
  heart! Come on, we can discuss this later. Let's just get married."
	                   - Adam, from the best episode of Northern Exposure
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:607 alt.politics.perot:5605 talk.politics.misc:61157
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Guns(and Abortion (was Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check)
Keywords: Guns, knives, ban
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:42:13 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) states
>In article <1992Nov18.200123.444@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:
>>>first .... Admittedly I feel stronger about a woman's right to choose
>>>over peoples right to bear arms, but that's another story ...
>>
>>This is one of the contradictions that I see in the "liberal" agenda. I can 
>>choose to kill an unborn child, but I cannot choose to protect myself from 
>>someone who is trying to rob/assault/kill me.
>
>Sorry, generalizations like this are incorrect.  I'm a liberal. I'm pro-
>choice and I _like_ guns.  I know a good number of other liberals who
>either shoot or at least respect the Second Amendment.
>
>   don

Although i hate to agree with a liberal, i must. I'm right wing and I
support the right of a woman to have a abortion, and to own a gun.
Freedom, if constrained, is no longer freedom.


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:576 alt.politics.perot:5587 talk.politics.misc:60990