HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 8 Nov 1992 23:04:40 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, v557nv8k@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) (G) says:

>Are u kidding or this is just wishful thinking?  I am getting tired
>of the Republicans unwillingness to accept their defeat.  I can see
>it in the interviews and their heralding that Clinton didn't really
>win a clear majority of the popular vote, that the electoral college
>is an old-fashioned institution that should be abolished etc.  Why
>was not this idea expressed in 1988.  I am not sure but I think the
>margin between Bush and Dukakis was not that wide in the popular

    
      You're right.  I'm a "Republican" but I wasn't enthusiatic
about Bush, and he didn't have a mandate.  I don't remember anyone
claiming he did.
>

>The Republicans were in power for 12 years.  During that time, the
>rich got richer and the poor poorer.  As a graduate student I can 
>attest to
>the fact that we (full time students) did not pay taxes until the
>famous tax reform during president Reagan.  Suddenly students


       Sigh.  Do you really think that more taxes are a function
of "Republicans" or "Democrats" ?  It's a function of government.
The American people have been paying higher taxes continuously,
regardless of who is in charge.  What I object to in Clinton 
is what I preceived to be his calculating manner.  I suspect that
this man BELIEVES he has a mandate from FATE to be president.

    That is not the type of person I want making decisions.

     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.              

>
  I object to your characterization that Clinton is not being 
given a chance.  I'm giving him a chance, but I'm prety sure of
what's coming.  Sure enough that I'm doing some intense study
of South America. 

>Ginny
>

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
In-reply-to: jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu's message of Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:03:05 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Nov5.233343.23215@news2.cis.umn.edu> <pfk1anr@rpi.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 8 Nov 92 12:19:45

In article <pfk1anr@rpi.edu> jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
 [Long paragraph about Bush's lack of vision and Clinton (aka
Will-billy) winning because he read the polls and played to the camera
deleted.]

Then he says:

>   tactics.  Put Reagan up to Willy, he'll win every time.

I'm glad to see that someone has finally acknowledged that Reagan's
greatest ability was as a professional actor. Yes, he could take his
years of training and practicing in celluloid fantasies and overshadow
the amateur capabilities of most politicians.  

It reminds me of the old joke, "I'm not a president, but I play one on
TV."

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: barber@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Organization: MCNC Center for Communications -- CONCERT Network
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:32:33 GMT

In article <1dp1n9INNgn2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>In a previous article, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) says:
>
>>
>>Oh, I remember: 'the man who most wants to be President is precisely
>>the one who is least qualified'.
>>
>
>        Exactly.  This is so sad.

Interesting, while there are certainly going to be disagreements
about policy orientations and various matters of style, I find it
difficult to understand how Clinton's qualifications could be
reasonably shunned.  We can all dally with ideas of putting a
quantum-physicist, plumber, CEO or small-business owner into the 
White House, but realistically and practically, a Rhodes scholar 
become Constitutional law professor to continually re-elected public 
office holder seems pretty strong to me.

Maybe a Washington-saavy person is neccesary (one of the major
criticisms of the Carter administration).  Al Gore is seen by many
(and no, not just radical environmentalists) as a very competent and
effective Senator (one of the traditional warm-up grounds for
aspiriting Presedential hopefuls).

>        The saddest part is that so many Clinton supporters
>        truly believe he will "save them".  Such a lack of 
>        critical analysis.

I have been a supported of Clinton for a while, now, and I have
talked to a lot of Clinton supporters.  I can think of none of them
who think that Clinton will "save them."  Rather, they hope (as do I) 
that there will be a more open attitude in Washington to a broader 
range of voices than that which has prevailed for decades.

>        Yes, America is truly dead, I think.

Think that if you want.  I have thought it often, and not because of
the party in the seats of power.  But America has never been alive
unless its people were toiling to make the democracy work.  Those of
who toll the death bells participate in the killing.

Scott

Scott Barber		  "I voted for the crazy, bozo, ozone men."
barber@jazz.concert.net		--- Tuesday, November Third  ---
MCNC, RTP, NC, BVD		--- Many Voted, Bush Retired ---
					(Anagramatized!!)


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: dnebing@andy.bgsu.edu (Mr. Neb)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:19:25 GMT


>>Say, if you suppose the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent God, do
>>you suppose She gives a hoot about Her consitutional status in one
              ^^^
>>country on one little piddling speck of dirt on the edge of an
>>average galaxy among billions of others?
>>
>>--  Teemu Leisti  /  U. of Helsinki, Finland  /  leisti@cc.helsinki.fi

  Let me guess.  You're a feminist, right?

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:121 misc.test:12817 talk.bizarre:37136
From: alaric@sti.com (Phil Stracchino)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:16:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: sti.BxBqCA.AFn
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.180539.12274@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, waddell@ed.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott V Waddell) writes:
] Speaking of taking responsibility for our actions...We just elected
] an adulterous, combat evading, pot smoking, liberal to office

To quote a questionnaire that circulated a few weeks before the election in
several other groups:

"Which action by a college student do you think will most influence your
 vote in the Presidential election:

 A:  What Bill Clinton did to avoid being drafted in a war he opposed?
 B:  What Dan Quayle did to avoid being drafted in a war he supported?"


-- 
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
          Public key and info available by fingering alaric@sti.com
Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : Software Transformation Inc
     Free Cyberia!!  :::  Committee for a Free and Independent Cyberspace
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:24 talk.bizarre:36857 alt.rush-limbaugh:9051
From: david@wal6000b.udc.upenn.edu (R. David Murray)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:17:28 GMT
Reply-To: david@penndrls.upenn.edu
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton
Organization: University Data Center, University of Pennsylvania

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
[ more mindless drivel deleted ]
  
> You know, somebody on alt.society.revolution had a visit from the Secret 
> Service after comments similiar to this were posted on the net.

And people maintain we don't live in a police state.  Ha!

Of course, I'd rather live in /this/ police state than any others around
the globe I've heard tell of, but it still makes you think . . . 
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: nstehle@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Nathan W Stehle)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:41:15 GMT

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:
>>
>>
>>Like I said over there to those wankers in alt.politics.bush and alt.fan.rush-
>>limbaugh, 'tain't nothin' like a little gloating.   HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
>>Bush lost!!!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!
>>
>And when the economy sees unheard of lows as a result of Clinton's
>policies, 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.
>
>>
>>Ta-ta for now,
>>M
>
>God bless,
>
>Michael
>
>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
>
>
I disagree there.  I'm not a commie, a Christian who feels Bush is screwing
God's creation over and forgot what love and compassion mean.

Nathan


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: dnebing@andy.bgsu.edu (Mr. Neb)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:16:48 GMT

kumar@carleman.mit.edu (Sanjay Kumar) writes:
> This is just a  rheoteric. Clinton was not exactly handed over a first rate
> going state with glowing statistics. It was in deep trouble and Clinton has
> laid down a foundation for things to improve and he did it in an age when
> federal money was not flowing into his coffers. He also had to function

  The "foundation" he has left for Arkansas?  The chicken industry is now
a foundation?  Manufacturing industries, now these make a foundation that
could be used to help the state of Arkansas.
 
> under a limiting state constitution which limited ways in which he could
> deal with the things.

  By "limiting state constitution", you must be referring to the Balanced 
Budget Ammendment that Arkansas has.  It's the only thing which controled 
the governments' spending.

> 
> I am not expecting miracles from Clinton,

  I hope not, because he will have a hard time delivering his promises,
let alone any miracles.

> <Reagan - Bush> have put this
> country into DEEP SHIT called 4.5 trillion dollars national debt and 
> Clinton is no magician 

  He's hardly a governor, and he'll also make a poor president.

> to make that and other problems disappear. It is
> going to take time..
> 
> BTW, dealing with severe problems (bottom,near bottom rankings in
> Arkansas) has probably given Bill Clinton the right kind of training
> for troubles he is going to face now. HE IS  TESTED and EXPERIENCED.

  Training?  Clinton _CREATED_ the new problems in the state of 
Arkansas, and he didn't do much to solve the old ones the state had around.  
And you want him to put this training to use when running the country?

  I hope he doesn't use that training on us.  If you think things are bad
now, you haven't seen anything yet........

  dnebing

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:165 talk.politics.misc:58994
From: v557nv8k@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) (G)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:49:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

> 
>BTW...isn't an alt.president.clinton group a little premature? The
>electoral college hasn't voted yet, and I have great faith in the
>Bushmeister finding a nice little war to get into giving him a reason
>to suspend the constitution.

Are u kidding or this is just wishful thinking?  I am getting tired
of the Republicans unwillingness to accept their defeat.  I can see
it in the interviews and their heralding that Clinton didn't really
win a clear majority of the popular vote, that the electoral college
is an old-fashioned institution that should be abolished etc.  Why
was not this idea expressed in 1988.  I am not sure but I think the
margin between Bush and Dukakis was not that wide in the popular
vote either.

The Republicans were in power for 12 years.  During that time, the
rich got richer and the poor poorer.  As a graduate student I can 
attest to
the fact that we (full time students) did not pay taxes until the
famous tax reform during president Reagan.  Suddenly students
making less that $8,000 had to pay taxes. 
It is not surprising that the Republicans are not interested in
low-income people.  I realized (to my surprise) they don't bother 
to vote. So it is partially their fault.  I read that the Republicans
are always happy with low turn outs in elections because it means
beaurocrats and people interested in preserving the status quo are
voting and making the decisions.

 I also witnessed the
cut in education in the federal budget.  Nobody complained.  Once
the states were faced with financial difficulties (due to such
cuts) then everyone was blaming the state governors!

Clinton has not even been in office and I have read, heard and
witnessed complains left and right about him.  He has not even
being given a chance.  When President Bush came to office I do
not remember him being attacked with the virulence that Clinton
has already being subjected to.


>Michael

Ginny
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Clinton and Perot
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:50:52 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu



To all the Perot supporters thinking that Clinton would put Perot in
his admin. in some capacity, think again.  I'll tell you why:
At the time that Clinton made the comment about a possible Perot role
in his admin., Perot hadn't yet started to be negative about Clinton.
Then Perot started making chicken plucking jokes, and airing that 
infomercial twisting Clinton's record in Arkansas.  Not to mention the
fact that Perot cost Clinton a majority victory, now forcing Clinton
to deal with republicans claiming that they represent 57% of the voters.
The first and major indication that Clinton is pissed off at Perot?
Notice that he NEVER mentioned Perot or the people who voted for him during
his victory speech.  This is definatly a sign.  


-Chris


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:29:32 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov8.223956.185@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
> This is quite true.  Further, Alan Ehrenhardt noted in a NYT Op-Ed
> last week that it isn't just the economic conditions.  He argues that
> there is a pervasive lack of faith in future improvement, in being
> able to hand down to our children a better life.  This is the first
> time since WWII and the Great Depression that Americans have this
> general uneasiness, even though we've had higher unemployment, lower
> growth, etc.

     I agree with the observation of general uneasiness, but
we should ask what are the causes of this uneasiness.  I contend
that the debt burden is either directly or indirectly the major
cause of economic anxiety.  The debt reduces the amount of money
capital available to the private sector, it increases the prospects
for tax-hikes and higher interest rates, etc.  If we see any
significant increase in inflation (caused, say, by Clinton's
fiscal stimulus plan), we should also expect to see the Fed
raise interest rates.  This would immediately hurt the bond
market, and after a couple hikes in interest rates we
could see a major correction in the stock market.  (This is
just one scenario, of course.)
     I have some thoughts about the media too, but I'll spare
you of those.  :-)

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: kumar@carleman.mit.edu (Sanjay Kumar)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:01:49 GMT

>>>(Broward Horne) writes: He's clearly demonstrated  a 
>>>pattern since he was 16,  in aspiring to become president.
>>pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) says:
>>Oh, I remember: 'the man who most wants to be President is precisely
>>the one who is least qualified'.
>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes: Exactly.  This is so sad.

George Bush: I will do whatever I have to do get re-elected.

(And he went on to appease Buchanan/Robertson et al at convention and
shower lot of dirt on Clinton, Perot (RNC official: we will do it because
it works!!)) - in short BUSH DID EVERYTHING OTHER THAN HAVE A PLAN FOR
ECONOMY going.

-- 

Thanks

Sanjay
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:45 talk.bizarre:36901
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:18:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: t.b

nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
> This was one of my problems with this election.  You shouldn't vote
> for someone because you hate Bush.  You should vote for someone because
> you want them in office.

     Says who?  You?  Rush Limbaugh?
What utter nonsense.

> many of the Clinton votes I saw (not necessarly
> you) were actually anti-Bush votes.  I don't consider that right.

     So what.

     Oh, and have I invited you to fuck off
from talk.bizarre yet?  Although I must admit,
your notion that people should only vote for
reasons you deem appropriate is quite bizarre.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: mkheintz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Michael Heintz)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:00:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.094309.8530@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.020059.18890@leland.Stanford.EDU> fmr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Francis M Rotella) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.094830.14055@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> crwilson@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
>>>I find it very difficult to believe that someone would vote for a person who
>>>committed adultery, and lied, about the same thing, three times!  This is
>>>living proof that christian, or even pseudo-christian, morals have no place in
>>>America.
>
>Why pick on Ronald Reagan?  He did end up marrying the woman that he got
>pregnant out of wedlock.

Ha!  I love it!

Just goes to show you have to be careful of the accusations you throw around!
Kinda like Bush talking about telling the truth.

	...Mike


-- 
Michael Heintz, Oakland University - Rochester, Michigan
InterNet:  mkheintz@vela.acs.oakland.edu 
BITNET:    mkheintz@oakland.BITNET
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:12 misc.test:12674 talk.bizarre:36818
From: leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:15:12 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu>
 m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:

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

Commie-libs?  Is that, like, everyone left of Buchanan?

Say, if you suppose the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent God, do
you suppose She gives a hoot about Her consitutional status in one
country on one little piddling speck of dirt on the edge of an
average galaxy among billions of others?

Well, thanks for the blessings anyway.  I'm sure they were given with
the best of intentions in the best of altruistic Christian tradition.


--  Teemu Leisti  /  U. of Helsinki, Finland  /  leisti@cc.helsinki.fi

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

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

   -- George Bush, in a speech relating his experiences as a World War II
      fighter pilot, 5 December 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Subject: A "New" Reich                                                          
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:19:07 GMT

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, I don't recall
anyone using the phrase 'worst economic conditions in 50 years',
either from the Clinton campaign, or from any other campaign, or
from the media generally. In fact, most comments were to the effect
that this recession, while not as *deep* as some previous ones,
was both broader and longer in duration. Much analysis was devoted
to the seeming paradox that people were much more anxious than the
numbers warranted.

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

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc