HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:50:24 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.144917.17717@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>>Actually, I came from a poor family, I do volunteer work at homeless
>>shelters, and use alot of my own money to help the poor. My
>>experiences make me more than qualified to comment.

>Let me get this straight: your telling me that YOU are more qualified
>to tell my how to spend MY money than I am?

No, he said he was "more than qualified to comment". It's called
Freedom of Speech.
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13367 alt.politics.clinton:16115 alt.politics.elections:22899 talk.politics.misc:58519
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: About this "No Mandate" Garbage
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:21:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.155826.15548@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>In article <adams.720914090@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>>
>>>>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>>>>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>>>>Today 11/4). Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
>>>>Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.
>>>
>>>And 60% said either Bush or Perot is better than Clinton.  No mandate.
>>>
>>And the Democrats lost ground in Congress as well - the Congress may in
>>fact be MORE conservative now.
>
>Dream on, people!  The Republican Party got trounced. Clinton has a
>mandate.

How do you figure?  The Republicans gained about 10 seats in the House
(though they should have gained more) and stayed even in the Senate, if the
Georgia runoff election turns out for them.  Bush was beaten.  But the
party was hardly trounced. 

>Given that the name of the contest is "win the electoral college" this
>election *is* a landside, and Clinton *does* have a mandate.
No.  He won with about 90 electoral votes to spare.  Not much of a
landslide.

>If you think Congress is more conservative and going to produce legislation
>of a more conservative nature that Clinton will not support, you are not
>simply smoking and inhaling, you are having an out-of-body/
>alternate-reality experience.  Signal us when you return to our
>galaxy.  We will send the shuttle to pick you up.
Huh?  There are *MORE* Republicans in the House, and the *SAME* (or perhaps
only 1 less) number in the Senate.  You are out of your mind if you think
this is a sweeping rejection of Republicans.

AND, if the Republicans can take the special election to replace Burdick
(died) in ND, then they will have GAINED a seat in the Senate (or broken
even).

You are clearly attempting to read more into what happened than what
happened.  67% of the people rejected Clinton.  He did get a plurality, but
he did not sweep large numbers of Democrats in with him.  He barely held
even in the Senate and lost ground in the House.

He won.  The Democrats now have at least 2 years of control over the entire
govt.  They get their shot.  But there is no sweeping mandate for change.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: coop2b34@crchh75d.BNR.CA (Carey Dula)
Subject: Re: Dear Democrats & Repubs too
Reply-To: coop2b34@crchh75d.BNR.CA (Carey Dula)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 13:40:08 GMT

Here's the way things are looking here in Texas.

In article <Bx6EtJ.Myz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke
Paul Nosek) writes:
|>	Yes but also:
|>
|>1)	No more control of the executive and judicial branches by the radical
|>	religious right. (ie, SAY GOODBYE TO PRO-LIFE-OSITY!!!)
|>			and	gay bashing
|>			and	the sex police
|>			and	rejoining of church and state
|>			and 	I could go on and on...

Here in Texas abortion protesters are treated much more harshly by
police than the other side...
	and	gays receive special protection
	and	there is no "sex police"
	and	church is under attack by state (read the NO ESTABLISHMENT
		CLAUSE)
	and	so could I (go on and on...)

|>2) 	Better funding for schools. (ie, us college students will get a break)
|>
|>	- And America will get a break in global competition because of a better
|>	educated work force.


It seems that the more we spend on education, the less we see in
results.  In fact, we cannot find a correlation between spending
and performance.  Vouchers are becoming overwhelmingly popular as
an approach to the problem of public school failures.

|>
|>3)	You were right to point to inflation - but not to unemployment.
|>
|>	Democrats tend to sacrifice inflation from empolyment.
|>	Republicans - vice versa.
|>
|>	(Jimmy Carter was victim to an economy screwed up by Republicans)
|>
|>	You tell me what you want - a job or low inflation?
                       
I have a job and low inflation now.  I would prefer not to have a return
to the inflation rates of the past (about 12 years past, I believe).


Anyway, though I supported Bush in the election, I am now behind
Gov. Clinton and will work for the success of my country.  The election
is over, and it's time to move forward.

Regards,

Carey J. Dula                                       phone (214) 684-5012
e-mail: carey.dula@bnr.ca or carey@utdallas.edu             ESN 444-5012
"There are two places where socialism will work:  In Heaven, where it is
not needed, and in Hell, where they already have it."  Winston Churchill
>>>>>>>>> MY OPINIONS ONLY.  PLEASE COMPLAIN TO ME, NOT BNR. <<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:09:45 GMT

In article <Bx7x0C.Hx1@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:

>
>Yup.  The majority has spoken.  And the majority DID NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON.
>57% of the poeple voted for someone OTHER THAN Clinton.  So now we have
>a president elect that the majority of the people did not want in office.
>

you act as if this is uncommon. you must have slept thru american history.
let me fill you in a bit.

1) there is no requirement that the president of the us win 50%+ of the 
popular vote.

2) many presidents, inlcuding abe lincoln, have been elected and served
successfully without this majority. in fact, at least one race (the date
escapes me) ended with the popular vote winner losing the election.

3) we do not vote as individuals, we vote as states.
   the overwhelming majority of states voted for clinton.
   a small minority of states, mostly low-population states in the plains,
   voted for bush. therefore, bush has been soundly defeated in his
   re-election bid.


it is not surpring that all these republicans are somehow trying to turn
a humilating defeat into a win. i mean, this is the party that tries to
claim they support a balanced budget. Why didnt george ever submit 
a balanced budget? why did george keep submitting budgets HIGHER than
the ones finally approved by congress? the republicans should put their
money where their mouth is--if ya want a balanced budget, you have
to propose one.


"We will have balanced the budget by 1983"
-R. Reagan in 1980



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13624 alt.politics.clinton:16610 alt.rush-limbaugh:9335
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Conservatives favor limited government?
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:28:43 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Nov6.002755.22432@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.164439.17514@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>$ How can any governemnt with enough wepaons of mass 
>$ destruction to nuke the whole world be called 'limited'?
>
>>When conservatives speak of limited government, they're talking about
>>minimal interference in the financial affairs of the people and companies
>>in their domain.
>
yea, like limited in that they don't want to interfere with big business like
savings and loans etc.  but they sure want to know what you are doing in
your house and tell you what to think and read.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13200 alt.politics.clinton:15874 alt.rush-limbaugh:9058
From: archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:24:48 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In <Bx86n1.E69@nic.umass.edu> mmorgan@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Michael Morgan) writes:

*In article <1992Nov4.153313.174@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
*>
*>In a perverse kind of way, it is sort of a relief that the left now runs 
*>the White House AND the Congress.
*>[...]
*
*Wishful thinking...

There hasn't been a real leftist involved in presidential politics since
Eugene Debs.

Archer Sully <archer@sgi.com> | Election '92: a 250 million way tie for last.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Let's try this again: Clinton's cabinet (humorous suggestions)
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:40:35 GMT

In article <6824@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Last September I called upon suggestions regarding the make-up of a
>Clinton cabinet. I only had two responses. Now that we're more sure of

This is just knee-slappin' doggone FUNNY. I haven't laughed this much
since I saw Joey Bishop open for Tom Jones at the Sands. Really.

Alan

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen)
Subject: Re: US and EC Presidents kill GATT (opinion)
Keywords: Bush Clinton Delors trade tariffs politics GATT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:31:10 GMT

cjk@nic.cerf.net writes:

>In article <BxCGqG.MxM@world.std.com> crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen) writes:
>>Partisan Politics takes priority over world trade in the final days
>>of the Bush Administration.  
>>
>>Just one day after losing the presidential election, The White
>>House announced Wednesday that the Global Agreement on Trade and
>>Tariffs (GATT) talks had reached an impasse, and that $300 million
>>in protective tariffs would be raised as retribution for French
>>intransigence on the issue of agricultural subsidies........
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>He means cheating.


>Somebody set me straight here if I stray abit. (nicely)

>GATT is GHWB agenda.  He started it, He wants to finish it.  I think
>He is just applying a little bit of pressure on France that I believe
>is justified.  Also signaling others to look and examine your trade
>policies with the U.S.  Now, if the French crumble under this trade
>retaliatory move, it removes a stumbling block for finalization of
>GATT.  Not exactly a bad thing for Bush to go out on.

>So....are you implying that Bush is doing this cause he's pissed 
>at Clinton?

>I think not.   But I would venture to guess that this is nothing
>as compared to whatever Clinton has in store for trade cheaters.

I state flatly that this is a political maneuver directed by the Republican
Party to stall the early days of the Clinton Administration.  Nice move.


>Chris Kevlahan
>cjk@cerf.net		| always looking for a good opinion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Rosen           |  My views are my own.
crosen@world.std.com |  I represent myself only.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13842 alt.politics.clinton:17014
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Na na, na na na na, Hey hey hey , good bye
Date: 13 Nov 1992 04:50:24 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <LARRY.92Nov5141107@boris.webo.dg.com> larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:

>Actually, Bush's loss was not humiliating at all.  Clinton campaigned
>quite well, to his credit.  Remember, Bush was within a point on some
>polls before the organized Democrat procecutors and Democrat press
>made old news sound new and confused the electorate.

1. Lawrence Walsh is a Republican.
2. To liberals like me, it certainly was "old news" that George Bush's
story on Iran-contra was a complete lie. I didn't believe it at first
and I noticed a lot of evidence against it (e.g., the admitted
involvement of his aide Donald Gregg). But the rest of the country
didn't seem to notice until Cap Weinberger's notes--which he had
perjured himself about to protect Bush--were released in part. That
made it "new" news.
3. The Iran-contra stuff was six years old. Bush's main campaign theme
was Clinton's draft record from *23* years ago. Which is "old" news?

>Much more humiliating defeats were suffered by Dukakis (Thank God!!!)
>and Mondale.

Really? George Bush got the same percentage of the popular vote as
George McGovern!

andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13403 alt.politics.clinton:16194
From: garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Na na, na na na na, Hey hey hey , good bye
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:19:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <LARRY.92Nov5141107@boris.webo.dg.com> larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
>
>Actually, Bush's loss was not humiliating at all.  Clinton campaigned
>quite well, to his credit.  Remember, Bush was within a point on some
>polls before the organized Democrat procecutors and Democrat press
>made old news sound new and confused the electorate.

[...]

>
>By the way, Clinton is already having an affect.  In the past month,
                                         *e*       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>home mortgage interest rates are up nearly a point.  That'll cost us
>more than Perot's gas tax.  The home owner/buyer takes it on the chin
>again.


Excuse me, but who has been president for the past month?  Do you mean to 
imply that all of the Liberal wall street types changed the game 
becuase they knew Bush was going to lose and wanted to discredit 
Clinton?

Or, is it just the fault of Reagan / Bush policies?




-- 

   "To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."  -Plutarch
   "Why do better when you can just blame it on the democrats?" -G.H.W.Bush
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:34:26 GMT

In article <1d9k5cINN3bb@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:
> [a bunch deleted]
>
>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%.

You can add me to the "scared" category.

The fact that so many people are "scared" of Clinton (assuming this
poll is representative) is to me the most promising statistic I've
seen since Perot last led in the polls.

If there is anything to be learned from the Perot campaign, it is
that nothing will be fixed until we DEMAND it.  Perhaps this fear
will be translated into ACTION on this point.

It will for me, I assure you...

Dave
   "Take back your country!"
From: slgsn@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush's groin
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:40:07 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Thanks for opening such a kick-ass section! I love America...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: pat is back!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:43:14 GMT

In article <mlt2001-111192225454@m248-113.bgsu.edu> mlt2001@andy.bgsu.edu (the big steak!) writes:
> PAT BUCHANAN IS BACK ON THE MCLAUGLIN GROUP.  THE ANTI-SEMETIC IS BACK IN
>HIS GLORY.  THE MAN WHO RAN FOR PRESIDENT AND HURT GEORGE BUSH IN THE
>PRIMARIES.  WHY DID THIS RACIST RETURN TO THIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM?
>BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE WILL LISTEN TO HIM, EXCEPT MICHAEL KINSLEY OF CROSS
>FIRE!  WHEN WILL PAT LEARN THAT HE WON'T WIN ANY SUPPORT OF ANY SORT WHAT
>SO EVER.  THIS SHIRT STUFFING CONSERVATIVE HAS NO FUTURE.  UNTIL JOHN
>MCLAUGLIN REALIZES THIS WE'LL HAVE TO PUT WITH MORE PAT!  I RATHER WATCH
>MEET THE PRESS!


Geez, some people see Nazis hiding behind every tree.

Geez, some people see Nazis hiding behind every tree.  So, what did
Buchanan do that could be construed as anti-seetic or racist.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13104 alt.politics.elections:22557
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: About this "No Mandate" Garbage
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:54:37 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <adams.721070472@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov5.155826.15548@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>>In article <adams.720914090@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>>>>>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>>>>>Today 11/4). Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
>>>>>Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.
>>>>
>>>>And 60% said either Bush or Perot is better than Clinton.  No mandate.
>>>>
>>>And the Democrats lost ground in Congress as well - the Congress may in
>>>fact be MORE conservative now.
>>
>>Dream on, people!  The Republican Party got trounced. Clinton has a
>>mandate.
>
>How do you figure?  The Republicans gained about 10 seats in the House
>(though they should have gained more) and stayed even in the Senate, if the
>Georgia runoff election turns out for them.  Bush was beaten.  But the
>party was hardly trounced. 
>
>>Given that the name of the contest is "win the electoral college" this
>>election *is* a landside, and Clinton *does* have a mandate.
>No.  He won with about 90 electoral votes to spare.  Not much of a
>landslide.
>
One from the middle of the road:

Clinton got no mandate.  He was elected president.   That's all.
Congress got their hands slapped for the check overdrawing.  That's all.

My hats off to Clinton if he can bust his plan through Congress.  They
had good practice stonewalling their own party "boss" in 1977-80.

John
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13350 alt.politics.clinton:16088 alt.rush-limbaugh:9151
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:35:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
-paul@hsh.com writes:
->In a perverse kind of way, it is sort of a relief that the left now runs 
->the White House AND the Congress.
-
-a southern baptist from arkansas who favors capital punishment is the
-"left"?!@!@?! get real. 98% of all democratic and republican politicians
-are centrists whose main job is resisting real change in the system.
-wake up and smell the coffee.

Well that depends on who Clinton appoints to Cabinet positions to me. He
already appointed one of the most liberal politicians in the Senate to
be his Vice President (Al Gore, if you didn't know that :) ). Besides,
most of the politicians in this country resisit real change in the
system because they understand the "rules" and constraints of that
system from which emanates their power.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	My humor button seems to blinking randomly. Read at your own risk.
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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13188 alt.politics.clinton:15853 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7937 alt.rush-limbaugh:9050