HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ethan@cs.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:33:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.015944.28802@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>
>Let's see.  First of all, Bush was only president for FOUR years (he
>was VP for 8).  Second, Congress passes spending bills, including the
>pork that creates a large portion of the deficit.  Third, DEMOCRATS
>have been in control of the Congress for THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS.  Sure,
>may be time for change according to many, but only change the
>Republicans.  Seems intelectually (sp?) dishonest and hypocritical.
>
	There comes a point when facts should enter the
discussion. I will try NOT to lean towards a party in these
comments:

1) The "pork" in the budgets, while significant, come nowhere
near the $400 billion of our annual debt.

2) Practically every single year since Reagan took office,
congress has passed a budget with a smaller deficit than the
budget initially submitted by the president.

3) Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives for 38
years. The democrats have only controlled the senate since 1986.
Reagan had 6 years of a republican senate.

4) The "change" that many are hoping for is Clinton. They are
hoping that he can do what he says and that the congress will do
what he wants.


>God bless,
>

	-- Ethan


Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:205 alt.politics.perot:5346 talk.politics.misc:59103
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Sinking Ship (was Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton)
Date: 9 Nov 1992 16:55:51 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, lancer@pitt.WPI.EDU (Stephe Lewis Foskett) says:

>>>>>> "an030" == Broward Horne <an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> writes:
>an030> Not on YOUR LIFE!  The absolutely best way to wreak vengence
>an030> on a corporation is to NOT COMPLAIN.
>
>But this isn't a corporation, it's a country.  If you want to use that
>metaphor, though, we're all employees of this corporation and if it
>goes down, we all get fired.  And if we all get fired, we'll have a
>hell of a time getting new jobs.  Want to rethink your position on not


     Not particularly.  Luckily, after being fucked by Corporate America
     for 15 years, I bailed and am as self-sufficient as anyone can be.

>
>an030> If Mr. Stephonoplous is arrogant
>an030> enough to tell me why I voted, let him.  Let them ignore the deficit.
>an030> I doubt it matters anyway.  It's way too late.
>
>OOOH!  Look!  The Big Country is going down the tubes!  Let's be sore
>because our boy lost the election!  Come on, that attitude is
>pathetic.  Let's get over our election-induced prejudices and try to
>work to make our country better.  If you think Clinton (and
>Stephanopolous) have the wrong idea, then I suggest that it's your
>civic duty to complain and to suggest alternatives.  I did that myself
>all through the Bush years (and I voted for Bush in '88) when I saw
>that he was taking us in the wrong direction, and I voted for Clinton
>now not because I think he is a great guy, but because I believe he
>had the best plan (in terms of workability) for economic growth _and_
>the growth of fair services for the people of this country.  Need I

    
    No, I DID my civic duty for 16 years by not cheating, not lying
    not borrowing.  I'm done.  YOU do it.
    The American people chose Clinton with their palms outstretched.

    YOU fill it up.

>remind you of Mr. Perot's health care plan?
>
>.s.
>--
>- so spake lancer@wpi.wpi.edu -      - so speaks Diamanda Galas: -
>-  And on his dying bed he asked me; "tell all my friends I was  -
>-   fighting, too."  But to all cowards and voyeurs:  There are  -
>-     no more tickets to the funeral.  The funeral is crowded.   -
>

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:19 misc.test:12689 talk.bizarre:36836
From: pld@fc.hp.com (Paul_Dineen)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:11:08 GMT
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Michael L. Le Houllier (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu) wrote:

: 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.

  I voted for Clinton.  I know he promised a lot (Bush would have too,
  if he were the challenger), and I can't say how well he will handle
  the economy.  But, at least he's not so out of touch that he will
  *ignore* such domestic problems, as Bush did.  (Why didn't Clinton's
  campaign show the film of Bush bewildered by the idea of checkout
  scanners?)
  
  Perhaps more that that, I welcome the relief from the assault on our
  civil liberties.  The Republicans typically glorify the individual,
  but they immediately start hacking away at anyone who's left of Pat
  Buhannan.  The American people have had 12 years of Republican
  leadership in hatred and intolerance, and have had enough of that too.
  (And wasn't Bush's campaign "kinder and gentler"?)  Despite the appeal
  of *some* of the Republican economic principles, I could never become
  a Republican because I can't countenance hatred.

     "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, 
     nor should they be considered as patriots.  This is one nation 
     under God."
	    -- Republican Presidential Nominee (1988) George Bush


  Yes, I'm from Colorado.  And yes, I voted against amendment #2.  Clinton
  only won a plurality in Colorado.  Meaning that a majority voted against
  him (at least not for him) and a majority voted for #2.  You figure it
  out.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:358 ba.politics:7049 ca.politics:9541
From: armagan@sassafras (Armagan Ozdinc)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:05:57 GMT
Reply-To: armagan@prc.unisys.com
Organization: Paramax Systems

In article <aaOY02KV2am501@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov9.183158.2817@gvl.unisys.com>, armagan@sassafras (Armagan|> Ozdinc) writes:
|> > |> White - Liberal		(Nixon?)
|> >                                 (appointed by Ford)
|> > |> Stevens - Conservative	(?)
|> >                                 (appointed by Kennedy. I would not call
|> >                                  Stevens as conservative. He is somewhere
|> >                                  between moderate and liberal.)
|> Stevens was appointed by Ford, his only appointee.  I'm not sure who 
|> appointed White; I think it was Johnson or Kennedy.  Definitely (but 
|> surpisingly) it was a Democrat.

Let me correct my mistake in my original posting. When I was listing the
names of presidents who appointed White ans Stevens, I just reversed
the names. The correct ones are:

 Stevens has been appointed by Ford,
 White has been appointed ny Kennedy.

----------------------------------------------------------------
 ARMAGAN A. OZDINC
 Paramax Systems, Valley Forge Labs, Research and Development
________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:161 alt.politics.perot:5314 talk.politics.misc:58975
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: 8 Nov 1992 21:33:55 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, tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) says:

>Anyone with any interest in how high a priority deficit reduction will be
>for the Clinton administration should have been watching "Capitol Gang" on
>Nov. 7th. They had the Clinton communications director George Stephanopolus
>(I know, I know, I spelled his name wrong) as the guest, and he
>categorically denied that any Perot supporters were interested in deficit


       Yes, I saw this one.  What arrogance.  Or is that ignorance?
I suspect this will be typical of the Clinton presidency.


   
>On the off chance there are any Perot supporters out there who actually were
>(and are) interested in deficit reduction, you might want to write the
>Clinton campaign and explain to them that they have gotten a mistaken
>impression somewhere...


        Not on YOUR LIFE!  The absolutely best way to wreak vengence
on a corporation is to NOT COMPLAIN.  If Mr. Stephonoplous is arrogant
enough to tell me why I voted, let him.  Let them ignore the deficit.
I doubt it matters anyway.  It's way too late.


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: mike@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Cosmik Debris)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.190731.19743@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, nelson@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (Jeffrey J. Nelson) writes:
> In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu>, 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes:
> |> In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes...
> |> >In article <1992Nov5.060913.10011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
> |> >>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
> 
> Rush Limbaugh has Jello pudding snacks for brains.
> 
> 
> |> >And when the economy sees unheard of lows as a result of Clinton's
> |> >policies...
> 
> Seeing as how the deficit is gigantic and the economy is showing only the
> slightest signs of recovery, unheard of lows should be expected down
> the road.  Heck, expect widespread starvations.  Clinton will hopefully
> blunt this and if he works miracles, maybe rallie the nation to save itself.
> 
> 
> |> >God bless,
> |> > 
> |> >Michael
> |> > 
> |> >(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
> 
> The Puritans ran from Europe to obtain relegious freedom, arrived
> in American were laws were inacted making their own relegion the only
> legal relegion.  The Quakers had to run from the Puritans.  Bush recently
> stated that he would never inact policies benefitting athiests.  You come
> from a long line of ignorance.
> 
> 
> |> Michael,
> |> 
> |> It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
> |> be an American......
> 
> Sarcasm?
> 				- Jeff

OK, OK I have had enough! Will you mindless cretins take your discussion off of
talk.bizarre. This is a newsgroup for intelligent discussion of bizarre things.
What makes you snivelling scum bags think that your politics are the least bit
interesting to the rest of the world? Stick it...

Have a nice day!
-- 

"Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, I'm schitzophrenic and so am I."
Cosmik Debris
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:295 talk.politics.misc:59488
From: milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister)
Subject: This was an unwise thing to post (was Re: i say kill bush)
Keywords: die
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:32:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.145747.26765@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.063938.11566@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pfinerty@nyx.cs.du.edu (big daddy hate box) writes:
>
>>i want bush's head on a pike stuck in my front lawn. fucker. i hate that
>>man more than anyone i don't know personally. i want quayle to be pres for
>>a couple of weeks and then we kill him and let foley do it for a while.
>>then we kill him too and give it to baker. yeah, i say we take the
>>opportunity to really fuck with D.C. 
>
>Congratulations.  You just violated Federal law.  You might want to
>check into laws regarding remarks about killing public officials,
>particularly Presidents.
>
>You better hope that all the conspiracy theorists that claim that NSA
>and such monitor the net are wrong.
>
>-- 
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Look on the bright side: we'll probably find out.  I'd like to ask 
pfinerty@nyx.cs.du.edu to post daily from now on, until he disappears
without a trace.  Please inform us of anything unusual, such as being
followed, or wierd interference on your phone that wasn't there before.

If your remarks were made in jest, the jocularity was lost, partly due to
the lack of verbal inflections / facial expressions inherent in this form
of communication, and partly because you are saying serious stuff.  I wont
debate the issue of whether it is constitutionally protected speech or not, 
but to advocate taking human life, whether of a president or of a sanitation
worker, is wrong, legal or not.  If it was a joke, it wasn't funny.  If you
are serious, you need to seek professional help.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty radical (see my .sig), but you stepped over
the line.  I hope you don't get whisked off to room 101.  (If you don't know
what room 101 is, read 1984, by George Orwell).

-- 
Copy this .sig and just say noe to big-brother's monitoring of public bandwidth
*Bush Quayle conspiracy JFK cocaine LSD heroin marijuana AK-47 Iran Iraq Libya*
*Sandinista Contras Panama Noriega FBI CIA NSA Secret Service fixed-elections *
*Neil Bush S&L coverup potatoe wiretaps search & seizure bill of rights dead  *
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:59:23 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <8NOV199215560982@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu>, agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
> In article <1992Nov8.124336.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>>     On This Week with David Brinkley, Clinton economic advisor 
>>Robert Reich said that the current recession is not as deep 
>>as the 1981-1982 recession.  This does not seem consistent
>>with the "worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme I
>>continually heard from the Clinton campaign.  
> 
> You are right it does not *seem* consistent but it is. I think
> Reich has stated it properly - if he said that this recession
> is deeper than the last one I would know never to listen to him.
> 
> If I have listened carefully to C-Span, in the last recession
> growth took a harder hit than in this one (if someone has the
> numbers please post them).  However, that recession was much
> shorter than this one (we still don't know when this one will
> end).  The length of the current recession is one of longest
> the country has experienced since the Depression.  Some people
> have taken this as a sign that the economy is in deeper trouble
> than previous recessions.  That's where he gets the
> "worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme.  When the economy
> experiences a deep but short-lived drop it can recover but if the
> drop is shallower and longer a recovery may not be able restore
> what you lost.

     You correctly state that two measures of a recession are
length and depth, and you try to justify the "worst-economic-
conditions-in-50-years" theme given by the Clinton campaign.  
I am not trying to dispute your argument -- but, is this
the same argument given by the Clinton campaign?  Gore kept
saying that we are in a depression (yes, he used the word
depression) because "everything that should be going up is 
going down, and everything that should be going down is going 
up."  I'm sorry, but my definition of a depression would include
a deeper recession than 1982.  Moreover, how come they never
said during the campaign that the depth of this recession is
not that bad?
 
>>    Just think what we'll hear *after* the inauguration....
> 
> It sounds like you're hoping for the worst.  Do you dislike
> Clinton that much that you are be willing to hope the country
> gets trashed?

     According to Clinton, the country is already trashed (if, at
most, you have a 50-year memory).  I hope Clinton succeeds, but
I'm concerned that his campaign was disingenuous.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:18:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.035112.20409@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <10NOV199200505371@zeus.tamu.edu> san7675@zeus.tamu.edu (STEPH) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.144058.22315@crd.ge.com>, joseph@emmax5crd.ge.com
>> (joseph) writes...
>>
>>> Then I have an explanantion
>>>why you voted for Clinton.  All of them universities are known to
>>>be havens for left wing bleeding heart liberals who want to tax
>>>everything that moves and somethings that don't move and take that
>>>money and spend it on the welfare population.  Obviously you had
>>>to vote for Clinton to achieve your goal.
>>>
>>>   So there !!
>>>
>>>james joseph                   joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com
>>

	Well.  I attend the University of Georgia, which is definitely
NOT a hotbed of liberalism. Our student body is about evenly split. In
a mock election, the week before the real thing, students chose
Clinton over Bush, by a narrow margin. Clinton recieved about 45% of
the vote, while Bush recieved about 40% and Perot took 11%, leaving
the rest to write-ins.  
	And we've also had problems with racist incedents.
Particularly the incedent with a fraternity printing a racial slur in
its Pledge pamphlet. Not to mention rapes, gay bashing, and murders.


-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: can@mitre.org (Chris)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:12:51 GMT

In article <BxFtF3.B3H@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
(Shawn Green) writes:

> I saw him two nights ago on his TV show (it pushed "Later" with Bob Costas
> back an hour, proving that there is no justice in this world).  He said he was
> going to show a picture of Millie, the erstwhile First Mutt.  A rather
> unflattering picture of Chelsea Clinton came up on the screen.  It got a big
> laugh as Rush made his (wink, wink) apologies, claiming it was all a terrible
> mistake (nudge, nudge).  How desperate is this jerk for material when he has
> to resort to picking on a 12 year old child?  Especially considering the fact
> that he isn't exactly Adonis, to put it politely.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh is a total ass who should pick on someone his own size.  Like
> Chicago Bears defensive tackle William "Refrigerator" Perry, for example.
> 
>

If you don't like it then why the hell are you watching it? Is your hand
crippled?
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: N336BZ@tamvm1.tamu.edu (MLee)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:39:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.204441.28930@news.columbia.edu>
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
 
>In article <1dkj1vINNfm8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>>>In article <1992Nov8.183418.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1dk6e8INN7ud@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
   **stuff deleted**
 
>officials as young as 22.)  Bush has been running for office for most
>of 20 years.  I believe Reagan, and the people behind him, have had an
 
Bush had over a 40 year career of running for office.  He lost his
1st bid for election as congressman from Texas in the late 50s
(1958, I think).
 
Regards,
M. Lee
 
"I have abandoned my search for truth and am now looking for
 a good fantasy . . ."
All fantasies contained herein are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: bohannon@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Brynne Bohannon)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:37:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.221021.4361@galois.mit.edu> kumar@carleman.mit.edu (Sanjay Kumar) writes:
>nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
>>he kept his state
>>at the bottom, he can do the same for the country. 
>
>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
>under a limiting state constitution which limited ways in which he could
>deal with the things.
>
>I am not expecting miracles from Clinton, <Reagan - Bush> have put this
>country into DEEP SHIT called 4.5 trillion dollars national debt and 
>Clinton is no magician 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.
>Thanks
>
>Sanjay

You seem to know alot about Arkansas.  Are you from there?

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton