HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hellmerj@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Jeffrey N Hellmers)
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:07:12 GMT

In article <8NOV199204085318@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.225848.28543@news.stolaf.edu>, hellmerj@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Jeffrey N Hellmers) 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. 
>> 
>>Well, as many people have pointed out, this is probably not a wise thing to
>>say.  It is also inaccurate.
>> 
>>The poster, when talking about killing our nation's top leaders, incorrectly
>>lists the line of succession to the presidency.  It should be Bush, Quayle,
>>Foley (speaker of the house) and then President Pro Tempore of the Senate, NOT
>>Secretary of State Baker.  Baker would come after the President Pro Tem. of the
>>Senate, who I believe is Robert Byrd, but I could be wrong.  
>
>1) Isn't it George Mitchell?
>
>2) Baker is no longer Secretary of State anyway.
>
>
>
>Dave
>

Mitchell is the Senate majority leader.  Baker IS the Secretary of State.  He
will be until on or soon after Jan. 20th (when Clinton names a new one).

-- 
         Jeffrey Hellmers            "Trouble is son, the farther you run, the
        hellmerj@stolaf.edu           more you feel undefined, for what you have         St. Olaf College             left undone, and more, what you've left
       Northfield, Minnesota          behind." Stephen Sondheim, INTO THE WOODS

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:53 misc.test:12734 talk.bizarre:36931
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:39:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Nov5.122812.21770@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlhouse@nyx.cs.du.edu (fiver) writes:
>
>One monkey out of office .. put another monkey in the office .. 
>

maybe, but this monkey believes in individuals constitutional rights and will
probably get a chance to balance the right-wing supreme court.  plus think
of all those control freak nazis in washington that will get the boot as 
clinton puts his own people in.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:36 misc.test:12711 talk.bizarre:36888
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:13:59 GMT
Organization: SSESCO

In article <1992Nov5.160816.17514@news.acns.nwu.edu>, matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Matthew Olson) writes:
|> 
|> I hope everyone who dislikes the fact that Bill Clinton won the election at
|> least gives him a fair chance to work for us Americans. The American public
|> needs to put the election behind them, and work hard with the new president
|> to try and get our country back on its feet. If President Clinton fails in
|> his new job, then everyone can complain. But we need to give him a chance
|> first.
|> 
|> Matthew Olson
|> Northwestern University
|> matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

I did not like Clinton winning.  In many ways I'm scared that he will do 
little to trun this country around.  I could fill this post with more reasons
why I didn't want him in power, but that's not my point.  I agree with Matt.
Give me a couple of weeks to calm down from the election, and I will do what
I can to back him.  We are stuck with him and we'd better try and make sure
that he can get done as much as possible.  It doesn't make any sense, to me,
to make it difficult for him.  It would only make things worse.
-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Originator: blchapma@c00476-224wi.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:54:09 GMT


|> Me too, I'm so sick of the politics of exclusiveness.  I myself am a non
|> Christian.  As a matter of fact, I'm a Buddhist.  Am I not welcomed in
|> this country?  I heard Mr. Bucanon's speech at the republican convention
|> saying that this is God's country.  I'm scared.  Will I be condemned to hell?

Hell on earth is more what you would be condemned to.  Fortunately, we've
put that off for at least four more years.
 
-- 

Bekki Lyn

************************************************************
"Today is within my reach, and tomorrow is so illusive
 But I'm still chasing time through increasing disillusion
 Forever living for the future of an illusion."

 -- FATES WARNING-- "Perfect Symmetry"
************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 00:20:13 GMT

Under Republicans:

 Crime skyrockets
 Homeless count skyrockets
 Rich guys earnings skyrockets
 Number of poor people skyrockets
 Number of bombs dropped on people skyrockets 

Now thats a great record and it didn't take me too long to find
something bad about the Republicans.

--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca 
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: sbender@navajo.dsd.es.com (Steve Bender)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Evans & Sutherland
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 01:47:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.160816.17514@news.acns.nwu.edu>, matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Matthew Olson) writes:
|> 
|> I hope everyone who dislikes the fact that Bill Clinton won the election at
|> least gives him a fair chance to work for us Americans. The American public
|> needs to put the election behind them, and work hard with the new president
|> to try and get our country back on its feet. If President Clinton fails in
|> his new job, then everyone can complain. But we need to give him a chance
|> first.
|> 

I for one, am doubtful yet hopeful that the Clinton administration can bring
about the positive changes which were emphasized during the campaign.  I 
supported the Republican campaign during this election on the basis of its
moral stance as opposed to its economic stance or George Bush personally
(yet voted for Bush as a result).  Although doubtful, I hope that with
a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and Presidency - the combination
will be overwhelmingly successful.  (I'm not so vindictive that I should wish
doom and gloom on our country just for the sake of a '96 candidate).

Nevertheless, the "Will of the People" has spoken, and we are certain to
reap what we have sewn.

-- 
Steve Bender
Evans & Sutherland
(801) 582-5847
Salt Lake City, UT 84108

sbender@dsd.es.com

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: barber@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber)
Subject: Re: Clinton = Hitler (was: A New Reich)
Organization: MCNC Center for Communications -- CONCERT Network
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:48:44 GMT

In article <randall.721346715@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>
>Clinton strikes me as someone who is very intelligent with a lot
>of political skill.  He's a politician- a good one.  

The word "politician" has such a negative connotation that people
are having a difficult time distinguishing between politicians that
are good ONLY at getting reelected and accomplishing little else,
and those who get things done, build coalitions, and still get 
reelected.  Clinton seems to have done these things fairly successfully 
in Arkansas (which is notable, given the fairly conservative background 
in the state, and the communist label given Clinton by some).

If there is anything that strikes me about Clinton that is
particularly encouraging, it is that he spends considerable time on
consensus-building.  Invariably, it takes longer to pull things 
together to make decisions, but the resulting decisions are often 
stronger, less vulnerable to attack, and more comprehensive.

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,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Keynesian thing (was: A "New" Reich)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:36:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.124136.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In <randall.721439017@seashore>, randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:

>> Keynes is right and has always been right.  The economic "booms" of
>> the 1960's and 1980's were a result of high government spending
>> (primarily on defense), which increased aggregate demand and 
>> money velocity.   Although monetary policy is important, it alone
>> will not take you out of a recession.   This was Bush's strategy,
>> and it failed.  This is the first recession since the 1930's where
>> some kind of Keynesian strategy was not used to combat it, and
>> consequently, the recession has dragged on.

>     Is a $300+ billion deficit not a Keynesian-enough strategy
>during a recession?

I wish people would *read* Keynes before they posted about him.  Contrary
to popular opinion, Keynes did not simply say "deficit spending is
good."  He called for a specific *type* of spending, ie investment.  Our
current budget spends almost nothing on this -- defense, social
security, medicare, etc, might be useful, but are *not* examples of
Keynesian deficit spending.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 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: jbp@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 13:31:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.032850.28606@adobe.com> yost@adobe.com (David Yost) writes:
>
>It would be a sad state of affairs if many people believed that belonging
    ^^^^^
>to an organization whose primary purpose is "preserving the 2nd Amendment
>of the US Constitution -- the right of citizens to bear arms" is viewed as
>a form of political protest, especially non-violent protest, no matter how
>valid that right may be in the Constitution.

The fact that it _is_ a sad state of affairs already was what led to my 
suggestion.
-- 
John Posthill
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:361 alt.rush-limbaugh:9557
From: seitzler@sscvx1.ssc.gov (JOHN SEITZLER)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:22:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov12.190917.22273@nosc.mil>, reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL                  writes...
>As to why people watch Rush Limbaugh the obnoxious; it's human nature to
>be curious about THINGS...like traffic accidents, fires, floods, hurricanes,
>and the National Enquirer.  In that jerk's case, I think some of us can't
>help wondering how he gets sponsors.

----------

Then you must indeed be ignorant.  Notice I used the word ignorant.  That
is not a personal slur, just a statement that a person is unaware of the
facts.  Rush gets sponsors BECAUSE HIS SHOW IS HOT!!!!  Why? For the same
reason his book is selling so quickly.  People want to hear what he has to
say and agree with him.  You know he has a large viewing audience because the
one thing that even the networks will not deny is profit.  And Rush's show
is making them MONEY.  People are starved for 'equal time' with the liberal
media and as Rush says "I AM equal time".

John SeitzLer
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:04:44 GMT

In <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....

Well now you've done it!

There you go, trumpeting the issues again, when everyone knows the
American people don't want to hear about the issues!

<grin> 

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.

And should I mention the Tri-Lateral Commission....? <g>

Michael
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:85 misc.test:12778 talk.bizarre:37061
From: reriksso@klaava.Helsinki.FI (era eriksson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:56:14 GMT
Organization: .ObJoke

In article <bazyar.720986785@teal> bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:
 > You must be one of those people, like Clinton, who think the United States
 > worthy of disgust.  If it's so bad here, you're welcome to move to, say,
 > the remains of the Soviet Union, South Africa, Angola, China, Bosnia,
 > all those bastions of free men where socialist and dictatorial policies
 > were proven to cause social breakdown.  Get a life, "liberals".

Those are not the only places you could move to, you know. :-)

Anyhow, tho the US may well be worthy of disgust, I think you're
stretching "disgust" a little too far. You can be patriotic and still
not like +everything+ about your country (I'll leave out the obvious
examples of things you could dislike... and also some that you probably
actually DO dislike). 

You know, even Americans I would guess you'd stomp on as well beyond
betrayal of their country come off as religious patriots compared to
lots of people on this side of the old pond. 

-- 
/* era */

-- 
era eriksson      .ObQuote: <none>    .ObDiscl: I rarely know what I'm doing
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:97 misc.test:12790 talk.bizarre:37085
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 1992 22:33:48 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <Bx9u6z.A8@sti.com> alaric@sti.com (Phil Stracchino) writes:
>In article <Bx9K01.2B5@ssesco.com>, nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
>] In article <Bx9F6o.Mx.1@cs.cmu.edu>, hopkins@cs.cmu.edu (Don Hopkins) writes:
>] |> Michael Le Houllier writes:
>] |>    >> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
>] |> 
>] |> If *THAT* is the best reason you can think of to re-elect that liar, 
>] |> then you should be glad that he got what he deserved! 
>] 
>] 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.  Many of the Clinton votes I saw (not necessarly
>] you) were actually anti-Bush votes.  I don't consider that right.

That's one of the problems with most voters. They keep looking for
Mr. RIGHT when they should realize they're going to get Mr. LESS-WRONG.
(It's interesting that most people, as they get older, learn that in
relationships, they're not going to get someone perfect. They're going to
get someone they can tolerate, deal with, care about, even when it's not
flawless. But they seem to forever nurture some kind of adolescent
fantasy when it comes to their presidential candidates. For God's sake,
children, grow up and understand that those people running for
President are every bit as human as YOU are!)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hellmerj@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Jeffrey N Hellmers)
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:00:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.010712.7206@news.stolaf.edu> hellmerj@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Jeffrey N Hellmers) writes:
>In article <8NOV199204085318@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.225848.28543@news.stolaf.edu>, hellmerj@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Jeffrey N Hellmers) 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. 
>>> 
>>>Well, as many people have pointed out, this is probably not a wise thing to
>>>say.  It is also inaccurate.
>>> 
>>>The poster, when talking about killing our nation's top leaders, incorrectly
>>>lists the line of succession to the presidency.  It should be Bush, Quayle,
>>>Foley (speaker of the house) and then President Pro Tempore of the Senate, NOT
>>>Secretary of State Baker.  Baker would come after the President Pro Tem. of the
>>>Senate, who I believe is Robert Byrd, but I could be wrong.  
>>
>>1) Isn't it George Mitchell?
>>
>>2) Baker is no longer Secretary of State anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>Dave
>>
>
>Mitchell is the Senate majority leader.  Baker IS the Secretary of State.  He
>will be until on or soon after Jan. 20th (when Clinton names a new one).
>
OOPS!  Let me correct myself (well, I had a little help actually) before this
gets out of hand.  Baker isn't sec. of state.  Probably everyone remembered
that he resigned except me.  Please forgive my stupidity.


>


-- 
         Jeffrey Hellmers            "Trouble is son, the farther you run, the
        hellmerj@stolaf.edu           more you feel undefined, for what you have         St. Olaf College             left undone, and more, what you've left
       Northfield, Minnesota          behind." Stephen Sondheim, INTO THE WOODS

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:61 talk.bizarre:36953
From: alaric@sti.com (Phil Stracchino)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Keywords: Oops - crosspost
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:37:10 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.


Oops, sorry folks...   didn't notice this thread had been cross-posted
to talk.bizarre and misc.test.  (Why misc.test, for Pete's sake?)  I
plead a buggy newsreader as excuse for not noticing it sooner.


-- 
      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:38 talk.bizarre:36891
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J.  Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:16:37 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1992Nov5.181512.5296@dsd.es.com>, sbender@navajo.dsd.es.com writes:
| I supported the Republican campaign during this election on
| the basis of its moral stance as opposed to its economic stance
| or George Bush personally (yet voted for Bush as a result).[...]

The Republican campaign's MORAL STANCE?

You mean the moral stance that supports persecution of gay
people, non-Christians, and anyone the least bit
non-traditional?  You mean the moral stance that ran a nasty
smear-filled campaign that attempted to start a rumor during the
last week of the campaign that Clinton was having an affair?
You mean the moral stance that gave us twelve years of utterly
corrupt government and an oxymoronic Justice Department?

You supported THAT?

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com          C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If you meant what you said in your article, I'd suggest you seek out 
psychiatric or spiritual guidance.  You may end up as a criminal 
statistic."--Russell Lawrence
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Gloat
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.161512.6902@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, 
leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti) writes...
> 
>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?
> 
I don't think that description fits their god.  Their god is a 
pitiful, helpless has-been who's been kicked out of public schools, among 
other failings.

Or as a current bumper sticker says: "Save you?  God can't even cure acne!"

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 17:24:44 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1de87kINNgp2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> jimmo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (James Lowell Mohr) writes:
>
>I don't agree. Reagan didn't trust Bush. Although he was CIA chief for a number
>of years and had alot of knowledge and experience will the intelligence 
>community and international affairs, Reagan did not really value his opinions. 
>Why else did Reagan exclude Bush from the Iran-Contra dealings? Bush would have
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>been an invaluable source of advice and council. The only reason Reagan would
>have excluded him was that he didn't trust Bush. You can't honestly think that
>Ol' Ron just wanted to keep George's nose clean.

    Um, aren't we assuming facts not in evidence here?  There is ample, and
mounting, evidence that Ol'George was not "out of the loop" at all on the
Iran-Contra fiasco, his assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.  I
think the investigations about to begin on this very question will be most
enlightening.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre