HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Percentages and such like
In-reply-to: ssc@nwu.edu's message of Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:10:59 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<Bx8As9.6q4@beach.csulb.edu> <1992Nov5.211059.22896@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:24:57

Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch!  Clinton won, and no re-re-re-re-analysis of
the percentages or raw numbers is going to change it.

The problem in this election is that no one was passionately FOR
anyone.  Ok, I'll give you the Marrou forces, but otherwise almost
everyone was voting against someone more than for someone else.  Perot
got his 19% because everyone knew, whether they admitted it or not,
that Clinton would win.  The Bush Leaguers could vote for Perot and
send a message of dissatisfaction since their guy wasn't going to win
anyway.  The Clintoniques could send the same message because their
guy wasn't going to lose anyway.

I do not subscribe to any "mandate" for anything except term limits in
this election.  I wonder what effect a dispassionate electorate will
have on policy for the next four years.  I think we should put it to
rest and give the guy a chance.  We, most of us, don't want to suffer
severe economic hardship just to allegedly prove that Clinton was the
wrong choice, do we?

So let's talk about Rush: is he gonna keep on losing weight do you
think?

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Remember ...
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:23:15 GMT

In article <1dmeaqINNkks@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.171504.29961@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>	[Things about Al Gore's brain deleted]
>>
>>Ted
>
>Wasn't this the same Al Gore that stood up with his Wife Tipper
>about 10 years ago, and said that rock music has encoded satanic
>messages, when listened to backwards? I think that they wanted
>to ban certain genres of music, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>Our VP-elect and this guy are the same person, correct?

Frank Zappa for Chief of Staff!  
-- 
Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice (301) 220-2020
doug@digex.com   Dialup: (301) 220-0462 Login as "new"   Email info@digex.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." -DEVO
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten)
Subject: Re: WAFFLE, WAFFLE, WAFFLE  Was Re: For-All-You-Republicans
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:16:36 GMT

Now, I know you Republican folks have a problem with "e"'s,
but isn't it usually too many, not too few?
At any rate, if you're going to be so high and mighty in your 
accusation of someone else as a hypocrite, you might as well
at least spell it right.  There's an ***E*** on the end.

(sorry to add to the drivel on this newsgroup (not that this drop
in the bucket will make much difference), but I had to hit that one...)

___________________________________________________
And now for something completely different... 

IT'S NOT ENTIRELY ***ANYBODY'S*** FAULT!!!  What the F**K good does
it do to call joe democrat a hypocrite, and blame Congress, and
call joe republican a hypocrite, and blame the Pres.??  Now, I
know that none of you are actually looking to LEARN anything from
all this (or you wouldn't be posting the kind of CRAP that you're posting),
but couldn't we do something a little more constructive?

Since responses to this question tend to be "What are we going to do?
All we can do is talk...", allow me to make a suggestion!  (If this
actually works, I'll run for president myself.  Getting all you hotheads
to cooperate on anything has got to be more difficult than any
foreign relations possibly could.)

We've all been arguing about "what Clinton's going to do/not going
to do" and "What Bush would've done/already did", which has been
entirely useless.  How about some new suggestions?  I'd really love
to see some real IDEAS on how to fix this country's problems.
And instead of "You Moron, that won't work! You must be stupid!"
 I'd like to see responses like "Hm.  That wouldn't work because of
X, Y and Z, but if you changed it around like this..."  Then, if you
all want to actually GET SOMETHING DONE, we can SEND A BLOODY 
PROPOSITION TO THE CAPITOL!  Of course, this is way to idealistic to
ever work, but I had to at least suggest it.  I'd love to see like
70% of us agree on something and each make 20 photocopies of a 
proposition and send it to the White House.  That'd be fun.  :-)

				-- David


From: drp@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Randy Peterson)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 19:29:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Listen to this feeling. It's strong.  And bite me.
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush



	The Silence is Deafening (sp) Who is Not Talking

	Remember back in 1988. Lots of progressives were talking
	about issues. Rev. Jackson, Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, etc.
	Why are they NOT saying much NOW ?  Also Hillary was doing
	and saying lots of stuff up until about 6 months ago. Then
	virtual TOTAL SILENCE. This silence is very disconcerting.

	Why are the MOST VOCAL and LIBERAL (PROGRESSIVE) members of
	the Democratic Party QUIET ?  Are they NOT in CONTROL NOW ?
	Is the Democratic Party a CENTRIST or MODERATE party now ?

	I really doubt it, the problem is that LIBERALs DO NOT GET
	ELECTED President.

	Good Luck America.....

	Randy Petersen

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dash@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (O.P.P)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Reply-To: dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:10:59 GMT

In article <YOUNG.92Nov11132333@ssdd475a.erim.org>, young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
|> In article <BxIIH1.J98@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
|> 
|> >   A sincere tax break on dividends is always a good idea. But a healthy,
|> >   trading stock market also helps.
|> 
|> Ok, now I still need some clarification.  (By the way, I don't think
|> you answered either of my earlier questions, but that can wait.)
|> 
|> A healthy, trading stock market only provides investment to businesses
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
|> that are issuing new stocks.  The stock markets in this country are
   ----------------------------

|> overwhelmingly trading in previously issued stocks.  The trading
|> provides absolutely nothing to the issuer.  Where does the investment
|> in anything productive come from?  Recall that most jobs are provided
|> by small companies, almost none of which issue stock.  A healthy
|> market may provide a paltry few jobs for traders but nothing that will
|> give the US economy or the manufacturing base any help in competing
|> with the global market.
|> 
|> Have we moved up to Lesson 2 yet?
 
Kind Sir. On the surface this may be true, but astute managers in some
Fortune 500 company orchrestrated massive stock Buy Backs (chrysler,
and coke are a few that come to mind) when they thought their
company stock was undervalued (typical of a weak overall stock market).
Hence, when the market recovered, they had tidy profits to provide gloss
to their balance sheet. A healthy balance sheet turns into a better
credit rating, which helps get better financing,  which turns into 
resources to further expand, which means more jobs...

Now on to Lesson 2.

                                     O.P.P
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13441 alt.politics.clinton:16279 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8112 alt.rush-limbaugh:9192
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:26:14 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Nov5.171836.18358@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.194747.1486@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>
>>Please don't spout off this Republican rhetoric which flies in the face of
>>most historical perspectives, statistics and studies. It is naive to
>>believe
>>that the rich will do the right thing without prompting. Recent history
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>is full
>>of cases of great crimes done in the name of the almighty dollar (junk
>>bond scandals, corporate raiding, <list too large to give here>). Trusting
>>the rich to do the right thing is the central precept of supply-side
>>economics. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work in the real world.
>
>You said it. The rich must be *prompted* -- not told -- to do the right
>thing. If you offer tax breaks for those who spend their money helping
>the economy, then the rich win, and the working class win. I like a
>win-win situation.

What exactly can the rich do with their money that would be BAD for the
economy?  If they spend it they provide jobs for those who produce what is
bought.  If they save it they provide capital to others to produce.  The only
BAD thing I can think of is to bury their money in the back yard and I suspect
that they wouldn't be rich if they did this.

>-- 
>Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
>Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
>Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
>Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and
 act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it."
			  
                                      P.J. O'Rourke - A Parliament of Whores

===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13568 alt.politics.clinton:16478 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8201
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:46:28 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

Gee, not mention that FACT that the Democrats were the first ones to bring
up the word "waffling", at the DNC.

Jennifer
.sig has been reduced to one line so as not offend the Liberals.  Phhhhbbbtt!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Simon says...Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:54:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.213305.9177@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Ok Steve, I will bite: Just what do you "wack"? And, are you really proud of
this reputation?
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		That Vince guy.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13793 alt.politics.clinton:16911
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Net Shills for Bush-Quayle: Caught Ya, Guys
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:03:54 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov10.200523.10283@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu
(Eileen Simpson) writes: 
> 
> The Newsweek Election issue arrived today, and confirmed what I have long
> suspected:  many of the posters on the net that supported Bush were
> shilling pre-packaged attack strategies straight from the Bush-Quayle
> campaign.  
> 
> Isn't it amazing that some very creative people on this net came up with
> *exactly* the argument that Dan Quayle wanted to use in the final days of
> the campaign?  Isn't it even more amazing that they came up with it at
> exactly the same time Quayle was trying to sell it to Baker?
> 
> Synchronicity, man!  What amazing coincidence that the independent thinkers
> of the net came up with an *identical* argument!  And it wasn't the first
> time, either.  I bet we could come up with at least a dozen tacky attacks
> that Bush-Quayle planted on the net thru their willing mouth-pieces, but it
> would probably be more in the spirit of gracious winning to just note it
> and move on.
> 
> I expect all you folks who pushed the Quayle party-line (sent to you via
> e-mail not doubt) will now insist that the tactic was legitimate.  

Oh, puh-leeeze.  Take it to alt.conspiracy.  I could make a stronger argument 
out of tissue paper.  I could also make a convincing case that the networks 
(Anchors Behind Clinton and the Clinton News Network) got their marching orders 
from Jimmy the Greek Carville.  

OTOH, it is unsurprising that you cannot believe that any non-liberal can 
think for themselves.  <slick grin>

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13238 alt.politics.clinton:15931 alt.politics.elections:22744 talk.politics.misc:58332
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Remember ...
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 21:43:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Nov6.171504.29961@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>Oh.  So Algore has a brain even though that brain believes that 
>leopards have stripes and the automobile is the most dangerous  
>weapon on the planet? 

    Somehow, I'm more comfortable with Gore thinking that leopards have
stripes than with Danny-boy thinking that Mars has canals with water in
them.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:01:29 EST
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> Man, I can't believe the complaints I'm getting with my sig - isn't it amazing
> that for 12 years, Democrats have been ridiculing Reagan, Bush, Quayle, and 
> anything conservative, yet when they are finally victorious they allow no 
> dissent whatever? I was going to change this sig after about a week or so, 
> but since it's irritating so many whiny liberals, I'm going to keep it around
> for a while. 
> -- 
> John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>                            | Support the coup!
> CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
> Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |

John, actually we enjoy watching you sink into the cesspool of history. Glug,
glug...

-Garrett



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13147 alt.politics.clinton:15780 alt.politics.elections:22606 talk.politics.misc:58157 alt.politics.perot:5153
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:56:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear) writes:

>Bill Clinton -- Democrat          43,713,885
>George Bush -- Republican         38,150,812
>Ross Perot -- Independent         19,228,530
>Andre Marrou -- Libertarian          234,413 <----- This is a disaster...
>Bo Gritz -- Populist                  95,640
>Lenora Fulani -- New Alliance         70,810
>John Hagelin -- Natural Law           31,408
>Howard Phillips -- Wash. Taxpayers    29,677
>Lyndon LaRouche -- Independent        25,063
>Ron Daniels -- Independent            24,997

I had hoped better for Marrou.  He was hurt by Perot and the close race
between Bush and Clinton.  But to get only .2% of the vote...ouch.

 -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.flame
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: check THIS guy out
Organization: not in YOUR Texas, for sure.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:45:20 GMT

In article <exuptr.213.721002835@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.173736.20522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>>WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, BUTT-CHEESE.
>
>>BUSH LOST. He lost in the popular vote, he lost in the electoral vote,
>>he lost in the east, and he lost in the west. bush will no longer be
>>president in two short months.
>
>He didn't lose in Texas ;-)  Maybe we'll secede and make him OUR President.
>
>Get rid of Ann Richards NOW!

I got an idea -- how about Dallas County secedes from Texas?  I never have been
able to accept those spoiled brats up there as fellow Texans, anyway.

--PLH (you can have Bush, too -- get him out of just five miles away from *my*
southwest Houston neighborhood...)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: yystg@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (STEVE GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: WAFFLE, WAFFLE, WAFFLE  Was Re: For-All-You-Republicans
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Nov 1992 10:21 EST  

In article <LARRY.92Nov12133610@boris.webo.dg.com>, larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes...
> 
>Now here is a bunch of Democratic tripe.  This is exactly what Clinton
>and company did in their campaign.  Crying because the Republicans
>were beating up on them and then blaming the Republicans for
>everything bad in God's creation.  You Democrats always want it both
>ways.
> 
>Below you talk all about Republicans blaming the problems of our
>country on Democrats and taking the credit for the good things, and
>then follow by blaming Republicans for all the country's economic
>woes.  YOU ARE THE HYPOCRIT HERE.  These are the WAFFLING problems we
>are so afraid of.  Take a stand and stick to it.  Democrats have a
>problem with this and it is the reason I have trouble swallowing their
>hollow promises.  Practice what you preach.
> 
>Below I point out each hypocritical statement.

(Bunch of, sore losing, rush limbutthead, republican - "tax and spend 
democrats" bs -  deleted.)

The president signs the budget.  How can you blame anything on congress 
when the woose president can't play hardball?

Reagen and Bush - those "Extremely different presidents", had the same 
screwed up SIG/rich economic plans.

Flame ahead - I don't listen to anyone that sounds like rush limbutt.

S. Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Net Shills for Bush-Quayle: Caught Ya, Guys
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:17:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.234736.833@news.acns.nwu.edu> ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung) writes:
>
>By this logic, I wonder if "Eileen Simpson" is a real person at all.  Isn't
>it a wierd coincidence that she started posting 'disillusioned Republican'
>messages at the same time that the Dems were trying to push this Republican
>bandwagon idea?  Hmm? [*]
>
>
>* As another poster said, read as much humor into this as you want.

Bush was really one of Ours, planted to bring down the government.  So
was Perot for that matter (well, we were beaming messages into his
head through little receivers placed in his fillings.  Ah, the
miracles of techology!).  We, the people of Planet Zitag, are really
in control of everything.  Resistance if futile.


And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Dear Democrats & Repubs too
Date: 5 Nov 1992 13:19:12 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov4.181605.178@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.042923.7933@athena.cs.uga.edu>, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>
>> Well, ya know, there won't be anyone else to blame anymore...and it won't be
>> Billy's fault either...although Congress will really be the one to blame,
>> Billy will take the biggest hit.
>
>Well, that's only as it should be.  Everything bad that happened after 
>January 1981 was Reagan's fault; everything bad after January 1989 was 
>Bush's fault.  This is the "fact" that the left has been chanting for
>twelve years.  They can't change it now, because they chanted this lie so
>loudly for so long, it has assumed the air of truth. 
>
>And if it isn't Democrat Clinton's fault, then who ya gonna blame?   The
>Democratically-controlled Congress?  Talk about hoist on their own petard.
>
How about if they blame assholes like you? Paul, in case you haven't noticed,
*alot* of democrats ARE NOT blaming Bush for the recession, they're blaming
him for NOT RECOGNIZING that the country was in deep shit and badly needed
some leadership to get it out again. They're Blaming Bush for being proud
of his inability to compromize with congress to get *something* done. In case you
were asleep at the time, 90% of the nation (democrats and republicans alike)
were in support of Bush during the Gulf War, primarily because he *was* a
leader and he *had* a goal. After the war, he rested on his accomplishments
and ignored what was going on in the country, that there were alot of people
hurting because of the economy and social/ethinc tensions. *Many* people
felt betrayed because he *failed* to recognize what to them was painfully
obvious...

If after the Gulf War Bush had said "look, we have some problems here
at home, and here is what I plan to do to solve these problems..." I, and
alot of other people would have said "great, lets get started..." as it
was, he continued to claim things were just fine and things continued
to get worse.

Typical Republican tactics...try to figure out who's to blame instead
of trying to get the job done...

>------
>
> Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
> Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
> "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Witch Hunt Time!!
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:33:03 GMT

In article <Bx7J3A.3GA@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>  writes:
>
>
>I Really hope that you have sold your stock and other assets. Because when
>Bill-ery gets in office he's gona take ALL your money....
>
>Laugh now,, Cause we're gona cry LATER!


Hmm. Does this mean you are in the upper income tax bracket?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13365 alt.politics.clinton:16110 alt.politics.elections:22897 talk.politics.misc:58516