HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:36:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.144337.26690@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Exit polls showed that some 25% of the people voting were "strongly
> influenced" in their choice of candidate BY THE CONVENTIONS.  After
 
Sorry, but I think those numbers are dubious, just like I don't believe
that 30% of the people decide in the voting booth, a number which is
sometimes thrown around.  
 
> And issues like abortion weren't pretty far down the list, either.
> For people who voted for Clinton, I think issues like abortion came
> something like second (with the deficit 3rd).  Perot voters showed the
 
What poll is that?  Exit polls I've seen put the abortion issue a very low
fifth.  
 
> Sounds to me like people were pretty concerned about social issues
> there, except for people who voted for Perot.
 
I think there was a lot of hype in the media about how the tone of the
Republican conventions turned voters off, but I don't think there is much
evidence to support that.
 
I'm not saying it wasn't offensive.  I just don't think social issues were
very important to people in this election.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: rogers@rosencrantz.osf.org (Andrew Rogers)
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Organization: HICAM/OSD
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:21:08 GMT

In article <10251@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>Just thought I'de make a snide comment about ABC and the accuracy of their
>exit polls.
>
>Last night, the very first state that ABC announced the results in, minutes
>after the polls closed was Georgia, and they put it in the Clinton
>column.
>
>As of 7:30 this morning, those fools down at the state house.  The ones
>who actually bothered to count the votes even after ABC told them it was
>all over are saying that Bush has won Georgia, narrowly.

According to this morning's figures (99% of the precincts reporting), Clinton
did in fact win Georgia (44% - 43%).

AWR
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22867 alt.politics.marrou:2138 talk.politics.misc:58480 alt.politics.clinton:16073
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:45:15
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Nov5.195316.25441@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: aberman@cs.washington.edu's message of Thu, 5 Nov 92 19:53:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.195316.25441@beaver.cs.washington.edu> aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:
-> In article <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
-> 
-> 
-> >What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
-> >believe that Bill Clinton should be President.
-> 
-> Ok, look everyone, let me tell you what a "mandate" is:
-> 
-> If Clinton had won by 1 vote, he would have a mandate.

	No.  A mandate would be a very strong answer that the American
people want what is in Clinton's platform.  Less that half of the
people voting for him is not strong but rather feeble.

-> Clinton can take *anything* he has said during his campaign
-> and say the following:
-> 
-> 	"I campaigned on XXXXX, and I won the election.  More
-> people voted for me than for anyone else and I have earned the
-> right to try my stated programs."
-> 
-> Sorry, all you right-wing Republicans, that's the way the American
-> System works. The President gets an enormous amount of power
-> by virtue of being president, *not* by virtue of how many people
-> voted for him.  All it takes is someone willing to use that power.
-> Anyone wanna guess whether Clinton is the type to use power given
-> to him?  

	The president can't do what Clinton has said he's going to do.
He must have congress do it for him, and the representatives are going
to look at how much their people want what Clinton is going to
recommend.  A weak vote means much of it will never happen.

-> Here's a prediction that should warm the hearts of all the moderates
-> in the world who were scared by the rise of the right-wing Buchanan/
-> Robertson/Limbaugh crazies:

	As Rush Limbaugh says, if you have resorted to name calling
only, you have run out of substance.  Besides, these people are completely
different and can't be grouped together.


-> 	Through the Reagan/Bush years, the nuclear-freeze/radical-unions/
-> democratic-socialist/pro-revolutionary-central-america groups all
-> suffered greatly in power and numbers.   Although I disagree with
-> many of the stated aims of the above groups, and although I considered
-> many of them unreasonable/crazy, I do not consider them more crazy
-> than the Buchanan/Robertson/Limbaugh crowd.
-> 
-> I expect by 1996, Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson will be *far* less powerful
-> than they are today.  That's the effect of a successful presidency on his
-> opposition.  And I fully expect Clinton to be successful. His model is Roosevelt,
-> not Carter.

	It will be just the opposite.  Election of a Democrat will
rally the Republican party.  Competition creates strength not
weakness.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Summary: Better than Reagan!
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:03:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: world
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1den96INNom2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

>  Wow!  Now we have a real "education" President in Bill Clinton.  Someone
>who uses proper English words like "How're" when communicating to millions
>of Americans in his campaign commercials (How're you doing?).

At least he can spell potato! And he doesn't have reality problems - like
RR thinking he took part in the liberation of Auschwitz! or that third rate
World War II movies were real history. Do you want to compare the "education"
standards of the lifeguard with the economics degree and boy wonder with
Clinton?

>Maybe he
>wants the Arkansas dialect of English to become the official language of
>the US.  I can see it now.  In six months the White House is going to look
>like the set from The Beverly Hillbillies.  Chelsea will have all her
>"pets" living on the White House lawn and in the swimming pool.   (^:}

Better than having Robertson or Buchanon in - I can see it now, witch burnings
on the White House lawn! Gays in Stocks in the park across the street. Women
in ankle length dresses on pain of flogging.

And what the hell is wrong with an Arkansas accent? Got something against the
way half America talks? (the Arkansas accent is shared right across the South
and West hence the number of poor white trash that speak it)


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  At dawn with staff in hand I climbed the crags,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  At dusk I made my camp amoung the mountains.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Only a few peaks rise as high as this house,
One China One Korea One Eire32  Facing the crags, it overlooks winding streams.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 18:16:01 GMT

In article <BxAHHH.2u5@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
>                                                Government service have
>a perverse tendency to go up during harder economic times due to the
>gov't providing safety-net services in greater amounts with concommitant
>increased bureaucracy. 

That's not perverse; it's almost understandable.  What's perverse is
how government services go up even in good economic times.




Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:17:44 GMT

It's ironic that the Veteran's Day commemoration now in progress at the 
Vietnam Memorial consists of the reading of the names of the fallen
servicemen. It was an identical type of "demonstration" in Grosvenor
Square in London, December 1969, that caused Bush to react so viscerally.
Then, Bill Clinton and others read the names of the victims in a somber
ceremony on the steps of the American Embassy.

No, George, nice try but you did not uphold the honor of the Presidency.
I suggest you might stop holding back and have a good cry, for the
sake of your viscera. While you're at it, you might rethink the lesson
of Vietnam. See you in court.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23747 misc.legal:19898 talk.politics.misc:60053
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:21:23 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <3982@randvax.rand.org> jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) writes:
>None of the suggestions so far has the potential for making a dramatic
>statement that the nomination of a professor from Norman, OK would have.

One would think that a liar majority in Congress and White House would
be enough. But esending liars to the Supreme Court - wow, what a statement.
Solidarity with the dissembler vote I guess. :-)

>Can you picture Sen. Spector and Sen. Hooowwwelll Heeeeeffflinnn
>interrogating Anita Hill again?

Or Anita Hill explaining why the Fletcher report contradicted her testimony?
Why the initial statement of her friend had her complaining about her
bosses behavior 5 months *before* she met Thomas? 
And how she is using her $10,000 a pop speaking fees and new-found income.

Or Justice Blackmun or O'Connor trying to send her out for coffee?
hmmm.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 00:30:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Bob Blackshaw (bob1@cos.com) wrote:
: In <1992Nov05.174539.32187@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
: >Humans are also social animals and will willingly help and take care of
: >each other.  You socialists just have this strange notion that making a profit
: 
: Sure, just read the posts in this newsgroup - the willingness to help and
: care are overwhelming. :-/

Repeat after me:  Usenet is not the real world.

: Really? Then who is it that Business Week, Fortune, WSJ. etc are
: campaigning for, since they all state the same thing - real wages are
: below 1977 levels.

If you pick the "right" year to compare to, you can "prove" whatever you
want.

: I know that 'free enterprise' is a shibboleth here, but why do I have
: so much trouble distinguishing it from the jack system [as in f**k you,
: jack - I'm all right].

If more people would use their hands to do something besides hold them out,
they might be all right too.  And it's our fault for letting them think that
the government owes them a comfortable living.

: Free enterprise (or someone) has us building
: bridges with 19th century technology (steel and concrete) at great
: expense when most countries do it better and quicker with pre-stressed
: concrete in one third of the time.

How much of this is due to protecting the steel and concrete industries in this
country?  We have very little real free enterprise actually.

: We spend millions in all the wrong
: things in the inner cities when the same money could clean them up.
: We wage a phony war on drugs that has only managed to destroy the 4th
: and 5th amendments, the list is endless.

Well everybody has their favorite projects to waste money.  The WOD is one of
the stupider ones, because it does no good.

: Maybe Clinton scares you folks, but another 4 years of the Republicans
: terrifies me.

They both scare me, because there's not that much difference between the two.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a 
 building?" -- TMBG
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22607 talk.politics.misc:58158 tx.politics:6997
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:09:46 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov04.233312.37383@watson.ibm.com> johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.140245.23190@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>                                                             You might
>>find looking into the idea of 'full costing' interesting (in addition
>>to a close look at 'free riders' and externalities, both good and
>>bad). 

>I didn't find it particularly interesting.  For example I don't see their
>relevance to the government artificially inflating the price of gasoline.

Then you didn't understand what you looked at.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:10:00 GMT

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:


>Yes indeed.  Among other things, it is just as illegal for Walsh to
>accept gifts from private citizens as it was for North, and the total
>value of the discounts he got from the Watergate is larger than
>thevalue of the security fence he prosecuted North for accepting from
>Secord.

Hey, anyone want to take up the tax evasion charges against Bush
for his fraudulently claiming a hotel room in Texas as his home?
$200,000 is the estimate on what he saves each year by doing this.
A bit more cut-and-dry than a security fence or cheap lodging at
a hotel.  Oh, but that would be against our indominatable president,
who shall remain nameless and blameless.  And it would be political.
And wrong.  Let's just drop it and get back to trivialities.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:25:19 GMT

In article <1dm90nINNheb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>  Led by Senator Dole, the media revealed this weekend evidence of a
>smoking gun linking "independant" counsel Walsh to the Clinton Campaign.
>A Clinton press release concerning the new indictment levied against
>Weinberger by Walsh on Friday, October 30, was dated October 29, 1992!
>Bill Clinton refused to comment, while his staff used the excuse that the
>date on the release had been a typographical error.  RIGHT!  And Richard
>Nixon "accidentally" erased some of the tapes.  [...]

And the release of Iranian emabassy hostages on Reagan's Inauguration was 
mere coincidence!!  :-)

	[excerpt from the quoted release]
>>      The new indictment filed today by Independent Counsel Lawrence
>> Walsh is the smoking gun showing that George Bush lied to the
>> American people about his role in the arms-for- hostages affair.

So, what have you shown us?
(1) Bush definitely lied.
(2) Republican Walsh may have a leaky staff (much like congress) and the 
      Clinton group find out about the indictment a day earlier (big deal).
(3) Or the Clinton group maybe made a typo  (big deal).

Point (1) bothers me a lot.  Point (2) and/or point (3) sounds like 
typical Washington.  Thanks for confirming I voted for the best person.

If you seriously believe there was a Clinton/Walsh conspiracy against 
Bush, then you should also readily believe that there was a Reagan/Khomeini 
conspiracy against Carter.  Anything else would be inconsistent.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:01:19 EST

>From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
>Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 23:28:00 GMT

>I survived Reagan; I cheered when he was shot.  I'm not proud of it,
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!
>but it's so.  Maybe you can mature as well, and learn to listen to the
>ideas of others without attacking them.  There are many valid views
>of any situation.  It's attitudes like yours that are destroying your
>party.


Are you nuts??? List,en this election was the first time anyone I ever
voted for won the Presidency. I despised Reagan/Bush but would never stoop
so low as to 'cheer' when they get shot at by some kook. It embarasses me
as a Democrat to have to be equated with people like this that advocate
assassination. You work at JPL, try to present yourself in public in a 
manner which is representative of a dignified institution (I used to work
there, I know).

-Garrett


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton
From: belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:35:41 GMT

rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:


>>>I just hope the 81% who didn't vote Perot remember to not complain
>>>when taxes go up and Congress gives itself another pay raise.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Uhmmm.  What are you talking about?  Perot proposed the largest tax
>>increases of any of the candidates.

>Ross proposed increase in use (gas) tax, not income tax, right?

He was going to raise both.  Raise income taxes on the top bracket to
bring in $31 billion, and raise regressive gas tax on middle and lower
classes to bring in $158 billion.  

dave

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22926 alt.politics.marrou:2146 talk.politics.misc:58549 alt.politics.clinton:16149
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:43:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: gsmith@clio.uucp's message of 06 Nov 92 10:21:45 -0400

gsmith@clio.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt) writes:
>In article <#h==RV-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>None of what you have said disputes the comment that Clinton did
>>*NOT* receive a mandate.
>
>If a "mandate" requires a majority of the popular vote, Nixon didn't
>have one in 1968.  The relevence of that turned out to be
>approximately nil.

Apples and oranges.  In 1968, it was abundantly clear to *everyone*
that every single vote Wallace got came from Nixon.  One can make no
such determination about whose votes Perot siphoned off.

Not that this means Nixon *did* have a mandate.  A "mandate" isn't an
either-or proposition, anyway.  It exists (or does not exist) in
varying strengths.  If Clinton has one at all, it's quite weak.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23617 talk.politics.misc:59842
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:39:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Nov8.030451.26863@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>They showed the Iran-Contra memo right before the election because it
>was RELEASED (as part of the Weinberger indictment) RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Why did Walsh et. al. rush to reindict Weinberger.  The reindictment came down
barely a month after the original conviction was thrown out.  This process
normally takes a lot longer than this.  Does anybody know if the prosecuters
even have any new information or are they hoping to get a plea bargain by
bankrupting Weinberger.

The press and everybody in Washington had known about the memo for months,
they even knew roughly what was in it.  There was nothing new in the memo.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: That issue in Oregon (?)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:56:17 GMT

In article <aelman.720933858@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) writes:
>dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
>
>>Heard a lot of hype beforehand, but not since the election...
>>there was an issue the the Northwest regarding classifying
>>homosexuality as an aberration, or something like that.  How did
>>that one turn out?
>
>Last I heard, it lost by about 10 percentage points.  Pretty
>scary...but at least it lost. :-)

I wonder if it would have been better if it had passed?  Better to
draw battle lines sooner rather than later....


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]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics