HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject:  PROVE IT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:22:45 GMT

>Now with the Democrats in control, they're going to unleash 
>all the years of pent-up frustration and hungering for social 
>programs and public mandates at a time when we need them the
>least. The new burdens that Clinton and Congress will place 
>on businesses, such as mandated health care and family leave, 
>are going to hurt US competitiveness and drive the economy 
>into the ground.  

You can't prove this, only time will tell oh ye doom and gloom foresayer.
Why do you think that everything will actually pass?

>What can be done to de-rail the Democrat's efforts to turn
>this country into a socialist's paradise?

I'm especially sick of people claiming that Democrats are going to turn this
country into a socialist's paradise.  Relative socialism might be achieved.
By that i mean, for example, that not all of the new tax breaks would go to
people rich enough to afford them.  But other than that, how in the world do
you think it would be possible to achieve socialism in this country?  Show me
how it would be possible to do that, show me how the inertia would be affected,
show me people in this country who would actually vote for a socialist state.
It ain't gonna happen.

And what's wrong w/ allowing all of our people to be healthy?  Let's face it,
eventually anyone who can afford it pays for those who are disadvantaged
(physically, economically, etc).  It's either in taxes to pay for their needs,
in taxes to pay for their new jobs, in taxes to pay for the police to put them
in jail and then taxes to keep them alive in jail.  The solution that people
are willing to try, according to the latest election, is to try and educate
them and give them a chance at health (higher worker productivity when they
are healthy!), and give new businesses a better chance to start up in the first
place w/o having to show profit in the first 2 months (maybe some R&D even!),
and let those new businesses hire the people who finally had a chance to be
educated.  What's wrong w/ that?

The idea is to put as many people on non-government payroll as possible.  How,
exactly, to do that is unknown.  We're going to try something other than
Reagan-Bush economics for a little while.  Deal with it.


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: mlegare@wetware.com (The Steel General's Batsman)
Subject: Re: Gloat (correction)
Organization: Cappo Ferra 6
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:53:03 GMT

tgpt_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Guptill) writes:

] In <1992Nov7.162913.3495@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> tgpt_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Guptill) writes:
] 
] >In <1992Nov7.035429.22395@wetware.com> mlegare@wetware.com (The Steel General's Batsman) writes:
] 
] 
] >>ladies and gentlemen,
] >>if you have followed-up to an article in this thread
] >>you have just fallen victim to a news bomb
] 
] >	Is it just me, or did somebody just make a few enemies?
] 
] >Tom.  (And it's *not* just me.)
] 


never mind the fact that you f-keyed your own post, which is 
lame in the extreme.

BUT

the most you can do
(being electronic data is your medium)
is to annoy.

hell, that's why i posted the news bomb warning in the 
first place.  i LOVE pissing off people who think it's
infinitely clever to hose people who aren't aware of the
Newsgroups: line.

heh.


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:37:44 GMT

In article <BxIGxq.6MF@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William J. Taney) writes:
> I not only voted for Bill Clinton, I voted straight ticket
> democrat.....                                           
> William Taney
> 
> -- 
> *William Taney                * Friends don't let Friends Vote


Good, now if things go to hell, we know who to blame.... :-{)

Larry Billings
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:27 talk.bizarre:36864 alt.rush-limbaugh:9054
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Keywords: die
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:27:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Nov5.145747.26765@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 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.

I doubt that they are wrong. One minor point however, there is the outside
possibility that someone gained access to his account and decided to
post something that could result in big trouble for him - I have no clue
if this is the case but I find it unbelievable that anyone would be
so stupid as to threaten the life of the president in a public forum
such as this....


			gln



Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: pat@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:44:09 GMT

Foxvog Douglas (dfo@tko.vtt.fi) wrote:
>In article <BxAxJC.DFJ@ccu.umanitoba.ca> frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>>One final observation. I practically gagged when Clinton said he smoked
>>pot but didn't inhale. My respect for him went down. 
>
>My initial reaction was similar.  When I got to thinking i realized that
>he was a guy who didn't want to smoke but found himself in situations in
>which "everyone" else was smoking and felt pressured to join in.  So he
>faked it and passed on the joint.  He took some smoke into his mouth
>and tried not to inhale.  I know a woman who said that she behaved
>exactly the same way in that sort of situation (and from knowing her, i
>believe her).  So i don't think Clinton was lying.
>
>I do think he was stupid not to come out immediately and say what had 
>happened.  He certainly tried to avoid the issue, which only made it
>worse.

	In his interview with David Frost, Clinton explained
that was trying to inhale but, having never smoked before, found
himself unable to.  More to the point though, when Frost asked him
about his evasive-sounding answers about drug use, Clinton said
that he (Clinton) was "dumb as a post" for not just laying out
the facts at the beginning.

pat

--
"I have a cunning plan." -- Baldric
                                                             patrick m. ryan
     nasa / goddard space flight center / oceans and ice branch / hughes stx
                     pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov / zmpmr@charney.gsfc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:114 misc.test:12804 talk.bizarre:37112
From: autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:40:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.1des8vINNfmb
Organization: Silicon Graphics, St. Louis, MO
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgistl.stlouis.sgi.com

In article <1992Nov5.200827.18159@nmt.edu> stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds) writes:
>If Clinton is such an asshole, and will hose the nation like all of
>the people on this thread claim, then why did he BEAT THE HELL OUT OF
>BUSH IN THE ELECTION. People aren't stupid.
>
>Followups to this group, flames to /dev/null
>
>-Jr

You were obviously not around in 1974 were you?  Ford was defeated
for two reasons; one, he pardoned Nixon; two, the economy was in
trouble.  However, by the time Carter was finished with the country,
inflation was 20+% and unemployment was out of sight.   Now THAT, was
an economy in trouble.  In my opinion, the best person for the job is
never the one running for office.  The fact that Clinton got elected
has nothing to do with whether he will hose the nation.  AND, the
newly elected "rubber-stamp" congress will help one way or the
other.  I did not vote for him but I do hope that he does a good job
for the majority of citizens.

--
Larry Autry
Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
autry@sgi.com 
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:26 misc.test:12698 talk.bizarre:36863
From: gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:06:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Nov5.180642.4365
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1992Nov5.163050.1496@news2.cis.umn.edu> bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu () writes:
>
>As a foreigner myself, the republican seems to compete for the fall of
>their opponents, not for the sake of the country.  It sounds like they
>really embrace the politics of hatred, not compassion.

Yes, I am afraid you are correct.  In fact, it is very common for conservative
Republicans to openly make fun of the compassion expressed by liberal
Democrats.  This is why they use the expression "bleeding-heart liberal"
so often.  It is a popular way for conservatives to portray liberals as
being somehow weaker for the compassion they express.  In reality, such
name-calling tactics only appeal to the "weak-willed" members of  
society, which is why most Republican followers seem so insecure.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:310 talk.politics.misc:59553 alt.politics.clinton:16820
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Keynesian thing (was: A "New" Reich)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:41:36 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <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?

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:35:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.084313.2370@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
> In article <BxAxJC.DFJ@ccu.umanitoba.ca> frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
> >One final observation. I practically gagged when Clinton said he smoked
> >pot but didn't inhale. My respect for him went down. 
> 
> My initial reaction was similar.  When I got to thinking i realized that
> he was a guy who didn't want to smoke but found himself in situations in
> which "everyone" else was smoking and felt pressured to join in.  So he
> faked it and passed on the joint.  He took some smoke into his mouth
> and tried not to inhale.  I know a woman who said that she behaved

So you are saying he can't stand up to peer pressure???  I didn't drink when
I joined the Navy, and I recieved a lot of pressure, I stood up to it...
I almost had to fight about it two or three times, and once the guy was twice
my size, lucily for me he backed down when he saw my determination to fight
instead of drink.  I respect him even less if that is what he did, than for
smoking/drinking/parting.  BTW I did later drink (when I was ready and noone
was tring to force me) and even smoked a couple myself.  The act itself is
not that bad, lying about it or being too cowardly to tell his friends he
didn't want to is much worse.


> 
> I do think he was stupid not to come out immediately and say what had 
> happened.  He certainly tried to avoid the issue, which only made it
> worse.

Agreed.

> 
> >Brian Fristensky                | 
> 
> -- 
> doug foxvog     
> dfo@tko.vtt.fi   

Larry Billings

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:32 misc.test:12703 talk.bizarre:36873
From: jdb@crane.cis.ufl.edu (John Brothers)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:11:56 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>
>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.
>

  Well, when the economy saw unheard-of lows as the result of Bush's policies,
Democrats took the white house for the first time in 12 years.  Now we begin
a long period of Democratic administration, this time without that bothersome
Republican President.  So, I am inclined to agree with you, that if the
economy does see (new) unheard-of lows, that another changing of the guard
will occur.

>
>God bless,
>
>Michael
>
>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
>
>
>
>-- 
> Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
> (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
> GO BLUE JAYS!!!   BEAT THE BRAVES!!!!
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      \ 
	Commie Canadian supporter.   :-)
 
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: haas@wam.umd.edu (The Future Mr. Graf)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Perot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:55:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.045855.619@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>
>
>To all the Perot supporters thinking that Clinton would put Perot in
>his admin. in some capacity, think again.  I'll tell you why:
>At the time that Clinton made the comment about a possible Perot role
>in his admin., Perot hadn't yet started to be negative about Clinton.
>Then Perot started making chicken plucking jokes, and airing that 
>infomercial twisting Clinton's record in Arkansas.  Not to mention the
>fact that Perot cost Clinton a majority victory, now forcing Clinton
>to deal with republicans claiming that they represent 57% of the voters.
>The first and major indication that Clinton is pissed off at Perot?
>Notice that he NEVER mentioned Perot or the people who voted for him during
>his victory speech.  This is definatly a sign.  
>

     As I recall, Bush made the same pledge.  If reelected, there would
be a place for Perot on his team.  Perot hurt Bush, both by taking some
of his votes and by slamming him during the debates.  Now somehow I just 
don't think that Bush would be scooping up Perot if he had won.  Bush 
only reason for saying what he said was so that the Perot supporters who  
were expected to change their minds at the last point would switch and 
vote for Bush, with the idea that Perot would at least have a spot on 
his ticket.  Bush is JUST as guilty of that...  NEXT DISCUSSION  

-- 
***********************************************************************
* Jeffrey Haas     * We Come From The Land Of The Ice And Snow        *
* HAAS@WAM.UMD.EDU * From The Midnight Sun Where The Hot Springs Blow *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: williamf@umbc5.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:56:42 GMT

In article <BxBCG1.5tH@andy.bgsu.edu> dnebing@andy.bgsu.edu (Mr. Neb) writes:
>kumar@carleman.mit.edu (Sanjay Kumar) writes:
>> 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
>
>  The "foundation" he has left for Arkansas?  The chicken industry is now
>a foundation?  Manufacturing industries, now these make a foundation that
>could be used to help the state of Arkansas.
> 
 Given the cost of living in Arkansas I do think that the chicken industry
 is a net plus in Arkansas by improving their income level.  Look Arkansas
 has always been a poor state.  Initially after the Lousiana purchase the
 US didn't even want the area comprising Arkansas today since it was considered
 to be too harsh terrain.

>> under a limiting state constitution which limited ways in which he could
>> deal with the things.
>
>  By "limiting state constitution", you must be referring to the Balanced 
>Budget Ammendment that Arkansas has.  It's the only thing which controled 
>the governments' spending.

  No, he is referring to the state requirement that a 3/4 vote is required to
  raise personal income taxes.  Clinton took a lot of heat for raising 
  regressive taxes which he applied to education and welfare reform.  You 
  need to give him some credit for winning re-election 5 times-pretty 
  difficult histroically.  Another thing, that Balanced Budget Amendment you
  refer to isn't that at all.  Its a statute which initially had no enforcement
  teeth.  When Clinton regained the Governorship in '82 he also inherited a 
  budget deficit from the Republican governor.  Clinton then pushed through
  changes to the statute which strengthened the statute which still however
  can be breached fairly easily.
>> 
>  He's hardly a governor, and he'll also make a poor president.
>
  I sincerely hope you're wrong.  One thing that impresses me very much about
  Gov. Clinton is his toughness and resiliency.  He is a heck of a politician
  and I think that *can* mean as it did with Reagan that he'll be a heck of
  a president too.
              William
 --
Recession: your friend loses his job.  Depression: you lose your job.
Recovery: Bush loses his job.
My name is William and I'm a recovering depressive.


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: yystg@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (STEVE GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Clinton won; maybe (was Gloat)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 10 Nov 1992 14:59 EST  

In article <1992Nov8.175707.13087@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes...
>In article <1992Nov6.213556.8901@b30.ingr.com> rick@seminole.b30.ingr.com writes:
>>
>>I'm not sure of the numbers but these may be close,
>>
>>Clinton  43%
>>Bush     36%
>>Perot    19%
>>
>>So 57% of the people who voted, voted against Clinton.  So perhaps the will
>>of the people have spoken but the end result may not have been what the 
>>majority of the people wanted.  In other words the majority of the people did
>>not want Clinton.  Yes, I know, 62% voted against Bush, but this is a moot 
>>point since he lost anyway.  Of course you could argue that 62% voted for 
>>change.
>>
> 
>	The figures are right. I've been hearing the republicans go on
>about the 57% that voted against Cliton. Listen, the republicans have
>no more right to the Perot voters than the democrats do. I say its
>just as telling that 60% of voters voted against the INCUMBENT. Most
>people simply did NOT want George Bush. And even if you take the
>percent that voted for Perot, rounded it up to 20, split in in half
>and give 10 to Clinton and 10 to Bush the results still come out with
>Clinton ahead.

I believe the ABC exit polls gave the following breakdown on what Perot 
voters would have done had Perot not run:
38% - Bush
40% - Clinton
rest - neither

According to this, Clinton would of had a mandate, had Perot not run.

Besides, how can any of these crazy (read Bush supporters) people expect a
mandate with 3 major candidates????

S. Graham
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Promises, promises
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:48:36 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     On the front page of the 11/9/92 New York Times, there is a
piece entitled "Clinton, After Raising Hopes, Now Tries to Lower
Expectations."  In this piece, the major campaign promises made
by President-Elect Clinton are summarized as follows.

     1.  He said he would end welfare "as we know it."
     2.  He would restore America's industrial manufacturing base so 
     that good, high-paying jobs are widespread.
     3.  He would insure that no working family would fall below the 
     poverty line.
     4.  He would make "health care a right, not a privilege," for all
     Americans without subjecting businesses to an additional tax burden
     or rationing health care.
     5.  He promised to eliminate adult illiteracy in five years.
     6.  He promised to halve the Federal deficit in four years without
     raising taxes on the middle class or significantly cutting the
     Government entitlement programs that account for the bulk of 
     Federal spending.
     7.  He promised offering a modest tax break to the middle class.
     8.  He would guarantee all Americans either a college education or
     two years of vocational training after high school, under the 
     guidance of a national service program that would "solve the 
     problems of this country while educating a generation of Americans."
     9.  Mr. Clinton pledged to keep abortion legal while "making it as
     rare as possible."
     10.  He promised to end racial, religious, geographical, and sex-
     oriented divisions in society.
     11.  He promised to safeguard environmental concerns without 
     costing jobs.
     12.  He promised to protect the rights and privileges of workers 
     without costing business growth.

     Now I see what the Democrats were so excited about: "Read
my lips -- Utopia!" 

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:234 talk.politics.misc:59237
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton = Hitler (was: A New Reich)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 02:54:15 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, randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) says:

>
>Based on WHAT do you make the accusation that Clinton sees himself


      My experience with salesmen. :)

      I truly hope you DO come back and prove me wrong in 4 years.
      I am most assuredly not betting on this one, though.    


      Ask yourself this.  

           With 20% unemployment, with major trade wars in 
       progress, with racial violence and widespread riots,
       what kind of decisions would Mr. Bill make?

       I'm betting on the easy ones.

>as a savior?  During his campaign, I noticed a distinct LACK
>of claims of personal greatness or mission.  Whenever he
>approached grandiose statements (e.g. "The New Covenant"), he
>backed down.
>
>Clinton strikes me as someone who is very intelligent with a lot
>of political skill.  He's a politician- a good one.  A good
>politician is going to be calculating at times.  He's going to be
>a wheeler-dealer at times too.   All politicians are like that,
>including Perot.  Quite frankly, we need a guy like that now.
>We need someone who can get real legislation through Congress.
>
>-- 
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
>Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
>

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