HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:36:37 GMT

In article <Bx7rGq.43x@world.std.com> adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes:
> Bill Clinton, Dem 43,688,671 - 43 percent
> George Bush, GOP (i) 38,109,410 - 37 percent
> Ross Perot, Ind 19,089,432 - 19 percent
> Andrew Marrou, Oth 278,528 - 0 percent
> Lenora Fulani, Oth 211,742 - 0 percent
> Bo Gritz, Oth 97,601 - 0 percent
> John Hagelin, Oth 44,521 - 0 percent
> Howard Phillips, Oth 39,391 - 0 percent
> James Mac Warren, Oth 27,464 - 0 percent
> Lyndon LaRouche, Oth 25,688 - 0 percent
> Ron Daniels, Oth 25,404 - 0 percent
> Other, Other, 22,822 - 0 percent

It's a real landslide for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party!

Right.

What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
believe that Bill Clinton should be President.

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

How can you be ignorant of something you didn't know in the first place?
                                                      - Choo

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Silly Canadians
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:45:36 GMT

     This is a response to the "Silly Americans" thread started by a New 
Brunswickian (I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to refer to you 
eh-sayers as Canadians, so I'm practicing referring to you by your province).
     My favorite silly, arrogant Canadian story: during spring quarter, I took 
an upper-level geography course here at Ohio State. One of the best teachers in
the Geography Dept. is a Thunder Bay native and is such a tub-thumper for 
Canada that I wonder why he left in the first place. This particular professor 
happened to be lecturing to my class shortly after the Los Angeles riots. His 
topic was the spatial organization of Toronto, and he very, *very* smugly
informed us that the kind of riots that happened in L.A. could *never* happen
in a Canadian city for several reasons that I still have listed in a notebook
somewhere. Two days after his lecture, riots broke out in Toronto. Sadly, we in
the class never had a chance to ask him what happened. He probably would have 
blamed it on Americans somehow.
     The moral for all you soon-to-not-be-Canadians: chuck the attitude. You're
not better than we are. You're not worse than we are. Americans are more 
energetic as a people (after all, we actually *fought* for our independence); 
Canadians are more cultured and cosmopolitan (you probably know which way to 
hang the American flag). There's nothing wrong with continuing to snipe at one 
another, but let's do it in a spirit of fun. Eh?

                                             Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
From: davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,ics.views
Subject: You Got it
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:49:27 GMT



	Well, Clinton won...and its effect around the world has
	begun...

	Today on ABC Evening news with Peter Jennings...They showed
	a Big Party In Bagdad because of Bush's lost....

	Saddam even made a personal appearance and fired his sidearm
	into the air several times and called the NEW President:

	"A Power-hungry fool who changes colors more often than
	a chamelon and we will act now !"


	When I wrote my post (Subject: WHY We Shouldn't Vote for Clinton)
	I mentioned that  In a LA Times Story, State Dept. officials
	and other foreign policy experts could easily tell that Saddam
	wanted Clinton to win because he knows that Clinton doesn't have
	the experience, determination or personal ties with the leaders
	of the E.C and UN Security Council members to enforce the Peace
	Treaty after the Gulf War...and people like Dr. Leveson, doubted
	my claims...others even said that my claim was a "scare tactic"
	and so forth...

	Well, my fellow Americans....Saddam is throwing a party today
	and with Clinton's win...it ushers in a new era...an era in which
	Saddam will be more aggressive...and era in which the U.S. will
	have less influence in the events of the Middle East (and those
	who say that the Middle East is unimportant to us or that we
	should stay out, I say...you're
	wrong)...

	In Poland and the other fragile democracies in E. Europe and in Russia

	the possibility of those countries to revert back to Communism and
	to tyranny has just shot up...and to those who are living in those
	countries who wanted the USA to help them, I can only say, 'I'm sorry
	and I wish you the best'

	Clinton I feel, does not want America to be the Leader of the Free
	World and his party's platform reflects this:

	In the passage about National Security, it states: "The burdens
	of COLLECTIVE security in a new era must be SHARED..."

	That's not leadership...that just like Clinton saying (on the Gulf
	War)..."I support the minority, but I would have voted for the
	majority"....


	Without World Leadership, America can only monitor and receive
	the effects of events around the world and not influence them or
	take preventive measures that insure America's Security...

	No wonder Saddam is happy.


	Clinton represents change...but is it change for the better ?
	I think not.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,ics.views
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: You Got it
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:02:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <9211042149.aa21592@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
>
>
>	Well, Clinton won...and its effect around the world has
>	begun...
>
>	Today on ABC Evening news with Peter Jennings...They showed
>	a Big Party In Bagdad because of Bush's lost....
>
>	Saddam even made a personal appearance and fired his sidearm
>	into the air several times and called the NEW President:
>
>	"A Power-hungry fool who changes colors more often than
>	a chamelon and we will act now !"

    Saddam and his fellow countrymen still don't get it.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: You Got it
XXXDate: Mon, 9 Nov 92 21:08:32 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A724216002010642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 09 Nov 92 21:15:54 GMT

In article <92310.162653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs,
MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>In article <92310.035244MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs
><MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>>Excuse me, but I simply do not believe that Saddam Who's Sane threw a victory
>>party in Baghdad after Clinton won.
>
>My goof. I was wrong. That's what I get for reading the NYT instead of
watching
>network news  I read about it in today's edition, after the fact.
>
>Still, this just proves how goofy the guy is. If he thinks he can just march
>back into Kuwait again, he's got another think coming (strapped, probably,
>to the back of a 1,000pound bomb.) Clinton has been studying the problem of
>some belligerent foreign power trying to "test" him for the last several
>months; it's very much in the front of his mind, and I would imagine he's come
>up with one or two options.

I suspect that he has. After listening carefully to all of his campaign
rhetoric I suspect that the options range from ignoring the problem to
speaking out against it and then saying that it is not really his problem,
it is an Arab problem.

Slick will not be able to turn back Sadam when he retakes over Kuwait
for two reasons:

    1) Some of the Arab Nations lost a lot of political capital in their
       countries over the last war. I doubt that Jordan and Syria will
       be able to stand by the way they did last year. And Syria has
       nuclear weapons to make everyone nervous with.
   
    2) Clinton does not have a team of foreign advisors with the clout
	   that Bush had to form a coalition.

I think that the U.S. will be told to stay out of the situation, and Slick
Willy won't have anything he can do about it.

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22943 talk.politics.misc:58567 tx.politics:7072
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: 300,000 out of work
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:20:49 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Nov3.194414.4760@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <9uoVr*ze1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>>In article <WARSAW.92Oct27181016@anthem.nlm.nih.gov>, Barry A. Warsaw writes:

>>> Excuse my ignorance, but do the Japanese and Germans have to abide by
>>> the same CAFE standards as American car company's do to sell their
>>> cars in the USA?  If not, why not?  If so, how will raising the
>>> standard *necessarily* lead to a loss of American jobs unless you're
>>> admitting that the USA companies can't remain competitive (i.e. build
>>> a safe, efficient car for less cost that American consumers *do* want
>>> to buy)????

>>I've said this before, but I'll repeat it here again.

>>Economics 101:

>>If you raise the price of something, fewer somethings will be sold.  If fewer
>>somethings are sold, fewer workers are needed to build them.  If fewer workers
>>are needed, jobs will be lost.

>If you raise the price of something BY MAKING IT MORE COMPLEX (which
>is what getting to 40 MPG would take), then you don't necessarily lose
>jobs because each unit takes more people.  Seems you should have stuck
>around for Economics 102, Jim.

Sorry, Barry, but you are incorrect.

Except for a few items that are viewed as necessities, raising prices
usually results in the total amount of money spent on that item going
down because people substitute other items whose perceived utility per
dollar is now higher than the more expensive item.

Unless you have reason to believe that the number of people employed
per dollar of car will increase if we increase fuel efficiency
standards your analysis is incorrect.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: lstewart@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (L. Stewart -- IS Office 1058)
Subject: Re: Silly Americans!
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:49:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.175605.21006@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <05NOV92.14218920.0112@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> Andrew Chase <T3F2@UNB.CA> writes:
>
>
>
>
>2) I always find it ironic when a canadian tries to tell me how flawed
>our 200 year old constitution is. Hows your constitution doin?
>
>
>the asshole canadians couldnt tell us who we REALLY wanted for president.
>
>>Canada by the way was
>>ranked #1 country in the world by the United Nations this year.
>
>
>#1 in what? I wasnt aware that the UN had a top 25 poll for countries.
>I never trust those until after the New Years Day Bowl Games anyway.
>
>
>>Haven't heard about it..... did you expect your media to report it!!!
>
>No one cares. Im sure it was in the paper somewhere.
>
>
>And now, the real flames: WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, LOUSY
>KANUCK?!?!@ At least we HAVE a fucking constitution, asshole, and we
>do our elections by a system which is NOT merely a rehash of the
>British parliamentary system.So spare me your crap, boy, we had
>a consitution when canadians were still brits.

Right Dobson, you toady little fuck, you have a constitution.
What is the good of a document when all of its platitudes are
waved with tremendous vigour and its principles ignored by your
legislators? You have a very sweet old piece of velum that has 
served to mask the injustices and iniquities in your government.
Congratulations.

As for the other flag waving dick rub. You may be Canadian but
that hasn't prevented an outbreak of stupidity in your crib.
The U.N. rankings you are so proud if are a crock of shit.
Canada is a nice enough place for the time being. Translate your
No. 1 to a more realistic not as shitty as some other places and 
your closer to the truth. Stop watching the commercials bub, 
the referendum's over.

Canadian's recently voted to reject a badly flawed document
trumped up by a pack of frightened politicians who needed a cover 
for the gross mismanagement of this nation and its economy.
The people said no. That sounds like a working democracy to me,
even if it is a fucked up one. America can be a cool place with 
lots to do and Canada is a nice young country. Dobson you are
a stooge and the boob you are yelling at is a Canadian stooge.
You deserve each other, now fuck off.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22578 talk.politics.misc:58117 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6275 alt.rush-limbaugh:8995
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,t
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 05:45:27 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

> In article <1992Nov3.192648.20381@sequent.com> jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Sa
> >In article <YOUNG.92Nov3132637@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (P
> >>
> >>It occurred to me shortly after the '88 election that what we had
> >>witnessed was a mandate in favor of keeping felons locked up forever.
> >>
> >>Consider that Willie Horton was so bad, and HE was on furlough.  What
> >>are we to believe about all those felons who couldn't even qualify for
> >>furloughs?  Bad, bad people.
> >
> >Seems to me that if Bush was locked up four years ago a lot people might
> >be alive today who aren't.
>
> Name one, asshole!
>

I don't know any Panamanians personally, but I can think of at least 300
(Pentagon estimate) to over 2,000 (independent estimates) who probably would
still be around if Bush hadn't ordered the invasion.

How's that, asshole?



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton: predictions 93-96
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:11:25 -0600
Distribution: usa
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Nov5.040827.20742@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb) writes:

>> 9. An abortion-rights constitutional amendment will pass
>> Congress and be submitted to the states for ratification,
>> after heated Congressional debate. Widespread protest,
>> (possibly violent) will result.
>> 
>> REASONS: The issue of abortion is so polarized, with
>> absolutist positions on both sides, that civil unrest
>> cannot help but occur. A political solution in this
>> emotionally charged confrontation looks unlikely.
> 
> You must be joking!  A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in
> both houses!  (Not that 39 states [my prediction:  Quebec will secede, and the
> Maritimes will join the USA] would ratify, anyway.)  In other words, this
> would be as hard as overriding Bush's vetoes was.  And Congress did not shift
> enough (Senate a bit left, House a bit right) to change those numbers.
> 
> 
> Andy Lipscomb
> lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Bitnet: lipscoja@vuctrvax)

The accuracy of this prediction is dependent on the number of "pro-choice" vs.
"pro-life" votes (whether Democrat or Republican) there are in the Congress.
I'm not sure anybody knows this for certain. Also, I did not specify the
content of the amendment, but the basic point is, whatever the form of
legislation, amendment or "Freedom Of Choice Act", there is certain to
be more legislative action from Congress on this issue, and as a result,
more demonstrations.
I agree, I don't think one could be ratified now, in any event. But we need
a constitutional amendment to settle the question one way or the other,
because it is, in fact, a conflict of basic rights. Judicial activism in
either direction is no solution, witness what Roe v. Wade hath wrought.
   
-- 
*.x,*dna***********************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.       * B/Q '92!      *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu     * VOTE GOP!     *
*(-)**Memphis,*TN*******75320,711@compuserve.com*******
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23495 talk.politics.misc:59625
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:59:11 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1dksekINN1ee@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:
> 
> The special prosecutor's office has run amok.  It is long past the time
> for the government to pull the plug on this fiasco, which has burned
> up over $30 million dollars in exchange for a few misdeamenor plea-bargins
> and some highly creative interpretations of "crimes."  If neccessary the
> president should pardon everyone ever indicted.

Great (sarcasm), the president's men can break any laws they want 
and, if caught, the president pardons them.

>                                                  Drive a wooden stake
> through Walsh's heart.  Whatever it takes to get these sleazebags
> out of washington.

The '92 election did just that...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
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: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:56:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.014740.29440@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> You know, the Village Voice complained a week or two ago that the
> mainstream media is distorting the truth by using the term "liberal
> Republican" inappropriately.  To the mainstream media, a pro-choice
> Republican is automatically a liberal one, no matter how right-wing they
> are in other areas. The Village Voice called this idea wrong.
> 
> I second the motion.  How can one of the most rabid Drug Warriors in the
> country be called Libertarian merely because he is not a member of the
> Religious Right?  Yes, he's pro-choice, and pro-gay-rights.  But that
> doesn't make him libertarian.
> 
> It makes him non-Neanderthal.  There's a big difference.
 
Let's face it, we're simply not going to get a candidate (especially a 
Republican candidate) who isn't a rabid Drug Warrior.  Weld is a 
self-described Libertarian Republican and my understanding is that he wore
a "Libertarian Republican" badge around the Repub convention, which
requires some courage.  
 
To tell the truth, I don't know very much about Weld.  I know that he
is pro-choice and is fairly liberal on a number of social issues.  I know
he's apparently done a decent job with the Massachusetts budget.  Perhaps
someone from Mass can elaborate?
 
And considering the alternatives are starting to look like Gramm, Kemp,
and perhaps Quayle, Weld looks pretty good.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: sl930@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Ozone Man theme song
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:01:22 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Sung to the tune of "Nowhere man" with extreme apologies to the Beatles:

He's a real Ozone Man
living in his Ozone Land
Making all his nowhere plans 
for nobody.

Has a warped point of view
knows not where he's going to
He's not a bit like 
you and me

Ozone Man please listen,
you've got brain cells missing.
Ozone man, the world doesn't
like your plan.

He's as blind as he can be,
all he sees are CFCs
Ozone man can you see 
truth at all.

(couldn't resist)
Colin Murcray and Joel Poppleton

SL930@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:20:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.154820.24641@jpradley.jpr.com> grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.202406.18220@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>There is plenty of evidence that people want a less intrusive, less
>>expensive, more responsive government. 
>
>There is also plenty of evidence to the contrary.  Propose cutting some
>government program or other.  Then sit back and watch the fur fly as 
>the "conservative" electorate scream bloody murder because their favorite
>piece of pork is going away.  The American electorate has become used to
>getting what they want and, for the last 12 years at least, without having
>to pay for it.
>

	I agree wholeheartedly. Most people who scream that there need
to be budget cuts usually mean that somebody else's program needs to
be cut. One man's pork is another man's meat and potatoes.
	As far as people calling for a smaller government, part of our
problem is that we have never truly wanted less government. We have
wanted a goverment to meet our individual needs, and the next guy can
shift for himself. We having an amzing habit, in this country, of
wanting an awful lot, but squealing about having to pay a fair price
for it.



-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 16:34:08 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Michael A. Petonic (petonic@hal.com) wrote:
: It's not artificially inflating.  At the risk of sounding like Gore,
: there are tangible costs associated with dealing with pollution
: generated by cars.  Someone has to pay the costs, why not the causer
: of the pollution?  

This argument might make sense if gas tax revenue had EVER been used to do
anything about pollution generated by cars.

--
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:22959 talk.politics.misc:58604 tx.politics:7075