HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gonorth@cs.montana.edu (Spicher)
Subject: Welfare, here it comes!
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, MSU, Bozeman Mt 59717
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:32:23 GMT




Now that Clinton will be letting those Hatian boat people into the country,
they should have good public medical care.  Gee, was that somebody picking
my wallet just now?

Spicher

-- 
//*************************************************************************//
//  Where the air is clean, the water is pure, and the Earth is fertile.   //
//  Play it safe!  Wear your seat belt, and please don't forget to use OS2 //
//     Homenet: (406)585-3789             E-Mail: gonorth@cs.montana.edu   //
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: nuke@wam.umd.edu (root)
Subject: Politics in U.S., explained.   
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:51:58 GMT

In article  gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu () writes:
>
>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.

Actually, the mentality behind this is more along the lines of not wanting
to lose money towards supporting people who aren't providing for themselves.
Not exactly a lack of compassion, it is a nagging belief that not everyone
who is being helped is entirely incapable of helping themselves.  I'm not
about to support the republican party... or the democratic party... but
I see my taxes going toward my neighbors and economic equals in ways which
are unavailable to me.  Forgive me if I find this annoying.

Basically (to the non-U.S. readers), the hard-core republicans seem rather
slimy, whereas the hard-core democrats seem quite flakey.  When election
time comes, the democrats decide how flakey they wanna be, and the republicans
decide how slimy they wanna be.  Then, they each point out how slimy or
flakey the other candidate is.  Voters, who have to choose between wasting
money on social programs that won't work, or wasting money on industial
and military spending have to decide how to best flush our economy down the 
toilet.  

In the case of Perot, the democrats tried to say he was slimy (just like George)
and the republicans tried to say that he was flakey (just like Bill).  Isn't
it interesting how the election results went along these lines?  

Flakey gets you 40% of the vote.
Slimy gets you 40% of the vote.
Possibly flakey *and* slimy gets you 20% of the vote.

Ah well, "Every country has the government it deserves."
Take Care...


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Welfare, here it comes!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 03:03:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.153732.8595@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>gonorth@cs.montana.edu (Spicher) writes:
>
>> Now that Clinton will be letting those Hatian boat people into the country,
>> they should have good public medical care.  Gee, was that somebody picking
>> my wallet just now?
>
>Somebody call the Inquisition!  Spicher's Holy Wallet is being defiled!
>

	You got that right. The first priorities are right to Life, Liberty,
and property. AFTER that comes Cheap cable tv, free health care, etc.


>-- 
>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
>  "If God had meant for women to be doctors, He would have fixed it
>      so men could have babies!" -- from the TV comedy 'Dream On'

William Everett
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:384 alt.politics.perot:5471 talk.politics.misc:59946
From: Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:54:39 GMT
 <1992Nov13.032850.28606@adobe.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Nov13.032850.28606@adobe.com>
yost@adobe.com (David Yost) writes:

> It would be a sad state of affairs if many people believed that belonging
> to an organization whose primary purpose is "preserving the 2nd Amendment
> of the US Constitution -- the right of citizens to bear arms" is viewed as
> a form of political protest, especially non-violent protest, no matter how
> valid that right may be in the Constitution.  There are so many other
> issues and principles one could found an organization around.
> 
>  --dave yost


  A sad state of affairs?! Listen up people. If congress decides to
repeal the 2nd amendment, what's to stop them from little by little
taking away the rest of the bill of rights. Gun control, while it seems
a good idea, could provide the basis for further decisions on fredom of
speech, the freedom to assemble, or even free religion (the last is why
most of our founding fathers came here).


**********************************************************************
* Arthur, king of the Britons    * King of the who?                  *
* King of the Brittons!          * Who are the Brittons anyway?      *
* I am, you are, we all are the  *                                   *
* Brittons and I am your king!   * Well, I didn't vote for you.      *
**********************************************************************
Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:353 alt.rush-limbaugh:9538
From: reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:09:17 GMT
Reply-To: reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA

As to why people watch Rush Limbaugh the obnoxious; it's human nature to
be curious about THINGS...like traffic accidents, fires, floods, hurricanes,
and the National Enquirer.  In that jerk's case, I think some of us can't
help wondering how he gets sponsors.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:08:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.225848.28543@news.stolaf.edu>, hellmerj@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Jeffrey N Hellmers) writes...
>>   In <1992Nov5.063938.11566@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pfinerty@nyx.cs.du.edu (big daddy hate box) writes:
>>
>>   >i want bush's head on a pike stuck in my front lawn. fucker. i hate that
>>   >man more than anyone i don't know personally. i want quayle to be pres for
>>   >a couple of weeks and then we kill him and let foley do it for a while.
>>   >then we kill him too and give it to baker. yeah, i say we take the
>>   >opportunity to really fuck with D.C. 
> 
>Well, as many people have pointed out, this is probably not a wise thing to
>say.  It is also inaccurate.
> 
>The poster, when talking about killing our nation's top leaders, incorrectly
>lists the line of succession to the presidency.  It should be Bush, Quayle,
>Foley (speaker of the house) and then President Pro Tempore of the Senate, NOT
>Secretary of State Baker.  Baker would come after the President Pro Tem. of the
>Senate, who I believe is Robert Byrd, but I could be wrong.  

1) Isn't it George Mitchell?

2) Baker is no longer Secretary of State anyway.



Dave

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:25:42 GMT
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County

In article <Bx9K01.2B5@ssesco.com> nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
>In article <Bx9F6o.Mx.1@cs.cmu.edu>, hopkins@cs.cmu.edu (Don Hopkins) writes:
>|> Michael Le Houllier writes:
>|>    >> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
>|> 
>|> If *THAT* is the best reason you can think of to re-elect that liar, 
>|> then you should be glad that he got what he deserved! 
>
>This was one of my problems with this election.  You shouldn't vote
>for someone because you hate Bush.  You should vote for someone because
>you want them in office.  Many of the Clinton votes I saw (not necessarly
>you) were actually anti-Bush votes.  I don't consider that right.

  William, you missed Bush's campaign somehow.  Bush's closing strategy was
  to get out the anti-CLINTON vote.  A lot of people voted for Bush because
  he convinced them that Clinton couldn't be trusted for any of a number
  of reasons Bush laid out.  The Republicans have made an art form of negative
  campaigning.  One of the proudest moments for the Democratic Party this cycle
  was Ron Brown's decision to ask Democratic partisans not to go ahead with 
  their plans to start a Brent Bozell look alike organization to parallel 
  Bozell's dirty tricks operation.  Even though I confess I thought it a 
  mistake not to fight fire with fire it sure paid off in the end.
           Stay Easy__
               William
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:12:41 GMT

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.

What?  He got somewhere around 45%.  Fuck the electorial college.  The
popular vote is a much better judge.  This means 55% didn't want him
in office.  You're out numbered in that respect.

Sure Bush had lower numbers.  Just because you attack Clinton, doesn't
mean you are pro Bush.  I'm not.  We had 11 choices on the ballot in my
state.  Not 2, but 11.  I know a lot of people who didn't vote for the
bit two (hell a lot didn't even vote fort he big three).

People are a little overly negitive on thsi thread.  Just a little 
energy left over from the election and fear that we will be even worse
off than we already are.

In my view, people are a little defensive of the person that they 
voted for.  All of the candidates had their problems.

!>                                People aren't stupid.

That's debatable.  (sorry for the sarcasm, but I couldn't help myself)

|> 
|> Followups to this group, flames to /dev/null
|> 
|> -Jr
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Windows...It's like a stale cookie.    | #include <~os2/personal.opinion.h>
|> OS/2..."It's like buudaah" (SNL quote) | John Reynolds stimpy@jupiter.nmt.edu
|> 

-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: santos@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Sergio Santomauro)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:16:04 GMT

dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks) writes:

>I must admit, I am appalled at the amount of sheer hyperbolic hatred at
>President-Presumptive Clinton victory.

From what I recall the hatred  was much more profound with Bush, and
especially Quayle in 1988.

>Of course, my bias may be showing, so I pause before claiming that we
>Democrats are a more civilized lot.  Anyone agree?

No I don't agree. Most people I talk to that voted for Bush are taking
it graciously and it is you people who are being uncivilized. Have you
read any of the postings in this group.

Furthermore the Clinton supporters I have talked to are afraid of the
next for years. They get especially defensive when all I have to say
is that the Dems have to take credit for what happens in the next four 
years. They quickly respond by saying "Give him a chance?" I have not
mentioned things going bad, they automatically make this assumption
on their own.

--- Sergio

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:371 alt.politics.clinton:17015
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: PROVE IT
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:48:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1992Nov12.184007.2645@dunix.drake.edu> mtc001@dunix.drake.edu (Spike) writes:
>In article <gf0MBgK00iV4Q2Ll8T@andrew.cmu.edu> Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:


>>don't have to?"   Be sure to watch the Government as it grows, and GROWS
>>until  by golly It's like a little Socialism. 
>>
>I LOVE reading this crap.  Republicans are really good at exaggerating,
			    ^^^^^^^^^^^
	Did you read the .sig?
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: e91petmo@odalix.ida.liu.se (Peter /\/\odin)
Subject: Re: Clinton = Hitler (was: A New Reich)
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:17:09 GMT

yystg@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (STEVE GRAHAM) writes:

>In article <1drb15INNgij@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes...
>>      Personally, I don't care about the abortion thing.  But it does 
>>      serve a useful purpose.  Consider this:
>> 
>>      For "pro-choice" people, abortion is a matter of CONVIENCE.
>>      Didn't feel like wearing a condom.  Oh, spur of the moment, you	     
>>      know.  Government should pay.
>> 
>>      For "pro-life" people, it is a matter of deep convictions.

>Consider this.  My deep conviction is that I'm not going to enforce my 
>deep convictions on anyone else.  I am not for or against abortions.  I am 
>for choice - not damning others based on my moral convictions.

>>    The "Government funding for AIDS".  Another one.  It's already
>>    receiving the lion's share of medical funding, yet I keep hearing
>>    " MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY" for a behavioral disease.

>behaviorial disease??  Maybe it would take you getting it from a non-
>behavioral method for you to change your mind.  Such as your dentist 
>intentionally infecting you.

How about all of those French who recieved contaminated blood, because
of a few people's ignorance and greed ("Naaah, we don't have to check
it"). They certainly recieved the disease through behaviour! Or did
they?

--
=================================================================
| Peter Modin C92       | EMail: e91petmo@und.ida.liu.se        |
| Rydsvagen 240 B:11    |               -"Come forth and win my |
| S-582 51  LINKOPING   |  \\\  Amiga     eternal love", God    |
| Int. +46 13 17 81 01  |   \\\ user!     said to Moses. But,   |
| SWEDEN                |    \\\ ///      he came fifth and won |
|                       |     \\X//       a toaster.            |
=== Dept. of Computer Science, Linkoping University, Sweden  ====
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.124336.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>     On This Week with David Brinkley, Clinton economic advisor 
>Robert Reich said that the current recession is not as deep 
>as the 1981-1982 recession.  This does not seem consistent
>with the "worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme I
>continually heard from the Clinton campaign.  

You are right it does not *seem* consistent but it is. I think
Reich has stated it properly - if he said that this recession
is deeper than the last one I would know never to listen to him.

If I have listened carefully to C-Span, in the last recession
growth took a harder hit than in this one (if someone has the
numbers please post them).  However, that recession was much
shorter than this one (we still don't know when this one will
end).  The length of the current recession is one of longest
the country has experienced since the Depression.  Some people
have taken this as a sign that the economy is in deeper trouble
than previous recessions.  That's where he gets the
"worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme.  When the economy
experiences a deep but short-lived drop it can recover but if the
drop is shallower and longer a recovery may not be able restore
what you lost.

>Secondly, Reich 
>said that although Clinton did promise a middle-class tax
>cut, it really wasn't a *salient* point.  Once again, I remember
>Clinton campaign ads *trumpeting* that the middle class would
>"get a break" under a Clinton administration.

Yes, I think they did trumpet that notion - perhaps a little
too loudly - giving the impression that the middle-class would
make out like bandits.  When I listened more carefully all they
were saying is that the middle-class would get less of the
burden placed on them compared to the past when the top 5% of
earners got most of the big tax breaks.

As for the middle class tax cut I don't think that will go
through when they all look at the deficit again.  When pressed
about his taxes/middle-class thinking Clinton talked about a
more sensible approach.  In one of the debates someone asked him
if he would promise never to raise taxes on the middle class.
He said no he couldn't do that.  But he added that he would not
tax the middle class to pay for his programs.  I would have
liked some more follow up to that statement because it leaves
open a number of possibilities - He could tax the middle class
to pay for the deficit or the impending banking crisis; he could
cut entitlements to pay for his programs.  I think what he left
open to discussion is more interesting than what he actually did
say.

>    Just think what we'll hear *after* the inauguration....

It sounds like you're hoping for the worst.  Do you dislike
Clinton that much that you are be willing to hope the country
gets trashed?

Steve      AGOODRID@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:35 misc.test:12710 talk.bizarre:36887
From: hopkins@cs.cmu.edu (Don Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:20:44 GMT
	<1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu>
	<5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu>
	<1992Nov5.151445.24789@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: hopkins@ECP.GARNET.CS.CMU.EDU

Michael Le Houllier writes:
   >> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!

If *THAT* is the best reason you can think of to re-elect that liar, 
then you should be glad that he got what he deserved! 

But it sounds to me like you're just repeating the words they put 
into your mouth.  Learn to think for yourself. 

	-Don
	 (who wore his warm and fuzzy "FUCK BUSH" t-shirt to vote)
	 (let me explain: fuck is warm, and bush is fuzzy)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Promises, promises
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:06:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.154836.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>
>     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!" 
>

	And if he accoplishes even half of them he'll be doing more
than George Bush has done if four years, or would have done in a
second terms. 
	Funny, how suddeny high hopes are something to be scoffed at,
and how suddenly conservatives think it silly to believe that things
could be made even better than they are. 




-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:352 talk.politics.misc:59799
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:39:52 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov10.221401.9337@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

|>In article <1dn6l6INNadr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
|>>      The Keynesian thing really gives me a laugh.  Tell me, if I 
|>>      move my wallet from my right pocket to my left pocket, do I 
|>>      have more money?

|>Er, no, but if you borrow money, you'll have more in your pockets.
|>You know, deficit in downturns, surpluses in upturns.  Unfortunately,
|>we didn't done the second part during the boom times in the '80s.
|>Fiscal measures will be somewhat constrained, to say the least, given
|>the deficit...

But who are you borrowing the money from?  The government (left pocket)
has borrowed the money for the people (the right pocket).
There is no new money.

-- 
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.president.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: mlegare@wetware.com (The Steel General's Batsman)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Cappo Ferra 6
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:54:29 GMT


ladies and gentlemen,
if you have followed-up to an article in this thread
you have just fallen victim to a news bomb

in a few days 
you will receive several dozen messages
from several dozen sites
saying that your message "Re: Gloat"
got to that site.

this is because the newsgroup misc.test was in the Newsgroups line.

notice it ain't there no more.

let's be careful out there.


Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:18 misc.test:12688 talk.bizarre:36835