HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djansa@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Dean Jansa)
Subject: Re: Individual rights Re: Mr. Waffle King
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:07:42 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Nov12142122@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.050621.16468@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>   In article <QKSSB3P6@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>   ]
>   ]Conservatives give you rights if you are
>   ]a) wealthy
>   ]b) Christian 
>   ]c) white
>   ]d) heterosexual
>   ]e) male
>
>   Sometimes the amount of repetitive idiocy by the left amazes me. Above
>   we have an example of someone who obviously has fallen for the most
>   vulgar characterizations and mouths them here as gospel. This idiot
>   probably also is using taxpayer funds to soak up a sorry excuse
>   for an education at some liberal arts school.
>
>   Sigh.
Yep, I agree.
>
>I wonder if this *idiot* were a good little Dittobrain, she might somehow be
>transformed into an intelligent and mature young person pursuing an
>education in order to become a productive member of society.
>
>And, by the way, John, from what grand position of intellectual
>superiority do you judge this person an idiot?  

And from what grand position of intellectual superiority do you judge 
Conservatives?

Why is it "OK" for the left to slam the right, and make the above list
of untrue claims?  If I _Ever_ say something that is a characterization
of a liberal, the left-wing goes nuts?????

Just wondering.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:10:34 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Bush     campaigned for     trickle-down economics.
>>Perot    campaigned against trickle-down economics.
>>Clinton  campaigned against trickle-down economics.
>>
>
>I disagree...
>
>It was "George Bush does/does not deserve reelection."  George Bush
>was NOT Reagan.  He made deals with the Demos.  He didn't take action when
>people thought he should.  Many Republicans hated him.  I voted against him
>because he didn't deserve reelection.  Nor did I vote for Clinton.

Republicans became completely trapped in a philosophy that held that
government could do nothing, and should do nothing, especially when
capitalists were impeded in any way. For example: if the Japanese want 
to buy bulk logs from Oregon, fine, that's the free market... forget 
about any ramifications on the environment or saw-mill jobs. If government
is doing something that works, try to badmouth it and dismantle it.

Their bankruptcy was rejected by both Clinton and Perot, both of whom see
a more activist role for the government. Bush himself correctly stated that
there was a major philosophical difference between himself and Clinton in
this regard. Guess what? There is, and Bush lost. Republican know-nothingism
has been rejected. The Reagan revolution is truly over.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: What happened to ???
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 06:54:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.053237.19609@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.001628.25917@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu> davidk@welch.jhu.edu writes:
>>Does anyone know what happened to Mz. Fitzgerald, the woman that G. Bush had an 
>>affair with?  I had heard something a while ago and forgot all about it until
>>a friend of mine asked.  So I will ask you all, Anyone knows where she went?
>
>Heh, heh.  She'll be on the unemployment line in about 72 days.

The truth is stranger that fiction:  last I heard, she was (of all things)
the *Assistant Chief of Protocol* for gawd's sake...

Personally, I find that weird (or Freudian) in the extreme.





Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Conservatives favor limited government?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:27:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.164439.17514@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
$ How can any governemnt with enough wepaons of mass 
$ destruction to nuke the whole world be called 'limited'?

>When conservatives speak of limited government, they're talking about
>minimal interference in the financial affairs of the people and companies
>in their domain.

	So conservatives believe in government that is limited in only
certain ways, even if unlimited in others. "Limited" is meaningful
only if limited in _every_ respect. Otherwise it should be called
"partially limited".

	Good grief!
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Before its too late...
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:38:51 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <YOUNG.92Nov3180410@kuwait.gdfwc3> young@gdfwc3 (Mark Young) writes:
>
>Before its too late I want to get my "I Told You So" in to all of 
>you Clinton supporters.  If Clinton wins the election tonight we
>are all in deep trouble.  Our country has major problems and Clinton
>will only make things worse.  That so many of you believe in this 
>charlatain scares the hell out of me.  What's wrong with this country.
>How can you be so naive?  All Clinton wants is to win, to be president.

I thought it was Bush who said "I'll do whatever it takes to win the election..."

>He doesn't care about you.  He just wants your vote.  The entire
>Democratic platform is an advertising blitz;  its has absolutely no substance.
>The Democrats have been wanting to win for so long now and they finally 
>found their man;  Bill the used car salesman.  Boy can he look good.  

I thought it was Perot who made a fortune as "a salesman..."

>Well guess what?  He just sold you a lemon.  I hope you enjoy eating it.
>I won't!
>
>Looking Forward to Laughing in Your Face,
>Mark Young


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:53:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.175051.27199@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

  [bad mouthing of clinton deleted]
>And already the economy ON ITS OWN is continuing to recover.
  [bad mouthing of clinton deleted]

Oh, I see.  If  Bush was re-elected and the economy behaved this way, 
we'd say Wall Street sure likes those Republican Presidents...

But since Clinton was elected and the economy is behaving this way, 
we have to call it magic....

Well, it's good to know that all bad things from now on will be Clinton's 
fault and all good things will occur magically on their own.  Thanks for 
the tip.


-- 
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*
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13794 alt.rush-limbaugh:9494 alt.news-media:1613 talk.politics.misc:59681 alt.politics.elections:23536
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Dilemma in Republican (Toga) Party
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:28:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Lately there have been quite a number of posts from people citing Bush's
defeat on the Rise of the Religious Right as the main reason. In order
for the Republican party to regain its "pride" and the White House, the
Religious Right must be expelled from the Party according to these
analysts.

The next two years will test the constitution of the Republican Party,
but at the moment it doesn't seem very clear which side will win --
conservatives or moderates. (I'm keeping this at a gross level for my
own simplistic understanding of the dilemma.)

The Right Wing will not be weakened as a force in the Republican Party
as long as moderates seem to be losing control. Moderates like Gov. Pete
Wilson in California and Gov. Thompson (?) of Illinois must succeed in
passing their moderate agendas through and making them work. Wilson in
particular is in trouble because of his relative moderate stance that
reflected George Bush's political moderation. That is the only real way
the moderates can win control of the Republican Party.

Open for comments...
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13214 alt.politics.clinton:15906 alt.rush-limbaugh:9070
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:17:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Nov4.153313.174@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com writes:
> In a perverse kind of way, it is sort of a relief that the left now runs 
> the White House AND the Congress.
> Those of us who didn't endorse Clinton can now go from defense to offense,
> and in fact, we'll enjoy ourselves (in a Pyrrhic kind of way). 
> Because from January 20, 1993 on, EVERY bad thing that happens will be
> Clinton's fault.  Higher taxes.  Higher deficits.  More regulations.  More

Why? The Republicans managed to write off their failures on the 
policies of Jimmy Carter and even at times LBJ even though they had
been out of office for 10-20+ years. Clearly the Democrats will be
able to convince the American people that 12 years of boorow and spend
Republican politics has had a long-term effect on the ability of
our economy to recover - the debt alone should be enough to convince
most people - hell if it was good enough for the Republicans it will
be good enough for the democrats...

> Hell, it worked for the left for 12 years; they can't get away with 
> changing that myth now.

 Sure -worked great - do it - I could use 3 terms of democratic 
presidents....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13785 alt.politics.kibo:263
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.kibo
Subject: A Two-President Anagram
Keywords: Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:37:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

One of the godzillions of anagrams for Ronald Wilson Reagan is:

	Ingrown nasal ordeal.

And look who he picked for a vice president!

Coincidence? Conspiracy?

- Stephen P. "Telepathic Sampson" Masticola.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: bmiller@lunatix.uucp (Barry Miller)
Subject: Re: James Carvile
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 253-1481 
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 00:44:07 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Timothy B. Reynolds (skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
: I was listening to Torie Clarke on C-SPAN last evening and she and
: the other speakers had some interesting things to say about what happened.
: 
: The people in the Rep. election team had only a few people that had run
: a campaign in the last 12 years. In the Clinton camp we had Begala and 
: Carvile who have been very active in large and small efforts across the 
: country. This gave the Democrats a hands on feel for the pulse of the 
: electorate.    

Interesting to see you mention Carville.  We in Kentucky got to
know him quite well in the 1987 gubernatorial election.  We had
two heavyweights running:  John Y. Brown, a former governer, and
Steven Breshear, a former attorney general.  Then we had Wallace
Wilkinson, a self-made millionaire who though government should
be run like a business (sound familiar?).  This was all in the
Democratic primary, which IS the gubernatorial election in this
state.

No one had heard of Wilkinson, but while Brown and Breshear cut
each other up in a nasty race, Wilkinson stuck with a mainly
issues-based campaign.  His major issue was the lottery.  In a
true shocker, Wilkinson won.  I think this was Carville's first
major success, at least on a statewide basis.  At least it was
the first time I ever heard of him, and Kentucky is usually a
place you work up from, not to.

The next time I heard of Carville, he managed Harrison Wofford to
another upset win in Pennsylvania.  Again, he did it with an
issues-based campaign, the big issue being health care..

I have to admit that when Clinton first announced for the
Democratic presidential primary, I did not take him seriously.
Then when I heard he had hired Carville, I did.  One more time,
an issues-based campaign.  Carville has the instincts to do
polictical gut-fighting, but he appeared to recognize before
anyone else that we want discussion of issues.

It will be interesting to see what Carville's next challenge is
-- perhaps making Mary Matalin a Democrat?  That would be a true
upset.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Subject: Re: Individual rights Re: Mr. Waffle King
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:27:27 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Nov12142122@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>   In article <QKSSB3P6@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>   ]
>   ]Conservatives give you rights if you are
>   ]a) wealthy
>   ]b) Christian 
>   ]c) white
>   ]d) heterosexual
>   ]e) male
>
>   vulgar characterizations and mouths them here as gospel. This idiot
>   probably also is using taxpayer funds to soak up a sorry excuse
>   for an education at some liberal arts school.

Explain the logic underlying this conclusion.  Also remember you used the
words "probably" and "liberal arts school."  Are you trying to say that
liberal arts schools are supported by taxpayers.  THEY pay taxes, you know.

Alex

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13844 alt.politics.clinton:17024 alt.politics.elections:23655 alt.politics.perot:5465 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6702
From: wglee@eceris.ece.ncsu.edu (William Gary Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Remember ...
Date: 13 Nov 92 05:28:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov09.214315.24759@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>
>    Somehow, I'm more comfortable with Gore thinking that leopards have
>stripes than with Danny-boy thinking that Mars has canals with water in
>them.
>

Did DQ really say that? I'd like to have that quote for my collection
if anyone knows the source. Seems a strange comment for chairman (?)
of the National Space Council to make....even for Mr. Potatoe Head.

gary
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13255 alt.politics.clinton:15956 alt.rush-limbaugh:9091
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:58:03 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <treilly.720943043@vincent1.iastate.edu>, treilly@iastate.edu
(Edward C Reilly) writes: 
> 
> apparent bush supporter writes that B. has taken the blame for the last
> twelve years.  Well, with a 4 billion dollar national debt and a dicatator
> laughing at the U.S., who do you want to take responsibility? 
>      George likes (liked) to blame congress, failing to acknowledge that
> his signature was on everything.  

I have to be in awe of the best doublespeak since Orwell!  "Well, Bush MUST
take the blame for the past 12 years -- his signature is on everything!"  

So logically, you must therefore agree with the proposition that everything
will now be Clinton's fault, since "his signature will be on everything." 
To do otherwise is pure hypocrisy.  So what is the purpose of your post? 

----

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:23:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov04.134054.33052@watson.ibm.com> born@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>In <1992Nov3.183832.8448@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>Results of the 1992 US Presidential Election:
>>
>>
>>               BUSH DEFEATS CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>               FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>Yes, the media has egg uopn its collective face, along with the Democrats!!
>>
>>The media thought they could get Clinton elected, but in the end the American
>>people had the last word!!!
>>
>>
>>Simon
>>
>
>NOT!
yeah, but if you count the popular vote, Clinton only had a 5% lead over Bush.
I not a sore loser, but I am a little irked about the media coverage.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: young@gdfwc3 (Mark Young)
Subject: Before its too late...
Organization: General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 00:04:10 GMT


Before its too late I want to get my "I Told You So" in to all of 
you Clinton supporters.  If Clinton wins the election tonight we
are all in deep trouble.  Our country has major problems and Clinton
will only make things worse.  That so many of you believe in this 
charlatain scares the hell out of me.  What's wrong with this country.
How can you be so naive?  All Clinton wants is to win, to be president.
He doesn't care about you.  He just wants your vote.  The entire
Democratic platform is an advertising blitz;  its has absolutely no substance.
The Democrats have been wanting to win for so long now and they finally 
found their man;  Bill the used car salesman.  Boy can he look good.  
Well guess what?  He just sold you a lemon.  I hope you enjoy eating it.
I won't!

Looking Forward to Laughing in Your Face,
Mark Young
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13252 alt.politics.clinton:15950 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7972 alt.rush-limbaugh:9090
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:18:36 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <1992Nov3.194747.1486@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>Please don't spout off this Republican rhetoric which flies in the face of
>most historical perspectives, statistics and studies. It is naive to
>believe
>that the rich will do the right thing without prompting. Recent history
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is full
>of cases of great crimes done in the name of the almighty dollar (junk
>bond scandals, corporate raiding, <list too large to give here>). Trusting
>the rich to do the right thing is the central precept of supply-side
>economics. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work in the real world.

You said it. The rich must be *prompted* -- not told -- to do the right
thing. If you offer tax breaks for those who spend their money helping
the economy, then the rich win, and the working class win. I like a
win-win situation.

Good case in point is the much-talked about capital gains tax cut that
Bush has been wanting for a long time. It's got a history of stimulating
the economy. I read in today's paper that president-elect Clinton wants
to cut the capital gains tax to stimulate the economy. How clever of the
Democrats to think of it now!

>Bill Clinton is espousing getting people back to work, improving
>education,
>investing in R&D and new industry, establishing a truly
>free market .... These used to be the goals
> of the Republicans before the extremists took over. These were the type
>of
>goals that made this country great in the first place. We seem to have
>forgotten that.

Everyone's espousing that. I just can't seem to recall a democrat actually
doing it.

						- greg
-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Just for a moment
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:08:47 GMT

cjk@nic.cerf.net writes:

>Remember, money made in the stock market produces nothing.
>While money made through loans to business ventures etc...
>produce Industry, Manufacturing, Jobs, R&D, Employment, Constuction.

>There must be a balance between the two.  And because we have a huge
>national debt, we are forced to keep interest rates low to save 
>billions of dollars.  Thus keeping them out of balance.

Whoa. Are you saying that higher interest rates would benefit 
the economy, because it would make loans more profitable,
and thus more loans would be made to businesses, improving
productivity?

A higher interest rate can make it much more difficult for 
a business to survive, because it is more difficult to pay
the interest on its long-term debt.

It may be true that money made in the stock market
produces nothing, but neither does the interest on loans.
The money made in the stock market goes to the stockholders,
and the interest on loans goes to the lender.

The money raised through offering shares, and the money
raised through getting a loan, both allow a company
to grow and expand.

-Larry Watanabe
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:58:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.051549.18695@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> And, you know, it's great.  We'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
> No more finger-pointing at a recalcitrant Congress, no finger-pointing
> at subordinates, and so on.  We get to accept responsibility for our
> actions without the crutch of a scapegoat, a responsibility neither
> Bush nor Reagan were willing to accept.  Clinton's fortunes will rise
> or fall with solely his and his party's actions.  It'll be
> exhilarating.  Let's hope he's up to it.
 
HELLO MR. CARTER!!!! But keep in mind, any good that happens is greed and
wanton disrespect for those that are not as fortunate. Any good that Clinton
does will have to be diluted so that we do not trample the poor and
down-trodden with such heartless prosperity. Democrats of the World Unite! :-D
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections