HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:46:52 GMT
Reply-To: nobody
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Not very organized

gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:

>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

The landslide being talked about I would guess is in the electoral
vote.  The real mandate was for a change from the status quo (62% against
the status quo).  The winners are all people and hope that all will
participate to make a change for the better.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:46:03 GMT

In <BxKAqI.Iv@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.042229.17276@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> So we are now at the point where we should not only have no federal
>> regulatino, but we should have no law?
> 
>No, we should make sure that the laws that we have don't interfere with
>market forces.  If the bankruptcy laws allow weak companies to pull down
>strong companies, they should be changed.

Propose how you think they should work.  How do you provide a company
the chance to return to profitability without letting them compete?
Or do you simply break them up, fire everyone, and sell off the
pieces?  That would probably work great for the folks buying up the
pieces, but you'd quickly see the industry drive itself into the
ground until there were only one or two providers left.

> 
>> No, SOME COMPANIES have been profitable.  If the industry is overall
>> losing money, you are NOT looking at a shakeout.
> 
>I haven't seen any evidence that the industry is unprofitable.  I've shown
>that both big companies and small companies have made money for most of
>the past 10 years.  You made the assertion, why don't you back it up.

Well, I haven't seen any evidence that the industry is profitable.
There are both large and small companies that haven't made money for
most of the past 10 years.  You assert the industry overallis
profitable; why don't you back it up?  This cuts both ways, you see.

However, until I can find my way across some solid numbers, let's
apply a little logic to the situation.  You yourself said that even in
good times the profit margins for airlines were "razor thin".  Now,
given those "razor thin" profit margins, what do the airlines that are
losing hundreds of millions of dollars do to the overall profit
picture of the industry?

This situation is analogous to claiming that the auto industry in this
country has been profitable for the past several years because you can
point to Chrysler making money this year.  Given the HUGE losses by
both GM and Ford, the industry is still a money loser.  It works the
same way for the airlines.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:45:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov07.003024.35527@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>Bob Blackshaw (bob1@cos.com) wrote:
>: In <1992Nov05.174539.32187@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>: >Humans are also social animals and will willingly help and take care of
>: >each other.  You socialists just have this strange notion that making a profit
>: 
>: Sure, just read the posts in this newsgroup - the willingness to help and
>: care are overwhelming. :-/
>
>Repeat after me:  Usenet is not the real world.

	I'd like to know- do you think Usenet is another world? Do you
think the postings of one person (myself, for example) compared to
another (JFH, for example) indicate basic differences between us? What
I really think is different between here and the everyday "us" is
accepting the conventions of Usenet. It is aggressive, somewhat
hostile, and completely voluntary. In other words, we each know that
the others are here because we want to be. If this were everyday life,
most of the people we deal with aren't voluntarily dealing with us.
Therefore, I think noone here can excuse himself his actions, nor
their implications, but can neither be truly understood, in toto, by
Usenet postings alone.
	I think Mr. Blackshaw may not be considering these factors. I
certainly feel people are much nicer in person than on the net. His
implication about humanity, based upon a non-standard and unnatural
gathering of human beings, is quite invalid. 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 15:27:53 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov5.182646.9493@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
|> In article <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
|> 
|> >What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
|> >believe that Bill Clinton should be President.
|> 
|> Don't be an idiot.  At most it means that at least 57% thought someone
|> else would be better.  Presumably, if everyone got to pick the person
|> they thought would be the best choice out of anybody at all, Clinton
|> would come in even lower.  But if 2% would rather the Pope was
|> President, that wouldn't mean they thought Clinton shouldn't be.  They
|> might have voted for him and still have preferred Clinton.
|> 
|> Moreover, you are ignoring the protest vote factor.  Some people voted
|> for Perot who wouldn't have if they thought he might win.
|> 

None of what you have said disputes the comment that Clinton did
*NOT* receive a mandate.  57% didn't think that Clinton should
be president and a certain percentage of those who voted for Clinton
were really voting against Bush.  It would have been interesting
to see how None Of The Above would have fared in this election.
Clinton was the most popular choice among all candidates running.
This is the most that can be said about his victory.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22850 alt.politics.marrou:2136 talk.politics.misc:58457 alt.politics.clinton:16055
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:29:24
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<JASON.92Nov5145354@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> <cornell.720999524@vivaldi>
	<1992Nov6.021055.28875@u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu's message of Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:10:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.021055.28875@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
-> >	In my opinion, people voted against George Bush and not for
-> >Clinton.  This assertion is supported by the endless negative press in
-> >the last few months.  Why did people vote against Bush?  Because he
-> >abandoned his conservative platform that got him elected.  People
-> >wanted Reagan II and didn't get it.  To add to this, Clinton had to
-> 
-> I don't think people wanted Reagan II.  Perot made sure that people thought
-> about the deficit.  People who worry about deficits don't want Reagan II.

	If it wasn't for Reagan, Bush would have never got into
office.  If people didn't want more of Reagan, Dukakis would be the
president right now. (that thought makes gives me the shivers)

-> 
-> >around the country were defeated.  The American people want less
-> >taxes, less government, and prefer a moderate to conservative
-> >ideology.
-> 
-> I think this is something that hurt Perot and helped Clinton.  Perot
-> made it clear that, if we are to get the deficit under control, there is
-> going to be more taxes and less spending.  People *want* less taxes,
-> but they realize that they won't get them.

	Perot's problem is that he had no stomach for politics.  If
someone can't stick through an election, how can he be expected to
make it through a four year term.

-> Given that, who do you vote for?  Perot had no position on too many
-> important issues.  If taxes are going to go up and spending is going to
-> go down, I want to make sure that I vote for someone who will cut
-> the programs I don't like, and leave intact the programs I like.
-> 
-> Perot's lack of a position on these things ruled him out, leaving
-> Bush and Clinton.  People wanted a change, so they voted for Clinton.
-> 
-> --Tim Smith

	Exactly what I said above.  Voting for change is voting
against the current President.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:54:43 GMT

In article <JASON.92Nov6092924@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
}	If it wasn't for Reagan, Bush would have never got into
}office.  If people didn't want more of Reagan, Dukakis would be the
}president right now. (that thought makes gives me the shivers)

Hey, at least Dukakis now opposes National Health Insurance.  Besides, what
could he have done that would have been worse than Bush-Nixon economics?  And
bear in mind that I'm a libertarian in asking this.

Raise taxes?  Bush gave us one of the biggest tax increases in history.  Sign
more spending bills?  Bush submitted budgets larger than what Congress event-
ually approved.  Pass Draconian regulations?  Regulations increased at an
average rate of 600,000 pages per year under Bush, twice as much as under
Reagan.  And that's just domestic policy.

Lose the Cold War?  Bush opposed the secession of the Baltic Republics and
backed Gorbachev until the end.  He treated Yeltsin like shit.  His State
Department prevented Russia from leapfrogging to fiber-optic because it's
too difficult to bug, and propped up the socialists in Yugoslavia that are
now busy "cleansing" their country of Moslems.  He thought Saddam Hussein
would be ousted if beaten badly, whereas in fact he just remained in power
and slaughtered some more Kurds, whom Bush encouraged to rebel then hung out
to dry, just like the Nixon administration did before.

Dukakis couldn't have been as bad as Bush, because Bush's wrongs are blamed
on the free market.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Oh, well.
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:35:42 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <92309.115424RSTERLI@auvm.american.edu> Robert Sterling <RSTERLI@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>Looks like I'd better start brushing up on my Spanish.
>
>About every generation in this century, a menace to liberty has been elected
>from the Democratic Party: Woodrow Wilson in '12, FDR in '32, JFK/LBJ in '60,
>and now Slick Willy in '92.  The first three enacted enormous expansion of the
>Federal Government, and given the massive cultural shift in this country since
>the last menace, I see no reason to suspect this fella will fail to further
>curtail our freedom.
>
>The only way to live the American Dream is to make your money outside the
>country and then come back here to retire.

  As evidenced by his previous paragraph this BOZO (hey, don't get offended,
that qualifies you to run for President) has it exactly backward again. Most
people make their money here and earn their generous pension benefits and
then go south where they stretch much farther and permit much more gracious
living styles (relative to the countries they settle in, of course).



-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23243 talk.politics.misc:59158
From: fajack@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:01:31 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

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

>   Here is documented proof that Walsh and his stooges were working hand 
> in hand with CG/92, giving them inside information and probably handing 
> out indictments on orders from the campaign!  So now we know that Walsh 
> was a collaborator with Clinton and the Democrats to gain control of the 
> White House.  Is it too early to talk "impeachment"?  I think Congress
> should appoint a special counsel to investigate special counsel Walsh.
> 
> -- 
	You sore loser, why don't you accept the fact that your man
has been rejected by American people regardless of whether he is in the loop
or not.  The findings by Walsh has no effect on the outcome of the election.
Accept it.

> Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        1996 election countdown - 1457 more days         | These pontifications 
				   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Keep counting.  I am sure this is the only solace you can find in
your distressing life for the next four year.  Ciao, I need to go to
another victory party.

Jack Teh

>  until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: It's the Jimmy Carter Show
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:29:09 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1dbk8uINNapg@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>It's the Jimmy Carter Show with:
>	-Higher inflation
>	-Gas lines and
>	-Every third-world country stepping all over us
>
>Don't worry if you missed it the first time, it's on again in January!

Yeah, Just like the Bush years were the Nixon years revisited...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:12:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.133129.26154@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>[munched argument about debt vs tax]
>But this is quite imprecise, since current interest rates for a
>specific term of loan do NOT necessarily exactly meet the future cost
>of that money, because that depends on things that we can't know in
>advance, like the rate of inflation.  Hence, it is based instead on
>EXPECTATION, which is relatively imprecise.  If the assumption when we
>borrow is for 6% inflation and we only have 4% inflation, we are hurt
>more by the incurred debt than we would be by a commensurate amount of
>taxation.  This may operate the other way as well (and we pay less
>than the money is worth).
>
  This would suggest that the debt incurred during the Carter administration
  (which was used by Reagan as an argument for his "fantasy"
  balanced budget promise during the 1980 campaign) was in fact not
  a terrible debt because inflation was running wild, whereas the
  larger debt incurred by Reagan and Bush with inflation under control and
  in fact almost reduced to 0 is MUCH worse... Interesting....

  Jon
From: davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: You Got it
In-reply-to: Your message of 06 Nov 92 00:28:24 +0000.
             <1992Nov6.002824.4264@pony.Ingres.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:23:19 GMT


> In article <9211042149.aa21592@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu>, davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU                                  writes...
>>	Today on ABC Evening news with Peter Jennings...They showed
>>	a Big Party In Bagdad because of Bush's lost....
>>
> I'd party too if the chances of my country getting bombed for political
> gain just dropped.

	You have got to be a fool not to recognize the fact that we went
	to war not because of political gain...but because American
	interests were threaten...First 1990 was not an election year for
	Bush...Second, Bush has seen the horrors of war firsthand (unlike
	Clinton) and knows the value of America's sons and daughters and
	that's why he brought out our troops back home asap....
	and kept American deaths to a minimum...Imagine such a large
	military operations and less than 400 US dead...unparelleled in
	American history.

>>	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.
>
> Against what? His country was almost flattened. He has been fighting a
> civil uprising for a year now. He couldn't even beat Kuwait now.

	Not true...He still has a military force of over 200,000 men
	which is larger than Kuwait's....Also, only 50% of his
	total military force was destroyed...with his remaining
	50% he can still conquer Kuwait...he just need a little longer
	than 24 hrs...


> .and era in which the U.S. will
>>	have less influence in the events of the Middle East...
>>
> This country is already having less influence in the world. BTW, what makes
> you think that we will no longer be involved in the peace process. After
> all, Carter was more successfull in that then Reagan or Bush.

	Carter was never able to bring the Arabs and the Israelis to the
	peace table like Bush & Baker did after Op D_S.

>>	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..
>
> Why?

	Because Clinton won't give the necessary aid packages to those
	nations and the communists there may prevail because of this.

> 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'
>>
> Why? What help have we given to countries that want our help in the last
> 12 years, except to flatten third world countries, or help petty dictators?

	Economic Aid....

>>	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..."
>>



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.104516.27404@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <Bx9ruw.8Jt@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>
>>>    DC            4
>
>>Gee, go figure!  Why do you think it might be that Washington
>>D.C. only voted 4% for Perot when the national average was 20%?
>>Could it be self-preservation?
>
>Probably.  DC is mostly minority, and they didn't want Perot cordoning 
>off minority neighborhoods and searching door-to-door for guns and drugs.
>
	But that's even low for minority voting. According to ABC's exit
polls, Perot got 7% of the minority vote, and Bush got something like
8%, with Clinton getting the rest.
From: turney@kenyon.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: THE FEDERAL FISCAL PROBLEM CONTINUES
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:05:00 GMT
Organization: Kenyon College

Good luck to President Elect Bill Clinton.  I certainly hope that you can
straighten out the gross fiscal mismanagement in the federal government.

The morning news reported that during the turnover process 8600 people would get
fired and hired - really 8600 people!  I have a suggestion.  How about firing 
8600 people and hiring a maximun of 4300 people.  I am not even sure what 4300 
bureaucrats would do outside of making work for each other. 

The news also reported that the federal government will be going to the window
to borrow $39,000,000,000 in NEW DEBT next week.  (Yes folks, we are still
spending $1,000,000,000/day more that we are taking in).  I hope the people on 
the other side of the window buy it.

IF THEY DON'T, WE ARE ALL IN DEEP VOO DOO !!!!

GLEN TURNEY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Re: it's over
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:04:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.192101.27403@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
> Lets see here, draft dodger running the military. Guy who has a drug
> pusher for a brother helping us stop the drug problem in this country.
> You don't already see the absurd humor in this new administraton?

This statement should be in the Stupid Arguments Hall of Fame.  Why
should Clinton be blamed for his brother's crimes when there is no
evidence of any involvement in those crimes?

By the way, his brother is a drug *user*, not a drug *pusher*, and he
never received any special treatment.  When the police came to Clinton
with the problem, he told them to go ahead and arrest him.  He wanted
to teach him a lesson before it was too late (i.e. before he died of
an overdose or drug-related problem).  I think that took courage.

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections