HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Keywords: die
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:57:47 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

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. 

Congratulations.  You just violated Federal law.  You might want to
check into laws regarding remarks about killing public officials,
particularly Presidents.

You better hope that all the conspiracy theorists that claim that NSA
and such monitor the net are wrong.

-- 
"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.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: san7675@zeus.tamu.edu (STEPH)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.144058.22315@crd.ge.com>, joseph@emmax5crd.ge.com
 (joseph) writes...

> Then I have an explanantion
>why you voted for Clinton.  All of them universities are known to
>be havens for left wing bleeding heart liberals who want to tax
>everything that moves and somethings that don't move and take that
>money and spend it on the welfare population.  Obviously you had
>to vote for Clinton to achieve your goal.
> 
>   So there !!
> 
>james joseph                   joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com

Joseph -

Obviously you have never visited Texas A&M University... The home of the 
stalwart Repubs, the largest College Republican chapter in the US... 

Yes, I'm a democrat and this is where I am seeking my higher education.

For those of you who may not remember my school that clearly - perhaps you
recall allegations of sexual harassment in our Corps of Cadets last year, or
perhaps the more recent racist theme party given by one of our fraternities?


Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:281 alt.politics.clinton:16740
From: vincent@nb.rockwell.com (Bret Vincent)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re:  PROVE IT
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:20:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rockwell International


In article <BxIApx.9pH@scd.hp.com>, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:


< stuff deleted >

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


I voted for Bush, and would have given almost anything not to have Clinton win.
But, Cliton did win, and he will be the President, and I will support him as our
President.  But, let's get one thing straight.  The present condition of the 
economy is not a Reagan-Bush failure, but is a Reagan-Bush-Democratic Congress
failure.  In the last 12 years we have not seen what would happen if we had had pure
Reagan-Bush economics.  The congress would not pass their, Reagan-Bush, budgets
without adding alot of their own stuff to it.  The problems that Reagan-Bush faced
in actually implementing their plans, should hopefully not be a problem with 
Clinton.

But, it Clinton fails, which the US cannot afford, it will be a Clinton Economic
plan failure.  Since, he should be able to get his plans through Congress unchanged.

You cannot put all the guilt of our current economic woes on Reagan-Bush without 
putting some of the blame on the Democratic Congress.  

All i am trying to say is that the current economic problems are as much the
democrates fault as the republicans.

We all want change, which is why Clinton won.  So, let's work together to make this
country great again.


                          Bret
-- 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bret Vincent       | (714) 833-4589   vincent@nb.rockwell.com      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions expressed |        If you are not willing to              |
| on USENET are my   |	      become part of the solution,           |
| own and are not    |        don't complain about the problem!      |
| necessarily those  |-----------------------------------------------|
| of Rockwell Int.   |        This space for rent.                   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:95 misc.test:12788 talk.bizarre:37082
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 1992 22:19:25 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.060913.10011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:

>God bless,
>
>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)

Not at all. In fact, althought I was beginning, after 12 years, to
doubt the existence of God, I had it proved to me loud and clear
on November 3:

      Yes, Virginia, there IS a God. How else would you explain
      all the miraculously good things that happened that day?
      
      I think He got tired of hearing the radical-right belching out
      that shit at the Republican Convention about "we're Americans.
      THOSE people aren't Americans." 

      I don't invoke His name too often, but this time, I'm thanking
      Him for teaching those pompous, self-righteous, two-faced
      bigots that they don't have Him on their side.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:385 alt.politics.perot:5472 talk.politics.misc:59948
From: 126580828@ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:16:00 GMT
Organization: Villanova University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <Bx91A3.G5G@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, trinas@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Speedy Gonzalez) writes...
>In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes:
>>It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
>>be an American......
>>The Matador of M83
> 
>It is men like himself that give this country the reputation it has,
>and it is men like himself that will eventually bring this country
>down with its hatred of people within.
> 
> 
Lemmie explain something to you...
I live in the most heavily taxed city in the most heavily taxed state in the 
United States of America (New York City).  I am sick and tired of my money
being stolen by a liberal mayor like Dinkins, as well as a liberal Govener
like Cuomo. Now I have a liberal President to steal even more!  I have no hatred
towards America, or it's citizens, I merely doubt its political beliefs. So 
before you label me as a Hater, Think about what I have said, about the 
frustrations of getting a paycheck over the summer and watching inhumane 
ammounts disappear into the hands of "leaders" like Dinkins, Cuomo, and now
Clinton!

Thank God for Al D'Amato!

The Matador of M83
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: mlbohn@mtu.edu (MICHAEL L. BOHN)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:51:07 GMT


>God bless,

>Michael

>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)


let us analyze the ignorance, fear and hate mongering evident in this
 simple statement.

Michael has made some awful assumptions.  anyone who doesnt agree with his
political ideology is an atheist, and a 'commie' as well.  is it fear that
causes you to hate anyone not aligned with your political beliefs?  or is it
perhaps a fascist tendency?  do you believe that seperation of church and state
is wise,or do you feel you have the right to force your personal beliefs down
others' throats? why do you try to place a label (Commie-libs) on a group of
people of political and religious diversity that you cannont begin to fathom?do
you know what liberal means? tolerance of other views and opinions is a good
start at a definition. you are obviously not liberal. however,i would venture a
guess that Jesus Christ was.  and if you so (hypocritically?) claim to follow
his teachings, how could you miss something so fundamental?

A "commie-lib" supporter of tolerance who happens to believe in Christ,
Mike



> Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili
> (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
> GO BLUE JAYS!!!   BEAT THE BRAVES!!!!
> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!

do you not see the extreme and disgusting irony in the clash between line two
(remember Tiennamen (sp?)) square, and line 4, reelect Bush?  how can you
support a man who has sold his soul in the economic and political protection
of a regime that clashes so violently (through human abuses) with the teachings
of Christ which you claim to understand and follow?  why don't you spend more
time thinking of what you are saying rather than blindly buying into something
like the indirect support of suppression?

-- 
********************************************************************************
MICHAEL L. BOHN     |"But Ross Perot is a populist bil-  |Phone:(906)487-2550
EE department	    | lionaire,the finest new oxymoron   |FAX:  (906)487-2549 
Michigan Tech. Univ.| our political system has produced  |email: mlbohn@mtu.edu
Houghton, MI 49931  | since Reagan's memoirs." M. Ivins  |P R A Y FOR W I N D!!
********************************************************************************	
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Perot
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:39:09 GMT

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

	Hopefully neither Clinton, Perot, or Bush are petty enough to
let a certain amount of campaign rhetoric prevent them from doing what
they think is right.


Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:50 misc.test:12730 talk.bizarre:36923
From: pld@fc.hp.com (Paul_Dineen)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:05:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: fc.Bx9H9D.7ur
Organization: HP CLO/CoLL, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

: I did not like Clinton winning.  In many ways I'm scared that he will do 
: little to trun this country around.

  Sounds like you're beginning to appreciate how others felt when Reagan
  was elected in '80.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: libkind@hdlite.enet.dec.com (Sam Libkind)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Reply-To: libkind@hdlite.enet.dec.com (Sam Libkind)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:33:13 GMT


In article <1992Nov5.160816.17514@news.acns.nwu.edu>, matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Matthew Olson) writes:
|> I hope everyone who dislikes the fact that Bill Clinton won the election at
|> least gives him a fair chance to work for us Americans. The American public
|> needs to put the election behind them, and work hard with the new president
|> to try and get our country back on its feet. If President Clinton fails in
|> his new job, then everyone can complain. But we need to give him a chance
|> first.
Do we have another option?  :-{
|> 
|> Matthew Olson
|> Northwestern University
|> matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
|> 
Sam.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:41 talk.bizarre:36896
From: jperry@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (John Perry)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:55:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) (the L is for Loser) writes:
>And when the economy sees unheard of lows as a result of Clinton's
>policies, Republicans will take the Congress for the first time in 40
>years and Jack Kemp will take the White House to begin another long
>period of Republican administration, this time without that bothersome
>Democrat Congress.
>

  Loser.  Nothing that Clinton could possibly do would even come close to 
more than quadrupling the national debt, which is the main thing that George
accomplished in his 12 years in the White House.  At least Bush had respect 
for the man who beat him with an honest campaign, and congratualted him.  
Clearly, from the glut of obnoxious posts from snotty nosed mama's boys who
can't remember what it's like to have a president who isn't itching to find
a war to jump into all the time shows that his constituency isn't nearly as
good a losers.  But you are just that.   Loser.


hugs,
John

-- 
v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-
    "Reality is a sandwich that I did not order."
			       Zippy the Pinhead (for president)
^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mlbohn@mtu.edu (MICHAEL L. BOHN)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:55:54 GMT

In article <1dkj1vINNfm8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov8.183418.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> >>In article <1dk6e8INN7ud@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
> >>
> >>  [everything deleted but one line -- cdp]
> >>
> >>> I suspect that this man [Clinton] BELIEVES he has a mandate from 
> >>> FATE to be president.
> >>
> >>     I have not heard anyone else make such a comment, nor have
> >>I thought in such terms, but this is an *excellent* hypothesis
> >>(considering his meeting JFK at a young age, his concern for his
> >>political viability during Vietnam, etc.)!  Although, obviously, 
> >>one cannot prove it, we should be able to see if his presidential 
> >>demeanor in consistent with such thoughts of pre-destination.
> >
> >Really?  My impression was that Clinton ran this year to position
> >himself in '96.  Remember, Bush was soaring as little as a year ago,
> >and all the Democratic heavies were bowing out.  I don't think he
> >thought he had a chance to win when he declared, or even in the early
> >days of the campaign.  That game was to gain name recognition and
> >campaign experience.
> >
> 
>       You're really missing the point here.  What does it matter
> if he was to be elected in 1992 to 1996?  He's clearly demonstrated
> a pattern since he was 16, in aspiring to become president.
			        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SHOCK.  Isn't this a federal crime or something horrible like that?  Persecute him,
persecute him.


NNG.

> 

-- 
********************************************************************************
MICHAEL L. BOHN     |"But Ross Perot is a populist bil-  |Phone:(906)487-2550
EE department	    | lionaire,the finest new oxymoron   |FAX:  (906)487-2549 
Michigan Tech. Univ.| our political system has produced  |email: mlbohn@mtu.edu
Houghton, MI 49931  | since Reagan's memoirs." M. Ivins  |P R A Y FOR W I N D!!
********************************************************************************	
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Organization: ILS
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.145747.26765@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) 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. 
> 
> Congratulations.  You just violated Federal law.  You might want to
> check into laws regarding remarks about killing public officials,
> particularly Presidents.
> 
> You better hope that all the conspiracy theorists that claim that NSA
> and such monitor the net are wrong.
> 
> -- 
> "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.
> 
> 

In the 80s we saw a small group of Liberals become the PC movement.  This
group,  after being defeated and rejected by the American population,
retreated into the University system where they devolved into finger
pointing pains in the ass.  They made inflicting the fullest legal
punishment for any speech act their highest goal,  in the process they
alientated alot of liberals and potential allies.

Now with the defeat of Conservativism in the 90s,  are we seeing the birht
of the Conservative PCs?  It is clear from the RNC that the right has
learned the rules of
PCness.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:44:41 GMT

In article <1dkj1vINNfm8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>>In article <1992Nov8.183418.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>In article <1dk6e8INN7ud@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>>>> FATE to be president.
>>>
>>>     I have not heard anyone else make such a comment, nor have
>>>I thought in such terms, but this is an *excellent* hypothesis
>>>(considering his meeting JFK at a young age, his concern for his
>>>political viability during Vietnam, etc.)!  Although, obviously, 
>>>one cannot prove it, we should be able to see if his presidential 
>>>demeanor in consistent with such thoughts of pre-destination.
>>
>>Really?  My impression was that Clinton ran this year to position
>>himself in '96.  Remember, Bush was soaring as little as a year ago,
>>and all the Democratic heavies were bowing out.  I don't think he
>>thought he had a chance to win when he declared, or even in the early
>>days of the campaign.  That game was to gain name recognition and
>>campaign experience.
>>
>
>      You're really missing the point here.  What does it matter
>if he was to be elected in 1992 to 1996?  He's clearly demonstrated
>a pattern since he was 16, in aspiring to become president.

Guess I did miss the point, though I don't think there has been any
real politician who ran without thinking he can win (I think a DJ once
ran on a dare, and became mayor of Sioux Falls, ND, but things like
that usually don't happen).  Surely, everyone has an ambition for
higher office.  Clinton perhaps had his epiphany when he was younger
than most (Though not by much.  I think there have been state-level
officials as young as 22.)  Bush has been running for office for most
of 20 years.  I believe Reagan, and the people behind him, have had an
eye on the throne since around '65 (They couldn't do anything in '72,
whatwith a sitting, non-embarrassing GOP president.)

In any case, should we not judge Clinton on what he does in office, as
opposed to when he first entertained political ambitions?  If he so
badly wants office, he wants it for a reason.  I don't believe he wants
it simply to have a mighty big laurel under his belt (though you and I
may differ on this), and tend to think he genuinely wants to help the
Republic (given his past history, though you and I may differ on this).



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:239 alt.politics.clinton:16624
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:05:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.122812.21770@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlhouse@nyx.cs.du.edu (fiver) writes:
|> 
|> One monkey out of office .. put another monkey in the office .. 
|> 

Yup.  Clinton can fuck things up just as easy as Bush.  He kept his state
at the bottom, he can do the same for the country.  I've just lost faith
in all politicians.  I would like to demolish both parties and start up
ten or twelve new ones.  Ten or twelve?  Wow, a real choice!
-- 
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,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Subject: Re: A "New" Reich                                                      
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:32:58 GMT

In article <BxF61A.ABH@acsu.buffalo.edu> v557nv8k@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) (G) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>Clinton has not even been in office and I have read, heard and
>witnessed complains left and right about him.  He has not even
>being given a chance.  When President Bush came to office I do
>not remember him being attacked with the virulence that Clinton
>has already being subjected to.
>
>
>Ginny

Well, many of these attacks are simply from sore losers, and therefore
not unexpected. Losing sucks.

On the subject of Bush, I recall much criticism following his election,
mostly having to do with the incredible tawdriness of the campaign
he ran in 1988. There wasn't much actual discussion of any potential
Bush policies; it was assumed that there would be a lot of continuity
with the Reagan Admin.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:166 talk.politics.misc:58998