HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbender@navajo.dsd.es.com (Steve Bender)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Evans & Sutherland
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 18:15:12 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.
|> 

I for one, am doubtful yet hopeful that the Clinton administration can bring
about the positive changes which were emphasized during the campaign.  I 
supported the Republican campaign during this election on the basis of its
moral stance as opposed to its economic stance or George Bush personally
(yet voted for Bush as a result).  Although doubtful, I hope that with
a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and Presidency - the combination
will be overwhelmingly successful.  (I'm not so vindictive that I should wish
doom and gloom on our country just for the sake of a '96 candidate).

Nevertheless, the "Will of the People" has spoken, and we are certain to
reap what we have sewn.

-- 
Steve Bender
Evans & Sutherland
(801) 582-5847
Salt Lake City, UT 84108

sbender@dsd.es.com

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:396 talk.politics.misc:59993
From: wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:51:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1689E79D5.N336BZ@tamvm1.tamu.edu> N336BZ@tamvm1.tamu.edu (MLee) writes:

> 
>Bush had over a 40 year career of running for office.  He lost his
>1st bid for election as congressman from Texas in the late 50s
>(1958, I think).
> 
>Regards,
>M. Lee

Actually, Bush did not run for office until 1964, when he ran for the U.S.
Senate largely on the Goldwater platform.  But with Lyndon Johnson
running for re-election, a Republican in Texas didn't stand a chance.
Bush ran and won election to Congress in 1966, and 1968, but lost
another bid for a Senate seat to Lloyd Bentsen in 1970.  I don't know
what the main issues were in that campaign, but I can only guess that
the voters liked Bentsen (and still do) and 1970 was an off year election
when Republicans held the white house, so Bush's loss is probably not
that much of a surprise.

Of course, if you follow the conspiracy theories, Bush's oil company
in the 50's was a front for the CIA.  ;-)

William F. Tell
UC Berkeley
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: ***STOP THE NONSENSE, ALREADY***(was Re: Not a president yet)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:15:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.102517.19427@gagme.chi.il.us> 
wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) writes:

> Bill Clinton's message was one of unity, shared purpose and a strength
> that is borne out of a pooled effort.  
>
>      [.. huge amount of feel-good cheerleading deleted ..]
> 
> I ask you all to listen to your candidate and start PUSHING.  You all
> voted because you love your country.  The process elected Bill, but
> you are STILL Americans.  If you loved your country on Nov 3, continue
> to love it now and pull together.  We can build a better tomorow.

Does anyone else feel nauseous upon reading this impassioned
huggy-feely ``government can do no wrong'' cheerleading?  I feel
dread at the prospect of the Democrats taking control of the  
country.  George Bush screwed up a lot of things, but he said
one thing right: government is too big, and spends too much. 
Unfortunately, Bush never had the balls to back up his words.

Now with the Democrats in control, they're going to unleash 
all the years of pent-up frustration and hungering for social 
programs and public mandates at a time when we need them the
least. The new burdens that Clinton and Congress will place 
on businesses, such as mandated health care and family leave, 
are going to hurt US competitiveness and drive the economy 
into the ground.  

What can be done to de-rail the Democrat's efforts to turn
this country into a socialist's paradise?  There doesn't
seem to be anyone capable of stopping the Democratic tax 
and spend juggernaut. 

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:57:16

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

Maybe my memory is playing tricks, but I don't recall quite this level of
hysteria and juvenility in 1980, 84, or 88.  Yes, fun was poked at Reagan,
and yes, people were genuinely scared of war in 1980, but the level of
attacks seems to me to have reached a new low.

Of course, my bias may be showing, so I pause before claiming that we
Democrats are a more civilized lot.  Anyone agree?
--
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
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
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:19:30 GMT

In article <PA146008.496.721427332@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.162150.4177@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>And now there's something wrong with aspiring to be President?
>
>       Aspiring to be President has nothing to do with qualifications.  If
>does, however, make you wonder what other ambitions he has.

Actually, aspiring to be any elected official does have to do with
qualifications in the system we have.  You really have to want it to
put up with the shit that gets thrown in your face.  Ability to govern
and ability to campaign, of course, don't always intersect, but I
think in Clinton it does.

>
>       Somehow I doubt Clinton wanted to be President when he was in his
>twenties to heal the wounds of the Reagan era.  :-)

Heh, heh.  Wounds of the Nixon era.  Actually, a lot of the present
class of senior elected officials went into politics after Watergate.
A bit of reformist ideals, to say the least.



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]
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83)
Subject: Re: Gloat
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Villanova University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:24:00 GMT

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:
>>
>>
>>Like I said over there to those wankers in alt.politics.bush and alt.fan.rush-
>>limbaugh, 'tain't nothin' like a little gloating.   HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
>>Bush lost!!!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!
>>
>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.
> 
>>
>>Ta-ta for now,
>>M
> 
>God bless,
> 
>Michael
> 
>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
> 
> 
> 
>-- 
> 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!!
Michael,

It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
be an American......

The Matador of M83


Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:300 talk.politics.misc:59532
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Keynesian thing (was: A "New" Reich)
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:43:37 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

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?

Well, if you believe in Keynes' ideas about the "velocity" of money,
yes.

Keynesian economics has very little to do with redistribution of
income, taxing the rich, etc.   For some reason, people seem to think
that it does, and they consequently misunderstand Keynes.

Keynes sites a few main causes of economic stagnation: aggregate
demand is too low, and velocity of money is too low.  When the demand
for goods and services is low, and money is not changing hands
rapidly, you have a recession.  Unless you increase aggregate
demand and velocity, you will still have a recession.  One
way to increase them is to increase public spending, even if it
means a budget deficit.  However, Keynes did not advocate permanent
budget deficits; once the recession is over, you balance the budget.

Keynes is right and has always been right.  The economic "booms" of
the 1960's and 1980's were a result of high government spending
(primarily on defense), which increased aggregate demand and 
money velocity.   Although monetary policy is important, it alone
will not take you out of a recession.   This was Bush's strategy,
and it failed.  This is the first recession since the 1930's where
some kind of Keynesian strategy was not used to combat it, and
consequently, the recession has dragged on.

John Kenneth Galbraith extended Keynes into the areas of
maldistibution of income.  This is where "tax the rich"
comes from.  Galbraith sites maldistribution of income (rich
have all the money and the poor are too poor to be consumers)
as a major cause of the Great Depression as well as today's
recession.   Consumers simply do not have the money to
buy goods now, especially big-ticket items.  Hence Ford and
GM are showing record losses.

Say what you want about Galbraith and Keynes.  However, Galbraith
accurately predicted the current economic mess several years
ago using Keynesian theories.  He called Reagan's (and JFK's) tax
cuts "reactionary Keynesianism."  He laughed at the Laffer Curve.
He knew what the budget deficit would do to us.  He knew that
de-regulating the S&Ls would lead to disaster.   As a student
of history and economics, he saw too many parallels with the
1930's.  We mortgaged our future in the 80's, and now we are
paying for it in the 90's.


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:33:26 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-26007]: hermes


In article <YOUNG.92Nov8121945@ssdd475a.erim.org>, young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
> 
> I'm glad to see that someone has finally acknowledged that Reagan's
> greatest ability was as a professional actor. Yes, he could take his
> years of training and practicing in celluloid fantasies and overshadow
> the amateur capabilities of most politicians.  
> 
> It reminds me of the old joke, "I'm not a president, but I play one on
> TV."

Or, in Reagan's case, "I'm not a president, but I played one in the Oval
Office."

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:145 alt.politics.elections:23097 alt.politics.clinton:16399
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:54:03 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton

In article <BxAxJC.DFJ@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov4.094830.14055@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> crwilson@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
|> >>It has finally happened.  The uneducated finally voted.  I can't think of
|> >>anything funnier than what happened on Nov. 3, 1992.  I heard this on the news,
|> >>honest, Mr. Bill "Why no, I didn't inhales, why do you ask?" Clinton received
|> >>more than 50% of the votes from people who did not graduate highschool.
|> >>
|> I'm a professor of genetics and I voted for Clinton. I guess I must be
|> uneducated!

Here is another uneducated person who proudly voted for Clinton: 
I am a software engineer and speak Spanish, English, French, and
German.

|> >>I find it very difficult to believe that someone would vote for a person who
|> >>committed adultery, and lied, about the same thing, three times!  This is
|> >>living proof that christian, or even pseudo-christian, morals have no place in
|> >>America.
|> And I find it difficult to imagine that anyone could vote for someone who
|> would encourage intolerance and bigotry, sell arms to the enemy and lie
|> about it afterwards, support a ruthless dictator and THEN start a war
|> against same for political reasons, with no apparent regard for the 
|> hundred thousand Americans who risked their lives.

And I find it difficult to believe that people would vote for someone who has
been telling them that everything was swell when they were losing their jobs
and their health incurance, for someone who does not care about the plight
of the unemployed, the poor, and the sick, for a do-nothing quasi-president.

|> >>thing Bush did, he couldn't lie, and he didn't.  If you even think about the
|> >>Iran-Contra affair, don't.  That had to do with getting our men & women back
|> >>who had been held hostage, I totally supported that.

Bush did lied, and the Iran-Contra scandal did not only involve breaking
the laws of this country, but also encouraging hostage takers to do it again
and get more weapons for every new hostage.  Talk about stupidity and lack
of scruples!  I hope we still find out exactly how deep Bush's involvement was
in this disgusting operation.

|    Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       | 
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: jperry@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (John Perry)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 19:55:13 GMT

jimmo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (James Lowell Mohr) writes:
>
>I write:
>>
>>  Notice I said 12 years "in the White House", and not 12 years "as president".
>>  The presumption here (though admittedly possibly wrong) is that George had
>>  some small influence during his years as VP as well.
>
>I don't agree. Reagan didn't trust Bush. Although he was CIA chief for a number
>of years and had alot of knowledge and experience will the intelligence 
>community and international affairs, Reagan did not really value his opinions. 
>Why else did Reagan exclude Bush from the Iran-Contra dealings? Bush would have
>been an invaluable source of advice and council. The only reason Reagan would
>have excluded him was that he didn't trust Bush. You can't honestly think that
>Ol' Ron just wanted to keep George's nose clean.
>

   Where have you been for the past week, in a box?  Last friday, evidence
   was released that showed that George was at a meeting about the Iran-Contra
   affair, and that he supported it.  Not only does this make him guilty of
   selling weapons to our most dangerous opponent at the time, but it also
   makes him as big, if not a bigger waffler than Bill Clinton.  At first, 
   George claimed he was "out of the loop".  This evidence shows that he was not
   only in "the loop", but he was one of 5 or 6 people making the top level
   decisions on it.


   John

   p.s. enjoy the fan-mail


-- 
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,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Duncan Peter G. Thornton)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:30:10 GMT

In <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) 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.

> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!

Average growth in GNP during four-year Republican administrations
since 1949: +9%

Average growth in GNP during four-year Democratic administrations
since 1949: +20%


- Duncan                    

Duncan Thornton           |      In the 'Nineties, it will become cool
thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca  |                  to be tired.



Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:318 talk.politics.misc:59586
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 11 Nov 1992 18:21:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, haas@wam.umd.edu (The Future Mr. Graf) says:

>
>   The bottom line - Please just support Clinton, for now at least.  


       I'll support him.  Until the moment he makes me a criminal.

xx >In four years, if you don't like him, drop him, but until then, accept
>him and support him...
>
>  Oh, this is a good one... Comparing Clinton to Hitler, Jim Jones, etc.
>As I recall it wasn't Clinton who sent our troops to the Persian Gulf to
>exterminate 300,000 iraqi troops. Yeah, I don't suppose Bush or Regan 
>wanted their names in the history books.  I seem to recall a movement 
>during the Reagan terms that wanted to add Regans face to Mount Rushmore.
>Pretty vane.  And on what grounds can you say that he has only pretended
>to listen until elected?  HE HASN'T EVEN TAKEN OFFICE YET!  I also find
>it funny that you put Pat Robertson in the same category as Hitler and 
>Jim Jones.  Wasn't Robertson a speaker at the Republican Convention?
>Gee, if Robertson was a speaker, that would mean that Hitler and Jim Jones
>were probably Republicans too...
>
>Jeffrey


     Pat Robertson was intentational.  Think about it.

>HAAS@WAM.UMD.EDU
>
>-- 
>***********************************************************************
>* Jeffrey Haas     * We Come From The Land Of The Ice And Snow        *
>* HAAS@WAM.UMD.EDU * From The Midnight Sun Where The Hot Springs Blow *
>***********************************************************************
>

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:301 talk.politics.misc:59533
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton = Hitler (was: A New Reich)
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:05:18 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>>Based on WHAT do you make the accusation that Clinton sees himself
>>as a savior?

>      My experience with salesmen. :)

Every politician is a salesman.  Every one is trying to get your
vote.   What makes Clinton different?  Of the three candidates,
I thought Perot was the most salesman-like (having been a salesman
himself).

>      I am most assuredly not betting on this one, though.    

He's not even President yet, and you've already written him
off.  Can he at least get into office and serve one day
before people attack him?  I don't remember this kind of
whining from liberals when Reagan and Bush got elected.

>           With 20% unemployment, with major trade wars in 
>       progress, with racial violence and widespread riots,
>       what kind of decisions would Mr. Bill make?
>       I'm betting on the easy ones.

Some will be "easy" and some will be "hard."  You are right, though,
Clinton is inheriting a hell of a mess.

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green)
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:13:51 GMT

My news program mangled my last attempt to respond to this thread.  Apologies to
people forced to read it.

TAKE 2



In article <1992Nov8.200206.29910@umbc3.umbc.edu> williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper) writes:
>
>  Amen to this.  Limbaugh knows what he says and means what he says.  He is
>  well aware that much of his audience does the nudge and wink routine when
>  he says "just kidding folks"...yeah right.

I saw him two nights ago on his TV show (it pushed "Later" with Bob Costas
back an hour, proving that there is no justice in this world).  He said he was
going to show a picture of Millie, the erstwhile First Mutt.  A rather
unflattering picture of Chelsea Clinton came up on the screen.  It got a big
laugh as Rush made his (wink, wink) apologies, claiming it was all a terrible
mistake (nudge, nudge).  How desperate is this jerk for material when he has
to resort to picking on a 12 year old child?  Especially considering the fact
that he isn't exactly Adonis, to put it politely.

Rush Limbaugh is a total ass who should pick on someone his own size.  Like
Chicago Bears defensive tackle William "Refrigerator" Perry, for example.


Shawn Green
greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: nuke@wam.umd.edu (root)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:37:45 GMT

In article 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.
>Matthew Olson

I hate the bastard, already... but we do owe him that much.
He is the President-elect of this country... so we should *all* do
everything we can to help him help us.

The only complaints I have towards Clinton, are things that he promised
or based his platform upon.  I should keep in mind that he first has
to *keep* his promises, before I can complain.  ;)

Already, some previously potential employers have stated that they will
be offering no new positions "in anticipation of political and economic
difficulties."  Grrrr.  I hope this trend stops... and soon.

Take Care...
Good luck.

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre