HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Week OnE
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:45:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.151817.29013@osf.org>, Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:

> Gays in the military.  Has anyone else noticed that almost all
> of the criticism of lifting the ban comes from men. 

Gee... I wonder why... could it be that it's MEN in the military? (At least for
the purposes of war.)

> The language that the men are employing are extremely similar to
> the language that women have been using for years in describing
> unwanted sexual attention.  Gays make some uncomfortable,
> scared, insecure, etc.  It made me wonder if the men were
> afraid that they would become victims of Tailhook like
> behavior.  In a weird way,  maybe admitting gays into the
> military will strengthen the military code of conduct and make
> sexual harassment more unacceptable for both sexes.

Oh brilliant proposal. I sincerely hope that you haven't thought that one
through. Let's fight sexual harrassment WITH sexual harrassment. Racism WITH
racism!!
 
> Hillary:  I read her resume and she seems highly qualified to
> head the Health Care Task Force. 

Now read some of the court cases that she advocates. Then read her pay roll and
all the interest groups that support her... then read some of her trial
casebooks about how she feels about marriage and slavery... then read her legal
papers on how American Law should be run... C'mon, lets be fair here.

>Why is everyone so insecure over this?
We are insecure because we have read her papers, see above. 

> Sounds like lots of folks still can't accept a strong women in power 
> or approve of men who share power with women.

Nah... sounds more like a self-proclaimed feminist isn't willing to see the
other side of a liberal political icon. Good political thinking comes from
objectivity, something I am still learning no doubt. Conservatives like myself
are acknowledging our extremists, and making steps to change that. We admit out
short comings. Can you? 

--Vince
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Special Message (to Cliton from Fundamentalist Christian)
Keywords: Blood,Lamb,Messiah,Doxology,Psychotic
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:08:20 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1jnlhaINNjjb@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>
>Not that I am defending illegal action (which I am not) but how many people
>have been killed or hurt in these bombings, and when did the last one occur?
>I keep hearing rumors about them, but have never found any documentation?
>Now compare the number of people hurt or killed to the number of fetal
>lives snuffed out each year to avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy.
>
>There seems to be more sympathy amongst liberals for a spotted owl than
>for a potential human being.

Well, Sacramento has had two or three. Anyone have national totals? Oh,
Redding, up the road from Sacramento, had one. All within the last year or so.
No, no-one has been killed. That's no excuse, of course, and it doesn't
lessen the felony. Arguing that the clinic was bombed in the early morning
hours instead of at noon won't fly when the FBI and ATFB find the terrorists.

The spotted owl flies out of right field ... it doesn't work well with the
ideas in your first paragraph. How about,
"There seems to be more sympathy among liberals for human beings, civil
order, and law and order than for a potential human being (or fetus)."  

Dan
deherrin@ucdavis.edu
--------------------
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington)
Subject: State of Union Address
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 23:53:01 GMT

Several sources (Seattle PI, NPR) today have indicated that Clinton
will give a major speech to a joint session of Congress on 17 February,
in which he will announce more about his economic plan and so forth.
For some reason, this is not going to be called a "State of the Union
Address" though it sounds very similar.

Someone just posted that the address occurred last night, which is almost
certainly not true (unless NPR failed to report it this morning :) ).
But my TV listings in the newspaper for last night said something about
"may be preempted for State of the Union address", so I presume that at
one time there was a plan to give it last night.  The TV listings seem to
be made up over a week in advance, and are frequently screwed up when it
comes to breaking events like sports playoffs.

Dave MB

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: aboufadel@scsud.ctstateu.edu (ABOUFADEL,E)
Subject: Expending Political Capital on Gay/Military
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  gays, military
Organization: Southern Connecticut State University - Computer Center
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:27:00 GMT

You know, I've been wondering about the wisdom of attempting to lift the bans
on gays in the military AT THIS TIME.  The Clinton administration is going
through a honeymoon period, and it seems to me that if the administration
is going to use some of the goodwill, it would use it on the economy (stupid).

If this move angers too many people, Clinton is going to have a very hard time
pushing through his big legislation (health care, possible consumption tax,
campaign reform).

On the other hand, perhaps because none of the big legislation is ready yet
(unfortunately), working on lifting the ban distracts people (e.g. the media)
from complaining that nothing is happening in Washington.

Thoughts?

Ed Aboufadel
Southern Connecticut State University



Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:55:24 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton`s flip-flop on China
 <93022.144834MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1993Jan23.170307.23354@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>

In article <1993Jan23.170307.23354@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:
>Do not infer that the lack of an answer implies substantiation of
>your position, but rather a lack of time to both read the postings
>and search for the original source.
>My source was, in fact, the local paper on (my memory says) Jan 14.
>     I was going to go over to the libary this weekend to read
>the Washington Post and New York times, if I have time, and if
>I find the article in them I will give details.

I just examined the New York Times and Washington Post from January 13-15,
a period which included Warren Christopher's confirmation hearings and a
long interview with Clinton by the Times. Not a word about China. You're
welcome to keep looking, however.

     "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: Penn State University cares about my money, not my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: WOW - 4 Years of THIS!
Organization: CSLI, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:46:16 GMT


Ha Ha. We've got FOUR years of Mr. Joy Boy and his lovely wife, Billary.
Can it get any better than this? Every day some new twisted statement
or order is regurgitated from their orifices. Every time Billary farts,
we lose a campaign promise. After FOUR years of this, I might even be
able to vote for Dan Quayle without vomiting on the ballot.

Sit back and enjoy the show. It's worth watching....

Bush was a slimey, spineless bastard - but this Bill and Billary show is
just too much.

...rich
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Albert Gore, Jr.
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:16:15 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <MDL.93Jan20152002@nv.cypress.com>, mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.044243.13109@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
> 
> we see some interesting info.... then
> 
>    He was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth and his decision to
>    name his son "Albert Gore III" seems to indicate a commitment to
>    aristocratic...
> 
> I just couldn't resist pulling that out.  Give me a break!  
> ...Attacking a guy for what he names his son.  I'll try to overlook
> this and examine the rest of the posting objectively (if I can
> stop laughing)

Fairness Check!  ...what about all those mean-spirited people ridiculing
"George Herbert Walker Bush" and "J Danforth Quayle"?  Was that not
_basically_ the same thing -- making fun of someone because of the name he
gave or received? 

C'mon, Matt -- are you now, or have you ever been, one of "them"?

Kee-rist, I thought we ALL gave that up, somewhere back in third grade.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Clinton blows it twice in just 3 days!
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:00:39 GMT

cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:


>	Clinton is stupid!  In the three days in office he has allowed gays in
>the military and lifted the gag rule!

Do tell us when he lifted the ban on gays, since apparently the media
doesn't know about it yet.

                  -rocker
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A few words about Flip-Flops
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:04:40 GMT
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <1k1pt1INNink@gap.caltech.edu>, bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall) writes:
> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
> 
>>"I want to make it very clear that this middle class tax cut, in my view, is
>>central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic
>>strategy and a long term fairness strategy, which is part of getting this
>>country going again."
>>	Primary Debates 1/19/92

Ok, he said it in the past, therefore he cannot be held responsible, right? I
mean... ALL politicians do these sort of things, right? What then happened to
CHANGE?? But, if you want a current date:

	"Treasury Chief Bensten said the Clinton Administration is likely to
propose increased taxes on consumption...The remarks are the clearest yet that
Clinton is inclined to raise taxes on middle-income Americans to meet his
deficit reduction goal."
		WSJ  1/25/93

> Well, I can't help people who are stupid!  All the Clinton voters I know
> knew better than to expect something that Clinton wasn't even believing
> in at the end of the campaign...

This is not true. In the last debate Clinton re-asserted his claim to cut
taxes. I do not have the tape here, so I cannot back this claim up with a
specific quote, but I will soon enough, and if there is anyone out there who
*could* give me the quote I am looking for, I would appreciate it greatly. 

> Oh, please... that is so sad.  You're going to crucify him because he's 
> a couple of weeks late because he wants to get it right.  Would you prefer that
> he release a lame economic plan on time or a good economic plan a little bit
> late?????????????

No, I would prefer that he uphold his promise to the American people who
*count* on such things. Clinton had staff, advisors and the nations leading
economists at his disposal, there is no excuse for his beig unable to release
*anything*. He didn't even acknowledge on Jan. 20th that a plan was due that
day. *Something* would have been better than nothing.
 
>>>         We must do what no generation has had to do before. We must invest
>>"Invest" read:Tax
 
> No, invest means spend your tax dollars on things that will stimulate the
> economy and build infrastructure, not silly things.  Apparently you weren't
> paying very close attention...

Taxing, but its very nature IS NOT a stimulus. Unless, that is you espouce the
myth that Clinton is NOT going to raise taxes? (I'll give you a hint for that
one: Read the qoute that I cited)
 
>>>         It will not be easy; it will require sacrifice. But it can be done,
>>"Sacrifice" read: accept the tax
> 
> Oh, don't be so immature...

Indeed. Good retort.
 
--Vince
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame.spelling
From: lee@tellabs.com (Eric Lee)
Subject: Re: DON'T Confirm Les Aspen
Organization: Tellabs, Lisle, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:38:23 GMT

In article <C1BDxL.D6K@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob) writes:
>>lee@tellabs.com (Eric Lee) writes:
>>
>>>I say Les Aspen should not be confirmed as Secretary of
>>>Defense until he can learn to say _nuclear_ instead of
>>>_nucular_ as he did throughout his confirmation hearings.
>
>
>  If you can't spell "Aspin" why should he have to pronounce "nuclear"?

Well, OK, you've got me there. I guess I'll have to let him slide ;)

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:1765 alt.rush-limbaugh:15086
From: cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton blows it twice in just 3 days!
Date: 25 Jan 93 03:38:40 GMT
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvafy006


	Clinton is stupid!  In the three days in office he has allowed gays in
the military and lifted the gag rule!

	First of all, gays do not belong in the military...we need toughies,
not pseudo-men.  Most gays are either effeminite or else they are like beasts
(in other words, they either are too compassionate or else they are all over
everyone).  The military needs a balance of the two--which only hetrosexuals
have.  Don't pull the "substitute black" reply because I'm referring to
homosexuals of ALL RACES, COLORS, AND CREEDS.  They don't belong in the
military!  A heterosexual has a more "stable" brain which can both be tough and
be compassionate--a homosexual's brain has a disorder (as medical evidence has
tried to prove to rationalize this irregular behavior) which prevents him/her
from being both!

	And now for the gag rule!  Clinton should have left it.  My tax dollars
fund federal clinics--and I don't want my tax dollars paying any practicioner
who counsels someone on the ooption of abortion!  Abortion is not a natural
method of birth--therefore, it should not exist...except for an emergency rape
case!


-- 
Signed,

Daniel Rouse, Jr.
Sophomore, Computer Engineering 
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly, Pomona)
Email: cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu

And now...the moment we've been waiting for.  GamePro magazine and EGM
magazine proudly present:  The Arcade Champion!
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Clinton blows it twice in just 3 days!
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:33:29 GMT

<wstuartj.727995509@lucky.ecn.purdue.edu> (W Stuart Jones) writes:
> I voted for Clinton and one reason I did is because I believe the Gag Rule is
> fundamently wrong.  I am not pro-abortion but definately I am PRO-CHOICE.  You
> acknowledge that abortion should be legal in an emergency rape case, yet, you
> wouldn't let any nurse or hospital official discuss abortion with a women
> who has been raped.  She would have to wait until she sees a doctor.  
> OH, that makes a lot of sense!...

Am I missing something here?  Wouldn't a rape victim go to a hospital
emergency room, or perhaps a rape crisis center if there is such a
thing?  Why in heavens name would she go to a federally funded
family planning clinic?  Those are the only organizations that
were affected by "the gag rule".  There were no constraints on
"hospital officials" whatsoever.  The "gag rule" was adopted by
the Bush administration to regulate that those organizations
granted funds by the federal government to provide family
planning services would provide only the services approved by
the administration, excluding abortion counseling.

Whatever the merits and demerits of "the gag rule" itself, I'm
sick of seeing those who attack it completely mischaracterize
it in order to strengthen their position.

> This first step will no doubt be followed with actions to restrict protests
> outside abortion clinics.  Anyone who doesn't think anti-abortion protesters 
> impose on the civil rights of women trying to enter womans clinics needs to
> study the Constitution of the US and the Bill of Rights.  

Sounds like you're criticizing Bray.  You are absolutely correct.
Access to abortion clinics is a civil right of women.  That's not
the issue.  The issue is that there is no federal remedy provided
under federal law to address violations of this right by private
individuals or organizations.  Trying to squeeze one out of the Ku 
Klux Klan Act was not appropriate and deservedly failed.  If you 
want a federal remedy, write your Representative and Senators and 
ask them to provide one.  Cut out the end run through the courts.

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe)
Subject: Re: Clinton blows it twice in just 3 days!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:11:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.193840.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>
>	Clinton is stupid!  In the three days in office he has allowed gays in
>the military and lifted the gag rule!
>
>	First of all, gays do not belong in the military...we need toughies,
>not pseudo-men.  Most gays are either effeminite or else they are like beasts
>(in other words, they either are too compassionate or else they are all over
>everyone).  The military needs a balance of the two--which only hetrosexuals
>have.  Don't pull the "substitute black" reply because I'm referring to
>homosexuals of ALL RACES, COLORS, AND CREEDS.  They don't belong in the
>military!  A heterosexual has a more "stable" brain which can both be tough and
>be compassionate--a homosexual's brain has a disorder (as medical evidence has
>tried to prove to rationalize this irregular behavior) which prevents him/her
>from being both!

Lemme guess....female soldiers shouldn't be allowed in combat units either.
They're the more emotional, irrational gender, you know.

>	And now for the gag rule!  Clinton should have left it.  My tax dollars
>fund federal clinics--and I don't want my tax dollars paying any practicioner
>who counsels someone on the ooption of abortion!  Abortion is not a natural
>method of birth--therefore, it should not exist...except for an emergency rape
>case!

Hmmmm.....you don't want your tax dollars funding something that you have a 
moral problem with, right?  No matter what the laws of the country say?

Oh --- you're right --- abortion is *not* a natural method of birth.
Neither are C-sections.  Should we get rid of those too?

BTW, abortion is NOT a form of birth.  If it were, then a child would come
into the world as a result of the procedure.

LAR

Stupid people shouldn't breed.




Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: It's all Clinton's Fault!  It's all Clinton's Fault!
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7841B0FE5010827@alimac29.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 21 Jan 93 09:19:11 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d17
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:17:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.184936.2142@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> Kevin
L. Stamber, stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu writes:
>Sorry, just practicing.   :-)

No Problem, a chorus of libs and dems will soon join you.  It's
the way things work.

Question:  How do democrats form a firing squad?
								They get in a circle and someone shouts "Fire"!

At least it won't be dull.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton blows it twice in just 3 days!
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:43:22 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1993Jan26.221144.11977@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.193840.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:

>>	First of all, gays do not belong in the military...we need toughies,
>>not pseudo-men.  Most gays are either effeminite or else they are like beasts

Sounds like a new super hero- "This looks like a job for PSUEDO-MAN!!"

:-)
>
>Lemme guess....female soldiers shouldn't be allowed in combat units either.
>They're the more emotional, irrational gender, you know.

Well, my girlfriend seems pretty rational--and she handles stressful
situations extremely well.

:-)


Simon
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: mjkugel@iastate.edu (Michael J Kugel)
Subject: Re: Flip-flop?!?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:56:48 GMT

In article <30589@castle.ed.ac.uk> barryb@castle.ed.ac.uk (Barry A T Brown) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.140800.5403@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, ggoebel@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Garrett Goebel) writes:
>
>
>|> 3) Isn't the budget the issue?
>|> 
>|> Foreign policy and economic stimulus aside, the best possible thing the
>|> Clinton administration could do would be to cut the budget deficit.  If
>|> that means dropping every single campaign promise to get the job done, he
>|> will have proven himself a great President.
>|> 
>|> Really now, we should all know buy now that government intervention in
>|> the market place means increased inefficiency.  
>
>This is a point that conservatives like to "presume" has been proved.  If
>anything the contrary is true - The Japanise, Korean and German governments
>all take a very active government intervention policy.  Countrys that don't-
>e.g Britain + America have less successful economys.

Less successful economies by what standard?  The US has the highest GDP
per capita of any industrial economy and the highest productivity in
the world.  Europe has been practicing state intervention (like industrial
policy) for the last 20 years and it hasn't worked.



Mike.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Oh My!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:19:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.154849.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <15597.2b5f3fb5@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>> Is it me, or do these whining Republicans sound just like us liberals did
>> during 12 years of Reagenbush :D
>
>Uh...no. It's you. Garrett, your ability to shoot yourself in the foot
>continues to amaze me. At least you have finally conceded that all of the
>drivel that has ever oozed out of your little repugnant mouth is nothing but
>whining blather. The fact that you proudly display yourself as a liberal
>repulses me to no end... knowing that someone actually allowed into an American
>University. You continue to be the bastion of remarkable stupidity for the
>left. When it comes time for you to mature, look at what your messiah has done,
>most of which before he was even inaugurated. Then pick up a newspaper and look
>at what your failed ideology has done for the world: servitude, slavery,
>economic crisis, hunger, and hopelessness. Happy extinction, liberal worm.

Oh my!  I wander off for the intersession and grad school
applications, and come back this week.  Shock, gasp!  Vince,
self-proclaimed "ARCH-Conservative", still continues to amaze me with
his vitriol.



--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:1848 alt.politics.elections:25205 talk.politics.misc:70079