HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: Re: READ CLINTON'S LIPS !
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:58:36 GMT

In article 1588800079@igc.apc.org, harelb@igc.apc.org (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>
 >It is revealing both regarding the Stealth "Middle-Class Tax Cut"
>(recall that the worst burden of the Reagan/Bush era fell on the
>"lower" class, but respectable mainstream politicians can only talk
>about helping the "middle class", not those welfare queens exploiting
>those poor stock-brokers and Pentagon), and concerning broader issues.
>
Had you read the figures I posted earlier you wouldn't still be making
this mistake. Of course. it's a common. 

Recall that the lowering of the highest marginal tax rate under Reagan was
accompanied by the elimination of many if not all those deductions commonly
referred to as "loopholes". The end result was that the wealthy paid *MORE* 
taxes after the change in tax law, and they further paid A HIGHER PERCENTAGE
OF THE TAX REVENUES.

Why? Well, with a 35% maximum they exposed more income to taxes. By investing
in productive investments insrtead of shealters they made more money and paid
more taxes. Rather than parroting the common ignorance, why not look up the figures?

>
 >This is the Big Lie behind the maneuvering to consign any sort of
>remedies to the brutal realities of the Reagan/Bush years, to the same
>trash-heap as was the "Peace Dividend" (the "Peace Movement" having
>been too willing to accept this term rather than insisting on the
>"Peace Principal", of course).
>

Again, the table I posted shows that we've already spent the peace divident, as 
defense related expenditures have fallen from 10.5% of GNP in the 50s to the 
present 5.4%. That's roughly half, for the math impaired.
 >
>    Middle class people in this country worked harder for less money
>    and paid higher taxes for 10 years -- the wealthiest people made
>    more money [i.e. increased further their wealth during this period
>    --HB] and paid lower taxes --

Onced again, and I'll say it in all caps for the hearing impaired:

THE WEALTHY PAID MORE IN TAXES AND A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL TAXES
COLLECTED
 >
 > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>"Z is an independent, progressive monthly magazine of critical thinking 
 
Not if this is the kind of misleading nonsense that readers get out of it!

Want better government? Here's a rhetorical question: Why is it you never see
the following headline:

  "RECESSION FORCES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LAY OFF THOUSANDS"

Get it?

  --mike ;-)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: aras@ms.uky.edu (Arasu)
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:15:27 GMT

bayram@willis.cis.uab.edu (Zeki Bayram) writes:



>On the matter of allowing homosexuals into the armed forces of the
>U.S.A., a few points to consider:
>- This is not just a matter of principle

	It is also a matter of discrimination.

>- American soldiers will probably not be wellcome anymore in foreign
>  countries, especially Islamic countries

	Among NATO countries,  Britain, US and Turkey  are the only ones left 
	that do not allow gays (openly) in the military. Among other allies
	Japan, Israel, Australia have no ban on gays. The Emirs and Kings in 
	middle east have one thing on their minds - holding on to power while 
	keeping democracy out. Don't worry about them.

>- Motivation is a great factor in the effectiveness of soldiers in
>  combat. Soldiers have to "believe in" what they are asked to do.
>  They have to believe that they are fighting to protect the high
>  "values" and principles of America. They have to believe that they
>  are morally right. How can they feel this way when they will see the
>  armed forces to which they belong as being fundamentally flawed, and
>  immoral? 
>- American soldiers will be ridiculed as being "a bunch of faggots"
>- Will definitely harm any alliance with Arab countries such as Saudi
>  Arabia. Public pressure in those countries will force their rulers
>  to sever ties (at least militarily) with the US

	The King of Saudi Arabia bowing to public pressure? Imagine that!

	-arasu
>Zeki Bayram
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,misc.education
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: So the NonLiberal Option for Education is....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:29:20 GMT


I may have missed the main theme here,
but is the Other Option that we Openly
Support a Patrician Society?????

Let the Peasants Eat Cake,
and the Only Ones who need an education are Patricians?????


ciao
drieux

ps: I thought the point of public education was
to prepare the people to work in a self governing society
as effective members of the republic????


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1993Jan8.224133.2217@cis.ohio-state.edu>
	<JOHNCH.93Jan21152948@test22.sun.com>
	<1jnltuINNjn7@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:22:18 GMT

In article <1jnltuINNjn7@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:


   In article <JOHNCH.93Jan21152948@test22.sun.com> johnch@test22.sun.com (Slam the Crank from Wheezer) writes:
   >
   >And as a result, the guy [Clarence Thomas] takes no heat for his
    incredible statement
   >that he never had an opinion on Roe v. Wade, which he himself said was
   >one of the most important Supreme Court decisions handed down during
   >his life.  Come on -- is he lying or unqualified?

   Point of order. He said he did not feel it appropriate to answer questions
   regarding Roe vs. Wade as it was very likely that he would be facing cases
   in regard to it on the court, which is exactly what he should have said.
   The Senate committee had no business asking the question.

The way I remember it is that he first tried to claim he hadn't thought
about it.  I also remember him taking considerable heat for that.
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,misc.education,talk.politics.misc,sci.edu
From: klf@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (karen.l.fenton)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:10:24 GMT
Followup-To: poster

In article <1993Jan22.153106.28165@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> 
> 
> So the administration and school board, for whom I've already expressed my
> admiration, in their infinite wisdom decided that since some of the 
> students who
> accelerated like that didn't always do well in 
> the later math courses, Algebra I
> would no longer be made available to seventh graders, only to eight and ninth
> graders.  What idiots!  For no good reason they diminished the educational
> opportunity available in the school.  This is in my opinion a perfect example
> supporting school choice.
> 

Our district had to do the same. I never bought the "later math failure"
argument since it was clear that the decision was entirely driven by 
cost savings. There simply are not enough students who elect to take
those later, accelerated courses and it isn't cost-effective to offer them.

Now, I disagreed with that decision, and I've tried very hard (unsuccessfully)
to get it reversed, but the larger problem (relating to David's last
sentence) is that people - in the majority - are not willing to pay
to support these things. School choice is very market-sensitive: you
may find that 'choice' doesn't protect your options, and may actually 
diminish them! At least in the public system (NJ), we have a state
law which requires us to offer a comprehensive program.
And what seems to be "no good reason" may, in fact, be a very good
attempt to salvage some other part of the program at the expense of 
a small part of the population. Right now, we're trying desperately to 
keep elementary classes under 35. When you can't get funding to support 
that, you find it becomes a lot easier to drop things like 7th grade
algebra. It has nothing to do with not valuing the program - it's
purely a question of priorities and the "greater harm" assessment.

Karen

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21404 alt.politics.bush:16409
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:39:17 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XXXDate: Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:39:16 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A78AC55410020614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1k2akeINNe2m@tortoise.cis.ohiostate.edu> craig edward smith,
csmith@cis.ohiostate.edu writes:
>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>
>>Is it possible that you are truly so ignorant of the nature of
>>antidiscrimination law?  To do as you say, you must =prove= that your boss
>>has fired you =because= you were gay.  If you are going to be scared of
>>something, at least find something with a basis in reality.
>
>With today's affirmative action laws, it is far easier for the accused to
>prove he is the object of discrimination than it is for the employer to
>prove that he is not. Since legal costs can go sky high it is often the
>case that an employer will keep a bad employee (in terms of performance)
>simply because he fears a lawsuit. There is some basis of reality in
>the idea of keeping a job for life merely because of one's sexual
>behavior. (Or lose it, for that matter, in the case of sexual harrassment).

That sword cuts both ways.  Legal costs also prevent many worthy but
difficult to prove cases from ever being brought.  Yes, the legal system
needs considerable work in general, but that is not a worthy excuse for bad
or inadequate law.

In a portion of my original post that was not quoted, I made the point that
we must create =good= antidescrimination law.  It is true that some mistakes
have been made (such as Afirmative Action which did not include a criteria
for it's own obsolescence).  Laws that allow for frivolous lawsuits are also
bad laws.  Still, I believe that much good legislation in this area exists
and more is possible and should be pursued.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21484 alt.politics.elections:25253 talk.politics.misc:70332
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: School Choice, was Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limba
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:10:29 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1993Jan22.045734.3521@news.columbia.edu>, dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
> It seems to me that vouchers would help in that schools would be able
> to give more partial scholarships since the vouchers would foot part
> of the bill...a school's financial aid pot would go much farther.
> 
> Thus the vouchers would be serving a greater purpose than just
> defraying costs for the wealthy--they would be improving the chances
> for many of attending a private or religious school.
> 


Certainly could!

And that's the punchline. RELIGIOUS school! Why do you think that the
Republiclone convention was so into government subsidies for private schools?
Well, Liberty College and Oral Roberts Univ come to mind. Duh. With
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (et. al.) writing policy its obvious.

Why the hell should government support private colleges anyways? Just ask
Pat and Jerry!

-Garrett

> 
> 
> David
> dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american
From: Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Subject: Re: Cabinet and bigotry as Diversity
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:31:54 GMT

>Diversity is simply a way to ensure broad-based appeal, be it ideological,
>geographical, or ethnic.  City politicians have recognized this forever.  
>What's wrong with adding gender and race to the ideals of diversity?

Because you are denying opportunity to people based on irrelevant select
physcial characteristics which they have absolutely no control over.
And you are pandering to the racist and sexist ideal that people can
and should only appeal to people of the same race and gender.

"Diversity" gives us common criminals like Zoe Baird who for Clinton
are appropriately female rather than appropriately honest.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: glass@adcalc.fnal.gov (Michael Glass)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, AD/Controls
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:47:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.131307.3497@cs.wayne.edu>,
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu writes...
> 
>Indeed. Remember the "Meese standard"? After Meese was absolutely cleared of
>any and all wrongdoing, the Democratics said that the mere fact that he had
>been under suspicion should disqualify him from any high office!

    He was NOT NOT NOT "absolutely cleared of any and all wrongdoing."
The report concluded that he was quite likely guilty.  It then went on
to note (somewhat dryly) that as the other participants were all under
indictment (in the Wedtech trials), and they were not inclined to testify
against themselves in order to finger Meese, there was insufficient
evidence to act.

    The White House, of course, claimed this as a total vindication.

    When I think of all the small time grifters who were rubber-stamped
by that Judiciary Committee with nary a peep of protest, and I see what
they are doing to Zoe Baird, get quite agitated.

-- Michael Glass
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Re: A small wager for Mulac (was: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE...)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:07:10 GMT

In article <C17p40.G0E@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <1jkblvINNg2q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu sez:
>>
>>                           PREDICTION
>>
>>In one year an attempt will be made to hold a recall election for
>>the office of President of the United States.
>>
>>Richard Mulac
>
>
>I have 365 dollars here, and they all say you're a gutless blowhard
>who isn't willing to stake a bet on his words for the low, low price
>of a dollar a day.
>
>Terms: 
>
>1) Winner may direct loser to pay $365 to a charity or advocacy group
>from a preselected list.  My list includes the Legal Aid Society,
>NARAL, and the ACLU.  Name yours, Mulac.
>
>2) Bet is payable after 11:59 p.m. on Jan. 20, 1994.
>
>3) "Attempt" means an actual national referendum, or even a vote by
>the full membership of both houses of Congress.  It does not include
>bug-eyed letters to the Editor of _National Review_ or _American
>Spectator_, nor floor speeches by Bob Dornan.
>
>
>Well, Mulac?  Willing to put your cojones on the chopping block?  Or
>have you none?
>

Are you willing to take the serious shit seriously and laugh at the laughable
shit??

birdman@nwu.edu
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Poll for Paul
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:19:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan27.183154.29975@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>
>How to feal about Pres. Clinton's overall performance to date?
>61%---favorable
>26%---unfavorable---this is where you fall Paul
>13%--No opinion
>

Oh is it?  If I read this right then Newsweeks own polls show a 6 point 
drop in his favorable rating after only a week in office, it was 67% last time
no?  And that was the poster point wasn't it, that after only a week in 
office the honeymoon is over and Bill's actions have already led his popularity
on a downward trend.  

>
>Should Clinton lift ban restricting gays in military?
>53%---No

Gee isn't that one of the things I said, that along with military and
Congressional opposition, Clinton's move to lift the military ban
on gays DOES NOT have popular support?  And frankly Stan, all the rest 
of the of the number seem to indicate the public is quickly showing less 
confidence in his abilities, after all these mid to low 50% positive 
response are lower than last weeks answers, aren't they?  

Quite a trend after a week of the new administraton, and he hasn't even
raised taxes yet.  I can't wait to see the poll numbers after he does.

LDOA folks.

PSG
-- 
Looking at the condition and politics of the public
school systems and Hollywood in the 90's, it seems in
retrospect that the only mistakes Joseph McCarthy made
were; not uncovering the right people and not finishing the job.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A small wager for Mulac (was: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE...)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:11:13 GMT

In article <1k133fINN66q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>Hey, at least the bandwidth on alt.politics.elections has increased.
>That group was down to less than ten posts a week and was in danger
>of becoming extinct.  Can it survive to 96 ???

Point?  Most of these alt.politics.elections articles are crossposted
to, say, talk.politics.misc.  Who the hell cares if a.p.e doesn't
survive?  We'll just recreate it in '96 (if Usenet doesn't fall into
obsolecense).  In any case, Mr. Mulac seems to have this quixotic
notion that he alone is the lifeblood of an outdated group.  Whatever
makes you happy.




--
"Duff Beer for me, Duff Beer for you"
	"I'll have a Duff's, you have one, too...."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20730 alt.politics.elections:25027 alt.politics.libertarian:3808 talk.politics.misc:68905
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
From: alvin@stanton.UUCP (The Chipmunk)
Date: 21 Jan 93 05:43:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks


I just thot I'd answer the question posed by the subject line.

The question is, "Why can't liberals admit that public education has
failed?"

I have a statistic from the School Voucher advocates here in California.
According to them, 1 out of 6 high school graduates are illiterate.

Well, now that means that 5 out 6 are literate ... 84%!

If I remember correctly, 84% is a B+, well above passing grade!
From: andy@rbdc.wsnc.org (Andy Pitts)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Need fax number for the White House.
Date: 24 Jan 93 11:17:47 GMT
Reply-To: cwp@cwppc.wsnc.org
Distribution: usa
Organization: Red Barn Data Center Public Access Unix, Winston-Salem, NC.

I'm posting this for a friend who wants the Fax number for the White house.
If anyone has this please send mail to cwp@cwppc.wsnc.org.

Thanks.
-- 
Andy Pitts                 :  All that we see or seem is but a
andy@rbdc.wsnc.org         :  dream within a dream.   --Poe
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dward@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
Subject: Re: Clinton's salute
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:22:11 GMT

John Weitzel (weitzel@cirrus.seas.ucla.edu) wrote:


: After Clinton was sworn in yesterday and signed his documents inside the
: White House, he came out to "review the troops".  The officer assigned
: to him gave him a proper salute.  Clinton's arm almost reached the level
: of his chin with his wimpy salute.  Not a really important observation,
: but just seeing him there reviewing troops, while he dodged military
: service, just made me queasy.

: :@) Bill Clinton smiley

: Proper disclaimer
: applies.

: Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
: A. Bierce


    Just seeing George Bush get the hell out of there made me happy.
    Why don't you give Clinton a break.  I think you should allow
    him at least - say - a week to solve the problems of the world 
    before you attack him.

        Dan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: walker@Ingres.COM (Lynn Walker)
Subject: TRANSCRIPT OF CLINTON'S INAUGURATION SPEECH??
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: none
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:35:57 GMT

Does anyone have a copy of Clinton's inauguration speech? I would be
interested in obtaining a copy. Since I live in Canada, I don't have ready
access to US papers (although I could probably do some hunting).

Thanks,
		Lynn

     *******************************************************************
               no one                                lynn walker
             expects the                          walker@ingres.com
         spanish inquisition!!!                    toronto, canada
     ********************************************************************	
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan21.011014.16976@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:17:08 GMT

<In article <1993Jan21.011014.16976@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
<   In article <1jkblvINNg2q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

<   >Another lie - it's day one and THERE IS NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN UP

<   Gee, I think you could wait until he has actually been in office a day
<   before you complain.

	He's cutting Mr. Bill more slack than the Megaphone Left
	gave to Reagan.

	Sauce for the goose....
	
<   >ON THE HILL!  No more excuses!  Instead of wasting time paying off 
<   >foreign lobbyists like Brown and admitted felons like Baird, you 
<   >should be keeping the PROMISES YOU MADE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  

<   Um, it's hard to do things until your administration is in place.

	But, Mr. Bill PROMISED!


"...I'll have the bills ready the day after I'm inaugurated.  I'll
send them to congress, and we'll have a hundred-day period...It will 
be the most productive in modern history."

Clinton in interview on ABC's "Good Morning America", June 23, 1992
	
	Well, Nierpornt, is that yet another broken Clintoon 
	promise or not?