HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:45:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec14.210311.2593@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>nonpartisan approach to obtaining information and opinions on the economy
>has been quite refreshing. He has even hired some people who do not agree
>with some aspects of his economic plan. A sign that he is intelligent
>enough
>to realize he can't know everything
>and flexible enough to adjust to the dynamic landscape of the national
>economy.

Let me guess, you really belive that nonsense like this econmic conference
is about "hearing ideas" instead of the reality that it's about trying to
gain support for the programs he's already decided on.  Gawd, even the
dunder heads in the media didn't need to bump their butts on the obvious to
figure this one out.

>
>You may feel "duped", but many of us are quite encouraged. I am more
>encouraged than I thought I would be for the reasons stated above. I
>would think that Clinton's shift of emphasis toward deficit reduction
>would please you.

His shift in emphasis or his stated shift shift?  I remember the "emphasis
on deficit reduction from Congressional Democrats in 1990.  Remember,
ah just a little tax increase, mostly on the luxury items that those nasty
rich people buy and it's all for the great American cause of reducing th
deficit.

Shall I post the numbers for the defit that year and the years after?

Shift in emphasis my aunt Tilly.  Let's talk a year or two from now, 
after Bill tries to slip in the 100 billion + it's going to cost for 
his health insurance plan, the cost of which he convienently buried 
during the campaign.  Well see how much emphasis is on defict reduction
when Bill has to pay the tab for all the promises he made.


Like I said, he gave people ear candy to get elected, now let's see
the result.  So far not so good.

PSG
-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bush WANTED to lose
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:27:43 GMT

There's been a lot of punditry attempting to figure out why
Bush ran such a poor campaign. One possible explanation, of
course, is that he was as incompetent at running his campaign
as he was at running the country, and that his loss shouldn't
therefore be that surprising. But the other possibility, of
course, is that there is more to it than that.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Bush was, in fact,
the moderate Republican his longtime friends all claimed.
Suppose that this moderate Republican, out of blind ambition,
made a Faustian bargain with Reagan and the neo-fascist far-
right loon wing of the Republican party in order to become
Vice President and then President. Suppose, having made this
deal with the devil, Bush suddenly woke up sometime in the middle
of this year's Republican Convention to find that a large
group of small-minded compassionless bigoted fascists were
throwing a Nuremburg rally in his honor--EXCEPT HE WASN'T, IN
THE END, WILLING TO PLAY FUEHRER? What could he do to save
himself and the country? 

Lose the election.

And not just lose it, but lose it so hard and ugly that the
far-right was discredited within the Republican party and
sent back under the rocks from which it had slithered.

Did you notice how, in his acceptance speech, Bush actually
seemed RELIEVED? Hardly the way a person who'd wanted to win
would have acted. Perhaps, in the end, Bush returned to his
roots and, in an act of sacrifice, fell on his sword for the
good of his country. Perhaps he is, truly, a tragic figure:
trapped in a bad deal gone increasingly sour, unable for
years to find his way back, but triumphing in the end.

Or perhaps he just f*cked up.

P.S. The ultimate irony is that, had Bush been half as gracious
during his campaign as he was during his acceptance speech, he
might well still be President.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18956 alt.rush-limbaugh:12010
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:43:18 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec18.190640.1058@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@prime.com writes:
]In article <1992Dec17.225152.23861@anasazi.com>, 
]briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
]> In article <1992Dec17.202638.21289@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]
]> The one reason why many do not want gays in the military, and I for one
]> agree on the prohibition, 
]
]Gee by looking where you are posting from, why don't I find this a
]surprise?  You are the third poster from Anasazi to say this.  Just
]what is Anasazi?  If I recall correctly, Anasazi means "ancient ones" or
]"the ones who came before".  I'm beginning to think that Anasazi is some
]archaeological dig that has written software to transfer ancient
]cultural relics into modern day posts.  Your post is loaded with
]cultural artifacts of a past era.

We DO NOT represent Anasazi. Anasazi has people with a wide variety of
political and religious beliefs. It just happens that some of us who
are conservative are more active on the net. If you want to see postings
from a non-conservative Anasaziite, just look for those by Scott Gibson
in other Usenet fora.

Other than that, you are right that we may have some consistency
with long held views - so what?
]
]> is fear.   But not of sexual passes, or rape,
]> most soldiers ought to be able to defend themselves.  The fear is of
]> failure.  Will this guy next to me in the foxhole lose it when the shit
]> hits the fan?  A straight soldier is really afraid guy that an admittedly 
]> gay soldier will let him and every one else down.  That is the question that 
]> will go through each soldier's mind if they are forced to accept gays.
]
]Since this fear you expressed here has no basis in fact you are
]talking about an irrational fear.  Persistent illogical fears are termed
]phobias.


I agree. Brian D is IMHO wrong on this one.
]> If it is biological, then what other biological deficincies might a gay
]> soldier have?  
]
]This is a very value latent comment.  If it is biological why do you
]label homosexuality a deficiency?  Deficient of what?  Are other
]biological traits that occur randomly throughout all humans also
]deficincies?  What about left-handedness?

Actually, it is an interesting question, but it is only half of
the question. The other half is: what biological advantages might a
gay soldier have?
]
]> The opinions and feelings of straight soldiers are extremely important when
]> deciding about gays in the military.  
]
]The opinions and feelings of gay soldiers are extremely important when
]deciding about gays in the military.  

Nice try, but there are a lot more straight soldiers.



-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: MORE BONEHEADISMS
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:30:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 

Seems that some boneheads out there in netland just can't seem to accept
the fact that Clinton is the next President.

They continue to argue that the people Clinton is picking for his
cabinet do not have experience.  During the campaign, they were saying
that Clinton himself does not have the experience necessary to be
President.  Well, which is it folks?  You can't have it both ways.

Unless you're a bonehead.
                                                                                                
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:57:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.072544.7490@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
[some nyah-nyahing deleted]

>Look, Clinton beat TWO contenders. Reagan and Bush barely
>beat ONE. Furthermore, this nonsense about needing 51% of
>the popular vote to win a mandate is simply cr*p: by that
>measure Bush and Reagan didn't have a mandate either--in fact,
>neither did Lincoln (he only got about 40% of the vote). The
>
>No mandate my ass. Hey, Dole--surely you're aware that the only
>
>And righfully so, of course. I mean, here we are with a vote
>for change, a new president willing to compromise and try to
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Feinstein '94
>Clinton/Gore '96

[more of this gloat factory's output deleted from around the above]

Your posts are becoming ever more charming--but tell me:

If 43% constitutes a mandate, then what doesn't?  Give me a cut-off
here so I know what to work with.  If Marrou had captured the hearts
of millions, would 25% count as a mandate?


Ramble on,


David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:02:19 GMT

In article <7979@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>=neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
>=>Look boneheads, anytime you have 3 *real* candidates, it's very tough to
>=>get a majority (that is-over 50%) of the popular vote.
>
>I just want to be sure about this: wasn't Ronald Reagan voted in with a
>majority of the popular vote back in 1980 when there were three viable
>candidates (Reagan, Carter, Anderson)? I bet you don't want to remember
>this bit of history either.

About 50.1% of the popular vote, I recall.  Carter got a little over
40%.

Arguably, Anderson was a moderate/liberal Republican, and was drawing
more votes off of Carter and not Reagan.

Dontcha love spin?


--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
From: ghee@vision.larc.nasa.gov (Terry A. Ghee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 15 Dec 1992 21:44:08 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: vision.larc.nasa.gov

Just a question on the gays in the military stuff.  Where does
a gay person take a shower?  No, I'm not kidding.  If I am on a ship,
I would not be allowed to shower with the women.  Do gay men
shower with men  (the very gender they are physically attracted to) or
women (the gender they aren't attracted to)?  If a navy person were to request
that a man can shower with the women, this would be disrupted to the military.
I personally do not for my military to take showers in a setting of opposite
attractive genders are sharing the communal space.

And before someone answers me with that gay military people are just as professional
as non gay, I already grant that.  But my point is, it is not right to put
opposite genders in the same private area.  We would not put a man and a woman in
the same room in the military, why put a gay and a non gay (or gay) in the same room?
These are difficulties that must be overcome to have functioning military.   Last
but not least, the military is not a democracy (never has been, never will be).  I know I'll
get flamage on that one, but that is reality.  In the military, your rights are
restricted.  They have to be to have an effective fighting force.  Commands must be
issued and obeyed.  That simple.

If gays can be admitted to the military where it can be guaranteed they will have no long
term effect, than fine.  But we must be very careful with what we do to the military,
someday we may have to use it and it better be effective.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:10:15 GMT

In article <8028@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>:
>:About 50.1% of the popular vote, I recall.  Carter got a little over
>:40%.
>:
>:Arguably, Anderson was a moderate/liberal Republican, and was drawing
>:more votes off of Carter and not Reagan.
>
>I have to examine the polling data (not me personally, but try to
>remember what I had heard) regarding Perot taking votes away from Bush
>or Clinton.  It was obvious that he took the disgruntled conservative
>vote in California from Bush, but does that make Perot a conservative or
>an alternative?

This is perhaps from memory, but I recall polling data that suggests
Perot took away votes equally from both candidates.  This gives
Clinton around 53%, and Bush around 48%, still a bad show for a
sitting prez.  Perot is perhaps an alternative, one who had ideas from
both camps.  This in itself is not a bad thing.  I perhaps am judging
a book by its cover in saying this, but Perot was a horrible vehicle
for his message.

>
>Time to puree my brain for my finals...

G' luck.



--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:15:56 GMT

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>But there's a difference in the circumstances.  Reagan, and Bush to a lesser
>extent, ran as conservatives, made no apolologies for being conservative,
>promised conservatives would be appointed in an effort to curb the excess
>of the left and they won significant majorities of the popular vote, in
>two cases by real landslide margins, because that what voters wanted.

And outdid the excesses	
>What you saw is what you got..

>In Clinton's case you had a candidate running as a liberal in the primaries,
>then transforming hiself into a "moderate" during the campaign for the White
>House, promising diversity and a "new democratic party" with "all points
>of view being considered."  What you got was a charade that allowed the 
>overwhelming number of voters to oppose the man that will be President,
>he's shed his disguise of moderation that helped him "win" and has given an
>illusion of diversity by appointing a quota structured cabinet that listen
>to only one point of view and considers only one opinion, that of the left.
>What you got is an America that was duped and I doubt they will soon forget.

Where in the fuck do you get off with this crap about people opposing
Clinton because they voted for another candidate.  In a three way race,
you don't have yes/no, republican/democrat, you have 3 choices, and
sometimes you like this guy a bit more than that guy, and so on.  Even
in a two way race, some people like aspects of one candidate, and
other aspects from his opponent.  

>He promised my views would be represented in his cabinet but I don't see one
>person even remotely the views of the 6 out of 10 of us that voted against
>him.  He lied to us all!

Well you're so full of shit, I hardly expect him to find an appointee
quite that representative.






-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:11:33 GMT

In article <834@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.193945.9427@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>Since Lincoln didn't cause the war or his assasination. This is the
>>biggest
>>nonsensical statement you have made so far. I didn't think you
>>could top yourself, but you did.
>
>Really now, I'm no historian but, I just watched this documentary (on PBS)
>about his life and political career

Me, I watched that self-same documentary, and found it to be one of
the slighter things PBS put on this season.

>, and you know they said that the calls
>for the south to break from the union and for war started the day after he was
>elected, simply because he was elected.  The fact that he kept it from
>happening for as long as he did is probably some credit to his abilities
>(most Republicans Presidents are overly endowed with skills don'cha know)

Well, one would argue, if one were reasonable, that there were
systemic pressures on the nation that simply blew up because of the
election.  His election did trigger the explosion, undoubtably.

That he kept the war from happening for a few months was perhaps due
more to the reluctance in the South.  States do not leave the Union on
an everyday basis, don'cha know.  Two or three slave states
(Maryland, that part of Virginia we now call W. VA, I think Kentucky,
perhaps others) even decided to stay.

Further, the states did not formally leave the Union until shortly
after Lincoln was inaugurated (remember: the transition period was
from November through I believe March or April in those days).  He
wasn't in much of a position to keep the Union together for all those
months.  [Heh, heh.  By your argument then, it was the skills of the
Democratic president that kept things from falling apart.]

>
>So yes in many mays his election was the cause of the war.

As said, systemic pressures.  



--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:43:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec15.191945.8878@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>
>If aspects of the plan change, so what. It is incredibly naive on your
>part to believe that the program would not change. Here we sit on this
>"moving ship" called the economy, and you want the program to be cast in
>stone, regardless of any unforeseen political or economic events.

No I want you to admit that his "plan", which he repeatedly claimed during
the campaign specific and chock full of details, the plan which he claimed
was the difference between he and Bush and Perot, the plan which he was
on record as having layed the details out for, that plan never existed.

At Best what Clinton had in the campaign was a sketchy outline of some 
proposals that used fudge or incomplete numbers to create an illusion
of a plan.

What I want is for you to answer these questions: Did he, or did he not have
the detailed and specific plan he claimed to have during campaign.  And
if he did then what's the purpose of this conference?

I know what I think the answers are and they lead me to the conclusion that
Bill Clinton is a man that values symbolism over substance and he thinks that
because he was able to play that game with a bunch of podunks in Arkansas
he can get away with it in Washington.

PSG
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:42:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec14.005002.1365@unet.net.com> steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:
>
>This sounds like whining from someone too young to have experienced
>the successes of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the 
>Great Society.  

Successes??  You mean the New Deal that is credited with, by most historians
and economists, having prolonged the Great Depression?  The New Frontier
and Great Society success that lead to the assaination of one of it's 
spokes-presidents, deepend our involvement in Vietnam, brought us to the
brink of nuclear war and had people digging holes in their backyards waiting
for the bombs to fall, inspired social and political upheaval and near
anarchy, created entire generations of welfare dependant famlies and gave
us an education system that produces numerous graduates but few that can
read or function effectively in the workplace.  Gosh I pray I'm never cursed
with that kind of success.

I'm well aware of the "success" of those ideas and how they, each in their
own way, lead to things like the Reagan Revolution and the shift towards 
conservatism that took place in the eighties.  I'm aware because I'm
one of the people that counted themselves amongst the Carters, Kennedys and
such, got fed up with their "success" and gave them the heave-hoe.  I'm also
aware that Bill Clinton is about to give us another dose of the "success" of 
leftist social policy and the result will be the same.  The only difference; 
next time when people reject those programs and the proponentsmi and move 
further to the right it just might shock a few people. 

What's lacking is your, and others, understanding of just what type of political
situation we have today.  In case you didn't notice, this past November a 
record 100 millon people voted and 6 out of 10 voted against Bill Clinton 
and expressed a desire for a more conservative President.  But look what  
they got for their trouble instead.  It looks like Bill may want to
deceive himself into thinking that America chose what he's about to give us 
but, the reaction to his intentions concerning gays in the military prove
otherwise. And everyday now we hear more good news on the economy which exposes
the lies of Clinton's "the worst economy in 50 years" to an even greater degree. 
You can close the book on this one.

PSG
-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton