HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:30:34 GMT
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) says:

>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
>%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.
>%This administration is already a joke and it's just started!  I even
>%hear liberals on the local radio talk shows stating that they can't
>%believe they were suckered into voting for such a liar.  I really
>%feel sorry for all you people who defended Clinton in the past - you
>%must feel so foolish now.  I can't wait to see the first Presidential
>%opinion polls.
>
> Ohh, boo hoo. Clinton based his election statements (not PROMISES) on
> BNS data that was later shown to be inaccurate due to padding by Bush
> in his Economic Report from the President publication.  So he has to
> backpeddle, and all the sudden idiots like you are screaming "RECALL!".

BZZZZZT! WRONG.  Clinton based his PROMISES on Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) numbers which came out in August of 92.  CBO's numbers
are right in line with current pessimistic projections.

> What a whining little shit you are.
> You obviously don't have the guts to be an American.
> In the future, shut up and think before you post, or move to France, dammit.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.  Obviously rantings of one of Clinton's defenders who is
now backed into a corner by the foolish actions and lies perpetrated by
his President since the election.

> I have my own prediction; Collectively, it will be found that Reagan and
> Bush will have broke more promises every day before breakfast than
> Clinton will EVER break in his entire career.

I think you've gotten it backwards.  Clinton has already broken more promises
than Reagan and Bush did in their entire careers.  (^:}

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1383 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: READ CLINTON'S LIPS !
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:50:22 GMT
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center

In article <1993Jan22.135836.10871@cs.wayne.edu> mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman) writes:

[correct argument about tax revenues deleted]

   >
    >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.

well, I guess you're not the only one that complain about people not
reading posts.  I repost the following information from "The
Triumph of Politics" by Reagan's first OMB director.

Using the percent of the GNP for gauging military spending is
misleading due to the massive increase in other mandatory spending
(medicare, medicade, etc) since the 50s.  Even if Reagan and company
used the compromise Slower Growth Alternative proposed by Reagan's OMB
director, the defense budget would have been 52% bigger in
after-inflation dollars by 1986 than in 1980.  The pentagon's budget
would still have been 20% bigger in after-inflation dollars than at
the peak of the Korean or Vietnam war.  That's a pretty massive
buildup I would say.  But wait...Cap Weinberger wouldn't even take
that compromise.  Dave Stockman, the aforementioned OMB director calls
him Cap the Shovel in is book.  I'm all for a strong defense, but I
think Weinberger was either stupid or downright dishonest (there is a
lot of how he managed to get such a huge budget that I haven't
included).  Of course I've never heard his side.  I believe that a lot
of the extra spending went to unnecessary and unproven equipment
(and I can cite what I am talking about if necessary).  Let's talk
real dollars as well as the %GNP.


--


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
Subject: Re: Clinton's Address!!!
From: ribarbe@eis.calstate.edu (Richard Eldon Barber)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:37:44 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

snail:

PRESIDENT WM J CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON DC 20500

Email, 
75300.3115@compuserve.com

note, that was a campaign account, and traditionaly the chief isn't
reachable via internet email.
---rick
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 13:17:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.055413.22192@syacus.acus.oz.au> brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies) writes:
>markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>[as a Christian defending the "moral sin" of homosexuality]
>
>>I, as a free citizen, should have
>>the right to hire, rent to, exclude anyone I so desire.  I
>>have the right to be a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. (This is
>>all hypothetical...I am none of the above as far as I know).  But
>>I do believe that government should stay out of EVERY portion of
>>our society except for common defense, monetary policy, and a 
>>judicial system.  
>
>Great. Attitudes like yours have allowed the KKK to flourish for more
>than a century. Ever thought of moving to Idaho? You'd be well-liked up
>in the Panhandle Country.
>
>As a Christian, you claim to have a right to be a BIGOT, a RACIST, a
>HOMOPHOBE? Dear me, how I'd love to see what Christ would say to *that*.
>Or, y'know, St Paul. The one who wrote 1st Corinthians. That's the book with
>the famous 13th chapter all about bigotry and racism and hatred and fear and
>how they're all fruits of the Spirit.
>
>Yeah. Right. And you presume to show *us* the way?
>
I think that the paragraph you were responding to was meant to be
a justification for bigotry, racism, homophobia on *political*
grounds not religious. How you managed to construe his statement to be
using Christianity as a justification for those behaviors is
not clear to me. Perhaps you deleted a little too much of the
post you were responding to.

Sounds more like an extreme variation of Libertarianism than the
White Aryan Church if you ask me.

*******************************************************************************
*  "I've a good mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it!"      *
*   - Groucho Marx                                                            *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Administration of the elite!
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:56:08 GMT


>In article <2652@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>> Not that it has any real meaning other than symbolism, but I heard on
>> the radio this morning as I drove to work that it's official; The
>> Clinton administration contains more millionaires than any other 
>> administration in history.

This is an empty claim unless somebody can explain just how the
numbers were arrived at.  

For instance, in determining the person's net wealth, is the value of
his/her primary residence excluded?  This is commonly done in
estimating the wealth of government officials.  Every year the New
York Law Journal prints the "total holdings" of all the federal judges
in the Second Circuit; of course, their houses and "certain other
investment properties" are excluded from the figures.

I don't particularly believe that otherwise wealthy Democratic
appointees live in hovels with negative value, or that having scads of
rich Cabinet officials from either party inures to the benefit of the
Body Politic.  OTOH, the "millionaires" metric is subject to all sorts
of subtle (and not-so-subtle) manipulation, depending on whose
doctrinal axe is being ground.

So let's have it: were all but 13 of the Reagan-Bush advisors poor,
hardworking stiffs?  Or was their wealth simply unrepresented in the
numbers being bandied with such glee?


-- 
        "Maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm not.  Frankly, I really don't
         give a damn . . . ."    - Paul Havemann (paul@hsh.com)
                                   in <1993Jan25.190648.548@hsh.com>
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21406 alt.politics.bush:16410
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 17:49:19 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XXXDate: Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:49:17 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A78AC7AD2F030614@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:
>"The only thing we dare not tolerate is intolerance"??????
>
>Note the obvious contradiction of the statement.
>
>Should we tolerate rapists? Should we tolerate murderers? Should we
>tolerate thieves?
>
>The question is not "should we tolerate", the question is "WHAT should
>we tolerate, and what should we not tolerate."
>
>Tolerance is not, in itself, a virtue.

I think the sentiment, although not explicitly stated (for reasons of
brevity... it is just a .sig file), is reasonably clear.  Webster's defines
tolerance (in this context) as "being tolerant of others' beliefs,
practices, etc."  I maintain that this =is= a virtue.  Of course, as with
most virtues, it can be taken to absurd extremes.

To answer your question, we clearly should not "tolerate" unethical
behavior, such as the imposition of a purely religious taboo on the society
at large (i.e. "intolerance").

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                |
From: johelala@owlnet.rice.edu (Joel Thomas Patterson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A cabinet that looks like America
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:57:22 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1k3fjmINNrbc@tamsun.tamu.edu>, fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals) writes:
|> 
|> 		Equal rights for the womb-bound.
|>  
|>    The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are not 
|>    shared by my employer or my friends.  However, they should be.
|>    Fred Seals
Equal rights for the womb-bound?  Tell me, sir, since when are 
fetuses citizens of America?  Your citizenship and mine are 
established by birth certificates, which fetuses do not have.
Shall the government start making out certificates of 
conception?
 
You, as an ideologue, have no idea what your ideology would
entail in practice.
______________________________________________________
Joel T. Patterson
Jones College
Rice University
"Mister, I ain't got nuthin', but it's more than 
you got!"--U2, Silver and Gold
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21048 alt.rush-limbaugh:14929 alt.president.clinton:1740
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:37:33 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
> In a previous article, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) says:
> >
> >Zoe Baird. She will also be the head of the Immigration and Naturalization
> >Service (INS). She is well qualified in this regard, she hired illegal
> >Peruvians for two years as a driver and a housemaid, didn't pay their
> >social security, and now claims "ignorance of the laws." Great start
> >for an Attorney General.
> 
> Just imagine if Baird was a Reagan appointee.  How do you
> think the media and Congress would have reacted?  
> 
> It's beyond me how some of the liberals who just a few months
> ago were all "holier-than-thou" on this type of stuff now
> look the other way.  Don't they have ANY sense of integrity?


Actually, it's the LIBERALS, lead by the head liberal Ralph Nader, who have
been screaming about baird, and NOT because of the illegal domestics;
that's just a smokescreen. Naderites don't like her because her experience
is in CORPORATE (gasp!) law rather than civil rights baloney. 

> 
> >As for a cabinet that 'looks like America (tm)", what percentage of
> >American households have a maid and driver? Eisenhower's cabinet was
> >called "Eight millionaires and a plumber." The plumber was the Labor
> >Secretary, a union man. One of the political pundits said "Clinton's
> >cabinet is 13 millionaires. Where is the plumber?"
> 
> Why, you must be a hate-monger for daring to bring this up.
> You obviously need some sensitivity training!!  
> -- 
> Michael   
>  

Where's the "Native American"? the Eskimo? The ASIAN!? The Hawaiian? And
why are we focusing on these idiotic surface characteristics instead of on
brains and abilities? 

Perot said, when asked during an interview, if he'd appoint a homosexual
to his cabinet - he said no, and the press had a field day. He didn't go
far enough.  If I were running for President, and I were asked that same
question, I also would say "no", and I'd add: " I won't appoint any gays,
blacks, or women. I also won't appoint any straights, whites, or men. I
will appoint QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS who may or may not posess any of those
characteristics. And while I will certainly know, after the fact, if I
have appointed a black or a woman, I won't know if I've appointed a
homosexual- because I won't ask."


Clinton was right to call them "bean counters".  But he's knuckled under
to them anyway, by emphasizing surface characteristics instead of ability. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: History will judge
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:38:52 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <93025.095440MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>You have to have some sense of the long term in government guys, and that
>means giving Clinton at least four years before you start claiming broken
>promises.  So hang tight and try not to be so impulsive.
>Melissa Brown


Melissa, your instructions to wait to evaluate may be all fine and well
for those 43 % that voted for the guy but it is is not true we must wait
to see the results to make a fair assement of the man.  Bill Clinton 
exhibits qualities that no President should ever have and WILL play a 
major role in how effective he is.

So you're much older than the average poster, well so am I.  Answer this
question - without regard to the specifics of the policy of gays in the
military -  tell me when in your lifetime, if ever, did you see the Joint
Chiefs of Staff AND it's Chairman publicly oppose the policies of the President?
When in your memory can you tell me of a time when the military establishment
threatened to fight the President to the end on a policy that hasn't even 
been formulated yet?

You want to see what Bill Clinton brings to the White House, take two examples
and compare them;  Gen. Powell is reported to have not agreed with Bush's
choice on when to move on Iraq, did he go to Time magazine and publicly deride
his policy?  No, well why not?  Because George Bush regardless of his policies
and differences with others in governement was a respected man and leader, Bill
Clinton is not.  He is not respected by the military, by his opponets in the
legislature and by most of the people that voted against him.

Bill Clinton's past is a disgrace to the executive office and worse yet the
early indications are he's not changed.  The leaders of the military and the
members of Congress see what in Bill Clinton, a man with so little regard
for his office that he goes to cabinet meeting wearing a cute little button
down half open and not so much as a hint that this man understand the image
he is projecting.  Do you think people who have such little respect for this
man are given to compromise with a man who upon hearing his military chiefs
oppose him, he has only 30 votes in a Senate controled by his party and
public opinion polls that show opposition to policy, are these people really
going to respond to his response of - well too bad if they don't like it
I'm the President and I'm doing it anyway.  I don't think so.

Limbaugh says it best; character matters because leadership flows from 
character.  I need no time what so ever to evaluate anything to know that
Bill Clinton has NO CHARACTER and he can not lead.  And in fact everything
I've seen so far, from his inappropriate dress to the appointment of Hillary
re-enforces my beliefs.

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.
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD: ATTORNEY
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:16:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan22.162230.28377@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>
>Hey guys - most of the opposition to Baird in Congress has been from Democrats! 
>There goes your theory.
>

That depends on which theory you're trying to pin on us.  I know where the 
opposition is and I know why it's there.  The Baird issue is just another
example of how the left, with the aid of the media, frames these matters 
in just the right way to allow the public to think they know the story,
when in reality the truth is something they'll never see (ex: Gennifer
Flowers).

Baird's nomination was doomed from day one and it had little to do with
the hiring of illegals.  That was just a handy excuse for the Democrats
not unlike the verdict of the 4 LA cops was a handy excuse to dismiss
the violence that existed all along in that community.

No, the truth is that the reason she's been bumped is because she was
the closest thing to a conservative in the Clinton campaign and the 
liberals who think the AG's job relates on to civil rights matters,
wouldn't stand for the appointment of a moderate to that post.

How much you want to bet the next appointee has the term civil rights
slathered throughout her/his resume?   Yup and that candidate will
glide through the hearings like lard across a hot skillet, with nary
a word of coverage from the press. 

PSG

P.S. BTW, so what do all the friends of Bill think of the White House
     deciding to take the historically unprecedented step of locking 
     the press out of the White House?  Followed of course by the 
     statement (in response to angry questions from the press about the 
     action) from Stephonoageek that; the White House will see to it
     that the press gets all the information they'll need to do their
     jobs.

      It's like I fell asleep and woke up in Moscow 20 years ago.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21427 alt.politics.elections:25226 talk.politics.misc:70202
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:14 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1993Jan27.151444.1177@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
}In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan26172655@gauss.nmsu.edu> Nosy, ataylor@nmsu.edu
}writes:
}> <In article <1993Jan25.163710.2788@kadsma.kodak.com>
}pajerek@telstar.kodak.com 
}> (Don Pajerek) writes:
}> <   In article <1993Jan25.144828.18072@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J.
}LaFave 
}> <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
}> 
}> <   [article deleted]
}> 
}> <>These arguements about "promises" are either mere partisan fru-fru,
}> <>or show a complete lack of understanding of the realities of politics.
}> 
}> 	Ho, ho, ho. 
}> 	LaFave had no problem taking the Shrub to task for breaking
}> 	promises, but whine in his beer when Clintoon is asked
}> 	to "pay up"!
}
}At least I waited until Bush was president and had actually done something
}(or failed to do something) before I took him to task. I even tried to
}give
}him most of his term before I passed judgement. My complaints were based
}on facts, not on unsubstantiated predictions of the future.

So's mine.  the campaign promise specified "first day".  Been in office
a week.  No show.  FACTS, no unsubstantiated prediction.

}Let me ask
}a question. Did you hold Bush up to the same standards you are forcing on
}Clinton? Did you take him to task the same way for breaking most of his
}campaign promises? 

Why?  Last I checked, this "Bush" person isn't President...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:39:16 GMT

In <1jnk25INNnl3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:


>In a previous article, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) says:

>>I occurs to me that there is one thing for which we can all give thanks.
>>I for one am glad that this groups collection of chronic bitchers was
>>not around in 1776, or there simply would not be a US of A.


>     Hmm.  My book says that 1776 was about taxation. 
>     Perhaps the "Founding Fathers" ( oops, sorry Shalala ) 
>     should have demanded MORE taxation.  

You miss the point, sure it was about tax, but they stood together
and acted together, like I said below, all talk no action. If you
are so damn smart and have all the answers, how come I didn't see
your name on my ballot?

>     Like, like, kinda like the American people did in 1992.
>      
>     Prediction:  Historians will look back on the 90s like we look
>     back at the 70s, and lauuugggghhhhhh.


>      Personally, I couldn't keep a straight face during the 
>      "Ring-In".  I admit it.  I was wrong.  Ringing those bells,
>      hugging, and renewed hope really DID feed all the starving
>      children in China.

So you immediately sat down and wrote a fat check to UNICEF?

REB

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton