HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird should step aside
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:41:57
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1993Jan21.131622.3838@hemlock.cray.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rja@mahogany126.cray.com's message of 21 Jan 93 13:16:22 CST

In article <1993Jan21.131622.3838@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

> NPR (Nina Totenberg) just said that Feinstein & Braun are working
> behind the scenes to get Zoe to withdraw.  I hope it's true.

As always, I tend to think that the real scandal isn't what's illegal,
but what's legal.  That is: I would rather not see Baird as Attorney
General, but not for this reason.  I'm rather appalled at the
prominance in his administration that President Clinton has given to
the wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists: people like Warren
Christopher, and Ron Brown, and, yes, the insurance lawyer Zoe Baird.
How she handles her babysitter's taxes is, in my opinion, a minor
issue compared to the class of people she represents.

I think that this is something we can expect to see for the next four
(eight?) years: Bill Clinton isn't going to completely surrender the
country to the interests of the wealthy and the powerful corporations
the way that Reagan and Bush did, but he is still going to give them a
lot more weight than he gives the rest of the country.  It's an
improvement, I guess, but we still have a way to go.

(The same is true with ethics: Baird's aren't impeccable, but compared
to Ed Meese she looks like Gandhi.)
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: garyb@gcm.com (Gary Blumenstein)
Subject: Re: Reality is a b!tch
Organization: Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:17:15 GMT

James Meritt (m23364@mwunix) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan20.164819.3885@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
: }In article <1jj0v3INNp5u@gap.caltech.edu> chdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Christopher Dunn) writes:
: }>The Clinton team says that fulfilling some of Clinton's promises might
: }>endanger the recovery.
: }
: }Heck, some of knew that *before* the election!
: 
: The question is: did Clinton?
: 
: If yes, why was he lying when he knew better?
: If no, why was he so (selective?) blind/ignorant?

Clinton, and we may as well include his beloved companion, Hillary Rhodam,
personify their proclaimed "new generation", and carry along with it, all the 
values and motivations which have already shaped their careers.  Take a careful
look at their lives and ask yourself why they are where they are now.  I have
a theory.  Bill Clinton and Hillary Rhodam's sole motivation in politics was
and always will be, to advance their own careers.

They were looking for a raise, and were willing to accept a little more 
responsibilty in return for the celebrity status the Oval office brings.  
To this end, they were sucsessful and deserve our congratulations.  They 
fooled the American people, some of whom may be able to look in the mirror 
and identify with their grandiose ambitions, but on a smaller scale.  Ever
hear of the Peter Principle?  Very good politicians they are indeed but I'm
afraid Willie may have met his match in the White House.

Personally, I cannot forgive the two of them for what I believe was a
deliberate deception of the American people.  This includes the media, who 
greatly aided in their election (the emphasis is on "they", in honor of 
Hillary Rhodam's new office).  Bush was right, Clinton's character is 
personified by his draft dodging coverup.  Not on the issue of whether or not 
he was willing to serve his country, but by his failure to simply face himself 
and come clean with the American people.  Bill Clinton knows in his heart who 
he is.  God help us.
-- 
Gary Blumenstein                          |   garyb@gcm.com        Internet
Unix Systems Administrator                |   uunet!gcm!garyb      UUCP
Greenwich Capital Markets                 |  +1(203) 625-7937      Voice 
600 Steamboat Road, Greenwich, CT  06830  |  +1(203) 629-9136      FAX
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:24:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.152136.10179@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.080224.26329@mcc.com> amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes in response to the claim that the USA is the most privatized country
>in the world:

>1) Only in the narrowest definition of the market is local phone service
>   a monopoly.  You're forgetting cellular phone service, for example.

I was wrong about this.  Thanks to Mike Doel of Bellcore for letting
me know that cable companies are preparing to offer phone services,
and that "interexchange carriers," (whatever those are) and cellular
companies will also be offering basic phone service soon.

>>Remember that the Nazis scheme was private ownership of property put
>>to uses directed (or dictated, take your pick) by the government.
>
>Thank you for your cogent demonstration of Godwin's Law.

You're welcome.  Although when I was coming up, it was known as
Godwin's Conjecture, by which name I still refer to it, as I am
unaware of any actual proof.




-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70506 alt.president.clinton:1923
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:38:11 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Xxdate: Tue, 26 Jan 93 08:34:10 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15

In article <john.727989523@misty> John R. Moore, john@anasazi.com writes:
> Clinton's "diversity" in his cabinet is a joke. 72% are lawyers,

So what else is new.... Our political system has been over-run with
lawyers and businessmen for years. These people have the time
and motivation to involve themselves in government.

> and
> all are yuppies.

If "yuppies" are defined as anybody who has been successful
(upwardly-mobile), then you have a point.....a meaningless point.
Do you really want people who are failures running the country?

>Almost all are Washington insiders.

It is a known fact that Carter had trouble dealing with congress
because of the lack of Washington insiders in his administration.
Being a Washington insider does not necessarily mean that you're
an evil bureaucrat. It could mean that you know more about how the
system works. These type of people are a necessity.

>Some "change"
> and some "diversity.

By your narrow definitions, we would have a cabinet of downwardly-
mobile failures with no expertice or federal government experience.
Sounds great----NOT!

" Snort!

gazoontite.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:04:23 GMT

In article <1k578pINNn2u@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
>
>Yet another right-wing idiot who's too young to remember a successful
>Democratic presidency. Just because you were pre-pubescent when Reagan
>arrived on the scene doesn't mean there wasn't a world already
>there. Truman was proposing Universal Health Care in 1949. The beloved
>A.M.A. pounced on it and called it socialized medicine. They also called
>HMO's that, until most doctors realized that was the wave of the future and
>began starting their own group and HMO practicies.
>

If you consider HMO's, VA hospitals, and the way medicaid operates...
all three are more socialist than anything we have in Canada...all we
have in Canada is public insurance...one giant risk pool...we have
private hospitals, we have the choice of any doctor we want, and
we don't have to fear the loss of our personal wealth from illness, or
worry about health insurance in making labour market decisions such
as changing jobs.  The Canadian public self-insures, and
has elected politicians manage the insurance...polls in various
developed countries have shown that Canadians usually have the
highest rate of satisfaction with their health care system.

Gerald
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69947 talk.politics.medicine:693 soc.culture.usa:10125 soc.culture.african.american:14371 sci.med:24463
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
From: timothy@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Tim Bates)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:27:29 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

In response to an impassioned description of the involuntary nature of
socialized medicine

jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying penicillin,
>despite having worked since age 13.

If doctors didn't have the support of the government in preserving their
monopoly on health, penicillin would be virtually free in medicinal doses
available from your local dairy.

May you be faced with the choice between buying a Honda civic for
yourself or giving your doctor/representative/civil servant the down
payment on a porsche.

tim bates

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Dear President Clinton
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:43:23 CST


In article <9301261430.AA09021@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
> 
>      Mr.  President,
> 
> 	Although recent developments show the economy to be recovering,
>    I do not believe this to be the case.  In your campaign pledge, you
>    promised an economic plan comprised of infrastructure spending.
> 
> 	Now, I'm seeing talk of an 'energy' tax.
> 
> 	Will this be a repeat of the 1990 tax agreement?
> 
> 	Will the American people receive the economic stimulus they 
>    were promised?
> 
> 	To enact new taxes, cast aside previous pledges, and endanger
>    the confidence of the American people, is a grave risk.  We stand 
>    on a precipice now.
> 
> 	Consider your actions carefully.

Please check out the article in todays Wall Street Journal (Tues, Jan 26,
1993) on the continuing Bond market rally (page C1).  Investors believe, 
and are willing to back that belief with their investment money, that 
Clinton will reduce the size of the deficit and that inflation will remain 
low.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69672 alt.politics.elections:25134 alt.politics.clinton:21170
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:43:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


>>>ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>> Blah blah.......
>>>
>>> Either he's a bold-faced liar or we need to impose an
>>>IQ test requirement on those persons who wish to run for President in 1996.
>>>And people said Quayle was stupid?  This man has brains enough to run the
>>>country?  Come on Clinton defenders, let's see how far you'll stretch 
>>>reality to excuse him on this one.
 
>>matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) writes:
>> A few points:
>>
>> (1) Before you criticize, where's *your* Rhodes Scholarship? Clinton's
>>     one of the brightest politicians we've seen in a long time.
>>
>> (2) I don't know whether Quayle is stupid, but he certainly said
>>     some stupid things. And that "deer-in-the headlights" look does
>>     him in. Rest assured that Clinton is much smarter than Quayle, and
>>     for that matter Quayle, Bush, and Reagan put together.
>>
>> (3) I somehow feel as if I'm lowering myself by replying to your
>>     insipid posts, but I'll get over it.
 
>mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) says:
>Look Morgan, if you're going to get down and dirty with this type of
>partisan poster, you need to do something trite like pointing out a
>spelling error (bald-faced, not bold-faced), then say something like
>"yer mamma".  It's the only way to handle these types.  They don't
>listen to reasonable arguments or desire constructive dialog.

The 'a' key isn't working on my keyboard.  {:^)

>Clinton may have gone back on some promises and made an error
>nominating Zoe Baird for Attorney General, but I think he's wise to
>take his lumps rather than pull a "READ MY LIPS" a few years from now.

OK, I'll offer some constructive criticism.  To Clinton (and Gore) - 
resign now and save the country a lot of grief.  You weren't elected
because the people wanted you, you were elected because the electorate 
didn't want Bush as President any more.  Get down off your overinflated
ego and realize the people aren't in love with you, you're not the
reincarnation of Jack Kennedy.

I have yet to hear a Clinton 'Mr. Rhodes Scholarship' supporter explain
how President Genius came up with the notion that illegal aliens
usually make sure they get Social Security numbers and pay their SS taxes
when they work illegally.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1380 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:55:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.045150.20835@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (We need stronger death penalties) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.032107.14277@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)   writes...
>>Nice partisan barb ... but look on the bright side, fellah.
>>The longer Clinton does NOTHING, the safer we are.
>
>I guess that means we were as safe as we could possibly be domestically
>when Bush was president. Unless, of course, you know the future and know
>that Clinton will do something terrible. (it seems like all the 
>conservatives in this net know the future.)

Discuss amongst yourselfs.  Here's a topic: Rush Limbaugh --
Nostradamus reincarnate?  Ready?  Begin....


--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 16:06:56 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:


>Now let us turn to this matter of 'Freedom of Religion'
>and its implications for the Roman Catholic 
>Church and Other Such Groups as May Be Fetal Idolators.

>Are we to Allow 'Freedom of Religion' to be USED
>as a Cover for Blood Rituals and Cannibalism?


It would seem to me that it can only be considered cannibalism by those
who believe the doctrine.  Since the court is not permitted to believe
any religion, it would be forced to conclude that the bread and wine were
just that and nothing more.  You cannot prosecute people for _thinking_
that they are consuming the body and blood of Christ any more that you can
prosecute someone who smokes a joint of oregano, thinking it is
marijuanna.

You would have better luck pursuing the "serving alcohol to minors" angle.


Paul Ciszek                      No nation was ever drunk when wine
                                 was cheap.
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu                            --Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris)
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:58:21 GMT

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


>In a previous article, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:

>>
>>I give up. I will no longer respond. You guys are getting too
>>wierd, too bitter, too vacuous,


>     Oh, Doc.  First Lance bails off the Clinton bus, and now YOU.
>     Man, just when we jumping on board.  :)

>     BITTER??!!!!  NOT AT ALL!!!  I'm looking forward to this.
>     I'm ready for cash!

>     Here, let me draw you a schematic of " The Future " -



>                   Everything is Okay            Economy Blows UP
>                ------------------------------------------------------

>You, Dr. LaF          YOU pay more taxes          YOU lose everything
>betting on
>hyperinflation

>Me, The Fool        *I* get more Federal Freebies      *I* make out
>betting on
>deflation



>       Come on, it's the start of New Age.  Go, Clinton.

>       Man, you'd think he'd be happy that we finally jumped on
>       ticket.


I'm glad you painted a picture of your future, but you left out the
rubber walls and the "medicine".

Later,
Morgan


-- 

John Morgan Morris
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083

Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
Telephone: (404) 651-2253
FAX: (404) 651-2246
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Repression is in the Heart of a Democrat
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:34:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <Jan.28.06.57.56.1993.1289@romulus.rutgers.edu> I wrote:

>> I am very surprized that US generals are allowed to make political
>> statements such as this.  If a British soldier ever made a speach like
>> Powell they would be up on a serious charge.

> The differernce is, of course, that the right of free speech of
> Americans is protected by the U.S. Consititution.

As it turns out, Bill Clinton, as Commander-in-Chief, has imposed a
gag order on all American military personnel on active duty with
regard to the military ban on homosexuals.  How's that for a free and
open debate on the issue?  Silence those who are most knowledgeable on
the subject (and who, incidentally, happen to disagree with you most
vehemently).
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: inet
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:44:56 GMT

In article <C1BoL2.83y@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|> |>
|> |>|> One form of this beleif is Patriotism which in part asserts that 
|> |>|> there are moral duties that the individual owes to their country, getting 
|> |>|> killed in foreign wars for example.
|> |>
|> |>Phill you haven't got a clue what Patriotism is.  "Getting killed in a foreign
|> |>|>war" is most definatly something which a society has got to _earn_.
|> 
|> Ah so the "Libertarian" cause is reduced to a squalid excuse for draft dodging?

Would you die in a foreign war for any society you happened to be a member
of?  I would for some, I wouldn't for others.  How is that a "squallid excuse
for draft dodging?"

|> It is one thing to object to a war as immoral as Clinton did over Vietnam, quite
|> another to justify draft dodging on mere self interest.

I'll never forget what Scott Kolhaus (he was the first Libertarian I met in
person) said to me once:  "The platform is a beautiful document that I
would _die_ for."  Phill, would you willingly die if you knew that by doing 
so, your party's platform would be implemented?  Lots of Libertarians are
motivated by much more than just "self-interest."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:19:53 GMT

In article <adams.727986896@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Again, most catholics don't taste the wine more than about three or four
>>times; I add to my two only because I've seen married couples who get
>>hitched in a mass drink the wine.  Generally, the priest drains the
>>whole chalice. 
>One of Luther's list of complaints about the Roman Church...and something he
>changed...

   This is mainly for practical reasons.  Much of the reason that the
cup is not often available to the laity is concern over spilling it.

   Regardless of that, one receives Communion just as fully whether
one receives only the Body, only the Blood, or both the Body and the
Blood.

   The only advantage to receiving both is that the symbolism is
fuller.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:16:04 GMT

Keith R. Elflein <kre@po.CWRU.edu> writes:

>Freedom of Religion
            ^^^^^^^^
>If the "blood rituals and cannibalism" break no other laws that may
>exist, then i see no problem in granting them their 2nd ammendment
                                                     ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
>rights. If they do break other laws, then the rituals are probably
>infringing in some way on another person's rights, which is unacceptable. 

While I might be what could be termed as a member of the "Glock
religious following" [ ;) ] I doubt that 2nd Amendment (the right to
keep and bear arms) is what you mean.  Try Amendment 1. ;)

[BTW, for those who don't know, Glock is a firearms manufacturer.]
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------

                     Dallas Cowboys -- NFC Champions
                           The 'Boys are Back!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69970 misc.legal:23377 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1573