HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:16:20 GMT

In article <randall.727665720@seashore>
randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:

>casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>
>>Yep, Slickness may not have any campaign promises left to break by the time he
>>is sworn in.
>
>>1) Homosexuals in the military:
>
>>Promised: Would end ban immediately.
>>What He Meant To Say:  Will form yet another commission to study the problem.
>[etc...]
>
>
>1) WHAT BUSH SAID: Read my lips, no new taxes.
>   WHAT BUSH MEANT: I will raise taxes and create new taxes, then blame
>            it on Congress.

       Despite what some people accused him (and even speculated that by this
time we'd be under martial law because he wouldn't leave office) George
Bush at no point in his Presidency was a dictator.
       Certainly George Bush broke his promises.  But to suggest he
raised taxes on his own is ludicrous.  He and Congress worked hand in
hand, then tried to blame each other.  (See Al Gore who voted for the
thing and then blasted Bush for it during the campaign.)

[Other broken promises deleted...]

       Ok, we've established Clinton isn't doing anything new.  This
from the "change" candidate.  It doesn't excuse something by pointing
out somebody else (who was defeated at the polls no less) did the same
thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal    Div. of Cont. Ed. Information Services Group  UT, Knoxville
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu   "Of course the government and the newspapers
                          lie.  But in a democracy they're different lies."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: needed: Sen's phone # and women in the military
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:22:44 GMT

I was wondering if anybody could email the phone numbers of
New York Senators Al D'Amato and Daniel P Moniyhan.

Also, when were women allowed to serve in the military? (not as
like nurses but as regular enlisteds/officers) 

Please email me either or both responses because my netnews
feed has been touch and go and i need it today (or at latest
tomm) if possible.

Thanks,
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	Get involved (or shut up)
CLARKSON '95				Majority rule doesnt mean mob rule 
============================================================================
"But to risk we must, for the greatest hazard in life is to risk
 nothing. For the man or woman who risks nothing, has nothing, does
 nothing, is nothing."
	---Eulogy for Christa McAuliffe


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 01:55:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.174346.4717@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <13954@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>In <1993Jan16.052356.28532@Princeton.EDU>, (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>> In article <13911@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>> >In <1993Jan12.093713.5445@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>
>
>It works both ways.  A 17 year old isn't a child, contrary to your (and 
>some legislatures') oft-repeated claim.  


I would disagree with this claim alomst certainly. You offer no
reason why you assert this. SO, I refute simply in the way that
you do. A 17 year old is not an adult, contrary to your claim.
I tend to side with the law, and not you, on this one.

>># Child molestation means molesting people too young to consent.  But what
>># that age is is NOT intrinsic to people.  It's being arbitrarily defined
>># by *YOU* to be 18 years of age.  Amazingly enough, all over the world
>># it's defined differently.  
>
>>Mr. Brack, NAMBLA, and many other homosexuals insist that there should
>>be NO line.  Clear enough?  That's NOT the same thing, and you know
>>it.  (Or should.)
>
>But not having a line is not necessarily the same thing as saying
>"anyone can have sex with anyone," and you know it.  Or should.

This is true, but what it does do is remove institutional protection
from those who simply are not mature or emotionally developed
to make such a decsion. It opens up 15,16,17 year olds or younger
to be preyed upon. I suppose that you also favour the removal
of child-labour laws. I guess that a 16 year old is capable
of deciding that he should work x number of hours for y
level of pay?

One of the roles of the government is to protect the helpless.
and few would argue that children are not in this group.
--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: A 4th branch of government?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:28:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.044432.7570@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>Providing that no provisions of the Constitution are violated. The
>Tenth Amendment specifically states that the federal government has
>no powers except those granted by the Constitution. Article One
>Section One states that all legislative power granted by the 
>Constitution is vested in Congress. Therefore, whatever agencies
>Congress establishes may not have any "legislative power." The 
>executive and judicial power is a little easier to give away: Executive
>departments, agencies, officials, etc... may be delegated executive
>power by the President (since Article Two, mentions
>them) and Article Three vests judicial power in whatever other courts
>Congress establishes as well as the Supreme Court. However, as far
>as the Constitution is concerned, Congress is the sole body to 
>posess "legislative power." 

The problem is that you can't draw a neat little Venn diagram of all
the government functions without any overlap between what is "legislative"
and what is "executive."  The Supreme Court has tried that several times
and failed miserably at trying to draw the line each time.  You could
probably get yourself on a good law school faculty if you have the
magic bullet of the answer, but I suspect that any line you draw isn't
one that's to be found in the Constitution and that you would just be
"making" law, rather than "interpreting" it.

But I'd love to hear your suggestions.  What's "legislative"?  What's
"executive"?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Debt Not Necessarily Bad
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:19:48 GMT

(Spinuzzi Clay "not spinzunni") writes:

>  2. The difference between going into debt for an education/house/car and 
>going into debt as a nation is this: the student usually pays off the debt 
>and makes a fair profit within a few years. See, school *ends*.  In contrast,  
>the USA just keeps going into more debt, with no end in sight.

I think you've done a good job of differentiating between "investing" and
"gambling".  It all to often appears that the Federal, State and City
governments "gamble" with funds.  If the funds were coming more directly
out of the pockets of the bureaucrats you can be certain that the same
"investments" would not be made.

tom

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: warrenc@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Cherie Warren)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Organization: Boeing Computer Services
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:19:17 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) ecrit:
>> And moreover you would be flamed by a good number of USENET readers
>> (and not just American ones) for wasting net resources by posting a
>> message that hardly anyone can understand.  (It seems that only the
>> frogs are so ill-mannered as to engage in such rude and boorish
>> behavior as this.)

>"Monsieur Kettle est noir!" dit Monsieur Pot.

So eine Schade ist, das Herr Pot/Kaldis nicht nur schwarz ist, sondern
ein totaler Arschloch.

Quelle dommage, n'est-ce pas?

Le monsieur ecrit, parce-que le monsieur es un 'cretin'!
-- 
Cherie
warrenc@bcstec.ca.boeing.com
...!uunet!bcstec!warrenc
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: "Energy" Bill Clinton!
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:20:31 GMT

In article <9301271408.AA19449@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>[... ummm... yeah...]

	Halcyon?

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70117 alt.peeves:19661 talk.politics.medicine:723 soc.culture.usa:10188 soc.culture.african.american:14403 sci.med:24511
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:34:04 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1993Jan26.231247.9812@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
}The for-profit health care system
}in this country is manifestly broken.

Yes, if you mean broken by statist interventions.  No, if you mean it's a
market failure.

The insurance companies 
}providing "health care coverage" are little better than your average
}coke dealer.

Nonsense!  Coke dealers provide much better service.  Medical insurers have
been wrecked by Blue Cross and Blue Shield since the 1940s, and are only
beginning to recover.

}The point is, you will pay for it one way or another. You can either
}shut up and pay taxes and get some warm fuzzy somewhere in
}your being that you are doing your part to keep your fellow humans
}out of poverty and degradation,

For doing nothing more than pushing paper around in some bureaucracy in the
name of those made too poor to afford medical care by taxes and regulations...

}But even if you achieve 
}some kind of Libertarian/Feudal utopia, you'll pay for security
}*from* the poor if you don't pay for security *for* the poor. Louis
}XVI found that out the hard way....   

State medicine bears far more resemblance to pre-Revolutionary France than
would a free market.

}Am I the only one who gets bored stiff listening to Libertarian 
}drivel all the time?

Nope, and you certaintly aren't the only one who doesn't pay enough attention
to get it, either.

You'd think that we were living under maoism
}in this country the way these bozos whine about everything...Bill
}Clinton starts talking about basic health coverage and they start
}going on like he's gonna come by and steal the food right outta
}their children's mouths. Get a grip and grow up, people.

Ever been audited?  Ever had your property seized?  Ever had your children
shot by statists?  Many have, and these victims of the policies you support
are real, numerous, innocent, and unnecessary.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are you pro-choice on education? (was Re: Pro-)
Date: 24 Jan 93 21:02:30 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1993Jan21.201613.27707@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.004906.26636@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <casivils.727566210@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>>>Tit for Tat,
>>>
>>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>>private or public of their choice.
>>>                                Craig
>>
>>Because, Craig, many pro-choice people are intelligent enough to distinguish
>>between an issue of personal autonomy and an issue of government subsidies
>>for the rich.

>How would a voucher system be any more a 'subsidy for the rich'
>than the current public school system? This is a red herring.

>Pro-abortion-choice folks often speak of the family planning
>angle. (can't let an 'unwanted' child be brought out into the world.)
>Why isn't the best education for your child considered
>a part of the important life choices that a family should be able to
>plan for? We are not speaking of choice in education as a "right", but
>that choice in education is simply good social policy that
>is in the best interests of the children and the families involved.

     One book which really puts "school choice" into perspective is _Savage
Inequalities_, by Jonathan Kozol. It will explain my reasons for
quotation marks.

                                                                   mp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
From: fxars@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: Selling  of tv rights
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:36:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.153839.20614@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> How did the Clinton Campaign manage to sell exclusive rights to something happening
> at a national monument on public land to a private business (HBO, for example)?

Private commercial events/concerts happen on federal land all the
time, espcially land managed by the U.S. Park Service, which, I
believe, most National Monuments are.  What exactly are you talking
about?  I hope this has nothing to do with the inaugural.  He probably
is legal, but that sure would be tacky. === Al
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:54:07 GMT

In article <C19nyA.FDn@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>    The people who benefit the most from these programs could be split
>    into three categories:
>
>        the public servants who administer the programs, yet
>        themselves do not have to pay the SS tax;

>        the underprivileged ones whom our cruel society denies 
>        the privilege of being able to contribute into the system;

>        the current crop of retirees who are getting $1 in 
>        benefits for every 15c they had contributed.

>    From now on, every subsequent generation of retirees is going to
>    get less subsidy then the previous one.  Clinton already is talking
>    about raising Medicare eligibility age to 67 years.

>    The boomers will be lucky to get 15c in benefits for every $1 
>    they will have contributed.

I am pretty well fed up with the "boomers" ane the 60's culture they are 
trying to impose on the young these days...but that's another gripe
entirely...

I should point out that if the money we are all putting into SS taxes were
put into some nice safe retirement funds, we would all have FAR more than
$1 for every $.15 put in.  The real shame of all of this is that the government
has squandered everyone's nest eggs, AND a big chunk of their current
income, AND saddled future budgets with titanic debts and what do we have to
show for it aside from a crippled ex-USSR?  

I can invest my retirement funds FAR better than the government can, and it
has no business paying for my retirement benefits or anyone elses in the
first place.

--Brian
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69743 soc.motss:58404
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Yuppie Vacation Bill (WAS Re: Family Leave Bill
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:10:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID) says:

>>would allow a worker to take up to 12 weeks of
>>UNpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of a child... [or for
> ^^^^^^
>"illness" of a family member]
>
>And just who, do you suppose, can AFFORD to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave?
>None of the "working families" I know of can afford a three-month unpaid
>leave of absence.  They should call this bill the "Yuppie Vacation Bill".
>
>And the cost in lost productivity will naturally be borne by everyone.


     Only those still working.  Come on, get with the ticket here.
     
     "We're in this together!".    

     This is a perfect example of how out-to-lunch our government is
      now.  For them, this is a benefit.

>
>- db 
>   
>
>
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:14:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.023251.7892@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

|> >No.  They did have two other choices:  start their own business, or leave 
|> >the area and look for work elsewhere.
|> 
|> 	Easier said than done. Why don't _you_ try it some time?

:-)  I'm not the original poster, but I have, many times.  Sure would
have been easier without the government.  For example, right now I'm
waiting for the FDA to approve what is essentially a protractor for
measureing angles of head motion.  It'll take around 6 months--that's
a long time to wait for your device to come to market.

|> 	I may add that workers _have_ tried changing such
|> circumstances by forming labor unions, and I've yet to see
|> Libertarians take unions seriously.

But its right in the platform!  We support anybody's rights to get together
for collective bargaining.  What don't you like about our position on
labor unions?

|> 
|> 	And if you don't like government regulation, then would you be
|> willing to endorse efforts to strengthen labor unions, so that workers
|> can push for good working conditions while bypassing government
|> regulation more easily?

A thousand times yes.

|> >Because people who don't want to take care of themselves discovered that 
|> >they could use the power of the state to force others to take care of them.
|> 
|> 	A rewrite of history. Private charity didn't work very well in
|> the Great Depression,

Well, not even private charity, as effective as it is, can hope to do more
good than the goverment does bad.  In the 1920's Congress pushed through
1) Income taxes, 2) the Smoot-Harly Tariff act, 3) the Federal reserve
and increased the money supply at over 20%.  And then everyone was surprised
when we had an economic collapse.
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Seem to have missed...
Date: 23 Jan 93 06:54:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1jmga1INNiek@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>He can seek advice from anyone he wants to: most Presidents have
>consulted with lots of people, including their friends.

Indeed they can. One word: astrologer.

Hhahahahahahaha!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69686 alt.politics.clinton:21184 misc.legal:23266 alt.politics.correct:6362
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:12:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
<ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank): 
<><   Clinton never had a quota.  He had a goal of diversity.  Diversity by
<><   ethnic group, geography, and ideology has been common since the beginning
<><   of democracy in making appointments.  What Clinton proposed to do is
<><   expand this diversity beyond white males by including qualified women
<><   and minorities in the process.
<>
<>    Yes, we've noticed all the Asian-Americans in the Clinton
<>    cabinet.....
<
<Come on folks, Mr. Frank cannot win here.  If Mr. Clinton started appointing 
<Asians as well, and he should, then we need only wait for the "quota" attacks 
<to get louder.

Well, that Attorney General's spot is open... hmm...
For a man who promises a Cabinet that will represent America, and for a
party that prides itself in its "unity in diversity," it's a pretty
interesting dilemma Clinton's being put in. I think he still wants a
woman in the Attorney General's spot, and will go out of his way to get
a woman in that spot. (And if I'm wrong with his next selection so be
it.)

The fact is even women's groups read his statement as nothing less than
"Bill's gonna put more women in the Cabinet in positions of power." It
only matters to them that there are women in the Cabinet, not
necessarily the most qualified. To many of these interests it only
matters to them that someone is chosen who is a member of their interest
group so they can have that much more influence over what's going on.

<I fail to understand the situation where because a qualified minority gets a 
<position some must assume that (1) a quota system is in place, and (2) some 
<more deserving white male should have gotten the position.  Interesting that I 
<have had this pointed out to me by an acquaintance of mine, who finds problems 
<with quotas both not with hiring "friends of friends."

Answer regarding probably why Asian-heritage people aren't more
represented: Asians do not constitute a politically correct minority.
They are also the most diverse ethnic group in itself. Koreans !=
Japanese != Indians != Malaysians != Arabs != Pakistanis ... etc.
Many of the southeast cultures in particular (I am not so well learned
in Indian or Mongolian culture) also pride themselves on family, self-reliance
and hard work.  Having one Asian on the Cabinet hardly represents the
multitude of cultures in Asia.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69238 talk.politics.theory:5727 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13506