HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: INAUGURAL BASH in St. Paul
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:19:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan7.233729.18845@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>the specifics in the Bush proposal were bad.
>
>One other thing should be done to ensure success---targeting. We saw the
>failure
>of supply-side economics. It was the fact that incentives were not
>well-targeted
>and, therefore, did not have the desired effect.


Excuse me Norman, but when did you ever see anything even remotely 
like the economic theory known as supply side?  This is more of the 
Democratic nonsense deception that has allowed the Democrats that
run Congress to shirk the blame for their mis-management of our 
economy.  

One lousy stinking tax cut 12 years ago, a tax cut that was taken back with 
within two years hardly approaches what Supply Side economics is all about.
In case you haven't noticed, Congress has managed to spend record numbers
of our tax dollars, raises more and more revenue through higher taxes
and continually siphoned the investment capital from the private sector
every single year of the last three Republican administrations.  

If you ever really see an honest attempt at supply side side then perhaps
you can judge the "failure" or success of it more accurately.  In the
mean time however, it's time you and the other Clintonettes wake up to
the fact that the failed economic policies of the last 40 years are the same
ones Bill Clinton is bring to Washington, bigger government, more spending,
higher taxes, and over regulation.

PSG



>
>I propose that the government pay the voucher to the school directly so
>the funds
>go to their intended purpose. Otherwise, i'm afraid the funds could be
>misused for
>purposes other than education.
>
>Norman
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
>
>
>
>
>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20136 alt.politics.elections:24890 talk.politics.misc:67373 alt.politics.libertarian:3439
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:18:29 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1993Jan10.054326.1286@inel.gov> whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes:
->I guess that is why roughly 60% of GDP is still accounted for by Gov't. 
->China could well evolve to a relatively liberal market-oriented democracy.
->On the other hand,  it could use its economic dynamism to become an expansion-
->ist power.  My point is simply that they still think of themselves as Commun-
->ist,  and Communism is at base,  an autarkic philosophy.  Things could turn
->very ugly,  very fast.  We should not forget it.

 What worries me most about the new Presidential Administration, is that when
they play their game of "hardball" with the chinese elites, they might make
a major mistake. This could lead us into Cold War Number II with a new adver-
sary. Many people on my side will be extremelly upset by this. Many political
elites might find a second cold war a neat excuse to expand our socialist 
state once again. Mr. Clinton, be extremelly careful please !

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton Supports Public Schools NOT
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:17:47 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: johnd.tamu.edu


Well Comrade Clinton has announced that the first daughter will attend
a very exclusive private school and not a public school.  One more
example of the Democratic double standards.  The poor and middle class 
are stuck sending their children to substandard public schools while the
rich and powerful liberals, Comrade Clinton, Al Gore, Kennedy's get to
send their children to the best schools.

The time has come for a voucher system in public education so the working
class can afford the best education for their children.

fred
___________________________________________________________________________
	Visit Colorado a state where all are equal under the law.

    _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/  | 
   _/       _/         | 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 409-845-2298





Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Clinton and his propaganda
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:21:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.233527.25388@mercury.cair.du.edu> rsteiger@denver.cba.du.edu writes:
>
>I wonder, has anybody read the latest book on Clinton which is on sale in
>the finer grocery stores such as Safeway and King Soopers? I know these
>stores aren't EVERYWHERE, however, I was wondering if such obvious
>propaganda and pro Clinton fairy-tale biographies had reached all across
>the continent. More importantly, who the hell would believe

Kinda makes one wish that 'Farenheit 451' was for real.

I bet this book on Clinton tries to tell us that he is doubleplusgood,
but will people be convinced?

I know what part of the storethe book is in: the toliet paper aisle.



Simon

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19777 alt.politics.elections:24734 alt.politics.libertarian:3127 talk.politics.misc:66577
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 15:52:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) says:

>In article <C0Gxry.92C@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg
>(Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>[Typical libertarian education rant omitted]
>
>>One Democrat, at least, has recognized this, if only in terms of decisions
>>in his personal life and that of his family.
>
>What an incredibly stupid conclusion.
>
>Clinton's daughter was in public schools in Arkansas.  It strikes me as
>more likely that Clinton resents the decay and neglect of public schools by
>recent administrations, and is resolved to make them better (as he did in
>Arkansas.)

  Decay and neglect by *which* recent administration. If I'm not mistaken 
all of D.C.'s issues are decided by the House Of Representatives which is
controlled by democrats. If he opposes the educational proposals of his
own party then why hasn't he said so.  

>
>Let Clinton represent his own views.  Your second guessing to twist his
>actions to support your views is shameful.
>
>Mike Huben

Since Mr. Clinton has refused to represent his views about why he chose 
a private school we are forced to speculate. Just as you yourself have
when you said: 

" It strikes me as more likely that Clinton resents the decay and neglect 
of public schools by recent administrations, and is resolved to make them 
better."

While you accuse the original poster of twisting Mr. Clinton's actions to
support his views, you yourself are using them to poke at some un-named
other administration. And if your statement is true about his resolve to 
better the schools then this will be displayed by his transferring
his child to the public system after he has changed them. (i.e. if this
transfer to a public school doesn't happen then obviously he has failed
at solving the educational systems problems, or hasn't even tried.) All
of this should be placed in the perspective that he ran around the country 
for months touting himself as the REAL education president.
                                                                

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Clinton Supports Public Schools NOT
X-Xxdate: Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:51:46 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:55:30 GMT

In article <1413@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>No that time came along while back!  And like I said Norman, he's a liar
>and a failure before he takes office, mark my words.

I'll say one thing about you Paul, you're consistent.

Your predictions and slander have been filed for future reference.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: taco@baby.csd.harris.com (Pablo Fumero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: B. Clinton and America's future.
Keywords: uncertain, scary, hopeful
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:16:06 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Div., Ft. Lauderdale, FL
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.134.78.5

After all the whiners and boasters get it all out of their systems, the
fact remains that The Clinton administration is a big

 #####		The minority that voted for Clinton/Gore (yes, you know
#     #		the numbers by now), wanted change and the rest of the 
      #		country is going to get it regardless of its form.
   ###		
   #		Some of you may not be old enough to remember Jimmy Carter.
		I voted for J. C. way back when and have come to regret it
   #		ever since. This "new" administration in charge of "change"
		has some of the same old faces that Carter's had. It almost
looks like "Carter II". I hope not. 

I hope that Clinton's wife realizes that SHE WAS NOT ELECTED TO OFFICE and 
that Bill remembers the other people that did not vote for for him are still 
citizens. Lastly, I hope that he finds the internal fortitude to keep those
hordes of special interest groups led by cantankerous and highly vociferous 
individuals (and you know who they are) from taking over policy in the 
excecutive branch of government.

-- 		
Pablo Fumero 			Internet: taco@flipper.csd.harris.com
Diagnostic Engineering 		UUCP:  ...!uunet!travis!flipper!taco
Harris Computer Systems 	(305) 973-5167
Opinions expressed here are entirely my own and not of Harris Corporation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:15:06 GMT

In article <1iijjkINN1jt@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Jim Howe) writes:
>|> Steve Nelson) writes:
>|> |> Michael Doel) writes:
>|> |> >
>|> |> >
>|> |> >Wrong on two counts.  First, the rich aren't the ones being hurt by the lack
>|> |> >of school vouchers, it's the poor.
>|> |> 
>|> |> 
>|> |> Please explain how a child living in poverty in an inner city is going 
>|> |> to get a better education than he or she is currently getting because his 
>|> |> or her parent(s) receive(s) a school voucher worth $1000.00 or even $2500.00
>|> |> considering the cost of a good private (or public for that matter)
>|> |> education.
>|> |> 
>|> 
>|> It helps by creating a competitive market for education in the inner city.
>|> Instead of money automatically going to the local government school,
>|> parents will have the option of spending it elsewhere.  Some enterprising
>|> soul(s) will create alternative schools in the hopes of attracting
>|> the voucher money.  If a school gets a good reputation, it will attract
>|> more students, if it doesn't, students will go elsewhere.  Clearly the
>|> size of the voucher will make a big difference.  Most voucher plans that
>|> I am aware of have voucher amounts which are enough to pay for a reasonable
>|> education.  Additional money from parents, relatives, friends and 
>|> scholarships can all be used to supplement the voucher amount.
>|> 
>The school Chelsea will be going to is $10,000/year.  How much of a voucher
>would it take to give 80% of the residents of DC (or any other inner city)
>the opportunity to attend such a school?  Probably $9.900.  Doesn't sound
>like a solution we can live with, since we spend ~$3500 per student today --
>and that is total funding; federal, state, and local.
>-- 
>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.

	That $3500 figure sounds fishy, are you sure about it.  I know for
example that Trenton NJ (a poor place) spends about $5000 per student. 
Anyway, many Catholic schools operate (including endowmant and donations)
for about $4000 so your not far off, from a reasonable voucher. 
Personally I favor a $5000-8000 voucher, but I think most of the people
who favor the $1000 voucher, just want to give the private schools time to
react to a probably 5+ fold increase in their customer base.

--JMB


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20083 alt.politics.elections:24867 alt.politics.libertarian:3394 talk.politics.misc:67200
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:41:14 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
> 
> ...Not to mention the joy of graduating grade school with a 
> sizeable loan. Why don't you just propose a return to indentured 
> servitude?

isn't that what Clinton's proposing?

jason

--
             I stood up on my van. I yelled "Excuse me, sir. 
                  Ain't nothing wrong with this country 
                that a few plastic explosives won't cure!"
              - Steve Taylor, I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19755 alt.politics.elections:24720 alt.president.clinton:1370 talk.politics.misc:66480
From: bvickers@net3.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:09:02 GMT

[Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private school]

ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>And to add to the hypocrisy - I wonder if the wonderfull unbiased media, which
>blasted Quayle if he happened to play golf one time at some obscure club which
>had no minority members, will give us a breakdown of the student population
>at this elite private school.  And if it turns out to be predominantly white
>in an area of the country which has a high minority population, will they
>splash across the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post that
>Bill has chosen a rascist institution to educate his daughter?  I WOULDN'T
>COUNT ON IT!
>
>It sickened me last night to see that Clinton doesn't even have to defend
>himself on this - CBS was doing all his spin control for him!

There's nothing to defend.  According to today's LA Times, the Sidwell
Private School is a Quaker school that prides itself on its attempts
to secure racial diversity among its students.  The school is hardly
all-white.

I recommend that you make a better attempt to be informed before you
start jerking that knee.

By the way, I don't suppose you remember the time the media skewered
Clinton for playing golf at a country club that had no minority
members.  Selective memory perhaps?  Maybe you forgot about Gennifer
Flowers, too.

--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:49:38 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <C0G55F.35u@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
]
]	Why is it that when the same-old-white men are picked for
]cabinet jobs, there is a lot less harping about "capabilities"? And I
Why is it that when a black CONSERVATIVE was nominated to the supreme
court, the same people who push quotas and affirmative action
and selection by race were the ones who screamed about capabilities.
Do I smell a whif of hypocrisy here?
]said "a lot less", not that there is no harping at all. Is it because
]the faces of power are darker than before, or perhaps were a bit more
]lipstick, that our confidence in their abilities is just a bit shaken?
No, it is because a president who says from the start that gender
or race is more important than any other criteria is rightly subject
to such criticism. Note that Clinton ONLY interviewed women for some
jobs - for gender preference reasons.
>	For some time now, the face of political power in this country
>has been white and male. We're used to it, so some of us are a lot
>less likely to question it I suppose.
Ah, this tired old argument.
>	I think once we get over the initial shock of seeing black,
>hispanic and female faces where we have been used to seeing white men
>almost exclusively, we'll find that most of the people in Clinton's
>cabinet are perfectly capable of doing their jobs well.
Hey, anyone who lives in a big city or watches national news is quite
used to seeing black, hispanic and female faces in position of considerable
responsibility.
-- 
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
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A771D1BAC1020825@alimac27.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 7 Jan 93 12:25:30 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:23:57 GMT

In article <1455@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek,
psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>If you really believe that this "for her safety" crap is a
legitimate arguement 
>as to why the Clinotns should reasonably expect to send their
kid to a
>private school and not catch a ton of flak; it only show how
out of touch 
>you and the Clintons are with what any parent living in city
has to deal 
>with when they send their kids off to a public school.
>
>Tell me why the Clintons have the right to expect their child
to be free 
>from physical harm while at school and I don't?

Why don't you and some other parents who feel likewise get
together and sue your local school system?  File a class action
lawsuit on the basis of de facto discrimination with regard to
public safety.   There have been several lawsuits filed when
petitioners have been injured on public property.  School
systems should count as public property.  If the school is as
dangerous as you claim you should easily be able to prove it in
a court of law and get the court to grant you special financial
considerations based on the fact that it is too dangerous for
you to send your child to public school.

TerriB.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:54:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.074915.128@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.151711.28097@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>}
>}The fact is that Repubs
>}are trying to force Clinton into making a pointless symbolic gesture
>}at the expense of his daughter.
>
>'Tisn't the GOP trying that.  Why does the latest Washington Monthly, a
>Democratic-leaning publication, have an article titled "Why Chelsea Clinton
>Should Attend Public School"?
>


That's right: it's the Democrats who think that Clinton should have made
the symbolic gesture. The Republicans are attacking Clinton on the grounds
of 'hypocrisy' for NOT making such a gesture.

I personally am impressed that Clinton was able to make a decision like
this that manages to offend just about everyone.


>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19711 alt.politics.elections:24706 alt.politics.libertarian:3073
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:34:17 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1idpqvINN845@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>It was announced today that Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private 
>school.  Apparently the public school system is good enough for us plebes,
>but not for Mr. Clinton's daughter....or has he changed his mind about
>education vouchers?
>

Could you please tell me when Clinton said " Thou shalt not send thy
child to private school!"

Could you demonstrate that the tuition for Chelsea's schooling is 
not coming out of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's pockets?

On the other hand, there are valid reasons for her to be sent to 
privete school Security, continuity of education should Clinton not be
reelected, and the experiences of Amy Carter in DC public schools are all
examples.

Next time you post, think first.

Robert Johnston
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: CLINTON: Private Schools
Date: 9 Jan 93 07:13:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

So, the netters in favor of Clinton are already saying "Well, he had to
make this decision as a parent."

He never considered ONE public school, as he didn't even visit one.

Hypocrite.

******************************************************************************
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Boxer.
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc