HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: What the Bible says about Homosexuality
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:54:45 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

Greetings!
Here are some bible verses that I found that speak out against homosexuality.

This is from Romans 1:18 to 2:1...(Revised Standard Version)

  18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can
be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  20 Ever
since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power
and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.  So
they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him
as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and
their senseless minds were darkened.  22 Claiming to be wise, they became
fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling
mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
  24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to
the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the
truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the
Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
  26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  Their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up
natural relationos with women and were consumed with passion for one another,
men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the
due penalty for their error.
  28  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a
base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of
wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice.  Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit,
malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty,
boastful, inventors of evil, disbedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless,
heartless, ruthless.  32  Though they know God's decree that those who do such
things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice
them.
2   
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another;
for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge,
are doing the very same things.  


Anyway, as you can see #25-27 address the homosexual issue...so for those
who are interested, there it is in black and white.
I believe the purpose of this verse is to show how rebellious people are
against the word of God.  Because we have a mind, a will, the power to choose,
we see ourselves as self sufficient.  We become centered in self.  And because
we want no limits placed on us, we rebel against God in our attempt to
take control.  Yet we know that things in the world are terribly wrong, but we
don't know why.  
So we have to answer for yourself...who is in authority...
Us?   or God?  We still have to make choices in life, but whom do we follow??

-Pamela Cho-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:27:11 GMT

Paul S Galvanek (psg+@pitt.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan7.204024.1545@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
: >
: >I agree with you Cap'n. 'Course the Reps. should have been doing the same
: >whist they held the power.
: 
: Unfortunately the complexity and realities of our government have evaded you
: as they have the majority of Americans.
: 
: The Republican Presidents have never have the luxury of the rubber stamp
: approval of Congress, that Bill Clinton now enjoys, for their appointments.
: Every appointment they've been able to make has been after the people passed
: the litmus tests the Congressional Democrats have used.  Rarely did Reagan
: and/or Bush had the luxury of picking candidates based soley on qualifications,
: remember Bork and Tower?  
: 

And a certain nominee who was shamed and forced to withdraw because he smoked
a joint 20 years ago.  He must have inhaled, right?

: 
: > IMHO this is the # 1 drawback to our 2 party 
: >system. No matter who wins we always get the best of that party, which may
: >or may not be the overall best. 
: 
: Wrong!  When a Republican wins we get the people that have the best chance 
: of passing the fire test of liberal-Democratic-congressional ideology.
: That has usually meant a less qualified but more politically correct 
: appointee.
: 
: PSG.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:57:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.080551.3519@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1ihg75INN52p@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>}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.)
>
>What neglect?

The facts are that the '80s represented an unprecedented increase in public
spending on socialized education the result of which were simply fatter
bureaucrats. There was neglect but it occured between the administration and
the students, not between the public and the school system.

Nationalizing the public education system, as the NEA wants, would only
make administrators more removed from their responsibility.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:24:29 GMT

In article <C0KFJJ.Evp@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.165341.7799@inel.gov> whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes:
>>In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg> writes:

>>|> ... What will life be like in the post-socialist 21st century?

>>Everyone is forgetting that the most populous country on the planet is
>>both Communist and Socialist,  and gives every indication of remaining
>>so.  At the last party congress,  the delegates closed by singing the
>>"Internationale" (a great tune).  I really do think they're serious.

>That depends on whether you define communism/socialism in terms of songs
>sung and rhetoric spun or in terms of actions done.

Well, if you're defining it in terms of actions rather than rhetoric,
then the Soviet Union wasn't communist either.

>In fact, China is in the second decade of economic liberalization that would
>make Democrats cringe. They are setting their markets loose and, as a result,
>experiencing double-digit economic growth.

>Oh, sure, they insist on calling it "market socialism" but the fact is that
>China has acheived, module a few limp, bloody bodies in Tien an Men, what
>has eluded Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union: a successful transition from
>socialism to captialism.

>The main difference, of course, is that China is still a dictatorship and not
>a democracy.

But Ed has proved over and over again that he couldn't care less about
this.  As long as there's capitalism, who cares what happens to people?

I mean, sure they shoot people for exercising free speech, but hey, they
aren't spending as much money on public schools as the US is.  They must
be great.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19962 alt.politics.elections:24821 talk.politics.misc:66922 alt.politics.libertarian:3286
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:54:43 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan8.165341.7799@inel.gov> whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes:

|In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg> writes:

||> ... What will life be like in the post-socialist 21st century?

|Everyone is forgetting that the most populous country on the planet is
|both Communist and Socialist,  and gives every indication of remaining
|so.  At the last party congress,  the delegates closed by singing the
|"Internationale" (a great tune).  I really do think they're serious.

If you are talking about China, they are decidedly less comunistic than
they were a few years ago.  The only question is if the reforms will
outlive Deng.  If he can hang on a few more years they will become
irreversible.
Check out the market activity in the Guangdong (sp?) province near
Hong Kong and the regions near Taiwan.  China recently opened up a
stock market.  Decidedly uncommunistic.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19797 alt.politics.elections:24739 alt.politics.libertarian:3147 talk.politics.misc:66594
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
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 18:30:23 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1ihjjdINNnu6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
>
>In a previous article, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) says:
>>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.  

I thought of this, but rapidly discarded it as significant because:
1) D.C. is unique in being run by the House, yet the problems of inner city
   schools are hardly unique.
2) Federal support for public schools has clearly declined greatly over the
   past dozen years, in a charge publicly lead by RR and GB.  I blame that
   on the influence of the Presidency.

>>Let Clinton represent his own views.  Your second guessing to twist his
>>actions to support your views is shameful.
>
>Since Mr. Clinton has refused to represent his views about why he chose 
>a private school we are forced to speculate.

No, nobody placed a gun to your head and forced you to speculate.
Nor has anyone forced you to speculate in a manner to contrary to everything
that he's said to date.  Indeed, speculation that he would support vouchers
after an entire campaign where (among other things) he helped distinguish
himself from his opponents by not supporting vouchers.

>Just as you yourself have [speculated] 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."

My speculation was a counter-example, that (among other things) showed that
there are far too many possibilities for us to just accept the especially
stupid assertion Ed Ipser made.

>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.)

That's a particularly stupid assertion, as several other posters have already
pointed out.

And besides, his daughter might not want to be forced to change again.

Mike Huben

"Damn the Solar System.  Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with comets;
feeble contrivance; could make a better myself."  Francis [Lord] Jeffery
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject:  alt.slam
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:09:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

There's a curious phenomena that i've noticed on the net.  Of late, if one
taps into a politically oriented newsgroup the tapper quickly finds that it
appears to be a group for slamming the subject.  Perhaps this was started w/
the dan-quayle group, which had an original and sole intent of listing and
discussing his faux pases (sp?).  Evidently it has extended to every group.
(I have noticed that there are defenders of the subject in the group, but
they appear to be in the minority regardless of the group.)

The problem is that nothing actually gets discussed.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19862 alt.politics.elections:24770 alt.politics.libertarian:3187 talk.politics.misc:66705
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:24:52 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1iijjkINN1jt@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

|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.

Most private schools cost an awful lot less than $10,000 per year.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Clinton Supports Public Schools NOT
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:50:01 GMT

In article <1icmsrINNpnq@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:


   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.


While Bill has definetly made me eat crow on this one, and I am very
disappointed in him, he favors public school choice.  I think by this
action he will have to submit to a voucher system (public and private)
in a target area to prove that his claims (poor will get crappy
schools) are supported.  I can hear everyone scream that he
is doing what's best for his daughter but I feel really let down.
Oh well, there hasn't been an elected official yet that did everything
the way I wanted.
--


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


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19917 alt.politics.elections:24798 talk.politics.misc:66786
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cost of Schools (was Re: Why can't the liberals just admit...)
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:00:28 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1993Jan8.170729.5111@beaver.cs.washington.edu> barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington) writes:
>There's an interesting article in this week's TNR (Mr. Justice Scalia on
>the cover) about the cost of public schools and private alternatives.  The
>main subject is the proposed "Edison project", which will allegedly build
>lots of for-profit private schools.  Tuition is to be about $5500/yr, alleged
>to be the average public school per-student spending (I think the estimate
>has been moved up now to $6200 or so), with 1/4 of the total tuition revenue
>forgone as scholarships.
>
>Public-school advocates have expressed some fear that these schools might
>outcompete public schools in a socially deleterious way, by siphoning off
>the stronger students and leaving them with the dregs.  The author, a public
>school teacher (and former TNR staffer), argues that there is no such
>threat from Edison because Edison can't compete in price and quality with
>the existing private and parochial schools, which already pose this threat.

Another reason the argument is flawed is because it assumes that all private
schools will not wish to serve the weaker and more problematic students.
Some of them indeed won't, perhaps many.  But then more schools will appear
that do, for the simple reason that they will be a market that can be tapped.
(I'm talking about a voucher scenario in which the vouchers are sufficiently
sized to cover the full cost of an education.)  There are also many
idealistic teachers who have left or would gladly leave the public school
systems because the politics and bureaucracy have hindered their ability to
help the struggling students they most want to help.  These teachers would be
able to set up their own schools, without the yolk of the bureaucratic
establishment or the unions around their necks.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: dsnoek@terapin.com (Daniel Snoek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Date: 9 Jan 93 13:12:28 PST
Organization: BBS

Yes, Chelsea's security needs are different, that is why she has the Secret
Service following her around, Everywhere.  After all, Carter's daughter did
attend public school.
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu.noname (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:35:26 GMT
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu.noname
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: johnd.tamu.edu

>>Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>

>It seems to me, the only way for a voucher system to provide the
>opportunity for a good education for every child in the United States 
>would be to distribute the vouchers based on the ability to pay.  The 
>voucher dollar amount that one receives would vary with income.  There 
>would be different voucher levels for different income levels.  The poorest 
>level would receive a voucher for the total cost of the chosen school, the 
>middle income levels would receive a voucher for a portion of the cost of the 
>school chosen, and the wealthiest level would receive no voucher (this is 
>to keep the cost of the voucher system as low as possible while providing a
>chance for a good education to all children).  The number of different 
>voucher levels, the income bracket for each level, and the portion of the 
>total school cost provided in each level could be determined by demographic 
>studies from census data.
>

From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.

Wow Mike you make a real good Democrate.  Comrade Clinton would probably
love this solution.  We should however extend it to all things: the
poor get Social Security the rich don't, the poor get socialized health
care the rich don't, the poor get food stamps and free housing the
rich don't,  the Democrats get everyone on the dole and we have to keep
electing them to survive.

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,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 12 Jan 1993 21:13:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


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

>In <1it2lmINN6fi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>>
>[ bandwidth saved ]
>
>>Now you have it.  Since Bill Clinton has implicitly recognized that the
>>public school system does not always meet a family's needs (to put it
>>charitably) it is morally incumbent on him, since he is a very influential
>>public official, to do what he can to make alternatives available to the
>>rest of us.
>>>
> Item 1: Inauguration takes place Jan. 20, 1993 (it hasen't happened yet)
>
> Item 2: You seem to believe that the voucher system is the only way to
>	fix the school system.
>
More accurately, it is far more likely to be conducive of good education
than is the current system.  I am open to other suggestions.
>
> Item 3: President-elect Clinton does not seem to believe that the
>	voucher system is the only way.
>
Nor do I...but Clinton's plan seems to consist of "more of the same", and
seems principally to be aimed at preserving the perks and position of the 
NEA.
>
> Item 4: Chelsea did not run for public office - her education is, to
>	put it bluntly, none of our damn business.
>
Go re-read every post I have made.  For the fifth time, I do not presume
to judge whether Clinton made the right choice in sending his daughter to
a private school.  I do point out the hypocrisy of his presumption that
while public schools are not adequate for *his* daughter, they are good
enough for the rest of us.
>
> Item 5: Since when does a difference of opinion constitute hypocrisy?
>
Since Clinton has made one choice for his daughter and a very different 
choice for the rest of us.  He is either deliberately damaging Chelsea's
education by sending her to a private school or (far more likely)
he is deliberately damaging the education of most other children by
denying them the right to make that choice.  Either way, he is a hypocrite.
>
>In short, wait till he gets his feet under the desk before you all
>start saying what a lousy job he's doing. If you realized just how
>stupid all this carping and bitching makes you look, you'd wait. Its
>only a little over a week to go, kidddies, then you can have at him.
>
You will be good enough to let us know when it is okay to be critical of
Clinton's policies, won't you?
>
>REB
>
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton