HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:23:14 GMT

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?

In another story, it was revealed that the Clinton family will NOT be
going on welfare when they move to Washington. Clinton stated that this
does not mean that he doesn't support the concept of welfare or ADC,
just that he felt that going on welfare at this time would not be
appropriate for his family. He attributed the current grousing to
"...Republicans who for four years have had no plan, no vision, and
are now resorting to ridiculous childish accusations. It's pathetic, but
that's all they know how to do, and they're doing it."

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19884 alt.politics.elections:24780 alt.politics.libertarian:3206 talk.politics.misc:66735
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 11:26:39 GMT

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's interesting. I hear that's the song Clinton is having played at the
inaguration.

:-)


Simon

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City, CA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:22:44 GMT

In article <1ivc92INNl0t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>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.
>

One might be able to infer from Clinton's sending his daughter to a
private school that D.C. public schools are not adequate for his
                    ^^^
daughter.  Inferring anything futher from his actions would be an
over generalization and not supported by the facts.  Remember, she did 
go to a public school in Arkansas.  Therefore, stating that public schools, 
in general, are not adequate for his daughter is an ill drawn conclusion
based on the available evidence.



Steve                        Roll on you BEARS!!!
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limba
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:18:59 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 1455@blue.cis.pitt.edu, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
> 
> 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?

Because he's President and you are not :^D.
> 
> PSG
> 
> 

Maybe we should have a tax subsidy for the purchase of guns too?  Why should
the people who can afford to purchase guns expect their families to be free
(or freer) from physical harm than my family because I can't affor a gun)?

The argument is ridiculous coming from a conservative person.  It sounds
like you are adopting those evil socialist lies when it suits your best
interests.

Geez!!



Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19838 alt.politics.elections:24758 alt.politics.libertarian:3170 talk.politics.misc:66639
From: steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:14:38 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City, CA

In article <1993Jan7.215832.21885@infonode.ingr.com> drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes:
>
>First off: 
>
>- Private schools are expensive because they cater primarily to
>the upper middle class and rich.  The people are willing and able to pay
>a lot for a better education for their kids, so the schools can charge
>it.
>
>- Public schools are expensive because, as with any bureaucracy, they
>are by definition inefficient and bloated excess overhead.
>
>Now I'd like to ask YOU a question:
>
>If you're so sure it's impossible for a poor kid to get a better education
>with a "measily" $1000 a year voucher,  would you be in favor of trying
>it on a wide scale for four years in a major city?   What would be the
>harm in such an experiment?  By everyone's admission, most urban kid's aren't
>getting a very good education anyway,  so why not let the parents have some
>choice and give it a shot? Of course that will never happen, or at least
>not any time soon. 
>

Possibly.  But why not have a voucher program that can provide the
opportunity of a good education for all needy children?  I am not 
inherently opposed to vouchers.  I want the vouchers to be useful for 
all children who need them.  In other words, the voucher has to have 
the ability to cover the entire cost of the education for those children 
who need it.  The point I was trying to make was that in several of the 
voucher proposals that I've seen, the amount of the voucher is too small 
to allow many children to purchase a better education. For example:

If I need a car and currently have $2000.00, and the least expensive car 
is $5000.00, even if I get a voucher for $1000.00, I still can't buy a car.


>The reason that even a $1000 voucher system would work is because there
>will be more freedom to choose.

For those that the extra $1000.00 allows to purchase a different
education.

>
>- Ted D.


Steve                            Roll on you BEARS!!!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19785 alt.politics.libertarian:3137
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:26:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan7.152850.26792@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>Well, since you asked, a good private school in my area charges about $4000.
>A crappy public school gets $7500.  Yeah, yeah, special ed kids, I know. 

No, you don't know.  You can't blame the difference in price or results on
simply special ed kids: you must place it where it belongs-- on the selection
process which allows private schools to choose the most economically educable
students.  Because the teacher's job is so much easier with these students,
teachers are willing to accept lower salaries, and teachers with less
experience can still get results.  Unfortunately, this strategem will not
scale up to deal economically with the rest of the distribution of students.

>A parochial school gets about $1300 for elementary and $2000 for
>high school.  In Philadelphia, many non-Catholics are willing to pay
>such a reasonable price because the quality is there.

Catholic schools are sometimes good (they have always been inferior in the
school district I grew up in.)  However, they too are subsidized: by their
parishioners, who certainly wouldn't scale up their subsidies to deal with
a huge influx of former public school kids.

>It's the idea that people feel that it someone else's duty to provide their
>kids with a quality education that keeps them down.  Get the parents paying
>each month and I'll bet you'll start seeing some involved parents out there.

We have the model of all those parents non-involvement with private schools
already.  Please cite some real figures for parental involvement in private
and public schools.  Anecdotes and pie-in-the-sky claims like yours are cheap.
There are some private and public schools with high parental involvement.
Back your bet with information.

Mike Huben

"One cannot play chess if one becomes aware of the pieces as living souls
and of the fact that the Whites and the Blacks have more in common with
each other than with the players.  Suddenly one loses all interest in who will
be champion."  Anatol Rapoport in "Strategy and Conscience" 1964.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cjk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: The first promise comes undone...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:04:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.203556.1240@cs.wayne.edu> mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu writes:
>Some months ago I offered a bet in this forum as to how long it would take before
>Clinton broke his first promise. No one took the bet, and rightly so. Looks like
>the first promnise has been broken even before the inauguration. Everyone in
>the Clinton economic team (save the president to be, himself) is starting to 
>backtrack. Oh, gee, the debt is about 8% higher than we thought. No more tax
>cut. Amazing how they miscalculated so badly...given that they Democrats had 

Just want to add my .02 worth.  

The San Diego Union quoted President-elect Clinton and his spokespersons.  
They indicated that none of the Clinton campaign promises on the budget,
tax cuts, and increased spending on education were going to be kept.

The reason?  The OMB "hid" data on the budget.  President Bush "lied" about
the future budget deficits.

Gee, I seem to recall then Gov. Clinton defending his numbers and estimates
rather vigorously during the campaign from both Bush and Perot supporters.

To all the people who helped defend Clinton's economic numbers and plans in
this forum.....What say you now?

I used to just dislike him.  Now I find him dispicable.

Chris Kevlahan
cjk@netcom.com
From: cjp+@pitt.edu (Casimir J Palowitch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: * * PEROT ON GOOD MORNING AMERICA - TUESDAY 1/12 * *
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:58:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: cjp@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu


Perot will also appear on Good Morning America (don't remember if this
is ABC, yes?) on Tuesday morning as well as Larry King on Monday night.
The topic will be the launch of United We Stand Inc. and associated
membership drive.  Please all who supported Perot and those who would
have voted for Perot had they thought he had a chance of winning
(estimated by exit polls at another 19% of popular vote) watch this and
consider being a part of United We Stand.  

	"Together, we have reminded our elected officials that we are
the owners of this country, and that we want the issues facing our
nation to be addressed.  Already, we have made history.  Now, we must
make sure that our jobs are restored, our economy revitalized, our
government reformed and the American Dream returned to our children.
This can be accomplished only if we continue to stand together and let
our voices be heard."		- Ross Perot

		UNITED WE STAND AMERICA
		_______________________

* A nonpartisan effort involving citizens in their government

* A nationwide organization that will keep you informed about important
issues facing our country

* A nonprofit corporation dedicated to reforming our government, ending
"politics as usual" and promoting job creation based on sound economic
principles

* As a member of United We Stand America, you *can* make a difference in
our nation's future!


-- 
** Casimir J. (Casey) Palowitch  -  In 1996, there will be two kinds  **
**      Slavic Cataloger         -  of computer professional : those  **
**  U. of Pgh. Library Systems   -       who know NeXT, and those     **
**   cjp@unix.cis.pitt.edu       -              without Jobs.         **
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton,soc.men
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:33:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.183239.12755@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <C0GMz8.4AA@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
> >Ha, what a joke.  CMB is in most of the serious papers in the country (maybe
> >buried in the back, but still there), and all Rush did was have a field day
> >with all she's accused of.  Besides the trip to South Africa, while her 
> >campaign workers don't get paid, she took along her boyfriend (who's been
>                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
> >accused of sexual harassment), who was being paid $15,000 a month as her
>  *******^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >campaign manager. The last thing she wants to do is call more attention to
> >her little games, she's a disgrace to the "Year of the Woman", and probably 
> >one of the least qualified people ever elected to the Senate.
> 
> Key word.

Actually, he's not merely been accused, but accused ANONYMOUSLY: the accusers
made their accusation to a reporter on condition that their identities remain
secret, and have still not revealed themselves. 

The problem with anonymous accusations is that it is impossible to defend
onself against them; the accuser can say anything and never be held accountable.

There is a certain poetic justice here, given that Braun's election is said
to be the result of anger from the Thomas-Hill circus.  If there's a lesson
it should be that an unsupported accusation should never be sufficient to
damage another's reputation.

Ms. Braun does seem to be acting rather arrogantly of late, but her contempt
toward those who made the anonymous accusations seems fully justified.
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Cost of Schools (was Re: Why can't the liberals just admit...)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1993Jan8.151711.28097@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1993Jan8.170729.5111@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<1993Jan8.200028.18338@m5.harvard.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:26:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.200028.18338@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:


   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.



This would probably happen here where qualified teachers have to deal
with incompetent principals, elected superintendents, and other weak
administrators in rural county school systems.  I'm sure that this is
not the case everywhere, but I have a lot of second-hand knowledge of
my surrounding counties.

As a good bleeding-heart I worry about the parents who won't care enough
to find the best school for their kids, but I think those kids are
in for trouble anyway.  I'd like to see some experimentation with
vouchers.
--


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:20149 alt.politics.elections:24902 alt.politics.libertarian:3468 talk.politics.misc:67425
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: 13 Jan 1993 03:22:33 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, steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) says:

>In article <1ivc92INNl0t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>One might be able to infer from Clinton's sending his daughter to a
>private school that D.C. public schools are not adequate for his
>                    ^^^
>daughter.  Inferring anything futher from his actions would be an
>over generalization and not supported by the facts.  Remember, she did 
>go to a public school in Arkansas.  Therefore, stating that public schools, 
>in general, are not adequate for his daughter is an ill drawn conclusion
>based on the available evidence.
>
>
>
>Steve                        Roll on you BEARS!!!
>

So is Chelsea Clinton the only child in America who faces an unacceptable
public school system?  If not, then why does not her father support 
opening up these sorts of alternatives to them?

-- 
******************************************************************************
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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19826 alt.rush-limbaugh:13270
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:13:52 GMT
 <1993Jan04.191010.123589@zeus.calpoly.edu> <C0GE50.LxI@math.uwaterloo.ca>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <C0GE50.LxI@math.uwaterloo.ca>, shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
> In article <1993Jan04.191010.123589@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>>shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) states
>>>Fine.  Name two members of Clinton's cabinet that you find unsuited
>>>for the job.  Then name two Democrats you would find more suitable.
>>>
>>To the victor go the spoils eh? and screw the rest of the nation.
>>how abpout replacing Jack Kemp as head of HUD? I can think of nobody
>>more qualified than Mr. kemp for the job.
> 
> Bzzzt!  Thanks for playing, though.  Jack Kemp is not a Democrat.

BZZZZZZT!  Sorry, you're out!  ...Unless you care to admit that Clinton's oft
-stated purpose -- "to appoint the right person, whether it's a Democrat, 
Republican, or independent" -- is just more material to add to his growing 
heap of smelly, steamin' ...ummm, campaign promises.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (paul@hsh.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa,alt.president.clinton
From: picard@engin.umich.edu (Ronald V Picard)
Subject: Re: Year of the woman
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 07:44:37 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec23.183005.13365@draco.macsch.com> Bryan J. Blumberg <bjb@macsch.com> writes:
>In article <Bzp13q.Dut@ns1.nodak.edu> Brad Green, green@plains.NoDak.edu
>writes:
>>Yep, this was the year of the woman, all right.  Just goes to show women
>>can do it better than men:
>>
>>Diane Finstein fined $190,000 by the Election Commission for screwing up
>>her election figures in her ill-fated attemp to become California
>>Governor.
>
>Yep, she did do it better.  Her opponent, Pete Wilson, who
>actually won the election was only fined $100,000 for screwing
>up on *his* election figures.
>
>========================================
>Bryan  J. Blumberg, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation
>815 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, California  90041-1777
>(213) 259-4914, B_BLUMBERG@MACSCH.COM

Just goes to show how different the world would be if we could
only get more women into politics.

Ron Picard
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What the Bible says about Homosexuality
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:19 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan5.185445.2371@ucbeh.san.uc.edu>, cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes...
|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)
| 
|  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.

	So, Jesus turned them into homosexuals because they wouldn't
worship him?  Amen.  Heh, heh heh heh, heh hahahahahahah!

      Talk amongst y'selves.  I'll give you a topic.  I have a little
Bible quote too.  It's from the New Improved Bible.

	 _____________________________________________________________
	|                THE 23rd PSALM, REVISITED                    |
	|-------------------------------------------------------------|
	|                 The Lord is my shepherd,                    | 
	|                I shall not want anything                    |
	|                  (for I am but a sheep,                     |
	|               and, sheep are not too bright).               |
	|                                                             |
	|             He leadeth me beside the shearers,              |
	|           and maketh me lie down beside the axe             |
	|              where he cutteth off my head                   |
	|            to selleth my body along the market              |
	|                    for a hefty sum.                         |
	|                                                             |
	|              Sheep trust their Shepherds.                   |
	|                                                             |
	|          "Slaves, obey your Masters." - St. Paul            |
	|_____________________________________________________________|

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    






Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19849 alt.politics.elections:24767 alt.politics.libertarian:3180