HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: n3884@cray.com (Pete Palmer)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Reply-To: n3884@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:43:29 CST

In article 3812@umr.edu, ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>Now, this is bizarre.  Here we have libertarians looking out for the
>benefit of the poor man, and democrats supporting Clinton's decision
>to send Chelsea to a private school, right or wrong.
>
>What's the value of all this?
>
>I don't know, but it sure is a lot of fun!!  :-)
>
>cpk
>-- 

Do you honestly think those supporting Clinton on this one
are honestly discussing private vs. public vs. voucher system 
schools here?   It will be interesting to see if and when the
blind support will end, and on which issue.  

I can't think of anything more hypocritical
than this, yet folks in this newsgroup, certain television
commentators, and Stephanopoulos have dismissed this is as
"Not letting politics interfere with a personal decision."
Just what I want to hear -- my president doesn't have enough belief
in his political positions to inject them into his own life.  Is this
a joke?  Will all of his decisions be based on something outside of 
his own value system?  
 
Even Elanore Cliff (sp?) on the McLaughlin group was pissed off, and
she was about his loudest apologist.  BTW, where's Pat been?  He
appeared on the first show after the election and hasn't been back.
Is he still on CNN (no cable)?

Jimmy Carter `96.

---


--------------------------------------------------
Pete Palmer (n3884@cray.com)
--------------------------------------------------

Anyone who has considerably meditated on man, by profession or vocation,
is led to feel nostalgia for the primates.  -Camus

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: The truth about Sen. Braun (was Re: PLUS: slander? Limbaugh?)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:59:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson) says:

>
>On, a semi-related note, I was flipping through channels tonight and ran
>across Limbaugh's infomercial, he was saying some pretty nasty things
>about Carol Mosley Braun (sp?) for abotu 20 minutes straight.  Very NASTY
>things. Prediction (I'm serious): Sen. Braun will sue Limbaugh for slander.
>
>-Chris
>

I don't know what Rush said, but the following came out the other day
in our local paper (The Cleveland Plain Dealer):

  Following the November election, Braun took a monthlong vacation to
  SOUTH AFRICA; flew there on a private jet and the Concorde ($$$); 
  moved into a $3,300 a month penthouse apartment; bought a new Jeep
  and expensive clothes;
  AND DID ALL THIS WHILE HER CAMPAIGN WAS IN DEBT AND CAMPAIGN STAFF
  HAD NOT BEEN PAID.

  During her last days in office as Cook County Recorder of Deeds she
  improperly hired 10 people as civil servants, some of whom had 
  worked on her campaign.

  While the main thrust of her campaign had been the fact that no
  women sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she has stated she
  now has NO interest in becoming a member.

This is what you get when you elect someone who runs soley on a demagogic
platform.  What an embaressment to the 'year of the woman'.   {:^)

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1399 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19880 alt.rush-limbaugh:13346 alt.president.clinton:1419
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:57:50 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

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.

Clinton would have to be crazy to appoint someone to the cabinet who's
probably going to try to run against him for president in four years.
If only because campaigning for president would take Mr. Kemp away from
his job as cabinet secretary. :)  I mean, Bush can pull Baker out of the
State Dept. if he wants to, but we Democrats like our people to work. :)
But seriously, Cisneros has been widely regarded as an excellent choice
for HUD secretary, according to the Economist.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19941 alt.politics.elections:24812 alt.politics.libertarian:3263 talk.politics.misc:66861
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 9 Jan 93 04:06:34 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1993Jan8.163836.17633@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:

>The amount of the voucher is critical.  A voucher of $1000 would do virtually
>nothing to create competition among schools in poor neighborhoods.  A voucher
>of $2500 might but I don't think it's enough.  A $1000 voucher would take
>money away from the public schools while leaving poor and lower middle class
>students in the same bad schools, which now have less money.  It will take
>more money away from the poor, and worse, it will serve as another excuse to
>do nothing.

Geeze.  I guess liberals really can't do basic arithmetic.

Quite obviously, every thousand dollar voucher that gets used leaves
all the money beyond that thousand that would have been used to
educate that student to be split up among other students.  For
example, using your numbers below, each voucher used would mean that
the NYC public schools would have $6,000 to be split among the
students remaining instead of being spent on the student who leaves.
If 10% of students take this offer up, that would let NYC increase
it's per-pupil spending by $666, at no extra cost.

To summarize, before talking nonsense, please do the goddammned math.

>If you want to do this, go all the way.  The New York City public schools
>spend over $7000 per student.  
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19989 alt.politics.homosexuality:9283
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Legal Issues Regarding Homosexuality
Date: 10 Jan 1993 02:16 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan8.114817.2396@ucbeh.san.uc.edu>, cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes...

| strange, actually.  Well, since that time 3 of them (including Jimmy)
| have died of AIDS.  And you know, it just makes me wonder.  Is it worth
| it?  Is homosexuality really worth the suffering that it brings to them
| and to me?

	Have you ever wondered if it really just promiscuoussex that
causes AIDS?  I mean, being Gay doesn't give one AIDS, but having sex with
multiple partners sure can do it since AIDS is chiefly spread via sex.

	If one can be homosexual and remain in a committed, monogoamous
realtionship, there is little or no threat of AIDS.  And, allowing for Gay 
marriage and social acceptance of stable Gay relationships will help
foster monogamy.  I believe it.

Gadson

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:55:16 GMT

In <1iitb9INN64f@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.032231.26764@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>|> Oh my... T-minus 13 days and they're already ganging up on what? 
>|> 
>|> A little girl.

>Aaaw, gimme a break! It has to be clear to even the dimmest wit that
>the person being ganged up on is the girl's Dad and not her; and with
>regards to what is certainly an important question.

>|> I sincerely hope some decent 12-step programs are set up for recovering
>|> Republicans and fellow travelers. They need help.

>If this is any example, Democrats' wits still haven't recovered.
 

Ah, but at least we have a degree of wit. Republicans are the most
humor impaired gits I've ever encountered. :-)


>|> Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

>-- 
>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

>If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REB

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20023 alt.politics.elections:24835 talk.politics.misc:67026 alt.politics.libertarian:3332
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: 11 Jan 93 04:10:16 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

->But what comes next? If it is all over for the political class, are we
->simply going to get a new ruling class? Will the political class manage
->to drag the world economy down with them? Or are we on the verge of a new
->age of peace and prosperity as governments return to more modest roles
->in society?

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

 The Secretary of State (Engleburger sp ?) gave a speech last week which
tried to summarize Bush's accomplishments and also to 'pass the torch' to
the new administration. The current political elites in the US, (empowered
republicans and democrats who are preventing the downsizing of government),
are extremelly worried about the state of "global crisis" we are currently
in. He even referred to the "anarchy" in somalia and bosnia/serbia/croatia
et al. conflicts. It was very likely that these "elites" really did not want
the cold war to end. This might explain the media elites tendancies in the 
1980's. 
 Now that the cold war is over and the number one "elitist", "know all",
"control all" government structure has dissolved, they want to make sure 
that their level of elitism is preserved. The real funny part is that we
needed these elitist to get to our current state of political equality.
(see "Elitism and Populism, Politics in the age of Equality"). The next
stage of political equalitarianism will involve the dispersing of the
power that these elites have been given. They think that chaos will be
the result of this. I am the type of person who can see order where
others might see chaos. (ie - how can the global situation be any worse
than it is now, it is difficult to even count the number of conflicts).

 Now you know why the political elites (some are republicans and some are
democrats) developed the term "New World Order".

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:49:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.184846.21795@walter.bellcore.com> nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:
>>
>>I have a problem with this reasoning.  The idea seems to be to improve 
>>education by making it more competitive, and perhaps allowing
>>everyone to choose 
>>their own school would help somewhat.  But the impact will be reduced by the
>>fact that the location of your home restricts your choice of a school.  So the
>>competition is reduced to local competition,

This is true of a great many enterprises -- including the essentials, like
groceries; but free-market competition still lets almost everyone eat well.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:40:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan07.195820.143693@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>President-Elect clinton should appoint the most qualified individual,
>not the most qualified democrat. 

I agree with you Cap'n. 'Course the Reps. should have been doing the same
whist they held the power. 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. Simple stats would say that 50% of the time
we get cabinet members who are not as qualified as someone else. Wish there was
a simple way around this but politics seems to always get in the way.

Stan Knight
|I'm searching for a forumla to take politics out of government|
ps I'm too busy for this. contact me at stank@net.com(if you care) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:28:04 GMT

Brad Green (green@plains.NoDak.edu) wrote:
: Hmm, Clinton wants a Cabinet that represents the diversity of America.
: So, how about we have about 40% of his appointees be Republican?
: 
: A Feminist was babbling about him needing more women than the past three
: administrations, which totaled three.  Well, we have Lynn Martin as
: Secretary of Labor, Barbara Franklin as Secretary of Commerce, and Carla
: Hills as Trade Rep.  That's three women in top level positions already.
: Blacks? UN Ambassador.  Hispanics?  Manual Lujan, Secretary of Interior.
: Can someone explain how Slick's Cabinet is going to be more diverse than
: Bush's?
: 

Margaret Tutweiller, defense dept. spokesperson during the Gulf War is
another.  The Surgeon General is also a hispanic woman.  Liz Dole was
on both Reagan/Bush cabinets.  Louis Sullivan, a black man, is also
in Bush's cabinet.  And there's Colin Powell.  And the drug czar is
also a hispanic.  Not to mention Clarence Thomas, EEOC chairman, district
judge, and Supreme Court Justice...

: Actually, what I see in the Clinton/Algore Cabinet is a bunch of Slick
: and Hillary's academic friends, and a bunch of Carter retreads.  Some
: change.
: 

Admittedly, Clinton has very few democrats with any kind of training in
the executive branch.  Carter gave some people experience, and then you
gotta go back to LBJ's administration to find others...  However, choosing
Carter people of experience is dubious in terms of change (or ability :)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:20:59 GMT

Jeffrey Shallit (shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec30.194239.16465@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
: >
: >Clinton (and democrats at large) have a blind spot in this regard.  They are
: >confusing arithmetic (quotas) with the art of politics.  This bean counter
: >mentality assumes that all members of group X (blacks, women, etc) are
: >monolithic in their wants and desires.
: 
: Based on your comment, don't you find it just a *little* ironic that it
: was *Clinton* who denounced the demands of some feminist groups as
: "bean counting"?
: 
: I see nothing wrong with wanting to have a cabinet with diverse
: backgrounds and experiences.  In the 1800's, a common worry
: was that the cabinet not be all Easterners, or all Northerners.
: How is that any different?
: 

Yup.  We threw out those White Males who attended Yale and replaced them
with those White Males who attended Harvard instead.

: >If the primary goal is have a diversity of genes in the cabinet then I would 
: >say that Clinton has done a fine job.  If, on the other hand, the primary goal
: >is to choose cabinet members for their opinions and skills then I question
: >whether Clinton has accomplished this task.
: >
: >Mike Best
: >
: 
: Fine.  Name two members of Clinton's cabinet that you find unsuited
: for the job.  Then name two Democrats you would find more suitable.
: 

Robert Reich is one I'd be happy to live without, nor do I care too much
about Ron Brown.  It makes NO difference who I would choose instead,
because the choice was Clinoccio's.  Thank God he didn't choose Pat
Schroeder for anything ! :)


: I issued this challenge to Mr. Galvanek earlier, but he ignored it.
: 
: Jeff Shallit
: 
:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:03:04 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1ihsrvINN5d1@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>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.


I'd love to see you support this stupid assertion.  This is a perfect 
example of why I've come to have so little respect for the Democratic 
party and the people the support it.  

Show me one year where money for education was cut, just one.  It's so typical
that the advocates of more funding for the public school get nearly everything 
they want every time the budgets get passed, that they run around yelling
about the -lack of support they get, simply because even after they get their
increases they still have nothing but failure to show for it.  

And in case you didn't notice most of the funding for public school is 
collected and spent at the local level. 

PSG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:00:24 GMT

In article <1isfpjINNb2@hpscit.sc.hp.com> dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.152555.6734@nmsu.edu>, dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>
>|>    I don't think this will be a real problem.  I mean if you live in
>|> Demming, New Mexico (population 10,000 nearest other town 60 miles)
>|> your education won't be improved.
>
>Why not?
>
>-- 
>Dave Waller

   My reasoning was that we are dealing with a small town that is
surrounded by desert.  How many good teachers can possibly live there?
Are there really going to be enough to support 5 or 6 (or even 3 or 4)
schools.  If not, then what good is school choice going to do for
them?

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:11:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan6.080542.12702@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>He put his daughter's welfare above politics.  All you Clinton bashers
>who claim that he always does things just to "get votes" or "please
>everyone" should at least admit that this was gutsy thing to do.
>But that would be too much to ask, I know.

Gutsy?  You've got to be joking.  The issue of whether his daughters life
would be disrupted is absolutely meaningless!  The only real issue is why
does the president the claims to "put people first" believes only elitist
scumbags with money, like he, Hillary and Al, are the only parents that have
the right to make the same choice for their children.

Yeah chosing to give your kids the best education money can buy is a
real gut check I'll tell ya.  Bill ought to try sending his daughter off 
to a school whether there are more weapons than books, like I'm forced to
do.  That takes the kind of courage that pampered spoiled brat like Hillary
Al and Tipper will NEVER know!

>On, a semi-related note, I was flipping through channels tonight and ran
>across Limbaugh's infomercial, he was saying some pretty nasty things
>about Carol Mosley Braun (sp?) for abotu 20 minutes straight.  Very NASTY
>things. Prediction (I'm serious): Sen. Braun will sue Limbaugh for slander.

I wouldn't bet on it.  In order to win a slander suit you have to prove the
person in not telling the truth.  Everything he's said has been on the mark
and in case you haven't heard Ms. Braun's in a heap o' do-do.

PSG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton