HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:50:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.220858.21102@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <1jkblvINNg2q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
}ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
}
}> Another lie - it's day one and THERE IS NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN UP
}> ON THE HILL!  No more excuses!  Instead of wasting time paying off 
}> foreign lobbyists like Brown and admitted felons like Baird, you 
}> should be keeping the PROMISES YOU MADE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  
}
}I think Clinton was working on his economic recovery plan
}during last night's inaugural ball.  He just has to recover
}from his hangover before he submits his plan to Congress. 

Wel, here it is monday - no such thing.  He has found the time to shake a few
thousand hands, write on abortion, and stir the "homosexuals in the military" pot.

Whatever is important.
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF CLINTON'S INAUGURATION SPEECH??
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:06:48 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


Interesting speech, but didn't he forget the line that goes

'Today America, tommorrow the world'  ?


:-)

Simon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21480 alt.politics.elections:25251 talk.politics.misc:70325
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Administration of the elite!
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:05:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
=Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
=> Not that it has any real meaning other than symbolism, but I heard on
=> the radio this morning as I drove to work that it's official; The
=> Clinton administration contains more millionaires than any other 
=> administration in history.
=
=You're right...it has no meaning.

"I am a product of America's middle class.  And when I am your
president, you will be forgotten no more. ... I have news for the forces
of greed and the defenders of the status quo:  your time has come--and
gone.  It's time for a change.

"People want change, but government is in the way.  It has been hijacked
by privilege, private interests.  It has forgotten who really pays the
bills around here, it's taking more of your money and giving you less in
service."
	Bill Clinton's accepting the Democratic nomination for President.

From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: A cabinet that looks like America
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:50:46 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Comrade WJBR Clinton promised a cabinet that looked like America.
So far 77 percent of the cabinet are millionares.  More than Reagan
or Bush.


There is no meaning.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Astrology Nixes Shooting (Was Re: Clinton's Promises ...)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:16:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.174807.24064@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.201428.14367@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>|> Actually, the "20-year rule/curse" applies to the year a president is
>|> elected.  JFK was elected in 1960, Reagan in 1980.  FDR won an
>|> election in '40.  Who was 1900?  McKinley?  It's not just getting
>|> shot, it's more like dying in office.  FDR brain hemmorage.  Harrison,
>|> I recall, fits in this framework also.
>|>
>|> The twenty-year curse still applies to Reagan, on account that we can,
>|> if we really want to, work brain-death in here somehow.
>
>Sorry folks, but the rule does apply.  Reagan was technically
>dead for several seconds, while medical teams rushed to get
>his heart restarted.  He died, but was brought back to life.

On subject of assinations, according to the New Testament (the Book of
Revalation to be more specific) the 'Antichrist' is supposed to be a
a leader who, among other things, survives a supposedly fatal injury.
This is assumed to be an asassination attempt.

Reagan doesn't count though becasue the other thing attributed to the
anti-Christ did not come to pass under Reagan.

So folks, if you believe in that sort of thing, this evil leader is yet
to come.

On a similar note, did anyone see the TIME magazine man-of-the-year issue,
with Clinton on the cover?

Look at the way his head covers up part of the 'M' in TIME.....

:-)

Simon
From: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLA
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:10:15 GMT
Reply-To: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 29373@pwcs.stpaul.gov, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>[--dispeptic ranting deleted--]
>
>Richard, if you want to make foot-dragging an issue, compare the speed
>with which Clinton selected his Cabinet with that of Bush.  GHWB took
>over three months to make his selections.
>
Irrelevant.  He wanted to have his selections in place by a certain time.
He did that.  So what's the big deal comapring the two?  Irrelevent.

>Then, remember how we patiently waited for the man who wanted to be the
>"education president" and the "environmental president" to take any action
>wrt education and the environment.
>
Well, George did submit plans, but congress didn't go for 'em.  George never
promised to have the bill there on DAY ONE.  That was Thursday, Jan 21, 1993 
for President Clinton and you know what?  No bill was submitted to congress.

>Finally, remember how long it took for the Bush Administration to
>acknowledge that there is a recession.
Yeah, SO?  Irrelevent.  Your trying to justify Clinton's actions by pointing
to others.  Reminds of a child saying "Well, everybody else's parents let's
them do it".   AGAIN, HE SAID A PLAN WOULD BE THERE ON DAY ONE! How
unfortunate that the video has been produced.
>
>For extra credit, notice how quickly GHWB jumped on the flag-burning
>issue.
>
Irrelevent. See comments above.
>
>I can't help noticing that you posted your diatribe less than 3 hours
>after Clinton was sworn in (20 Jan 1993 20:11:43 GMT).  You in a hurry
>or something?
>
He may be, but I'm not.  I'll give President Clinton until the 29th of Jan to
present his plan before I consider it a serious breach of a promise.  The 
fact is CANIDATE CLINTON promised it would be there already.  PRESIDENT
CLINTON has now learned that it isn't that simple.  Makes you wonder if he
really thought about it or just promised it because it sounded good and would
get him votes.  

Don't misunderstand me.  I want Clinton to succeed.  IF he can.  

Derek

P.S.  I agree w/ Zoe that she should withdraw.  I saw the press conference and
you gotta wonder why Clinton didn't have a clear picture of her illegal activities.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 21 Jan 93 05:30:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1993Jan20.205417.3523@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov wrote:
> 
> In article <1jkblvINNg2q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
> (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
> >
> >Another lie - it's day one and THERE IS NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN UP
> >ON THE HILL!  No more excuses!  Instead of wasting time paying off 
> >foreign lobbyists like Brown and admitted felons like Baird, you 
> >should be keeping the PROMISES YOU MADE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  
> >This administration is already a joke and it's just started!  I even 
> >hear liberals on the local radio talk shows stating that they can't 
> >believe they were suckered into voting for such a liar.  I really 
> >feel sorry for all you people who defended Clinton in the past - you 
> >must feel so foolish now.  I can't wait to see the first Presidential
> >opinion polls.
> 
> Geez, get a life. (or get a job, then you wouldn't have so much time typing
> such garbage.)

And I quote:

Clinton in interview on ABC's "Good Morning America", June 23, 1992
	"...I'll have the bills ready the day after I'm inaugurated.  I'll send
them
to congress, and we'll have a hundred-day period...It will be the most
productive in modern history."

I'm waiting.

******************************************************************************
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21023 alt.politics.bush:16291 alt.politics.homosexuality:10115
From: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com

In article 1jpstlINNkjj@hp-col.col.hp.com, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE) writes:
>> It seems those silly humans are trying to define non-existant things like
>> "right", "wrong", and "morality" again.  And some them are using their
>> definitions, or those of others which have been written into some book,
>> to justify their own likes, dislikes, prejudices, and preferences again.
>
>Now this is amusing; some posters have said that it is religion that 
>causes bigotry against gays; now the religion is just a justification 
>for their own likes, dislikes, prejudices that they already have?  ;-)

Perhaps you got the idea?

However I said NOTHING about religion, but I did mention "right", "wrong",
and "morality".

And I didn't even say anything about what has CONDITIONED people with said
'likes, dislikes, prejudices that they already have' before they find a need to justify
them by defining 'non-existant things like "right", "wrong", and "morality"'.

Yes, quite amusing.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Mark Barnes, System Engineer    |  <insert standard disclaimers here>
SUN Microsystems Computer Corp. |
Corporate Technical Escalations |  I speak for myself, an individual,
Menlo Park, CA, USA             |  not for the company for which I work.
barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM      |
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:07:44 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:11:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.234628.12099@irscscm.UUCP> Susan Butler,
sbutler@irscscm.UUCP writes:
> 	Clinton knowingly violated the law when he became a draft
> 	dodger and now HE is in charge of enforcing those same
> 	laws--kinda scarey isn't it?

No, it is not!

> 	The Vietnam Memorial Wall is full of names of people who
> 	were not COWARDS--and now we have one for our president.

Cut me a break! Just because a person felt that the war was wrong,
and didn't participate, does not necessarily make them a coward. It
could mean that they had strong convictions
which would not let them participate in
good conscience. It is also a sign of courage when you stand up
for your convictions no matter the cost to your reputation.

> 
> 	I feel very, very sad for my country.

Me too. Especially if our education system is producing logic like this.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: A small wager for Mulac (was: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE...)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:18:44 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1jnfn8INNkl0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu sez:
>
>In a previous article, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) says:
>
>>
>>3) "Attempt" means an actual national referendum, or even a vote by
>>the full membership of both houses of Congress.  It does not include
>>bug-eyed letters to the Editor of _National Review_ or _American
>>Spectator_, nor floor speeches by Bob Dornan.
>  
>       Does an assasination attempt count?


"Only to 10, Mudhead."  

(See Firesign Theatre, _Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers_,
end of side 1.)

-- 
			   797 F. Supp. 186

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: elliott@oliafd.shel.isc-br.com (Elliott Kleinrock)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Will Zoe be charged?
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:13:44 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Advanced Finance Development

In article <C1Hz0y.1z8@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>In article <cornell.727933185@vivaldi> nobody writes:
>>butleri@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>     I do have one question about Zoe. Is she going to be charged for
>>>knowingly hiring illegal aliens, and failure to pay the Social Security
>>>Tax? Or is she going to be allowed to get away with it?
>>
>>She already has been fined for this hasn't she?

>She had to pay all back taxes owed on the employees as well as Social Security,
>plus interest and penalties (which roughly were $1000). All in all, she took
>a fairly significant financial hit (at least according to my pocketbook) in
>the whole affair. And yes, the case is closed, no other action is to be taken.

$1000 is peanuts to some one who makes $500K a year (that is how much she is
making at Aetna now that she is not the Attorney General).

Rich people crimes are charged fines so only rich people will commit them,
it doesn't matter unless they run for public office.
	- Elliott

	elliott@oliafd.shel.isc-br.com
	...!{ philabs | yale | oliveb | decvax | iscuva }!oliafd!elliott
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21451 alt.politics.elections:25240 talk.politics.misc:70233
From: birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:13:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.192342.29373@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>[--dispeptic ranting deleted--]
>
>Richard, if you want to make foot-dragging an issue, compare the speed
>with which Clinton selected his Cabinet with that of Bush.  GHWB took
>over three months to make his selections.
>
>Then, remember how we patiently waited for the man who wanted to be the
>"education president" and the "environmental president" to take any action
>wrt education and the environment.
>
>Finally, remember how long it took for the Bush Administration to
>acknowledge that there is a recession.
>
>For extra credit, notice how quickly GHWB jumped on the flag-burning
>issue.
>
>I can't help noticing that you posted your diatribe less than 3 hours
>after Clinton was sworn in (20 Jan 1993 20:11:43 GMT).  You in a hurry
>or something?
>

I don't think you can count the speed and directness with which Clinton
retracted nearly everything he promised and his haste in appointing admitted
felons as positive qualities.

birdman@nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: CLINTON postings
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:21:00 GMT

In article <C1KE9o.6y7@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes...
>alt.news-media was not set up as a soapbox for Clinton's fan club; it's
>intended for discussions of the way the media operate.
> 
>There are several more appropriate newsgroups.  alt.politics.clinton being
>the obvious one.
> 
>-- 
>--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
>17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
>INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
>BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp

I don't know by what authority (if any) that Mr. Campin makes this 
statement but I, for one, will follow those Clinton postings to whatever 
area they are chased.  In fact, I'd like to get the postings directly, 
rather than through the usenet.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell.Peabody College.Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
From: valdis@skat.usc.edu (Valdis Kalejs)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Top-10 List
Date: 27 Jan 1993 12:51:44 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu

Top-10 List of America's Reactions To Clinton's Administration (So Far):
---------------------------------------------------------------

10. Wondering if Labor Secretary Frank Reich was a munchkin in the "Wizard
    of Oz".

9. Saw Bill and Barbara Streisand together, and quickly were reminded of "The
   Way We Were".

8. Reminds them of a poor "R" rated movie: Too much sex and too much Gore.

7. Re-named their dogs "Shalala".

6. Burned their Fleetwood Mac & Michael Jackson albums.

5. Scared that Bill would turn West Hollywood into a military base.

4. Scared that Bill will sign executive order naming Jesse Jackson a the new
   Commissioner of Baseball.

3. Scared that Bill would appoint Charles Manson as Attorney General.

2. Just plain scared...

1. CANT'T WAIT TO VOTE FOR JACK KEMP IN'96!!


Valdis

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian
From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: The Majority of Americans Didn't Vote for Me, Anyway.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:33:24 GMT
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)

In article <1993Jan25.015938.21818@oracle.us.oracle.com> mrichter@oracle.uucp (Mark Richter) writes:

>Here's the deal: There's a book out there, still in the bookstores mind you,
>that details the "promises".  There's no backing away from this stuff.
>"Goals" - gimme a break!  
>
>Mark D. Richter                                             1.415.506.4852

Hey, here's a thought:

Bill Clinton lied.

Why act so surprised?  Politicians do it all the time, and Bill
certainly is a consumate politician.  If you assume he lied, then
you believe that he knew that the things he promised were not
obtainable before he got elected.

On the other hand, if you assume that he just didn't KNOW that
all the things he was promising were not possible, then you must
believe he was stupid - after all, his advisors were making ominous
noises 4 months before the election.

Or, the final thought:  he just didn't LISTEN to what his advisor's
were telling him (or what Ross Perot was saying, or John White, or ...).

So, either he's a liar, stupid, or a bad listener.  The truth,
like most things, probably is a combination of all three.

Brrrr.  Are there any other possibilities I've missed?
-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} arweiss@netftp.austin.ibm.com  - NEW ADDRESS    | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea
From: harvey@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Betty Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD: ATTORNEY GEN.
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:13:32 GMT
Reply-To: harvey@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Betty Harvey)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.clinton, mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>
>>It seems pretty damn minor to me.  Plus, it seems like her husband was
>>the one that handled the whole deal.  Apparently, it's only a civil case
>>unless the INS deems that you are a chronic offender.  I wonder how many
>>people, experienced and qualified for the cabinet, have not done something
>>in their life which might disqualify them.  I guess I was done by the
>>time I was 21.
>
It doesn't seem 'pretty damn minor' to me.  This will be a woman who is
put into office to uphold our laws and be in a position to prosecute
law offenders.  In my mind she should be prosecuted for knowingly breaking
the law.  This is a simple case of the law pertains to other people -- not
me.  

As part of her duties as Attorney General she will be the head of INS.  
She knowingly broke the law.  She admits that she knowingly broke the law.  
This isn't a case of a mistake -- she knowingly broke the law that she will 
be entrusted to uphold.  She only paid social security taxes after she
was caught.  Anyone else would be heading off to jail.  There is no question
about her intent.  She intended to break the law.

I can sympathize with the fact that she is a working mother -- so am I.
Child care is not an easy answer in todays society but that doesn't excuse 
the facts.  

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Betty Harvey  <harvey@oasys.dt.navy.mil>     | David Taylor Model Basin
ADP, Networking and Communication Assessment | Carderock Division
     Branch                                  | Naval Surface Warfare
Code 1221                                    |   Center
Bethesda, Md.  20084-5000                    | DTMB,CD,NSWC   
                                             |   
(301)227-3379   FAX (301)227-3343            |          
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21021 alt.politics.elections:25097 talk.politics.misc:69314