HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S. Bond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Letting gays into the military and Pres. Clinton
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:38:20 GMT
Distribution: alt.politics.election
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Dear President Clinton:


	After the election you promised to focus in on the economy "like a 
laser beam."  So far, you have been in office for almost a week and the things
you appear to be focusing on are controversial issues such as abortion and
letting homosexuals into the military.  Perhaps it would be wiser to spend
your great political capital on something we all can agree on which is 
improving on the economy.  When that job is done then you can concern yourself
with the other issues.


					Sincerely,


					Robert Bond
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bond - University of Pennsylvania
Department of Chemical Engineering
Reply to: bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu		
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:25175 alt.politics.clinton:21256
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections

> I know this has been posted before .. but what is the Clinton/Gore e-mail
> address?

That's my question, too.  Any info on this?
How about other Washington officials?

- Len Weisberg - weisberg@corp.hp.com - HP - Palo Alto Info Tech Center
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:25111 talk.politics.misc:69471 tx.politics:8476 misc.legal:23197
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Media (was Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Date: 23 Jan 93 07:06:53 GMT
 <UW5ks*QA1@caleb.UUCP> <C189yt.Axp@sugar.neosoft.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <C189yt.Axp@sugar.neosoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

> 	If this doesn't sound like Archie Bunker, I'm not Bob
> Goldthwait. (Everyone keep quiet while Jim points out that I'm
> _not_ Bob Goldthwait). (-:

Ok, I'll bite.  Who is Bob Goldthwait?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:16392 alt.politics.clinton:21354
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:38:36 PST

In article <1jpa1nINNkva@transfer.stratus.com>, on 22 Jan 1993 17:14:31 GMT,
markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:

>Evelyn: You are amazing ignorant on the Bible as a whole.  There were
>people known as Pharisees who attempted to keep the letter of the law
>while missing the intent.  Jesus condemned them for this.  You seem
>surprisingly able to quote a verse without a single iota of
>understanding about what it means and what the rest of the Bible says about
>these things.  Even Satan can quote scripture for his own purposes.

More accurately, the Pauline Christians who wrote the NT portrayed
the Pharisees as hypocrites, because mainstream Judaism had branded
the followers of Paul as heretics, and had rejected the claims made
about Jesus by the Paulinists.

The historical Pharisees bore little resemblance to the manner in which
they are portrayed in the Gospels.

---

Jack B. Newsbaum             I would have been born again; however,     00010000
Library Information Systems  Mom didn't think much of that idea.        00020000
University Research Library  Make money, not war!                       00030000
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu     Closets are for clothes.                   00040000
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Domestic policy (was Clinton's Foreign Policy)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1993Jan25.162035.17116@dg-rtp.dg.com>
	<HIGHLNDR.93Jan25145412@csa.bu.edu>
	<1k29q3INNdus@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:45:37 GMT

In article <1k29q3INNdus@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

   In article <HIGHLNDR.93Jan25145412@csa.bu.edu> highlndr@csa.bu.edu (Sean Pfeiffer) writes:
   >Hillary can't hold a cabinet office.  There was a law passed after the
   >Kennedy administration which prohibited immediate family members of the
   >President from doing this (RFK as Attorney General under JFK was the
   >basis for this).

   Very true. This is why Clinton has not appointed her to an official office,
   merely indicated that it would be her responsibility to advise. Thus giving
   her the authority without the requisit Senate approval.

The requisite Senate approval?  The Senate approves all presidential
appointees?  Hell, she's not even getting paid.  I want a show of
hands (figuratively) from all people who voted for Clinton that don't
think Hillary should be researching improvements to the health care
system.  Just for my information.
--


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


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: matt@cray.com (Matthew Marchese)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Jan 93 03:48:26 CST

In article <mjones.727561122@fenway> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>>We are all, as sinners, condemned already (John 3:18). I hate no man,
>>homosexual or otherwise.  But I do hate sin, as does God.  Jesus
>>had compassion for people but did not condone sin.  Homosexuality is
>>definately sin as outlined in God's word.  Is it any worse than
>>other sins, such as adultery?
>
>Indeed. And did Jesus not stand in front of the woman accused of adultery
>and say, let he among you without sin cast the first stone? Can even those
>who feel that homosexuality is a sin not take that advice?
First of all, most of the earliest copies of the Gospel of John 
do *not* contain this story! While it seems consistent with
the rest of Jesus' ministry it's not the best example to drag
out to make a point.

Second, these men were trying to *kill* this woman. Jesus stopped
them and then told the woman to "go, and sin no more" recognizing
that she was guilty as charged but not deserving of death or
punishment. This whole conversation should be revolving around
whether or not Homosexuals should be granted equal protection
under the law based on the *US Constitution*. Ultimately, it
won't be a question of religious belief, rather, a question of
constitutionality.

Any Christian who believes that the New Testament condones
the bashing, persecution, or hatred of homosexuals is 
seriously deluded. Let me qualify that by saying that
seriously deluded people can be found lurking in every group
religious or political. People like Pat Robertson and
Randall Terry are proof positive to me that Christianity
and politics mix like oil and water.

Now could you please move this discussion to a more appropriate
forum; talk.religion maybe?

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not!" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealed to me through the medium of my pet   *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: roh@spot.Colorado.EDU (ROH JOHN J)
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 05:09:46 GMT

In article <C1JuMK.Czz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>>a close friend?  Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>
>   Well, when the person is your wife, the difference is that they 
>won't get fired!  The position Mrs. Clinton is taking won't be around
>long enough for this to become a concern, but I _would_ strongly object
>to more long-term appointments ( greater than 100 days ).
>
   Well, if Hillary is doing a bad job then she WILL be removed
from her job.  President Clinton(can YOU say 'President Clinton'?) isn't
dumb enough to let Hillary continue if she screws up.  So, why don't you
relax.  Hey, who knows, maybe she might even do a good job :)



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Hillary in the Cabinet
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:55:48 GMT

In article <HIGHLNDR.93Jan25145412@csa.bu.edu> highlndr@csa.bu.edu (Sean Pfeiffer) writes:
>Hillary can't hold a cabinet office.  There was a law passed after the
>Kennedy administration which prohibited immediate family members of the
>President from doing this (RFK as Attorney General under JFK was the
>basis for this).

It's not clear whether such a law was constitutional.  The misc.legal
debate consensus was "probably not," if I recall correctly, but it's
doubtful any president would waste time challenging it.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: unhealth@mcl.ucsb.edu (Kristian Dunn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush lost because he wasn't conservative enough!
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:14:59 GMT

To whom it may concern:
	Our former Commander-in-Chief lost the Election because he was not 
	conservative enough. It is true. The recessionary periods of winter '90
	and spring '91, were aggrevated by the fact that he caved into the 
	leftist Democratic congress for the 1990 tax increase. Anybody can tell
	that when the govt. takes money out of the American peoples hand and
	disrupts the established 'multiplier' concept of economics, the eco-
	nomy will slow down to try and compensate and get back into a slower
	economic equilibrium. Our foremost former Commander-in-Chief Ronald
	Reagan understood that principle and he did not let the commies in
	congress have their way, when it came to the issue of taxes. The re-
	cession was also deepened by the lagging effects of the 1986 'Tax Re-
	form'  that made the investment of real estate less profitable, and 
	therefore plenty of investors stopped investing, thus causing property
	across the country not to appreciate as fast as it had been, thus 
	lowering consumer confidence when they saw their own house price fall
	or remain close to constant, when adjusted for inflation. Now if any-
	body reading this article disagrees, I can assure you that I can FAX
	any info your way in a matter of 36 hours after I recieve your response
	To villify the Republicans  for the prosperity of the eighties and
	the slower growth of the nineties, would be tantamount to villifying
	the 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:27:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.040927.1225@walter.cray.com> matt@cray.com (Matthew Marchese) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.220959.19251@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>This seems to be the root of the problem here. Melinda, you
>seem to equate "limiting...civil rights" with hatred. Many
>would disagree, especially since the U.S. Constitution
>does not specifically grant equal rights to holders of
>non-hetero sexual orientation.

Back in my shcool daze I studied the Constitution pretty extensively and it's
true it does not say anything about those with non-hetero sexual orientation
having equal rights. But come to think about it it also doesn't say anything
about those with hetero sexual orientation either. It does say something about
ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS having equal rights though.
 
>>seen posting after posting vainly attempting to demonstrate
>>that the Bible states unequivocally that homosexuality is
>>a heinous sin of incomparable magnitude.

>Some people feel that way, I and many other Christians do not.

I also konw many Christians who think that some of the actions of "fundies"
are much worse then any act of homosexuality. The problem is that one goof
ball uses God to justify hate and suddenly all Christians get that label.
Likewise to some, one gay molests a child and all gays get that label. As far
as I can tell the ones that are truly wrong are those who impose the labels.
Doesn't matter which side they claim to be on.

>>I know you're genuinely stupid, Wally, but not even you
>>would suggest that many, if not most people involved with
>>organizations like CFV and OCA aren't using religion as a
>>excuse to justify their bigotry.  Even here in Tompkins
>>County we've had people suggest that treating homosexuals
>>in a civil manner would violate their religious beliefs and
>>that extending existing civil rights laws to include
>>"actual or perceived sexual orientation" would intrude upon
>>their freedom of religion.  EXCUSE ME??  Their religious
>>practices include denying civil rights to homosexuals?

>>If there's one person on the planet who would suggest that
>>religion is not being used as an excuse for anti-gay
>>bigotry, you're certainly that person.

>No one that I know is denying that religion is often used as
>a mask for bigotry and hatred. But you seem more than willing to
>tar all Christians with that brush even when they indicate
>that they don't hate you or wish to persecute you. Dare I
>say, Judge not...?

Dare. Judge not... was something I was taught as a child as to what being a 
real Christian was all about. Many follow this rule but unfortunitly the ones
that don't are the ones that make the news.


Stan Knight
|"Judge not a man intil you have walked a mile in his moccasins"|
|                     --OldAmeircan Indian Saying--             | 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:44:43 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>a close friend?  Other than that one is easily identifiable?

   Well, when the person is your wife, the difference is that they 
won't get fired!  The position Mrs. Clinton is taking won't be around
long enough for this to become a concern, but I _would_ strongly object
to more long-term appointments ( greater than 100 days ).

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:16271 alt.politics.clinton:20973 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13512
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Domestic policy (was Clinton's Foreign Policy)
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:19:43 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <eagle.727551072@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>, eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In light of the current situation in the Middle East, we must ask questions
>>about Pres. (he is President by now) Clinton's foreign policy.
> 
> I heard today that Pres. Clinton (then Pres-elect Clinton) said in
> PUBLIC that his wife would be in charge of Domestic Policy?  Excuse me,
> wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!?  And his WIFE is going to do it?
> 

Heard it on Rush?

Also, I seem to recall a certain president's wife and her astrologer running
policy from the White House? Can anyone verify this?

-Garrett

> Can anyone verify this?
> 
> Daniel
> --
> Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Department, NCSU / eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
> 						    "Ich bin ein Adler"
> "It's time for Americans to stop expecting something for nothing." -- Pres.
>  Bill Clinton in his inaugural speech, 20 January 1993. "Yeah right," I say.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:16211 alt.politics.clinton:20820
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Foreign Policy
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:25:57 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1993Jan20.093226.23981@netcom.com>, howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.045921.13322@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>(what happens if the Secret Serivce drug sniffer dogs find something in the
>>President's luggage on Air Force One?)
>>
> 
> What, you mean like Halcyon?  
> 
> (Or maybe those pills that were animating Ronnie Ray-gun's brain dead
> corpse all those years)
> -- 
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Howard Berkey                                   	   howard@netcom.com

Now here, boys & girls, we find a splendid species of the About-Face
Mean-Spirited Liberal.  Yes, by tomorrow he'll be wailing at conservatives
who dare to speak ill of William Jefferson Clinton. 

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

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:16419 alt.politics.clinton:21482 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14089 soc.women:23171 alt.feminism:7716
From: quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:57:12 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <1993Jan28.005530.21054@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
.....[discussion of Hillary Clinton's health-care committee position]...

>Granted, but there is still the matter of nepotism. Imagine if President
>Carter had hired Billy Carter, for anything. 

Does anybody here remember hearing about Robert Kennedy's appointment
as Attorney General.  I know it's just a movie, but seeing _Hoffa_
(GREAT movie) reminded me of just what an asshole Bobby was (as was
his equally anti-labor, red-baiting brother John F.).  And AG is a
paid position even, where Hillary's is not...

Methink Rich doth prostest too much... perhaps his real objection is
that Ms. Clinton is a *female* relative of Mr. C.
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: asparrow@cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow)
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:11:49 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

Angel here.

I don't object to Frau Clinton being put in charge
because she the Prez 's wife.  I object because
she's a lawyer.  She's upper middle class, covered
by health insurance and probably has never had
anything more traumatic than braces or
appendectomy done.

She doesn't know what it is to make less than $15000
a year, and not be insurable because you are chronically
ill.  The sick people can't get iunsurance.  I can't, because of
prior history.  My last ear infection bankrupted us.  My insurance
would run at least 150 a month and not cover my ears or anything
else wrong.  

She can't relate to that.  She hasn't the foggiest notion
what it's like to eat macaroni for a week so the dr. can be paid.

Besides which, malpractice suits are in her best interests.
If she takes one, and the client gets 2 million, she
could get a hefty chunk of it.  It's like telling the wolf
to guard the hen house.  

But, being she is a woman, perhaps her sensitive, compassionate side 
will come out.  (If she has one.)

Just m,y thoughts.  Surely there'
s someone more qualified?

Angel
From: csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: God is intolerant of Invisible Lesbians who Pick and Choose!!!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:03:57 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: ironwood.cis.ohio-state.edu

I would like to propose a moratorium on these three threads:

"God is intolerant of sin!"
"Pick and Choose?"
"Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!!!"

I have heard the same arguments used on all three of these threads, and
I am getting quite SICK of them. Nothing is being accomplished! No real
headway is being made by either side.

And I have tried to set up a kill file to no avail. I would like to continue
debate on other topics without having to skip through 75% of the messages
with these three subjects.

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

----
"The main flaw of Creation Theory is that it depends too much on conjecture
and miracles, and the main flaw of Evolution Theory is that it depends too
much on conjecture and miracles."
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
From: csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Domestic policy (was Clinton's Foreign Policy)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:05:39 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu

In article <HIGHLNDR.93Jan25145412@csa.bu.edu> highlndr@csa.bu.edu (Sean Pfeiffer) writes:
>Hillary can't hold a cabinet office.  There was a law passed after the
>Kennedy administration which prohibited immediate family members of the
>President from doing this (RFK as Attorney General under JFK was the
>basis for this).

Very true. This is why Clinton has not appointed her to an official office,
merely indicated that it would be her responsibility to advise. Thus giving
her the authority without the requisit Senate approval.
-----
"The main flaw of Creation Theory is that it depends too much on conjecture
and miracles, and the main flaw of Evolution Theory is that it depends too
much on conjecture and miracles."
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:16184 alt.politics.clinton:20764
From: csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 10:42:22 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu

You know, this thread is getting very old. I keep reading the same arguments
on both sides over and over.

Anybody know how to put this Subject in a kill file in rn?
----
"The main flaw of Creation Theory is that it depends too much on conjecture
and miracles, and the main flaw of Evolution Theory is that it depends too
much on conjecture and miracles."
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism