HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doel@bbq.uucp (Mike Doel)
Subject: Special Prosecutor for Zoegate?
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 15:12:56 GMT

This whole fiasco with Zoe Baird is tarnishing the American reputation.  I
think the only solution is the appointment of a special prosecutor to
investigate what Clinton knew & when he knew it.  Was Zoe Baird lying to
Congress yesterday when she said she had only told "senior transition
officials" of her crimes?  How could Clinton not know this - he's in charge
right?  Is he's appointing known criminals to head the Justice Department?

My fellow citizens, there is no other choice.  We must immediately call for
a special prosecutor to investigate this.  No budget is too large.  No
timeframe is too long.  This is of vital importance to the American people.
Call your Senators today!


Oh, :-) for the humor impaired.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>
444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
Piscataway, NJ 08854

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>
444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:1886 alt.politics.elections:25249 talk.politics.misc:70301
From: csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: homosexuals in the military and "pro-life"
Date: 27 Jan 1993 21:43:59 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu

In article <24874@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon) writes:
>Two questions to consider:
>
>1)  Has anyone noticed that very few woman (civilian or military)
>have a problem with the idea of homosexuals serving in the military?  
>What's the matter with you male homophobes?  a little unsure 
>of your own sexuality?

Well, a very large percentage of women in the military already _are_ gay. In
fact, I have heard many complaints from straight women in the military that
they were discriminated against. They were passed up for promotions, denied
perks, etc. all because they were not gay, and their superior officer was.

>2)  Did you hear that the vice-president of Operation Rescue resigned?
>He hadn't been paying his court-ordered child support and was threatened
>with jail for it.  Funny isn't it?  He seems to feel that every fetus
>should be carried to term, but once born, he doesn't give a damn --
>even for his own children.

Have you ever considered the possibility that he never wanted children in
the first place, and feels that to force a man to financially support a
child he does not want even before birth, while allowing a woman a quick,
easy and relatively inexpensive way out is grossly unfair?

-----
"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.president.clinton
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: Flip-flop?!?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:00:00 GMT

In article <30589@castle.ed.ac.uk>, barryb@castle.ed.ac.uk (Barry A T Brown) writes...
>In article <1993Jan18.140800.5403@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, ggoebel@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Garrett Goebel) writes:
> 
> 
>|> 3) Isn't the budget the issue?
>|> 
>|> Foreign policy and economic stimulus aside, the best possible thing the
>|> Clinton administration could do would be to cut the budget deficit.  If
>|> that means dropping every single campaign promise to get the job done, he
>|> will have proven himself a great President.
>|> 
>|> Really now, we should all know buy now that government intervention in
>|> the market place means increased inefficiency.  
> 
>This is a point that conservatives like to "presume" has been proved.  If
>anything the contrary is true - The Japanise, Korean and German governments
>all take a very active government intervention policy.  Countrys that don't-
>e.g Britain + America have less successful economys.

Actually, it has been 'proved', at least as much as anything can be proved in
economics.

There was a large study by university researchers released about a month
before the election showing that US per capita productivity is significantly
higher than any other country's.  The degree of productivity seemed to
correlate with the extent of governmental laissez-faire.  Other researchers
praised the study for being much more accurate in measuring productivity.

 Despite being done by professors who all claimed to be lifelong Democrats,
and despite its relevance to the ridiculous claims about the US economy being
made at that time by Slick Bill, it did not seem to get much play in the media,
since they were too busy beating people over the head with the official
Democrat party line about the 'worst conditions since the Depression'. 


Dave
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton`s flip-flop on China
Date: 24 Jan 93 21:57:13 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <93023.195524MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1993Jan23.170307.23354@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:
> >Do not infer that the lack of an answer implies substantiation of
> >your position, but rather a lack of time to both read the postings
> 
> I just examined the New York Times and Washington Post from January 13-15,
> a period which included Warren Christopher's confirmation hearings and a
> long interview with Clinton by the Times. Not a word about China. You're
> welcome to keep looking, however.
> 

Great that saves me the time and effort.  I have no particular interest
in what Clinton does vis a vis MFN status for China.

The original statement which lead to my posting was made not by Clinton
himself, but a staffer/spokesperson by the name of Didi Myer.

If you are really interested in his exact position, which to the best
of my knowledge is retaining the MFN status, I suggest you ask the
question directly:
73500.3115@compuserve.com will get you the Whitehouse.

David Garrod
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: Sending mail to Clinton...don't bother
Organization: CSLI, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:25:47 GMT

From postmaster@compuserve.com Thu Jan 28 09:16:22 1993
Return-Path: <postmaster@compuserve.com>
Received: from hermes.intel.com by deadend.YP.security (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA10749; Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:16:21 PST
Received: from Csli.Stanford.EDU by hermes.intel.com (5.65/10.0i); Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:17:21 -0800
Received: from ihb.compuserve.com by Csli.Stanford.EDU (4.1/inc-1.0)
	id AA27486; Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:17:11 PST
Received: by ihb.compuserve.com (5.65/5.910516)
	id AA13500; Thu, 28 Jan 93 12:17:13 -0500
Date: 28 Jan 93 11:53:13 EST
From: Electronic Postmaster <POSTMASTER@CompuServe.COM>
To: <cower@Csli.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Undeliverable message
Message-Id: <930128165313_515664.456256_EHI71-34@CompuServe.COM>
Status: R

Re: ? EMDNRM - Mail Delivery Failure. No room in mailbox. >EPX [75300,3115]
clinton...

Your message could not be delivered as addressed.

--- Returned message ---

Received: from Csli.Stanford.EDU by iha.compuserve.com (5.65/5.910516)
	id AA13714; Thu, 28 Jan 93 11:49:08 -0500
Received: by Csli.Stanford.EDU (4.1/inc-1.0)
	id AA26410; Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:49:00 PST
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:49:00 PST
>From: cower@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Richard Cower)
Message-Id: <9301281649.AA26410@Csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: 75300.3115@compuserve.com
Subject: clinton...

Incredible. Does this man have ANY principles at all, or is he just a
political animal? Backing off on this gay military issue is just too
much. 
What, exactly, does he believe in and is willing to follow thru on?
Apparently, nothing.

...rich cower


Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:1915 alt.politics.elections:25270 talk.politics.misc:70453
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Roe v Wade and child support (was: hmsxls in the mltry and "pro-li
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:03:26 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (ZEITLIN, CARY) writes:
> Craig Edward Smith writes:
> 
> >Consider what would happen in a paternity suit brought against a 
> >man whose girlfreind (neither are married) had gotten an abortion 
> >with a previous child of his, without his consent (not required). 
> >He might claim that since she had total authority over the fetus, 
> >she should have total responsibility.
> 
> I think this post (and an earlier post in the same vein) overlook a 
> very basic point -- if the man doesn't want to deal with the 
> consequences of a pregnancy, he should not engage in the behavior 
> that leads to the pregnancy. It's just that simple. To impregnate a 
> woman, a man must be in a state of arousal, which cannot be forced 
> upon him.  I find it difficult to understand how people who find 
> fault with others (or society as a whole) for not being 
> sufficiently responsible can overlook such a fundamental fact.

question: do you feel the same way about women? i.e. if she didn't
want to get pregnant she shouldn't have had sex with the guy in the
first place? (excepting situations like rape where it wasn't 
voluntary.) just interesting to see if -you've- got a double standard...

jason

--
   "I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired
    of being told that ordinary decent people are fed up in this country
    with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired
    of being told that I am!" - Monty Python
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Week OnE
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78D63E6E2010810@alimac6.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:20:22 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d17
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:18:17 GMT

Weel this last week certainly felt like the fulfillment of the
Chinese curse -
"May you live in interesting times."  Whew!   I have especially
enjoyed having all the conservatives finally come out of their
caves regarding the gays in the military issue and the little
minds regarding Hillary Clinton.

Gays in the military.  Has anyone else noticed that almost all
of the criticism of lifting the ban comes from men.  The
language that the men are employing are extremely similar to
the language that women have been using for years in describing
unwanted sexual attention.  Gays make some uncomfortable,
scared, insecure, etc.  It made me wonder if the men were
afraid that they would become victims of Tailhook like
behavior.  In a weird way,  maybe admitting gays into the
military will strengthen the military code of conduct and make
sexual harassment more unacceptable for both sexes.

Hillary:  I read her resume and she seems highly qualified to
head the Health Care Task Force.  She has headed similar
commissions for her husband and brought in very good results. 
(She even knew enough to call congressional leaders and inform
them of her ambitions, goals and agenda as regards health care,
and invite the leaders to confere with her.  Smart policy and
political move.)  Why is everyone so insecure over this?  Ms.
Rodham Clinton is smart, politically savvy and has a proven
track record.  Sounds like lots of folks still can't accept a
strong women in power or approve of men who share power with
women.
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: More of the House Bank "scandal"  (was Pardon stuff...)
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:05:53 GMT
 <1993Jan19.223006.12627@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1jic1jINN7uk@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> <1993Jan21.000113.3405@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1993Jan21.000113.3405@Princeton.EDU>,
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes: 
> In article <1jic1jINN7uk@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan19.223006.12627@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
>>>In article <1j9pj8INNa8o@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
[major snipperoos]

>>>>The house knew all along what was going on, and didn't mind this extra
>>>>perk, despite that it was done with TAXPAYER MONEY, NO FELLOW CONGRESSMEN'S
>>>>MONEY!
> 
>>>Well, every congressman's paycheck consists of taxpayer's money, does it not?
>>>Is this the basis for the statement you were making above when your Caps key
>>>got stuck?
> 
>>Not at all. The "line-of-credit" was not yet their salary. It was therefore
>>still taxpayer money, plain and simple, without caps.
> 
> No, IT WAS OTHER CONGRESSPEOPLE'S MONEY.  NOT TAXPAYER'S.  

Look, David, your continued insistence -- especially your continued, SHOUTED
insistence -- is getting on my nerves, particularly when you are utterly and
demonstrably wrong.  

If you really insist, I will dig out my file on this scandal -- doesn't
anyone do ANY research any more? -- and then I will come back here and post
the THREE COURT CASES THAT PROVE (oh, pardon me) ...that _prove_ that the
money in the House Bank was taxpayer money. 

Or, if you wish, go look it up yourself, and convince yourself that you're
mistaken in the privacy of your own library.  Or, you can ask your honorable 
Congressperson -- but please be assured that even Speaker Tom Foley doesn't
claim that as a defense. 

Any way you wanna do it.  But _please_ stop shouting.

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

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: dave@chem.psu.edu (Dave Hartsough)
Subject: Re: Week OnE
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:10:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.151817.29013@osf.org>, Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
|> 
|> Hillary:  I read her resume and she seems highly qualified to
|> head the Health Care Task Force.  She has headed similar
|> commissions for her husband and brought in very good results. 
|> (She even knew enough to call congressional leaders and inform
|> them of her ambitions, goals and agenda as regards health care,
|> and invite the leaders to confere with her.  Smart policy and
|> political move.)  Why is everyone so insecure over this?  Ms.
|> Rodham Clinton is smart, politically savvy and has a proven
|> track record.  Sounds like lots of folks still can't accept a
|> strong women in power or approve of men who share power with
|> women.

   No, not all of us who dislike the idea of Ms. Rodham-Clinton heading
a task force on health care are Neandrathals (at least I like to think not). 
My main objections are in regard to the precedent it sets (or perhaps
perpetuates, see JFK and RFK) and the opportunities for nepotism in 
future administrations.  As for strong women, I have long agreed with 
many of the views espoused by Jeanne Kirkpatrick and favorably viewed
the tenure of Margaret Thatcher in Britian.  I have no idea what Thatcher's
husband did (and cared even less) and don't even know if Kirkpatrick is 
married.  Their husbands were not the people in power, they were.
Therefore their husbands views are of no consequence to me. I'm not crazy about 
Diane Feinstein (spelling?) for example, but that has to do with her 
politics not her gender.  In all, my problem with Ms. Rodham-Clinton is 
with the "appearance of impropriety" that Clinton has said he
wishes to avoid, not any deep seated insecurity about women in power.

BTW, I also didn't care a whole lot what Barbara Bush thought about anything 
either.  

David Hartsough
dave@bogosity.chem.psu.edu
From: bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A few words about Flip-Flops
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:34:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

>"I want to make it very clear that this middle class tax cut, in my view, is
>central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic
>strategy and a long term fairness strategy, which is part of getting this
>country going again."
>	Primary Debates 1/19/92
                        ^^^^^^^
LOOK AT THE DATE!!!!!

>Think again. Ask a few of the people who voted for them.

Well, I can't help people who are stupid!  All the Clinton voters I know
knew better than to expect something that Clinton wasn't even believing
in at the end of the campaign...

>He promised on several occasions to have an economic strategy "on the first day
>of my presidency". It was unfair for him to blatantly lie to the blue collar
>workers who believed in him. That is unfair. Responsible voting, on these
>premises tells us to be bitter.

Oh, please... that is so sad.  You're going to crucify him because he's 
a couple of weeks late because he wants to get it right.  Would you prefer that
he release a lame economic plan on time or a good economic plan a little bit
late?????????????

> Clinton is off to a bad start, and I am not a part of it. :-)

Clinton is off to a tremendous start, and I'm proud I was (and still am,
thanks to Clinton's continually expanding link to the net) a part of it!!!!!

>>         We must do what no generation has had to do before. We must invest
>"Invest" read:Tax

No, invest means spend your tax dollars on things that will stimulate the
economy and build infrastructure, not silly things.  Apparently you weren't
paying very close attention...

>>         It will not be easy; it will require sacrifice. But it can be done,
>"Sacrifice" read: accept the tax

Oh, don't be so immature...

>You'll have the opportunity to recind this should Jack Kemp decide to run...
>care to join us? :-)

Over my dead body...

L8r,

Ben
-- 
Ben McCall, Caltech - bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu
SEDS President, Technical Projects Coordinator
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: "It's the economy, stupid!"
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:48:49 GMT

In article <15597.2b5f3fb5@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> Is it me, or do these whining Republicans sound just like us liberals did
> during 12 years of Reagenbush :D

Uh...no. It's you. Garrett, your ability to shoot yourself in the foot
continues to amaze me. At least you have finally conceded that all of the
drivel that has ever oozed out of your little repugnant mouth is nothing but
whining blather. The fact that you proudly display yourself as a liberal
repulses me to no end... knowing that someone actually allowed into an American
University. You continue to be the bastion of remarkable stupidity for the
left. When it comes time for you to mature, look at what your messiah has done,
most of which before he was even inaugurated. Then pick up a newspaper and look
at what your failed ideology has done for the world: servitude, slavery,
economic crisis, hunger, and hopelessness. Happy extinction, liberal worm.

--Vsg001@acad.drake.edu
From: csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Special Message (to Cliton from Fundamentalist Christian)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:18:18 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu
Keywords: Blood,Lamb,Messiah,Doxology,Psychotic

In article <1993Jan21.225532.16561@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <21615@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>>
>>Fundies hate Clinton for being a pro-choice Baptist.
>>Fundies hate period.
>>But Fundies make us laugh.
>>They *do* put on a good show.
>
>Unfortunately, sometimes God speaks to them, and they make Molotov
>cocktails to use on abortion clinics.

Not that I am defending illegal action (which I am not) but how many people
have been killed or hurt in these bombings, and when did the last one occur?
I keep hearing rumors about them, but have never found any documentation?
Now compare the number of people hurt or killed to the number of fetal
lives snuffed out each year to avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy.

There seems to be more sympathy amongst liberals for a spotted owl than
for a potential human being.

----
"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.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Transcript please
Date: 27 Jan 1993 21:36:55 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu

In article <C1J9Kv.Ly3@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>>>Someone please post a transcript of the State of the Union address. Thank you.
>>He has not given the State of the Union address. He has given an inaugrual
>>speech. Is that what you want?
>>And could someone PLEASE tell me when the State of the Union address will be
>>given???????
>
>Last night.  Tuesday, January 26th at 7pm mountain time.
>
I don't think so. I just checked the TV listing for last night 9:00 eastern
time. Nothing. On broadcast or on cable. Nothing about a state of the union
message in the Wednesday paper or the news.

Try again.
-----
"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)
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:29:51 CST
From: <U60829@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Worst of the gala
Distribution: usa
 <1jl6egINNens@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu>
 <1993Jan25.222924.5248@cabezon.uucp>

Nell Carter!  Now that's a celeb!

J. Pacella
Univ. of IL at Chgo
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton