HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Auditors (was Government Waste)
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:26:22 GMT
 <7HM=jZ=@engin.umich.edu> <1fg0l6INNsv1@rave.larc.nasa.gov> 
 <1992Dec04.225259.18735@cpqhou.compaq.com> 
 <randall.723846939@seashore>  <1992Dec9.015502.18065@Happy-Man.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Auditors are amazing.  At our college, the radio station (which is
commercial) was forced to get rid of the service contract on its copier
because it supposedly cost too much.  So every time something happened
to the copier (which was often), we would have to pay an outrageous sum
to get it fixed.  Meanwhile, the do-nothing Student Asshole (er, I mean
Student Assembly) bought itself a new computer when it ended the fiscal
year with a surplus (of money that ultimately was from our tuitions). 
Go figure.

Government always seems to have a short-term fix but doesn't know
diddly-squat about the long term.

--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:47:08 GMT

In article <638@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.005002.1365@unet.net.com> steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:
>>
>>This sounds like whining from someone too young to have experienced
>>the successes of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the 
>>Great Society.  
>
>Successes??  

Yes, successes.
See my follow up post to David Messina's post.


>You mean the New Deal that is credited with, by most historians
>and economists, having prolonged the Great Depression? 

Will you supply a list of "most historians and economists" who credit
the New Deal with prolonging the Great Depression?  Then people
can decide for themselves the how credible these historians and 
economists may or may not be and how many of them there are.

>The New Frontier
>and Great Society success that lead to the assaination of one of it's 
>spokes-presidents

Please explain how either the New Frontier or the Great Society led to
the assassination of John F. Kennedy.


> deepend our involvement in Vietnam, 

Yes, Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the disaster in Vietnam, but 
that foriegn policy debacle was separate and independent from his 
domestic Great Society programs.  The Great Society was not related to
Vietnam, other than that monies that went to fight the war in Vietnam
were not available for funding the Great Society programs.

>brought us to the
>brink of nuclear war and had people digging holes in their backyards waiting
>for the bombs to fall

If you are refering to the Cuban Missle Crisis, remember that Kennedy 
signed the first nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets after that
crisis, when he realized how easy it was to come close to nuclear war 
with the previous policies that had been pursued.  He was able to learn
from the experience and change policy to accommodate a changing world.

>inspired social and political upheaval and near
>anarchy, created entire generations of welfare dependant famlies and gave
>us an education system that produces numerous graduates but few that can
>read or function effectively in the workplace. 

Will you provide data that shows a direct causal correlation between
specific programs of the New Frontier and Great Society and the effects you
attribute to them in the above paragraph?  That type of information will 
give your statements some foundation, whereas, vague generalities with no
supporting evidence will not and will be dismissed as having no 
credible basis.

>
>PSG
>-- 

Steve

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Somalia and Republican Utopia
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 19 Dec 92 12:22:21

This sure supports the rightist view that TV is in the hands of leftist
propagandists.  Does Hirschfield put bits of propaganda in his TV
shows?.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:04:41 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <738@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>BTW you might also want to note that in this year of Clinton's "mandate"
>conservative Republicans gained more seats in Congress and made major gains
>in state legislatures.

Not here in Massachusetts!  The democrats now have more than a two-thirds
majority in the state legislature, and things are looking pretty tight for
Weld in '94.  Which could make it impossible for him to make a presidential
bid.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:43:29 GMT

In article <758@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>The bottom line is that running any university is no accomplishment of epic
>proportion in my opinion.  And doing so brings nothing in the way of 
>experience to the task of running a department the size and scope of DHHS.
>
>Yes, so UW-Madison is X largest school, so what?  Stack the largest of them
>up against a Fortune 500 company and it's still a little bit of nothing in
>terms of real world employement and administrative problems.

This is goofy. Running a university means you have to
   --suck up to alums to get endowment money
   --deal with every union under the sun, except maybe the UMW.
   --deal with the fact that you can't just fire someone who's
     incompetent, because he/she has tenure
   --suck up to the government for a little dribble of federal or state funds
   --feed and board thousands of people
   --make sure your football team is good enough to be a money-maker.

I for one would much rather run a Fortune 500 company than deal with all the
bullshit a university administrator has to. But you're probably one of those
guys who gets mad because his professors are more interested in research than
teaching, right? 
Antagonistically yours,
Alan
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Latest Clinton picks
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:57:35 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>democrats are liberals are naive and pointless. Lloyd Bentsen has
>been an outstanding public servant. Furthermore, his views are
>quite moderate to conservative despite the ridiculous stereotyping
>expressed by Fred

>I have nothing but the greatest respect for Bentsen and, although it is a
>great loss to his Texas constituency, he will make a fine Treasury
>secretary.

Personally, I'm not so sure Bentsen is all that wonderful, though
he does know American finance laws.  And since I did say a while ago
I was voting more for slight change and improvement than anything
else, I suppose I've gotten what I paid for.  Still I would like
to know more about Bentsen's backroom deals.

And on a different subject, I'd like to know why the Canadian health
system seems to be fairly uninteresting to Clinton.

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Republicans looking for jobs
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:34:59 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics


Nothing makes me more happy than to see Extremist Right Wing Republicans
looking through the want ads. It is such a pleasing thought.

I also love to see Republicans in the welfare line.

Get a job.
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: those liberals Bentsen and Pandetta
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:30:25 GMT
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center

Just for information, 

Roger Porter was on C-SPAN yesterday commenting
on Bentsen and Pandetta.  He said that they were
ultimately market-oriented and concerned with
the public debt.  He approved of both appointments
(he didn't approve of some others, naturally).

Porter (another one of those pinko Rhodes scholars ;-) )
is an economic and domestic policy advisor to president
Bush and also served under Reagan and Ford.
--


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.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:49:44 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:53:21 GMT

In article <778@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Here's a bit of non-scientific info to chew on, for those who think
Clinton's
>cabinet appointments are so swell...
>
>Here in Pittsburgh, a city that voted for Clinton over Bush by better
than a
>5 to 1 margin, a local radio station conducted a sample telephone poll,
>yesterday, to see what Pittsburghers thought of Clinton's cabinet
choices. 
>Of the 301 people responding 173 said they are unhappy with the choices
>so far...
>
>eh hee hee he.  Making friends already. 

You continue to embarass yourself. First of all, who did the poll, how
were
the questions asked, did the respondents actually know who the appointees
are, what were the demographics of the sample, what were the reasons they
were unhappy?

Here's a dollar Paul. Go buy yourself a clue.

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: ghee@vision.larc.nasa.gov (Terry A. Ghee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:02:38 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: vision.larc.nasa.gov


Greg Brandt writes:

>An interesting point you make.  Have you ever heard of a case where a
>gay was =actively= disruptive as a consequence of his or her sexual
>preference?  I've only heard of heteros who became disruptive when
>they discovered that one of their fellows was gay.  The problem is,
>it's the victim that has been the one punished, instead of the
>"disruptive influence."


Was told this by a buddy who works for the navy.  After the gay person
at Moffett Field was ordered reinstated, he reported to work out of 
uniform.  Apparently, the navy was willing to follow the order of 
reinstatement but required him to be in uniform.  They ordered him
to go back and change into a uniform, and he didn't feel the need to
do this so they sent him home.  So he goes out the building and
then gives an "sudden" press conference to the awaiting newsfolks.
_If_ this story is true (I only know what I've been told, and I do
not care to track down more info.) then this is certainly highly
disruptive and unprofessional behavior.  As I stated, I can't verify
this officially, I trust my friend because of who he is and his 
position in the navy, you are not obligated to believe anything.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: gestes@regan.next.nd.edu (gregory estes)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:19:58 GMT

In article <740@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
> Like I said, he gave people ear candy to get elected, now let's see
> the result.  So far not so good.
> 
	Paul, you seem incredibly antsy. President-elect Clinton has not  
even been sworn into office. He was elected a little over a month ago, and  
you are demanding results now. Actually, it does not seem like a demand  
for results, but a hope for his failure. Why don't you give him a chance?  
Hey, you may even (*gasp!*) like what he does. :)

				Greg "No Sig" Estes
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18523 alt.rush-limbaugh:11549 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10037 alt.politics.homosexuality:7948 alt.politics.bush:14513
From: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Date: 14 Dec 1992 04:03:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu () says:

 
|Discrimination against homosexuals in the military is
|groundless.  Among NATO forces, only the US and Britain ban gay soldiers.
|Canada ended its ban on October 27.  In the Netherlands, there is no
|discrimination against homosexuals.  Germany has no anti-homosexual
|legislation.  Spain does not discriminate.  Italy ended its ban in 1985.


Why in the world would the United States military want to model itself
after the Spanish military?  That's like asking Ford to mimic the Yugo!

 
-- 
Michael   

**GO VIKINGS**           .....don't ask, it's a patriarchal thing.
   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Double standard
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:55:16 GMT

In article <BzH0o2.GMI@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
 
>
>Rumblings I've heard suggest that the Senate (including many democrats)
>will fight the confirmation of Benson. I understand he's respected, but
>not thought of very highly.
>
>                                                - greg
>--
>Greg Trotter                            | Joe Isuzu in '96
 
I really doubt this.  The Senate is above all, a "club."  Former
Senators are usualy treated very kindly by the other members of the
club, with rare exceptions like Tower.  Bentsen has been there so long,
and is such an insider that I think he will be hard to attack.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:51:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.144908.20951@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>Ack.  I can see it now: "Use our new ACME Interstate Highway.  Yes,
>with ACME you go faster!" ;)
>
>I don't see how technological improvements and competition would make
>a difference in the case of highways.  Without parallel, competing
>roads people wouldn't have a choice as to whose road they could drive

You answered your own question.  Lots of people would want to drive on
ACME highways so they could drive faster, and would be willing to pay
extra for that privilege.  They might also take other competitive
factors into consideration, such as Consumer Reports safety ratings for
different brands of roads.  And parallel competing roads would reduce
the traffic congestion on each.

However, they might never be feasible, because investing in them would
be very risky, and other investments with less risk would compete for
that capital.  The main risk would be that if the roads were financially
successful, their taxes would increase, because the government always
needs more money and roads would be a convenient way to get it.  Thus
anyone who would invest in such roads would have an expectation that
either the road would be a financial failure and lose a lot of money
or a financial success and earn a small amount of money after taxes.
And if all available capital goes to less risky and/or more rewarding
investments, private-sector roads will probably never amount to much.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.bush
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:50:54 GMT

In article <nate.927@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>     That's a tough call, however I would note that military shortcomings 
> were not responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union; the presense 
> of homosexuals in the Iraqi army may have had some small influence on the 
> outcome of the Gulf War, but I doubt it. Therefore I would say that whether 
> the above-mentioned nations allowed homosexuals in their armies is 
> irrelevent if your goal is to make the point that homosexuals hamper 
> military effectiveness. To make that point I'd say that you would have to 
> sift through your military history till you find an instance in which 
> failure has been attributed to the presense of homosexuals on the losing 
> side. I'm not aware of any such case in the past 2500 years, but I'd be 
> interested to hear what you find.

Could someone laminate this and send it to Colin Powell and all the other
nay-sayers?  If this isn't the best rebuttal to the argument that gays
in the military will make us less effective, I'd be curious what is.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: MORE BONEHEADISMS
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:22:59 EST
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <8069@news.puke.edu>, eyc@acpub.puke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> 
> Does that make you a bonehead too?
> -- 
> Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.puke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
> 	Vacation period (off-line): December 18 to January 11.
> 	Take care of the network when I'm gone.
> FOUR MORE MONTHS!!! FOUR MORE CLASSES!!! FOUR MORE ACCEPTANCE LETTERS!!! 


FOUR MORE FLUSH LETTERS!!!


**** F L U S H ****   (SWIRL SWIRL SWISH SWISH...)


- Me



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:15:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec14.181017.3115@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <641@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>
>>                               ...                  That's probably
>>a primary reason nearly 6 out 10 votes cast votes against the man.
>
>You seem to enjoy pointing that out, since you've done so a number of times.

Yes I do, and will continue to do so long as Clinton and his supporters 
continue to perpetuate the lie that he was elected with a mandate from the
voters.

>
>Also, I think 43 percent is a pretty good showing in a three-way race.
>

And I think it's pretty poor showing when one considers the the two candidates
that collected the 57 % were both more conservative that the man elected.
Mind you I'm not saying either Bush or Perot were the rightful winners. 
Clearly the numbers give Clinton a technical victory.  The numbers do not
however, give Clinton what he claims.  There was no moral victory for liberals
this November, quite the contrary, conservative candidates garnered the 
majority of the support, the consensus of the voters was clearly that 
traditional liberal democratic solutions were not the desire of the majority.

Unfortunately though, the will of the majority got caught in a numbers 
squeeze and the ideas that most Americans voted against are the very 
ones well have to endure, until 1996 8^)  Which is more than enough time
for Bill to crush the economic growth we're seeing and possibly involve
us in a protracted war in Bosnia. 

Just stop fooling yourself into believing that what Clinton is doing is
what the American people asked for in November, because it's not.

PSG

-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton