HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:10:14 GMT

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

Gee, I think you could wait until he has actually been in office a day
before you complain.

>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.  

Um, it's hard to do things until your administration is in place.

>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.

67%, I heard.  But nice try.

>                           PREDICTION

>In one year an attempt will be made to hold a recall election for
>the office of President of the United States.

Probably by a bunch of Rush Limbaugh supporters like yourself who don't
know enough to realize that there is no such thing.  You can't recall
the President.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:56:14 GMT

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>> I've been weighing these issues in my mind for three years, and *I* am
>> a relative young 'un to the field of gay politics.  Jess Anderson, who
>> you blithely diagnose with "tunnel vision," has been openly gay for
>> nearly forty, if I count correctly.

>Maybe that explains why his postings have such a spiteful tone for 
>those who disagree with his 'orientation'.  Being openly gay seems 
>to have done little for his disposition...

Rubbish. It's done little for his tolerance of ignorance, I would suspect,
but that's as it should be. One thing is certain, he doesn't suffer fools 
gladly... no, I take that back. He doesn't suffer fools at ALL. Bad luck for
you, I fear.

>his posts are the most 
>hateful ones I've come across in 5 years on the net.  

You read about that gay Navy boy who was kicked to death by his "mates" down
in San Diego? And you call Jess's posts hateful?

Naw. They're just franker than you like, and they're directed at you and your
ilk. And you don't like it. 

-- 
 _--_|\    Brent Davies                    ACSnet:    brent@syacus.acus.OZ
/      \   Aust Centre for Unisys SW       Internet:  brent@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
\_.--._/   700 Blackburn Rd                Voice:     +61-3-550-1640
      v    Melbourne, Australia 3168       FAX:       +61-3-550-1599
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Homework assignment for the media
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:48:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan24.010758.29168@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>
>Well Richard you wanted to know what the latest polls said---now you do.
>

Ya know Stan, in all the years I have followed the NET, this was with
out a doubt the single most disingenuous post I've yet to see.  

Polls taken on the 14th and 15th?   Come on Bill Clinton had yet starte
backing away from his promises until just before the day he was sworn in.
After the last two weeks of lies revealed and arrogance beyond description
I'll bet the publics impression of his trustworthyness is tarnished 
considerably.

I'll just bet the flurry of executive orders he is signing haven't shown
the public that this "new Democrat" is the same old captive of the 
special interest groups.  Let's see some of next month's polls than you
can be taken seriously.

PSG
-- 
Looking at the condition and politics of the public
school systems and Hollywood in the 90's, it seems in
retrospect that the only mistakes Joseph McCarthy made
were; not uncovering the right people and not finishing the job.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik)
Subject: Re: Cabinet and Diversity
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:51:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.162454.9139@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <8735@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>One of Nixon's campaign promises in 1968 was to nominate a Southerner to 
>the Supreme Court.  And a couple of the Southerners he nominated made
>Clarence Thomas look like Oliver Wendell Holmes.  (As one senator
>supporting Carswell's failed nomination said, "What's wrong with a
>mediocre nominee?  Mediocrity needs representation also.")
>

Yes, and to ensure it, today we have AA.

(BTW - my recollection is that it was Sen. Hruska of Nebraska.)
-- 
"[Objectivity] ruled journalism through most of the campaigns of my lifetime.
But eventually we wised up and dismissed objectivity as a pretentious fantasy
that made stenographers of reporters and produced irresponsible journalism."
Joan Byrd, Washington Post Ombudsman (by Ben Cole, Arizona Republic, 11/18/92)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper)
Subject: Re: DAY TWO: MORE LIES
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:03:22 GMT

bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes) writes:

>From article <1jnvtoINN2tq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, by ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac):
>> 
>> 
>> By the way, let's all cry BOO HOO HOO for poor Zoe.  Things aren't 
>> going well for her.  It seems strange that a President who claims that
>> 'friends are the most important thing you can have in life' doesn't
>> treat his very well.  He hid all day in the White House playing tour
>> guide instead of publically supporting her.  And a hint for George

>	And if he made any attempt to publically support her, you
>can be damn sure that the Republinistas would have been all over
>him for that.  Willie can't win on this one.

You're right that Willie can't win, but not because of the Republicans.
Watch or read some news, and you'll discover that the republicans on the
committee were very supportive of Zoe, because she embraced many republican
ideas, including support for the death penalty. The most aggressive members
were actually Democrats. If anything, this is a good test for who has the
power in this new 1-party dominated govt. And it doesn't look like it's
Bill. We'll see... As for now: Bye, Bye Bairdy!

-Brian Harper


>terry
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: M. Python's Inauguration
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:50:59 GMT

In article <3796.448.uupcb@ehbbs.gwinnett.com> curt.tucker@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Curt Tucker)  writes:
>Did you notice the martial music played right before Clinton took
>the Oath of Office?
>
>I'm sure it's an old traditional military march, but to most
>people in my generation, it is instantly recognizable as the
>loopy opening theme music for "Monty Python's Flying Circus."
>
>I kid you not.

It's called "The Liberty Bell March" by J.P. Sousa

But identifying it with M. Python is probably more appropriate...

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      |                                                     |
| NRA               ILA |      "...to disarm the people (is) the best         |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com |      and most effective way to enslave them..."     |
|                       |      George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380         |
|                       |                                                     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1993Jan19.203115.21661@kadsma.kodak.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 20:40:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.203115.21661@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:


   Besides, how a dozen or so people, all of whom by definition are going to
   come from the upper strata of society, are going to be representative
   of 'all Americans' is beyond me. Take two people, no matter how similar,
   and I suspect that each will insist that the other can't represent them.
   That's how it is these days.

It's even funnier to hear conservatives complain about someone
making a lot of money as though it were a crime.  Yes, I know
liberals do the same thing, but it's expected from them.
--


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,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:28:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <2553@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>
>Call it a promise, a goal, a duck or your aunt Tilly, Bill insisted that
>this wouldn't happen and assured us we had nothing to worry about concerning 
>Hillary's role in his administration

  I didn't vote for Clinton and I'm not a big Clinton supporter, but
  in fairness to him, could you cite a specific comment of his saying 
  that he wouldn't appoint his wife to a nontrivial office?


---peter


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: locker@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Locker)
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD: ATTORNEY
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:57:33 GMT

In article <2450@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.162230.28377@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>Baird's nomination was doomed from day one and it had little to do with
>the hiring of illegals.  That was just a handy excuse for the Democrats
>not unlike the verdict of the 4 LA cops was a handy excuse to dismiss
>the violence that existed all along in that community.
>
>No, the truth is that the reason she's been bumped is because she was
>the closest thing to a conservative in the Clinton campaign and the 
>liberals who think the AG's job relates on to civil rights matters,
>wouldn't stand for the appointment of a moderate to that post.

Actually, the real reason she was roundly dissed could help explain why
moderate outsiders in either party are somewhat rare in government.  Since 
she was perceived neither as being "left" or "right", none of the 
organizations that flourish under either wing felt compelled to come to 
her defense (or watch her back). 

With all the complaints about "special-interest groups" during this past
election, it is interesting to see the general public reject someone who in
all likelihood would have been confirmed had she been seen as a favorite of, 
say, NOW or NARAL (or even the NRA).  The protection these groups give
government officials is a prerequisite for staying power in Washington.
__
Jon Locker
U. of Illinois
still .sig deficient
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,misc.education
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 00:40:18 GMT

In article <C15IMC.8t3@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In <1993Jan18.165128.4899@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>Exactly.  Despite conservative rhetoric, the average suburban school is
>>*fine.*  There's nothing wrong with it.  The upper middle class do *not*
>>send their kids to private schools, for the most part.  Because they
>>*have* good public schools.

>So, do you think that there's nothing wrong with the anti-intellectual
>attitudes suburban schools are pervaded with, or do you deny that they
>are anti-intellectual?  Do you deny that academic pursuits are in fact
>far from the top of the actual priorities of those schools?

I deny that the average public school differs from the average private
school in this way.

>Just as a simple example, do you find it inconceivable that a math teacher
>might postpone an exam because of a football game or school dance or pep
>rally?  Can you imagine a basketball game being postponed because of
>an important mathe exam?

No, but I don't see your point.  American priorities as a whole favor
sports over knowledge.  That has nothing to do with public versus
private schools.

Is this a good thing?  No.  But my point was that the average suburban
public school *offers* the same chance for a good education that the
average private school does.  It doesn't ram it down your throat, but it
offers it.  

>>*That's* where the problem is.  The uneven distribution of resources.
>>Not the lack of them.

>I think the important thing is the ideas and attitudes of those running
>the show, and they are almost universally deplorable.  No amount of
>"resources" can change that.  Your implicit demand that resources be
>"redistributed" away from those who earned it is an excellent example of
				     ^^^^^^^^^
>the liberal view that most problems are caused by a lack of "fair
>distribution of reasources" and that "redistribution" from the worthy to
>the unworthy is the cure-all for any problem.  Admit it!  That just
>doesn't work!

Ah, so you favor complete confiscation of wealth through inheritance
taxes?  Good start, though it won't address other inequities.  

(No, I don't really support that.  I just get irritated when people act
as if they earned getting born into a middle class home.  Worthy vs.
unworthy?  Bullshit.  Hasn't anyone here read any Rawls?)

As for the specific case involved, yes, I argue that when inner-city
schools can't afford textbooks, they cannot offer as good an education
as a suburban school where everyone has access to a computer.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20859 alt.politics.elections:25051 talk.politics.misc:69063
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A small wager for Mulac (was: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE...)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:39:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) says:

>Terms: 
>
>1) Winner may direct loser to pay $365 to a charity or advocacy group
>from a preselected list.  My list includes the Legal Aid Society,
>NARAL, and the ACLU.  Name yours, Mulac.
>
>2) Bet is payable after 11:59 p.m. on Jan. 20, 1994.
>
>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?


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21072 alt.politics.elections:25109 talk.politics.misc:69462
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 23 Jan 1993 22:45:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) says:
>>But didn't he PROMISE to have a plan on day one to present to the Congress?
>
>
>If you weren't too busy inventing promises to accuse other people of breaking
>you'd have the time to find out what Clinton has already done in office.


       Oh, oh, call the ambulance!!!  Another potential case of 
       Freebie Withdrawal.

       Hey, I didn't vote for him, but I listened to what he said.

>
>
>Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244     ----------------------------+
>|  There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.     |
>|					   --     Mark Twain		      |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Money Supply (Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:47:10 CST


In article <1jngi1INNl9r@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
> In a previous article, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:
> 
> >The public (generally) cares about the results.  "The economy, stupid."
> >If the economy keeps growing, unemployment goes down, Clinton will
> >be fine (and re-elected) regardless of his campaign promises.  If the
> >economy sucks, people won't care if Clinton keeps all his promises.
> >
> >Anyone notice the bond rally?  Yields on 30-year bonds are down to 7.3%.
> >That says that the market believes that inflation will remain low and
> >are willing to back that belief with their money.
> 
>        Of course.  We're clearly entering a world depression.
>        The money supply grew by FIFTY percent in 1992.  

"FIFTY percent"?  Where did you get that factoid?

      Money Supply Growth Rates

  M2 growth (4Q/4Q)  M3 growth (4Q/4Q)
  -----------------  -----------------
  1988  5.2%         1988  6.4%
  1989  4.8%         1989  3.6%
  1990  4.0%         1990  1.7%
  1991  2.8%         1991  1.2%
   *    1.1%          *   -0.5%

  (* 11/91-7/92) through week ended Aug 3, 1992

  Source: Federal Reserve Board


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: ghee@vision.larc.nasa.gov (Terry A. Ghee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Not a Middle-Class Tax!  A "Loophole"!!
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:17:43 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: vision.larc.nasa.gov

Derrick C. Mancini writes:

>Actually, I understood perfectly well when I voted for him.  That is WHY
>I voted for him.  I did not want a middle income tax increase used to pay
>for new programs, but I am quite willing, and EXPECTED, there might be
>broadbased tax increases IF THEY ARE USED TO DECREASE THE DEFICIT.  I do
>think most people would grumble about such taxes, but would also put up
>with them IF THEY REDUCE THE DEFICIT.  So, I really can't judge if Clinton
>is doing what he ought on this issue until after we see what taxes are paid
>and if the deficit problem is helped.  I am by no means SURE that he can
>succeed.  He will have to fight Congress on their programs, in order to
>institute new programs requiring no additional funding beyond a tax on
>upper income folks and corporations, while increasing consumption taxes for
>deficit reduction.  The Congress will, of course, try to treat any new
>revenue source as potential funding for pork-barrel projects.
>
>By the way, on the last point, Congress does not have to be negligent
>or incompetent for the last to occur.  It is a natural consequence of each
>representative wanting to get the most for their constituency, something
>their constituency, for the most part, desires.  Rather, it is a form of
>the "tragedy of the commons", where each is concerned only about the little
>part of the whole they can get ahold of while in the big picture more is
>taken in sum than can be reasonably supported.

OK, a show of hands for all the suckers who think that tax increases will be
used to REDUCE THE DEFICIT and that this tax money will not be used to fund
President Clinton's programs.  I mean come on people, when we get taxes taken
out of paychecks we don't tell the government how that money is to be used.
If I give Uncle Sam $5000 in taxes what difference is it to me if I now have to
pay $500 more a year with the assurance that they would only be used on the deficit?
I still don't have that money.  Taxes are taxes.  It's foolish to believe that 
the money that is raised by new taxes will be separated out for one
specific purpose.  Whether President Clinton said no taxes on the middle class
or no new taxes on the middle class to support my programs is semantics.  Where
is he going to get the money to fund his programs?  Oh, I see, from the normal
revenue raised, but not those new taxes which are for the worthy cause of reducing
the deficit.  Its obvious if he did not fund his new programs he could use money
in the budget that exists now to reduce the deficit but to have his programs and
reduce the deficit he needs to raise taxes.  I really wonder if he had said this 
in October if he would have been elected.  I really wish the Republicans and
the Democrats would nominate people for president who does not lie
to the populace.  Ugh!

The Cynic
T.A. Ghee
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton