HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:03:02 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <7933@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> 
|> Added point: it's well and good that our friends allow homosexuals in
|> their military. I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are no bans on
|> homosexuals in the military "machines" of China, Iraq (before or after
|> the Gulf Conflict), or the former Soviet Union (or current Commonwealth
|> on Independent States), etc., etc. Are our "enemies" also equally so
|> blind as our "friends?"

Oh, don't worry.   Socialist countries like the USSR had severe 
penalties for even *being* Gay.

During the period of history when the US was denouncing these
countries as evil tyrannies, they had the same attitude towards
Gays that you seem to share.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:17:59 GMT

dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:

>One, that they believe his plans as outlined in the campaign to have
>an inconsistent internal logic (e.g. not raising taxes on the middle
>class, but raising an additional $150 billion when the tax increase on
>the wealthy will only raise $10 billion.)

This is one really big nit, but everyone arguing against Clinton's
planned additional spending keeps conveniently forgetting the proposed
$106 billion in spending cuts.  Now, admittedly that combined with the
estimated $10 billion in taxes on the wealthy leaves $34 billion
un-accounted-for (there is certainly room in, say, capital gains to
make up for it).  However, it's simply not true that he intends to
increase spending 15 times more than he intends to increase revenues.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:54:53 GMT

In article <641@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

   And for the record, I'd hardly call a man who was fired by Nixon, for 
   complaining that the pace of school integration (the biggest social
   disater of the '60s and '70s) was to slow, a raging moderate or conservative.

Ah, Paul finally shows his true colors
--


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


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18676 alt.politics.bush:14586 talk.politics.misc:64383
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:02:08 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec14.212503.3701@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>
>You must have a degree in misrepresentation and exaggeration.... His plan
>did include the health care reform costs but spread these costs over the
>proper time period for implementation of the plan (4-5 years), something
>you
>conservatives don't do when making statements like this.
>
>Note a fact: All major health organizations endorsed Clinton's plan over
>the anemic noncomprehensive band-aid put forth by Bush. Furthermore,
>the plans were analysed by a bipartisan committee which stated that the
>Clinton plan would save the national economy 220 Billion by the end of the
>decade. 

yeah and he WAS going to give a middle class tax cut, right up until he
got elected, just like everything else he said he would do in the
first hundred days and promptly backed away from the day after the election.

Boy Norman, you really gulped the whole speel, hook, line and sinker didn't
you.  What Bill did not do, at it was reported by every one of the major
media outlets,  is he didn't include the costs in his proposed budget 
outline, nor did he explain which cuts might be made or revenue increased
to cover the cost.  I can't prove a negative, that he didn't do something,
so I'll leave it to you to provide some refence to show where he did cover 
how he would pay for it.

Sorry but more than one expert has said that Clinton's number "don't add up"
and that's because they don't.  You and I will have to wait and see what 
he really intends to do and I'll but the house the American economy gets
another lessen in why raising taxes and spending is not a good thing and why
letting people liek Laura Tyson and Robert Reich test their theories on us
is even worse.

Only time will tell.

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
From: n3884@cray.com (Peter Palmer)
Subject: Re: Latest Clinton picks
Reply-To: n3884@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:41:43 CST

In article @rpi.edu, buckmr@vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>n3884@cray.com (Pete Palmer) writes:
>
>
>>---
>>Treasury  -- Sen Lloyd Bentsen - D Texas
>>OMB       -- Rep Leon Panetta - D California
>
>
>>I realize that Clinton has a mandate for big change, but, my goodness,
>>this is virtually revolutionary.
> Oh, puleeeeeeeeze!
>
>Revolutionary, my foot!
>

Perhaps I forgot my winking smiley  -   ;^)


--------------------------------------------------
Pete Palmer (n3884@cray.com)
--------------------------------------------------

The King is dead, Long live the King
                       ---  Anonymous 16th Century Palace Hawker

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
                        --- Eccentric 20th century guitar player
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Latest Clinton picks
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:51:15 GMT

In article <1gaekdINNg7t@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.151904.2613@hemlock.cray.com>, n3884@cray.com (Pete Palmer) writes:
>|> 
>|> ---
>|> Treasury  -- Sen Lloyd Bentsen - D Texas
>|> OMB       -- Rep Leon Panetta - D California
>
>I sure hope that Slick Willie takes many more Texas Democrats.  The more of these liberals
>he takes out of our state the better off Texas and Texans will be.  God save the nation.
>
>fred

I myself would really rather that Clinton picked a conservative cabinet. That
way we could get more liberals in positions of leadership where we need them!

Lost Boy
+---------------------------+
|Carol Mosley Braun in 2000.|
+---------------------------+
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Those "nutty" Polls
Date: 20 Dec 92 08:35:41 GMT
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Dec20.061214.23161@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>Not one poll--not ONE--showed Bush ahead of Clinton the entire year. Sheer
>chance? Give me a break.
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Feinstein '94
>Clinton/Gore '96

Sheer chance is not what I'm getting at.  That the polls predicted the
winner is not at issue; they've got a 50/50 shot at that.  You exalted
the accuracy of the polls, which I contest, given that so many polls
posted so many different numbers.  Not all of them can be right, since
the final results of the election are a finite set of one.

That one poll managed to get their prediction within the margin of
error (barely, I might add) does nothing to convince me of the
inerrancy of polls.

And I highly doubt you truly inferred I was arguing over the outcome.
Do respond, though--to my other posts as well.

David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Double-Digit Inflation - The Real Story
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Dec15.183743.4159@m5.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:16:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.183743.4159@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

   In article <visser.724367664@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
   >In <1992Dec14.174745.3017@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
   >
   >+>A popular prediction among Republican "doomsayers" is that with a Democrat
   >+>in office, we'll have double-digit inflation like we did under the last
   >+>Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.  I've been doing some reading, and have
   >+>discovered that the real story is somewhat different than the Republican
   >+>die-hards would like us to believe.

   >	Its too bad there are moronic party hacks like you around to spread
   >yet more disinformation.

[...]

   Calling names. now?  It doesn't do you much credit.  Prove me wrong with facts.
   My source is an article in my alumni magazine, the Princeton Alumni Weekly.
   The author, an older alumnus, whose name I don't remember, considers Volcker's
   shutting off the money press to be the most important event in recent
   financial history.  Volcker (another Princeton alumnus)  unquestionably
   deserves the credit for stemming inflation by his actions on October 6, 1979.

   I've been listening to Republican "party-hacks" lay the blame for seventies
   inflation on Carter, and I have presented information which proves that this
   is an unfair assertion.  A great deal of the blame does indeed lie with the
   Republican president, Richard Nixon.  I never said that all of the blame is
   his, nor did I say that all of the credit lies with the Democrats.  But if
   you look at the facts, you'll see that inflation was caused by a rapid
   rate of increase of the money supply, which began with Nixon's decision to
   take the dollar off the gold standard.

[...]


Just to add a second source, I heard a similar description on a tape
in the "Great Economic Thinker's" series (narrated by Louis
Rukheyeser, really good stuff).  The subject of this particular tape
was the monetarists, specifically Milton Friedman.  It is true that
there is plenty of blame to go around.  Does anyone know if Volker is
still under consideration for a post?  O yeah, I almost forgot.
All you name-callers can grope my left one :-0
--


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


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18918 talk.politics.guns:25475 soc.history:10265
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,soc.history
Subject: Somalia and Republican Utopia
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 19 Dec 1992 10:53:55 MST
Organization: Brigham Young University


<Article (by Robert Hirschfield) copied from "USA Today," Wednesday 16, 1992>
              <Robert is a well-known TV producer and writer.>

THE'VE MET THE GOAL OF GETTING "GOVERNMENT OFF THE BACKS OF PEOPLE."

     Somalia just may represent the end result of right-wing politics in this
country.
     Think about it: There's no government interference, everyone has a gun,
and volunteerism is taking care of those in need.
     It's been a goal of conservative philosophy to "get government off the
backs of the people," as Ronald Reagan often stated.  Conservatives view
government as a pesky bureaucracy that gets in the way of unleashing the
great forces of the free market -- although after relying on $4 trillion of
government deficit spending, the market doesn't seem so free anymore.
     In Somalia, the people just went a little further and got rid of
government completely.  That certainly took care of burdensome agencies and
endless regulations.  It enabled the warlords, representing market forces,
to control the food.  So they hoarded supplies and extorted high prices.
Only liberals would have you believe there should be free handouts.
     One of the biggest contributors toward this anarchy is the massive
proliferation of guns.  Who's to say these roving bands of thugs don't
constitute a militia that has the right to bear arms?
     Here in the United States, the slightest whiff of even the meekest
gun-control measure triggers a rapid-fire response from the omnipotent gun
lobby.  No matter what the measure, it always cries that it's an infringe-
ment of constitutional rights and the first step toward government
confiscation of guns.  Well, the gun toters of Somalia don't have to endure
waiting periods of restrictions on assault weapons.
     Where is the food coming from to feed the hungry?  Much of it from
private relief agencies around the world.  Again, this follows the conser-
vative policy of questioning why the government should help those in need
when you can overburden charities, call it "a thousand points of light" and
still take credit for doing good.
     One should question why there are so many impoverished children being
born into such desolate conditions in Somalia.  Part of the answer may lie
with the conservatives' vehement opposition to the teaching of contracep-
tion as part of U.S. aid programs abroad.  After all, if we pretend the
inhabitants of underdeveloped countries don't engage in sex, perhaps we can
pretend not to see the children's suffering until press coverage makes it
unbearable.
     Sometimes it's difficult to see a connection between foreign policy
and conditions here at home.  Somalia may be sending a clear message.  Next
time the right-wingers insist they have a monopoly on family values, ask
yourself whether they eventually could cause people in this country to be
dying for change.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:00:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
=neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
=>Look boneheads, anytime you have 3 *real* candidates, it's very tough to
=>get a majority (that is-over 50%) of the popular vote.
=
=Very true.
=
=>Lucky for us,
=>our forefathers had the vision to create the electoral college where the
=>winner of the popular vote will get a MAJORITY (over 50%) of the
=>electoral vote (which is being held today).
=
=Not true. I believe that Truman was elected over Dewey with Dewey getting
=a bigger % of the popular vote then Harry. The electoral college was setup
=by our fore-dads in an attempt to make sure that the smaller states(population
=wise)would have as much to say about who gets elected as the states with
=larger populations. 
=
=What I have not seen posted is the fact that Bush performed worse in the
=% of popular vote of any incumbent since Taft 80 years ago. And the 2nd or
=3rd worst showing of an incumbent EVER. These are just the facts.

I just want to be sure about this: wasn't Ronald Reagan voted in with a
majority of the popular vote back in 1980 when there were three viable
candidates (Reagan, Carter, Anderson)? I bet you don't want to remember
this bit of history either.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	All I want for Christmas is a backrub. (And lots of money) 
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Thank you, Paul
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:59:40 GMT

I just wanted to thank Paul Galvenak among others for making my
.signature possible. :-)



--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: n3884@cray.com (Pete Palmer)
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Reply-To: n3884@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:31:09 CST

In article 26540@unet.net.com, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>In article <1262.42.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
>>Look boneheads, anytime you have 3 *real* candidates, it's very tough to
>>get a majority (that is-over 50%) of the popular vote.
>
>Very true.
>
>>Lucky for us,
>>our forefathers had the vision to create the electoral college where the
>>winner of the popular vote will get a MAJORITY (over 50%) of the
>>electoral vote (which is being held today).

Nope.  The example is this (I don't have the electoral college distribution numbers
handy):  Candidate A wins BIG (99% of popular vote) in the 42 smallest states.
Candidate B wins small (51% of popular vote) in California, Texas, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Ohio.  Who wins?  
Popular vote: Candidate A big time.
Electoral college: Candidate B -- our new President

It is even more unlikely that a candidate will get a MAJORITY of the 
electoral vote in a 3 way race, which is why it was likely that if
Perot didn't do his diappearing act in July we probably would have had the 
H of R picking our new President.
>
> I believe that Truman was elected over Dewey with Dewey getting
>a bigger % of the popular vote then Harry. The electoral college was setup
>by our fore-dads in an attempt to make sure that the smaller states(population
>wise)would have as much to say about who gets elected as the states with
>larger populations. 

Actually, the intent was for states (when the word actually meant something)
to each select the candidate (based on popular vote within the State) of their
choice to have it recognized that the state spoke with one voice, and any
diagreement within the state was none of the feds business.  State governments
used to protect their independence and influence with nationalistic vigor.  This
is why it took so long for the U.S. Senate to be directly elected (turn of the
century, I believe) rather than appointed by the State Legislatures.  Our
federal fore-dads actually wanted to have as system as close as possible to
direct popular vote elections, but couldn't with the exisisting State nationalisms.


---


--------------------------------------------------
Pete Palmer (n3884@cray.com)
--------------------------------------------------

Anyone who has considerably meditated on man, by profession or vocation,
is led to feel nostalgia for the primates.  -Camus
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:02:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

>>I just want to be sure about this: wasn't Ronald Reagan voted in with a
>>majority of the popular vote back in 1980 when there were three viable
>>candidates (Reagan, Carter, Anderson)? I bet you don't want to remember
>>this bit of history either.

>About 50.1% of the popular vote, I recall.  Carter got a little over
>40%.

And didn't Ronny then go running around talking about a mandate?  What's
good for you is fair game for us, too.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 06:14:58 GMT

geoffg@sco.COM (Geoff Galitz) writes:

>	The looters won't be booted if the city council (or whatever
>entity runs a given town) has a stake in that particular cable  
>company.
>
>	Hypothetical example:

Hypothetically you think you've controlled "corruption" by eliminating
cable companies ?

Did you forget to mention every other hypothetical situation or are you
just issuing them one at a time ?

tom
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:10:17 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

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.
Well, I enjoy pointing out that _more_ than 6 out of 10 voters cast votes
against George Bush.

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

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18939 talk.politics.guns:25489 soc.history:10267
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,soc.history
Subject: Re: Somalia and Republican Utopia
Date: 20 Dec 1992 01:26:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET () says:
><Article (by Robert Hirschfield) copied from "USA Today," Wednesday 16, 1992>
>     Somalia just may represent the end result of right-wing politics in this
>country.
>...endless regulations.  It enabled the warlords, representing market forces,

Either Robert H. is being sarcastic here, or he just isn't to bright.
People are starving because criminals (amateur governments) are disrupting
market forces.  You cannot sell things because they are taken from
you.

[ rest of blather deleted ]

RH is pretending not to know what capitalism is: maintance of 
property rights.   Somalia doesn't have any such maintance, 
it has anarchy: rule of the strongest and most brutal.

Why would he write such nonsense?

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton