HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:25:44 GMT

In article <2553@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.184236.12490@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>I see no qualitative difference.  Other than that the former was behind
>>the scenes, while the latter is open.
>
>Well here's one big difference to consider...
>
>During the campaign, when Clinton's opponents were attacking Hillary's views
>the response we heard was - Oh that's not fair, you're just hillary bashing,
>she's not running for office Bill is.  When it was pointed out that Bill
>had made the now infamous "get two for the price of one" statement and that
>his plans for her in the White House made her fair game the response was -
>oh that was just an off the cuff remark, Hillary won't have anymore power
>or influence than any other wife has on her husband. 

In case anyone is interested, Bill Clinton has just appointed Hillary
Clinton to a cabinet post, her responsibility will be health-care reform.

And has been pointed out, if there are problems with any other cabinet
member, Bill -can- fire them. But the first-lady cannot be fired.
 
>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
>
>The appointment of Hillary to head up anything, regardless of her 
>qualifications, views of the degree of power is just one more of what is
>fast becoming a - growing larger by the day list - of lies, broken promises
>and outright deception that Bill Clinton used to get elected.  And even
>if by some miracle Hillary figures a way to get every American the best
>Health Care, for free and paves the streets with gold in the process, it
>still won't change the fact of the lies nor make Bill Clinton any less the
>lair for telling them. 

In other areas this would be called nepotism. Is nepotism legal? Wait,
since the first-lady is female, this is AA. Obviously, by definition,
acceptable.
 
>Every administration that I know of had a nickname, Camelot, the shining
>city on the hill, a thousand points of lights etc., the Clinton administration
>seems to be shooting the label of, the ends justify the means bunch OR perhaps
>the do as we say not as we do government.
>
>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.


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Loser of the week
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:34:29

Richard A. Mulac writes:
>Big loser of the week - Gary Trudeau, that left-wing, liberal
>father of Doonesbury.  He screwed up by starting a thread which
>had lawyer Joannie Caucus going off to work at the Justice
>Department under Zoe Baird.  Have fun eating crow, Gary!

In the first place, i sense Mr. Mulac doesn't read _Doonesbury_ very
often.

In the second place, isn't this news bulletin a little late?  I'm,
what, 800km away from the nearest city with a newspaper that carries
the strip (Copenhagen), and i heard about this a week or so ago.

Finally, there's been a discussion going on about this in
rec.arts.comics.strips for some days.  Since the strip is often about
current events, slip-ups like this are bound to happen now and then.
They have happened before, and Trudeau has written himself out of
tighter corners than this.  (Like having Honey in Tienanmen Square for
her "college reuinion" when the tanks rolled in.)  I'm not saying his
rewriting of the ending of this event will be very skillful, but if
you're expecting an anguished note saying "I blew it, i could just
kill myself", i'm afraid you'll have to wait.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: HELP Congress
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:00:35 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: johnd.tamu.edu

Did anyone in netland see Les Aspen on Washington Week?  He was begging
Congress to bail Comrade W.J.B Clinton IV out of his decision to include
the third and forth sex in the military.  Everyother statement he made was
"Of course Congress can overturn an Executive Order."  Looks like Comrade
W.J.B. Clinton IV is running for cover.  


fred

______________________________________________________________________

		Equal rights for the womb-bound.

    _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/  | 
   _/       _/         | The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge
  _/_/_/   _/_/_/_/    | they are not shared by my employer or my friends.
 _/             _/     | However, they should be.
_/       _/_/_/_/      | Fred Seals 409-845-2298



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,misc.education
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 05:04:34 GMT

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>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?

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

I asked . It was put to me simply, NOTHING will interfear with the
Basketball game, period. And I'm not talking about postponing the game,
I'm just talking about a key player who is getting an 'F' in english.
[not the kid I mentored this summer]

The coach (and teacher) keep trying to convince me what was more
important ? The **** school [district] losing the game or *****'s
english grade.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Zoe Baird
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 22:07:37 GMT

I guess she adds balance to Clinton's "Putting People First" cabinet.  As
general counsel to GE and Aetna, she's shown she believes in Putting
Corporations First.
-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF CLINTON'S INAUGURATION SPEECH??
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:23:44 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1993Jan21.210648.5292@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> Interesting speech, but didn't he forget the line that goes
> 
> 'Today America, tommorrow the world'  ?
> 
> 
> :-)
> 
> Simon
> 

Ha! I get it! Clinton is Hitler!

Good one Simon.

Now go crawl back under your rock.

-Garrett



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:00:01 GMT

In article <ujjaviw@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
}In article <athos-200193213059@kip2-10.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
}>In article <1993Jan20.204342.3121@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave
}><lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:
}>
}>> Jeeeeez!!!!! Clinton hasn't been president for two hours and you want
}>> a plan presented to the hill???? ...
}>
}>But didn't he PROMISE to have a plan on day one to present to the Congress?
}
}No, he didn't, unless you are decimally challenged.  He promised to do his
}best to have a medical insurance reform bill to present to Congress within
}100 days of his inauguration.  That's ONE HUNDRED, not one.  That's "do his
}best ... to present", not "present".  What you or the unspeakable Limbaurgher
}promise those of the American people who are stupid enough to believe you or
}him has nothing to do with anything Clinton ever said, is saying, or will
}say.

Wrong.

FIRST 100-DAYS ECONOMIC PLAN:

Clinton in interview on ABC's "Good Morning America", June 23, 1992
	"...I'll have the bills ready the day after I'm inaugurated.  I'll send them
to congress, and we'll have a hundred-day period...It will be the most productive in
modern history."

Care to make up another?


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21420 alt.politics.bush:16415
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Tolerance is not a virtue.
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:03:01 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <1k4p3hINNnn6@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.124919.3584@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>>I think the sentiment, although not explicitly stated (for reasons of
>>brevity... it is just a .sig file), is reasonably clear.  Webster's defines
>>tolerance (in this context) as "being tolerant of others' beliefs,
>>practices, etc."  I maintain that this =is= a virtue.  Of course, as with
>>most virtues, it can be taken to absurd extremes.
>
>Quite true, as I attempted to point out.
>
>>To answer your question, we clearly should not "tolerate" unethical
>>behavior, such as the imposition of a purely religious taboo on the society
>>at large (i.e. "intolerance").
>
>Who defines unethical? Since we cannot, according to most liberal pundits,
>define right and wrong, what can we say is unethical?
>
>I find an alarming amount of rhetoric which, with one breath, says that
>there is no right and wrong and, with the next breath, define behaviors
>that we can or cannot tolerate.  Is abortion ethical? Is sexual harrassment
>unethical? Is a lack of sexual mores ethical?
>
>Who decides? We cannot decide this permanently by majority rule (a lot of 
>what liberals want the population to accept is not approved of by the
>majority of Americans). Societal norms change.
>

What "tolerance" means in a democratic society is that one must respect
the fundamental rights of every individual...i.e. both individuals
and government and the courts must respect the zone of liberty that
emanates from the individual.  Where exactly the boundaries and lines
are drawn is of course a matter of legitimate debate, but the existence
of liberty, which demands the virtue of tolerance, is unquestioned.

>I have very strong feelings as to what is right and wrong. I do not push
>those views on others (If I did, I would be called a lot more names than
>I am now). I do not, however, want anyone else telling me what I should or
>should not tolerate.  And I resent the building of a society that considers
>anything as okay except what I hold dear--sexual morality and personal
>responsibility.
>

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, BILL!!!  THANK YOU!!
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:15:38 GMT

In article <9301271647.AA29474@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu
(Broward L. Horne) writes:
[nonsensical ramblings of a lunatic deleted]

Really, now, lets get a hold of ones self. You really need to cool off. What
you should do is funnel this energy of yours to a media that has the power to
do something. Say like your congressman, or to [pick your own political
organization]. 

Spurting off like you have been doing the past few days reminds me of the skit
on Satuday Night Live where people are trying to see Dick Clark and the little
pissant of a male secrectary says stuff like "And you are.....?", "and you're
with....?" "Be a doll and take a seat. Thank you." And then says something like
"Staring at me wont get you in any faster!"

So, ranting and razing on Usenet wont get this country on the right track any
faster. Be a doll, and take a seat. Thank you.

*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20895 alt.politics.elections:25062 talk.politics.misc:69140
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 22 Jan 1993 04:51:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes) says:

>From article <1993Jan20.233552.24410@midway.uchicago.edu>, by dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith):
>> 
>> his first full day in office, let's see if he has something then.  It's 
>> not as though anyone will die if he breaks his promises.  Unless they're
>> Haitian, of course.
>
>
>	Actually many Haitians were likely to die if he immediately kept
>his promise.  Rickety make-shift boats plying the ocean and all of that.
>This was the point of holding off.  Seems reasonable to me.

It is reasonable.  But it makes him the biggest hypocrite of all time since
he denounced Bush as 'heartless and uncaring' for making the same decision
using the same line of reasoning.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1383 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dailcann@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Christine A. Dail)
Subject: Re: Inauguration
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Summary: Open your MIND and EYES
Keywords: inflexible, close-minded, pessimistic
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:06:43 GMT

In article <matt_wilkinson-200193093511@mac93.tpc.nwu.edu> matt_wilkinson@plato.nwu.edu (Matthew W. Wilkinson) writes:
>
>tell you, he's got some nerve. And he's also got some slick media
>consultants. Plus this never ending parade of celebreties with their fake
>pleas to Clinton and all their little red AIDS ribbons. Michael Jackson

     Who ordained you God the omniscient with the right to declare their
concern fake?  You sound a bit paranoid that people may actually start
to care about their fellow man and actually HELP one another, for the
benefit of the common good.  What's wrong with celebrities getting
involved and by doing so, encouraging their fans to pay more attention
to the problem as well?  These are the role models of our society-- chosen
by the populous.  Whether we like it or not, they have influence, and what
better way to use their influence than to remind us of the need for AIDS
research, as in your example.

>songs. The whole thing is enough to make a person loose his/her cookies.
>And then his appointment for Health and Human Services, this Shelala
>character from U.W. Madison. Rush reminded me of her Political Correctness
>campaign on that campus, which amounted to the blatent supression of
>freedom of speech. 

     While you look for your cookies >:->, look for some accurate information
and the woman you criticize.  You might want to check out her NAME for example
which is Shalala not Shelala.  While you're at it, grab a dictionary and
learn how to spell BLATANT and SUPPRESSION correctly.  People can take what
you say more seriously when not distracted by so many errors.

>Limbaugh is right, this
>administration will be writing his material for him. We're in for a bad 4
>year trip that will hopefully be over in 1996!

     I seriously doubt this administration would be capable of writing
*any* of the ludicrous things Rush spews forth on a regular basis.  No,
let's give credit where credit is due.  Rush is DEFINITELY the source.  ;)

     As for the bad four year trip, why don't you give the guy a chance?!
I'm glad you already have his Presidency written off as a massive failure
to suit your own Republican agenda.  You *want* him to fail just so you and
Rush can out your arm around one another and say, "I knew this would happen,
now bring back George and Danforth!"  I would hope that you would take a cue
from your more gracious representative, George Bush, in wishing the new 
President well and hoping he has a successful term.  I would HOPE that the
good of this country would outweigh your burning desire to see Clinton fail
and Republicans back in the White House in 1996.  Then again, it's the 
selfishness and "me-ism" of the 1980's that is responsible for a good deal
of the mess we are cleaning up now.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21303 alt.rush-limbaugh:15237 soc.women:23093 alt.feminism:7661
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:23:19 GMT
	<1993Jan25.162035.17116@dg-rtp.dg.com>
	<1993Jan25.184236.12490@midway.uchicago.edu> <2553@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: psg+@pitt.edu's message of 26 Jan 93 17:52:40 GMT

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'm sorry, apparently I wasn't following the campaign closely enough.
I never heard Bill Clinton promise that his wife wouldn't have any
substantive policy role in his Administration, and I never heard him
promise that he she wouldn't be appointed to any Executive Branch
position.  Does anybody happen to remember when Bill Clinton made a
speech promising that?

Actually, I do remember him hinting that she would have some
substantive policy role (possibly dealing with children's issues), and
I'm glad to see that this has turned out to be true.  She seems to be
quite competent, and I see no reason why being married to the
President should disqualify her.  (Unless, of course, her husband
really did make that phantom promise.)
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:33:19 CST


In article <1993Jan26.191043.15384@Princeton.EDU>, nfs@elan (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.164820.27794@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

Part deleted by Norbert Schlenker returned:
] 
] In article <1k3lf5INNrvv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Broward Horne, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
] >      Any society that consistently rewards irresponsibility, punishes
] >      long-term ethics, and always bets against the odds, is doomed to
] >      failure.  I'm have absolutely no interest in being around when
] >      the 'facts' show up.

> >Well Broward, if you're so sure you're right, then leave.
> 
> Here it is in black and white, folks.  The liberal redneck.
> "Love it or leave it."

Norbert, do you really need to delete the context of a statement to
make a point?

-- 
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: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:16:18 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XXXDate: Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:16:15 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A78ABFEF4C010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1993Jan26.102934.19049@cis.uab.edu> Zeki Bayram,
bayram@willis.cis.uab.edu writes:
>On the matter of allowing homosexuals into the armed forces of the
>U.S.A., a few points to consider:
> This is not just a matter of principle

Agreed.  Principles =are= involved, but it is much more than that.

> American soldiers will probably not be wellcome anymore in foreign
>  countries, especially Islamic countries

So far I haven't heard of military forces from any other countries that =do=
allow gays being banned anywhere, even Islamic countries.

> Motivation is a great factor in the effectiveness of soldiers in
>  combat. Soldiers have to "believe in" what they are asked to do.
>  They have to believe that they are fighting to protect the high
>  "values" and principles of America. They have to believe that they
>  are morally right. How can they feel this way when they will see the
>  armed forces to which they belong as being fundamentally flawed, and
>  immoral?

Such people are, themselves, fundamentally flawed and immoral.  A military
that includes gays will, if anything, reflect higher "values" than before.

> American soldiers will be ridiculed as being "a bunch of faggots"

Only at great personal risk.  I never heard of anybody calling the French
Foreign Legion anything like that, and they have never had such a ban.

> Will definitely harm any alliance with Arab countries such as Saudi
>  Arabia. Public pressure in those countries will force their rulers
>  to sever ties (at least militarily) with the US

Arab countries have never had any problem putting their military interests
ahead of their religion.

> Guess what Saddam will be telling his soldiers if there were another
>  war in the Gulf: "Oh pure blood, God fearing defenders of this land.
>  You are fighting against 'a bunch of faggots'. So go clear the earth
>  of its slime!" And I think he would find an audiance, and not only
>  in his soldiers!  

No worse than the lies he's been telling from Day One.

So, while these are interesting and novel, do you have any =reasonable=
arguments against gays in the military?

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20766 alt.politics.elections:25034 talk.politics.misc:68958