HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (TRUTH IS. BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Family leave
Summary: Cold man
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:20:43 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1993Jan27.131652.21514@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linde writes...
>>>In most of these cases the government has not stepped into a private contract
>>>between two responsible parties and dictated how that contract will be
>>>implemented.
>>
>>This arguement went out with the Robber Barons of the 1800's. This was
>>the same arguement that the Supreme Court used to defeat Child Labor Laws,
> 
>We do not consider children capable of entering into labor contracts in
>this country.

Who is "we"? The fact of the matter is that the "private contract" arguement
WAS used to keep child labor around.
> 
>>Worker Safety Laws, Consumer Protection Laws, ect. Thank God, Oliver Wendell
>>Holmes helped put a stop to that.
>>
>These laws are universal in this country.  Small businesses are not exempt
>from these laws merely because they are small.

O.K. So what's your point? I was making a point about you "private contract"
stand.
> 
>>>The Family Leave Act is an intrusion by government into the
>>>affairs individuals where it does not belong.
>>
>>Only if you define the "individual" to include businesses.
> 
>It may shock you to know that businesses are owned by individuals with
>families also.   Business are also "entities" and are treated as such by the
>law.

And many businesses, especially the ones that will be affected by the
family leave law, are owned by multiple people or even by the public.
> 
>>>Baloney.  If that employee has made themselves worth keeping, the company
>>>will keep them and their (sometimes substanial) investment in that employee.
>>>
>>So that will stop children from getting sick? But then I guess society
>>is better off if single mothers and their children are all starving or
>>on welfare.
> 
>Society is better off without single mothers.  Emotional appeals 
>do not sway me.
> 
I must say that you have made one of the most cold and calculating
statements that I have ever seen on this net. Obviously, with a stand like
that, there is no room for debate. But I will say this, your idea of
society is not a place that I would like to live in. I don't believe
that people are disposable, especially mothers and their children.
>>>>
>>>>Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc.
>>>>Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
>>>JSL.
>>-Garrett
>JSL.
-garrett
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:51:16
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu's message of Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:41:52 GMT

In article <PA146008.659.728160112@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>        If Clinton orders the military to drop the administratic ban on
> gays, then I have absolutely no doubt that Colin Powell and the others will
> grit their teeth, say "Yes, sir, Mr. President," and do it.
>        They would, however, be derelict in their duty if they failed to 
> advise him based on their own judgement.

Advising President Clinton is one thing; undermining his policies by
stirring up public opposition to them is quite another.  (Hint: one of
these activities can be done without press conferences and leaks.)

I am sure that General Powell is an intelligent enough man to be able
to tell the difference; I hope that the readers of this newsgroup are
also intelligent enough so that they can do so as well.
--
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!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70009 alt.politics.clinton:21321
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Energy" Bill Clinton!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:10:51 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, bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi) says:

>In article <9301271408.AA19449@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>[... ummm... yeah...]
>
>	Halcyon?

     Yes.  I inhaled.

     RIGHT ON, WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON!

    Prepare  for the drug-induced ride of your LIFE!!


>	-rj
>--
>Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
>oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69147 alt.politics.elections:25066 alt.politics.clinton:20900
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Homework assignment for the media
Date: 22 Jan 1993 05:22:26 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


I'm waiting for the poll crazy media to ask 'TODAY who would you vote
for for President (two or three man race) ?'  I think it would be a
clear victory for Bush.  But why do I think the media would be afraid
that Clinton would be offended if they asked such a question now.

-- 
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: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,soc.women
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Zoe Baird
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:19:53 GMT

In article <1731@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	2. It does a appear that Zoe Baird and her husband have little 
>	appreciation for the relative difficulty of their child care
>	problem. For one thing, the amount of money that they were willing
>	to pay their illegal domestic servants was ridiculously low ($24,000
>	per year) for the area that they lived in (Connecticut). 

Mike Royko reported it as $30,000 plus room and board.  Keep in mind that
the family wasn't paying at least some taxes on it, and it looks a lot
better.  :)

>	3. I don't know what this all means, but the women's groups jumped ship
>	on this nomination faster than did the Senators themselves - and ironic
>	twist for Mr. Biden, who got in deep do-do with the sisters for having
>	"botched" Anita Hill's allegations. It is clear that tokenism isn't 
>	good enough for these people - they are, at bottom, committed to 
>	nothing less and nothing else than total ideological victory. But it
>	does kinda bother me when they don't have the decency to stand up and
>	fight for a member of the constituency group they are supposed to be
>	supporting. 

I know some women were concerned that having the first woman attorney
general who had the ethical problems Baird did would make them look bad --
I can easily see a Rush Limbaugh complaining about the affirmative action,
and how the "most qualified woman" was really corrupt.  Baird's flacking for
the insurance industry didn't help her, for sure, but I think the real reason
women abandoned Baird is because they don't *want* tokenism any more than
men do.  What women's groups wanted was the serious consideration of
qualified women for important government positions. 
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:35:56 GMT

In article <2B65766E.14980@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <adams.728062684@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>[deleted]
>
>>Not so...Luther's priests were permitted to marry...and Lutheran's continue
>>to do so today.  Luther himself married...
>
>Gosh, I wonder who the lucky little woman was.
>
>Blessings,
>Janis

Believe it or not, but she was a former nun.  Pretty cool, n'est-ce pas?
becka

-- 
************Golf courses are the moral equivalent of patricide!************
The probability of someone       ***  If you're not part of the solution
Watching you is proportional     ***  You're part of the precipatate.
To the stupidity of your action. ***  The Chemist's Truth from Steven Wright
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From:  ()
Subject: Re: MORE EVIDENCE OF INHERENT HETEROSEXUAL PERVERSION
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:21:43 GMT

Oh, pleeeeeease. Go moralize elsewhere. And what's with the "heterosexual"
qualification? As if most sex perverts tend to be heterosexual? I suppose
the widespread habit of violating young boys in Ancient Greece is a
decidedly more noble pursuit than molesting young girls? I don't do either,
but the guy who posted the original did have a point: American societal
values are screwed up. Anyone can go to a movie and see a woman be
violently raped, a man decapitated with a hacksaw, a serial killer go about
his sordid work, but... a woman can't go topless! Also, remember the words
of Sport, from Taxi Driver:

"She's thirteen years old. You ain't never had a piece of pussy like that.
You can fuck her in the ass, you can fuck her in the ear, you can come in
her mouth, you can do anything you like to her. She'll make your cock so
hard it'll explode." (Or something close to that).

People can post and read anything they like to this group. I do however
commend your placement of this comment in alt.sex.stories.d. What do you
think of my suggestion concerning a future split in alt.sex.stories?

-JK

*no sig required... I don't want your mail cluttering up my system*
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,alt.conspiracy
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot to be on D/FW talk radio 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Who's on watch?
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:23:00 GMT

In article <C1BK09.3D1@sdf.lonestar.org>, 
thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes...

>This was rescheduled until the week of 1-25/1-29 on his show because of the
>WBAP/KXAS simulcast on 1-22-93. It was decided that two shows so close 
>together couldn't achieve good interviews on both (there would be a lot of
>repitition, etc.). Should be on next week though.....
> 
>Just clarifying...
> 
>Tom H.

I called KLIF's news office today, since I hadn't heard any more about 
it, and they said that Ross had pulled out at the last minute (which 
is what I would expect KLIF to say). Haven't been able to get in touch
with UWSA at the 1-214-960-9100 number, always busy.

Not aware as of now (1-27) what other media appearances are up.

Looks to me like Ross & company have gone underground.

"Caution. Dangerous economic headwind zone."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:11:02 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1993Jan26.042145.1628@olias.linet.org> redsonja@olias.linet.org (Red Sonja) writes:
>And now, pagans, what do we do about the computer game Darklands which
>is actually extolling this activity, proudly cites the HexenHammer (as
>it was called in Germany) as a reference, and turns seeking out and 
>destroying witches and pagan altars into a game?!??? Has anybody seen
>this game yet??? I was stationed in Germany for a while and this is my
>first year back, and my fiancee purchased the game as a gift. Supposedly
>it re-creates medieval Germany. This particular aspect of the game is
>extremely disturbing. It is presented in a very jaundiced and intolerant
>way in the manual as well.
  Gee, in my manual, it says that the witches in the game are based on
15th century ideas, and books such as _Malleus_ and has nothing to do with
modern ideas about witchcraft. (He's kinda supierior towards modern forms,
but he makes it clear that there is no connection between modern witches
and witchcraft.) He also makes it clear that the Templars were framed, and
weren't into Satanic rites, either.
  There's also a pagan witch who helps the party out by telling them what's
going on. The game makes a clear distinction between her and the satanists
(who are pretty stereotypical). Killing her would probably have been a
bad thing. (I don't think that you get a chance to convert her, either.)

  The game was designed with sensibilities of the 15th century in mind,
which weren't real pleasant. The authors even do not endorse those views.
"Be assured that this game has no 'secret agenda' or religious message,
and our apologies to anyone offended by a glimpse into one of the less
attractive aspects of European religious history."

-- 
Mike Swaim            | "101 Dalmations? Yeah I saw that."
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | "You Did! REALLY? The same film?
Disclamer: I lie      | Let's stop driving! We must get out and jump
up and down and up and down and dance around and around!" Matt and Delerium
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: Dear President Clinton
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 5:17:30 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA25056; Tue, 26 Jan 93 06:30:09 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA09021; Tue, 26 Jan 93 06:30:05 -0800
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
	(16.6/16.2) id AA00642; Tue, 26 Jan 93 05:17:31 -0700
X-To: 75300.3115@compuserve.com
X-Cc: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]


     Mr.  President,

	Although recent developments show the economy to be recovering,
   I do not believe this to be the case.  In your campaign pledge, you
   promised an economic plan comprised of infrastructure spending.

	Now, I'm seeing talk of an 'energy' tax.

	Will this be a repeat of the 1990 tax agreement?

	Will the American people receive the economic stimulus they 
   were promised?

	To enact new taxes, cast aside previous pledges, and endanger
   the confidence of the American people, is a grave risk.  We stand 
   on a precipice now.

	Consider your actions carefully.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69239 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13507
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Debt Not Necessarily Bad
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:04:16 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


This is my view on the national debt, which I think is essentially common sense. 
Debt in and of itself in never good.  It's possible to borrow and invest in such
a way that the return from the investment exceeds the cost of the debt.  This is
responsible investment, when it takes place.  Purchase of a house is a
responsible investment, if one can subsequently balance one's budget to meet
one's mortgage payments without having to take out other loans, second mortgages,
etc.  Such other loans can be taken out for other purposes, of course.  Borrowing
to finance an education is generally a responsible investment; of course one has
to be able to subsequently balance one's budget and meet those loan payments
without borrowing more money to do it.  But the fact that these types of
borrowing can be done responsibly does not make the debt itself "good"; it's only
less bad than the return from the investment is good.  If one can invest without
having to borrow, than that's the best scenario of all.  (Of course, sometimes
one chooses to borrow even so, to maintain a certain standard of living, to
maintain liquidity, to put one's money into other investments, etc.)

Borrowing to take an expensive vacation is not a good investment, from a fiscal
point of view.  Of course, an individual is free to do this, and if he or she can
balance the budget later and meet the payments and so eventually pay the money
back, then it's not irresponsible, per say.  But it's never responsible for a
government to borrow to pay for consumption.  And when government borrows to
finance needed investment, it should do so in such a way that afterwards the
budget becomes balanced and the payments be made without borrowing more to do so.
More borrowing for other investments can be done at the same time.

It's a bad sign when there's a chronic deficit, or especially a chronically
increasing deficit.  The debt we have is not good - the use of the money at the
time may have done us some good, but that being done the debt itself is only bad
for us.  We haven't borrowed and invested four trillion dollars, we've invested
some of it and spent the rest on consumption.  If we had invested the money well
then our economy would probably be much better able to handle the debt despite
its size.  The money we pay on interest is money that we can't invest in other
ways, or spend in other ways.  We need a major restructuring of our spending
patterns, so that we borrow to invest but then make our payments on the debt, and
so that we _never_ borrow to consume, except in real emergencies.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Seem to have missed...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:20:30 GMT


Could someone please let me know when Hillary Clinton won an elected position, or
was appointed and went through a confirmation hearing?  I really seem to have missed
when she got the authority to attend cabinet meetings or direct the national health
policy and when she was given the equivalent responsibility.  I wonder if Gore
noticed Bill Clinton's answer to "If you could have ONE adviser, who would it be?"
Sort of a good-news/bad-news for the VEEP:  The good news is that it will be a
co-presidency.  The bad news is that the VEEP isn't the "co".

Interesting that Powell wouldn't brief her - in spite of her trying.  Wonder how
long it will take her to get the TS/SCI clearances?


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Enforcing U.N. sanctions
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:15:57 GMT

In article <1jeom3INNko7@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
}Why do we (the U.S.) enforce U.N. sanctions against Iraq (an islamic  
}country) while ignoring sanctions and resolutions against Serbia and  
}Israel which are designed to aid people that are predominantly moslem?

Well, for one point, I doubt seriously that the US COULD enforce militarily
every single U.N. sanction.  By your statement, do you advocate that the
US be the world policeman/babysitter?


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69988 talk.politics.medicine:698 soc.culture.usa:10139 soc.culture.african.american:14374 sci.med:24470
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:03:55 GMT
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.



In article <1993Jan26.010023.18380@r-node.pci.on.ca>, ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca (Nigel Allen) writes:
>Here is a press release from the White House.
>
> Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
> To: National Desk, Health Writer
> Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2100
>
>   WASHINGTON, Jan. 25   -- Following is a statement of
> President Clinton at the White House Monday, Jan. 25:
>
>   Good afternoon.
>   As I travelled across our country this past year, no stories moved
>me more than the stories of those families struggling to pay for
>health care. 

[call for socialist medicine deleted]

SG	Yeah, that's right. The government should steal money from those who 
have it and give it to those who don't. Of course, this can be done with due 
process and in non-violent offices by people with briefcases and university 
degrees so its not theft (with the implicit threat of a policeman's gun should 
someone desire not to pay for the welfare state) but social policy. "Hey Lefty! 
Hit that guy with your fist and take his money. Yeah, tell 'em we're liberating 
his wallet. Har! Har! Yeah, we'll buy Joe some cocaine. Yeah, we're stealing 
your money to help a friend. You're not gonna be selfish and refuse to help 
Joe, are you? Hit 'em again, Lefty."

Hitler and Stalin liked socialized medicine. Why not President Slickwillie?
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69039 alt.sex:42760 talk.religion.misc:27174
From: cavalama@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Randall K. Spicher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Murder v. Sex
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:17:29 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4



Heres a hypothetical question for you.

Who is the injured party in prostitution?

Cavalama.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70369 talk.politics.medicine:764 soc.culture.usa:10253 soc.culture.african.american:14463 sci.med:24594
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:48:49 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization

In article <2B67258E.13008@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <90712@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>>So you believe that the end justifies the means?
>
>Another dualist who can't think of things in more than two terms. 
>
>I never said that.  I said that motivations should be introduced when
>making any judgement calls like this.  Certainly, someone who stole
>soemthing to buy penicillin would get a lesser punishement than someone
>who stole things for heroin.  If the judicial system in this country is
>capable of seeing shades of grey, what's everyone else's problem?

The judicial system is bound by laws made by politicians, and
reflects the opinions and skills of these politicians. This system's
decisions are in no way a standard of thinking or making judgements, 
but is a _result_ of a judgement of those who made the law or appointed
the judges. 

Dov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69814 misc.legal:23312