HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:25:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec13.224027.14125@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>I ask again: Bentsen subscribes to a "very far left political
>philosophy"?  The guy from Goldman, Sachs (that citadel of Ivory Tower
>academics and career politicians) has a "very far left political
>philosophy"?  Proclamations like this, Paulie-boy, just undermine your
>credibility.
>

Ya know, the one thing that continues to amaze me about the people that 
post to these groups is the lack of understanding of relativism.

It may be true that these guys are not as far left as say the high priestess
of political correctness (Donna Shalalalalalalaaaa) or the government control
of buisiness freaks like Reich and Tyson, but that does not automatically 
place them in the mainstream.  It might also be that they seem conservative to
people who are so far to the left that they no longer understand what mainstream
is.  It is even fair to say that people like Bensten WERE conservatives back
when the Democratic party was more conservative and not nearly as "in the
back pocket of special interest groups" as it is today.

The truth is that the recent records of everyone of these so called moderates
shows a siginificant shift to the left, if not a complete ideological 
revolution.  

After the '88 campaign, and hearing Bensten's positions, anyone who believes
he's still a moderate, let alone a conservative, should for their own sake
take some time to evaluate just how far from mainstream they've drifted..

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: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:47:59 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:51:33 GMT

In article <758@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Lets assume for the sake of arguement that she ran the BIGGEST school in
the 
>country, okay?  Now tell me how does that compare with say, running Ford
Motor
>company in terms of business and administrative experience?  What's the
staff
>employee situation at the largest university, 10,000, 15,000 lets give
her
>20,000 employees just to be fair.  Compare that to running a company of 
>hundreds of thousands of world wide employees and doing so with an eye
towards
>not just balancing a budget but balancing a ledge and paying out
dividens to 
>stock holders, getting more market share, selecting new products etc etc
etc

Not only do you have no understanding of macroeconomics, statistics, or
history....now you have proven you have no knowledge of economies of
scale.
The task of running a university made of many colleges and departments and
consisting of many diverse individuals, trustees and
alumni, grants and internal politics, is extremely
difficult and I, from
personal experience, would place an equal degree of difficulty on the task
to the one you describe. The number of people involved has little to do
with
the difficulty of the job.

Are you tired of embarassing yourself yet?

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:50:58 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <778@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>Here's a bit of non-scientific info to chew on, for those who think Clinton's
>cabinet appointments are so swell...

>Here in Pittsburgh, a city that voted for Clinton over Bush by better than a
>5 to 1 margin, a local radio station conducted a sample telephone poll,
>yesterday, to see what Pittsburghers thought of Clinton's cabinet choices. 
>Of the 301 people responding 173 said they are unhappy with the choices
>so far...

That's probably because they don't know a lot about the people.  They'll be
more excited about them when they learn more about them.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:07:01 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec14.081759.19432@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>
>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.

But see Greg, you, like so many other Clinton supporters, have left out
the estimated 100 billion in cost for his proposed health care initiatives.
Bill simply didn't include the cost in his totals during the campaign and
everyone that read his proposals knew it.

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: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<Bz8JGA.18o@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <646@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:34:41 GMT

In article <646@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:


   In Clinton's case you had a candidate running as a liberal in the primaries,
   then transforming hiself into a "moderate" during the campaign for the White
   House, promising diversity and a "new democratic party" with "all points
   of view being considered."  What you got was a charade that allowed the 
   overwhelming number of voters to oppose the man that will be President,
   he's shed his disguise of moderation that helped him "win" and has given an
   illusion of diversity by appointing a quota structured cabinet that listen
   to only one point of view and considers only one opinion, that of the left.
   What you got is an America that was duped and I doubt they will soon forget.

Paul, go to the library and look up information regarding the Democratic
Leadership Council and then tell me when Clinton "transformed himself
into a moderate".

Yes, I'm sure all those people that voted for Perot would have voted
for Bush had Perot not been in the race......... not
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rjyanco@unix.amherst.edu (Richard J. Yanco)
Subject: bush/atheism
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:01:51 GMT

Pardon the boneheaded request, but could someone please email me
the Bush quote re: "I'm not sure that atheists should be considered
citizens.."  I have an idea what it was, but I need the real McCoy.

Thanks,
Rick
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:01:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1226.42.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
>The people that Clinton has appointed are most CERTAINLY NOT a
>reflection of one view point as you, Paul Galvanek, so incorrectly
>state.  For example, there's congressman Leon Panetta (sp) from the
>Monterey, CA district.  During the campaign, he was very much against
>the fiscal views that Clinton had proposed.  Mr. Panetta said that "it
>would not add up."  Well, Clinton has now made him head of the OMB and
>Clinton said at the news conference, "Well, maybe Leon can teach me how
>to add."  So you see, Paul, you are incorrect.  Not me.

Exactly where do you find a contradiction in ideology or philosophy in the'
fact that he pointed out Clinton's numbers were a scam?  Everyone that
could add from reporters, economists, left wing, right wing, moderate etc
etc  everyone pointed out that the numbers didn't add up.  That's probably
a primary reason nearly 6 out 10 votes cast votes against the man.

There is not conflict in ideology here, just a fact that like many other
people, Panetta, wanted to expose the underhanded campaign tactics Clinton
used.  They still have the same goals, ideas and basic philosophy of what
role government should play.

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.

All cut from the same cloth, everyone of his picks, regardless of the various
hormone and melanin levels.

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: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:15:26 GMT

In article <646@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>
>In Clinton's case you had a candidate running as a liberal in the primaries,
>then transforming hiself into a "moderate" during the campaign for the White
>House, promising diversity and a "new democratic party" with "all points
>of view being considered."  What you got was a charade that allowed the 
>overwhelming number of voters to oppose the man that will be President,
>he's shed his disguise of moderation that helped him "win" and has given an
>illusion of diversity by appointing a quota structured cabinet that listen
>to only one point of view and considers only one opinion, that of the left.
>What you got is an America that was duped and I doubt they will soon forget.

He ran as a liberal during the primaries?????

Harkin was the liberal.  Clinton was not.  What, another example of
relativism?  I suppose that must be it.  Clinton was perhaps to the
left of Tsongas.

>-- 
>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! 

I ask you again, Goldman, Sachs is a bastion of Communist thought?


_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Macroeconomics 101
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:26:15 GMT

The Republicans are saying "I told you so" about the recent
uptick in the economy. They STILL don't get it: the reason
the economy is getting better is because they've been driven
from office, and their loss is everyone else's gain.

Look, economies go up because people believe in them, and down
when people are feeling concerned about the future. For the first
time in 12 years people have a genuine sense of hope, and, as
a result, this will probably be a record-breaking Christmas
retail season. People finally have a REASON to celebrate.

If Bush had won people would have been even more bummed out
than they'd been, and the economy would have gone even deeper
in the toilet.

The Republicans are right to take credit for the recent
improvement in the economy--but only because they LOST.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:30:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec14.212440.14324@cs.wisc.edu> michaell@snake28.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee) writes:
>
>If "conservative" is the mainstream, why do Democrats now control all of the
>federal government, and most state and local governments as well?

Simply because people like Clinton run campaigns dedicated to convincing people
that they're conservative, or moderates, whether it's true or not.  If you want
to see what happens when straight up honest liberals run open campaigns against
admitted conservative look at Reagan/Carter Reagan/Mondale and Bush Dukakis.
After those race you will never again see a presidential candidate self 
identify as a liberal.  Being honest about being a liberal is politcal suicide
and deception works so well anyway.

BTW you might also want to note that in this year of Clinton's "mandate"
conservative Republicans gained more seats in Congress and made major gains
in state legislatures.  
-- 
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!
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:00:04 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>= = (Neil Black) writes:
>=It's real simple math.  But of course, bonehead Republicans slept
>=through their intro-math classes.  That's why we now have this huge
>=deficit.

>And I guess Democrats (and a few Republicans too) can't even balance
>their own checkbooks. [cf. House bank]

Those "few Republicans" are the ones in Bush's Cabinet.  Now, how "few"
_were_ the numbers of Republicans in the House?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Clinton Economic Conference
Reply-To: zittin@Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 11:57:03 GMT

From zittin@Eng.Sun.COM Fri Dec 18 17:17:56 1992 

NB: David N. Messina posted this article, but Dave Zittin wrote it.
The latter is not able to post.


For those who did not watch/listen to the televised meeting,
several themes kept emerging from the attendees.  Three,
in particular were mentioned a lot:

	- Government regulation is stiffling small business
	  (The florist from (N/S?) Dakota said it best.) 
	
	- Small business formation and growth is stiffled by
	  lack of capital. This is due in large part to over-
	  regulation by the RTC (the outfit that took over
	  the S&L mess and is managing to make it a bigger mess).
	
	- The US deficit/debt is hurting the country.  This is
	  related to the point above.  As long as the US
	  is in the borrowing business it competes for capital
	  for business.  This is reflected in higher interest
	  rates all of us pay.


On another note one that caught my attention came from a discussion
between the delegate from AT&T and  another delegate from an
east coast baby bell.  The AT&T rep says that if govt would
change regulations, AT&T could wire the country with fiber
optics including a US fiber optics backbone.  VP elect Gore,
responds to the effect: don't you need govt to build the f.o.
backbone and the AT&T rep said no, I mean the wherewithall
exists in the private sector to do it, if the govt relaxes
regulations.  I got the impression that Gore didn't get it.
Perhaps the feds had to build the US interstate because no
private concern stepped fwd to do so, but in this case,
the private sector is saying make it legally possible for us
to do so and we will do it. I wonder if Gore thought to talk
to the private sector beforehand?  Why did he appear so
intent that govt should foot the bill?

- Dave

The above Dave is different from the one whose .sig appears below.
(not to say that I am disagreeing with him)  <heh, heh>
David
dnm9@columbia.edu
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:31:05 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <If=wBOy00iV184uKBi@andrew.cmu.edu>, Brennan Kraje <nk0s+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>  
>      Bush lost.  

	THANK GOD.

> I am now in the midst of a four year hangover.  

	I am waking out of a twelve year coma!

> I guess my undergraduate and graduate studies in public administration have 

	Public Adminitration. Does this mean I get to yell at you when you
	get my driver's registration screwed up? Glad to see that we
	have experts in training out there!!!

> made me wise on the subject, but some of the garbage concerning this topic

	Anyone in Public Administration must be wise on subjects. After all,
	they wouldn't be Public Administrators if they weren't wise on the
	subject, right?

> has me concerned about the democrats.
> 

	Well, coming from our Public Administration wannabe I have to agree!

>     Let's wake up and be educated.

	I did :)

> 
>     Brennan
> 


-Garrett



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:26:32 GMT

In article <665@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.181017.3115@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>>
>>Also, I think 43 percent is a pretty good showing in a three-way race.
>>
>
>And I think it's pretty poor showing when one considers the the two candidates
>that collected the 57 % were both more conservative that the man elected.
>Mind you I'm not saying either Bush or Perot were the rightful winners. 

Perot is ambiguous as to where he is on the political spectrum.
Clearly, neat labels like "liberal" and "conservative" don't stick all that
well to him.  Lesee: lots of new taxes, freedom of choice, etc.

Bush is a sitting president, and would normally garner a larger portion
of the vote.  Instead...

Minus Perot's 20%, and you have around 53-48.  Still, a miserable
showing for an incumbent president, and more than Reagan garnered in
'80 (Anderson was a liberal Republican).

Oooh.  Dontcha love spin?

>Clearly the numbers give Clinton a technical victory.  The numbers do not
>however, give Clinton what he claims.  There was no moral victory for liberals
>this November, quite the contrary, conservative candidates garnered the 
>majority of the support, the consensus of the voters was clearly that 
>traditional liberal democratic solutions were not the desire of the majority.

Nor were "traditional conservative" solutions, now that supply-side is
an article of faith.

>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! 

Oops!  Forgot to mention the Blackstone Group, too.  Another Communist
front...NOT!

_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: alt.politics.clinton.......
Date: 13 Dec 1992 17:13:35 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

	During a heavy afternoon, lots of snow outside, I was checking
the list of active newsgroups.  The description for this newsgroup was
funny.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroup                Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------
alt.politics.clinton     Discussing Slick Willie & Co.

V:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:53:48 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <742@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.212503.3701@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>

[deletia on how the financing of health care is spread over 4 years]

>>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.

Whoa!  Paul goes RIGHT off the subject when it seems that he can't
defend himself!

Anyway, I don't recall him emphasizing the middle class tax cut after
the DNC.  This was a proposal from the primaries that didn't survive
economic reality.

>
>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.

True, his numbers don't quite add up.  <shrug> The budget plan still
has to be ironed out, details considered as we get more economic data.
His proposals for a fiscal stimulus to get us out of the recession
have become less likely as new economic data comes in.  Does this mean
he's becoming more conservative?

In any case, the health care plan savings do add up.  I can do a
periodical search for you, Paul, if you really, really want me to.




--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852