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: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:55:30 GMT

In article <C1J5v8.3IM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.191809.5488@lclark.edu> tonyd@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis) writes:
>>>Why is Bill putting Hillary in charge of a policy-suggesting committee
>>>worse than Ronnie appointing his cronies to important White House staff
>>>positions? 
>
>  Or anybody?  Presidents have certain powers to appoint people.
>  Presumably we elect them because we expect they will make wise
>  apointments.   

Granted, but there is still the matter of nepotism. Imagine if President
Carter had hired Billy Carter, for anything. 

>                Hillary Clinton is a smart, energetic person
>  with a reputation for building consensus, cutting through BS
>  and getting things done.  Sounds like just what that position
>  requires.   Ultimately any recommendations her commission
>  makes have to be approved by Congress.

The president can do quite a few things without Congressional approval.
And Hillory has already been appointed to take care of the health-care
situation. This post, I imagine, requires approval.
 
>  I can think of a lot better things to criticize Clinton
>  over recently than appointing his wife to a commision to
>  study health care reform.
 
As I said, nepotism is always suspicious, even when otherwise appropriate.
 
>---peter
>


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Domestic policy (was Clinton's Foreign Policy)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:11:29 GMT

In article <C17Hzz.Bwp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jmcg0401@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Michael Corey) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <eagle.727551072@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>>>
>>>I heard today that Pres. Clinton (then Pres-elect Clinton) said in
>>>PUBLIC that his wife would be in charge of Domestic Policy?  Excuse me,
>>>wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!?  And his WIFE is going to do it?
>>>
>>>Can anyone verify this?
>
>>Similarly, I heard that Snapple supports Operation Rescue....
>
>How in the hell is this similar to Snapple supporting Operation Rescue.
>Snapple is a PRIVATE corporation that can do whatever it wants with 
>ITS money.  Bill Clinton was elected to office saying that he,
>the President, would spend lots of HIS time on foreign policy...
>
>Please explain further if you can....

I, in my cheerful giddyness, was refering to the (false) rumor and
hearsay regarding Snapple supporting of OR.  Mr. L'Hommedieu began his
posting with the UL-flag, "I heard today...." and so naturally (for
me) my mind wandered to the most recent urban legend to make it to a
front page of the New York Times.  It was not a comment about private
disbursement of funds to political groups, but an oblique jab at
someone accepting hearsay as gospel.





--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:41:32 GMT

matt@cray.com (Matthew Marchese) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.220959.19251@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>>  What we have, though, is people who do hate
>>homosexuals and who are actively working towards limiting
>>gay, lesbian, and bisexual civil rights claim a religious
>>foundation for their position.  

>This seems to be the root of the problem here. Melinda, you
>seem to equate "limiting...civil rights" with hatred. Many
>would disagree, especially since the U.S. Constitution
>does not specifically grant equal rights to holders of
>non-hetero sexual orientation. This is a result of the
>increasingly, IMO, "Orwellian" catchphrases and name-calling 
>of Lesbigay activists.

The U.S. Constitution specifically grants equal rights to EVERYONE except
convicted criminals. Period. It was on PRECISELY that basis that a preliminary
injunction was granted on CO 2.

By the way, I wouldn't exactly call it "Orwellian" to rail against official
curtailment of civil rights. I'd call it "thoroughly understandable rage."

-- 
 _--_|\    Brent Davies                    ACSnet:    brent@syacus.acus.OZ
/      \   Aust Centre for Unisys SW       Internet:  brent@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
\_.--._/   700 Blackburn Rd                Voice:     +61-3-550-1640
      v    Melbourne, Australia 3168       FAX:       +61-3-550-1599
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:16380 alt.politics.clinton:21269 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13876 soc.women:23067 alt.feminism:7647
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:42:36 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan25.162035.17116@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>There's a difference between power and influence.  Power is the
>ability to make and implement decisions; influence is the ability to
>get someone else to make and implement decisions. (Note that
>influence-peddling, ie lobbying, is not against the law while
>power-peddling, ie accepting bribes, is.)  Most first ladies have had
>influence but none have had power.  

Edith Wilson?

>As I recall, Nancy's influence was
>limited to personnel decisions, and did not extend to health care
>policy.  

I see no qualitative difference.  Other than that the former was behind
the scenes, while the latter is open.

>Hillary, on the other hand, un-elected, un-appointed, and
>un-accountable to the American people is being offered power. 

Well, so was John Sununu.  I much prefer Hillary to him.

At any rate, Congress has to approve anything Hillary's committee
suggests.

Besides, as another poster pointed out, it's not a particular 
surprise to voters that Hillary is married to Bill and that she 
wasn't going to spend her time in the White House ghostwriting 
a book for Socks.  

>If Bill
>wants her to have a position, let him appoint her and let the Senate
>confirm her.  Just because she raised her hand during Bill's taking the
>Oath of Office doesn't mean she has a legitimate role in policy-making.

Did she raise her hand?

Why is Bill putting Hillary in charge of a policy-suggesting committee
worse than Ronnie appointing his cronies to important White House staff
positions?  Besides the fact that she's a woman?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:16414 alt.politics.clinton:21419 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14045 soc.women:23154 alt.feminism:7701
From: tonyd@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:18:09 GMT
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1993Jan25.184236.12490@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.162035.17116@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>There's a difference between power and influence.  Power is the
>>ability to make and implement decisions; influence is the ability to
>>get someone else to make and implement decisions. (Note that
>>influence-peddling, ie lobbying, is not against the law while
>>power-peddling, ie accepting bribes, is.)  Most first ladies have had
>>influence but none have had power.  
>
>Edith Wilson?
>
>>As I recall, Nancy's influence was
>>limited to personnel decisions, and did not extend to health care
>>policy.  
>
>I see no qualitative difference.  Other than that the former was behind
>the scenes, while the latter is open.
>
>>Hillary, on the other hand, un-elected, un-appointed, and
>>un-accountable to the American people is being offered power. 
>
>Well, so was John Sununu.  I much prefer Hillary to him.
>
>At any rate, Congress has to approve anything Hillary's committee
>suggests.
>
>Besides, as another poster pointed out, it's not a particular 
>surprise to voters that Hillary is married to Bill and that she 
>wasn't going to spend her time in the White House ghostwriting 
>a book for Socks.  
>
>>If Bill
>>wants her to have a position, let him appoint her and let the Senate
>>confirm her.  Just because she raised her hand during Bill's taking the
>>Oath of Office doesn't mean she has a legitimate role in policy-making.
>
>Did she raise her hand?
>
>Why is Bill putting Hillary in charge of a policy-suggesting committee
>worse than Ronnie appointing his cronies to important White House staff
>positions?  Besides the fact that she's a woman?
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

she's not just a woman... she's a WIFE...
an even more defined role...

eek, eek...

how's she going to have time to work and host parties?
how will she take care of Chelsea? and Socks?

give people a little credit folks...
the White House staff has many competent hosts, cat-feeders, and lunch-makers...
to usurp their positions would be unwise...

Hillary Clinton is a lawyer... let her do her job...]
we should all raise our hands... we should all suggest policy...

and those of us who are good at it, like Hillary Clinton, should be heeded...  

                                  

send me 20 bucks,

tonyd
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jmcg0401@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Michael Corey)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Domestic policy (was Clinton's Foreign Policy)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:40:46 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>In article <eagle.727551072@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>>
>>I heard today that Pres. Clinton (then Pres-elect Clinton) said in
>>PUBLIC that his wife would be in charge of Domestic Policy?  Excuse me,
>>wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!?  And his WIFE is going to do it?
>>
>>Can anyone verify this?

>Similarly, I heard that Snapple supports Operation Rescue....

How in the hell is this similar to Snapple supporting Operation Rescue.
Snapple is a PRIVATE corporation that can do whatever it wants with 
ITS money.  Bill Clinton was elected to office saying that he,
the President, would spend lots of HIS time on foreign policy...


Please explain further if you can....
>--
><Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
>President."
>			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
-- 
_________________________________________________
JOSEPH M. COREY
Neuroscience Program and Medical Scholars Program
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: rwn@po.CWRU.Edu (Richard W. Nelson Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: SLICK TIMES
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:46:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


     A new publication out of California called the "SLICK TIMES"
will satirize and otherwise have great fun with Bill Clinton,
Hillary and their administration. It is in a 12 pg. format, and
comes out 4 times a year. For more information or to subscribe,
call 1-800-93-SLICK.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Foreign Policy
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:01:00 GMT

In article <matt_wilkinson-210193084153@mac93.tpc.nwu.edu> matt_wilkinson@plato.nwu.edu (Matthew W. Wilkinson) writes:
>In article <C16IDF.491@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>(kellmeyer steven l) wrote:
>>
>> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>
>> >In light of the current situation in the Middle East, we must ask questions
>> >about Pres. (he is President by now) Clinton's foreign policy.
>>
>> >Will he get tough with Saddam Hussien, or will he suffer from.....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >IRAQ-NOPHOBIA!!!
>>
>
>Foreign Policy, foreign schmolicy.... I didn't think Clinton had one. Who
>needs to worry about the global politcal situation when we can shed tears
>over Michael Bolton and gospel singers.

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that about the inauguration!

This inauguration looked more like a carnival than the offical swearing in
of a President.  Like I said in a previous message, even Carter stuck with
the more traditional inaugural events.

The really funny part was that it seemed as if some people present at these
events were acting as if it was some religious expericence, like Clinton
is some sort of miracle worker.

Simon
From: hgoldsmith@igc.apc.org (Howard N Goldsmith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush lost because he wasn't conserv
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:09:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:unhealth.727636499@mcl:-696919064:cdp:1646500022:000:256
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!hgoldsmith    Jan 25 16:09:00 1993


	Sir or madam, I fervently hope you or people with your thinking
	firmly gain control of the Republican party.  If you do,
	we are assured of eight years of Clinton and eight of Gore.
	At least, we will never have to worry about Republicans!
					- Howard
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: matt_wilkinson@plato.nwu.edu (Matthew W. Wilkinson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Foreign Policy
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:35:55 GMT

In article <C16IDF.491@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
(kellmeyer steven l) wrote:
> 
> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> 
> 
> >In light of the current situation in the Middle East, we must ask questions
> >about Pres. (he is President by now) Clinton's foreign policy.
> 
> >Will he get tough with Saddam Hussien, or will he suffer from.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >IRAQ-NOPHOBIA!!!
> 

Foreign Policy, foreign schmolicy.... I didn't think Clinton had one. Who
needs to worry about the global politcal situation when we can shed tears
over Michael Bolton and gospel singers. 

          __            ____ _____
 |\/| /\ |  \  |\/|  /\   |    |
 |  |/__\|__/  |  | /__\  |    |  Matthew W. Wilkinson 
         _   _                    Northwestern University
      [  x   x  ]                 Transporation Center
           ..                     Information Systems Specialist           
          
        /_____/                   Matt_Wilkinson@PLATO.NWU.EDU
          \|/                     voice 708.491.2229

      "What are you goofy?!?"
         - Jimmy Shorts
From: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 23:18:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com

In article 1jpstlINNkjj@hp-col.col.hp.com, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE) writes:
>> It seems those silly humans are trying to define non-existant things like
>> "right", "wrong", and "morality" again.  And some them are using their
>> definitions, or those of others which have been written into some book,
>> to justify their own likes, dislikes, prejudices, and preferences again.
>
>Now this is amusing; some posters have said that it is religion that 
>causes bigotry against gays; now the religion is just a justification 
>for their own likes, dislikes, prejudices that they already have?  ;-)

Perhaps you got the idea?

However I said NOTHING about religion, but I did mention "right", "wrong",
and "morality".

And I didn't even say anything about what has CONDITIONED people with said
'likes, dislikes, prejudices that they already have' before they find a need to justify
them by defining 'non-existant things like "right", "wrong", and "morality"'.

Yes, quite amusing.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Mark Barnes, System Engineer    |  <insert standard disclaimers here>
SUN Microsystems Computer Corp. |
Corporate Technical Escalations |  I speak for myself, an individual,
Menlo Park, CA, USA             |  not for the company for which I work.
barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM      |
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:16431 alt.politics.clinton:21546 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14144 soc.women:23190 alt.feminism:7733
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:52:19 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:

>perhaps the real reason you 
>are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.

No.  It's because she's *competent*.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:00:32 GMT

Y'all don't understand.  "Hillary Clinton" is not an issue
to be debated on the merits, or a person, or even a subject.
"Hillary Clinton" is a trial balloon being floated by pro-
fessional social reactionaries to see if it will get any 
action.  They're mostly flogging homophobia these days, 
having lost badly on the abortion thing, but they're always 
on the lookout for new bait to attract their prey.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Domestic policy (was Clinton's Foreign Policy)
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:17:33 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <eagle.727551072@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:

>wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!?  And his WIFE is going to do it?

Yup.  They tried to find a good astrologer, but even astrologers can see
how big a mess 12 years of borrow and spend rebooblicans have left us in.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:39:37 GMT

tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>Do not confuse sin with crime.  There are lots of things that are sinful
>that were never considered criminal under biblical law, e.g., lust.  It's
>only when sin manifests itself in criminal behavior (as defined by the laws
>of the state), that punishment is required.  Homosexual activity is sinful
>and, in a civilized society, should be considered criminal as well.

Well, that makes a majority of Western countries, including a sizeable number
of American states, "uncivilized societies." According to you, that is.

What utter hubris.

-- 
 _--_|\    Brent Davies                    ACSnet:    brent@syacus.acus.OZ
/      \   Aust Centre for Unisys SW       Internet:  brent@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
\_.--._/   700 Blackburn Rd                Voice:     +61-3-550-1640
      v    Melbourne, Australia 3168       FAX:       +61-3-550-1599
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:17:42 GMT

In article <C1JuMK.Czz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>>a close friend?  Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>
>   Well, when the person is your wife, the difference is that they 
>won't get fired!

Any more than a close friend.  Are you suddenly going to cut off a
source of informal advice?  If, say, Clinton has to fire McLeod (the
Chief of Staff.  I may have the name wrong), is he going to stop
calling him to get his opinion?

In a sense, it's better to have your advisors in the open.  You know
where they stand (as opposed to, say, Nancy Reagan's use of
astrologers).

--
	Who's "the loneliest monk?"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:16359 alt.politics.clinton:21210 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13807
From: highlndr@csa.bu.edu (Sean Pfeiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Domestic policy (was Clinton's Foreign Policy)
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:54:12 GMT
	<eagle.727551072@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>
	<15576.2b5dec1f@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
	<1993Jan25.162035.17116@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Boston University Computer Science Department
In-reply-to: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com's message of 25 Jan 93 16:20:35 GMT

Hillary can't hold a cabinet office.  There was a law passed after the
Kennedy administration which prohibited immediate family members of the
President from doing this (RFK as Attorney General under JFK was the
basis for this).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.feminism