HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: At least he is consistent...
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:54:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>Going to War in the Persian Gulf:  "I guess I would have voted with the
>majority if it was a close vote.  But I agree with the arguments the
>minority made."  [Arkansas Gazette, 1/15/91]

>o    Sixteen months after the President's decisive victory:  "I supported
>     the Gulf War."  [Los Angeles Times, 7/31/92]

These statements do not contradict one another.  One is certainly
stronger than the other, but they do not contradict.

You forget that the majority of the American people were against
going to war with Iraq and "agreed with the arguments of the
minority."   By "minority", he was referring to Congress, NOT to the
public opinion polls.   The polls didn't show support for the
war until after it started.   You're just saying that Clinton
has the same 20-20 hindsight as everyone else.

He is a public official who represents the people he serves.  To make 
strong statements that represent viewpoints against the will of the majority
is very risky.  Politicians who do this regularly (e.g. Pat Buchanan,
Jessie Jackson, et. al. )  don't get elected.  That's
the problem with a democracy.  If your electorate disagrees with you,
they may not vote for you.  Occasionally, a politician makes a gutsy
call, as did Bush with the Gulf War.   He/she hopes that it was
the right (and popular) decision in the end.  For Bush, support
for the Gulf War was; breaking his "read my lips" promise was not.

Your criticisms of Clinton can be made of any politician.  I'm
not saying that to defend him, just that every politician does
it because it's part of the political process.   All politicians
break promises or conveniently "re-phrase" their statements.
They do this because situations can change.  

When a politician openly lies, or gives a promise he has
no intention of keeping, that is another story.  I see no evidence
that this was the case with Clinton.  He fully intended to
lift the ban on Haitians until later, he saw what trouble it would 
cause.  He was mistaken for making the promise in the first
place.  He has received a lot of criticism for this, and he
deserves it.  

Also, let's wait for Clinton to be in office for a few more days
before saying that he's retreating on all of his promises.




-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (TRUTH IS. BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED.)
Subject: Re: Cuba
Summary: Over-looking  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: Mario Baeza, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin-American Affairs
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:00:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.172311.24853@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu                           writes...
>In article <1993Jan28.045635.9514@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (TRUTH IS. BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED.) writes:
>>Excuse me for interupting, but since when doesn't it take 2/3 of the house
>>and senate to override the president?
> 
>When the president needs the approval of the legislature to act in the
>first place.

I didn't see the president asking Congress anything before he invaded Panama,
or cutting the withholdings of income taxes, or stopping regulation, ect.

>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is now proved beyond a doubt                              Garrett Johnson
that smoking is one of the leading                        Garrett@Ingres.com
causes of statistics.                                        Alameda, Calif.
  :^) We're making progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate.:-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69913 misc.legal:23351
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:02:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: srvr1.1k3jqeINNnn3
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Distribution: world
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan26.061051.8119@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <14058@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan23.104902.25898@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> ># Yes.  It was a stupid law, to be sure, but stupidity does not equal
|> ># constitutionality.
|> >
|> >Very true.
|> 
|> Pardon my typo -- "unconstitutionality" that should read.
|> 
|> ># Congress unquestionably had the power to regulate the interstate sale
|> >                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> ># of wheat.  Allowing individuals to escape the regulation would have
|> >  ^^^^^^^^
|> ># eviscerated the regulation.  Therefore, the Court chose not to reach
|> ># the absurd result you would have them reach, which is that Congress
|> ># can only regulate interstate commerce when it is ineffectual in doing
|> ># so.
|> >
|> >You mean, the Court decided that wheat that was never sold, never
|> >left the farm, and so, never was part of "interstate sale of wheat,"
|> >was within the federal government's authority to regulate.  LOOK WHAT
|> >YOU WROTE!  The Court would have had to say, "There's no interstate
|> >commerce here -- you can't tell the guy what he can do."
|> 
|> The Court noted that the farmer in question was affecting the
|> interstate sale of wheat by growing over his quota.
|> 
|> Does Filburn by himself make a difference?  No.  If a thousand similarly 
|> situated did the same thing?  Yes, the cumulative effect would have a 
|> substantial impact on interstate commerce.  
|> 

The Constitution grants the government the right the regulate
interstate commerce.  I don't see how that translates into giving
the government the right to force interstate commerce to exist.
So what if a thousand farmers did the same thing as Filburn?  
Certainly there would be less wheat involved in interstate
commerce.  Congress would still have the right to regulate 
the commerce that still existed, I just don't see how you
can possibly stretch the concept of regulating interstate
commerce into the concept of forcing interstate commerce.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Murder v. Sex
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:14:55 GMT

In article <C18Fwr.6sH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mr55371@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (KittyKat) writes:
>>In article <3518@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> cavalama@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Randall K. Spicher) writes:

>>>Heres a hypothetical question for you.

>>>Who is the injured party in prostitution?

>>>Cavalama.

>Prostitution is one of the crimes where no one is considered to be the 
>injured party.  Prostitution is illegal mostly due to the religious 
>influence in the moral code of this country.

>KittyKat
 

Of course everyone knows that the moral code for Nevada is different!:-)


Stan Knight
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: What does "Buttafuoco" mean in Italian?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:21:15 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Just curious.  Do you suppose it means the same thing as "Rodham"?  ;)

Hillary "Buttafuoco" Clinton?
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: " The Rhodes Warrior " starring Lloyd Bensen
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:12:16 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1jur2fINNjs8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>     Bensen announced we need a consumption tax to balance the Deficit.
>     But hey, wasn't my version a lot more amusing than CNN?     

 Its hard to realize that these guys are the same ones who say that high
opec oil costs were an external effect that caused the keynesian stagfla-
tion in the 70's. Its time for "Stagflation II, The Internal Effect".
So they replaced the phony "energy crisis" with the "deficit" crisis.
Instead of cutting back on rich entitlements, they want to increase the
net tax on the poor. What great guys.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird should step aside
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:34:47 CST


In article <1993Jan21.033135.10238@news.acns.nwu.edu>, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.163830.18946@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >In article <80964@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jason Woodward) writes:
> >
> >> Maybe Clinton should consider all people for all positions - nah, 
> >> that wouldn't be promoting diversity.
> >
> >Maybe Clinton did consider all people for all positions (at
> >least Democrats) - nah, that wouldn't give you something to 
> >complain about.
> >
> Didn't I hear Clinton say at one time that the only people he was considering
> for certain cabinet positions were women?  I wish I could find that quote
> back.....

If the finalists he was refering to happen to be women, does that mean
only women were considered?

Keep looking for the quote...

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (TRUTH IS. BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED.)
Subject: Re: Universal Coverage != Socialized Medicine!
Summary: Making sense!  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:25:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.200237.39913@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jpr1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (James P. Reynolds)         writes...
>In article <C1H6AK.2In@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) write
>>Hitler and Stalin liked socialized medicine. Why not President Slickwillie?

>Why do the conservatives think that universal health insurance is socialized
>medicine?  Clinton is not thinking of having the government employ doctors. 
>Why do you think Americans are paying 1000 dollars for an MRI that costs 177
>dollars in Japan?  Why do you think we are spending 14 percent of our GNP on a
>system that 1/7 of our population has no access to?  Why is every OTHER
>country in the industrialized world spending less than 10 percent and covering
>everyone?  Why do we rank near the BOTTOM of the list of these countries in
>crucial health indicators such as life expectancy?

[...]

>It's because our "private" system is WORSE than their national health
>insurance, not better.  We have a wasteful, bureaucratic system that overtreats
>the rich at the expense of basic care for the poor.  How do you expect to take
>care of the deficit if health care costs are increasing at a rate more than
>twice the rest of the economy?
> 
There you go again. MAKING SENSE! Don't you realize that no one that you
are addressing this too wants to hear that. So stop wasting bandwidth this
this...information. (big :-))

>James P. Reynolds       (that's Jim to you and me.)     jpr1@lehigh.edu
>     Lehigh University Materials Science Rules          jreynolds@igc.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is now proved beyond a doubt                              Garrett Johnson
that smoking is one of the leading                        Garrett@Ingres.com
causes of statistics.                                        Alameda, Calif.
  :^) We're making progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate.:-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69636 alt.rush-limbaugh:15099
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Debt / AT&T Monopoly
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:00:53 GMT

In article <C16sJG.JGw@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: >But I submit that debt to pay off existing debt is bad.  
>: How do you figure?  It's just rolling over the old debt.  Why are
>: two thirty-year T-bills worse than a hypothetical sixty-year T-bill?
>
>My mistake.  I meant debt to pay off existing debt payments...

That's not happening, though.

>: >Monopolies can be good, too.  In the case of AT&T, phone service to the
>: >majority of the US was cheaper than it has been since deregulation/split
>: >up of AT&T.  
>: 
>: That's completely false.  The cost of long-distance service is down some
>: 30%.
>: 
>Local calling went UP.  

That's because it was being priced below cost.  Long-distance callers
were subsidizing local callers.

>That is the service that MOST of the US uses.

So if ketchup is more popular than salsa, the government should
put a tax on salsa, and give out rebates on ketchup purchases?

>Perhaps I was not clear about this...  The cost of a long distance
>call is hardly more than the cost of a local call (to the phone company).

Right.  So why should local calls cost much less than long-distance calls?

>Before deregulation, long distance rates were made higher so that local
>rates could be lower and of easier access.  

No one's denying that.  But it's hardly an immutable principle that
that's the way it should be.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:09:58 GMT

[alt.sex removed from the newsgroups line.]

In article <93023.120137DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.224839.26146@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
>Crocker) says:
>>
>>>Is there "ample evidence" for this?  Then why did these government
>>>systems spring up, if not to fill a void left by private charity?
>>
>>Yes.  Take, for example, the United way.  Over 75% of the money
>
>More than 95% of the money collected in Medicare taxes is paid
>out as benefits.

      A question for someone out there who might know:

      Where do Medicare's operating funds cost?  Are they allotted
seperately from medicare taxes?  That is, do medicare taxes go to
run the program, or does that money come from the general fund?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal    Div. of Cont. Ed. Information Services Group  UT, Knoxville
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu   "Of course the government and the newspapers
                          lie.  But in a democracy they're different lies."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:26:45 GMT

From article <1993Jan21.014740.21412@Princeton.EDU>, by pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson):
[...]
> country gets nationalized."  Perhaps a better way to dismiss this charge
> is to look at Bill's record as governor.  Surely, Hillary's influence
> then was as great (unlikely) or greater (most probably) than it will be now.
> Bill wasn't exactly a raving liberal then (at least after his first
> term).

Maybe, but if you'll recall, Hillary was working as a big shot lawyer while
Bill was governor.  I have to assume that with all the money she was making
that a good chunk of her time was spent doing that.  Now that she no longer
has the job, she likely has that much more time on her hands.

SEH
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Coverage (Re: CNN bias
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:29:19 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan24150646@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>	Zoe Baird is guilty of a Federal FELONY; she and her husband
>	properly should be indicted and tried on Federal Tax Fraud
>	charges;

Essentially, she pled guilty already.  The sentence was a fine; she paid
it.  The criminal aspects of this case are over.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: tonyd@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:57:16 GMT

In article <1jut4uINNkku@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Keith R. Elflein <kre@po.CWRU.edu> writes:
>Freedom of Religion
>
>If the "blood rituals and cannibalism" break no other laws that may
>exist, then i see no problem in granting them their 2nd ammendment
>rights. If they do break other laws, then the rituals are probably
>infringing in some way on another person's rights, which is unacceptable. 
>
>Blessed be,
>Keith
>"Double double, toil and trouble...fire burn and cauldron bubble!" -
>*hahaha* Don't ya love it!

yep... second amendment rights... praise the lord and pass the ammunition...

"onward christian soldiers... onward buddhist priests..."

other times,
tonyd

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Hillary in Charge of Task Force
Summary: Hillary in Charge of Health Care Task Force
Keywords: Health Care, Hillary Clinton
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:09:37 GMT

I read in the newspaper the other day, that President Bill is putting his
spouse in charge of a task force to come up with ideas for reforming
health care and health insuranse in the U.S..  

Question: Is Hillary qualified. Does anyone out there know if she has a
clue to the issues of broad based health care and insurance. Is there
anything in her past career that remotely qualifies her for the task. Or
is this another symbolic gesture on the part of Fuhrer Willy to impress
the politically correct folks and the radFems?

If anyone has any ideas about this, please share them.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:18:48 GMT

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
[regarding my sarcastic "translation" of Richard Mulac's tirade on Clinton]

[BD:]
>>that the Inauguration had a magic Bush's never did,

[DV:]
>       To the tune of thirty million bucks, about five million more than
>Bush managed.  

That sounds pretty cynical to me. It seems to me there was something more 
than money-bought atmosphere about this Inauguration, and I don't think I'm
the only one that feels that way. But more to the point, you say:

[BD:]
>>GRR!! I just HATE that!! And besides, I can just *tell*--well,
>>because I'm *clairvoyant*, that's why, and you can call me Claire--I can just
>>*tell* that all that popularity and good feeling and love is fake, *fake*,
>>FAKE!! *grumble* *grumble* *grumble*)

[DV:]
>        Putting words in other people's mouths is a filthy habit.

Oh, puh-leeze. Sarcasm is a time-honored literary device. Go read some Defoe
or listen to some Gilbert and Sullivan--it's been around a helluva long time.

-- 
 _--_|\    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 talk.politics.misc:70216 talk.politics.theory:5791
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Big Three Begs Big Government (again)
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:29:47 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Just heard on the radio that the Big Three in Detroit are now lobbying
the govt to impose large import taxes on Japanese autos because "the
same cars are priced higher in Japan itself".

Well, perhaps these people need to be reminded of some basic economic
logic.  If you look at ANY economy vs. ANY less developed economy,
the exact same item of goods is more expensive in the more developed economy,
in absolute amount (but usually not as a percentage of income).  Hence yon
can get your car fixed in Mexico after a crash for 1/10 of the cost here,
but to see an AMERICAN movie in Japan it'll cost you $12-15.

This is simply because an economy with more activity will run into more
bottlenecks and competitions for limited resources.  Hence country A
whose people earn X times as much money as country B's people will
not enjoy a higher standard of living by a factor of X, but by a factor
between 1 and X.

As long as the Japanese make a profit in all markets (ie not dumping) and
buyers in each market are willing to pay what they charge, who cares how they
price their cars?  Protectionism is ALWAYS a fallacy and a subsidy of a
random group of people at the expense of the entire society in the long term.

Is this the kind of "change" we get from the Clinton administration?
Perhaps the Big Three do have some brain cells still alive and sense that
they might get away with it this time?

- Karl Wee
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Libertarian support for unions
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:51:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>>> I may add that workers _have_ tried changing such circumstances by forming
>>> labor unions, and I've yet to see Libertarians take unions seriously.

>> Supporting the right of people to form labor unions is part of the party
>> platform.  How much more seriously do you want them to take it?

>Anyone out there seen a Libertarian Party banner on a picket for the
>reinstatement of workers sacked for unionizing?

Being "sacked for unionizing" is very (and properly) illegal in the
US, and I know of no such case.  If I heard of one nearby, I assure
you that I would be the first in line with a picket, just as I picekted
against Oregon's anti-gay initiative, against Marrou's exclusion from
the debates, and against abortion clinic blockades.

So when was the last time you picked up a picket sign?
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776