HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Mon, 14 Dec 92 14:59:36 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:03:11 GMT

In article <646@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu 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."

Paul, Paul, Paul....

I submit Paul, using the same logic you used in a previous posting,
that you are to far to the right to be able to comprehend the difference
between a liberal and a moderate. You certainly don't know enough about
the people you accuse to make the labels stick.

>What you got was a charade that allowed the 
>overwhelming number of voters to oppose the man that will be President,

Oh, you mean Ross and Bill cooked up a three-way race in order to
eliminate
Bush? Please, spare us. You, or I will never know if Clinton would have
received
50% + without Perot in the race. The word "overwhelming" used above proves
to me that you must be part of the radical right fringe.

>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.

Bentsen is known as a fiscal conservative in the senate. You should read
his
voting record before you embarass yourself further. In actuality,
Clinton's
nonpartisan approach to obtaining information and opinions on the economy
has been quite refreshing. He has even hired some people who do not agree
with some aspects of his economic plan. A sign that he is intelligent
enough
to realize he can't know everything
and flexible enough to adjust to the dynamic landscape of the national
economy.

>What you got is an America that was duped and I doubt they will soon
forget.

You may feel "duped", but many of us are quite encouraged. I am more
encouraged than I thought I would be for the reasons stated above. I
would think that Clinton's shift of emphasis toward deficit reduction
would please you. Frankly, I think the original emphasis was better, but
I still like the way he is approaching the problem.

>
>He promised my views would be represented in his cabinet but I don't see
one
>person even remotely the views of the 6 out of 10 of us that voted
against
>him.  He lied to us all!

Again, Bentsen is a proven fiscal conservative. It is a matter of public
record. It would serve you better to learn the facts before you spout
off with this typical "anyone who opposes the Republican candidate,
must be a "liberal (communist, criminal, pervert, un-American)"
nonsense.

Clinton won fair and square. Get a life, get a clue, take a vallium, take
a laxative....

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: re: Paul Galvanek claims.
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:30:35 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:34:10 GMT

In article <753@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Here's the real deal.  In life, most people don't give a rats ass about
>studies, statistics, or the research findings that universities churn out
>with their tax dollars.  Rarely if ever, do people form opinions about 
>such things as whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children,
>based on what the result of some research done by god knows who.

And maybe that is why we wind up electing idiots like Reagan to
two terms, and still can't get people to protect themselves with condoms,
and still can't get some people to accept people of different races and
religions, and still can't get people to stop polluting,.... 

>In such matters I expect that personal experience, and bias carry a
>whole heck of alot more weight than any study we could find and I suspect
>that the reason is pretty simple.   Studies like these never say: NO
>risk what so ever, never ever.  They say things like: no significant risk
>or inconclusive as to the amount of risk to the child.

And any study of a complex phenomenon that made a definitive statement
like that would be fallacious for reasons I have stated in another post
(I explained to you the nature of statistical analysis of complex
systems).
Furthermore, any conclusion about such a phenomenon based on one
"personal experience" is even MORE fallacious.

>Most people I 
>know aren't willing to count even one child's life as an acceptable cost 
>to satisfy the agenda of any politcal group.

Then most people you know are incredibly naive about the nature
of the real world. We are not talking about isolated identical systems
here. The life of each child is affected by many factors and isolation
of a cause and effect can only be done using statistical methods and
an analysis of systematic errors. Again, this methodology has proven
itself over 200 years of use. I doubt your "isolated personal experience"
method has near the success record.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:40:27 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <596@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>     
>Pathetic fools like you may see diversity in selecting the proper balance
>of politically correct skin tones and genitals but the truth is that to
>date ALL of Bill's appointments reflect one view point, one ideology and
>one very far left political philosophy, regardless of the the genetic 
>make up of the people appointed.  Not so much as an honest days work amongst
>that collection of ivory tower academics and career politicians. 

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.




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

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:10:00 GMT
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591

-> What do you bet that when President-elect Clinton gets through with
-> making his Cabinet "look like America," there will be
-> African-Americans and Hispanics, but no Asian-Americans in it?

If that turns out to be the case, I am sure it has nothing to do with
racism.  Hell, there's lots of people that he won't have, but it has
nothing to do with racism.  Bill's cabinet will be the most diverse
cabinet ever, and it's good to see.
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:23:50 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <Bz9IKI.FJL@chinet.chi.il.us>, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
 
> -- 
> The Presidential Towers complex here   | Dan Hartung               |  Ask me
> in Chicago is bounded by four streets: | dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us |  about
> Jefferson, Adams, Monroe  .....        | Birch Grove Software      | Rotaract!
>         and Clinton!



That's really weird! When was the street named Clinton?

-Garrett

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Stupid Clinton Advisor...
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:17:12 GMT

In article <athos-071292090849@kip2-34.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>One of Clinton's brilliant Harvard Economist advisors is pushing for the
>mortgage deduction to be capped at somewhere around $200,000.  While that
>may be fine and dandy out in Nebraska, here in the Bay Area of California,
>$200,000 is a LOW price for a house.
>
>Watch your wallets, folks...
>

I mentioned this on alt.president.clinton, where somewhat of a thread
is/was developed around it.  I think what you are referring to is that
the estate-tax exemption, now at $600k, will be reduced to $200k, so,
as you stated, many people in the middle class, who thought Bill the
Class-warfare Promoter wasn't going to raise their taxes, will be
paying for the welfare state the President-elect has outlined.  The
item is buried in bills submitted by Dick Gephardt and George Mitchell.

Pardon me while I move my money into tax-free bonds...



David
dnm9@columbia.edu
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:01:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Bz8Kr3.95v@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

>The American people voted for a not so closet liberal with Socialist leanings
>and they are gtting what they asked for. 

You better check those vote totals again friend...

Only a truly dillusional person could believe that only 4 out fo 10 voters
represents the totality of American opinion.  The man's starting in a hole
and has twenty million voters to sway before he can even claim to have broken
even.  Quit kidding yourself already..

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,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Re: Those "nutty" Polls
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:12:14 GMT

dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:

>That so many contradicting polls and statistics exist makes your
>assertion of their accuracy rather bold.

Not one poll--not ONE--showed Bush ahead of Clinton the entire year. Sheer
chance? Give me a break.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:46:07 EST
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: re: Is Clinton a racist?

Was this question asked because he appointed Ron Brown Secretary
of Commerce?  It's nice that Ron is African American, but that does
not negate the fact that he is one totally competent professional.
I realize that Clinton is brilliant, and ran a brilliant campaign, thus
winning the election on ideas.  But Ron took a divided bickering party
and laid the ground work for them coming together to support our candidate.
He did a great job.  All you have to do is compare the tones of the
Democratic convention with that of the Republican convention.  Brown
had the lead in that.  He helped form bridges between Jackson and Clinton.
He helped Clinton form a power base with other black leaders, namely
Mike Espy (go Mike go!) so that Jackson couldn't hold the convention
hostage as he has done before.  I think Brown has more than proven
himself.   Another African American being considered for a cabinet
post is Colin Powell.  Do you think he would get it, just cuz he's
black?  Think again.
   On the other hand, look at Bush's track record.  What were Clarence
Thomas's qualifications?  How did his peers rate his qualifications
for the job...I think it was something like adequate...not exactly
a ringing endorsement from the American Bar Association.  But he is
black.  Oh, yeah, he was head of the EOC (EEOC?), yet he apparently
dabbled in sexual harassment, a crime the EOC is supposed to stop.
     Melissa (no relation to Ron Brown, but would be proud to be
     friend of friends of Mike Espy's)  Brown
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18772 alt.president.clinton:1130 alt.politics.bush:14628 sci.econ:9431 talk.politics.misc:64545
From: aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:31:45 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology

In article <Bz8nxs.9H8@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.135511.21767@njitgw.njit.edu>, aaron@funcity.njit.edu
>(Aaron Watters) writes:
>
>|>In article <randall.723869842@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
>|>writes:
>|>The highway system in England was largely private
>|>in the 1800's -- a system that worked reasonably well, I think,
>|>since England had probably the best road systems in the world...
>
>Utter balls, the turnpikes were not private industry operating without
>government interference they were local monopolies on transportation, bitterly
>loathed by the peasant polpulation that the turnpike owners exploited. Ever
>heard of the turnpike riots?...
[Diatribe about the new right deleted. Please don't call me new right.]

I'm not saying they had a perfect system -- but I believe they
did have one of the best road systems, at least for coach travel
(the chances of getting where you were going on time [or
even just alive] were much better in England, than, say, Italy).
Certainly private roads should be regulated, especially if they
are monopolies.  But privately run roads will be much more efficient
and rational than state-run, pork driven freebees, just as the
US phone system is infinitely better than the Italian phone system.
[Why is it that the cheapest way to call from France to Spain
is via US trans-atlantic cables?]

I'm sure peasants will complain, too, since it will be tough to
pay for something that was previously free.  (Recent example:
the peasants hollered when NJ tried to raise the Parkway rates,
which should have happened but was nixed.)  But more of the
peasants should take rail and busses, and after they stop
complaining, maybe they will.		-a.
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:10:42 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec15.170343.2297@cs.wisc.edu> michaell@snake15.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee) writes:
>
>I'm amazed.  The UW-Madison is a "little school"?   That's so absurd I won't
>even answer it.  If this is a little school, how many people go to a big one?

I thought that my post of Ross's comment made my "little school" jab clear
my fault...

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

The bottom line is that running any university is no accomplishment of epic
proportion in my opinion.  And doing so brings nothing in the way of 
experience to the task of running a department the size and scope of DHHS.

Yes, so UW-Madison is X largest school, so what?  Stack the largest of them
up against a Fortune 500 company and it's still a little bit of nothing in
terms of real world employement and administrative problems.

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: Paul Galvanek claims...
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:05:18 GMT

In article <837@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:


   In article <92350.192400MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
   >Paul, I cannot argue with you anymore.

   You're right we can't.  Though mainly because I've not once stated any
   of the things you claim I have.  Exactly where did I say you got your 
   job through Affirmative Action?  You want to continue making things up
   that I supposedly said fine be my guest...

   My final word to is; I truly hope that you're doing this on puropose
   just for the sake of being combative.  Because if you're not, and
   this is an indication of the quality of instructors at Penn State...

   <shiver>

   PSG 


Well, Paul, you can just shiver away because I can't imagine her
caring what you thought.  You can continue to change the subject
every time someone refutes you or only respond to the parts
of a post you think you can argue.  I think the point she was making
is that you are not worth arguing with.  Your thoughts appear
to have little continuity and you ignore most rational arguments
rather than try to explore possibilities and possibly expand
your horizons.  I am embarrassed I took the time to even write
this because I'm sure you will be so defensive about it that
you won't take anything constructive from it.  Either that
or you aren't intellectually capable of grasping this thought.
I don't think the latter is the the case, but I have been
known to be wrong.
--


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
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Paul Galvanek claims....
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:09:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <92350.141109MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>   Basing policy on one or two people's gut impressions, bigoted opinions
>is very costly for this society.

Is it?  Honestly I don't understand why you're reading all this 
stuff into what I've written.  I have said only that the idea put forth
by another poster, that what ever kids are taught is normal is what 
they'll think is normal when they grow up.  My personal experience 
(which is really my observations of my wife's experieince) is ample 
proof of my assertion.  

Specificly now, the poster said that if you teach kids that same gender
parenting and relationships are normal, that that is what they'll 
believe.  Her and her sister's experience flat out refute that assertion.
They were taught it as kids, they lived it as kids and they utterly 
reject the idea that same gender parenting is normal.  It's really
just that simple.

That also doesn't automatically mean the  
opposite is true ( that all kids raised in these enviroments and taught
that philosophy will reject it) and even to the degree that it is true
it doesn't follow that it's a good thing.  

Kids are raised in households were the mothers are beaten regularly and
some of those kids will grow up thinking it's "noraml".  Is that okay
to?  If you expose kids to just about anything at an early enough age
a certain percentage of them will grow up thinking it's "normal" does
that make it right?  Because that's exactly the arguement behind program
like Children of the Rainbow. 

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!
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Republicans looking for jobs
Date: 18 Dec 1992 15:30:01 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: johnd.tamu.edu

In article 2b300373@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu () writes:
>
>Nothing makes me more happy than to see Extremist Right Wing Republicans
>looking through the want ads. It is such a pleasing thought.
>
>I also love to see Republicans in the welfare line.
>
>Get a job.
>
>

Sorry your basic assumption is false.  Republicans are never in the welfare
lines and always have jobs.

fred





Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Shalala's qualifications as Health & Human Svcs Secretary
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:01:20 GMT

Mr. Galvanek has questioned Donna Shalala's qualifications
as Secretary of Health and Human Services.  He made several
false statements about her record, as I have shown in a previous
posting.

Since Mr. Galvanek feels so strongly that Ms. Shalala is 
unqualified, I challenge him as follows:

1.  Name the previous two secretaries of Health and Human
Services, and give a two-line description of their qualifications.

2.  Name two Democrats you feel would have been better
appointees to this post.  Give a two-line description
of their qualifications.

We're all waiting breathlessly.

Jeff Shallit
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:26:45 GMT

Hey, Bob--you're a fool!

First Mssr. Novak predicted that Clinton was out even before
the NH primary. Then he predicted that Clinton was out after
losing the NH primary. Then, throughout the campaign, he
made repeated predictions that Clinton was not a contender--
even, mysteriously, right after the Democratic Convention,
when Perot dropped out and the stats were Clinton 55% to Bush's
35% (a number that Bush, by the way, only raised 2.5 points
throughout the rest of his "campaign"). Finally, on the eve
of the election, Novak grudgingly predicted during a round-table
discussion with other pundits that Clinton would
"eke out" a victory by no more than 30 electoral votes, a number
that was only 170 votes short of the truth (an error of 700%);
for comparison, the smallest margin any other pundit predicted
during this discussion was 150 votes.

In short, Bob Novak is incompetent. Unfortunately, unlike
incompetent presidents, there doesn't seem to be anything we can
do about incompetent pundits except ignore them, which is what
I've started to do and urge everyone else to do as well. Maybe
the folks at CNN will finally wise up and get somebody in there
to replace him that has at least a marginal grip on reality.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc