HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:33:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.013206.23295@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	If you will find for me _any_ part of the Bible which commands
>an _egalitarian_ marriage (not one with supposedly complementary
>roles), I will concede that also. By egalitarian I mean something
>comparable to friendships, especially between those of similar social
>positions.
>
I'm paraphrasing, but I believe this comes from Genesis.

God created woman from Adam's rib so she could stand beside him.  She was not
created from his head to stand over him, or from his heel to be below him.  

I always hear this passage at wedding ceremonies.
  
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Read the Democratic party platform, then       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  the 1933 Nazi Germany platform.  Now note 
This University is too Commie-	|  the similarities.
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and a Security Clearance
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:55:20 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1d92jbINN9s9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bg086@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brad C. Wallet) writes:
>
>I think the ironic part of the whole election is that given Gov. Clinton's
>past record, he would not ordinarily be able to get a security clearance....

[incoherence deleted]

>Are the security checks too tight?  Well, to make it so that he would have
>been, they would have to eliminate almost all the requirements.  If anyone
>cares to dispute this, I can state direct references to the laws....

Okay, I dispute this.  Cite some laws.  Make sure they're Federal laws, not
the laws of the Brad C. Wallet Household.  Cite some evidence (with sources)
that shows that according to the Federal laws you cite, Clinton couldn't
get a security clearance.  Make sure this evidence is real stuff, not some-
thing manufactured by the Republican national campaign to slander Clinton,
like Dornan's ravings.  Go for it!  You claim you can prove your allegation,
now do it!


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Science, as actually practiced, is a complex dialogue between data and   |
| preconceptions."				- Steven Jay Gould	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: Will the Clinton Administration be on Internet?
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:58:27 GMT

In <1992Nov04.220123.102771@zeus.calpoly.edu>
dfield@zeus.calpoly.edu (InfoSpunj (Dan Field)) writes:

>Such a fast forum as the net is, I would hope that the Clinton
>Administration will be available on the internet.  At the very least
>there should be an e-mail address.  Ideally they should make available
>via ftp files like press releases and transcripts of press conferences.
>Active participation in open forum discussion/Q&A dialog would be
>heaven!

>Have they expressed any intent in this regard?

Have they expressed any intent other than that they wanted our vote?
Of course not.  If you want something from your government, you have
to make sure somebody goes up there and demands it.  Let's join up and
do it.

Seriously, I don't want the "Clinton Administration" on the network.
No presidential staff I can remember was answerable to or directly
connected to the people's interests.  However, you have elected folks
from your district and state who ARE supposed to represent YOU.

I would like to propose to the UWSA organization that they push Congress
to obtain an e-mail address on the internet for each congressional district
(e.g. ca_district_51) and one for each senator (e.g. ca_feinstein).  One
problem with this is that it is so easy to flood such a valuable channel
with junk mail, but I think the risk is worth the intelligent exchanges
that COULD occur.

A more important part of this proposal, however, would be to dedicate a
small network of minicomputers (HP9K's, SPARC-10's, RS6K's, SGI's, etc.)
to running a bulletin board which would have scads of dial-in lines (V.32bis
or V.fast and perhaps ISDN) that would allow the kind of people who dial
into Prodigy to use their home computer to call Washington D.C. and exchange
mail with their representatives and chat with other concerned citizens
(forming special interest groups that could rival the power of today's PACs).

The key to making this work is to make this call cost money, but not a
lot of money (maybe the same cost as a postage stamp for a letter).
This could be easily accomplished via 900 numbers with a flat per-call
rate accompanied by a maximum connect time per day of perhaps three hours.
In this way, every "letter" received is counted as valuable because it
cost the taxpayer money to make that call.

Finally, I'd like to see weekly "diaries" from the representative's view
of what happened in D.C. this week.  This should be posted to a USENET
newsgroup like dc_happenings and available on the above-mentioned BBS.
A possible variant on this would be to have DAILY reports, but only two
of the 600-odd critters would provide the report each day (one from the
senate, and one from the house); the duty would rotate daily.

If this proves to help solve the problem for national representation, it
might be worth investing some money at the state level.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:55:08 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov7.000243.6872@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	And consider the Nazi views on women and gays -- a lot in
> common with the Religious Right: women's task in life should be
> _Kinder, Ku"che, Kirche_ (children, kitchen, church; and that includes
> _no_ political activism of _any_ kind, now matter how Politically
> Correct [Phyllis Schlafly and Marilyn Quayle should just shut up]),
> while gay people should be exterminated.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Who, in the so-called "Religious Right," advocates that gays
should be exterminated?  (Also, is your use of "exterminated"
intended to have the same meaning as "insects being 'exterminated'"
and "fetuses being 'exterminated,'" or was it meant to be a metaphor?)

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16793 talk.politics.misc:59498 talk.politics.drugs:7433
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:51:15 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Nov5.221627.24180@dbsun.uucp> harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:
>
>Ask yourself why you abstain from using drugs.  Is it because they are
>illegal, or because you know it is harmful to your mind and body?  I
>abstain because, thanks to education, I am aware of the harmful side

The only times I ever got drunk were before and just after I was old
enough to drink legally.  After that alcohol lost its appeal.  So far 
the thrill factor has not been sufficient to induce me to try any 
recreational drugs since marijuana in the 60s (pleasant enough if you
didn't have to smoke the stuff), but illegality is certainly an attraction.

All boring things are legal.  Some legal things are not boring, but that
can be changed.

Recreational drugs should be legal and taxed sufficiently to pay for all
costs incidental to their use.  Employers should be able to fire users.  
Anyone who endangers anyone else as a result of using any recreational
drug should be subject to unpleasant treatment designed to cure any
physical or psychological craving for it.  Anyone who actually harms 
someone should by prosecuted for that also.  Anyone who knowingly sells
or purchases a drug without paying all taxes due should feel the full
fury of the IRS.   Those people who cannot prevent themselves from
becoming addicted to something and will admit it should get 
support to control their needs, subsidized by drug taxes.  Alcohol
and nicotine are recreational drugs.  (Employers right to fire or
reguse to hire should be more limited for alcohol, nicotine, or
marijuana in moderation.).  Stop Prohibition.

	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	"Innocence is irrelevant."
		Select two:	The Borg
				US Judicial System
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:06:30 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Mark Wilson writes:
>
>Somebody posted, that based on exit polls of Perot supporters who were
>asked their second choices, Clinton would have gotten 51% of the popular
>vote had not Perot been in the race.
>
>51% is no mandate, Bush had 53% against Dukakis.  I have seen no breakdown
>of how the electoral college might have gone if Perot had stayed out.
>I suspect it would not have changed much.  If anything Bush might have
>gained, given that Clinton's projected lead shrank from 5 points to 
>2 or 3 points.

Follow-up polling indicates that Perot had scant effect on the election:
Bush would have carried Ohio and Clinton would have had a slight majority
win. As someone pointed out: Clinton won 100% of the White House.

I don't know what people think of as a mandate, because unlike some
people I didn't find a whole lot of difference -- regarding the economy --
between Bush and Clinton and a parsimonious groat's worth of difference
(the number of soldiers in Europe) in foreign affairs. The biggest
difference was in the call to revamp our health system which everyone
seems to agree could use a good revamping. Few people like spending
2 times as much as the rest of the world on health care and yet
having a mortality rate lower than Costa Rica. So, people for whom
party labels mean something can fume and holler, but Clinton will
try to get his capital gains tax cut and enterprise zones through
congress and there will be those who will claim that it will make
tons of difference to the economy because they are Democratic
tax cuts and enterprise zones instead of Republican tax cuts and
enterprise zones. Personally, I think sociological factors and
foreign affairs would have swamped* the ship of state no matter who
was at the helm. 

*future pluperfect subjunctive?
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:56:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.050718.27299@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>This isn't the case at all: A tax based on consumption _without_ deductions
>>for the cost of living is regressive. The proposals being discused here,
>>as I understand them, all include deductions and tax only consumption
>>_beyond_ living expenses.

>  Get another clue, Frank!  Jeez, this guy is filled with MORE misinformation
>  than Pravda ever was :-)...
>  is total utter rubbish) and now you are
>  ...spouting something about having  
>  consumption taxes that have deductions!!!! Consumption taxes are almost
>  always levied as sales, use or value-added taxes.

Perhaps you haven't been reading all the posts on this topic (and perhaps
you should, before you make remarks about misinformation.) The proposal
posted was to tax all income which was not invested by the end of the
year. That sounds to me like the current income tax system with
all investments counting as deductions. Certainly there is room in
such a system for cost of living deductions.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder
From: lgc1@brand.uchicago.edu (lawrence gordon charap)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:24:05 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <BxDGCM.D62@ais.org> hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
> Who Joe Q. Anonymous sleeps with is no concern of anyone.  Who the
> President of the United States sleeps with... well, I think it might
> be of concern to any parent whose child wants to be President someday.
> Does the term "role model" mean anything anymore?  I guess not.

"Anymore"...hmmm... Grover Cleveland (President 1884-1888, 1892-1896) had  
a child out of wedlock in an affair that was highly publicized. And he was  
still elected (in the Victorian Age, nonetheless!). Politicians from  
Jefferson to JFK did this sort of thing. And the Republic still stands.  
"Role models" don't mean much now -- and never really have. IMHO.

To my mind anyway, Clinton's efforts at escaping his poor background to be  
elected to the highest office in the country makes him a much more  
effective "role model" than the legions of politicians born into wealth.  
Not to overdo the Horatio Alger junk (which the Democrats did in the  
convention), but "role models" come in many different forms. Clinton's  
comment that he could have just ended his marriage and no one would have  
asked any questions is also true. The issue is entirely irrelevant- again,  
IMHO.

Lawrence Charap
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16997 or.politics:601
From: labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,or.politics
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:37:46 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation

Rob Gordon <rgordon@convex.COM> writes:

>In article <BxIGM4.1p3@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>:rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>:

>Why not? Let's totally take away people's freedom.  Let's see: we need
>smaller gov't so we have to pay less taxes, but we are going to have
>a gov't that "controls" how many children a family can have. I suppose
>this is ok as long as it is only the blacks and hispanics whose
>family sizes are governmentally contolled.

	If I subsidize YOUR family because you can't seem to support it,
	it is *MY* freedom that is lost to control my own affairs.

	The point is - people don't like to see kids in poverty or abused
	because of the failing of their parents. So we end up helping them.
	What would you suggest???

		1) No more help.
		2) Get a handle on population.

			George
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16632 alt.politics.democrats.d:408 alt.politics.elections:23299 ba.politics:6940 co.politics:1731 ne.politics:2842 nj.politics:625 or.politics:536 ny.politics:148 talk.politics.misc:59267
From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Inheritance taxes
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:30:37 GMT
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY

In article <1992Nov6.012419.13792@tvnews.tv.tek.com> stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:
>Another favorite is choosing your official place of residence.  When
>Aristotle Onasis died, Jacqueline Kennedy Onasis inherited some millions
>of dollars.  Since Greece has an inheritance tax (but no estate tax),
>and the United States has an estate tax, but no inheritance tax, she
>paid no taxes at all on the money she inherited.

Oh I see.  This is like George Bush claiming a hotel in Houston, Texas
as his home since Texas does not have an income tax while maintaining
a "second home" in Kennebunkport, Maine?

-- 
scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
scott@asd.com			|
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16410 talk.politics.misc:58878
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:03:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov7.130943.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.155723.20264@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>> In article <sulkanen.720974900@xanth> sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>>>cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>>>>In article <sulkanen.720886922@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:

>>>>Good.  I've been looking forward to Hillary Clinton as First Lady for
>>>>several months.  Bar and Nancy always had their say; at least Hillary
>>>>has a first-rate mind.

>>>It is specious logic to infer this from an Ivy-league law degree.

>> Who's inferring? I've listened to Hillary and have been impressed
>> by what she had to say, and the way she said it.

>     It's interesting that *after* the "I'm not just some woman standing 
>by her man," the "I guess I could stay home and bake cookies," and the 
>"George Bush has been unfaithful to his wife also" quotes, Ms. Clinton's
>*public* role in the campaign was relegated to dotingly looking-on while 
>Gov. Clinton gave his speeches.  (There were some exceptions, of course, 
>like when she gave Anita Hill an award.)
                                      
Why is it interesting?  Whenever someone associated with a campaign
starts saying things that are perceived to be too controversial, their
roles are always toned down.

Mary Matalin was a lot quieter after her infamous attack-fax about bimbos.

Anyway, I don't think your statement is all that accurate.  Hillary went
around the country giving *lots* of speeches independently of Bill -- it
was just that she was coached by the campaign to be less controversial,
so she didn't say much that was noteworthy, so she didn't get as much press.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:58:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.183044.13115@netcom.com> dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk) writes:
>vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>
>>Conservative dorks, if you don't like way the system works, GET THE HELL
>>OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! Remember? America, love it or leave.
>
>>For twelve years I had to put up with Republiclan bullshit being shoved
>>down my throat, and now you lost. So shut the fuck up and put up just like
>>I had to do for twelve yours. Your icons ruined our economy. Thanks alot
>>assholes.
>
>>If you don't like it, LEAVE THE COUNTRY, WE DON'T NEED YOU NOW, OK????
>
>>Jeez...
>
>>-Garrett
>
>Gee, a very intelligent argument.  Shows us how tolerant some of the non-
>conservative dorks are!
>
>Give unity and cooperation a chanc.

When I see postings like Garrett's, it makes me wonder sometimes if I
did the right thing in making peace overtures to the other users.  I mean,
my candidate (Bush) lost, but I refuse to be a sore loser about it.  I may
not agree with Clinton but at least I will give him a chance.  What irks
me is not that Clinton won, but that a very small faction are being "sore
winners" about the election.  Some of us would like to see non-partisan
flame free discussions--I hope Garrett's postings won't ruin that.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and a Security Clearance
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:45:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1d92jbINN9s9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bg086@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brad C. Wallet) writes:
>
>I think the ironic part of the whole election is that given Gov.
>Clinton's past record, he would not ordinarily be able to get a
>security clearance. 


The scary thing is that one cannot visit communist countries while
possessing a secret clearance. I guess Bush really broke the law
here.
Pim





-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:59:16 GMT

In article <22350@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.062015.20641@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>} The point isn't how much is spent on protecting the
>} rich vs. protecting the poor -- the point is how much each side benefits.

>} If the police stop enforcing theft laws tomorrow, who does it hurt more 
>} -- the person who doesn't own anything, or the person with a lot of 
>} possessions?

>I don't know of anybody who doesn't own anything -- they at least own
>their own bodies.  Besides it seems to me that if someone had only $10
>to their name, but someone stole it, they would feel considerable hurt.

Well, yes, they own their bodies, but that isn't what's typically
stolen.  Material possessions are -- they're easier to fence.

Really?  It's easy for them to get another $10.  It's a lot harder for
Donald Trump to get another $10 million.

>} The rich have more to lose than the poor, and thus law enforcement helps
>} them more.

>Let's assume that is true.  If someone should pay law enforcement based
>on the amount that can be stolen, don't you think jail time should also
>be based on the amount that is stolen?  Otherwise, people would end up
>paying more for an enforcement that doesn't give them this added benefit
>that you claim they receive.

Um, don't we already do this?  Does a shoplifter receive a greater or
lesser sentence than an embezzler?  

Sure, why not?  We usually punish people depending on the severity of
the crime.  I don't have a problem with that.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15847 alt.politics.democrats.d:304 alt.politics.elections:22661 ba.politics:6749 co.politics:1591 ne.politics:2705 nj.politics:529 or.politics:426 ny.politics:56 talk.politics.misc:58223