HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elg@elgamy.jpunix.com (Eric Lee Green)
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:15:10 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,misc.education
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Distribution: world
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <C15IMC.8t3@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, by brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder):
> "resources" can change that.  Your implicit demand that resources be
> "redistributed" away from those who earned it is an excellent example of
> the liberal view that most problems are caused by a lack of "fair
> distribution of reasources" and that "redistribution" from the worthy to
> the unworthy is the cure-all for any problem.  Admit it!  That just
> doesn't work!

My view is that children are children, and that ALL children have earned a
good education -- not just those who were lucky enough to be born to
wealthy parents.

When I was a kid, there was a critical turning point at around 12 years
old. I was very angry at the world. The world wasn't fair. I hadn't done
anything to deserve being poor. Yet the city around me seemed designed to
punish me for being poor -- when I had nothing to do with me being poor. I
did not, after all, choose my parents.

It would have been very very easy to turn to a life of crime at that point.
Luckily, this was before crack cocaine and the drastic decline in central
city conditions that took place during the Reagan/Bush years. Today, I
don't know what choice I'd make. I know what choice some of my students are
making, though. One of my students just joined a gang.

All simple behavioral psychology. Middle-class kids behave (generally)
because there are rewards for good behavior. There is high grades in
school, going to a good college, getting a good job, etc. If a kid doesn't
see any such rewards in his future, he won't behave. He'll find some other
way of getting rewards -- like joining a gang. Simple. All you have to do
is pick up _About Behaviorism_ and read a couple of chapters. Organisms
attempt to maximize the positive rewards in their environment. In my case,
my father was utterly convinced that I was college material. Thus I saw the
path to maximizing positive rewards as being college. If I hadn't had that
implicit faith behind me, I doubt that I would have fought and struggled my
way through those years. I would have probably made the same choice as some
of my students -- join a gang and enter a life of crime. Organisms attempt
to maximize the positive rewards in their environment. If all other routes
are cut off by poor educational system and abuse, they'll choose crime.

You can pay now, or pay later -- by paying for their jail cells.

It costs over $50,000/year to incarcerate a prisoner. The
$4,000-$5,000/year for a good education is a bargain by comparison -- but a
bargain that too many in the suburbs seem to wish to deny to those in the
inner cities. But they sure do enjoy paying for those prisons...

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.jpunix.com   Dodson Elementary
 (713) 664-6446                             Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Come ON, Wild Bill Taxcut!
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:45:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA/JSC

In article <9301270217.AA10968@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu
(Broward L. Horne) writes:
>
>
>	Okay, I'm clear, Bill!!!
>
>	Go ahead and nuke the nation from orbit!
>
>
>
Write your congressman.


*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************
From: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Speaking about: using the bible to advance
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:49:30 GMT
Reply-To: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 19675@wetware.com, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>How come we do not hear as much these days 
>about the Decendents of Ham ( and/or cain )
>and how this clearly PROVES that integration
>is a ToolOfTheDevil[tm] and that the
>races Must NOT be mixed??????
>
Pity, really.  That you couldn't and still apparently
can't see that the BibleTot'nKeep'EmSeperatePreachers
of the day were using the Bible as a political tool.
The Bible can be used as intended or as a political
tool.  Please keep that in mind or at least on one
of you 600meg drives.

>
>Is That another one of those Biblical Truths 
>that has fallen out of Favor again?
>
As stated above it was not/is not a Biblical
truth.  The people of the day simply wanted 
some justification for their continued inhumane
actions.  Some people will twist anything to justify
their actions.  

Really, drieux, after having read your posts for the last
six months on alt.singles I would have thought you
intelleigent enough to have seen the answer to
that one a long time ago. 

Derek
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:28:22 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1k5c4nINNsdk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Hillary is perfectly qualified to head the committee.  The only reason
>there's a fuss is because she happens to be married to Bill.
>

But isn't this considered nepotism?  Perhaps she is qualified, but as you
stated above, the problem is that she's married to the President.

Now, if she went through the same third-degree sessions with the Senate
commitees, I think folks would be a little more receptive.

Simon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20873 alt.politics.elections:25054 talk.politics.misc:69081
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 22 Jan 1993 01:53:09 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) says:

>I occurs to me that there is one thing for which we can all give thanks.
>I for one am glad that this groups collection of chronic bitchers was
>not around in 1776, or there simply would not be a US of A.


     Hmm.  My book says that 1776 was about taxation. 
     Perhaps the "Founding Fathers" ( oops, sorry Shalala ) 
     should have demanded MORE taxation.  


     Like, like, kinda like the American people did in 1992.
      
     Prediction:  Historians will look back on the 90s like we look
     back at the 70s, and lauuugggghhhhhh.


      Personally, I couldn't keep a straight face during the 
      "Ring-In".  I admit it.  I was wrong.  Ringing those bells,
      hugging, and renewed hope really DID feed all the starving
      children in China.


>All talk no action, makes me think of an old political joke.
>
>Part A said "Pick up your tools, climb on your asses, we are going
>to the promised land. Party B said "Throw down your tools, sit on
>your asses, this is the promised land. Maybe President Clinton
>should say "pick up your tools, get off your asses, and we just
>might make this the promised land". :-)
>
>Or maybe I should join the group <begins> Moan, Bitch, Gripe, etc.
>
>>-- 
>>Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
>
>REB
>
>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD:  ORWELL ALERT!R
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 21:00:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.003916.26040@lunatix.uucp> bmiller@lunatix.uucp (Barry Miller) writes:

   Just watched Zoe Baird's defense of herself on McNeil/Lehrer, and
   watched Ellen Goodman's defense of Ms. Baird on the same.  Both
   used, frequently, the term "undocumented worker."

   It appears that only Republicans hire "illegal aliens."
   Democrats hire undocumented workers.

That's the term I would use if my ass were in a sling.

   I also found the Mommy defense ("I acted as a mother, and not as
   a potential Attorney General") to be weak.

family values! :-)

I don't really know what to think on this one.  Her husband was in
charge of the whole operation.  They had searched for months for
someone that would meet their qualifications.  They got the names of
these people from an employment agency.  They sponsored the couple in
their efforts to get a green card.  They sought legal advice
(apparently these laws are very complex) which instructed them that if
they sponsored the couple for the green card it was not policy to
prosecute for this offense.  It was a civil offense.  She apologized
and took full responsibility, only a few times attempting to minimize
it (Orrin Hatch finally had to defend her from Biden).  We all make
mistakes.  The only point I see here (besides the issue of
qualifications) is that this was not some youthful indiscretion, but an
offense recently committed.  And, it was an offense that her office is
in charge of prosecuting.  Biden really pounded her.

--


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


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Silly Question...
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:03:50 GMT

Something I've wanted to ask, but never got around to:

How many "Garretts" are running around the *.politics.* groups????

:-)



--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Money Supply (Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE)
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:56:31 GMT

In article <1jq2fgINNrep@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>In a previous article, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:
>
>>
>>"FIFTY percent"?  Where did you get that factoid?
>>
>>      Money Supply Growth Rates
>>
>>  M2 growth (4Q/4Q)  M3 growth (4Q/4Q)
>>  -----------------  -----------------
>>  1988  5.2%         1988  6.4%
>>  1989  4.8%         1989  3.6%
>>  1990  4.0%         1990  1.7%
>>  1991  2.8%         1991  1.2%
>>   *    1.1%          *   -0.5%
>
>      M1 growth was around 50 percent.  That tells me that, in
>    spite of the "spirit of renewed hope" in the land, there's a 
>    HUGE number of people who are stashing cash.
>
Sorry, but that's not true either.  I've pulled together the period Russ 
covered from the Federal Reserve's H.6 releases (this is the latest one I 
found on the Commerce Department's EBB).  The data are December-to-December.

Year	M1Level	Growth	M2Level	Growth	M3Level	Growth
1987	 750.0		2910.8		3681.1
1988	 786.9	 6.0%	3071.1	 5.4%	3923.1	 6.4%
1989	 794.1	 0.9	3227.3	 5.0	4059.8	 3.4
1990	 826.1	 4.0	3339.0	 3.4	4114.9	 1.3
1991	 898.1	 8.4	3439.0	 3.0	4171.0	 1.4
1992*	1025.6	14.2	3511.2	 2.1	4191.9	 0.5

The 1992 figures are based on growth over the fifty-two weeks since 12/30/
91.  The growth in M1 is nowhere near 50% last year.  The monetary base rose 
from $321065 million in 12/91 to $354588 million in 12/92, adjusted for 
reserve requirement changes.  (Source:  FRB, Release H.3)  That 10% jump is 
fairly large, but the growth in the higher M's indicates that it wasn't out 
of line with the slower growth in M2.

The only figure I could find that might be what Mr. Horne was thinking about 
is the growth in excess reserves (vault cash and banks' deposits at the Fed 
that are in excess of what they are required to hold).  These have rise from
$787 million at the end of 1991 to $1045 million at the end of 1992.  The bi-
weekly figures for the two weeks ending 1/6/93 had reserves at $1437 
million.  I put very little credence in the bi-weekly numbers, since they 
bounce around greatly (the last five numbers for excess reserves were 728, 
1361, 841, 1224, and 1437).  But a noticeable rise has appeared there, which 
in the short-term suggests that the moeny stock will grow some in the next 
few months.  Had ER stayed at the 1991 level, a back-of-the-envelope 
calculation suggests that M2 would have reached the bottom of the target 
band the Fed set in January, 1991, of 2.5-to-5.5%.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
	<1993Jan21.045150.20835@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1993Jan21.155503.21171@news.columbia.edu>
	<1993Jan21.182834.22001@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:17:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.182834.22001@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>  Hey, how about this topic: Rush Limbaugh--Mort Downey Jr. reincarnate?

	He's got better teeth... and he's obviously thankfull for that.

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: History will judge
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:06:54 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <93026.162038MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>know what happened?  Truman fired his ass.  Because, you see, Truman was
>president of the United States of America and the Commander in Chief of
>the military.  And so is Clinton.  

Well Dr. Brown, then why hasn't Bill fired him?  Want a hint?  Because 
Clinton knows General Powell is significantly more popular than he is
and doing so would be political suicide, that's why.

>It is unfortunate, that Powell et al
>are making the same mistake private citizen Bush did in underestimating
>Clinton.  Perhaps Bush would still be president if he hadn't.  But he did.
>Now Clinton will do his best to get consensus on this issue.  And I surely
>hope that he will.  

In case the news hasn't reached you yet, Bill, today, canceled his meeting
with Aspin on the matter and annouced a delay on any action.  Guess what,
no one has underestimated Clinton, if Bush underestimated anyone it was
Perot, it is Clinton himself and his suppporters that have overestimated
the abilities of this country bumpkin President.

How lame can a President be?  How about with his first policy move he can
only muster 30 votes is a Senate his party controls, almost daily his people
toss out another new tax idea and it's attacked instantly by the media and
the public gasps, and this is the guy who's going to end gridlock.  

Face it Clinton supporters, the Joint Chiefs speak out against him because
they have no respect for him and they get away with it, the leaders of his
own party in Congress speak out against him because they have no respect 
for him and know they have a patsy in the White House.  Watch the news
tonight and you will see a team that is out of it's element and in way over
it's head and everyone they will be dealing with for the next four years
knows its and they're exploiting it..

You've elected a lame duck, get used to it.

>the necessity of demonstrating against your country when you believe the
>policies are wrong.  It is one of our basic freedoms and responsibilities.

Let me guess, one of our basic freedoms unless the protesting is being 
done against one of the left's favorite policies, say like abortion.


PSG

-- 
Looking at the condition and politics of the public
school systems and Hollywood in the 90's, it seems in
retrospect that the only mistakes Joseph McCarthy made
were; not uncovering the right people and not finishing the job.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:12:37 GMT

I}
>}Jeeeeez!!!!! Clinton hasn't been president for two hours and you want
>}a plan presented to the hill???? 
>
>
>Why not?  That's what he said:
>Interview on "Good Morning America" June 23, 1992
>"...I'll have the bills ready the day after I'm inaugurated.  I'll send them
to
>Congress and we'll have a hundred-day period..."
>
>Wanna bet on that one?
>
>
>

Boy I bet you fell for the "Read My Lips" promise too!

*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************
From: pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: RE: ZOE BAIRD:  ATTORNEY
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 23:00:54 PST
Organization: The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129

neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
> -> From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)

> Hmmmmm, NO--I DIDN'T!  Score:  Neil 1  Paul 0

Where do you get this scoring stuff?  If you wish to try to score then
we would need a referee which were not biased giving out the points,
you are NOT an unbiased individual, nor dare I say would anyone who
is reading this be in all likelyhood.

> -> Just once I'd like to see a Clinton supporter answer the questions
> -> with out digging up the past, I bet you can't do it.
> 
> Okay.  I'll answer the questions without digging up the past.  Zoe Baird
> had the courage and integrity to apologize in public, admit that she was
> wrong, and she paid the fines.  Now that she has done so, I see no
> reason to be against her confirmation.
> 

By your own standards we shouldn't have held Bush to his "no new
taxes" pledge since he admited in the campaign that he was wrong...
Sorry, I'm not buying that...  if you and the democrats choose to
hold the republicans (you brought up Ed Meese) to some standard then
you should be willing to stand up to the same criteria, and in fact
since your side has claimed to be having a higher ethical standard
they should be of HIGHER standards, as they claim to be.

> Without a hiccup?  I don't think so.  Being scolded by that plageristic
> democratic senator (what's his name)  JOE BIDEN in front of a national
> audience is more than a hiccup.  It's front page news.  (What's that?
> I ragged on a democrat?  Shame!)  :)
> 
> Score:  Neil 3  Paul 0
> 
> 

There went all of your points Neil.  I would say you're in the hole
now, but then I can say anything I want about your 'point' system as
it truly is irrelevent.

--
pete@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)  {SYStem OPerator}
The Missing Link BBS, (805) 925-1129
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:42:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.162630.18361@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan20134251@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>
>>	So, either Clinton promised the impossible (sorta like lying),
>>	or is a fool; take your choice.
>
>
>Right, Nosy, I get it. Everyone's a fool except you.

Certainliy everybody who voted for Clinton on the basis of what he
said on The Issues(TM) was a fool. Of course, its not quite so
depressing a thought when you remember that only a minority of
Americans were such suckers as to actually vote for Slick Willie.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21171 alt.politics.elections:25135 talk.politics.misc:69674
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A small wager for Mulac (was: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE...)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:05:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>But then again, maybe I'm just a gutless blowhard.  {:^)
 
wdh@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins) says:
>There's no maybe about it....

Hey, at least the bandwidth on alt.politics.elections has increased.
That group was down to less than ten posts a week and was in danger
of becoming extinct.  Can it survive to 96 ???

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1380 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,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 05:55:14 GMT

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>> It's important,
>> however, that we recognize that those who hate are the ones
>> who are responsible for their own hatred,

>You know, that makes a lot of sense.  Too bad you and the Robert 
>Johnson's, Jess Anderson's, and Bob Donahue's of the world have 
>such tunnel vision that they can only see this concept from 
>their own point of view.  The nastiness and venomness of typical 
>posts from Tim Pierce and others shows _deep_ hatred.  

Wrong. It shows _deep_, _DEEP_ anger. The anger of the repressed, the
oppressed, the disregarded, the disadvantaged, the disinherited, the
disenfranchised, the dehumanized, the marginalized, the beaten, the
murdered.

In short, the anger of gay people.

-- 
 _--_|\    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.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: tonyd@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis)
Subject: Re: Money Supply (Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE)
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:53:58 GMT

In article <1k25h9INNb4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>In a previous article, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) says:
>
>>
>>     If 5 or 10,000 people have no real answers, yet everyone is 
>>     hopping around, greeting the new age, then yes, indeed, I'm 
>>     not worried about people not listening to me anymore.
>>
>
>   Okay, okay, I take this back.  Ted gave me an insight like 
>   a lightning bolt, I truly am grateful.  Up until Sunday, the 
>    idea of "Escape from the U.S." was just that.  An idea I had
>    been investigating.  There's no doubt in my mind anymore that
>    I'll have to leave now.  "Clinton will save us".  Like putting
>    another puppet in will matter.  And *I* am supposed to be the
>    irrational one. 
>
>    Look deep into my I!
>
as if a government could ever set you free... 
Clinton will not save you... Bush couldn't save you... 
Bi
B
"already you are the monarch of your own skin.">
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>"Duff Beer for me, Duff Beer for you"
>>>	"I'll have a Duff's, you have one, too...."
>>>
>>
>>
>

bonzai,
tonyd 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc