HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun 
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 12:12:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.224133.2217@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.183239.12755@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In <C0GMz8.4AA@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>>>Ha, what a joke.  CMB is in most of the serious papers in the country (maybe
>>>buried in the back, but still there), and all Rush did was have a field day
>>>with all she's accused of.  Besides the trip to South Africa, while her 
>>>campaign workers don't get paid, she took along her boyfriend (who's been
>>                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>accused of sexual harassment), who was being paid $15,000 a month as her
>> *******^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>campaign manager. The last thing she wants to do is call more attention to
>>>her little games, she's a disgrace to the "Year of the Woman", and probably 
>>>one of the least qualified people ever elected to the Senate.

In what way?

>>Key word.

>Absolutely correct! "Accused" the the key word. Clarence Thomas was only
>"accused" of sexual harassment, yet we have been barraged with this
>accusation as if it were FACT for over a year. 

Well, since sexual harassment is not a crime, and was not even
actionable at the time it (allegedly) occurred, that's all we'll EVER
have.  There's no way of proving that he did it, since it can never go
to court.

>What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. String the guy up.

Of course, you might want to note that *unlike* Anita Hill, there have
been NO people to come forward and accuse this guy of sexual harassment.
There have been *rumors* of sexual harassment, but no one has publically
come forward to accuse him.  So, no, he ISN'T accused of sexual harassment.  

Still wondering why the liberal media didn't get Senator Packwood,
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19927 alt.politics.elections:24804 alt.politics.libertarian:3241 talk.politics.misc:66814
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:23:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan8.230455.19116@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

|Economically, China is becoming free market, and the government has privately
|endorsed that policy, so it's likely that with or without Deng, private
|enterprise will continue to grow.  On the human rights front, however, China
|is still quite totalitarian.  Will the free enterprise system eventually
|force political liberalization as well?  The Chinese government thinks that
|if it can continue to raise the standard of living, which it is doing though
|economic liberalization, that the political will to force political reform
|will not exist in the people, that is, the average person will be content
|enough if he or she is materially well off.  But the rights of the individual
|will still be weak to nonexistent.  At least that's what the government has
|in mind.  Are they right?  I don't know, but it is one of the most well
|organized governments on earth.  Still, even the free enterprise system has
|its ups and downs, and a recession will hit at one time or another, and their
|economy will slow down, just like every other country's economy slows down
|now and then.  Then, maybe human rights reform will be able to squeeze in
|and assert itself.

I believe that rising standards of living lead to demands for greater
political freedoms.  If the government gives in to the demands then the
change will be peacefull, otherwise it will be violent.

South Korea and Taiwan are two recent examples.

BTW, the guy I was responding to had said that China (I presume) was
communistic and was likely to remain so.  I was disputing this.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:40:47 GMT

In article <1ihlitINN591@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.152850.26792@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>Well, since you asked, a good private school in my area charges about $4000.
>>A crappy public school gets $7500.  Yeah, yeah, special ed kids, I know. 
>
>No, you don't know.  You can't blame the difference in price or results on
>simply special ed kids: you must place it where it belongs-- on the selection
>process which allows private schools to choose the most economically educable
>students.  Because the teacher's job is so much easier with these students,
>teachers are willing to accept lower salaries, and teachers with less
>experience can still get results.  Unfortunately, this strategem will not
>scale up to deal economically with the rest of the distribution of students.
>
>>It's the idea that people feel that it someone else's duty to provide their
>>kids with a quality education that keeps them down.  Get the parents paying
>>each month and I'll bet you'll start seeing some involved parents out there.
>
>We have the model of all those parents non-involvement with private schools
>already.  Please cite some real figures for parental involvement in private
>and public schools.  Anecdotes and pie-in-the-sky claims like yours are cheap.
>There are some private and public schools with high parental involvement.
>Back your bet with information.

Blah blah, crap.  It is the whole notion that all kids regardless of desire
or parents' acceptance of responsibility are entitled.  I think we need
to have a gov't that guarantees opportunity, not one that forces opportunity
down some poor slobs throat and takes money out of my pocket to do it.

School, even if it remains a public school should be an opportunity.  If you
don't cut it, or you waste your opportunity, too bad.  If I must pay for
your kids to go to school, they at least have to follow some rules to
retain the priviledge.  (IE. kick out kids who bring guns and drugs to school)

So let me turn the table, public schools are a failure because they must
accept the less economically educable students.  How do you make the schools
better?  And let's say you make the schools better, but I'm a fundamentalist 
Christian and I don't like the selection of reading materials or the 
teachings on evolution or even the celebration of Jewish holidays, and
my kids are forced to eat food that has not been blessed by their prayers,
why should I be forced to pay for that school that is against my religion?  
Why can't I at least get my money I paid in taxes to go to a more suitable 
school?

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu's message of 11 Jan 93 15:25:00
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<MATT.93Jan11152500@physics2.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:39:08

In article <MATT.93Jan11152500@physics2.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

> Cheap shots like this are rather predictable, and ultimately aren't
> very interesting.

It's only a cheap shot if Willie doesn't try to have it both
ways.  But he set himself up for this one.  He made it an issue
by using the fact of his daughter's attendance in the public
school system in Arkansas as evidence of his "commitment" to
public education.  That makes his decision to send her to a
private school fair game.  Evidently his "commitment" wavered some
upon being confronted with the state of the public schools in the
nation's capital.  As a parent his decision is unassailable.  But
as a politician, this is one instance where talking out of both
sides of his mouth stuck even to Clinton's slick surface.  I
expect that he will find that President's are held to a stricter
standard than candidates.  There are a lot of people out there
who have a strong interest in remembering just what Willie said
and promised.  He can't make all their dreams come true.

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Pena appointment
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:12:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.064710.6865@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> sscrivan@nyx.cs.du.edu (steve scrivano) writes:

   Bush doesn't believe in
   tax and spend.  

I guess PT Barnum was right.

   Don't believe it when a politician suggests spending as
   a way to correct the economy.  Spending is what put the economy where it is
   today. 

and borrowing and a bunch of other things


--


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,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:38:54 GMT

sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>Really? Nobody's forcing HIM to do a damn thing for Chelsea other than
>make the best judgement as regards her education. All he is being told that
>if he truly wants to be a man of the people, he should give every other
>parent in that situation a chance to make a similar choice for THEIR kids.

Since when have you Republicans become so Socialist? Clinton is sending
his daughter to that private school because he can afford to. This is
independent of the argument as to whether we should undermine the
public school system by allowing people like Clinton to withdraw tax
dollars from it. Do you really not see this?

>I don't recall anyone saying that he should send Chelsea to the DC public
>schools, in fact, quite the opposite. The question being asked of Clinton
>is this: Now that you understand the dilemma faced by many not-so-affluent 
>people living in school districts with lousy school systems, how can you 
>not be for giving such people the opportunity to choose between a good school 
>and a bad school, like you had?  (apologies for the poor sentence structure)

"Now that you understand the dilemma..." Oh please. Like I said, you're
suffering from delusions. Clinton is not coming around to your side, 
whatever that is. He knows full well how to properly support and reform
a public school system, and that doesn't include dismantling it. But
dream on.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: B. Clinton and America's future.
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A771C8A2E8010825@alimac27.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 7 Jan 93 11:46:42 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:45:06 GMT

In article <1iepj6INN6db@travis.csd.harris.com> Pablo Fumero,
taco@baby.csd.harris.com writes:
>I hope that Clinton's wife realizes that SHE WAS NOT ELECTED
TO OFFICE and 
>that Bill remembers the other people that did not vote for for
him are still 
>citizens. 

Just out of curiosity, what would you have Hillary do?  Should
she go back to practicing law in Arkansas or would that be a
glaring conflict of interest?  Should she divorce her husband
because, oops, he got elected Prez?  Should the presidential
boudoir be bugged and all pillow talk be analyzed for Hillary
comments and suggestions?   How, exactly, do you separate a
husband and wife so that the opinions of one never influence
the opinions of the other?  Is this how private citizens
function?  

>Lastly, I hope that he finds the internal fortitude to keep
those
>hordes of special interest groups led by cantankerous and
highly vociferous 
>individuals (and you know who they are) from taking over
policy in the 
>excecutive branch of government.

I'm, for one, am unsure who you mean by special interests.  Are
you referring to groups of citizens or corporations or both?  I
sometimes get lost in what the current PC is so let me know if
you mean special interests as in women, children, people of
color, union members, minimum wage workers and other folks who
dare think that they too have the right to express an opinion
over how their tax money is spent.  Or do you mean special
interests like the S&L's and the defense contractors and the
car companies who think that they are more worthy than the
citizenry to figure out what good government policy is?  Lately
I can't seem to keep the players straight so maybe you can
supply the scorecard for me.

TerriB.

I have a program that generates these opinions for me.  OSF
doesn't know about them.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:22:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C0G2pI.316@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>
>Probably because the average schmoe's child might be a little less likely
>to attract heavily armed lunatics with "Catcher in the Rye" in their back
>pockets.
>

Not even close to probably, try looking at some of the statistics concerning
violence in public schools.  I doubt very highly that Amy or Chelesa run
a greater risk of death or injury than any kid that goes to school with a
decent pair of shoes or lunch money in his or her pocket

If you really believe that this "for her safety" crap is a legitimate arguement 
as to why the Clinotns should reasonably expect to send their kid to a
private school and not catch a ton of flak; it only show how out of touch 
you and the Clintons are with what any parent living in city has to deal 
with when they send their kids off to a public school.

Tell me why the Clintons have the right to expect their child to be free 
from physical harm while at school and I don't?

PSG


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19804 alt.rush-limbaugh:13241 alt.president.clinton:1397
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:58:20 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) states
>In article <1993Jan04.191010.123589@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>>shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) states
>>>Fine.  Name two members of Clinton's cabinet that you find unsuited
>>>for the job.  Then name two Democrats you would find more suitable.
>>>
>>To the victor go the spoils eh? and screw the rest of the nation.
>>how abpout replacing Jack Kemp as head of HUD? I can think of nobody
>>more qualified than Mr. kemp for the job.
>
>Bzzzt!  Thanks for playing, though.  Jack Kemp is not a Democrat.
>
I know that, perhapse i should have made my point more clear.
President-Elect clinton should appoint the most qualified individual,
not the most qualified democrat. 
	But ok for secretary of tresury how about Kathleen Brown?


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:10:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan6.163417.25053@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>
>On the other hand, there are valid reasons for her to be sent to 
>privete school Security, continuity of education should Clinton not be
>reelected, and the experiences of Amy Carter in DC public schools are all
>examples.
>
>Next time you post, think first.
>

I have thought Robert and I can tell you that any experience that poor
Amy endured in public school is pale in comparison to what my kid deal with
in our public school.  Just how often do you think it was a concern of
the Carters that one of Amy's classmates might try to kill her because of 
the label on her tennis shoes.  Hell even if they did try, she had body
guards to stop the bullets for her.

It's time for you to think.  When a man runs a campaign and tells the American
peoplef that only the wealthiest people should be able to expect to give
their children a decent education, he has no right to complain when parents
who are unhappy with the state of the schools they are forced to support, 
are pissed of that he can rub our faces in the situation by sending his kid
not just to a private school but one of the most elite schools in the country.

Must be pretty friggin nice to be able to spend more on your child's elementary
tuition than most people spend on there college tuition, then turn around
and tell the American poor to start getting used to the public system cause
that's all the help we can expect to get from him. *SPIT*

PSG

Clinton/Gore in '96 "putting Clintons first"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Originator: ervan@athene.cs.rice.edu
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:32:06 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.050618.6306@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
|> In article <1ifv8oINNmbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:
|> >As a voluntarist, I think Mulroney and Sapphire, who agrees
|> >with Mulroney, are advocating infrining on my property rights
|> >by telling me what I can and can't intercept using my own
|> >private equipment--(or someone else's authorized for such
|> >use). 
|> >
|> 
|> 	I think it depends on what you consider to be property.  Clearly
|> the air is public property.  Clearly the radio signal... is public.  Is
|> the content of the radio signal public though?  I would think not, that is
|> the whole basis of intelectual property.  Otherwise, would a station lose
|> all rights to a show just because they broadcast it publically?

My first reaction is: what about radar detectors?  I have always thought they
should be legal under the notion that radio signals are public.
Of course, this begs the question of what does 'content' mean in
this context.  How can I not receive the content of something unless
I am wholesale prevented from receiving the signal?  I.e. does it make
any sense to say you can receive a signal but not try to understand
it?

How about this for an analogy: someone carelessly drops a copyrighted
novel on your lawn.  Are you permitted to 'receive' it (i.e. pick
it up) but not to read it?  It seems to me that in this case the copy
of it is yours, but that implies nothing about the rights to the work.
Why not the same with radio waves?  If you receive them (passively)
the instance is yours but that doesn't give you the right to rebroadcast
or otherwise infringe on the copyright.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:12:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.125140.17755@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
}
}In article <C0Gxry.92C@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
}>
}> Yes, Clinton has sent his daughter to a private school. He has done, publicly,
}> what most liberals have been doing privately for some time.
}
}Do "most liberals" send their children to private schools?

Most public schoolteachers' union reps do.  Most politicians do.  Every 20th
century president except for Carter and Roosevelt I has.  Are they liberals?
I'd argue not, but that's out of respect for the classical meaning of the
word, not out of disagreement that these types are welfare-statists.

}It's also time to admit that drug prohibition is fueling the increase in
}violence in inner city schools.

This can't be emphasized enough!

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20080 alt.politics.elections:24863 alt.politics.libertarian:3385 talk.politics.misc:67180
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
X-Xxdate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 09:13:26 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:17:11 GMT

In article <1iitb9INN64f@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> Srinivas Sunder,
sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu writes:
>(joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>|> Oh my... T-minus 13 days and they're already ganging up on what? 
>|> 
>|> A little girl.
>
>Aaaw, gimme a break! It has to be clear to even the dimmest wit that
>the person being ganged up on is the girl's Dad and not her; and with
>regards to what is certainly an important question.

Excuse me Mr. Sunder, the target may be the president-elect, but the
result of the decision does concern Chelsea. The fact is that Repubs
are trying to force Clinton into making a pointless symbolic gesture
at the expense of his daughter. I wouldn't do that to my child...
Would you? The fact is that the DC public education system is
abysmal. Clinton could count on the Arkansas system because he
himself devoted himself to its improvement. I guess your definition
of dim wit differs from everybody else's definition....

>
>|> I sincerely hope some decent 12-step programs are set up for
recovering
>|> Republicans and fellow travelers. They need help.
>
>If this is any example, Democrats' wits still haven't recovered.

recovered from what....Reaganomics?

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,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian