HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:34:03 GMT

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
>>nothing to do with racism.  Bill's cabinet will be the most diverse
>>cabinet ever, and it's good to see.
>
>Sorry, but Bill's major appointments are nearly done and he's failed 
>to put together anything that even modestly resembels "America".  Unless
>of course you actually believe that the majority of Americans that self
>identify as conservative are really closet liberals who favor socialism

Riiiiiiight.  Start out nice and polite, doncha?
     
>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. 

My god!  A president who picks people who share his ideology!  What
will happen next?  The end is nigh!

>Like John Mclaughlin is heard to have said after Clinton aides expressed
>"shock" over the public reaction to Bill's gays in the military comments;
>Bill Clinton is the first President in American history whose term can
>be called a failure, even before he takes office. 

Only a fool would judge how a man can walk before he takes a single step.

-- 
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!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Dec15.170343.2297@cs.wisc.edu> <758@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:52:40 GMT

In article <758@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

[...]

   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.

[...]

stop, stop while you're behind
on second thought, I'm getting some good belly laughs
--


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.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Double standard
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:02:53 GMT

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
> In article <BzJBwB.GAr@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>>(Respected != though of highly);  I can respect someone's wishes, or
>>opinions, or even their rights without thinking highly of them,
>>and without even knowing them.  At least in my understanding...
> 
> Look at it this way, how is the Senate Democratic (?) leadership going to
> try and tear apart, burn, or even mildly disagree with the guy they were
> trying to get elected Vice President just four years ago.  If they all 
> thought he was the best thing since iced tea then, they can't hardly disagree
> with him now (on the other hand - those ARE Democrats!)
> 

Oh, I agree with you whole-heartedly on the subject, especially when
you cite "the other hand..."  I guess my posting was more a matter of
semantics, rather than political siding.  Concerning the issue at hand,
I'd have to say that the Democratic leadership of the Senate felt that
as vice-president, Benson wasn't likely to be a threat to them in
any way -- perhaps it would have been a good place for them to stick
him and get him out of the way.  Just a possibility...

Jim

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.bush
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:46:30 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>=In a previous article, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu () says:
>=|Discrimination against homosexuals in the military is
>=|groundless.  Among NATO forces, only the US and Britain ban gay soldiers.
>=|Canada ended its ban on October 27.  In the Netherlands, there is no
>=|discrimination against homosexuals.  Germany has no anti-homosexual
>=|legislation.  Spain does not discriminate.  Italy ended its ban in 1985.
>=
>=Why in the world would the United States military want to model itself
>=after the Spanish military?  That's like asking Ford to mimic the Yugo!

>Added point: it's well and good that our friends allow homosexuals in
>their military. I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are no bans on
>homosexuals in the military "machines" of China, Iraq (before or after
>the Gulf Conflict), or the former Soviet Union (or current Commonwealth
>on Independent States), etc., etc. Are our "enemies" also equally so
>blind as our "friends?"

    That's a tough call, however I would note that military shortcomings 
were not responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union; the presense 
of homosexuals in the Iraqi army may have had some small influence on the 
outcome of the Gulf War, but I doubt it. Therefore I would say that whether 
the above-mentioned nations allowed homosexuals in their armies is 
irrelevent if your goal is to make the point that homosexuals hamper 
military effectiveness. To make that point I'd say that you would have to 
sift through your military history till you find an instance in which 
failure has been attributed to the presense of homosexuals on the losing 
side. I'm not aware of any such case in the past 2500 years, but I'd be 
interested to hear what you find.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:23:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
[Mysterious poster]
->>I just want to be sure about this: wasn't Ronald Reagan voted in with a
->>majority of the popular vote back in 1980 when there were three viable
->>candidates (Reagan, Carter, Anderson)? I bet you don't want to remember
->>this bit of history either.

[Mysterious response to poster]
->About 50.1% of the popular vote, I recall.  Carter got a little over
->40%.
-
-And didn't Ronny then go running around talking about a mandate?  What's
-good for you is fair game for us, too.

Sure, if you're consistent. If you can get a mandate in a three-person
race with 43% -- or better yet, a "LANDSLIDE" to quote USA Today -- then
what the heck would you describe Reagan's victory in 1980? Some
accident? [I mean seriously... :)]
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	Vacation period (off-line): December 18 to January 11.
	Take care of the network when I'm gone.
FOUR MORE MONTHS!!! FOUR MORE CLASSES!!! FOUR MORE ACCEPTANCE LETTERS!!! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: buckmr@vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Latest Clinton picks
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:04:55 GMT

n3884@cray.com (Pete Palmer) writes:


>---
>Treasury  -- Sen Lloyd Bentsen - D Texas
>OMB       -- Rep Leon Panetta - D California


>I realize that Clinton has a mandate for big change, but, my goodness,
>this is virtually revolutionary.
 Oh, puleeeeeeeeze!

Revolutionary, my foot!

-- 
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
``No exam-cheating, pot-smoking, draft-dodging, privileged youth Vice-President
in a "Bush The Blamer" administration can speak with moral authority about
abandoned moral values and assuming personal responsibility.''--Jesse Jackson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:03:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.214329.2749@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>   --deal with every union under the sun, except maybe the UMW.
>Antagonistically yours,
>Alan
>
>

Actually, at UW (being from WI I have some knowledge of this) I think
that she probably did have to deal with the UMW. The team nickname
came from a nickname for miners in northern and western WI, if I am
not mistaken.

WI does seem to be well represented if Les Aspin is the Secretary of
Defense though...

Thank You,

Daniel W. Woycke             |"I went out drinking with Thomas 
Information Engineer (c) 1992|Paine..." -- Billy Bragg
The MITRE Corporation	     |"But I am still thirsty..."
7525 Colshire Drive (MS Z213)|-- Arrested Development
McLean, VA   22102           |These opinions are mine and are not
woycke@smiley.mitre.org      |and will not be held by anyone else.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Wed, 16 Dec 92 12:59:53 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:03:31 GMT

In article <834@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Really now, I'm no historian but, I just watched this documentary (on
PBS)
>about his life and political career, and you know they said that the
calls
>for the south to break from the union and for war started the day after
he was
>elected, simply because he was elected.  The fact that he kept it from
>happening for as long as he did is probably some credit to his abilities
>(most Republicans Presidents are overly endowed with skills don'cha know)
>
>So yes in many mays his election was the cause of the war.

You continue to dig holes for yourself. Given the context of the
discussion
in which your original comments on Lincoln were made, this historical
fact means squat. What happens because of circumstance (rather than will)
is immaterial to the original point. Nice try at changing the subject
(again).

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: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 101
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:35:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.072615.7626@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>The Republicans are saying "I told you so" about the recent
>uptick in the economy. They STILL don't get it: the reason
>the economy is getting better is because they've been driven
>from office, and their loss is everyone else's gain.
>
>Look, economies go up because people believe in them, and down
>when people are feeling concerned about the future. For the first
>time in 12 years people have a genuine sense of hope, and, as
>a result, this will probably be a record-breaking Christmas
>retail season. People finally have a REASON to celebrate.
>
>If Bush had won people would have been even more bummed out
>than they'd been, and the economy would have gone even deeper
>in the toilet.
>
>The Republicans are right to take credit for the recent
>improvement in the economy--but only because they LOST.
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Feinstein '94
>Clinton/Gore '96

You're right that economy got a boost from election results. But a
couple points to contest:

1) Economy was on upturn before election.  Wasn't highly reported,
which is why Repubs are incensed.

2) People's perceptions influence their affect on the economy.  That
economic woes were thrust on Repubs with good dose of hyperbole,
compounded by 1), is the source of much Repub outrage.

"Incidentally," he said, sincerely hoping for a well-reasoned response
even though none heard to date, "Feinstein '94?"

Regards,

David
dnm9@columbia.edu
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 12:36:46 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:40:23 GMT

In article <743@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Well there's your problem right there.  Anyone that considers psychology 
>a science has a huge credibility gap with not only me but with the much
>of the rest of the real scientific community.   Of course, if I have
>a personal experience with something and it doesn't fit the statistical
>norm, it isn't real.  No wonder science has gotten such a bad reputations
>amongst people considering career choices.

1.) The SCIENCE involved here is Sociology, not psychology.

2.) The only people who don't think psychology and sociology are sciences
are people who either a.) don't know anything about psychology or
sociology, or b.) don't understand what constitutes a science. Which
category applies to you? I would also like you to NAME the rest of the
REAL scientific community that thinks these fields are not science.

3.) The fact that you have an experience that is outside the statistical
norm
means that your experience is an aberration (sp), or that your
experience has other factors which skew it.

Let me explain something
to you. Society is a highly complex dynamical system, much like a heat
engine, a single-celled animal, or the human mind. The rules that control
such
systems are most often opaque unless studied using
statistics because statistics tends
to negate unusual influences on the studied phenomenon. The rules for
these
complex systems can, often times, only be understood using statistical
language.
This requires a large number of observations. Any conclusion
based on a single observation of such a system must be considered to be
suspect
without the statistical backing of many other observations of the same
effect.

This approach has proven itself over 200 years of scientific observation.
Your
petty jab at the scientific method does not negate this fact.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:17:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec15.173250.3855@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>>If anyone can point out someone who isn't very qualified for the position, 
>>I'll be amazed.  Bush may have appointed some people so cynically, but I
>> haven't seen that yet from Clinton.
>
>You're right.  Clinton has appointed top-notch people all around.  He selected
>an equal as a running-mate, compared to Bush's choice of Dan Joke Quayle.

Here's a bit of non-scientific info to chew on, for those who think Clinton's
cabinet appointments are so swell...

Here in Pittsburgh, a city that voted for Clinton over Bush by better than a
5 to 1 margin, a local radio station conducted a sample telephone poll,
yesterday, to see what Pittsburghers thought of Clinton's cabinet choices. 
Of the 301 people responding 173 said they are unhappy with the choices
so far...

eh hee hee he.  Making friends 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!
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 101
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:19:34 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec19.072615.7626@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>The Republicans are saying "I told you so" about the recent
>uptick in the economy. They STILL don't get it: the reason
>the economy is getting better is because they've been driven
>from office, and their loss is everyone else's gain.

You sure you want to be associated with folks like this Norman?

Listen friend, in case you haven't noticed most of the "upbeat"
economic numbers that we're seeing are numbers that were complied 
before the election.  And if you take the month-by-month and week-by-
week numbers and place them side by side you will see that they've been 
on an upward trend since April.

Hell I even have an article (waiting for a more appropriate time 8^)  
that appeared in one of the national left wing rags, the day after the
election, that has the Clinton people says " well the economy may not
have been in as bad a shape as the media led us to believe).

Things like economic trends don't change from day to day and it will
be at least six months from now before you can see any impact
on the economy that Clinton might have.

PSG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 12:06:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.072645.7766@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>Hey, Bob--you're a fool!

Pleasant and insightful opening remarks.


[deletions of course--this guy's posts just aren't this short.]

>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

You need to work a little on the ignoring part, but your grip on reality is
unquestionably marginal.


David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Those "nutty" Polls
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:44:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.072712.7909@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>On the eve of the election, CNN's final tracking poll came
>out with the following numbers:
>
>47% Clinton
>35% Bush
>18% Perot
>
>with a margin of errot of +/- 3%.
>
>In other words, those "nutty" polls called the election dead
>on within the stated margin of error.
>
>The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
>in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
>bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
>accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.
>
>P.S. According to some other "nutty" polls, 70% of Americans
>believe abortion should remain safe and legal, and 75% of
>Americans believe handguns should be regulated.
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Feinstein '94
>Clinton/Gore '96

 Thouroughly enjoying the risk of sounding snide, I suggest:

1) reading _How to Lie with Statistics_.

2) finding the sample size, method of polling, and other highly
relevant variables' values for the poll quoted above.

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

Regards,
David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Mon, 14 Dec 92 15:10:01 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:13:40 GMT

In article <647@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu 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.

No, quit kidding yourself. He won the election, period. That means he gets
to be president with all that being president entails. He is not in a
"hole"
as your bitter and deluded brain would suggest. Since you or I cannot tell
how the Perot voters would have broken, we will never know the result of a
2-way race. However, polls after the election suggest that the majority
would have broken toward Clinton. No matter, it is beside the point.

So far Clinton has appointed one proven fiscal conservative and an
economist who is a firm believer in deficit reduction. I fail to see why
this
doesn't make you happy since this is the kind of thing your ilk has been
whining for all election. Unless all this fussing is strictly partisan
rhetoric......

>
>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! 

Oh great.... Red-baiting. A typical tactic used by the far right as a
substitute
for a real arguement.   :-/

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: coleman@kirkland.East.Sun.COM (Rob Coleman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Clinton Cabinet
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:28:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: coleman@kirkland.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: kirkland.east.sun.com

achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin) says:
>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?

I believe that blacks represent ~ 10% of the population of the United States.
Hispanics (hispanics may be of any race) represent about 15%.  Asians are
somewhere around 2-3%.

I'm not certain how many cabinet positons there are but lets call it 20.
To "look like America", there ought to be 10 women, 2 blacks, three hispanics
and perhaps one Asain.  

If there were no Asians in Clinton's cabinet, that would not necessarily be 
a gross injustice - it could just be the way things worked out.

Give the man a chance before you start knocking him down.

Rob Coleman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc