HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:23:42 GMT

 ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

[--dispeptic ranting deleted--]

Richard, if you want to make foot-dragging an issue, compare the speed
with which Clinton selected his Cabinet with that of Bush.  GHWB took
over three months to make his selections.

Then, remember how we patiently waited for the man who wanted to be the
"education president" and the "environmental president" to take any action
wrt education and the environment.

Finally, remember how long it took for the Bush Administration to
acknowledge that there is a recession.

For extra credit, notice how quickly GHWB jumped on the flag-burning
issue.

I can't help noticing that you posted your diatribe less than 3 hours
after Clinton was sworn in (20 Jan 1993 20:11:43 GMT).  You in a hurry
or something?

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo"
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Hypocracy [sic] (Was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:32:05 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1993Jan25.055305.22099@syacus.acus.oz.au> brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies) writes:
>markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>
>>I guess
>>Robert and Melinda, who appear to be stone throwing themselves, feel it's
>>acceptable to throw those stones at people or groups of people that THEY
>>feel should be excluded.  I detect some hypocracy (and definately
>>some hostility) here.  

All this flinging about of the term "hypocracy" made me curious as to what it
could possibly mean.  So I looked it up.  The word "hypocracy" per se doesn't
exist in English, apparently, but the roots "hypo-" and "-cracy" mean such
that if the word "hypocracy" were extant it would mean "subordinated to a
type of government".

It sounds to me like every one of us except the anarchists is a hypocrat.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "There is less to this than meets the eye."		- Tallulah Bankhead   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21226 alt.politics.bush:16363
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Deficit talkexit
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:34:08 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1993Jan24.064652.29952@leland.Stanford.EDU>, stchang@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steven Kuk-Jin Chang) writes:
> Since when is reducing the deficit a greater priority than long-term
> economic growth?  The media and many politicians treat the reduction
> of the deficit as an end to itself not as a means to an end.  
> 
> There is absolutely no reason why the federal government needs to cut the
> deficit as quickly as Clinton promised.  
> 
> This is not an attempt to make an excuse for him when he breaks his
> pledge to reduce the deficit, only to point out that he made many more
> important economic pledges in his campaign that should be scrutinized more
> carefully.

I'll go this far with you:
The trouble with all this "reduce the deficit" blathering is that it hides, 
obscures, and deflects the important fact that there are TWO sides to any 
balance sheet:  revenues and expenditures.

Clinton is using Bentsen, Panetta, Rivlin, and other cabinet members to begin 
talking ONLY about more taxes.  New taxes.  Bigger, "better" taxes.  We have 
heard about six words on cutting EXPENDITURES--and what little we hear is 
about how we have to "sacrifice".

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)

   * They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
         ** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies)
Subject: Re: Gay rights vs. homophobe rights? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:21:03 GMT

markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.225302.5272@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	So being for the rights of gay people is being against the
>>rights of homophobes? "Oh, no! Those pesky gay-rights activists are
>>denying us homophobes the right to hate gay people!!!"
>>-- 
>Get with the program Loren!  Your response was, well, just plain ignorant
>of what has been occurring on this thread.  No one said anything like you
>decided to make it sound.  Robert and Melinda have openly attacked
>others based solely on their beliefs.  

Watch my mouth: OF COURSE THEY DID, because they (and I) see those beliefs as
providing a nation-sized petri dish full of agar for bigotry to grow in. We
believe this to be true, mind you, whether OR NOT you yourself are a bigot.

>I never advocated viloence
>against anyone, yet I have been blasted for my beliefs.  

Yes. Your beliefs *inherently* deny gay people the absolute equality
promised in the Constitution.

>So, next time
>you decide to put your 2 cents in, don't...or at least show some
>measure of intelligence.

You should know better than to name-call. It only makes you look petulant,
and ends by harming your own case.

>P.S. To Walter - I hate to say it, but I find myself growing 
>increasingly intolerant and hostile.  

Well, that's YOUR CHOICE, Mark. Nobody MAKES you intolerant--you have to
DECIDE to become that way. You know, Jesus would rebuke you for that.

>I think Melinda and Robert
>and Loren and others have done more to harm their cause and make
>enemies than any gay-basher.

Once again, Mark, nobody takes a skein of yarn and some glue and MAKES an
enemy. Somebody has to DECIDE to BECOME and enemy of someone. And that,
Mark, is not loving your neighbor as yourself, as Jesus commanded you to.

-- 
 _--_|\    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
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Administration of the elite!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:00:41 GMT

In article <2652@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>Not that it has any real meaning other than symbolism, but I heard on
>the radio this morning as I drove to work that it's official; The
>Clinton administration contains more millionaires than any other 
>administration in history.
>
>I would have heard te exact numbers they reported but I was to busy 
>laughing and trying to stay on the road.

The "in history" thing is a bit misleading, in that there will be more
millionaries as time passes, due to inflation if nothing else.



--
	Who's "the loneliest monk?"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20768 misc.education:6063 talk.politics.misc:68962 sci.edu:1439
From: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:12:06 GMT

jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

>Hold on just one minute here....


>I think Clinton's record in Arkansas was abysmall.

Back this statement up! I'm from Arkansas originally, and I would
like you to tell me what was *abysmal*.

Later,
Morgan


-- 

John Morgan Morris
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083

Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
Telephone: (404) 651-2253
FAX: (404) 651-2246
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:30:08 GMT
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) says:

>In article <1jkblvINNg2q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>%
>%Another lie - it's day one and THERE IS NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN UP
>%ON THE HILL!  No more excuses!  Instead of wasting time paying off
>%foreign lobbyists like Brown and admitted felons like Baird, you
>%should be keeping the PROMISES YOU MADE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>%This administration is already a joke and it's just started!  I even
>%hear liberals on the local radio talk shows stating that they can't
>%believe they were suckered into voting for such a liar.  I really
>%feel sorry for all you people who defended Clinton in the past - you
>%must feel so foolish now.  I can't wait to see the first Presidential
>%opinion polls.
>
> Ohh, boo hoo. Clinton based his election statements (not PROMISES) on
> BNS data that was later shown to be inaccurate due to padding by Bush
> in his Economic Report from the President publication.  So he has to
> backpeddle, and all the sudden idiots like you are screaming "RECALL!".

BZZZZZT! WRONG.  Clinton based his PROMISES on Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) numbers which came out in August of 92.  CBO's numbers
are right in line with current pessimistic projections.

> What a whining little shit you are.
> You obviously don't have the guts to be an American.
> In the future, shut up and think before you post, or move to France, dammit.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.  Obviously rantings of one of Clinton's defenders who is
now backed into a corner by the foolish actions and lies perpetrated by
his President since the election.

> I have my own prediction; Collectively, it will be found that Reagan and
> Bush will have broke more promises every day before breakfast than
> Clinton will EVER break in his entire career.

I think you've gotten it backwards.  Clinton has already broken more promises
than Reagan and Bush did in their entire careers.  (^:}

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1383 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21342 alt.politics.elections:25203 talk.politics.misc:70044
From: bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:01:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Looney Bin

From article <1jn22pINNn89@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, by sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder):
> In article <1993Jan21.184835.3791@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes) writes:
> |> From article <1993Jan20.233552.24410@midway.uchicago.edu>, by dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith):
> |> > 
> |> > his first full day in office, let's see if he has something then.  It's 
> |> > not as though anyone will die if he breaks his promises.  Unless they're
> |> > Haitian, of course.
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 	Actually many Haitians were likely to die if he immediately kept
> |> his promise.  Rickety make-shift boats plying the ocean and all of that.
> |> This was the point of holding off.  Seems reasonable to me.
> 
> Of course, when Pres. Bush gave that as his reason, he was doing it because
> he was a racist. When Pres. Clinton does it, he's being reasonable. Hmm. You
> work for a media organization, by any chance?


	And of course you can provide the post where I claimed Pres. Bush
was a racist for his Haitian policy?  No?  Imagine that!  I guess 
jumping to conclusions has no place in rational discourse.

terry
From: jbrown@vax.cns.muskingum.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: DIR/REG
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:17:26 -0500
Organization: Muskingum College

LISTEN ,
I KNOW THAT KENNEDY WAS A PRETTY BAD PRESIDENT, BUT YOU BLOODY LIBERALS OUGHT

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,misc.education,talk.politics.misc,sci.edu
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:33:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.182120.1224@ariel.ec.usf.edu> mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:

			...........................

>In article <C0yA7E.HyF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>>...  In addition, I
>>have read on the net of a conspiracy (the word fits) by the "liberals"
>>to allow social workers to block parents providing education which
>>the social workers deem incorrect.

>What liberals?  John Holt?  Paul Goodman?  Are we going to continue to 
>have to endure the nonsense that apparatchiks are by definition liberal, 
>and therefore that the control freaks running the school administrations 
>are liberal?  We liberals were grousing about those guys even back when 
>"conservatives" thought they were doing a great job suppressing the 
>rabble.

I did not save the article, but there is a major belief among social workers
and related idealists that they alone know what is good for a child, and that
anything which does not agree with that is child abuse.  There are well
documented cases [again, I have not kept the documentation] of social workers
filing charges against parents and taking children away from them which are
even quite difficult to fight in our present legal system.  The social workers
do not have to prove their charges, and even when the charges have been shown
to be false, they put additional "for the good of the child" claims in the way.

Most of those who adopt the current "liberal" position believe that they have
the right to impose their morality on us, just as most of those who adopt the
current "conservative" position, or the current "Perotist" position.  So I
will conclude with a quote, source unknown:

	The greatest immorality of all is to force one's morality on another.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: harvey@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Betty Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD: ATTORNEY GEN.
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:21:35 GMT
Reply-To: harvey@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Betty Harvey)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.clinton, mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>
>I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's a civil offense.  It would be
>unusual for someone to go to jail for this.  

You are right -- I tend to get a little emotional.  I don't really believe
that she should go to jail.  But I also don't believe that she should
be Attorney General either.

>
>I'm sure it must be tough, especially when you have just started a new
>job.  It took them 2 months to find someone who met their
>qualifications, even when using an employment agency (mainly because
>of the live-in requirement).  Maybe the money they were offering was
>too little for anyone but a couple of illegal aliens.  If that's so,
>string her up!
>

I think that this was a case of greed in not wanting to pay a legitimate
cost for child care.  A friend whose wife died a few years back hired
a live-in 'nanny' for his children because he travels frequently with
his job.  

The employment agency charges $2,000 for finders fee plus the
annual salary is $15,000 per year plus room and board, car and expenses.  
This was for a single person to do child care for 2 children (currently
ages 12 and 13).  These costs do not include maid and chauffer services.  
This fellow is a Civil Servant and makes a heck of a lot less than 
$500,000.  

The Immigration laws are also put in place to protect the people coming 
here to work also.  People tend to look at people hiring illegal aliens
as taking work away from Americans.  This is true but the people hiring
illegal aliens are also taking advantage of the aliens.  They have to
recourse if they are paid substandard wages and are overworked.  Its
a complicated issue and you shouldn't have a person who has ignored
the law to benefit themselves be responsible for upholding these laws
and peoples rights.


>Let me emphasize again, that I think that maybe this should disqualify
>her because of the cabinet position she is applying for and because of
>how recent the offense was.  

This is really a moot point since she withdrew her name from nomination.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Betty Harvey  <harvey@oasys.dt.navy.mil>     | David Taylor Model Basin
ADP, Networking and Communication Assessment | Carderock Division
     Branch                                  | Naval Surface Warfare
Code 1221                                    |   Center
Bethesda, Md.  20084-5000                    | DTMB,CD,NSWC   
                                             |   
(301)227-3379   FAX (301)227-3343            |          
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Inauguration
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:00:05 GMT

In article <21684@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.051946.13961@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>What I thought was interesting was the way one of the inaugural events
>>(I think the one on HBO) was advertised as the 'First Ever People's Inaguagural
>>Celebration" or something like that, as if the previous administration was
>>a dictatorship or something.  Limbaugh mentioned this on Monday.
>>
>Doesn't freedom of speech suck? That damn HBO can tout it any way they want.


I never opposed anyone's freedom of speech. I just thought it was rather
interesting that the media coverage almost seemed to deify Clinton.

Something a bit out of step with what he said in a CNN interview Wednesday
morning about not losing touch with the people.  Then again, the people and
the media are two different things.

Simo
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20877 talk.politics.misc:69089
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:13:13 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, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) says:

>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.
>
>
>Don Pajerek


         It's okay, Andy.  Don's condition, Post-Freebie Letdown,
     is treatable.

>
>Standard disclaimers apply.
>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: peten@iat.holonet.net (Pete Norton)
Subject: Re: Top 10 list
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:35:22 GMT

MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu () writes:
: Who is Frank Reich?
:     Robert Reich is very short however.
: 
Frank Reich, quarterback of the Buffalo Bills, is well over six feet tall.
-- 
Pete Norton
peten@well.sf.ca.us
peten@iat.holonet.net    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
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 93 21:53:25 GMT
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) says:

>In article <1993Jan21.192342.29373@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>
>>[--dispeptic ranting deleted--]
>retracted nearly everything he promised and his haste in appointing admitted
>felons as positive qualities.

        Well, you could say he's 'flexible', 'decisive', 'willing to
        make tough choices', 'open to criticism', 'willing to examine
        problems from other points of view'.


        Watch Mike Kinsley on 'Crossfire'.  The guy's face is an 
        absolute riot now.  

>
>birdman@nwu.edu
>
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 18:28:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.155503.21171@news.columbia.edu>
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.045150.20835@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (We
need stronger death penalties) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.032107.14277@oakhill.sps.mot.com>,
pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)   writes...
>>>Nice partisan barb ... but look on the bright side, fellah.
>>>The longer Clinton does NOTHING, the safer we are.
>>
>>I guess that means we were as safe as we could possibly be domestically
>>when Bush was president. Unless, of course, you know the future and know
>>that Clinton will do something terrible. (it seems like all the 
>>conservatives in this net know the future.)
>
>Discuss amongst yourselfs.  Here's a topic: Rush Limbaugh --
>Nostradamus reincarnate?  Ready?  Begin....

Hey, how about this topic: Rush Limbaugh--Mort Downey Jr. reincarnate?


>
>
>--
><Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
>President."
>			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
>



*****************************************************************
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)
*****************************************************************

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton)
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD:  ATTORNEY
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:47:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Paul S Galvanek (psg+@pitt.edu) wrote:
: 
: Faced up to it, ha what a joke!  Can we assume then the motto of the
: new administration will be - break the law and you'll get scolded?
:------------------
Sure beats "Break the law and you'll get pardoned".

John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne

 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton