HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:13:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec15.190608.8438@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>progressive social programs to replace the regressive ones we have now,
>clean up our environment, provide us with a high-speed rail system, etc.
>If some of these things don't occur now, I will juswt have more money
>squeezed out of me later. I, unlike you, will not be penny-wise and
>pound-foolish.

Penny-wise and Pound-foolish you say?  This is a pretty good example of
why people should think through the promises of politicians before 
accepting them as the pennies from heaven these people claim.

I'll just bet the people in the highly competative airline industry, trucking
and auto industries are thrilled with the prospects of their tax dollars
being spent on projects like this.  I wonder what the stock market reactions
will be when the government starts spending money to take a slice of the
transportation industry's ever dwindling profits.  

But hey what does that all that matter when you get a shinny new toy
that goes real fast...  

>based on records (spelled ACTIONS) rather than rhetoric (spelled TALK).
>You are the one that seems to have been hypnotized by all that supply-
>side nonsense.

Until I see a real effort at supply side economics attempted, which 
we have never seen in this country, calling a economic theory that
when used has managed to not only provide governments like Mexico with
not only balanced budgets but with budget surpluses, nonsense is the real
nonesense.

PSG
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:53:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec15.193945.9427@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>Since Lincoln didn't cause the war or his assasination. This is the
>biggest
>nonsensical statement you have made so far. I didn't think you
>could top yourself, but you did.

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.

PSG
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:05:52 EST
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: re: Paul Galvanek claims.

Well, Paul, you are right I do tend to skim articles and perhaps I did
miss the piece where you were not citing a source you had actual experience
with.  However, your reading is not so hot either as I am an Asst prof
not an Assoc.  But I thank you for the promotion.
  Here's the deal.  In life, if you cite sources you are unfamiliar with
you can get burned real bad.  If you write a paper for anyone with the
level of proof you gave, you would not get a passing grade.  See, those
attorneys in Fla could take a study with one set of conclusions and pick
out an isolated finding and distort the conclusions of the author.  Someone
could look at Patterson's work and claim that the kids of gay parents are
more stressed than kids of straight parents.  Out of context it looks
like gay parents are bad for kids, but if you look at the pattern of findings
you realize that this is not the case.  People distort research findings
all the time for political purposes.  Lawyers are notorious for it.  I
offered a real study that you can go look up.  You offered hearsay.
   Also an N of 1 study does not constitute proof.  Knowing someone who
has had a bad experience with gay parents does not mean that the gay-ness
of the parents caused the problems.  Its more complicated than that.
There are plenty of kids of heterosexual parents who point at their families
and say:  they screwed me up.  I would guess that the level of parenting
your significant other received was not up to snuff, didn't help her
overcome the peer taunts or feelings of differentness.  For that I am
truly sorry.  It makes me wonder about the relationship she has with
her mom that she would side with society in stigmatizing her mom, rather
than with her mom.  Seems to me the mom may have done a less than great
job of nurturing her daughter.  But being gay didn't cause this.  My
guess is that if her mother was straight their relationship would also
be tense.  It would just center around other issues.  I also hope that
your sig other can come to some peace with all this.  It's lonely out
there when your relationship with your mom is not good.
                                       Melissa Brown
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:34:56 GMT
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center

I don't agree with Novak 75% of the time, but I wouldn't 
miss that facial expression when he says

join us next time for another edition of CRRRRRRROSSFIRE!!

I've actually seen a "little" softening of "Sununu the hardass".
Last night he smiled at Bob Beckel and patted him on the hand.
Whoda thunkit.
--


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
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 19 Dec 92 19:48:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec16.201640.26551@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>I am not going to admit it because it is not true. Did you ever even
>listen
>to the man? 

Yes Norman I did.  And I recall quite distinctly his numerous claims
that "we have a plan to grow the economy"  and I also remember very
clearly, his being asked to refute the claims of his opponents, both
Perot and Bush, that his plan was nothing more than pandering, and
promises and lacked any hard numbers or specifics; to which he replied
that was not true and his "plan was very specific and detailed" and
all we and the reporters had to do was look.

There never was a plan for the economy, only a plan to get elected. 

PSG
From: larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers)
Subject: Re: How Clinton is already working miracles
Date: 10 Dec 92 18:16:47
Organization: Data General, Westboro, Mass.


Actually, the best thing Clinton is doing for the ecomony right now is
his indication that he will probably do less than he said.  As for his
getting any credit for the current growth, I would credit anticipation
of his presidency much less than low interest rates and current growth
programs (yes, some were in place even before Billy won, believe it or
not).

Interest rates spiked when Clinton won, and that, if maintained, would
have hurt the growth.  We can credit that negative to Clinton too if
we are searching for reasons to credit him.  And last night's lunar
eclipse can be credited to him as well.

Cheers, Larry



--
    @@               Larry Rogers               *
   @@@               Larry_Rogers@dg.com        *   Big Brother
   @@@ &&&           larry@boris.webo.dg.com    *   is Watching
    @@ &&            Data General  508-870-8441 * 

The opinions contained herein are my own, and do not reflect the
opinions of Data General or anyone else, but they should.

"Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
   Dire Straits
From: woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:35:39 GMT

In article <BzB6Cu.A39@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>In article <596@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>Sorry, but Bill's major appointments are nearly done and he's failed 
>>to put together anything that even modestly resembels [sic] "America".
>
>This guy just doesn't have a clue, does he?
>
>Fewer than half of the cabinet members have been appointed.
>
>What really bugs people like Galvanek is that nearly all of Clinton's
>appointees so far have been widely praised by people in all parts
>of the political spectrum:  right, center, and left.  Furthermore,
>his appointees have the merit, unusual in the last two administrations,
>of being experts in their fields.
>
>May I remind you, Mr. Galvanek of Reagan's stellar appointments
>such as James Edwards for Energy Secretary?  Where was your
>indignation then.  (Edwards was a South Carolina dentist.  As
>a Boston Globe article in 1981 dryly put it, "He is noted for
>knowing nothing about energy.")
>
>And how about Ed Meese as Attorney General?  Remember, Meese once
>said, "If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."
>
>
>Phone call for Mr. Galvanek... I believe it's the John Birch Society.
>
>Jeff
>
>

James Watts (am I right here?) Secretary of the Interior...
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: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:16:09 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:19:45 GMT

In article <746@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>If he indeed had a plan, then why is he putting on this show they call
the
>economic summit?  

Since when is getting the country's leading experts together to discuss
the
nature of the economy and make suggestions not a smart approach to
a complex, diverse problem like this? If Bush had done anything like this
you would be falling all over yourself telling us what an excellent
approach this was.

>Would you like me to post the comments appearing in
>yesterday's papers, from leading Clinton supporters, as to why he really
>didn't have a plan or need one?

Please do. You haven't posted one fact to backup anything you have said
before.
Please state the source, the person quoted, and the full quote for
context.

>An out right admission as far as I'm
>concerned that he lied, once again.

Since Clinton didn't say it, it proves nothing. Furthermore, until the
program is
submitted, we know nothing to make such a judgement. FURTHERMORE, until
the program has a chance to work, we will not know if it is good or not.

>
>The only plan he had was the one he used to get elected.

If aspects of the plan change, so what. It is incredibly naive on your
part to believe that the program would not change. Here we sit on this
"moving ship" called the economy, and you want the program to be cast in
stone, regardless of any unforeseen political or economic events.
This shows how little you understand macroeconomics. As long
as the philosophy of the plan remains intact, that is all any reasonable
citizen should demand.

I suggest you take a course in macroeconomics before you embarrass
yourself further.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18580 alt.president.clinton:1080 alt.politics.bush:14547 sci.econ:9387 talk.politics.misc:64200
From: Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Trolls on the federal highways!
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:43:57 GMT
 <JACKSON.92Dec2101633@kaos.stsci.edu> <ByroJr.3D4@quake.sylmar.ca.us> 
 <1992Dec7.144646.18692@m5.harvard.edu>  <randall.723869842@seashore>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b2@newshost.dartmouth.edu


 Lighten up people!

**********************************************************************
* Arthur, king of the Britons    * King of the who?                  *
* King of the Brittons!          * Who are the Brittons anyway?      *
* I am, you are, we all are the  *                                   *
* Brittons and I am your king!   * Well, I didn't vote for you.      *
**********************************************************************
Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers)
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:00:20
Organization: Data General, Westboro, Mass.


A bonehead post by an obvious bonehead to alleged boneheads...

Merry Xmas...

--
    @@               Larry Rogers               *
   @@@               Larry_Rogers@dg.com        *   Big Brother
   @@@ &&&           larry@boris.webo.dg.com    *   is Watching
    @@ &&            Data General  508-870-8441 * 

The opinions contained herein are my own, and do not reflect the
opinions of Data General or anyone else, but they should.

"Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
   Dire Straits
From: f2ehg786@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The new World
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:35:27 EST
Organization: Univ of Miami IR

In article ,1992Dec9.180118.2106@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_huntercj@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
(Carrie J. Hunter) writers:

>[A shi(r)tload of fascist drivel]

Carrie, would you be so kind as to send a sign-up sheet to any local FBI office?

--William Krauthammer

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Dec14.005002.1365@unet.net.com> <638@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:50:11 GMT

In article <638@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

   In article <1992Dec14.005002.1365@unet.net.com> steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:
   >
   >This sounds like whining from someone too young to have experienced
   >the successes of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the 
   >Great Society.  

   Successes??  You mean the New Deal that is credited with, by most historians
   and economists, having prolonged the Great Depression?  

please provide some examples.  I have not heard this.

   What's lacking is your, and others, understanding of just what type of political
   situation we have today.  In case you didn't notice, this past November a 
   record 100 millon people voted and 6 out of 10 voted against Bill Clinton 
   and expressed a desire for a more conservative President. 

I guess that means that because Lincoln didn't get 50% of the vote that
most people in the United States supported slavery.  More than 6 out of
10 voted against George Bush by your logic.  What conclusion do you draw
from that?
--


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: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Is Clinton a racist?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:49:03 GMT

In article <BzAFF5.FBt@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>That's only if you expect Mr. Clinton to be a racist who thinks a person's
>race makes him best qualified.  Of course, that's exactly what I expect out 
>of Mr. Clinton, but it is still wrong.

Pretty strong words, Mr. Yoder.  Now back them up by (1) quoting the definition
of "racist" from any good dictionary and (2) showing how Clinton qualifies.

Guess what?  Wanting a wide spectrum of racial and ethnic groups in one's cabinet 
doesn't qualify.

>What it means to be an American is to have a certain set of ideas.

Bzzzt!  Wrong.  What it means to be an American is to be born in America,
or naturalized as an American citizen.  It is not thought control, as you
would seem to have it.

>The idea
>that one's ancestry is important is NOT an American idea, but it is one 
>promoted by the left.

Bzzzt!  Wrong again.  The idea that "one's ancestry is important" is
American as apple pie.  Just look at the German-Americans who were
victimized during World Wars I and II because of their ancestry -- and
vicitimized by the *Right*, my friend, not the *Left*.

>Gee, if it were supposed to "look like America", maybe it should include a
>few people who are not professional adademicians/bureaucrats/lawyers, and who
>don't believe that an omnipotent-yet-benevolent government is what we ought
>to have.  If you really want "diversity", why not have the kind that counts:
>diversity of ideas.

How ironic!  Clinton is the first President since Kennedy who is 
*genuinely* interested in ideas.  He constantly surprises reporters
with his depth & breadth of knowledge -- see today's NYT (Dec. 15) for
an example.

Jeff Shallit
From: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Republicans looking for jobs
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:03:43 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 2b300373@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu () writes:
>
>Nothing makes me more happy than to see Extremist Right Wing Republicans
>looking through the want ads. It is such a pleasing thought.

Sad.  Very Sad that you take pleasure in the suffering of others.  I  assume
that claim to a Democrat.  The last time I checked Democrats claimed the moral 
high ground about peoples right to work.  So which is it son?  

>
>I also love to see Republicans in the welfare line.

Childish, dribble.

>
>Get a job.

I have one thank you. 

Derek

P.S. If your going to post here at least be courteous and put you name in your
       post so in the future I'll know to ignore you.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:08:31 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:|> 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?"
:
:Oh, don't worry.   Socialist countries like the USSR had severe 
:penalties for even *being* Gay.
:
:During the period of history when the US was denouncing these
:countries as evil tyrannies, they had the same attitude towards
:Gays that you seem to share.

I'm not even sure what my opinion is on this issue, but if you think I
should be against it, thanks for making my mind up for me.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	All I want for Christmas is a backrub. (And lots of money) 
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu (George Brims)
Subject: Re: Tired of political correctness--listen to Rush Limbaugh!
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:07:30 PST

In article <1992Dec8.221234.12624@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>Welp as Rush has been on the air for three years and is currently once again
>atop Madonna on the NYT best seller list,

For those of us whose imagination tends to the visual, that's a really sick
idea, RL atop Madonna anywhere. Still pairing up two of the most 
irritating individuals on the whole planet at least spares two (or in her
case dozens) other people.

George Brims
.
.
.
.
Hold on, here's the .sig, I nearly forgot.
An objective person becoming an Objectivist is like a vegetarian
becoming a vegetable.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:6003 alt.politics.europe.misc:233
From: glazier@isr.harvard.edu (Andrew Baker Glazier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: PC MANIFESTO (?)
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:41:18 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

> 
>> Also at Harvard, one student replaced "Silence" in a "Silence = Death"
>> with "Fucking other men  in the ass" 
>> 
>> Being the nauseatingly PC institution that Harvard is (I work there), there
>> was a major investigation, and threats to expell whoever had done it.
>> Personally, I thought it was all pretty funny!
>
>Your sophistication and overflowing compassion for other human
>beings is evident.  I thought Harvard was pretty conservative (at 
>least everytime I visited I got that impression pretty strongly).  BTW 
>what else do you find funny?  Racial Jokes?  Gender jokes?  Simple
>ones at least?
No no no! You miss my point entirely! I am *not* cheering whoever wrote
that on the S=D poster, I am laughing at Harvard because of their absurd
over-reaction to some joker defacing a sign. By responding the way they
did, they gave more publicity to his comment than he deserved or ever would
have dreamed of!

-- 
"A horse! A horse! Somebody give me a horse, man, because|glazier@ 
I come to bury this dirtball, not to praise him. Whaddya |harvard.isr.edu
think I am? Whether it's nobler for the mind to make people suffer with all
these totally outrageous arrows arrows for a fortune, or what!" -- D.R.
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: women marines/in military
Date: 19 Dec 92 17:15:03 GMT
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN

wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
[lotta hair stuff cut off]
me:
>]Many official "reasons" for things military just seem to be rationalizations.

>You have a list? 
>The military usually does things because it's always been done before and
>there is no pressing reason to change it. They are called traditions.

Like I said, rationalizations, not reasons.  Doing things solely for
'tradition' means doing things today because you did them that way
yesterday.

---
Merlyn LeRoy