HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:04:30 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: johnd.tamu.edu

In article GEz@boi.hp.com, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>Someone has yet to explain to me why Bill Clinton inherited George Bush's
>title.  George Bush referred to _himself_ as "The Education President."  To
>my knowledge (correct me if this isn't true), Bill Clinton never did that.
>So why do some hold him to someone else's self-proclamation?
>
>After you explain that to me then you can explain how, exactly, Chelsea going
>to a private school makes him a hypocrite.
>
>- Clinton has not stated that private schools are, in any way, "bad"

	He has suggested throught his proposals that private schools
	should not even be considered as an alternative for the poor
	and middle class.  He wants "choice" as long as that choice
	is in the state run and controled public schools.

>
>- Clinton is acting in what he considers the best interests of his child

	Agreed. At the same time he will allow the poor and middle class
	the opportunity to do what is in the best interests of their
	children ie. send them to the best school in their area.
>
>- If he were to have sent her to a public school his detractors would have
>  claimed that he not only buckled under to maintain his support, but that
>  he was a poor father for not having acted in the best interests of his child
>
	Right a gain.

>- He is paying for her education w/o vouchers
>
>- He is using his own money to pay for her education

	Right on one wrong on another.  The money he is using is
	taxpayre money.  Comrade Clinton has never held a real job
	he has always been employed by the government.

>
>I just don't understand why so many people choose to pick nits like this.
>Especially when it's a non-issue.  All of the above has been said before,
>but it doesn't seem to have been heard.
>
	I guess this is another case of character not being important.
	We are finding out that Comrade Clintons lack of character and
	lack of principle are proving that the "promises"(lies) he used
	to get elected are just that, lies.  One by one his tainted
	appointments are backing down from his numerous promises to 
	all special interest groups.  His decision to send the first
	daughter to a private school is just his latest example of say
	one thing and do another.

__________________________________________________________
	Visit Colorado a state where all are equal under the law.

    _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/  | 
   _/       _/         | The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they
  _/_/_/   _/_/_/_/    | are not shared by my employer or my friends.
 _/             _/     | However, they should be.
_/       _/_/_/_/      | Fred Seals 409-845-2298
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limba
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:23:46 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article Inz@encore.com, rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
> 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.
> 
> Yes, all middle class and poor children are average schmoe's children
> and therefore have no compelling reasons, individually, to attend
> private schools.  NOT!

Ah com'on.  They probably would want to attend a private school, they just
can't afford it.  Gee, I'd like to have the safest care in the world in which
to drive my kids around in, can I get the government to help defray the costs?
In my opinion, creating a voucher system for school choice would only increase
the cost of sending a child to private school (more competition) and would have
the end result of doing nothing to improve the overall education of our children.


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:31:32 GMT

In<C0F7H0.6J4@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1idpqvINN845@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

>>It was announced today that Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private 
>>school.  Apparently the public school system is good enough for us plebes,
>>but not for Mr. Clinton's daughter....or has he changed his mind about
>>education vouchers?

>Why in the world should Chelsea Clinton sacrifice her life on the alter of
>political correctness in the decrepit public school systems merely because
>she is the daughter of a socialist.

>For all we know, she is a red-blooded closet Republican who believes in the
>re-privatization of the public "education" system. Don't punish Chelsea for
>Bill's sins.

You know, Ed, it's bad enough that you're so hypocritical that you live
in one of the most fascist places on earth, Singapore, and post about
trivial infringements on liberty in the U.S., but when you start
throwing stupid partisan rhetoric around incorrectly, it's really annoying.

Oh, yes.  Republicans are all in favor of the free market... like the
guy who wrote in USA Today on Tuesday 1/5/93, on the editorial page,

Rep Elton Gallegy (R-Calif), a four term congressman from Ventura
County, defended citris production quotas on the grounds that they
"enable a steady supply of navel oranges and lemons to reach supermarket
shelves at reasonable prices each year and have helped the farmers of
these easily perishable fruits receive a steady income AT NO COST TO
TAXPAYERS."  (Emphasis added.)

My point?  Simply that implying that Democrats are Socialist or Communist, 
as you did in a previous post, and Republicans decent capitalist
Americans, is silly.  Republicans tend to be slightly less statist when
it comes to economics, sometimes.  And much more statist in other areas.
And the reverse is true for Democrats.

Neither party is perfect, but to call Bill Clinton a socialist makes as
much sense as calling Ronald Reagan a Nazi.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Clinton Advised To End Gay Military Ban Quickly
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 04:49:42 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA22748; Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:49:44 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA25230; Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:49:41 -0800
X-Received: from localhost (marcus.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB41);
	id AA14292; Sat, 9 Jan 93 04:49:40 EST for alt.politics.clinton.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by localhost (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/AIXV3-SUB16) via SMTP;
	id AB25298; Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:49:42 -0500 for alt.politics.clinton.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Apparently-To: <alt.politics.clinton.usenet>

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy

To: alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
cc: talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: Clinton Advised To End Gay Military Ban Quickly
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 04:49:42 EST
From: Ron Buckmire <buckmr>



Friday's Los Angeles Times' said in a page 1 story [below the fold] that
Clinto is being advised to end the ban on discrimination against gays in 
the military quickly, and not to prolong the tension between activists
and military officials by establishing a commission to study the issue.
However, instead of issuing a more historic Executive Order similar to the
one issued by Harry Truman in 1948 to desegregate the military, Clinton 
will be advised to issue a 'memorandum of instruction' to the Secretary
of Defense telling him to rescind the military ban. The legal effect
would be identical to an executive order. Nothing was said about ending
discrimination based on  sexual orientation in other areas of federal
employment, such as the FBI/CIA/etc, in the LA TIMES story.

   
- ---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735 ``D.C., April 25 1993''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
Repeat after me: "Mel Gibson is a Catholic Fundie from Hell!"
Repeat after me: "Mel Gibson is a Catholic Fundie from Hell!"

------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,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 03:22:31 GMT

Oh my... T-minus 13 days and they're already ganging up on what? 

A little girl.

I sincerely hope some decent 12-step programs are set up for recovering
Republicans and fellow travelers. They need help.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:53:51 GMT

Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
:     No, I suppose it doesn't. Treatment of American Indians is one of 
: many issues on which Rush and I have widely differing opinions. I'm sure 
: that Rush's irreverent treatment of "Native American" updates is intended 
: as a backlash against those who are in their turn attempting to glorify 
: the cultures which have been conquered, but I'm afraid that, as usual, 
: although his message is aimed at a small group of extremists, the people 
: who ultimately end up as targets include a lot of folks who are just trying 
: to make sure that the Indians get a fair shake.
: 

Seems to me that Rush goes after the goofs who flame the Atlanta Braves'
"Tomahawk Chop", the use of Indian names for teams and the like.  None
of which is at all a disgrace to Indians.  In fact, in our way it honors
them as proud and fierce warriers, etc.

:     As far as what can be done to redress past offenses, I really can't 
: offer much hope. Native Americans have certainly resisted assimilation 
: into our culture, but I believe that they are ultimately fighting a losing 
: battle, similar in many respects to the battle which must have first arisen 
: in Mesopotamia when the development of irrigation caused friction between 
: civilized farmers and uncivilized tribes of hunter gatherers. In the Indus 
: valley the battle went in favor of the tribes; very little survives from 
: that civilization following its destruction by the Aryans. But in general 
: the battle has gone in favor of the civilized at the expense of the lives 
: and lifestyle of the tribes.
: 

Illinois is an indian word for "onion" (a kind of onion).  Many of the
streets in Illinois are named after indians, are derived from indian
culture, and so forth.  A lot is named after French explorers, too.  In
California, the names of things are distinctly spanish, but the indian
influence is strong here, as well.  Clearly, the indians have become a
part of our own heritage and tradition, at least to some extent...

: --
: Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
: Psychology Department               Indiana University
: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Legal Issues With Homosexuality
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:14:39 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

Greetings,
This is in regards to the discussion on homosexuality.

I want to propose a question.  I have been reading these posts
on this issue, and I have been trying to get a feel for the
'legalization' of homosexuality, and how far it should go
(marriage, etc.)

Let's say that homosexuals are now allowed in the military.
And...also, later, homosexual marriage is recognized by
government anyway.

Let's say that for those of you who think this is OK, let
me propose this:  What if you were a young child, maybe
something happened to your parents.  And a judge had to
decide where to put you....and placed you with two homo-
sexual men as your family.  Do you think this would be fair?
Or maybe you were placed with two lesbian women as your
two moms.  I personally feel it is unfair to a child to
be placed in a situation like this because the child is
too young to make those kinds of decisions.  What do the
rest of you say?
-Pamela Cho-
***********************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:22:12 GMT

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.

Jeff Shallit

>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,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:18:06 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

Now, this is bizarre.  Here we have libertarians looking out for the
benefit of the poor man, and democrats supporting Clinton's decision
to send Chelsea to a private school, right or wrong.

What's the value of all this?

I don't know, but it sure is a lot of fun!!  :-)

cpk
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:58:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.222202.27215@unet.net.com> steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:
>In article <DOEL.93Jan6134049@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>>
>>
>>Wrong on two counts.  First, the rich aren't the ones being hurt by the lack
>>of school vouchers, it's the poor.
>
>Please explain how a child living in poverty in an inner city is going 
>to get a better education than he or she is currently getting because his 
>or her parent(s) receive(s) a school voucher worth $1000.00 or even $2500.00
>considering the cost of a good private (or public for that matter)
>education.

First off: 

- Private schools are expensive because they cater primarily to
the upper middle class and rich.  The people are willing and able to pay
a lot for a better education for their kids, so the schools can charge
it.

- Public schools are expensive because, as with any bureaucracy, they
are by definition inefficient and bloated excess overhead.

Now I'd like to ask YOU a question:

If you're so sure it's impossible for a poor kid to get a better education
with a "measily" $1000 a year voucher,  would you be in favor of trying
it on a wide scale for four years in a major city?   What would be the
harm in such an experiment?  By everyone's admission, most urban kid's aren't
getting a very good education anyway,  so why not let the parents have some
choice and give it a shot? Of course that will never happen, or at least
not any time soon. 

The reason that even a $1000 voucher system would work is because there
will be more freedom to choose.  And that will allow, nay force, some
parents to make the first decision they've ever had to make about their
own children's education. Of course many will just send their kids right
back to the penetenary...er....public school. But the poor parents who
want their children educated in a better environment than the abysmal
public school system will suddenly discover that they are now able to
pool their meager resources together and develop superior schools that
will teach the important educational values that they want their kids to
have.  Put simply, it's the quickest route to "less condoms and more
calculus" for poor kids.  

Of course the urban Democrats,  the NEA, and Bill Clinton vehemently
oppose the idea. It's a direct attack on the union's monopoly of
education.  This kind of competition, even with just measily $1000 vouchers,
would show just how decrepit the public schools really are. 

- Ted D.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: geturner@aer.com. (George Turner)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:45:54 GMT

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

>Robert Reich is one I'd be happy to live without

Bob Reich seems to be Master of the Obvious.  Yesterday he made the startling
statement that we don't just need jobs, we need higher paying jobs.  He gets
interviewed a lot here in Boston and he always has something inane to say.
The whole idea of "Human Investment" sure sounds like this year's version
of justifying more spending on more government.

>Thank God he didn't choose Pat Schroeder for anything ! :)

Pat Schroeder really is a twit.  I've lost track of her lately.  Has she
accomplished anything yet?  She always seems to be around but she never seems
to do anything.  Have you ever seen the pictures of her in that bunny suit?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20114 alt.politics.elections:24876 alt.politics.libertarian:3417 talk.politics.misc:67275
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 19:10:10 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) states
>In article <1992Dec30.194239.16465@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>
>>Clinton (and democrats at large) have a blind spot in this regard.  They are
>>confusing arithmetic (quotas) with the art of politics.  This bean counter
>>mentality assumes that all members of group X (blacks, women, etc) are
>>monolithic in their wants and desires.
>
>Based on your comment, don't you find it just a *little* ironic that it
>was *Clinton* who denounced the demands of some feminist groups as
>"bean counting"?
>
>I see nothing wrong with wanting to have a cabinet with diverse
>backgrounds and experiences.  In the 1800's, a common worry
>was that the cabinet not be all Easterners, or all Northerners.
>How is that any different?
>
>>If the primary goal is have a diversity of genes in the cabinet then I would 
>>say that Clinton has done a fine job.  If, on the other hand, the primary goal
>>is to choose cabinet members for their opinions and skills then I question
>>whether Clinton has accomplished this task.
>>
>>Mike Best
>>
>
>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.

>I issued this challenge to Mr. Galvanek earlier, but he ignored it.
>
>Jeff Shallit
>
>


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.

If you can't love the constitution, at least hate the government.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19918 alt.politics.elections:24799
From: zaidioa@cs.rose-hulman.edu (Omar A. Zaidi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 8 Jan 1993 22:24:21 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: adrienne.cs.rose-hulman.edu


In article <1993Jan6.163417.25053@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>In article <1idpqvINN845@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>
>>It was announced today that Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private 
>>school.  Apparently the public school system is good enough for us plebes,
>>but not for Mr. Clinton's daughter....or has he changed his mind about
>>education vouchers?
>>
>
>Could you please tell me when Clinton said " Thou shalt not send thy
>child to private school!"
>
>Could you demonstrate that the tuition for Chelsea's schooling is 
>not coming out of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's pockets?


	Anyone who bashes Clinton for going back on his word should
think about this one..

>
>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.
>
>Robert Johnston


	I have it from several sources that Chelsea Clinton wants to
become an astrophysicst. Now, would someone please explain to me how
she is going to do that when she attends the Washington DC public
school which the white house lies within the boundary of? Given what
I know about them, I doubt seriously if she'd have the resources there
to pursue such a goal, much less acheive it. 

	Furthermore, studies have proven that the best indicator of a
child's success (academic) is the economic class of his peers in the
classroom; i.e. the students from the wealthy parts of town who attend
the wealthy school do better academically on the whole. I think
Clinton was applying this logic here.

	Also, how the hell can Chelsea's security be guaranteed when
she is in a DC public school? If you can give me a convincing
way that it can be, then I will personally write a letter to Clinton
to say that he should put her in a science magnet school in the DC
system.

	Those that know me know that I live up to my promises.


-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
Omar Zaidi                              |" Nothing we have ever done in the
zaidioa@cs.rose-hulman.edu              |  past will ever be good enough 
zaidioa@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu        |  again" 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc