HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Date: 25 Jan 1993 21:35:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>I have yet to hear a Clinton 'Mr. Rhodes Scholarship' supporter explain
>>how President Genius came up with the notion that illegal aliens
>>usually make sure they get Social Security numbers and pay their SS taxes
>>when they work illegally.
 
In a previous article, matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) says:
>No excuses. He took full responsibility for any errors in the search process,
>and I'm glad that he did. And I believe he is indeed seeking ethical people
>for the Cabinet, in order to avoid the Reagan administration's problems with
>keeping people out of jail...

You people (Oops! Perot got in trouble for using that phrase) just don't
get it!  Who cares if he takes responsibility.  Defend how he can say that
'I knew that Zoe Baird employed illegal aliens, but I didn't know that she
didn't pay their Social Security taxes'.  How can he come up with the idiotic
assumption that illegal aliens will take on illegal employment, yet they
will follow the law by getting a Social Security number and pay their SS taxes.
He's trying to cover his butt because HE KNEW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE ILLEGAL
ALIEN SITUATION before the hearings, but now he's trying to claim ignorance
with this stupid excuse that he only knew about half the situation.  He's
either a liar or an idiot - take off your rose colored glasses and admit it,
people!

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1380 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70078 talk.politics.medicine:714 soc.culture.usa:10169 soc.culture.african.american:14393 sci.med:24494
From: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:16:07 GMT
Reply-To: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <C1H6AK.2In@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.010023.18380@r-node.pci.on.ca>, 
>ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca (Nigel Allen) writes:
>>Here is a press release from the White House.
>> Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
>> To: National Desk, Health Writer
>> Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2100


>SG	Yeah, that's right. The government should steal money from those who 
>have it and give it to those who don't. Of course, this can be done with due 
>process and in non-violent offices by people with briefcases and university 
>degrees so its not theft (with the implicit threat of a policeman's gun should
>someone desire not to pay for the welfare state) but social policy."Hey Lefty!
>Hit that guy with your fist and take his money.Yeah, tell 'em we're liberating
>his wallet. Har! Har! Yeah, we'll buy Joe some cocaine. Yeah, we're stealing 
>your money to help a friend. You're not gonna be selfish and refuse to help 
>Joe, are you? Hit 'em again, Lefty."

May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying penicillin,
despite having worked since age 13.

-jenneke

   Only Boys Accepting Feminism Get Kissed Meaningfully  -- Geoff Marcy
The only unnatural sexual act is that which you cannot perform. - Alfred Kinsey
		jenneke is: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What is economics? (repost)
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:48:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


F
Paul Rousseau: First let me applaud your groups efforts to learn more about
economics.  More people should be less afraid of learning.
  Now, what would you say is Marx's greatest contribution to our
understanding?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70012 talk.politics.medicine:700 soc.culture.usa:10146 soc.culture.african.american:14376 sci.med:24473
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 27 Jan 1993 05:40:41 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <C1H6AK.2In@umassd.edu> you write:
>SG	Yeah, that's right. The government should steal money from those who 
>have it and give it to those who don't. Of course, this can be done with due 
>process and in non-violent offices by people with briefcases and university 
>degrees so its not theft (with the implicit threat of a policeman's gun should 
>someone desire not to pay for the welfare state) but social policy. "Hey Lefty! 
>Hit that guy with your fist and take his money. Yeah, tell 'em we're liberating 
>his wallet. Har! Har! Yeah, we'll buy Joe some cocaine. Yeah, we're stealing 
>your money to help a friend. You're not gonna be selfish and refuse to help 
>Joe, are you? Hit 'em again, Lefty."
>
>Hitler and Stalin liked socialized medicine. Why not President Slickwillie?

Yet another right-wing idiot who's too young to remember a successful
Democratic presidency. Just because you were pre-pubescent when Reagan
arrived on the scene doesn't mean there wasn't a world already
there. Truman was proposing Universal Health Care in 1949. The beloved
A.M.A. pounced on it and called it socialized medicine. They also called
HMO's that, until most doctors realized that was the wave of the future and
began starting their own group and HMO practicies.

Funny, you scream "socialized medicine" but don't seem to have any problem
driving on public highways and streets which were paid for with TAX
dollars by EVERYBODY. It's called a SOCIETY, child. We all pay for it,
we all use it. Ayn Rand wasn't against collectivism, she was in favor
of anarchy. 

I can't believe that there are still people around who
spout that Objectivist bullshit. One of those Rand-fans was a student at
UC Riverside in the 1964-era. He was so wierdly into her philosophy
that he even talked about how you were supposed
to scratch and bite when you make love (a la Ayn Rand's prescription -
I thought only Klingons did that).  He popped up a couple of years
back as a fairly frequent director on L.A. Law. (Name: Wyn Phelps). 

He obviously lost his taste for Ayn Rand somewhere in the process of 
growing up.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70336 alt.president.clinton:1895
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 23 Jan 93 05:36:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	2. Did Ted know that the attorney general nominee appoointment was
>	withdrawn before he posted ? It strikes me that this appointment
>	has been gored specifically because of the political strife over
>	appointing a woman to this position. Better it would have been to allow
>	Bill to appoint Hillary to the job than to hawk the attorney 
>	generalship among judges who don't want it, ideologues who want it,
>	but don't support Bill Clinton's moderate agenda, and the late Zoe
>	Baird, who suffered the fate of many "hurry up" Republican candidates -
>	and got through the screening process, only to end up embarrassing
>	the new administration. Clinton did the right thing by acting quickly
>	and aggressively to terminate the candidacy.

She got gored for violating immigration law, not for being a woman.

(One might say she was gored for violating tax laws, too, but the tax laws
in question are held in about as much respect by the general public as the
laws against speeding, so I doubt they had much to do with it.)

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69478 alt.activism:21260 alt.conspiracy:14542 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13642
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:50:49 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <6563@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)  
writes:
> If the union cannot organize enough workers to have a strike give  
pause to
> the employer, then it hardly merits the name, and using the power  
and
> coercion of gov't to prop it up will not benefit anyone in the long  
run,
> no matter how nice it is to strong-arm management.
> 

This is true only if the employer isn't allowed to fire anyone
who tries to join a union.  By doing so, they can prevent
the union from ever getting any power to bargain effectively.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Seem to have missed...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:20:55 GMT

In article <147277@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
}In article <1993Jan21.132030.16214@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>Could someone please let me know when Hillary Clinton won an elected position,
}>or was appointed and went through a confirmation hearing? 
}
}Contrary to what many people on this newsgroup seem to believe, the
}president has the right to appoint anyone he wants to numerous advisory
}positions without confirmation by the senate.

Correct. And as long as she remain ADVISORY, great.  As soon as she makes one
policy decision, or institutes a single implementation, not great.
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Judiciary Committee, Please Get a clue!
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:28:56 GMT
	<1jp4dfINNi7b@transfer.stratus.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1jp4dfINNi7b@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
<   While you make a few reasonable points, I can understand why they
<   had to agonize.  She would have made a good Attorney General.
<   They had to decide whether the infraction she had committed
<   was a big enough negative to outweigh her strong positives.
<   I do think, that for the postion of Attorney General, the negative
<   (unfortunately) did outweigh the positive.  It's a shame, though.
<   I wish she hadn't done what she had, as she seemed like she'd
,   have done a good job.

	Sure, felons often are good at being cops, right?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70297 soc.culture.african.american:14443
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Cuba
Keywords: Mario Baeza, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin-American Affairs
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:23:11 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan28.045635.9514@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (TRUTH IS. BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED.) writes:
>Excuse me for interupting, but since when doesn't it take 2/3 of the house
>and senate to override the president?

When the president needs the approval of the legislature to act in the
first place.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<matjmm.727895331@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> <1k11rsINN543@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:41:43 GMT

In article <1k11rsINN543@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

[stuff deleted]

   OK, I'll offer some constructive criticism.  To Clinton (and Gore) - 
   resign now and save the country a lot of grief.  You weren't elected
   because the people wanted you, you were elected because the electorate 
   didn't want Bush as President any more.  Get down off your overinflated
   ego and realize the people aren't in love with you, you're not the
   reincarnation of Jack Kennedy.

Well, I guess I see how much good it would be to attempt meaningful
dialog with you if that's your idea of constructive criticism.

--


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: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird should step aside
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:06:37 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, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:
>
>NPR (Nina Totenberg) just said that Feinstein & Braun are working
>behind the scenes to get Zoe to withdraw.  I hope it's true.


       Gasp!  Is there no honor among liberals????!!!!!

       Tune in tomorrow when we hear Hilary say,

           ' What about Tipper? '

>
>If so, was the selections of John Tower or Bert Lance examples of 
>what you get when you are hell-bent to select a white male?


      Hmmm.  I, eh, I just don't *remember* Reagan(?) saying he
      was going to make his cabinet look like the Fortune 500.

      My memory, I guess.

>
>I've yet to hear anyone claim the Zoe is not qualified due to 
>inexperienced.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69971 misc.legal:23378
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 27 Jan 1993 13:52:48 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan26.215032.6700@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan26094626@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
|> ><How many parents do you think pay FICA for their babysitters?
|> >
|> >	Is Smith aware of the difference between "babysitter"
|> >	and "live-in nanny and driver"?
|> 
|> Whatever difference there may be, it is not one that the law cares about.
|> Failing to pay FICA for either is equally illegal.

I'm surprised at you.  This statement is simply wrong.  Typically
a babysitter is a free lance operator.  The babysitter is essentially
running his/her own business.  It is the responsibility of the babysitter
to pay his/her own FICA, not the person who contracts with the babysitter.
It's not different than if you hire a consultant.  The consultant
is in business for himself and is responsible for any taxes and FICA
payments.  The nanny and driver, OTOH, are employees of someone.
As your employer, you are required to pay FICA, etc.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:09:48 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <PA142548.856.727711475@utkvm1.utk.edu>  
PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> 
> Oh, I see, everyone has a RIGHT to health care.  Your worldview  
can't accept 
> libertarianism, because these people would be responsible for thier  
own 
> care.  The elderly would be expected to have made provisions for  
themselves 
> before they BECAME elderly.

Yeah, and those poor folks who lose the low-paying job that
barely helped them squeak by and haven't found another one yet,
they can just die and decrease the surplus population, right?

As to the "right" to health care. I don't know.  The whole
concept of rights is one that we really should discuss in
depth in our society.  To many people use the word "right" 
applied to all sorts of things.  As a society, we need to decide
what our basic rights are, and why.  We also need to decide
which things aren't rights, per se, but which we as a 
reasonably affluent society should take care of.  I think
health care probably falls into the latter category: it isn't a 
"right," but we should provide some basic health care for those
in need. Or, as George Will said, commenting on an ad that
said video disk machines were down to $1000: "Any society
that can afford $1000 for toys but which allows sick children
to die for want of medical care is undertaxed."  

But, on the subject of rights: What do libertarians believe
are "rights"?  More importantly, WHY are these rights?  Why is 
your ownership of a vacation home in the Bahamas, say, more
of a right than the right of someone who loses his job to not be
tossed out in the street to starve?  Or the right of society
to decide to help that starving person?  Or the right of society
to decide to protect the people with less power from the
people with more power (as is the case with worker protection
laws)?

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Family Leave Bill
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:22:38 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <1k3eouINNkqh@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
|> 
|> [why doesn't the family leave bill cover all businesses...]
|>
|> It only works for big companies because they have the resources
|> to fill in for some one for a couple of months.  If a company has
|> 500 employees and one goes on leave, that leaves 499 (and they've
|> only lost .2 percent of their work force.  If the corner store
|> employs 5 people and 1 goes on leave, they've lost 20% of their
|> work force. That's much harder to compensate for.
|> 

Of course you are ignoring the fact that the larger the company,
the more people who are likely to take leave.  You also ignore
the fact that a company of 500 is not composed of 500 identical
robots who can simply be plugged into a new role.  Most companies
are broken into smaller departments where the departure of one
individual represents a high percentage of the employees in that
department.  I'm not claiming that these problems are insurmountable,
only that they impose real costs on a business.  It should be up
to the business (and the employee) to decide where cost tradeoffs
are to be made.  An employee, for example, may desire more take home
pay rather than extra leave time.  Others may be willing to reduce
their pay in exchange for greater leave time.  Government mandated
one size fits all programs simply ignore the fact that we are
a nation of individuals, and we all have different needs.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:04:51 GMT

In <1jvv16INNb8v@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>><   (One might say she was gored for violating tax laws, too, but the tax laws
>><   in question are held in about as much respect by the general public as the
>><   laws against speeding, so I doubt they had much to do with it.)
>>
>>	Sure, Smith, try running a business and not paying FICA
>>	taxes.
>>
>>	Tell us what happens....

>What would happen would be what happens to the millions of other people who
>ignore this: *NOTHING*.  How many parents do you think pay FICA for their
>babysitters?

As near as I understand the rules, the employee must earn > $50.00 in
one sitting, or period of employment. There have been efforts to get
the $50.00 figure raised as being somewhat unrealistic, but pending
that, the IRS uses some judgement ( surprise ).

>--Tim Smith


REB
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: This Shall Not Stand!
Keywords: homosexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 03:14:09 GMT

Heavens, Ted, you sound jealous.

I have a question.  If you really do believe that these issues are
issues of "special privileges," and that gayness is a "chosen"
orientation, then why don't you just become gay, rather than complain
that these "privileges" are not afforded to heterosexuals?  You could
partake ... if you so chose.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:16:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <93027.030741MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Is anyone else even slightly annoyed by how the military itself is
>causing so much trouble over this issue? You can't turn on a TV set
>without seeing Colin Powell self-righteously orating on how awful
>and bad it would be to let 'em in, or open a newspaper without seeing
>yet another leak of confidential memos to the press or statement by
>the Joint Chiefs trying to cause confusion and chaos.
>
>For once and for all it's not The Military's job to underhandedly lobby against
>the President's policies. It is The Military's job to do what the President
>and the Congress order it to. If Bill Clinton orders them to capture the
>South Pole in the name of freedom and democracy, then by god we should
>be bombing Antarctica by this time tomorrow morning, and Powell had better
>be SMILING about it, capische?

    Perhaps, but we are talking about a public policy issue here,
    not a military operation.  Colin Powell happens to be an expert
    on the issue, Bill Clinton does not.  In fact, Clinton has yet
    to tell the public why he wants to allow gays serve in the military.

    What we need is a public debate followed up by a legislation, 
    not an executive order. 
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc