HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Action list for Clinton Administration
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:12:23 GMT

In article <11NOV199212530923@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>
>To imply that the majority of the nation opposed Clinton is misleading.
>It is perhaps appropriate in this context to point out that Bush got
>only 38 million votes, which would be about 12% of the U.S. population.

By that reasoning it is also misleading to claim that Clinton 
won by a landslide or that the majority of the nation supported him. 
Yet I see both claims being made.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater)
Subject: Re: Is Internationalism bad PER SE?
Reply-To: cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 02:06:26 GMT

In article <Bx9KG8.GxM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra Stewart-Cole) writes:
>In <4NOV199209152176@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (HTES) writes:
>
>>I am capable of making my own decisions and providing for myself.
>>I do not need any govt that tells me how to live.
>>Govt should protect its citizens from outside threats and mediate disputes
>>(when absolutely necessary).  
>>Nothing more, possibly less.
>
>>These are beliefs.  It's hard to prove/disprove beliefs, and I recognize there
>>are many (a majority) who believe otherwise.  I can live with that; it's the
>>enforcement of *others'* beliefs on *me* by an armed state that scares me.
>
>
>So, should the armed police of your city be able to force you not to fillet and
>roast your kids? (hey, it's a choice of lifestyle. Just another way of 
>providing for ones own needs, and making your own decisions) Maybe you should 
>be allowed to disconnect your sewer lines and dump your excreta in a hole in 
>the back yard (your property...your decision ) Maybe you should be allowed to 
>print your own money? 
>
>I just don't buy it. I see the reverse in the US of what many say is an 
>incr4easing usurpation of power by the government. Yes there are areas where 
>individuals have less freedom today than 50 or 100 years ago, but we also have
>many more freedoms in other areas.

Yeah, like the RICO Amendment and Forfeiture Laws. Sometimes they let
you have the small stuff so you won't mind it so much when they take   
away the really big stuff. 

I can tell your young and you still believe and have alot of high
ideals, too bad.  I bet you still believe this country is just like
they taught you in school, this makes me very sad.  It's kind of
like I have this absolutely georgeous 18 month old grandaughter, her
name is Caitlin.  She loves everyone and trust them implicitly.
She has no reason not to, she has been given unconditional love and
acceptance.  Someday soon we're going to have to teach her she can
trust no one, how sad.

Caryn :-(






--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
       Author unknown :-)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall)
Subject: The Templars
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:38:52 GMT

Why has no one discussed the Templars in this net? (If people have and I have 
missed it, I apologize.)

I make no claims as to their continued existence or influence on the world 
today, but historically they are interesting. I loved Foucault's Pendulum as a 
work of *fiction*, but also have read such books as John Robinson's Dungeon, 
Fire, and Sword, Baigent and Leigh's The Temple and the Lodge, and Edward 
Burman's book on the Knights. If anyone would like to talk/speculate/ or just 
enjoy a good historical mystery, please post-up!
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,misc.legal
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: USA President's power to pardon
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:06:01 GMT

In article <19348@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
*In article <1992Nov10.004206.20529@rchland.ibm.com>
*jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

*>In article <1992Nov9.022427.13618@cs.ucla.edu>, 
*>pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:

*>|> According to Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of
*>|> the United States of America, "the president ... shall have power to
*>|> grant ... pardons".
*>|> 
*>|> What's the justification for this power? Should the USA Constitution 
*>|> be amended to rescind this power?   [Brad Pierce]

*>There is none.  I think the founding fathers thought the
*>president was going to be more like a monarch.  [Jared Dahl]

*Question:  Does the President's power extend to pardons for State
*offenses, or can he pardon only offenses against Federal law?

 "Sect. 2. The president shall be commander in chief of the army and
  navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States,
  when called into the actual service of the United States; he may
  require the opinion, in writing of the principal officer in each of
  the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of
  their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves
  and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases
  of impeachment."

-- Brad Pierce --
From: jpwieske@carroll1.cc.edu (JP Wieske)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Thanks
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:40:50 GMT
Reply-To: jpwieske@carroll1.cc.edu (JP Wieske)
Organization: Carroll College-Waukesha, WI

Thanks to those of you who posted on the CIA/Peace Corps problem.
I thought your answers would be along that line. If I happen 
to get any more info, or arguments from my insanely silly friends,
I will post it here.
Thanks for your responses.
JP Wieske
 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.space
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
	<ZOWIE.92Nov8182745@daedalus.stanford.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:51:56

In article <ZOWIE.92Nov8182745@daedalus.stanford.edu>, I wrote:
   (the CRC lists Earth's minimum radius 
   [the polar one] at 6357 miles, and maximum [equatorial] at 6379 miles),

OOPS -- that should be km, both times.  Should, of course, be clear from
context :-)

--
Craig DeForest -- astrophysicist for hire.   DoD#314159; PhD#271828
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: JFK and BUSH 
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 07:40:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.183137.941@Cadence.COM> mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
>When was Bush head of CIA and do you think he know who killed
>Kennedy? (I know it's the CIA but which individuals?)

John or Bobby?

If John, then the newsgroup on which you will be most likely to find
answers to your questions is "alt.conspiracy.jfk". (Note that I have
crossposted this article to that group.)

A good place to start might be the 1988 articles in _The Nation_ about
Bush's CIA duties in Miami on the day after JFK's murder.  The articles
are by Joseph McBride in the 16/23 July and 13/20 August issues.

-- Brad Pierce --

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: DiNardo's atrocities
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 04:14:22 GMT

jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Of course, since the ACLU has now decided to promote suppression
>of "offensive" speech in the guise of fighting "hate" we now
>have a huge "market gap" in the legal arena for defense of our
>civil liberties.

Eh?  Let's see, lately the ACLU (&MCLU) has successfully brought the
St. Paul hate speech ordinance before the supreme court to have
it thrown out (RAV vs St Paul), so I can't guess what you're talking about.

>Indeed, the board of directors of the ACLU as it current exists 
>should be prosecuted and sued jointly and severally for its
>recent attacks on civil liberties and I believe sufficient 
>evidence exists for a grand jury to pursue criminal action
>under RICO.

You obviously have no grasp of law; IF the ACLU decided that it would
support hate-speech laws, there is STILL nothing illegal about that.
You think it's somehow actually ILLEGAL to hold a political view, or
to file lawsuits to have laws you think are unconstitutional declared
unconstitutional?!

If they should be prosecuted, what are the charges?  Having
opinions contrary to Jim Bowery?

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: elvis@halcyon.com (matt jaffe)
Subject: Re: The Japanese Connection
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:46:00 GMT

In article <1dc20mINNm00@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> pyuaq@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr G S Sutherland) writes:
>Wonderful, Bill Clinton has been elected for a day or two, and already
>there is a conspiracy afoot! What else will they come up with....?
>
>As they say, `Stay tuned...'
>
>Graeme Sutherland.

It could also be that we are just seeing all the scandals Bush's
campaign-organizers made up that Bush decided not to use in his ads.  What
I wonder is how many Reagan/Bush conspiracys Clinton is going to be stuck
with.  Bush could have a large role in Iran/Contra now from press reports.
 It will be intreresting to see how things go with that.  But if Clinton
was involved in a conspiracy for real I am curious as to what it was.  I
have a hard time picturing him in a conspiracy.

William Carrel
<elvis@halcyon.com>
From: ad626@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:55:08 GMT


Although the comment I posted was not my own, I'll try to respond. 
I think Bo Gritz identified the owners of the Fed  as Jewish because 
many of them (perhaps a majority from material I have seen) ARE Jewish.
There is indication from some quotes I have seen that Gritz may have 
mistakenly believed that they were ALL Jewish, which is not the case.
I would ordinarily say that the ethnicity of international bankers is
of little relevance. However, for some provocative historical background,
I would recommend Nannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism". Her
section on the rise of anti-semitism contains fascinating historical
material on the social conditions which at least at one time led to
a genuine Jewish pre-eminence in the area of international finance.

<oops> ....Hannah Arendt
           ^
-Steve
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:12127 alt.activism:18647
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Action list for Clinton Administration
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:06:47 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

In article <11NOV199212530923@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.225728.16524@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov>, julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes...
>> 
>>Oh I see.  Because I voted for Bush means that I'm to shut my mouth
>>as to what my next President should do?  The input of 57%
>>of the population is to be ignored?  Sorry, that's not how it
>>works.  Believe it or not, non-Clinton voters *can* discuss the
>>issues you presented without any "sour grapes".  You might be
>>suprised by how much I *agree* with on the list.
>
>The total number of people who voted for those other than Clinton was 
>about 58 million.  That's not 57% of the population of *this* country.
>It's not even 57% of the adult population of this country.  It's not
>even 57% of the registered adult population of this country.  

Ok, to be more pendantic, 57% of those who voted voted against Clinton.
If we use the number of registered voters who didn't vote, then even
a larger percentage didn't vote for Clinton.  Anyway, this is just
a small nit and is not the point of my post above.  My point was
about excluding a sizeable portion of people from discussing the
issues.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Templars
Date: 11 Nov 1992 04:26 PST
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov9.183852.5428@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall) writes...
>Why has no one discussed the Templars in this net? (If people have and I have 
>missed it, I apologize.)
> 
>I make no claims as to their continued existence or influence on the world 
>today, but historically they are interesting. I loved Foucault's Pendulum as a 
>work of *fiction*, but also have read such books as John Robinson's Dungeon, 
>Fire, and Sword, Baigent and Leigh's The Temple and the Lodge, and Edward 
>Burman's book on the Knights. If anyone would like to talk/speculate/ or just 
>enjoy a good historical mystery, please post-up!

Great stuff. The reason you don't see more discussion here is that
most posters are interested only in current U.S. politics and
grinding their own particular axes about it. Not that there isn't
a great source of conspiracy available there*, but it gets a bit
old for those of us who are fortunate enough to not have to
live there.

Say have you read the other Baigent Leigh books about the
Priore de Sion? 

Jacque de Molay, thou art avenged!

(* When was George Bush head of the CIA, what did they do while
he was in charge, and why was this not discussed during 2 
campaigns & an intervening presidency? ...& lots more)

==========================================================================
..And in the dream I saw Dan Quayle   :    Pete Vincent
sitting before the Great Lookup Table  :
eating baked space potatoes, and lo!   :  Disclaimer: all I know I learned
he was wearing Heavy Boots.            :  from reading Usenet.

Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Date: Sat,  7 Nov 1992 14:07:11 -0500 
From: "Gabriel D. Underwood" <gabe+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: News coverage of elections
	<6NOV199211594359@mivax.mc.duke.edu>

In Pittsburgh, on Election night, the local NBC affiliate ran vote
tallies for all the local elections, and included Democrat, Republican,
and Libertarian tallies.  I think the Libertarians got a roughly
constant 2% of the vote.  In my view, the station's news coverage showed
no bias against the Libertarian party; their tallies and percentages
were displayed simultaneously and right underneath the big two's.

-------------------------------------------------------------
"Avoid cliches like the plague" - Woody Allen
Gabriel Underwood 
Internet: gabe+@cmu.edu	
NeXTmail: underwoo@magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu
BITnet:   gu02+%andrew.cmu.edu@CARNEGIE
From: pcl@oxford.ac.uk (Paul Leyland)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: A Trial Balloon on Registered Keys
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:27:05 GMT
	<1992Oct29.201801.16888@netcom.com> <BxCsyp.1Ez@world.std.com>
Organization: Oxford University Computing Service, 13 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2
	6NN
In-reply-to: Costanza@world.std.com's message of 7 Nov 92 16:11:11 GMT

In article <BxCsyp.1Ez@world.std.com> Costanza@world.std.com (Peter Costanza) writes:

   ...under the law the NSA is forbidden to do domestic surveillance....

   silly.  to security organizations the "law" is just another cover.  It's


I posted a follow up to another thread (about why GCHQ monitors (it is
claimed) US comms more than any other nation's), that I believe there
is nothing illegal for friendly countries to exchange intelligence
information, It is not illegal (under US law) for NSA to monitor UK
comms; neither is it illegal for GCHQ (under British law) to monitor
the US.

"Law" need not be a cover.  It is generally easy to circumvent the
intent of a law without breaking it.  Financial advisors also have a
great deal of skill at this, for instance.

Paul
--
Paul Leyland <pcl@oxford.ac.uk>          | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Oxford University Computing Service      |     the English way.
13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN, UK     | The time is come, the song is over.
Tel: +44-865-273200  Fax: +44-865-273275 | Thought I'd something more to say.
From: Robert D. Bernstein <rbernstein@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:43 PST
Subject: Re: USA President's power to pardon
Nf-ID: #R:1992Nov9.022427.13618@cs.ucla.ed:-45085005:cdp:1299600103:000:1066
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!rbernstein    Nov 11 20:43:00 1992


I think what Fodrd did with Nixon WAS uncon*was* unconstitutional. Granting a pardon
after a trial and an investigation, trial and conviction is one thing. Granting an
a priori pardo``pardon'' cannotto stop an investig*stiop* and investigation, trial and conviction
cannot possibly be the intent of the writers of the Constitutuioion.

I disagree that the writers of the Constitution intenedded the President
to be a monarch. It is unfortunate that the popeeplople have not helpd the
President to the Constitutional constraints.

As just one example, the Consttitution makes it pretty clear that COngressoonly
Congress can declare war and it is somewhat less clear but still implied
that there should be no standing armies (military appropriations are
now granted every two years without uchmuch didscussion). Yet the President
sends the military into combat all the time with no Congressional approval.
The intent of the President being commander of the military was clearly
to command it in *in wartime* -- such wars as Congreess may declare.

-- Robert Bernstein
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Bilderberger Victory
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:14:36 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <92314.084325WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu>, <WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> Gee!  New news!  And I thought the Bilderberger scenario sank with Goldwater
> in 1964.  (Anyone interested in what this is all about can read Phyllis
> Schlafly's brilliant and influential contribution to the rural flea market
> stalls, _A Choice, Not An Echo_, which has a whole chapter on how Kennedy,
> LBJ, Rockefeller, and all the usual suspects were whooping it up with the
> Bilderbergers in Colonial Williamsburg.
> .
> Bill Ellis (wce2 @ psuvm.psu.edu)                 Editor, FOAFtale News
> Penn State, Hazleton Campus                       Voice: 717-450-3026
> Hazleton, PA 18201-1291                           Fax: 717-450-3182

I'm sure they only meet to discuss the weather and who should get
the Emmy awards.

-Joe Gaut
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: forrie@morwyn.uucp (Forrest Aldrich)
Subject: Re: JFK and BUSH
Organization: Vision Graphics
			  Dover, NH
			  USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:52:21 GMT
Reply-To: morwyn.uucp!forrie@unhtel.unh.edu (Forrest Aldrich - SysAdmin)


That was a great article... but:  what is it doing posted in 
ALT.ALIEN.VISITORS ???
	^^^^^

(ahem)

-- 
	   -----------	      Forrest Aldrich	      -----------
	   -------     morwyn!forrie@unhtel.unh.edu	  -------
	   ----						     ----
	   --	     VISION GRAPHICS --	Dover, NH - USA	       --
	   ------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:12120 alt.activism:18622 alt.society.civil-liberty:6525 alt.individualism:5985 alt.censorship:8759 talk.politics.misc:59565 soc.culture.usa:8441 alt.culture.usenet:905
From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:38:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
X-Md4-Signature: 8a430ed091f9eb56736e30003a033fad

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>If I were running a company and wanted to provide Usenet access to
>my workers, I'd set up two accounts for each person.  The first
>account would be a normal-looking account.  The second account would
>be for postings and email that the company doesn't want to be associated
>with.  Postings and email from this account would have faked return
>addresses so that they look like they come from some machine not
>associated with the company, and employees would be asked to leave
>the company name out of their signature for postings from this account.
>As long as they complied, they would be free to post *anything* (well,
>anything legal).

Unfortunately, even that won't work if things are set up to allow any
kind of cross connection from one machine to another.

This site is my own machine, totally seperate from any job that I may or
may not perform at one of the local universities (see the .sig :-|  )
In fine Usenet tradition, the mail and news pass thru one of the local
universities.

This was all that was necessary for some turkey at another univerity on
the net (hint in MD near DC) to get bent out of shape over some
*imagined* illegal activity (talking about herbs?) and to send an
accusatory letter to the *TOP* level administration of that university
making vague, stupid, and false threats of exposing the university to
criminal liability by my actions.  (This student, btw, bypassed his
local university administration in sending the letter.)

Not knowing anything of the history of netnews, blinded by his own
agenda, this turkey assumed that the university would crack down on me
and this site.  Fortunately, a little paperwork (showing the forgeries
he included with his complaint) and some foresight on my part, and a
university that understands the net (almost :-)  ended up with a
situation that was amenable.

The only thing I wonder about is what happend to the student at the
other university after the local university sent a formal response back
to the *TOP* level administration there?

The point here is that about the ONLY way some folks learn is through
bitter experience.
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC	[This site is NOT affiliated  ]
wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us			[with Duke University! Idiots!]
UUCP: ...!duke!wolves!wolfe      <Standard Disclaimers apply>
    Above All, we celebrate!  --Celebrate the Circle, Statement of Purpose.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,osu.opinion,alt.politics.clinton
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Bilderberger Victory
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:18:56 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen):
>According to ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall):
>>Did you know that at last year's (June)  Bilderberger meeting in Baden
>>Baden Bill Clinton was present? He was approved by this group...
>
>None of this surprises me as many sharp people have mentioned this before.
>The GOOD NEWS is..Clinton probably doesn't piss Henry Kissinger off..

Don Allen believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are
genuine.

I think that just about wraps it up for Don.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.save.the.earth
From: ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall)
Subject: Bilderberger Victory
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:53:34 GMT

Summary: Stop celebrating!

Followup-To:
Distribution: world
Organization: The Ohio State University
Keywords:

This is for all of you who are celebrating Clinton's win.

(All facts from Texe Marr's book Dark Majesty)

Did you know that at last year's (June)  Bilderberger meeting in Baden Baden 
Bill
Clinto was present? He was approved by this group, the same group that has
controlled Bush from his Skull and Bones days at Yale.

Did you also know that the Bilderbergers and their agents have given campaign
money to both campaigns?  At the same meeting in Germany was another
Bilderberger golden boy, J. Danforth Quayle.

Did you also know that Clinton is or was a CFR member?

Did you really think this election was about change?
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:12047 alt.politics.clinton:16515