HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:25:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Michael Doel) writes:
|> 
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> 
|> > There is no such thing as a stupid boycott, nor is there any suggestion
|> > that you should support every idea that you decide is "crack-pot."  After
|> > all, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell were considered crack-pots.  You have
|> > every right to encourage others to join or not to join a boycott, but
|> > arguing against the boycott itself demonstrates the lack of faith that
|> > BOB HOOKER refers to.
|> 
|> To illustrate the absurdity of this point, I hereby call the following
|> boycott: 
|> 
|> Product: M&Ms
|> 
|> Reason: For years, M&Ms have come in light brown, dark brown, yellow, green,
|> orange, and red.  How dare they leave out blue!  Many people consider blue
|> to be their favorite color and not making blue M&Ms surely shows a lack of
|> sensitivity on the part of the M&M/Mars company.  We cannot allow this kind
|> of mind control to continue!  Therefore, until M&Ms produces candies in the
|> colors I (or my PC buddies) deem acceptable, I call for all self-respecting
|> liberals to throw down their M&M wrappers at once.
|> 
If you really believe this, I would expect you to stop buying M&M's.  In
fact, I would believe you were a weakling if you continued to buy M&M's.  YOu
can even as other's to join you.  All those that agree with you, will probably
stop buying M&M's.  The boycott isn't stupid if you believe this crap
about blue M&M's.  You just may not find enough that agree with you to
have a significant impact upon Mars (or whoever makes M&M's).
|> 
|> No such thing as a stupid boycott indeed...

Just stupid bocotters.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:40:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.212959.29600@vlsi.polymtl.ca> d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
}On another note, I was absolutely appaled by the treatment of the 
}story of the cuban who got his familly out of Cuba. 
What the heck are you talking about?

}A few day's 
}after he is taken in by Bush; and what does he say, that his
}family could now begin to live , that cuban children couldn't 
}celebrate Christmas (GOSH they must be evil then :-)).

So he himself said it.  Golly gee, and sorry if that doesn't agree with
your preconceptions.  After all, he only lived there, and they were
his kids.  Why should he know what the situation, as it related to him
personally, was.  It MUST agree with your scenario!

}That also prooves that it is
}not for the good of the *poor* cubans that such a policy exists
}but purely for internal political reasons.  

This guy was a major in the Cuban air force.  You got an odd classification 
system there...

}BTW : My sister is going to Cuba, land of all evils, for the holiday 
}and she will be able to tell me more about the desperate plight of
}its inhabitants, imagine... No Mc Donalds :-).

And naturally, she will have a much better picture than those who grew up
there, and just managed to get away a week ago.

sheesh.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:17:51 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Dec18.235046.3988@brtph560.bnr.ca> woodstock!chris@mcnc.org writes:
>
>  The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
>Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
>Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
>result are kinda scary.  
>
>Chris Fulmer                    Bell-Northern Research

Sounds like those "Solid Liberals" (tm) want to enforce the Bill of
Rights, those scoundrels.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:17:52 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec28.193406.11292@oakhill.sps.mot.com>  
dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
> The reason Cap, et. al., should be punished is that our Federal  
officials
> need to be discouraged not to lie to Congress/the People for  
personal
> reasons.  There was no Natl security at stake here.  

I disagree.  National security was as stake here, to some degree.
Certainly those involved thought so.  I don't think Weinberger
refused to tell all to Congress for personal reasons, but
because he felt that national security was involved. We may
disagree with whether it really was in this case, but I think
Weinberger certainly thought so.

The problem many of these folks face is that they are torn
by conflicting requirements: on one side, they are sworn to
secrecy involving various national policy issues, on the other
they are asked by Congress to testify publicly involving those
same matters they swore under oath NOT to discuss.

I don't know that there is an easy solution to this, but certainly
it is NOT to do things the way we do them now.  Perhaps what we
need is a small, bipartisan committee that can first hold 
closed hearings and interveiw folks like Weinberger; then, they
can together make a statement on what happened after deciding if
it should be secret or not.  A major problem with the current
system is the folks involved are asked to divulge secret information
in front of TV cameras: there is no chance to talk it out
first to see if it really is appropriate to talk about in such
a public forum.

They got busted
> doing something wrong and lied to cover it up.  Just like Nixon.  

I disagree.  Watergate involved Nixon and crew trying to enhance
their own personal power.  Irangate involved group of
officials trying to further foreign policy. It may have been
the wroong foreign policy to pursue, but by and large they
weren't doing this for personal gain.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 04:59:19 GMT

[alt.politics.bush crosspost deleted]

Yamanari (rsrodger@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan1.182912.14426@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (How
ard Black) writes:

[snip]

: >    Right, but if it's leanred, it's learned so early in life so as to have
: >the result be indistinguishable from being inborn.  Neither scenario
: >legitimizes bigotry.
:
:
:    Never said it did.  However, consider:
:
:    1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
:    2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
:         their behavior.  The mentally ill, recluses,
:         anti-socials, serial killers, child molesters,
:         thieves.
:    3.  I can't think of a *single* moral stand, that--given
:         the two assertions above are true--says people should
:         just leave homosexuals alone.  If you choose to
:         argue the two assertions above, try the second one,
:         becausethe first is unarguable.(see def. "deviant")
:
:    However (see next point)
:
: >> (with the further question of, "can it be cured in either case?")
: >
: >    What, exactly, needs to be cured?
:
:
:    Deviance.

Although Mr. Black is quite capable of answering such obsurdaty, I want to
point out that society tries to "cure" anti-social behaviours (serial killing,
child molestation, robbery, etc.) and not ALL deviant behavior.  I have long
hair, I carry a purse and I the mental stimulation of argumentation.  In the
U.S., all these behaviors are deviant for a male.  No-one is trying to cure me
of any of the behavior.

[rest of article deleted]
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Balkan War getting uglier and uglier by the day...
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:00:22 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

It seems that if something isn't done to end this war, it is just
going to grow into bigger mess than it already is.

If Macedonia sides with Serbia and becomes an active participant
does Albania ally with the Bosnians? Does Greece back Serbia, bring
Turkey into the war on the side of the Muslims? Does Bulgaria back
the Serbians? Does Ukraine get involved? What about Romania.

This conflict has all the ingredients for a full scale European
war...

Personally, I think that the U.S. should take out the Serb air force
and start supplying Bosnia with arms so that they can defend themselves,
otherwise this cyst is going to rupture into a war where millions of
people might be killed.   :/

-Garrett
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:39:00 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <Dec.26.07.44.44.1992.9492@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Just what is
>it that Weinberger did that makes him a traitor?  Or are you just an
>airhead who is congenial to the idea that those who have policy
>differences with some influential self-appointed elite should be
>treated as criminals (at least in cases where you happen to disagree
>with their basic ideology)?
>-- 
>Theodore A. Kaldis

By this (and George Bush's) argument, my dealing drugs isn't so bad.
It's just a silly policy difference.  I feel the US should decriminalize
drug use.  Policy difference, not law breaking.

BULLSHIT.

In the minds of Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz (according to
Caspar's own notes of the meeting) the policy of shipping arms to Iran
was illegal, and sending them through an intermediary did not make it
legal.  They advised Reagan of this.  His response (I wish I had the
exact quote) was that 'He (Reagan) could handle the illegaliity [it
didn't bother him that it was breaking the law], he just didn't want it
known that "Big Ron Reagan" couldn't bring the hostages home.'

#1  It sounds like these guys knew laws were being broken, and could be
charged as conspirators (should their own interpretation of the law be
correct).

#2  It doesn't sound like policy differences.  Sounds more like a Reagan
ego trip.

IMHO----(lengthy pause):  Bush had no business pardoning people who he
was involved with and could have been potentially implicated with.  He
should have cut a deal with Clinton to do the pardons.  That *would*
have allowed all this to be put behind us.

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS...) 1 OF 3
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:39:53 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
|> Well I was wrong. I made 3 posts. The first dates 10/27/92...

And accuracy wasn't your long suite.
|> 
|> Here is the question...
|>    If character doesn't matter, why isn't Ted Kennedy president today?
|> The answer- He probable could be since honesty, integrety, and values don't
|> matter anymore to the general public.
|> Examples- Marian Barry, former Mayor of D.C., a convicted drug user, a felon
|> elected to city council; Carol mosely Brown (Ill), a welfare cheat; Barbara
|> Boxer (D-Ca), severe check bouncer running for Senate.

Please demonstrate that Barbara Boxer bounced any checks.  The last I heard
all of the checks she wrote were accepted and paid by the bank.  Not one
of here creditors had a check returned for any reason.  We call that over-
draft protection at my bank.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:35:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.043334.15034@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>>>  To chase North for accepting
>>>something to defend himself and his family from harm, the treat of which
>>>resulted from his performance of his official duties is a far different
>>>thing than accepting a free trip to the Bahamas or a fur coat for his
>>>wife.
>>
>>Imagine my relief, knowing that North had those snow tires to fend off
>>Abu Nidal.  Or did you forget that inconvenient little fact too, Al?
>
>No, no, Mark. The snow tires weren't anti-terrorist measures. They simply
>reflected executive-branch disagreement with Congress about the proper
>governmental response to snow-covered roadways.

Mea culpa.  Viewed in this light, I now comprehend that Betsy North's
stockings, bought with cash from Secord, advanced an essential
national security purpose that Congress couldn't possibly be entrusted
with knowledge of.

Similarly, I have seen the light WRT North's two back-dated letters to
Robinette about North's "payment" for the home security system.  Those
December 1986 letters -- back-dated to March and October in order to
bolster North's August 6, 1986 lies to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence -- reflect nothing more than an interbranch
policy dispute over the meaning of "truth".

Please excuse my earlier posts in which I mistakenly assumed that
North's actions were those of a liar and a cheat.



-- 
			   797 F. Supp. 186

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 04:28:36 GMT

In article <13759@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
#The parade committee
#accepted NAMBLA as one of the groups marching in the parade,
#a big mistake in my opinion.

Ah, respecting free speech is a big mistake.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:48:53 GMT

In article <1hvcfiINNa6h@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
} David Veal) writes:
} |> Mike Polen) writes:
} |> >David Veal) writes:
} |> >|> Mike Polen) writes:
} |> >|>
} |> >|> >There are those of us that won't agree with chris's definitions of
} |> >|> >"Obscene."  Some of us think that pictures of a half-naked male nailed
} |> >|> >to a wooden crossbar is violent and obscene.
} |> >|>
} |> >|> 	Well, it is, which is kind of the whole point to it.
} |> >|>
} |> >You mean we should hang "dirty pictures" up in church also?  Is that
} |> >where obscenity belongs?  Maybe I missed the whole point of your
} |> >"whole point."
} |> 
} |>         As far as the crucifix goes, it's a violent, horrible, obscene
} |> thing to do to a human being, and even more so for what Christian's
} |> believe was, and is, the son of god.  It's purpose is to serve as a
} |> reminder.  The "whole point" is that it is a constant reminder to
} |> Christians of their state of sin.  You don't have to buy into that,
} |> but it's their wall, which is a considerably different situation than
} |> the government paying for it.  (And, for the record, I oppose the whole
} |> of the NEA and government funding for the arts, not just the obscene
} |> parts.)
} 
} As long as their wall is tax exempt, I'm helping pay the bills.

Why?  If even the government doesn't think that a church owes it
anything, how is it that you are helping to pay the bills?

} There
} is no difference.

Between what?
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: (CANADA) White supremacist asks court to quash hearing
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:36:26 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Keywords: LaChance,Nerland

The Vancouver Sun
Monday, December 21, 1992 (A7)

Canadian Press

PRINCE ALBERT, Sask. White supremacist Carney Nerland has asked the
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to quash a commission looking into the death of
a Cree trapper he shot in January 1991.

Nerland's lawyers filed appeals last week asking to have the commission
disbanded. They argue it usurps Parliament's jurisdiction owver criminal law
because it was created by the provincial legislature and that it intrudes
into the affairs of the RCMP because they were asked to reveal an informant.

Trapper Leo LaChance was shot outside Nerland's gun shop Jan. 28, 1991, and
he died early the next day. Nerland was arrested and pleaded guilty to
manslaughter in April 1991. He was sentenced to four years in prison.

The inquiry, headed by former Saskatchewan judge Ted Hughes, came after
public demand for details of the crime not revealed at the time of
sentencing.

Nerland is self-proclaimed head of the white-supremacist Church of Jesus
Christ Christian Aryan Nations in Saskatchewan.

The commission began in May hearing testimony from police and witnesses. But
the inquiry came to a halt in June when a Saskatchewan court ruled police
witnesses at the public hearings don't have to name the force's informants
within white-supremacy groups.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                 Information is power - get connected
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:35:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.181228.15777@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Literacy check. "going to a resort" != "live in the resorts".
}#"a cuban resort" was the published destination of the aircraft.
}
}Check your own literacy. Or do you think that flying to a airport in a
}resort town means the people are going to stay IN the resort.

Reality check:  The data was given as to the scheduled destination of the aircraft.
There was no data in my source as to what the individual agendas were once they
were there.  Hence, I said "going to", which was what they were doing in the plane.
"live in" is what would be done after getting there.  And since the data was not
available, I chose the one that corresponded to reality, as opposed to ones
wishes.

Not too bad, though.  At least you are consistent.  It would be nice if you
learned to differentiate between documented, verifiable reality and your opinions,
wishes, and dreams.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Welfare vs. Workfare
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:55:34 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Douglas Meier) writes:
|> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:

|> >>There are a lot of people making a decent living
|> >>mooching off of the hard-working Americans, and they're likely going to want
|> >>to eliminate anyone who tells them there is no more free pie.
|> >
|> >Yup. Millionaire cattle ranchers, wheat ranchers, logging company owners, 
|> >land developers, corporate CEOs...  Just to name a few.
|> >
|> >FIRST, wean the rich off the welfare rolls, THEN work on the poor.
|> >MUCH more efficient way to go.
|> >
|> I can't think of any instances where the people you just described are
|> receiving welfare.  Some may be cheats, to be sure, but that is not quite what
|> I was talking about.  Very few if any rich people are "on the welfare rolls",
|> as it were.
|> 
|> Oh, OK, I get it now!  You suggest that we don't let entrepreneurs keep what
|> they stick their necks out for.  They pay the checks, and they take the risks,
|> but they shouldn't be allowed to keep the profits if their endeavor is
|> successful.  Gotcha.
|> 
|> Somehow equating Commie-Liberal Pinko Bolshie Socialism with efficiency
|> doesn't seem to quite add up.  Rewarding laziness is more efficient than
|> punishing it?  Come now!  You must be joking.
|> 
|> This was a joke, right?

I thought that Doug's post was the joke.  Mike is refering to subsidies,
special tax breaks, energy incentives, graft, etc.  If Doug thinks that
is what they are sticking their necks out for, cut them off.  We don't
think of these as entitlements, but that is exactly what they are.  They
are hidden because many are not measured in tax money spent, but in tax
money unfairly uncollected.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS.
Date: 23 Dec 1992 15:49:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 16291@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu, pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
> In article <merlyn.724871258@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) wr
> ites:
> >pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
> >Could it be that Clueless Boy is confusing Clinton's demonstrations against
> >US involvement in Viet Nam while in college in England with Clinton's tourist
> >trip to the USSR around the same time?  Naaa...
> >
> 
>    Aw, come off it. He was demonstrating in the U.S.S.R. and it's DOCUMENTED.
> 


I don't suppose that you would be willing to prove the above statement?  (I'd
like some proof, not the garbage that Rush spews out).




Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore I am!!



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65404 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10749 alt.politics.bush:14947