HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:52:26 GMT

In article 161205@IASTATE.EDU, dickw@IASTATE.EDU (Richard Wallingford) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.041621.20663@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>> The first shipment of arms to Iran came before Reagan signed the finding
>> authorizing it.  That was illegal, because Iran was officially on the
>> terrorist nation list and sending weapons to them was illegal.
>
>They weren't sold to Iran.  They were sold to a intermediary (third
>party) who later sold them to Iran at ridiculously high prices.
>
>> The money from the legal sales, moreover, belonged to the US government,
>> since it was government property that was being sold.  Sending this
>> money to the contras was illegal. 
>
>No U.S. funds were sent to Nicaragua.  The funds were given to the 
>Contras by the intermediary.  The U.S. treasury was compensated fully
>and properly for the original sale (including a large profit). 
>
>For those of you not able to balance you checkbook, here's how it goes:
>
>1.  Going rate for stinger missle bought from US = $50,000
>
>2.  Party X buys stinger missle.
>
>3.  $50,000 deposited in U.S. Treasury and party X receives missle.
>    (Just like buyin' a car)
>
>4.  Party X sells missle to IRAN for $200,000
>
>5.  Party X gives $140,000 to the Contras, making a $10,000 profit.
>
>Sounds like an everyday real estate transaction to me. 

if you substitute "the mob" for "iran" and "arms dealer" for "X",
would you still find it legal?  Either way, you certainly have
an interesting set of situational morals.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:33:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1993Jan8.172341.21807@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> by gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith):

> In article <1993Jan6.173125.875@uoft02.utoledo.edu> sbrack@jupiter
> (Steve Brack) writes:
> 
> >	Hang on a second...  you just linked man/boy love to child 
> >	molestation using what has been called the "welfare argument."
> 
> I'm not convinced that NAMBLA is really about "man/boy love"
> (if this means adults with teenagers) and not child molestation.

I'm no more "convinced" of that than I am that the NAAWP is really about 
"White pride".  They are of a kind: destructive parodies of real rights
groups.  NAMBLA is to GLAAD as the NAAWP is to the NAACP.

> Roy Radow certainly seems unwilling to state this.

Haven't you ever seen the "Crunchy Frog" skit from Monty Python?   The 
operative line is "Our sales would plummet!".  Seen as it is, NAMBLA engenders
extreme revulsion from both homosexuals and heterosexuals.  Knowing this, 
NAMBLA attempts to parasitize the gay community, exploiting their legitimate
fear of discrimination and attack.  This is EXACTLY the same thing that the
Klan did with shrimpers in Texas and Louisiana.  They took their fear of
economic competition from Vietnamese immigrants and channeled it into the 
sort of pig ignorant racism that the Klan thrives on.

There is no more reason for gays to associate themselves with child molestors
than there is for fishermen to mingle with sheet wearing, inbred web toed, 
cowards.  


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: Forgotten History (Was: Weinberger's Pardon)
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:29:54 GMT

In article 93Jan5023419@world.std.com, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>Two interesting points here, first that the mess was begun by a democrat,
>Truman and second that the Tonkin Gulf "incident" was used as a prtext by
>LBJ.  Curiously both were Democrats.  The admission that the Gulf of
>Tonkin episode was a "pretext" only proves my point that the Dems are as
>quick to lie to the congress as anyone else.  Thanks.

You had more than one point.  I was responding to the one where you claimed that
Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin deception *led to* our involvement in Vietnam.  Further-
more, I contradicted your implication that liberals were somehow defensive of, or 
linked to, Johnson's policy.  It was the liberals who undermined Johnson, one of 
their own.  Conservatives did not tend to question the Gulf of Tonkin incident 
until long after we were driven out of Vietnam.  Got in the way of patriotic fervor.  ;-)

On your point that Democrats are as quick to lie to Congress as anyone else--well,
I'm not sure of that.  We haven't established anything like a record of frequency.
I'd say that the Democrats usually have less *reason* to lie to Congress, but that's
IMHO, of course.  Maybe someone should compile a record of scandals in past 
Democratic and Republican administrations.  It might prove illuminating.  :-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:50:52 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1993Jan8.003954.3268@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
 
>>Let's see if I've got this straight.  The recession started in July 1990
>>because of a budget compromise that was not passed until the end of 
>>September 1990, right?
>
>Correction. The recession that started in July 1990 was caused by a budget
>comprimise that was not passes until OCTOBER 1990.

 (Sorry about the lack of clarity)
 That was in reference to the LENGTH of the recession, 1990 to 1992 (In
the publics mind anyway) and the very weak and slow recovery which oc-
cured in 1992. I did intend to state that the 1990 compromise initiated 
the recession as you are implying. It turns out that the recession was
over in 1991 and the SLOW recovery started in 1992. The act hurt the
recovery and lowered tax revenues and caused the doubling of the deficit.
The few Republicans who still support it say that it was the best they
could due in preparation for the Iraq war. Most Conservatives do not
beleive this now.
 Some one also questioned the timing of the 1990 recession. It appears the
the markets knew that Bush was going to raise taxes. Maybe they remembered
his "voodoo economics" slogan. If good legislation passed in 1980-1981 
launced the seven fat years(1983-1990), why could'nt bad legislation in 
1986-1987 cause the 1990-91 recession ? Are you implying that statist 
controls have instantaneous results ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:14:15 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

In article <1993Jan6.145639.11012@technology.com? judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
?	I'll bet it's easier for
?	the secret service to do their secret service in a small
?	restricted school setting than in the large, open, crowded
?	public schools, thus saving a few tax dollars.

Also, consider that public school students nowdays are BETTER ARMED
than the Secret Service!

Mike
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1ia8p9INNhe3@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:41:45 GMT

In article <1ia8p9INNhe3@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

   In article 9955@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
   > 
   > Moreover, he did not "steal" money, nor was this ever part of the
   > allegations against him.  Nor did he violate public trust -- he upheld
   > it much better than virtually all of his detractors.

   That's right.  The money that he "borrowed" to buy that home security
   system is going to be repaid right?  Please, give me a break.  North
   stole the money for his own use.  He had to answer (or get permission)
   from NO ONE.  He is a thief, a liar *and* a criminal.  This is just from
   his testimony before congress.

North stole not a dime.  The security fence was given to him.  He was
charged with accepting a gratuity as a federal officer.  You certainly
should get your facts straight.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:45:08 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan4.165739.1698@wam.umd.edu>
rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.095030.6902@Princeton.EDU>
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>As to your argument in another post about deviance, you're deliberately
>>mixing definitions.  Deviant has a connotation of *bad* as well as being
>>different from a norm.  Otherwise, deviant trivially means anything done
>>by 49% of the population or less, and doesn't give much useful information.
>>
>>As to baseball, I think being left-handed is a more appropriate analogy.
>>It is obviously deviant by *your* definition.  Do we lock up lefties and
>>deny them basic rights?

>	Unlike homosexuality, left-handedness does not affect interpersonal;
>	interaction.

Just tell that to a left-hander at a long dinner table, or the adjacent
right-handers and their elbows.

And yet we don't banish left-handers from communal eating situations...

&>Robert Stephen Rodgers    rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  (Yamanari)   

[...]

&>======================[Opinion]=====================================
&>
&>	Corinthians 14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches:
&>	for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded
&>	to be under obedience as also saith the law.
&>
&>	Corinthians 14:35  And if they will learn any thing, let them
&>	ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women
&>	to speak in the church.
&>
&>	Leviticus 18:22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
&>	womankind: it is abomination.
&>
&>	Leviticus 20:13  If a man also lie with mankind, as
&>	he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
&>	abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
&>	blood shall be upon them.

[...]

&>====================[Politics]======================================
&>
&>	[...] pro-male [...] athiest [sic]

[...]


---
Interesting...a sexist atheist who uses Scripture as authority.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66422 ca.politics:10521 ba.politics:8087
From: dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:44:06 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: ca
Reply-To: dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
NNTP-Posting-Host: tattoo.mti.sgi.com
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest

In article <1993Jan6.031006.2712@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> In article <Ti3wwB1w165w@surfcty.com> rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
 |> 
|> As Randy Shilts also points out - "Gay men made up about 80% of the 70,000
|> patient visits to [SF} VD clinics. ... and the [VD] clinic was considered
|> an easy place to pick up both a shot and a date".

|> 
|> And homosexuals wonder why most of public "doesn't like them".

I still wonder.  I wonder because I have never been to a VD clinic.  
I was not out and active in the 70s.  Unfortunately, people tend to
look at the behaviour of one group of homosexuals in one era and
apply it across the board to all a homosexuals. 


So, I have never been to a VD clinic, Phil... Why does the public dislike
me?  One can assume that it is related to the fact that people such as 
yourself spread an incomplete picture of the homosexual community.  One
can assume it is due to a group of hateful people who are intent on
spreading hateful propaganda concerning homosexuals.



So, Phil, was does most of the public not like lesbians?


FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Thank you  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:51:31 GMT

In article <90191@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)              writes...
>In <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>|>	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
>|>force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
>|>that employer and cannot form any business of your own.
> 
>|	Or when other companies lock you out, for example.
> 
>How pray tell are they going to do this.

Read up on the numerous anti-trust suits that were brought against
Standard Oil because he paid the railroads to charge his competition
much higher fares. 

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Is the media liberal-biased? (was: Weinberger Pardon)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:11:47 GMT

In article <43359@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>
>>In other words, I think that things are balanced.  
>
>I know this is just one data point, but it is an influential one at
>that. Examine Time magazine for the year before the election, and then
>look at their selection for 'man of the year.'

Be sure to allow for objective measures of the failure of the Bush
presidency including, but not limited to:
  the biggest tax increase in American history after promising no new taxes,
  the biggest spending spree since FDR,
  the most federal regulations since the 60's,
  etc.

If, by objective measures, Bush was a bumbling idiot who undid every single
accomplishment of the Reagan Revolution only to snatch defeat from the jaws
of victory, we should not be overly surprised at negative coverage in any
publication and, particularly, in left-wing publications like Time.

>I never saw one story which made any suggestion that the recession we
>were in might just be an adjustment from a 'cold' war economy to a peace
>time economy. The recovery has been very, very slow, true. But the
>"worst recession since the Great Depression?" Certainly not.

I can think of nothing stupider than defending the failures of the Bush
administration on the basis that "things weren't really that bad." Bush
had no economic agenda, he implemented the agenda of the Congressional
Democrats. The results were predicable and were predicted by opponents of
Bush's policies within the Republican Party.

Bush deserved to lose. That must certainly be factored into any anlysis of
press coverage.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:19:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

[soc.motss removed from the newsgroups so the poor dears won't blow
a fuse]

In article <30DEC199216231034@morgul.carleton.edu.>, lambertn@morgul.carleton.edu. (Alas, my love, you do me wrong...) writes:
> In article <13722@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes...
# ## ## Come on, be fair!  97% of reported child molestation is done by hetro
# ## ## men.  The rest is made up of gay men and women.  Given these statitics
# ## #
# ## #FALSE.  Depending on which study you read, at least 21% of molestation
# ## #is by exclusive homosexuals, or about 30% is done by homosexuals or
# ## #bisexuals.
# 
# #I've already posted, repeatedly, a number of sources that show
# #that men molesting boys are somewhere between 20% and 26% of
# #child molestation.  That's about 5x the number of homosexuals
# #in the population.
# 
# Many male pedophiles are straight men who abuse young boys simply because it is

That's right, straight men are the ones that have sex with the same
sex!  More game playing by the people that redefine homosexual when
convenient.

# much easier to get access to boys than to girls for a man who is not related to
# the child(ren) in question.  Most parents won't trust their young daughters to
# non-relative males, but feel that having adult friends will be good for their
# son(s).  Most of these men are abusing boys mainly because they are the only
# children available to them and childhood is more important than gender to the
# abuser.  (I can produce documentation on this if asked.)

Great.  I haved recent scholarly works that say that male pedophiles
are frequently homosexuals, usualy closeted.

# --Tam Lin
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:03:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <ARCHER.726.726859196@utkvm1.utk.edu>  
ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> In article <1993Jan12.144230.24440@starbase.trincoll.edu>  
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
> >Maybe you'd do better examining the _ideological_ roots of your  
faith.
>                                                                   
^^^^^
>      This term is inaccurate, as libertarianism is not a faith, but  
a 
> political and economic movement.
> 

Libertarians may claim this, but that's not what is reflected
in the postings I've seen.  Libertarians cite free markets and
unlimited individual rights (as opposed to the obligations 
that are the result of living in a society) the same way
fundamentalist Christians cite the Bible.  

"Why is this better?"
"Because it is a free market."
"Why is a free market better?"
"Because it is a free market."

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: What's happening to George Bush?
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:07:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

Within the last few weeks:

      *Threatened another war with Saddam!
      *Threatened a new war with Serbia!
      *Pardoned his cronies!
      *Submitted budget that grossly underestimated next year's deficit!
      *Blubbered during speech at West Point!
      *Called his war on drugs a SUCCESS!

George! LAY OFF THE HALCYON!!



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: No US President Ever Survived an Energy Crisis
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:58:36 GMT

In article <Jan.7.10.24.44.1993.1901@cadenza.rutgers.edu> masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:
}No U.S. president who had an energy crisis on his watch has ever made
}it through the end of a second term.
}
}Carter:	Second Energy Crisis, 1979. 	Defeated for second term, 1980.
}
}This should suggest something to somebody...

It suggested something to Clinton: He's appointed as the Head of the Department
of Energy one whos resume shows that she was working on the energy problem
during the Ford & Carter administration.  Maybe Clinton doesn't want to
run again?


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67025 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12160
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:41:24 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <2172@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.003954.3268@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
> 
>cured in 1992. I did intend to state that the 1990 compromise initiated 
                   *NOT*
>the recession as you are implying. It turns out that the recession was

 So sorry. Editor problems. 

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: How big _is_ Texas?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:08:32 GMT


 
 Hehhe...I always get a kick out of claims about how big Texas is.  It
 reminds me of a running joke I heard when I was visiting my brother
 in Anchorage.
 
 It seems that whan Alaska was being concidered for statehood, the Texas
 delegation to congress objected strongly, on the grounds that Texas was
 historically the largest state in the union, by far.
 
 Apparently those who supported the idea of statehood for Alaska decided 
 to make the debate even hotter.
 
 Instead of having a single state, they would divide Alaska in two, and
 create East Alaska and West Alaska.
 
 And in doing so, would make Texas the third largest state, instead of
 the second largest.
 
 The Texas delegation promptly removed their objection.
 
 
 I have no idea if this story is true or not, but the fact is that Alaska
 IS over TWICE the size of Texas...


-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67263 alt.activism:20432
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:31:03 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan11.194552.5897@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

|In article <90191@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>In <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|>
|>[A couple of silly examples deleted]
|>
|: 	These examples can readily be multiplied; I have to question
|: the seriousness of anyone who claims it's simple to start a business,
|: especially a big one.
|>
|>If you think that the only possible employers are big companies, I think I
|>understand why you don't like libertarianism.
|>
|>Try these examples on for size.
|>
|>Put a sign in your front yard saying that you will take care of kids during
|>the day, or night if that is your preference.
|>
|>Buy a few skeins of wool and knit some sweaters.
|>
|>Buy a paint brush and paint houses.
|>
|>I could go on, ... and on.

|	These are only _small_ businesses.

|	What about big ones? Some businesses *have* to be big. Try
|running an airline all by yourself.

Agreed, some companies have to be big, but so what.
The original poster said that if you don't like working for some one else
go to work for yourself.
You implied that this was impossible, I have given examples that show that
it isn't.  The only requirement is that you have to earn enough to take
care of yourself and maybe a family if you have one.  You don't have to
start a big company to do this.

Again I ask, why do you have this fascination with big companies.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush