HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:48:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Dec28.144039.23072@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.211652.27744@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Simon E. Booth,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>>Yes folks, Bush did the right thing.
>
>I'm sorry Simon, but I must disagree.
>
>This country is founded on law....maintained on a foundation of law
>and freedom. What Bush did was to circumvent the legal system. If
>they were all innocent as they claim, than the truth would have
>been evident in the facts or in a lack of hard evidence. However, it
>has become increasingly clear that this hard evidence does exist.
 
	If they were all innocent why did they need to
	be pardoned in the first place?

>What kind of message does this pardon send to our children. Does it
>say "It's only a crime if you get caught"? Does it say "If your rich
>and/or powerful enough you can get away with anything"? We should
>be aware of the grave implications of actions like these to the
>defining principles of our society.
 
	The message is clear:  work with us (Republicans),
	keep your mouth shut and do as you're told and we'll
	get you off the hook!

	They hadn't counted on the fact that the Republican
	Special Prosecutor they appointed has a deep and abiding
	respect for THE LAW and, in fact, has dedicated his
	life to it.

>
-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
P.O.Box 273 - Island Station
New York, NY 10044 USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons....
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:49:25 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

Face it Paul,

   Bush is covering his own butt by pardoning these 
people.  He's also protecting Reagan from prosecution
with this little manuever.  He was the VP, and the
former HEAD OF THE CIA:  HE HAD TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING
ON!  Don't be so blinded by party loyalty that you 
can't see what is really happening.  

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:18:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Dec18.225149.8109@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.155404.16544@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>2) anal sex
>
>Most likely educating on having *safe* anal sex to cut down on the
>propagation of AIDS.  This is a major public health issue.  If you think
>this sort of education is a bad idea, I feel sorry for you.

>-Howard

There is no better way to transmit AIDS sexually than by having anal inter-
course.  This is an opening that was never designed to accept a penis since
it is too small and causes a lot of rupturing of tiny blood vessels.  
And these days, there is no such
thing as 'safe' sex, there is only safer sex unless you are monogamous and
neither of you haven't received blood transfusions and don't shoot up drugs.
Condoms have a failure rate of 20 percent using them during vaginal
intercourse.  Using them in the anal area would only increase the failure
rate and since there is the question of blood in the area due to tearing of
the skin and rupturing of blood vessels, this increases the likelyhood
of getting AIDS as a result of this blood.

ray
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:52:08 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Dec18.091953.19727@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner ) writes:
>
>Hmmm...
>It is interesting that someone in our CONSERVATIVE physics department
>has SOOOO much time to post to UseNet.  I guess since we students (especially
>us Lesbian and Gay Students at the UA) helped topple the right-wing
>department head this semester, there hasn't been much leadership or
>focus in the department, so the faculty/staff spend their time posting
>here.  Curious.
> 
>Thom Turner
>University of Arizona Student 

Sounds like a bunch of conservativephobes at your physics deparatment.
No leadership huh?  Must be you are having a difficult time finding a left
wing replacement with qualifications.  Not surprised, this is a problem
everywhere.

ray
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh GIFs Please
Followup-To: alt.geek
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:30:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.191605.6419@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.163433.3152@midway.uchicago.edu> gus3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Does anyone have a GIF of Rush Limbaugh?  I would like to add his
>>mug to my Windows wallpaper (to replace that poor girl with goo
>>all over her face who is there now.)  No 'erotic' or 'tasteless' 
>>pix of him, please...

Erotic? RUSH LIMBAUGH?  You are sick.

Not much you can do about tasteless, though.

>
>Ladies and gentlemen, the GIF is on Compuserve, in the Rush Limbaugh
>section of the issues forum. The file is HUGE (500K) so I couldn't

Well, Rush is kind of a big guy...




-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
Disclaimer:  I have been put into an evil trance by Ricardo Montalban.
It happened late at night whilst watching the 'Mr. Rourke hypnotizes the
devil' episode of Fantasy Island.  These words are his, not mine.
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:00:55 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Dec30.195442.29596@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov
(Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>In article <bhayden.725732024@teal> Bruce Hayden, bhayden@teal.csn.org
writes:
>>  The big deal is that Reagan/Bush and company felt they could do
>> anything they damn well pleased even though Congress and most of
>> the American people said NO to giving military support to the Contras.
>
>>Most of the American people?? Where do you get that?? 
>>This was a policy dispute between a Republican president and a 
>>Democratic congress.

>Don't muddy this with partisanship. The special prosecutor happens
>to be a very ethical conservative Republican thus blowing this silly
>interpretation out of the water...  

Once again, Walsh hasn't been running the show for quite some time.  James 
Brosnahan IS running it -- and he's a liberal Democrat.  Partisanship is very 
much alive & well.

[...]

>>You can live a long time on that much money. Besides,
>>Walsh has had little to do with the prosecution for a while. There
>>are a number of fairly activist prosecutors running the show anymore,
>>without any effective control.

>Name them. Show me where Walsh has approved of the pardon.

James Brosnahan, Esquire.  He -- and his law firm -- contributed tens of 
thousands to various Democratic candidates.

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

Paul Havemann  (paul@hsh.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 09:49:37 GMT

bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:

>>Name a President who hasn't done anything "wrong" in some large group
>>of people's minds.

>William Henry Harrison comes to mind (except for not being smart enough
>to wear a hat in the rain).

Bill:  Well there you are, you've done it.  So we should either have
more W.H. Harrison's or go backward in time.

I'll guess that if Mr. Harrison was President at this time he would have
managed to wreck something up in his time as President (this was the guy
who was President for a month or two, right) ?

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:47:47 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> clearly unable to think
anyone buy himself has a brain babbles, lest 3 messages pass without his
comment:

>tleylan@pegasus.com writes:

>>Bill:  Well there you are, you've done it.  So we should either have
>>more W.H. Harrison's or go backward in time.

>Jeesh Tom!
>
>It was a joke son...sarcasm....witty reparte....

Duhhhhh.  Oh, but what will the _children_ think ?

tom
I'm no doctor and all I can say is "Thank God"
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:01:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <1992Dec29.101737.405@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>
>Gee, I can't seem to find when/where these quotes came from.  Can you supply
>sources?  

Yes.  I said them all.  I never claimed otherwise.

The quoted phrases are what I believe the message Bush is sending the
people to be, based on his actions.  Like nervously pardoning people
who aren't even convicted yet.  The republican party has a history of
this.  Nixon issued 838 pardons in his terms, and look at his record.

>
> - What "embezzlement" was North convicted of?

Did you sleep during the whole North affair?  What would you call
illicit removal of funds from someone who you work for's bank accounts
to be used for your own purpose?  Remember:  North wasn't acting under
orders, according to the administration.  Also remember:  He Admitted
The Act.  The dispute was whether or not he was directed.	


> - Do you know what the word "nepotism" means?  Look it up.
>

Do you?

Nepotism: Patronage bestowed in consideration of family relationship
and not of merit.

Like evading prosecution in the S&L scandal because daddy's the
president.

Whine away, the fact is that if you or I did what Neil did, we'd be in
the pokey.  It's yet another example of the Govt. 'good ole boys' club
which lets things like the congressional check kiting go by.


-Howard
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
Disclaimer:  I have been put into an evil trance by Ricardo Montalban.
It happened late at night whilst watching the 'Mr. Rourke hypnotizes the
devil' episode of Fantasy Island.  These words are his, not mine.
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 25 Dec 92 22:14:42 GMT
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


     Bush must have really been afraid to let Cap Weinberger come to
trial--apparently some of the evidence that would have been brought out
painted the soon-to-be-ex-president in a most unfavorable light.  So he
gave ol' buddy Cap and six others pardons for their role in the biggest
government scandal of all time (unless you count the S & L scams, which was
also brought to you by the Republican Party).  I can't wait until this
asshole's term is up.  Can you imagine having nothing to do but sit around
the house and look at Bar all day?  I wouldn't wish that on Millie.
-- 
    "The biggest problem with reading [Usenet] is there is so much and it 
is all so interesting.  It is easy to be enamored with it.  Be selective
about which groups you read.  It could mean your job, your family, or your
college career."  --Ed Krol, _The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:17:00 GMT

In article <1772@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>:
>: If you all think what Bush et al did was treason, then certainly Clinton's
>: actions during the late 60's must be equal or worse (going to Moscow, dodging
>: the draft).
>:
>: Wonder what he did with the 30 pieces of silver the KGB paid him?
>:
>:
>: Simon
>
>Please present any evidence you may have that Clinton has ever, at
>any time, had any improper contact with the KGB, or that he has
>ever, at any time, served as a Soviet agent, or failing that, that
>"going to Moscow" was a crime at the time Clinton went.  The
>evidence doesn't have to be conclusive, or even substantiated;
>I'll accept rumors, inuendo, anything, so long as it wasn't
>invented by Bob Dornan in the last year.
>Don't look too long, though, cuz you won't find any.

It just seems suspicious that Clinton, openly opposing US policy in Vietnam,
takes a trip to Moscow during that time.  Now some say he was only on
vacation.  Butwho would take a trip to Mosocw at the height of the Cold War
and in the dead of winter?

The flip side of all this is that there are claims that alot of Americans
were going to Moscow during that time, and most of those trips weren't for
political reasons.

Rumors on both sides of the fence on this one.


Simon

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dsl24@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Bush really IS a wimp
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:43:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.092820.23623@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>As expected, he was too timorous to brave open court, so he did the typical
>Republican thing and pardoned those who might otherwise serve to convict him.
>What a wimp: afraid of his fellow citizens. What did he have to fear, after
>all? Either Weinberger lied to Congress or he did not. Either Weinberger's
>notes show that Bush lied to Congress or they do not. If Weinberger and
>Bush are really innocent, then they have nothing to fear from a jury of
>12 good men and women--the truth will out. Or is that what the little
>sh*t was afraid of?
>
   Maybe he's trying to save us tax-payers some money.  This whole
   investigation is a waste of time.

>Rumor has it Bush is worried about establishing his place in history (for
>example, the Somalia mission). I think he needn't bother--it's pretty
>much totally established by now...and it is REAL ugly. Maybe he and
>Nixon can golf together while they try to rehabilitate their reputations.
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------
   A rumor no doubt started by some leftist like yourself.  As far as
   Bush's place in history, it will be far from ugly.  Looking back
   people will be more apt to wonder why idiots like yourself voted
   in a "used car salesman" like Clinton, and voted out a great man
   like President Bush.

   Only time will tell.


>Feinstein '94
>Clinton/Gore '96


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Those "nutty" Polls
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:55:32 GMT



>>
>>The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
>>in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
>>bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
>>accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.
>>

>Of course you'll say a poll is accurate when your side appears to be
>winning.  If your side was losing in the opinion polls,  I get the feeling
>you'd be telling us how much the polls don't mean anything.

>Polls can easily be doctored towards one side or another.

>Polls, IMHO, are about just as worthless as TV ratings figures.

This is pure emotionalism, and as you stated, just an opinion, and
a non-scientific one at that.  Polls undergo a lot of scrutiny as
to which questions they do in fact ask, and are quite a bit more
accurate than the Nielsen ratings.  Maybe the person in question
would argue about the meaningless of polls if his candidate were
losing, but that still wouldn't make his opinion more intelligent
in that case than yours is in this case.

Despite all the media-bashing, they got the polls right, and quite
a bit more.

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush really IS a wimp
X-Xxdate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 07:48:42 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:52:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.233313.18076@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Simon E. Booth,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>Ahh.. but he did serve in World War II, whereas Clinton dodged the draft
during
>Vietnam.
>
>Now who is a wimp??

Neither. No person should be called a coward for following
their convictions.

Norman
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons....
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:37:33 GMT


Why is the emphasis placed on 'lying to Congress'?

It seems a bit ironic that Congress, with their past transgressions (check
kiting, bank scandal, Ted Kennedy's escapades) would be concerned that other
people were being dishonest to them.

My point: isn't it funny that politicians are the ones making such a fuss
about being lied to??


Simon

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:37:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.135552.10873@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.225714.17677@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Simon E. Booth,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>>If you all think what Bush et al did was treason, then certainly
>Clinton's
>>actions during the late 60's must be equal or worse (going to Moscow,
>
>Sightseeing....a capital offense.
>
>> dodging
>>the draft).
>
>Following ones moral convictions = treason? I don't think so.
>>
>>Wonder what he did with the 30 pieces of silver the KGB paid him?
>
>I hope you're being facetious here.
OK that was a bit much.  But of all the places to go, why Moscow, at the
height of the cold war, in the dead of winter?

Simon

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:14832 alt.rush-limbaugh:12080
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:26:22 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <17DEC199218251606@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>In article <17DEC199215301538@zeus.tamu.edu> srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven Rush Fennell) writes...
>>In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes...

>>> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>>>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>>>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>>>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
 
>>Well, we can all sit here on Earth and stagnate I guess.  I would say that 
>>without some edge of society, or frontier, we will begin to wallow in our own 
>>filth (unless we turn to zero pop. growth).  How much more is there to learn 
>>on this planet?  Do we abandon technology and turn inwards as a species?  I 
>>prefer to stay with the cutting edge...even if it means paying a few dollars 
>>more in taxes.  And BTW, the space program consumes about 1% of the federal 
>>budget - it was around 4% I believe in the '60s.  Not exactly what I would 
>>call a huge amount of money relatively speaking, compared to welfare or 
>>defense. 

>>The space shuttle costs a little under 1 billion dollars per mission, and it 
>>takes up about half of NASA's budget.  NASA is already investigating the next 
>>generation launch vehicle, which should hopefully cost less per mission that 
>>the shuttle (or there's really no justification).  This is necessary in any 
>>event because the shuttle's are nearing their projected mission design life 
>>maximum.

>Imagine what a billion dollars would do toward the development of the
>"personal digital assistant" or "brain research" or "ascii encoding 
>written texts" or any other frontier....

You're missing the point.  The space program is where a lot of the
underlying technology for such projects came from in the FIRST place. 
NASA puts out an annual book called "Spinoffs" (free for the asking) that 
details the latest developments that came from the space program.  You can't 
name a single major development of the past 30 years that didn't come at
least partially as a result of NASA research... solid-state circuitry,
lasers, air bags, CAT and MRI machines, meteorological studies, thousands of 
other items, and even -- yes -- "'personal digital
assistant' or 'brain research' or 'ascii encoding written texts' or any other
frontier".  

You can argue that the research that produced these items may have been
performed anyway (or eventually), but Congressional studies have concluded
that every dollar invested in NASA research produces four dollars worth of
spinoff technology. 


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

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
  ...Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:06:11 GMT

tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:

>bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:

>>>Name a President who hasn't done anything "wrong" in some large group
>>>of people's minds.

>>William Henry Harrison comes to mind (except for not being smart enough
>>to wear a hat in the rain).

>Bill:  Well there you are, you've done it.  So we should either have
>more W.H. Harrison's or go backward in time.

>I'll guess that if Mr. Harrison was President at this time he would have
>managed to wreck something up in his time as President (this was the guy
>who was President for a month or two, right) ?

Am I supposed to answer?

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush