HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Dec30.155646.25034@panix.com>
	<1992Dec31.023624.697@rigel.econ.uga.edu>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:59:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.023624.697@rigel.econ.uga.edu> hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:

   In article <1992Dec30.155646.25034@panix.com> patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:
   >
   >	Gee, how did George miss him in the pardon blanket(s)?
   >	He also forgot Secord and Poindexter although I hear
   >	tell that an appeal will be made for executive clemenecy
   > 	with respect to Secord ** mega sigh **
   >
     Didn't Secord write a rather bitter book about being an
     Iran-Contra sacrificial lamb?  Bush has been characterized
     as a vindictive man.  I suspect there will be no pardon
     for Secord.  (Which should tell you something.)

That's not the reason.  The given reason is that Secord and the others
not pardoned profited monetarily from their involvement.  Bush made it
clear he was pardoning only those who did not line their pockets.

As to Poindexter there was no need for a pardon since his case had been
dismissed because the Inquisitor General was unable to show
anti-Poindexter testimony was untainted.  So, Poindexter was already off
the hook.



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65190 alt.rush-limbaugh:12177
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Keywords: hate
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:38:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


The Robertson quote comes from a letter that he wrote.  It's
been documented many times.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:25:12 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <C057F4.842@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>
>I'm tired of arguments, so I will not bore you with things you have 
>probably already heard. But I do have a question. Do you *really* 
>believe that the civil rights analogy holds in the case of homosexuals?

    [I was not the author of the post to which Jim responds, but what the
hell...]

    Yes, I *really* believe that the civil rights analogy holds in the case
of homosexuals.  Being black is not a choice, and, for most gays, being gay
is not a choice.

>I want to know this so I tell can if you are simply being argumentitive or
>we you are stating beliefs you hold.  I don't think the analogy is
>100% valid. But I am willing to listen. My major problem is that the 
>difference between hets and gays is behavioral, not racial as is 
>the difference between blacks and whites.

    If you think the major difference is behavioral, you have a superficial
view.  Being gay is an orientation; acting on that orientation is a
behavior.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:29:11 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
 <1992Dec12.035123.15173@netcom.com> <liqafbINNctd@spim.mti.sgi.com>
 <1992Dec18.230324.26591@leland.Stanford.EDU>
 <MATT.92Dec18160557@physics2.berkeley.edu>

In article <MATT.92Dec18160557@physics2.berkeley.edu>,
matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) says:
>
>In article <1992Dec18.230324.26591@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>
>> Supply and demand seems to work to bring down the price of most
>> commodities.  "We" could either lower the demand by restricting who
>> could be eligible or "we" could increase the supply of health care.
>> For example, "we" could stop kow towing to the guild known as the
>> AMA and demand that more bright individuals be admitted to medical
>> school
>
>Most, yes, but all?  Is there evidence which shows that increasing the
>number of doctors lowers the price of medical care?  I can think of a
>great many reasons why it might, in fact, do exactly the opposite.
>After all, medical costs in America have been increasing far faster
>than inflation during just the period when we've been getting more and
>more doctors.

This idea, in fact, has a large literature in health economics.  It's
known as supplier induced demand (or physician induced demand).  As
long as there is some uncertainty about the effectiveness of
medical procedures and some informational advantage for physicians
physicians might be able to increase demand for their services.
Empirical evidence seems to support this idea, but it is by no
means a settled issue.

>
>Now, I'm not claiming to be sure that having more doctors will make
>medical care more costly---I just don't know, and I think we shouldn't
>be too sure of ourselves in thinking that we can predict just what
>will happen.
>
>(Similarly: when the number of lawyers in the country goes up, do you
>think that this will make the country spend less on legal services, or
>do you think it will make the country spend more?)
>--
>Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
>(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
>austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Date: 23 Dec 1992 15:26:04 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec22.225052.11034@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> James Meritt writes:
> #Pop test two:  When was the last nuke made (by DoE)?
> 
> Bout two years from what I remember.
> 
> I'd still think that having the person running the DoE not need to  
be
> an expert on nuclear weapons to be a good thing.
> 
> We already have a DoD, we don't need the DoE to be one.

But the manufacture of weapons, research into weapons, 
masterials production, etc. has always been outside of DOD
(in the DOE, AEC, etc.)  This started with Truman, who
very deliberately did this, so that the military wouldn't
have control over this.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:29:27 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Jim Mason writes:
|> CNN reports this day that the 'Communitarian Party/coalition' wishes
|> to make into law the requirement to donate organs upon death. 
|> 
|> As with many so-called 'communitarian' initiatives, this proposal
|> sounds good on the surface. However, it does raise significant
|> questions about the traditional rights of persons or their 
|> relatives to control the disposition of their affairs after death.
|> 
|> Suppose the 'communitarians' insist that it is reasonable for all
|> assets of the deceased to be transferred into the care of charity
|> organizations or a general government-controlled distribution
|> scheme - to assist the needy for example ? Suppose the logic of
|> community-over-the-individual is extended to cover not only dead
|> persons, but instead to require blood and/or organ donations to
|> needy persons from living individuals regardless of the wishes of
|> those individuals. 
|> 
|> Somewhere there is a borderline between individual rights and the
|> rights/needs of the community at large. I believe that the
|> 'communitarians' have placed that line much too far in favor of
|> the collective. What say ye ?
|> 
The only thing more difficult for me to understand than someone not
wanting to donate their organs is someone telling us we have to do
so.  I agree with you completeley.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:07:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Dec15.050842.6183@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
Crocker) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec14.143529.9759@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
> >In article <1185@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> >>Who is Bo Gritz and what has he to do with this?
> >>
> >Bo Gritz is a true American patriot who is being denounced as a fascist by
> >the Free Shit Brigades (tm) before his message of personal responsibility
> >and self reliance can catch on.  I sincerely hopes he weathers the storm.
> 
> Bo Gritz is an idiot who uses a 2000-year-old work of fiction as a
> brain substitute to avoid having to support his bigotry with reasoned
> argument.  While I, as a Libertarian, fully endorse the ideas of
> personal responsibility and self reliance, Mr. Gritz's idea of
> self-reliance is that people should let chruches (and only good old
> Christian ones at that) run their lives instead of making their own
> choices.  It scares me that almost 100,000 people voted for him.

Thassinneresting.  A while ago I claimed people could be unfree even if
government left them alone, and gave the example of people being oppressed
by their own churches.  And instead of agreeing with me, the way I'm
agreeing with you, Libertarians were all over me like a cheap suit,
lecturing me severely about how ONLY governments (and violent criminals)
can possibly coerce anyone and make them unfree.

So what gives?

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Pop Quiz
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:20:58 GMT

Q: What is the difference between Nazi actions toward Jews in WWII and
   Israeli actions towards Palestinians in the present day?
A: U.S. backing. (Alternate answer: Volume.).

Q: What is the difference between "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing"?
A: Spelling.

Q: What is the difference between a Nuremburg rally and 1992's Republican
   National Convention?
A: Trick question.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS...) 1 OF 3
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:38:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.043015.16291@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>
>Aw, come off it. He was demonstrating in the U.S.S.R. and it's DOCUMENTED.
>

	If Bob Dornan said it, it's got to be true.  After all, he 
was substituting for his Limbotimus Maximus today.

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:34:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network
Keywords: hate

Seems like Pat's comments on Slick Rosty were right on, considering the
trouble he's in now.

As for the quote that was supposed to have been part of the speech at the
convention, that went out in a letter written by a staffer, signed by
Robertson.  He has since disavowed the letter dozens of times.  Has Slick
ever disavowed anything?
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Certificate)
Subject: Re: ...Psst. Ya wanta Merry Christmas?? Just ignore Washington DC!
Summary:  Well Pilgrim, that's some mighty fine shootin'........
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: so sayeth The Duke, of the Papal Republic Dei Croix (PRDC)
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:25:00 GMT

In article <1hakeqINNmsu@phakt.usc.edu>, 
sgoldste@phakt.usc.edu (Fogbound Child) writes...

>max@admin.mport.COM (Max) writes:
>
>>"dont trust leaders, watch your parking meters..."
>>                            -dylan

>Oh ye of little faith -- Repent! For there is One True Reality[tm], and it is
>a registered TradeMark of Marx, Machiavelli, and Malthus, Inc., manufacturers
>of Finer Social Systems since time immemorial.
> 
>Additionally:
> 
>MMM, Inc, is pleased to announce the availability of their newest product line,
>the Personal Reality Debit System. These products will replace earlier, clumsy,
>and otherwise awkward Reality Checks. Personal Reality Debit Cards (PRDC) will
>allow instantaneous debits into your Reality Space, without the difficult
>intermediate Philosophical processing traditionally related to this task.
> 
>PRDC is *Personal*, something we here at MMM, Inc are proud to support. The
>PRDC is fully customizable to debit from a wide variety of realities, and
>even supports add-in insurance policies so that you can perform debits against
>fully uncertifiable delusionary reality accounts.


Tuli Kupferberg (c) '71, '72, '73

"With Princeton on Our Side"

 {tune: God On Our Side, The Patriot Game, "old irish air"}

 My name is Bob Dylan
 From Woodstock (thats West)
 Jack Elliot Woody Guthrie
 Sang the songs I love best
 Went down to Folklore Central
 Seeking fortune or fame
 End as a pawn in
 The Doctorate Game

 The kids they all bug me
 Its answers they want
 Dont have any answers
 I know what I want
 Just leave me -- be quiet
 Got fields of my own
 And pleasant Old Woodstock
 Will be my new home

 What man owes another
 Is hard for to know
 Theres con men and traitors
 To bring the heart low
 Opportunists and gangsters
 Who know that they lie
 And fools crying "Love"
 With "Kill" in their eyes

 If ya think you know better
 Go right on ahead
 Half-assed poets and prophets
 End up dumb and dead
 I dont feel too good now 
 I think I'll go hide
 And take some small comfort
 With Princeton on my side.


NYT (6-10-70)...

 	And underscoring just how much "the times they are a
	changing" was the presence on the platform of Bob Dylan,
	who along with Walter Lippman, the columnist, and Mrs.
	Martin Luther King Jr., was awarded an honorary doctorate.
	The bearded folk singer and composer sat nervously with 
	Princeton trustees and officers wearing a suit but no
	tie beneath his loosley tied gown...


-= The Decade of the '90s -- Otherwise know as "Hippys' Revenge" =-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Welfare vs. Workfare
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:55:44 GMT

In article <BzooF2.6A6@boi.hp.com> smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay) writes:
>Douglas Meier (dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4103@master.CNA.TEK.COM> 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.
>:
>                       
>Public lands are generally provided to resource based industries at costs 
>which are below market value and which frequently don't recover the costs of
>management. Taxpayers do subsidize these industries in the same manner they
>provide welfare. Logging and grazing on public lands are good examples of
>industries which receive "welfare".
>
Thanks, Scott, for reminding me of subsidies.  These are wrong as well, and
need to be eliminated.  What also needs to be eliminated is the difficulty the
family farmer would have making it without subsidies.  The family farmer finds
himself between a rock and a hard place, since they don't set their prices,
the middleman sets them.  The middleman also sets his own price for sale of
the goods he just bought.  This makes things more expensive for you, it makes
it more difficult for the farmer to make it, and it makes big profits for the
middleman.  Eliminate the government sanctioned and supported middleman, and
we'll see food prices drop (with subsidies gone they'll really drop) and the
farmers won't need subsidies to survive.

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:16:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <Dec.30.09.52.11.1992.9973@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) wrote:
> 
> Ollie North's
> conduct can be considered as "criminal" only if you accept the
> outrageous attempts by congress to criminalize differences in policy
> with the executive as sound law.

Ah yes, "policy differences."  You refer, I take it, to the outrageous
policy that public officials are bound by the laws, especially the
Constitution, as opposed to the Republican policy that public officials can
do any goddamn thing they like.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:26:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.201100.9106@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Question:  In you opinion, what conclusions may you draw from these facts
}#on the validity of the statement "get best qualified for the position"
}#posturing, and what is the likelihod that the decisive consideration was
}#NOT experience in the appointed position's functions?
}
}It tells me that Clinton is going to return the Department of Energy
}into something useful, as opposed to its purpose for the past 12 years
}of making the DoD expenditures look cheaper by having the DoE make
}the nukes.

Pop test two:  When was the last nuke made (by DoE)?

Hint:  Been a long time.  Hence, the "line item" has been for other purposes.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:24:42 GMT

In article <13722@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>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.

And the U.S. has a high murder rate because the U.S. has a high
gun-ownership rate, right? Correlation does not mean causation.
Surely you have a better reason for hating homosexuals than the
above.

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:57:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.142658.14090@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

>Jim, I think you're missing the distinction between thinking something
>is wrong and none of your business, and thinking something is wrong and
>it IS your business.  You're the latter and I'm the former.  Actually,
>I don't attribute "wrongness" to gay behaviour, I just don't think that
>it's something I want to be doing, but that's ok because there are a
>lot of things I wouldn't want to be doing which I'm happy to leave
>alone.  No skin off my back.  Why does it bother you so if other people
>are doing "wrong" things?  How are you harmed?
>
Brendan, I agree with you completely, what people do in thier own bedroom
is *none* of my business. My problem is with the gay activists who have
decided to make sexuality a political issue. (re ban on gays in the 
military) I feel homosexual sex is wrong, I am willing to leave it at
that. But unfortunately I can't, like it or not it is a polical issue. 
In my responce to Howard I covered my concerns, please forgive me for not
repeating them in detail here. The short version is: homosexual sex is a 
behavior which is *not* embraced by most Americans. It is outside of our
shared values. Continued erosion of are shared values will harm our society.
Therefore is should not be given the same status are heterosexual 
behavior. 

>Brendan
>-- 

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Moonraker" -- fact or fiction?
Date: 28 Dec 1992 18:27:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec28.103655.11722@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  
dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes:
> Sorry... it's all moot, since Ian Fleming did not write  
"Moonraker".
> They had already run out of his stories by that time...  

Wrong.  Fleming did write Moonraker. In fact, it is one
of the early Bond novels. It is nothing like the movie,
however.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism