HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:43:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Dec30.214319.11739
Organization: Western Washington University

tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:

>      I don't believe you understand the basis on which North's conviction
>      was overturned.   The appeals court did not say than North did
>      not commit the offences with which he was charged.  The court
>      (mostly Reagan appointees) came up with the novel idea that 
>      not only was North's testomony before Conress inadmissable at his

	Not novel.  There is use immunity and transactional immunity.  
Immunity would be pretty useless to the witness if anything he said under 
it could be used to point investigators toward independent confirmation of 
what was said, and therefore be used against the witness indirectly.

>      trial but that the prosecutor had to show that the testimony 
>      of all of the witnesses at the trial had not been affected by 
>      watching the Iran-Contra hearings.  This made the prosecutors task
>      virtually impossible.  By the way if North really believed he was
>      innocent he could of testified before Congress without immunity, but
>      then again he would have surely gone to jail in that case.

	That pesky  5th "criminals ammendment" ammendment again,
we outta just get rid of it.   %^)

Gulity or not guilty.  Once you get a jury or court to say not 
guilty you are not guilty, end of story.


Jim Del Vecchio
From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:28:07 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>In article <72546@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis  
>Alberto Bueno) writes:
>> 	I will agree that it has yet to be proven that Weinberger is
>> directly responsible for the Arms-For-Hostages deals that former
>> president Reagan secretly approved (this would make Reagan a  
>>"traitor,"
>> by the very definition in the above section).  
>
>In fact, that is an understatement. Nobody I know of has
>accused Weinberger of being responsible for the Arms-for-Hostages
>deal. In fact, most of what I've seen says that he was 
>opposed to it.  The charge Walsh brought against him was
>for withholding information from Congress.

	I've never said anything to the contrary. Are you sure you're
not confusing me with Kaldis? :-)

>Also, unless you are defining "Iran" as the "enemy" (which,
>perhaps in a general sense it was (is) but not in the specific
>sense used by the consitution) your statement about Reagan
>is nonsense.  

	How is this nonsense?  Iran certainly was the enemy at the time
the events in question ocurred.  You'd be hard-pressed to find any
evidence to the contrary.  And considering that Reagan approved the sale
of arms to Iran as a trade for American hostages, sales which violated
the Arms Export Control Act (which forbade arms sales to countries that
foster terrorism - as Iran did), did not notify Congress of the arms
shipments which he was obliged to by law, and then used the proceeds of
the sales to arm the Contras in Nicaragua, which congress prohibited aid
to in 1984, you'd have to provide to me differing evidence that would have
made my previous statement about Reagan "nonsense."

>The Constitution made the definition of treason very specific 
>to prevent such broadening and misuse of the term, such as that
>being thrown about in this discussion.  The Framers were afraid
>of the possibility of a governement using "treason" as an
>excuse to arrest almost anyone for anything, and they made the
>definition very strict to prevent this.

	I'm not the original poster who used the word "traitor" to
define Weinberger.  All I had done was make the example of who the
real traitor was (and still is).  Is this clear enough now? :-)

--Louis
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:32:57 GMT


Pop test:
1. Rank the budget of DOE in decreasing order, with the biggest line item
first.  Now, by a sizeable fraction, what is the #1 item in the budget of the
Department of Energy?

2. What area does the Clinton nominee have absolutely no experience in?

hint:  If you had the same answer for #1 and #2, you win!

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?


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kaskubar@mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Subject: Re: House Voting Rights
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 17:26:50 GMT

It seems to me that voting of any sort should be restricted to  
elected representatives from the 50 states.  The result of any vote  
affects what gets voted on in the future.  Therefore the five  
delegates from the "colonies" ultimately may impact passage of  
legislation that becomes law.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:00:28 GMT

In article <C03MnF.3qz@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>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. 

Whoa Jim, you first agree with me, saying that what people do in their
bedroom is none of your business, then you imply that gays should be
banned from the military and say that it should not be given the same
status as heterosexual behavior.  Jim, if you think it's none of your
business, that means that what they do has no bearing on being in the
military or if they get any sort of benefits from being in a gay
marriage (such as people get out of being in hetero marriages) and so
on.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:56:46 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <72587@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>>In article <1hq11vINNq1f@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>
>>> Ollie North was a criminal.

	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 **

		
> [deleted] 
>>[       ]



-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
P.O.Box 273 - Island Station
New York, NY 10044 USA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65133 talk.politics.theory:5539 misc.headlines:7340 eunet.politics:1602 soc.culture.bulgaria:1990 soc.culture.turkish:13484
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: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 00:46:13 GMT

[alt.politics.bush crosspost deleted]

Yamanari (rsrodger@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan1.194924.6013@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.V
irginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
: >Yamanari writes:
: ># 1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
: ># 2.  Our culture seeks to cure those who are deviant from
: >#      their behavior.
: >
: >Playing baseball is deviant. Should we seek to cure baseball players?
:
:
:    If someone compulsively, constantly plays baseball?  And then
:    whines that people wont be nice to them because they don't
:    have anything in common (not everyone likes talking about
:    baseball, playing baseball, etc, watching baseball)?

Is your remark above supposed to be an analogy?

Bob Maddingly and Nolan Ryan are deviants, by definition.  Should they be 
cured?

:    You can bet that such a person would be into a hospital faster
:    than you or I could say, "Home run"...
-- 
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: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:43:38 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1hqhsbINN3n6@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>> Mike Polen:

>>> Ollie North was a criminal.

>> Not for his part in the Iran-Contra deal.  His conviction has been
>> overturned.

> He is still a criminal.  The fact that he was acting in the interest
> of those who get to rule on his guilt does not mitigate that fact
> that he indeed broke the law, violated the public trust, and stole
> money (even if for others).

Nope.  His conviction was overturned in a court of law.  The judicial
system ruled on the question concerning his guilt or innocence, not
the executive.  The courts have ruled that Ollie is no criminal.

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.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65198 soc.motss:53565 alt.sex:40153
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:38:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BzMEHL.46t@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
> In article <13671@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1go3r6INN8m7@copland.crhc.uiuc.edu>, pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan) writes:
> >> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
# ## 2) Because Clayton is dancing around the net twisting these statistics to
# ##    erroneously prove that I am a child molestor.
# #
# #Liar.  I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that most homosexuals are NOT
# #molesters, but the disproportionate involvement of homosexuals in
#                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# 
# #child molestation is reason, at least in some jobs, for discrimination.
#  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# #I have NEVER claimed that Paul Ryan is a child molester.  
# #
# 
# 
# 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.

# ** Xavier Gallagher                        ***********************************

If you don't even have the basic facts right, there's no point
in arguing with you.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 24 Dec 92 22:09:07 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

William M. Eldridge (bill@cognet.ucla.edu) wrote:
: Germany surrendered completely, allowing the US to take
: control of its government and Constitution, so that they look
: more like us, and can therefore be trusted.

Well, that doesn't explain their thrust of some dictators but
it is a good point.

: We still seem to like China a whole lot, despite their communist
: system, but we do also like quite a few non-communist dictators
: as well.

China is a case in between because it didn't follow the Russian
blend communism and their nuclear arms lends to a more diplomatic
tone in the US's dealing with them. 

: I have a variety of conflicting feelings on this.  One is that
: accepting horrible governments and treating them as equals is
: harmful to their citizens and dangerous strategically.  Another
: is that increased trade and communication seems to undermine
: totalitarian control.

I think in the case of Cuba, communication would be a lot better,
besides it is in reaction to the US's aggressive behavior that
Castro's regime hardened. When he took power, he was ready 
to have good relations with the americans, it is only when they
refused that he turned towards Russia and towards true
communism.

: Lastly, many countries still are using
: heavy-handed actions, and it's a real question whether the U.S.
: should stand back and see if any new order will evolve, or whether
: we should be heavily involved, but try to balance our strategic
: concerns with something like the good of the people involved.
: It does seem like we have kept the leadership role in the world,
: and if we can learn how to handle it more and more responsibly,
: I'm not against it.  But mouthing 30-year-old platitudes against
: Cuba doesn't seem to be a new approach.
: -- 

I agree that there must be a balance and your reply is very 
even handed compared to that of Mr. Morton. Maybe we should have
people like you in government instead of people like him.
If I read your post correctly you don't think the cuban embargo
is necessary, your way of explaining why it is not is a lot
more smoother than mine, I get a little emotional when I
see unjustified actions being dragged on for decades. Guess
I couldn't be a diplomat :-).

--
SEIZE THE DAY, MAKE YOUR LIFE EXTRAORDINARY .  "Dead Poets Society"

Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | 
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Can | To indeed be a god ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:49:31 GMT

>>> 	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.
>
>One of the things that most people don't think about are the spinoffs produced
>by the space program as things which were produced in getting us there in the
>first place.

If there were products which have merit outside of the space program there
would be motivation to produce them regardless of any space program. This
notion that if Al Bell had gotten run over by a bus or Marconi had gotten
struck by lightning, today there wouldn't be telephone or radio is flawed.

A light went on in my head on this issue when ten years ago I visited
the Kennedy Space Center and realized that a stream of total pro-space
program propaganda was coming over the tour bus's speakers. The
picture was completed when I then remembered how in second grade people
from NASA showed up at school for what I had thought was a niffty
presentation and what I now realize was carefully crafted brainwashing
of young future taxpayers.

So today I chuckle to myself when I hear about these important manned-space
missions used to study manned-space missions (like buying a second car
so you can hire a builder to add on to your garage) and wish I
had a say to stop the space program hand from keeping reaching into
my wallet.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:58:49 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1hq11vINNq1f@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

> Ollie North was a criminal.

Not for his part in the Iran-Contra deal.  His conviction has been
overturned.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
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: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:50:57 GMT

In article <13744@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
#Sadly, Greg, it is not a free speech issue.

Err, the people involved say it IS a free speach issue. What right
does anyone have to PREVENT them from marching? The parade is on a
public street. 



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:50:31 GMT

# #| notions that these people are advancing reflect a prejudice that 
# #| is not based on fact.
# #
# #| Susan
# #
# #Since redirects to one of my posts composed the body of included text, I 
# #would like to know on what bases you call me a bigot. 
#
# Your own words, of course.  
#
# "Homosexuals choose thier life style, I for one (rightly or wrongly)
# feel that the homosexual life style is wrong." 
#
# "What i object to this attemp at legitimizing  the homosexual life style."
# 
# "If the homosexaul lifestyle is not wrong then what life style is?"
# 
# "I wish they would all go back in the closet."
# 
# "I feel that this attack on
# the military by the gay community is really the first step in legitimizing
# the homosexual life style. That homosexuals want all the rights hetro's
# have, including the right to marry, adopt children, etc. Also I believe
# that they will attempt to acquire special rights as a "protected minority"."
# 
# "Most straight men look with disgust at the activities gays
# enjoy. The homosexual life style is simply abhorrent to heterosexuals."
# 
# "Well I submit that homosexuals are simply pounding their pegs into
# the wrong hole." 
# 
# aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 

Do you get the feeling that I disapprove of homosexual sex?  
Does that make me a bigot?  I don't think so. It is my
contention that anal intercouse is WRONG, men butt fucking other men is
not a cute idiosyncrasy. It is a serious pervertion of the human body, 
and the human soul, both in form and function. I cann't believe that 
society is even debating this issue. If homosexual sex is simply abnormal
when how come we don't see our dogs (male) and cats (male) giving one 
another head? 

If I am correct that homosexual sex is wrong am I still am bigot?

If homosexual sex is not wrong then it should have the same moral
standing as heterosexual sex, then what? Group sex, sex with animals
sex with dead people, sex with children, etc. If you are going to break
a 2000 year old precident, you better have a very good reason. And you
had better be prepared to demostrate the correctness of your view.
Simply calling me a bigot does nothing for your argument. Ive been called
alot worse. Prove to me that butt fucking is a legitimate expression of 
love between two men. Prove to me that society will not be harmed by the
further erosion of our J/C moral The issue here is not tolerance, 
homosexual have acheived a great deal of tolerance towards thier life
style. Not satisfied with the tolerance society has towards gays, they
now want thier deviant acts legitismized. Well your are simply asking 
to much of this old straight conservative. I will listen, but don't 
expect me to roll over.

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself

PS sorry to take so long answering, had to get my home system
on the UUCP net.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1gt8g0INNb4l@spim.mti.sgi.com> <1992Dec18.235046.3988@brtph560.bnr.ca>
	<1992Dec22.211751.4626@nntpserver.chevron.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:33:27 GMT

<In article <1992Dec22.211751.4626@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
<   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.
 
	Can Viveiros show where in the Bill of Rights the "right"
	to receive taxpayers money for "art" is located?

	HINT: The 9th doesn't count.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:13:59 GMT

cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>3. How can Bush (or anybody for that matter) consider it patriotic
>to violate one's sacred oath to defend and uphold the Constitution?
>
>Far from being patriots, the men Bush pardoned (like Weinberger)
>are *traitors* to the United States of America and should be
>punished as such. Unfortunately, they never will be.

True, very true. But remember, in the world view of Bush (and his ilk),
Reagan==USA. Don't ask me to figure that out... it's been too many
years living in their America.

Anyway, who cares about the pardons? Everyone knows that they're lying
treasonous slimebags. The main thing is that it's finally over.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc