HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:32:23 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <markp.726164495@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan4.160441.28047@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>Just so. By requiring the prosecution to "prove a negative," the appellate
>>court guaranteed that there would be no new trial.
>
>Quit snivelling, boys! The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution --
>entirely in keeping with the principle, "Innocent til proven guilty."

The issue of "proving a negative" is logically and legally distinct from the
issue of "burden of proof." No one is disputing that the burden to 
prove its case should fall on the prosecution. The issue here is
one of *defining* the burden so that it *can't* be supported by 
anyone.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Jerry "Che" Falwell
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:37:03 GMT
Summary: Viva La Revolucion!

Yes, there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth going on. In Dallas
yesterday, Jerry Falwell did his best to incite a revolution (hey,
you can't trust everything to democracy can you?):

	The former leader of the Moral Majority said, "If he does some of
	the things he's talking about, he'll blow the dome off the Capitol."

	Also, "If Clinton enacts his platform, he is going to guarantee
	upheaval in this country."


"He'll" blow the dome off the Capitol, yeah sure. These preachers are really
masters at thinly-veiled threats.

I always wondered what happened to the Sixties radicals. :-)

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:53:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.203721.4220@grace.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

   In article 93Jan2112524@world.std.com, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >In article <1hqqbuINN5qa@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
   >
   >[...]
   >
   >   When Republicans break the law, you call it a "liberal-sponsored" witch
   >   hunt.  So when the cops come after you, they will probably be liberals?
   >
   >   So far, it is only Republican adminstrations that show a disdain
   >   for the law and a contempt for the public.
   >
   >It has come out that the Tonkin Gulf incident was cooked up.  This
   >incident was used by LBJ to get from congress the authorization to
   >conduct war in Viet Nam without a formal declaration.  This lie lead to
   >the deaths of over 50,000 Americans and countless Viet Namese.  Somehow
   >the Iran-Contra hanky panky pales in comparison.  LBJ was a Democrat,
   >remember?

   That's very true, Al.  Johnson committed a real atrocity with that one, and
   I do agree that the Iran-Contra hanky panky pales in comparison.  The problem
   is that you can't blame the entire Vietnam fiasco on Democrats, since there were
   two Republican administrations--Eisenhower's and Nixon's--that played more than
   their share of Vietnam hanky panky.  

I'm not trying to blame the Viet Nam fiasco on anyone.  I cite that as a
counter example to the idiotic assertion that the Republicans are the
only ones whoever lie to congress and the rest of us.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:32:04 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <ARCHER.688.726768898@utkvm1.utk.edu>  
ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> >...the right of the people to bear tactical nuclear weapons shall  
not be
> >abridged.
> 
> No, it doesn't. The clause you refer to, the Second Amendment to  
the 
> Constitution of the United States, states clearly, that "...the  
right of the 
> people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> Tac nukes do not fall under the category of "arms," as they cannot  
be 
> manipulated or maintained by an individual.
> 

Are you saying that if we develop tactical nukes that can
be maintained by the individual that they should be able
to own them?  How about chemical weapons and nerve gas?  Can 
an individual own those?  How about surface to air missles?


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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:27:21 GMT

In article <13772@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
][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.

Do we have to go through this again?

You have a ridiculous definition of homosexual, and you know it, and you
change it whenever its convenient.

Stop playing the game that there are exactly TWO orientations: homo-
and hetero- sexual. Stop pretending that a lifetime of adult
heterosexual activity is utterly negated by a single act. Stop
pretending that there is no difference between adult sexual
orientations and pedophilic orientations. Even the studies that you
post as evidence make that distinction. 


]] 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.

Post references to those works, describe to us exactly what evidence
they have that these men are closeted homosexuals, tell us exactly
what proportion of molesters they claim are closeted homosexuals, and
tell us what discrimination against homosexuals will do to protect our
children if the molesters are closeted.

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     || "There is no such thing as a problem 
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||  without a gift for you in its hands. You
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||  seek problems because you need their 
|| carroll@udel.edu             ||  gifts" - _Illusions_, by Richard Bach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:55:00 GMT

Mark Wilson (mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:
: In <C0JB5K.n15@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: 
: |I didn't claim anything.  I just reported, as close to verbatim, as what
: |I heard on TV :)  It just seemed surprising that that kind of blast happened
: |and didn't reak major havoc on the whole world for years (as would be us
: |launching all our nukes).  It also gives me a lot of respect for how the
: |world works :)
: 
: I thought that the report in question refered to Hiroshima sized bombs.
: Modern nuke's are several thousand times as powerful.

FWIW, I posted it 2 seconds after I heard it, so my memory probably wasn't
in error :)  Also, the reason I posted it was because it sure sounded like
a terrible amount of devastating force, yet didn't seem to do as much harm
as all the man-made damages some claim we are doing to the earth...


: -- 
: 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
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Forgotten History (Was: Weinberger's Pardon)
Date: 5 Jan 93 07:34:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1993Jan4.204750.5118@grace.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

   In article 93Jan2113828@world.std.com, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >... 
   >war.  The FDR claims aside, clearly the LBJ lies were the worst since
   >they lead to our involvemant in that hideous fiasco in Southeast Asia.

   You know better than that.  Truman started it by reversing FDR's policy of not
   letting the French back into Indochina.  He violated US law by shipping French
   soldiers on US ships into Vietnam.  Then Eisenhower supported Diem's abrogation
   of the partition agreement in the 1950's.  Thanks to the Dulles brothers'
   policy of containment, the Vietnam fiasco was shifted from the French onto
   our backs.  Kennedy escalated our involvemnt, but was said to have been 
   reconsidering it before his death.  LBJ used the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretense
   for further escalation, but his action was not the only one that got us involved
   in Vietnam.  We were already thoroughly ensconced by that time.  Had Kennedy 
   lived, and pulled us back, we might have avoided the inevitable escalation and
   failure that 3 administrations prior to LBJ's led us into.

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.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66457 ca.politics:10526 ba.politics:8099
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:42:54 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan6.192918.23108@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.184325.5487@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> If a group calling itself "Republican Steering Commitee" calls for
>> "sending all niggers back to Africa", and there are no outcries of
>> repudiation from Republicans in general, would it not be reasonable for
>> most people to think all Republicans are racist assholes???
>
>  Yes, but you have to take action (ie join) the republican party.
>As far as I know, you still don't have to send away for your Queer Card.
>-- 
>

No, it is not reasonable- there is any number of conditions that might affect
why we don't react....

The main one is apathy.  And that is related to, not wanting to put up the
effort to do anything, they don't want to rock the boat for themselves, or
it is an issue they do not care about.

Another question- was all of Europe and the US anti-jewish because they took
to so long to respond?  If I remember it was the isolationist and non-
intervention attitudes that kept us from making a move.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:56:45 GMT
Organization: Chevron

>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>> As to impeaching Reagan, it is virtually impossible to prove he *knew*
>> about the illegalities, since North, et al, said they were operating
>> without his knowledge.  If it had been any other president, he probably
>> would have been impeached, but it was actually believable that Reagan
>> didn't know what the executive branch was doing.  It was actually
>> believable that Reagan didn't know what planet he was on, too, of course.
>> 
While it was impossible while he was in office since he had all the
power, we now have Weinberger's notes as evidence that Reagan knew that
the arms were going to Iran and that it was illegal (in the
interpretation of Cap himself, and George Schultz, one of the
boardmembers of my company).  Reagan was trading arms so that he could
get the hostages back to appear to be the president who could succeed at
anything.

What a country!!?
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:57:35 GMT

In <C0nK5E.yq@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.223420.13323@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL
>ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:

>|>In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
>|>Ipser)                         writes...
>|>> 
>|>>When the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, the establishment reluctantly
>|>>hailed it as the end of the cold war. But was it the end or merely the
>|>>beginning of the end? Socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe and then
>|>>the Soviet Union with a resounding thud. Yet it survives in the West
>|>>if only barely.
>|>
>|>To say that the socialism of Western Europe and the Communism of Eastern
>|>Europe are the same thing, shows a definant lack of understanding of the
>|>politics of Europe.
>|>> 
>|>>The chronic US deficit is but one symptom of a much
>|>>larger disease, the slow and painfully agonizing death of the welfare
>|>>state.
>|>
>|>That's curious. The deficit wasn't bad during Carter's administration, yet
>|>got much worse under Ronald borrow-and-spend Reagan, who hated socialism.
>|>The two key causes of the deficit are health care, which isn't in a socialist
>|>system, and bailing out the banks and S&L's which were deregulated under
>|>Reagan. It seems that unregulated capitalism is killing the U.S.

>No, the reasons for the deficit were the huge tax cuts for the super-rich 

Tax RATE cuts on the rich resulted in more tax revenue (both proportionately
and absolutely) from the rich.

>and the arms build up.

The arms build-up was less than 1/3 of the total budget increase.

>The main point is that the
>budget deficit was not merely an accidental cock up but a completely forseeable
>disaster caused by a refusal to accept the reality that you cannot spend more
>than you raise in tax.

Quite right; the federal government shouldn't spend so much.

>Phill Hallam-Baker

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Organization: none for me, thanks, I'm trying to cut down
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:47:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan07.030032.4406@microsoft.com> leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker) writes:
>>Geff Underwood writes:
>
>>I wasn't reading about a month ago [when the Libertarian Somalia
>>nonsense was originally debated], but in my experience the most
>>characteristic sentiment of a libertarian is the line "That government
>>is best which governs least".  To me, that implies that the best
>>possible situation would be no government at all.

Hold it!  Those are not my words -- they are Chris Brewster's.  Please
be more careful with attribution lines.

--
Geff Underwood
geff@iastate.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: What's happening to George Bush?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:42:34 GMT

In article <4157@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:
>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!!
>
Gotta admit, the man is piling up one of the finest lame duck records in the
history of lame duck presidencies.  Still wants to be a world leader, still
wants to work for the American people right up until the time Klinton is sworn
in.  
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Didn't need no welfare state, everybody
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  pulled his weight...Those were the days!
This University is too Commie-	|  --From theme to "All in the Family"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Straw Heaven (Was: Libertarian heaven)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:08:26 GMT

<In article <CB.93Jan5142112@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:

<   There's a country that fulfills the dearest dreams of
<Libertarians: 

	Oh, good.

<it has no government and its populace is armed.  Until the recent intrusion
<   of some outsiders, no external force impinged on that country's freedom.
<   When these outsiders leave, that country's citizens will again be free
<   to pursue their individual destinies.  I invite all Libertarians to move
<   to that country: Somalia.

	Brewster erects a soggy strawman; the warlords in Somalia
	are acting exactly like governments (specifically, early
	medieval ones), quite a few members of the populace are
	obviously NOT armed (else the warlords wouldn't be able
	to steal their food) and the support that the US provided
	for the Barre government (overthrown last year) from Jimmy 
	Carter on certainly counts as "impinging from outside". 


	One awaits Brewsters next fallacy....
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67320 alt.politics.elections:24883 alt.politics.clinton:20121 alt.politics.libertarian:3430
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:22:43 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1993Jan11.204205.5405@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>In article <90187@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)              writes...
>>In <1993Jan8.230455.19116@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>>I believe that rising standards of living lead to demands for greater
>>political freedoms.  If the government gives in to the demands then the
>>change will be peacefull, otherwise it will be violent.
>> 
>There was an old quote from a labor leader in the American Industrial 
>Revolution which went:
>
>	"Freedom creates wealth, wealth destroys freedom"
>
>I can't remember who said it off hand.
>>-- 
>>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
>
>-Garrett

Hey, don't leave my name in there.  I didn't write anything you included.  I
hope that Mark Wilson is right, and I think he might be.  But I didn't say it.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: What's happening to George Bush?
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:17:48 GMT

mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:

>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!!

I think we all have to be grateful that someone else takes office on
Jan. 20. Think about what the situation would be in May with GHWB
still in office.

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67035 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12165 alt.politics.homosexuality:9312
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:21:43 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- abort, retry, ignore?) writes:

> What: <1993Jan8.155205.2234@wam.umd.edu>
> Who:  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
> 
> First he says...
> 
> >	Any decision that an individual makes that is out of line
> >	with the general populous is suspect unless there's a lot
> >	of evidence or logic on the side of that decision.
> 
> And *then* he says...
> 
> >	I don't think most people are competent to control their 
> >	credit card spending, let alone interpersonal acts like
> >	sexuality.  
> 
> He praises the collective wisdom of the gneral populace, then
> turns around and impugns it.
> --
>      _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
>    |   |      |  \    /        
>    |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
> |__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18
> 
> But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.


Jay gets a BIG GOLD STAR!


Pope Charles

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67139 alt.politics.libertarian:3365
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:55:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Dec31.171446.8312@henson.cc.wwu.edu>,
n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) wrote:
> 
> tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer) writes:
> 
> >>Gulity or not guilty.  Once you get a jury or court to say not 
> >>guilty you are not guilty, end of story.
> 
> >      Well in a technical legal sense that may be true, but if you use
> >      the more common everyday definition (did he actually commit the 
> >      crime or not) North is obviously guilty.
> 
> 	In every sense the common every day definition is irrelevent,
> 	except for armchair discussions, editorials, and rants on usenet.

What an astonishing statement.  Apparently you believe in no moral or
ethical standard other than the workings of the criminal justice system.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc