HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:11:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan4.101940.9187@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> But I don't think ranting "the deficit, the deficit"  "It's bad, it's
> bad" really counts as talking intelligently.

In fact, what he said was considerably more intelligent than that --
that the deficit would destroy this country.  There is no question
about that.

> For all that talk about those flip charts, how many voters had *any*
> idea what Perot was talking about, or can remember at this point in time
> what Perot said?
> 
> David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?

Odd.  But YOU remember that his major theme was "the deficit, the
deficit."  I remember it.  But no one else did?

I didn't vote for Perot, and I agree that there was a manipulative
salesman behind the country charm.  But "the deficit, the deficit"
was the single most important issue facing the United States, and
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber both did their best to avoid facing
up to it, for the simple reason that special interests are largely
responsible for that deficit, and the Republicratic Party is so
hopelessly in bed with the various deficit-producing special
interests that neither can realistically address that problem
any longer.

This country is headed down the tubes because Congress dares not
raise taxes (which would anger the people) and dares not cut spending
(which would anger the special interests).
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:04:10 MST
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Utah, SLC, UT

In article <1iuiriINNjie@transfer.stratus.com>
	jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.174250.5872@hellgate.utah.edu>  
>thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson) writes:
>> However, in the case of a taxi business, I think you will find that
>> most governments regulat the taxi business so comprehensively that
>> competing with the existing suppliers is nearly impossible.  This is
>> an example of how regulation limits competition.
>
>But some degree of regulation is needed here.  First off, the
>government must make sure that you don't have criminals running
>a taxi organization and mugging every third customer.

What's wrong with existing laws against theft?  I don't see why
special regulation is needed here.

>Second, the government provides some resources: most cities have taxi
>stand areas, where cabs can park but where cars cannot. For
>both these reasons, the government has to exercise some kind of
>control over cabs.

I see no reason why a private taxi stand area cannot be used.  This
too doesn't require special government regulation in order for taxis
to function in a useful fashion.  Rather, the governmental answer is
simply the one we have used so far.

But you avoided my main point, which is that entering into the taxi
business is regulated and thus deprives them of competition.
Specifically in Salt Lake City, the competition is so bare that the
taxi services are priced very highly and the quality of service itself
is very poor.  If more competition were allowed to operate, then operations
that gouge the customer and provide poor service would soon find
themselves out of business.

						-- Rich
-- 
		    Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Internet: thomson@asylum.cs.utah.edu		Rich Thomson
IRC: _Rich_					PEXt Programmer
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:20:28 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan6.125132.14923@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.201327.20317@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>>>>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>
>>>>>So far, it is only Republican adminstrations that show a disdain
>>>>>for the law and a contempt for the public.  If Clinton acts the same
>>>>>way, I will work to get him out as soon as possible.
>>
>>>>Don't you at least recognize that you're making this "only Republican"
>>>>stuff up ?  We all realize it... maybe you're only 12 - 16 years old
>>>>and only remember the last few adminstrations.
>>
>>>>Am I mistaken in recalling that the Kennedy administration admitted to
>>>>planning an assassination attempt on Castro ?
>>>
>>>Huh?  Relevance?  Congress hadn't forbidden this, unlike, say, sending
>>>money to the contras or arms to Iran.
>>
>>David: You can argue with the specific examples that I offer all you
>>want but that isn't the topic of discussion.  Mike Polen wrote "so far
>>only Republican administrations show a disdain".  I disagree and so far
>>we don't know what your position is except that you're attempting to
>>define "disdain for the law and contempt for the public" as only doing
>>things that Congress forbids.
>>
>>So... is it true that "only Republican administrations show disdain for
>>the law" ?
>>
>>tom
>>>
>
>You want examples of Democrat shenanigans? Okay. How about FDR's lying to 
>congress regarding his preparations for WWII?
>
>Or the bugging of Republican Headquarters by the Democrats under both Kennedy
>and Johnson? Neither of them were forced to resign in disgrace.
>
>Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)

Why don't we end this discussion about who has been more dishonest.
Let's look at the record.  We've had only one Democratic president in
the last 24 years, which is probably the political LIFETIME of anyone
under 40 years old (?most of us on the net?).  Carter was not corrupt in
the same fashion as most of the others we are talking about (sure, he
did lust after some women who weren't his wife :-) ).

Other than that, we have only Republican administrations to look at.
They have to look corrupt in comparison.  

What we have to stop doing is this knee-jerk protection of anyone in our
own party (I have no party by the way).  If Reagan was running a secret
foreign policy, why weren't the Republicans in Congress trying to stop
it.  It is their country too.

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:00:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.034519.13903@Princeton.EDU> elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.030946.7892@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.024915.8715@Princeton.EDU> elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>>>Yanamari once wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <1gg27rINNbpa@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> schiesel-seth@yale.edu (Seth Schiesel) writes:
>>>>>Sunday, December13 New York Times. There are accounts of three Croat and 
>>>>>Muslim women in Bosnia who wre raped by Serbian soldiers. In fact, the 
>>>>>Times says the Serbs have innaugerated an assembly-line rape operation in 
>>>>>Bosnia with at least 50,000 women having already been violated. Just 
>>>>
>>>>	GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!
>>>
>>>What could be the point in arguing with someone like this?
>>
>>
>>	I also wrote:
>>
>>	"Oops!  Wrong group."
>>
>>	For the humor impaired, see alt.tasteless.  In any case,
>>	it was IMHO quite proper to redicule that particular
>>	message (an op-ed piece quoted as some sore of Newspaper
>>	source) which had been posted twice, and was wholly 
>>	inappropriate to the newsgroup.
>>
>>	Perhaps I should have put ":-)'s for the humor impaired
>>	or the chronically stupid/hard-up"...?
>>
>
>Certainly you owe the Bosnian and Croatian people an apology,
>Idjit.

	Wrong.  Their present behavior is that of savages.  Both 
	sides are committing crimes against the other (although
	it is not unreasonable to assume that stories about both
	sides are being far overstated).  

	The fact is, the piece was an op-ed propaganda attempt, 
	and the fact that some pinhead decided to post it to 
	almost every group in the known universe doesn't change 
	that.  Even funnier was reading all of the people who
	read it and swallowed it whole--"Oh, how evil the vile
	XXX are!  We MUST <...>"--even people who are anti-military.

	Bosnians and Croatians?  If they would behave, there wouldn't
	be propaganda pieces to make fun of.  Furthermore, when did
	rape get some special-exception from being the butt of 
	humor?  Or is rape of white-males the only kind of rape that
	can be made fun of?

	Get over it.  


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:08:13 GMT

In <1hnndhINNlfn@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.193406.11292@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:

>> The reason Cap, et. al., should be punished is that our Federal officials
>> need to be discouraged not to lie to Congress/the People for personal
>> reasons.  There was no Natl security at stake here.  

>I disagree.  National security was as stake here, to some degree.
>Certainly those involved thought so.  I don't think Weinberger
>refused to tell all to Congress for personal reasons, but
>because he felt that national security was involved. We may
>disagree with whether it really was in this case, but I think
>Weinberger certainly thought so.

Not true, Jim.  While they obviously thought that US interests were at
stake, none of them, at least not if they were sane, actually thought
national security was involved.

Certainly not in the Iran part of the deal, which was designed to get
5-6 hostages released.

>The problem many of these folks face is that they are torn
>by conflicting requirements: on one side, they are sworn to
>secrecy involving various national policy issues, on the other
>they are asked by Congress to testify publicly involving those
>same matters they swore under oath NOT to discuss.

>I don't know that there is an easy solution to this, but certainly
>it is NOT to do things the way we do them now.  Perhaps what we
>need is a small, bipartisan committee that can first hold 
>closed hearings and interveiw folks like Weinberger; then, they
>can together make a statement on what happened after deciding if
>it should be secret or not.  A major problem with the current
>system is the folks involved are asked to divulge secret information
>in front of TV cameras: there is no chance to talk it out first to see 
>if it really is appropriate to talk about in such a public forum.

>>They got busted doing something wrong and lied to cover it up.  Just 
>>like Nixon.  

>I disagree.  Watergate involved Nixon and crew trying to enhance
>their own personal power.  Irangate involved group of
>officials trying to further foreign policy. It may have been
>the wroong foreign policy to pursue, but by and large they
>weren't doing this for personal gain.

Not true.  The arms-for-hostages, and even $-to-contras may have been
for foreign policy purposes, but the *coverup* was for personal gain --
to avoid going to jail.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:45:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.135645.3552@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>>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!!?

Um, sorry, but Caspar's notes prove that Reagan was at meetings
where these things were discussed.  However, I still find it quite 
believable that he didn't know it was happening.  He probably thought it 
was a movie or something.  Or maybe he just dozed off in the middle,
like he did at summit meetings.  Or maybe they just weren't using small
enough words for him to understand.  It's awfully tricky for him to
figure out what's going on without a script, you know.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:43:35 GMT


In article <markp.726164495@dragonfly.wri.com>, 
markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) said:

> > > What was novel about it was the placement of the burden of proof
> > > on the prosecution to show that the testimony wasn't tainted,
> > > rather than the defense having to show that the testimony was.
> > > [Mike Godwin]
> >
> > Just so. By requiring the prosecution to "prove a negative," the
> > appellate court guaranteed that there would be no new trial.
> > [David Marc Nieporent]
>
> Quit snivelling, boys! The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the
> prosecution -- entirely in keeping with the principle, "Innocent til
> proven guilty."

A technical but important clarification: it is true that in a criminal
trial, the prosecution always has the burden of proving beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime.<*>

<*>For example, I'm currently working of defending a man charged with
   violating Massachusetts' law against knowingly receiving stolen
   property... accordingly, I know that the prosecution must prove
   BaRD (1) that the person who is the defendant is indeed the same
   person who allegedly committed the crime, (2) that the man did
   indeed receive (possess) the property, (3) that the property was
   indeed stolen, and (4) that the man _knew_ it was stolen.  The
   prosecution must pitch a shutout -- if it fails on _any_ of those
   elements of the crime, the verdict must be not guilty.

BUT -- saying that the prosecution has the burden of proof on every
element of the crime is not the same thing as saying that the
prosecution bears the burden of proof on every item that's in
controversy during the trial.  If, for example, the defense challenges
the prosecution's attempt to introduce a certain piece of evidence,
the burden of showing that the evidence should be excluded is
initially upon the defense.  Depending upon what facts and laws the
defense cites in favor of its position, the burden could then shift
back to the prosecution to show laws and facts sufficient to overcome
what the defense's put forth.  (Yes, the term "ping-pong" does arise a
lot in law school classes teaching this stuff.)

And depending upon the exact situation and the relevant Rules of
Procedure, Rules of Evidence, etc. in that jurisdiction, the
_magnitude_ of any particular burden of proof could be anywhere from
merely making a simple allegation (which the other side would then
have the burden of countering) to the infamous Beyond a Reasonable
Doubt standard.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66295 ca.politics:10514 ba.politics:8043
From: nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: Stupid Boycott Mentality
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:29:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan07.104248.3417@deeptht.armory.com> rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>But we all get to boycott those
>we dislike and are not compelled to buy from them ...

I just don't understand this, but perhaps you can explain it to me.
You assert your right to boycott those you dislike, but you insist
that others (in this particular case, homophobic landlords) have no
right to boycott those they dislike.  Are you a member of some
nobility I don't know about?  Did you go through some special
initiation to become a member of the "Righteous Boycotters"?

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:21:58 GMT

In <ARCHER.731.726863156@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>In article <90226@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>In <1993Jan12.025829.11030@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>
>>|In article <1993Jan12.015430.29461@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>>|>In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)                           writes...
>>
>>|: While many Libertarians, myself included, are guilty of prophecying
>>|: contrived wonderful free-trade societies that we think would result
>>|: from our policies, our opponents always drag out these contrived
>>|: counterexamples that also have no basis in reality.
>>
>>|	But some enterprises _have_ to be big, and much too big for
>>|the sort of romantic individualism that Libertarians and certain
>>|others profess. How does one keep them from misbehaving?
>>
>>|	"Contrived counterexamples that have no basis in reality"?
>>|More like "I don't want to hear about unpleasant facts like the
>>|occurrence of monopoly and near-monopoly capitalism".
>>
>>Why do you have this fascination with big companies.
>>-- 

>He has the same problem that I do with "pure libertarianism," I think.  Lib 
>philosophy clearly identifies coercion of the individual with force, either 
>phycial (literal strong arm robbery or kidnaping) or intellectual (fraud.)  
>On thing that I am yet to be satisfied with is "force by economic power."  
>A large company or extremely wealthy individual can coerce the less well off 

If using one's resources to get one's way is ALWAYS "coercion," we're
all guilty of it every day.

>by virtue of the ability to buy entire industries or land areas, and lib 
>philosophy appears morally deficient in the way that it addresses this 
>concern.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:46:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan11.150423.16224@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.115119.19144@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan9.143304.25938@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
>>(Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>>	Nope.  I need do no such thing.  If it is a possibility 
>>>	(and it is) that the behavior is learned or reactionary (to
>>>	abusive treatment, say) it is more than enough of an argument to
>>>	keep it out of schools. 
>>
>>It is possible that homosexuality is caused by heterosexual teachers
>>and role models.  Therefore, by your reasoning, no heterosexuals 
>>should be allowed to teach.
>
>
>	Now we get into the argument of "minimal risk" because
>	it is obvious that if we rule out homosexuals, and heterosexuals,
>	we havenothing left (except Toby).  Given this, we choose the least
>	risky proposition--heterosexuals.

    Heh.  Can you show that heterosexuals are less risky?


>	(in other words, why bother bring up such useless points?)

    To see if you can refute them, obviously.  I don't think you've
done a very good job here...

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:09:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.025935.6551@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Yamanari (rsrodger@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jan4.095030.6902@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.ED
>U (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>[baseball analogy deleted]
>
>: >As to baseball, I think being left-handed is a more appropriate analogy.
>: >It is obviously deviant by *your* definition.  Do we lock up lefties and
>: >deny them basic rights?
>:
>:    Unlike homosexuality, left-handedness does not affect interpersonal;
>:    interaction.
>
>The hell it doesn't.  My left handed sister has to sit at one of two ends of 
>the dinner table or she bumps elbows with the person seated next to her.

And I wouldn't want to be seen eating with my left hand in Saudi Arabia either.
-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex