HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:44:43 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, 

What to think that Regan did not know which planet he was on? Sorry Not!

Spitting image did a series entitled "The Presiden't brain is missing" in which
Regans brain went on a round the worl cruise sipped drinks by the poolside etc
while his body ruled the USA.

Not the nine 'o clock news had a sond "I'm prepared to beleive that nixon wan't
a crook...
I' beleive ... I beleive" the punchline was "but I can't beleive Ronald Regan is
President".

Thatcher used to tell jokes about the limited intellect of the US Prez.

Sorry Repubs, but Regan was considered a national humiliation for the US abroad.
Worse than Dan Quayle by far.


|>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!!?

And the bunch of crooks who sold arms to Iranian terrorists to finance terrorism
in Nicaragua claim that anyone who even suggests that October surprize might not
be mere conspiracy theory. The main thing that makes me beleive it is that Bush
says that it's not true. Bush is the kind of a guy who if he told you the time
of day you would have to check it on your watch.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:26:24 EST

In article <72546@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:

>	The following is the *exact* content of said Article:

>	"Treason against the United States, shall consist 
>only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their 
>enemies, giving them aid and comfort...

Exactly so.  How, then, are Weinberger and the others guilty of treason
by giving aid and comfort to the *friends* of the United States?

Except, of course, for "treason" against the liberal scum in Congress;
if that be treason then let treason thrive.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67131 ca.politics:10560 ba.politics:8155
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:25:21 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

>>
>>And homosexuals wonder why most of public "doesn't like them".
>>


Some gays "flaunt" their homosexuality in the Gay Freedom Day Parade.
Some straight men "flaunt" their heterosexuality by bragging of their
sexual conquests and how many women they've slept with.

Some gays and gay organizations openly advocated promescuity in the
70's.  Some heterosexuals and heterosexual organizations did the
same thing.  The difference is that some heterosexuals are still
singing the same tune despite AIDS.  The San Jose Mercury News
magazine had an excellent article a few months back about
an organization that promotes partner-swapping among straight
couples.  They even have conventions with seminars entitled
"The Myth of AIDS and Heterosexuals."


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
X-Xxdate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 10:22:38 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:26:23 GMT

In article <C0BFny.9Fx@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
>: Whether or not we would have had microelectronics without NASA is not
at
>: issue.  The indisputable fact is that it was NASA's willingness to buy
>: microelectonic components at any price that brought microelectronics
into
>: the consumer market place.  This is amply documented.  For openers I
>: suggest you look at "The Chip" by T.R. Reid.
>: 
>
>I suggest you look at the United States budget for the last 20 years and
see
>what the government has been spending money on.  The military budget for
1988
>was 10x what NASA's was.  Which costs more, an aircraft carrier or a
moonshot?
>Didn't you see any of the video tape on TV during the gulf war?  The
stealth
>bomber has zero technology in it, right?  To assert that NASA earned its
keep
>by driving microchip technology is false.

Well Mike, I'm bowing out of this discussion. You haven't provide one
scrap
of documentation for your speculations and when confronted with evidence
which
debunks your claims, you don't even bother to check it out before
"debunking"
it with more outrageous speculation. I have made my case and can back up
what
I say with numerous examples. I suggest that you need some courses in
history
and some experience with modern corporate America before you continue with
your assertions. History and the realities of our present corporate
climate
just don't bear-out your contentions.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:06:21 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1idajgINNicv@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

>> The only question that Bob raises here is whether he is a liar or an
>> idiot.

> Gee, what a snappy come back!!  I'm in awe!!

It doesn't take very much to get some people going.
-- 
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:66678 soc.motss:55494
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:17:06 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1993Jan6.173125.875@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, by sbrack@jupiter (Steve Brack):
> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

# : A parade permit was issued for the event; it was not merely
# : a spontaneous assembly of people.  The parade committee
# : accepted NAMBLA as one of the groups marching in the parade,
# : a big mistake in my opinion. 

> 	Where in the name of God do you get off, insulting others' 
> 	orientation & lifestyle?  It smacks of hypocrisy to deny to
> 	others the freedoms you so assiduously guard for yourself. 

Insulting?  It is merely my opinion that it was a mistake for
the parade organizers to include NAMBLA in their gathering.
If this is to be construed as insulting to NAMBLA sympathizers,
then I am sorry.

# : This sort of crap gives
# : ammunition to the folks who try to like homosexuality to
# : child molestation.

> 	Hang on a second...  you just linked man/boy love to child 
> 	molestation using what has been called the "welfare argument."
> 	In other words, your assertion has "no visible means of support."
> 	If you're going to sound off, at least make rational arguments, 
> 	rather than blind assertions.

You missed my point entirely.  Many folks believe that NAMBLA
is associated with child molestation for their support of the
repeal of age of consent laws, and equate this with support
for child molestation.  Because the parade organizers chose to
associate themselves with NAMBLA, there could be folks out there
who would construe this to mean that the gay community supports
child molestation, which you and I know they do not.

# : We're talking "guilt by association,"

> 	Guilt?  Guilt due to what?  NAMBLA advocates changing unfair &
> 	unrealistic laws, a lot like most gay organizations.  TO be 
> 	guilty, one must *do* something wrong.  You again fail to support
> 	your assertions with *anythng*.

I see.  And most Nazis and KKK members have done nothing legally
wrong, so they should march in the parade too?

# : kind of like the GOP allowing Pat Buchanan to speak at the
# : convention.  That was not a free speech issue, and as a
# : result, it isn't hard for liberals like me to view GOP'ers
# : as knuckle dragging homophobic morons.  Get the analogy?

> 	Well, then why don't we distance ourselves from all those militant 
> 	homosexuals who want special rights?  If we all went back into our 
> 	closets, then we wouldn't have to worry about offending others.

Distancing yourself from militants is the same as going back
into the closet?  I don't think so.

> 	Do we really want to advocate appeasement?  I know I don't. 

No, and I support the right of the parade organizers to make
the decisions as they see fit.  It is only this one instance
in which I believe they made the wrong decision.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:52:03 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1is1f4INNkgg@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

|In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com> leecr@microsoft.com  
|(Lee Crocker) writes:
|> Food, shelter, medicine, all the basic necessities of life are the
|> products of work.  There is no evidenc that private charities can't
|> take care of those unable to work--indeed there is ample evidence  
|that
|> they do so much better than governments do.  

|A number of libertarian posters keep saying this.  Can somebody
|provide some of this "ample evidence."  

All of history for a start.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<CB.93Jan5171603@tamarack13.timbuk>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:13:00 GMT

<In article <CB.93Jan5171603@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:

<   Geff Underwood writes:

<      >There's a country that fulfills the dearest dreams of Libertarians: it
<      >has no government

<      Again?  This was refuted about a month ago.  You have the Libertarians
<      confused with somebody else.  Libertarians want a government police
<      force, government courts, and government military forces -- read their
<      platform if you don't believe me.

<      Some individual party members may well advocate the repeal of all
<      government, but they are not speaking for their party ...

<   I wasn't reading about a month ago, 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.

	Then Somalia is a poor example, as the warlords were (and
	in some parts, still are) acting exactly as medieval
	nobility did; protecting an extended family, charging
	tribute in the form of food and robbing all "outsiders"
	who are weaker.

	Thus, Somalia has the most primitive form of government
	available to a farming society, oligarchy.

	Oligarchy isn't anarchy nor is it libertaria.
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:06:02 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1993Jan6.140636.2393@nntpserver.chevron.com>, jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:

|> 'We (Weinberger and George Scultz) informed the president that sending
|> arms to Iran was illegal, and that using Israel as the middle man
|> doesn't make it legal.  Reagan replied, I'll worry about the illegality,
|> I want everyone to know that big Ron Reagan can bring the hostages
|> home.'

That's one way of putting it. What he said was that the "... American people
would never forgive me if I didn't do all I could to bring the hostages back
home.", which, depending on whether you liked or detested Ronnie, can mean
one thing or another.

|> Those are pretty close to the exact words, as I tried to embed it in my
|> mind when I heard it (asked my wife to repeat it to me as she heard it
|> so I could get it right).  I didn't think "Big Ron" had it in him, but
|> no.  He knew what was happening, he knew it was illegal (~basically aid
|> to an enemy).  And according do Weinberger's notes, he was doing it for
|> personal glory (ok at least according to the one entry I heard).  When I
|> first heard it, my first thought was that it sounded like an impeachable
|> offense.

Nope. He later signed a "finding" which is basically an instrument used by
the President to commit acts of dubious legality, and to cover their rear
ends at the same time. That effectively shields the President from prosecution
since it shows he was advised by the highest legal authorities (the Justice
Dept., I think) that what he proposed to do was NOT illegal. Cap Weinberger 
didn't know of it until later, as he revealed on David Brinkley's Sunday 
program the week he got pardoned (27th December).

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:54:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.192640.14221@wam.umd.edu> 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.


	I never said the general public was WISE, I said they hold 
	a view and take some pretty damn solid convincing before they'll
	start to accept another.  That's the nature of man.

	These views can be ignorant, stupid, biased, whatever.  When
	they encounter someone with opposing views, they seek to correct
	what appears to them to be a flaw.

	It has no bearing on their intelligence (or lack of).  No one
	has ever lost money underestimating the stupidity of the public.



-- 
      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,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Summary: Wrongo!  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:49:47 GMT

In article <markp.726767855@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)                         writes...
>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...
>>|>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.

Every month or two I have to re-post this because the supply-siders seem
to forget it.

Year	Tax Receipts	Change from 
	(billions)	previous year

1980	517		+11.7% (note: Carter recession)
1981	599		+15.9%	
1982	617		+3%	(first of two years of Reagan tax cuts)
1983	600		-2.8%	(even with economy growing again)
1984	666		+11%
1985	734		+10.2%
1986	769		+4.8% 	(year of Reagan's tax restructuring)
1987	854		+11.1%
1988	908		+6.3%
1989	990		+9%

	Numbers from US Treasury Dept.

So revenue went up more during Carter's recession than during anytime
during Reagan's growth.

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

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Let me give you a few numbers.

Federal spending from 1980-90 (adjusted for inflation):

Military spending up 46%

Education down 7%
Child nutrition down 19%
Mass Transit down 33%
Employment & training down 48%
Health Care services down 49%
Housing down 77%

Source OMB

As for the whole budget:
		FY 1982		FY 1986

Defense		23.2%		27.6%
Human Resources 27%		21.5%
SS & Medicare	26.4%		27.2%
Physical Resou. 10.5%		5.9%
Interest	10.1%		13.7%
Other		2.8%		4.1%

From OMB
> 
>>Phill Hallam-Baker
> 
>Mark Pundurs

_garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67197 alt.activism:20394
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Communism is SO hideous that we must shudder with dread...
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:31:52 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <73269@cup.portal.com>, L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

>>My feeling is that the world SHOULD faint in shock at the word "Communist"
>>since it is an ideology born of resentment and has violence as it's
>>means of spreading. Thank God it's dying of its own contraditions!
> 
> 	You're right... those who were suffering under the yoke of
> cruel labor and unfair wages, as well the countless minions who were
> denied education and opportunity should have been content to remain that
> way prior to the Russian Revolution. 

	Not to defend the Czar here, but after Lenin's death, Stalin made
things at least as bad as they were before for the Russian people with his
forced collectivization and relaction of people, which resukllted in mass
starvations. That's not even counting Stalin's Purges.
	And whether or not things got "better" is questionable at best. I doubt
that the common worker gained any real political power from the Russion
revolution.


=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "All Truths are for me soaked in blood"
Miami University	  	    -Nietzsche, _Ecce Homo_
Oxford, Ohio 45056  		
(513) 529-2063	       "What is done from love is always beyond
yeech! ACK! 			good and evil."
 ungh!			     -Nietzsche, _Beyond Good and Evil_
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.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 19:20:51 GMT

In <ARCHER.730.726862937@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>In article <90224@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>
>>|You seem to have forgotten the whole reason and cicumstances for the
>>|labor movement during the Industrial Revolution (when America was more
>>|Libertarian than at any other time).
>>
>>there is nothing in libertaria that would prevent groups of people from
>>banding together in order to sell their labor.  (IE labor unions)
>>

>Isn't that a coercive monopoly, though?

Only if the union initiates the use of force against someone else.