HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:25:57 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <Dec.26.07.44.44.1992.9492@romulus.rutgers.edu>
  <1hq11vINNq1f@spim.mti.sgi.com>
  <Dec.29.13.58.49.1992.2135@romulus.rutgers.edu>

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

	Due to procrastination on the part of the prosecutor, which, in
this case, happened to be Walsh.  Rather than indicting him on a narrower
case, he decided to go after the larger conspiracy theory (i.e. Iran-
Contra).  But since Ollie North gave congressional testimony under
immunity, his trial (in which he WAS convicted) was eventually judged to 
be tainted, and thrown out in '91 by an appeals court.

	By the technicality of the law, he is "innocent."  Factually, he's
not.  You're not sure how this works?  If a cop doesn't read you your
rights while arresting you, any evidence of your wrongdoing, indeed, even
your crime, can be legally nullified in court.  This does not mean that
you did not kill the man, rape the woman, steal the money, etc... (try
to remember, this is ONLY an example :-)

Regards,

--Louis
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 16:07:11 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1993Jan1.203932.14230@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>	1.  No matter how you stack the deck, it's deviant.
>>
>>    I say it isn't.  You say it is.  I say mind your own business.
>
>	Look up the word, get back to me.  Homosexuality is deviant,
>	it fill all of the criteria.

    Oh; I see.  An "exact definition" person.  You wouldn't be an undergrad
psych major, would you?
    OK; I'll give you that it's deviant if deviant = not in the majority.
What's wrong with that?

>	Not true (to the first part).  For the second, if homosexuality
>	is learned, they are a danger to learners (children).

    Homosexuality is not learned by kids from adults.  Prove otherwise.

>	Deviant:  deviating from the NORM

    Fine.  I stand corrected.  Now - so what?

>	Then you don't understand the meaning of the word "behavioral".  It's
>	not a semantic issue, it's an ignorance one.  Read up.

    Now I'm sure you're a psych major.  Your prof must be proud.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:32:46 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <Dec.29.13.58.49.1992.2135@romulus.rutgers.edu> 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.
>
>Not for his part in the Iran-Contra deal.  His conviction has been
>overturned.
>-- 
>Theodore A. Kaldis

...On a technicality, the same type which most tough-on-crime
conservatives usually bemoan because it gives the criminal too many
"rights".
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:29:12 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1993Jan1.154816.1446@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>	This is a matter of contention.  Being black--it is not even
>	a possibility that it's a choice.  Being gay, it is still 
>	up in the air as to whether it's inborn or learned behavior 

    Right, but if it's leanred, it's learned so early in life so as to have
the result be indistinguishable from being inborn.  Neither scenario
legitimizes bigotry.

>	(with the further question of, "can it be cured in either case?")

    What, exactly, needs to be cured?  Can you be cured from being het (I'm
assuming you are)?  I suspect you'll agree that being het is natural for
you and that you never chose this orientation.  In that case, it's
illogical to state that being gay is a choice - very few gays remember
making a choice to be gay.

>	Pretty fluid with those facts, huh.  Claiming that "gay is not
>	a choice" is like me claiming "god is a huge cow with two heads"
>	because there's a *chance* that it's possible, no proof against
>	it, and it happens to be my opinion.  

    And you're welcome to that opinion, including not being denied basic
rights on account of it.  I may not agree, but your life is up to you as
long as it doesn't affect me negatively.  Get it?

>	"Orientation"?  Sexual orientation is *behavioral*.  It doesn't
>	matter if it's inborn or learned or the result of being kidnapped
>	by martians.  _Sexuality_ is behavioral.  It certainly isn't
		       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    The expression of sexuality is behavioral.  There is a difference.  To
make the above statement shows very shallow thinking. 
    What are celibate priests - asexual?

>	anything else (i.e. "grwoing hair" is not behavioral).
			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I'll agree with that, although its relevence is lost on me.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: d40937@pascal (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 23 Dec 92 09:10:43 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

With the demise of communism and the now non-existent support
of Russia to its former ally, what is the reason, if any,
behind the continuing embargo of Cuba. The Cuban's
should be flourishing if not for this uncalled for economic 
drain on their country. The cuban missile crisis is not relevent
here : 30 years have passed and germany was forgiven for its
actions in lot less time than that. The US's overpowering
urge to rid the world of every communist country like a plague
that must be eradicated smacks of hipocrisy after its support
of an uncounted number of dictators and despots. For the US, if
someone is not an ally, he must be an ennemi.

This might be flame baiting but I truly 
think that the USA's heavy handed actions everywhere must stop.
It cannot do something claiming it is for a countries good when in
fact it is for its very narrow and short sighted objectives.

--
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 ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65786 alt.politics.homosexuality:8623
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Stupid Boycott Mentality
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:23:47 GMT

In article <C01KKL.58J@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
} In <1hqgmtINNav@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
} 
} >When people allow themselves to fall into the pattern of force as a major 
} >option, everyone loses. 
} 
} Then why did the voters of Colorado _force_ certain municipalties (Denver,
} etc.) to vacate their resolutions/laws/etc. which provided for equal
} rights for all?  And please don't make the specious claim of "but we
} only outlawed SPECIAL rights".  Since when is housing, etc., a "SPECIAL"
} right?

Housing isn't a special right; it isn't even a right at all.

} Until anyone can answer these for me, I'll not believe the protests of
} "But don't boycott _me_!!! __I'M__ one of the good guys!!".  Hitting
} folks in the pocketbooks (including my own employer) is a quite effective
} method of expressing dissatisfaction.

It is also likely to backfire.  People who are being boycotted, especially
those who feel they do not deserve it, will try to find a way to retaliate.
And that retaliation can be even harsher, when it is discovered that the
boycotters are in no position to carry it out in the first place (see below).

Further, since boycotting a geographic area hits both the good guys and the
bad guys equally, the good guys have no incentive to remain good, since
goodness is being boycotted right along with the bad.  And the bad guys have
no incentive to change their behavior to the good, since they are seeing
even the good being boycotted as well.

} >Walter Smith
} >smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
} 
} --
} =======================================================================
}  Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
}  Internet:  mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
}  NBCS: B5 f t w g+ k s              I barely speak for myself, so
}  #include <standard.disclaimer>       don't make me speak for HP
} =======================================================================

Hmmm, Atlanta.  I'd be willing to bet that Georgia has no ordinance that
gives protected status to gays either, because it already has an anti-
sodomy law -- violation of which carries a 20-year prison term.  Colorado
has no anti-sodomy laws.  But in the name of gay rights, apparently you
think we should be boycotted anyway.  So, what do you say would be an
appropriate punishment for Georgia?
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: bhjelle@hydra.unm.edu ()
Subject: Re: Bush CAN pardon himself
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 23:26:28 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <bill.725661627@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>New York Times today notes that Bush CAN legally pardon himself,
>he just can't exempt himself from impeachment.
>
Act fast folks. Impeach him now!



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:30:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.013139.1768@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>
>MG> This comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point I made,
>MG> which was about the basis on which the appellate court overturned North's
>MG> convictions.  [...]
>
>MG> Even if your recollection of the Globe interview is correct, it is
>MG> inapposite to the point being discussed here.
>
>It is relevant if you remember the origin of the discussion.  The claim was
>made that North is guilty despite the reversal of his conviction.

Not quite. The point I was addressing was whether North was "exonerated"
by the reversal of his conviction on appeal.

On that point, no interview with a juror is relevant; the convictions were
not overturned on the basis of juror bias or evidence insufficiency.

>Supporting
>argument for that position was that the reversal was due to procedural error
>which is irrelevant to the matter of factual guilt.  Al Thompson brought up a
>reason why the original trial should be suspect which is not based on
>admissibility of otherwise valid evidence.

Al Thompson may have been confused about the basis for the overturning of
North's convictions. It had nothing to do with whether any juror felt
pressured to reach a verdict. 

>North writes about a similar incident in his autobiography.  I don't know if
>it was the same juror.

It would not surprise me in the least if a juror felt public or peer
pressure in reaching a decision. This happens all the time, and cannot be
fully eliminated in any jury-based factfinding system. You can reduce it,
though, and, from all accounts, the court in the North trial attempted to
do just that.

Anyone interested in the North trial should also read Jeff Toobin's
OPENING ARGUMENTS.


--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.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
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 00:54:09 GMT

In article <C057F4.842@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>I'm tired of arguments, so I will not bore you with things you have 
>probably already heard. But I do have a question. Do you *really* 
>believe that the civil rights analogy holds in the case of homosexuals?
>I want to know this so I tell can if you are simply being argumentitive or
>we you are stating beliefs you hold.  I don't think the analogy is
>100% valid. But I am willing to listen. My major problem is that the 
>difference between hets and gays is behavioral, not racial as is 
>the difference between blacks and whites.

1) Yes.

2) What's this "behavioral" business?  Are you clinging to the belief
that gays are gay because they want to be, and if they tried hard
enough, they can turn straight?  Well, guess what, it _may_ be the case
that gayness is genetic so your argument won't hold.  But more
importantly, we _don't_ know, so even if it was morally valid to not
tolerate gays based on the behavioral argument, we can't do so NOW
because we don't know for sure.

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.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
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 00:40:49 GMT

[alt.politics.bush crosspost deleted]

Howard Black (cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan1.191535.10267@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari
) writes:

[deletia]

: >  SEXUALITY IS BEHAVIORAL.  It doesn't matter one wit that it
: >  can be "expressed" or not.  All aspects of sexuality are
: >  _behavioral_.  In fact, the sex drive *itself* is behavioral--
: >  it is defined by behavioral properties and nothing else.  It
: >  is not _biological_.  The operation of the sex organs is "biological"--
: >  sexual orientation is _behavioral_.
: >
: >  It shows very shallow thinking that you are unable to grasp this
: >  simple conclusion even after having it pointed out.  Thins
: >  are either biological or behavioral.  Sexuality is behavioral.
:
:     Sounds like a semantic issue to me.  I consider the behavioral aspect
: to be what you do because of the drive.  If you consider the drive itself
: to be behavioral, then there is no argument except wrt terms.

I have an argument.  What many people find fault with is sodomy, felatio, 
cunnilingus, (pederasty, momma why do these words sound so nasty ...  "Hair").
Sorry, ahem.  Since so many people are opposed to the sexual acts, then there 
must be a separation between behaviour and orientation in our discussions.

[the rest deleted]
-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:25:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.214426.20076@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
}In article <1992Dec18.192013.11974@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec18.172417.9705@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
}>}In article <1992Dec18.162102.4872@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>}>
}>}>Out of curiosity, do you think there was a gun mounted on top of the
}>}>bomb with wheels that took out the barracks in Beruit?
}>}
}>}Er, the thread so far seems to be one in which we're discussion
}>}Pentagon weaseling about the truth ("disinformation" and "later
}>}admitted" are clues to this), NOT whether the troops should have
}>}fired.
}>
}>That's nice.  And?
}
}...and your remark was, well, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

But if you have watched the follow-ups, you will find that it wasn't.  It was
very relevant.  And directly applicable.  A shame that you didn't understand.

As another question, how much military history and combat-related experience
have you had?


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65600 alt.politics.homosexuality:8513
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Stupid Boycott Mentality
Date: 30 Dec 1992 00:57:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
> Though I sympithize with the situation, ignoring the fact that the
> majority of voting Coloradans voted for # 2, would be worse.  

Do you understand *why* 53% voted for it?   

How about states that have sodomy laws on the books.  Should 
they be boycotted too, if those laws are used against gays?  

> If I do business with a company in Vail becuase that community, on
> average, voted no, I let the state and its bigoted, homophobic element
> off the hook.  (And there are people in Aspen that voted for # 2)  

Why not look at the policy of the company you are considering dealing 
with?  If they have anti-discrimination rules that they have stuck 
with, why would you want to boycott them?  

Do you REALLY think that 53% of the people in Colorado are bigoted 
against gays, and want to see them discriminated against?  

If not, what percentage do you think really are?  Do you think the 
whole state, even those who oppose that sort of discrimination, should 
be boycotted because of where they happen to be?    And forget Vail, 
take Denver, the biggest city.  It HAD anti-discrimination laws in 
effect, and thru no fault of its own, they get overturned?  So you think 
they should be boycotted?  Let's see...any gay rights people that don't 
come out and try to get NAMBLA disbanded should be boycotted, along with 
NAMBLA, to set an example?  Is this the way it should work? 

> My desire is to convice the people of Colorado that they collectively made
> a mistake, and I need to therefore deal with the people of Colorado
> collectively.

Wrongo, pal.  Reduce the situation to a more human scale.  You and 2 
co-workers are talking about gay rights.  You have your own cube, and
the other 2 share one.  One of them says that gays should have no rights; 
the other disagrees.  You're going to refuse to talk to the 2nd guy 
because of what the first guy says?  Better yet, you're going to try 
to hurt the 2nd guy financially, until he can convince the first guy 
to change his mind?  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.conspiracy
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Jubilation T.)
Subject: Re: ** The Birth of NEW-ISRAEL ** ( Re: Death of America xx )
Summary: Overlookin' Jordon, an' what did I see...  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Jubilee taint Jubilate, but yodel if it moves Ye
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:18:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.142736.2465@cbnews.cb.att.com>, 
jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes...

>bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>>garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>>> 
>>>P.S. The trumpets mean war, plague, and famine. Let's not sound the trumpets.
>>
>>The trumpets could mean Miles Davis, though I wonder if God let him in
>>with his Maseratti.  Actually, Miles would never enter without.
> 
>As long as he phones ahead to let the Pearly Gates P.D. know what kind of
>car he's driving, he'll avoid a "profile" stop.

This commentary seems right here...

Arthur Waskow is _Godwrestling_ 
(Schocken, NY, '78, p.110+)
"Beyond Marx and Buddha: The Jubilee"


	Early of July 4th, 1976, people began gathering on the
	steps of the Jefferson Memorial, above the Tidal Basin
	in Washington, D.C. A choir of children and teenagers
	from a Black church. A little group of fiddlers and
	guitarists wearing knitted Jewish yarmulkes, skullcaps.
	Several dozen sleepy-eyed women and men carrying light-
	weight camping packs upon their backs. An old man in a 
	long white robe, carrying a curved and convoluted ram's
	horn almost as tall as he was....

	One of the banners read, "Proclaim Jubilee Throughout the
	Land."

	As the number of people grew and grew...the different groups 
	got into their places. The man with the ram's horn climbed 
	to the top of the stairs. Somebody nodded to him. He raised 
	the horn, blew a long and eerie blast. Someone else began
	to read from Leviticus:

	"You shall make proclamation with the blast of the horn....
	In the day of atonement you shall make proclamation with
	the horn throughout all your land. And you shall make holy 
	the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the 
	land to all the inhabitants thereof. It shall be a jubilee
	to you, and you -- everyone of you -- shall return to his 
	ancestral holding, everyone of you, to his famiy." The
	reading continued: the whole people must redistribute the
	land so that each family has its equal holding...the land
	must lie fallow...the land belongs to God.

Amen.

"50 years of war hot and cold"... sooner or later, ya gotta come home.


   |
-- J --
   |
   |   Stephen   "If you believe in nation, then get the rhythm"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: US Should NOT Disarm Somalis
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:26:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.235109.1971@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
}I will hazard a guess that there are more guns-per-person here in
}the USA than in Somolia. Yet, the USA is not an anarchy. The
}availible firepower is not the issue at all. 

Might I suggest that going from an unsubstantiated assertion
("hazard a guess") and to a conclusion on base cause ("not the issue
at all") is a not insignificant leap?

i.e. You are blowing smoke rings, and I will not buy it as a doughnut.
Try again.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 601
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:41:34 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:


>In a previous article, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) says:

>>
>>	The Commerce Dept. numbers show the GDP increasing
>>	by 3.4% in the 3rd quarter; July, August and September


>     The numbers are bogus.  This has been widely documented.

Could you supply some specifics on this?  (Sincerely curious, since
I haven't heard the bogus charge much since the election).
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc