HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:31:40 GMT

patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:

>	We'll bet you wrote some of the Bush campaign
>	speeches!

No _you_ wouldn't.  You not only don't speak for everybody here but you
wouldn't bet anything of the kind.  You're just saying that to be clever
and it doesn't work.

You think that I don't think that Bush did something or other and that
plain makes you stupid (I don't think there is any other way to describe
it).  I'm pointing out that bringing the country down to prove a point
is a bad idea.  You're demonstrating why you couldn't be trusted in a
position of ultimate responsibility because no matter if everybody has
to suffer you'll burn the place down in the name of righteousness.

>	Sheesh - you "attack" me for the city I reside in?
>	Sounds like Bush all over again - glad that campaign
>	is over.

Patt, you probably don't read what you post so nothing anybody says makes
any sense.  You blame and continue to blame everything on Republicans you
allude to their ruining everything, you directly accuse them of every
rotten thing that happened and repeatedly reflect on "the last 12 years".

This is pointless, I claim that corruption is problem that envelopes all
politicians you claim it is almost exclusively the realm of Republicans
what more is there to discuss ?

tom
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
X-Xxdate: Mon, 28 Dec 92 08:36:58 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:40:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.211652.27744@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Simon E. Booth,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>Yes folks, Bush did the right thing.

I'm sorry Simon, but I must disagree.

This country is founded on law....maintained on a foundation of law
and freedom. What Bush did was to circumvent the legal system. If
they were all innocent as they claim, than the truth would have
been evident in the facts or in a lack of hard evidence. However, it
has become increasingly clear that this hard evidence does exist.

What kind of message does this pardon send to our children. Does it
say "It's only a crime if you get caught"? Does it say "If your rich
and/or powerful enough you can get away with anything"? We should
be aware of the grave implications of actions like these to the
defining principles of our society.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 30 Dec 92 01:58:36 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>>
>> - What "embezzlement" was North convicted of?

>Did you sleep during the whole North affair?  What would you call
>illicit removal of funds from someone who you work for's bank accounts
>to be used for your own purpose?  Remember:  North wasn't acting under
>orders, according to the administration.  Also remember:  He Admitted
>The Act.  The dispute was whether or not he was directed.	

Not that this was a central issue of the Iran-contra case (I would
have much rather seen North's other charges upheld instead of this
one.  A security system for someone heavily involved in secret
activities doesn't seem so ridiculous and frivolous like buying
a new Jaguar).  As is common, Walsh went after North on whatever
charges would stick, just like Al Capone was convicted on tax
charges, not on killing people.
-- 
{{{{ 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: alt.politics.bush
From: mfisher@bilbo.encore.com (Mark Fisher)
Subject: re: The analogy betwixt Gays & Blacks
Organization: Encore Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:47:14 GMT

Keywords: 

 I could not agree more with my friend from FAU; from which institution I myself
 matriculated.

 Further, there have been, are, and will continue to be homosexual men & women
 who DO change their "gender attraction".  I have several friends who have been
 able to escape that lifestyle (and have married and have children !!).  It is
 NOT sound military strategy to predicate a nation's defense upon such asinine
 assertions that homosexuals have a "right to serve" !

 In fact, for those of you who are ignorant of military history, I suggest you
 become aware that "EACH and EVERY citizen" who is "ACCEPTED" for military
 service "RELINQUISHES ALL HIS/HER RIGHTS TO THE U.S. ARMED FORCES".  For their
 tour of duty the U.S. Constitution is superseded by the 
 "Military Code of Conduct".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
X-Xxdate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 09:42:05 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:45:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.063643.18325@pegasus.com> Tom Leylan,
tleylan@pegasus.com writes:
>>Here's a lesson for you... producing examples where unethical or illegal
>>acts were perpetrated by the other party is not a logical arguement
>>for pardoning the illegal actions of the people you support.
>
>Here is a lesson for you... endlessly parading around with a look of
concern
>on your face about one incident while hundreds of other more serious
>incidents continue isn't concern at all.

When my high government officials put themselves above the very defining
principles of my govenmnet, that is QUITE serious and a dangerous
precedent.
I suggest you read some history so you can understand how serious this is.


Get a clue Tom.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:17:04 GMT

vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:

>Lets see. Loads of overwhelming evidence of their involvement in
>this issue. Isn't it nice to 'pardon them from prosecution'! Gee, maybe
>we should pardon SUSPECTED car thieves, SUSPECTED drug dealers, SUSPECTED
>murders, SUSPECTED rapists, SUSPECTED 'drug dealers', SUSPECTED embellezers,
>SUSPECTED traitors... The list goes on.

You frighten me more than anybody has in the last few months on this net.

No you go right ahead an ruin people's lives whether they are guilty or
not.  The most expensive trial in California's history tried for years
to prove that a family who ran a child care center had systematically
sexually abused their wards.  Animal sacrifice, video taping of sexual
acts and everything short of murdering children.

Oh... years later and millions of dollars spent by prosecutors and oh
you know what, not guilty.  No evidence.  Sorry about that start another
day school.

You are sick and you are dangerous if you don't think people's lives are
ruined by insane prosecution.  You forgot to argue in favor of the Salem
witch hunts... I mean they were accused after all.
>
>I forgot. I must accept with blind allegience the dictates of Mein Fuehrer!

You're blind on that we can agree.

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Re: Bush really IS a wimp
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:08:34 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.135223.10785@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.233313.18076@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Simon E. Booth,
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>>>Ahh.. but he did serve in World War II, whereas Clinton dodged the draft
>>during
>>>Vietnam.
>>>
>>>Now who is a wimp??
>>
>>Neither. No person should be called a coward for following
>>their convictions.

>But Clinton's attitudes about the military are a cause for concern the next
>time the Husseins or Kaddafis of the world run amok.  How would Clinton
>respond to terrorism or even some madman with nuclear weapons?

Well, given that he's a Soviet mole (just ask odd Republican Dornan), I
guess he'll probably just turn our country over to the first pinko who
demands it.

By the way, did you ever stop to think that the military leaders who
endorsed Clinton might ALSO be Soviet moles? How else to explain their
support?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:15139 alt.politics.libertarian:2993 ba.politics:7982 scruz.politics:114 ca.politics:10501 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1355
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.libertarian,ba.politics,scruz.politics,ca.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Wire Stories on Iran-Contra 12/28/92
Date: 31 Dec 92 03:12:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1ht099INN5dh@hal.com> berggren@hal.com writes:
>I'm just passing on a posting of considerable import, for your reading pleasure.
>Bush's Shameless Finale; The Pardons Undermine Constitutional Intent 
>
>By Garry Wills 
>
>[...]
>
>Ronald Reagan realized that a pardon of the coverup was bound to look like
>a coverup of the coverup - that is why he resisted pleas to pardon Oliver
>North and John Poindexter as he left office. But Bush has never been able
>to resist the right wing. 

Funny, Bush seemed to resist them on the issue of raising taxes and spending --
one of the few redeeming values the right wing has.

                                      James Parker
                                      jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
X-Xxdate: Wed, 30 Dec 92 13:20:18 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.094937.6537@pegasus.com> Tom Leylan,
tleylan@pegasus.com writes:
>Bill:  Well there you are, you've done it.  So we should either have
>more W.H. Harrison's or go backward in time.
>
>I'll guess that if Mr. Harrison was President at this time he would have
>managed to wreck something up in his time as President (this was the guy
>who was President for a month or two, right) ?

Jeesh Tom!

It was a joke son...sarcasm....witty reparte....

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
X-Xxdate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 09:38:02 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:41:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.061704.17816@pegasus.com> Tom Leylan,
tleylan@pegasus.com writes:
>You frighten me more than anybody has in the last few months on this net.
>
>No you go right ahead an ruin people's lives whether they are guilty or
>not.

If they are innocent, they have nothing to fear. That is how our
legal system works for everybody.

>The most expensive trial in California's history tried for years
>to prove that a family who ran a child care center had systematically
>sexually abused their wards.  Animal sacrifice, video taping of sexual
>acts and everything short of murdering children.
>
>Oh... years later and millions of dollars spent by prosecutors and oh
>you know what, not guilty.  No evidence.  Sorry about that start another
>day school.

Gee, generalization from one example. What a great arguement for
disbanding our legal system.    :-/

>
>You are sick and you are dangerous if you don't think people's lives are
>ruined by insane prosecution.  You forgot to argue in favor of the Salem
>witch hunts... I mean they were accused after all.

Are you suggesting that all prosecutions are insane or are you suggesting
there are no criminals?

>>
>>I forgot. I must accept with blind allegience the dictates of Mein
Fuehrer!
>
>You're blind on that we can agree.

I'm sure he's really cut to the quick by this clever quip.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
X-Xxdate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 09:46:33 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:50:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.064747.18696@pegasus.com> Tom Leylan,
tleylan@pegasus.com writes:
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> clearly unable to think
>anyone buy himself has a brain babbles, lest 3 messages pass without his
>comment:

What a pompous hypocrit you are. I count 8 messages from you in this group
just this morning. I hope you don't think that cheap attacks on my
character
are a substitute for intelligent replies?

>
>>tleylan@pegasus.com writes:
>
>>>Bill:  Well there you are, you've done it.  So we should either have
>>>more W.H. Harrison's or go backward in time.
>
>>Jeesh Tom!
>>
>>It was a joke son...sarcasm....witty reparte....
>
>Duhhhhh.  Oh, but what will the _children_ think ?

Duuuuuhh, I don't know. What do you think Tommy?

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Summary: rules of life :-)
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:54:41 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Dec30.063550.3411@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) rants:
>> 
>>	Oh, no!  Let's not bring the country grinding to a halt,
>>	let's distract it instead by sending troops to Somalia
>>	(and ignoring our own starving and hungry and homeless
>>	people), let's start up with Saddam Hussein again and
>>	put a carrier in the Persian gulf and let's divert
>>	more than $35 million from the pension funds - that ought
>>	to distract people for enough time to let Bush escape
>>	from office unscathed!
>
>Patt: I felt I should delete some of the noise since the paragraph
>above is more than representative.

	Thank you for your expert editing!
>
>There were no hungry people before Bush took office and Kennedy didn't
>screw up Bay of Pigs and of course you're right everybody should go to
>jail and the 8th person in succession should be the President of the
>United States, etc., etc., etc.

	Sheesh - let's bring in the second World War while
	we're at it okay?  Don't be changing the subject all
	the time - let's deal with this mess we're in; we're
	not sacrificing everyone - just want to get at the
	facts!

>I know for a fact you mean well but you seem willing to sacrifice everybody
>and everything that gets in the way.  Rather a rich person dies than a
>poor person goes hungry...
 
	"far easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a
	needle than for a rich man to . . . "

>Let me explain "the rules" of life, there are no rules.
>
	Tom, let's try that once again
	re: rules of life

	"whoever has the gold makes the rules!"
		-- some gnome in a Swiss bank vault

-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
P.O.Box 273 - Island Station
New York, NY 10044 USA
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:08:03 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>Oh yes I can. We have already left our children a huge social,
>economic, and environmental mess because we didn't consider the effect
>on their lives. Should we repeat that mistake again?

You must have missed it:  Every decision cannot be based upon one the
question "what kind of message does this send to our children ?"

>Those rules are called the law. How far are you willing to let your
>government break the law? Do you think they should allow you to bend
>the law too?

"They" do allow me to bend the law.  "They" let you bend the law all
time also.  The laws we bend aren't so serious but you watch anybody
on a daily basis for a year and you'll find lots of laws bent and many
broken.

>It has cost 35 M because the players in this scandal have been lying and
>covering their tracks.

And our trillion dollar debt is caused by.... wow you identified how the
money was spent that makes it okay.  I probably didn't realize that it was
a requirement for the special prosecutor to have a suite at an expensive
hotel... "we had to order from room service Bush wouldn't send us the
notes".  It is $ 35 million dollars in pursuit of lying to Congress
that much isn't spent on a murder investigation and believe me folks
who murder people lie to cover their tracks also.

>Maybe we should give these people a medal for being powerful enough
>to be above the law and clever enough to convince people like you
>that they should be.

Ok, divert into silliness for a moment.  "Perhaps we should spend $ 500
million on the Bush thing because the special prosecutor is clever
enough to convince you that we should."

>A crime should be investigated and punished, period. To allow any
>individual
>to be above the law is a bad precedent to set and has grave implications
>for the very foundational principles of our society.

Yeah I've noticed how adherence to that principle has been practiced up
until oh... last month wasn't it ?

tom
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:17:37 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Dec29.040404.8923@netcom.com>, howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
> In article <1992Dec27.211652.27744@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>Yes folks, Bush did the right thing.
>>Simon
> 
> Gee Simon, thanks for your insightful argument supporting bush.  I
> guess I was wrong in assuming that the same president which has said
> "embezzlement is ok" (ollie north), "treason is ok", (north/cap
> weinberger/secord/et. al) [[selling US arms to a hostile nation]], and
> "nepotism is ok" (neil 'slick accounting' bush) would also cover his
> own ass by pardoning the people who could finger him and make him look
> even worse (yes it's possible) than he already does.

Gee, I can't seem to find when/where these quotes came from.  Can you supply
sources?  Or would you rather just admit you don't know what you're talking
about?  While you're at it,

 - What "embezzlement" was North convicted of?
 - Do you know what the word "nepotism" means?  Look it up.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   Internet: paul@hsh.com   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 06:41:17 GMT

 vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:

>	How come they needed to be pardoned then if they didn't break the law?
>
>	How come they needed to be pardoned then if they didn't break the law?
>	If they didn't break any laws, then what was the problem? Why did
>	they need to be pardoned?
>
>	If they are innocent, what were they being pardoned from?
>
>	If they didn't break any laws, why did Bush pardon them?

I know you can figure this out you just don't want to.

They are being pardoned from "prosecution".  They are being pardoned from
spending the next 5 years of their life defending themselves.

I won't bore you with everyday examples because I know you know they
exist and you wouldn't like to be placed in a position where you found
yourself spending the next few years trying to convince a lunatic with
and endless budget that you didn't commit a crime.

You can figure it out and would if Bush was a Democrat or if Clinton ends
up pardoning somebody... you gotta be willing to think.

tom
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:21:41 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
: 
: Yes folks, Bush did the right thing.
: 
: Simon

In what way would you say he did the right thing?  And, while
you're at it, could somebody please explain to me all this 
whining about Walsh's "political agenda"?  Is the man, or is
he not, a Republican?  Was he, or was he not, appointed by
the Bush justice department?

Bill
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:08:42 GMT
 <1992Dec29.040404.8923@netcom.com> <1992Dec29.101737.405@hsh.com> <1992Dec29.190119.4830@netcom.com>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Dec29.190119.4830@netcom.com>, howard@netcom.com (Howard
Berkey) writes: 

>> - What "embezzlement" was North convicted of?
> 
> Did you sleep during the whole North affair?  What would you call
> illicit removal of funds from someone who you work for's bank accounts
> to be used for your own purpose?  Remember:  North wasn't acting under
> orders, according to the administration.  Also remember:  He Admitted
> The Act.  The dispute was whether or not he was directed.	

If you say so.  However, I used the word "convicted".  Was he convicted, or 
wasn't he?  Or doesn't that matter any more?  (Verdict first, then the trial, 
declared the Red Queen.)

>> - Do you know what the word "nepotism" means?  Look it up.
> 
> Do you?
> Nepotism: Patronage bestowed in consideration of family relationship
> and not of merit.

Exactly my point, chum.  Geroge cannot have "bestowed" a job on Neil, unless
he had _direct control_ over the hiring practices at the firm.  Do you now
claim that George picked up the phone and *ordered* Silverado to hire Neil? 
If so, call Tom Foley *quick*, because you know something Congress doesn't.
Get it now? 

> Like evading prosecution in the S&L scandal because daddy's the
> president.

Obviously, you don't have a clue.  Did you sleep during the coverage of the 
case?  How, specifically, did GB help Neil "evade" prosecution?  Neil WAS 
prosecuted.  Even the most rabid liberals don't claim otherwise.

> Whine away, the fact is that if you or I did what Neil did, we'd be in
> the pokey.  It's yet another example of the Govt. 'good ole boys' club
> which lets things like the congressional check kiting go by.

I'm not doing the whining.  I am, however, trying to interject some facts 
into a tantrum.  Excuuuse me.

------ 

Paul Havemann  (paul@hsh.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush