HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 02:06:43 GMT

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

>Ahh.. but he did serve in World War II, whereas Clinton dodged the draft during
>Vietnam.

>Now who is a wimp??

Statistically, it is more dangerous to serve as a U.S. President than to
have gone to Vietnam. This is the truth--the percentage of presidents killed
by assassins is actually HIGHER than the percentage of U.S. troops killed
in Vietnam.

Now who is a wimp? The principal difference here is that Clinton is willing
to place his life on the line for a cause he believes in. The Vietnam war
just wasn't such a cause.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Some FACTS About Iran-Contra, Finally
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:08:15 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <bhayden.725782011@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) 
writes:

>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.195442.29596@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>In article <bhayden.725732024@teal> Bruce Hayden, bhayden@teal.csn.org
>>>>Which laws are you talking about? Jaywalking? Lying to Congress?
>>>
>>Lying to Congress _UNDER OATH_ = perjury
>>Sending money to the contras when the Congress, consitutionally empowered
>>to control the money, said they shouldn't get money.
>>>

>First note that no one, I repeat NO ONE was ever indicted for violating
>the Boland Amendment. (also note - no convictions thereof) 

Hallelujah!  A note of the truth, so long lacking in all of the crap that has 
passed for rational discussion.

>Lying to Congress has a long history. Presidents of both parties have
>done it as a matter of course. If you criminalize that, you would have
>to put FDR, JFK, and LBJ at the head of the list. FDR's lies to congress
>got us into the war against Germany. 
>
>Next, much of the alleged lying was not done under oath. This is the
>first time (I believe) that anyone has tried to prosecute non oath
>testimony before Congress. Next, much of the alleged lying was
>omission, not commission (i.e. things were left out).
>Finally, Walsh is as guilty of it as Weinberger - in his statements
>about where he lives and reimbursements thereof.

Hallelujah squared!  Read & Learn, people -- let's get down to facts.  More 
light, less heat.

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

Paul Havemann  (paul@hsh.com)
From: patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:59:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Dec29.043900.18170@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>
>>>Yes folks, Bush did the right thing.
>
>>What kind of message does this pardon send to our children. Does it
>>say "It's only a crime if you get caught"?
>
>Norman: Every single decision cannot be based upon the one question
>"what kind of message does this send to our children ?"
>
>The message is "real life isn't tennis" you simply cannot bring the
>entire country grinding to a halt in the name of "playing by the rules".
>At some point reality has to be factored into the equation.  You can't
>spend $35 million dollars every time something funny goes on in D.C. ?
 
	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!

>And if you want all the lawbreakers in jail we simply rename the country
>the United Prison System... if it isn't lying to Congress it is drug
>use, theft, tax fraud, abuse of power, check kiting, graft and in the
>case of Ted Kennedy, I think it's called "manslaughter" when his drunk
>driving escapade killed a woman.
 
	No, we don't want ** all ** the law breakers in jail -
	just the RICH ones who can usually buy their way out -
	let them see what it feels like to actually have to pay
	for a crime one commits.

	Someone's drunk driving escapade killed my older brother
	in 1984 and the guy got off with a slap on the wrist; the
	stoopid prosecutor (assistant d.a.) even called my mother's
	home to ask my dead brother to be a witness against the
	drunk driver - I wish there was a Special Prosecutor as good
	as Walsh is in every justice office in this country!

>Now... what do you think the message is when Lockheed breaks the law
>overbills for services and produces $400 hammers ?  Does it say "it
>is only a crime if you get audited" ?
 
	Look at Walsh's record on the Richardson-Merrill
	MER/29 cases; the company got punished severely but
	didn't go out of business; their business didn't grind to
	a halt but they were severely chastised for not monitoring
	their research scientists and falsified reports to the FDA.

-- 
Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
P.O.Box 273 - Island Station
New York, NY 10044 USA
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 06:44:33 GMT

patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:
> 
>	If they were all innocent why did they need to
>	be pardoned in the first place?

You folks all subscribe to the same newsletter or what ?

>
>Patricia Ann Bromberger                            patth@panix.com
>P.O.Box 273 - Island Station
>New York, NY 10044 USA

Oh.. New York City... Mayor Koch wasn't it ?  Mr. Honest, Mr. I live in
a rent controlled apartment while poor folk live on the street.  Mr. Why
complete a city project on time and under budget when you can funnel
money and favors to your friends (while poor people live on the street).

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bush really IS a wimp
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:58:51 GMT

As expected, he was too timorous to brave open court, so he did the typical
Republican thing and pardoned those who might otherwise serve to convict him.
What a wimp: afraid of his fellow citizens. What did he have to fear, after
all? Either Weinberger lied to Congress or he did not. Either Weinberger's
notes show that Bush lied to Congress or they do not. If Weinberger and
Bush are really innocent, then they have nothing to fear from a jury of
12 good men and women--the truth will out. Or is that what the little
sh*t was afraid of?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:43:42 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:
>
>       Let me see if I've got this straight:  
>
>       1.  Ms. Bromberger gives a NYC post office box address
>       2.  Ed Koch used to be mayor of NYC.
>       3.  Ed Koch did some shady things while mayor, and failed to solve
>           the problem of homelessness in NYC.
>       4.  Therefore Ms. Bromberger should be blamed for Koch's actions,
>           and the contents of her post should be ignored, nay ridiculed.
>
>        With logic like that, Mr. Leylan, it's a wonder to me why you
>haven't been serving in the Bush cabinet for the last four years.  Have a
>nice day, and I'll see you at the Clinton inauguration.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

   1.  Ms. Bromberger posts that Republicans ruined everything
   2.  I suggest that all politicians had a hand in it
   3.  You try and make some illogical connection and suggest that
       the Bush adminstration has done _nothing_ to be proud of
       during Bush's term in office

Add "Bush is possessed by the devil" and you've completed your manuscript.

tom
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 12:58:57 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:02:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.064117.3507@pegasus.com> Tom Leylan,
tleylan@pegasus.com writes:
>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.

Gee, do you think I could be pardoned from prosecution if I
committed a crime? I fail to see how this negates the point that
they are accused of crimes, there is evidence, and they will not go to
trial.

>
>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 mean a Republican lunatic, appointed by the criminals, who has
enough ethics to believe that nobody is above the law....

>
>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.

That is a cheap, groundless, character shot and does nothing to negate
the facts.

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: 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 02:03:45 GMT

dsl24@cas.org writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.092820.23623@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>>--the truth will out. Or is that what the little
>>sh*t was afraid of?
>>
>   Maybe he's trying to save us tax-payers some money.  This whole
>   investigation is a waste of time.

Enforcing the U.S. Constitution seems like a reasonable way to spend tax
dollars. Sure beats giving it to death team leaders in Nicaragua.

>   As far as
>   Bush's place in history, it will be far from ugly.  Looking back
>   people will be more apt to wonder why idiots like yourself voted
>   in a "used car salesman" like Clinton, and voted out a great man
>   like President Bush.

Which of course explains why Reagan now greatly trails Carter in the
polls. Republican presidents historically age very poorly. Could it be
because they largely turn out to be felons, idiots, or both? Sure, the
Republicans always point proudly to Lincoln, but really--it has BEEN
rather a while since he was president, hasn't it? What have you clowns
done for us THIS century?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dward@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
Subject: Looking for Bush - found Walter, Bil & Ted
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 05:30:47 GMT

    I am fairly new to this newsgroup.  I used to subscribe
    to fans of Quayle - but it got sort of boring over there
    after the election.  So, I though I would jump over here
    to see if anyone was getting in a few last licks at Bush's
    expense.  I would have enjoyed that.  BUt, all I've
    found so far is some guy named Walter who seems to get
    off on patronizing ( in a cute and fatherly way.)  I
    also ran accross Ted - who seems to be into cute little
    digs based on taking things out of context.  And then, there
    is Bil.  I like Bil.  He appears to be a liberal and proud 
    of it.  We also share a lot of common beliefs. (I think.)
    But Bil, give it up - you're never going to convince these
    guys.  They're so busy writing their response to what you're
    saying that they never actually hear what you say.

    So, let's get back to Bushism/Bushwacking.  Remember, we
    now have less than 4 MORE WEEKS!  less than 4 MORE WEEKS!!!
       Dan 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:52:02 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1992Dec29.100820.404@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.144039.23072@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Before you get carried away on the emotional tide that is swamping all good 
> liberals, perhaps you can provide a little perspective.  What laws had those
> six men been accused of breaking?  Hint: some of them aren't crimes at all. 

	How come they needed to be pardoned then if they didn't break the law?

> Were ANY of the six accused of doing ANYthing illegal in connection with the
> arms sales to Iran, or with getting that money to the Contras?  Hint: the
> answer is No.  But, to hear Walsh (and others) foaming at the mouth, that

	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?

> obviously doesn't matter at this point. Heads must be taken, hides must be
> displayed on the wall. 

	Walsh is a Republican, appointed by Bush, who apparently isn't
	buying into the Republican secret code of honor.

	If they are innocent, what were they being pardoned from?

> 
>> 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.
> 
> Oh, puh-leez.  The "message" being heard loud & clear is the one Congress is
> sending to any foolish (Republican) mortal who dares oppose them.  Their
> message is, don't cross us.  If you dare to disagree with our way of running
> foreign policy, we will bury you.  Somewhere, sometime, you must have 
> committed SOME crime we can bury you with.

	If they didn't break any laws, why did Bush pardon them?

> 
> ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 
> 
> Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
> Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
>   ...Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company...

-Garrett
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush really IS a wimp
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:56:42 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1993Jan1.003435.4343@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, 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?

Gasp! Oh my GOD! Democrats are left with the responsibility of dealing
with the 'Husseins or Kaddafis' of the world 'running amok'! Horrors!

Well, it is a well documented FACT that Repulicans are experts at that!
Democrats are commie-pinko-liberal-sap-suckers-bent-on-handing-over-the-
reigns-of-power-to-them-arab-soviet-sympethizers!!!!

Clinton has an ATTITUDE! Damn!

After all, it is 'cause of concern'...
> 

-Garrett

> Simon
> 


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 10:59:15 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:02:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.043900.18170@pegasus.com> Tom Leylan,
tleylan@pegasus.com writes:
>Norman: Every single decision cannot be based upon the one question
>"what kind of message does this send to our children ?"

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?

>
>The message is "real life isn't tennis" you simply cannot bring the
>entire country grinding to a halt in the name of "playing by the rules".

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?

>At some point reality has to be factored into the equation.  You can't
>spend $35 million dollars every time something funny goes on in D.C. ?

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

>
>And if you want all the lawbreakers in jail we simply rename the country
>the United Prison System... if it isn't lying to Congress it is drug
>use, theft, tax fraud, abuse of power, check kiting, graft

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.

>and in the
>case of Ted Kennedy, I think it's called "manslaughter" when his drunk
>driving escapade killed a woman.

Unproven.... He's still innocent until proven guilty. However, I myself
think he got away with one because of who he is.

>
>Now... what do you think the message is when Lockheed breaks the law
>overbills for services and produces $400 hammers ?  Does it say "it
>is only a crime if you get audited" ?

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.

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: Clinton's foreign affairs (was Re: Somalia)
X-Xxdate: Mon, 21 Dec 92 10:00:25 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:04:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.192823.1361@cs.rochester.edu> Ray Frank,
ray@cs.rochester.edu writes:
>Uh, principaled?  How do you know that.  I don't necessarily mean that
as a 
>derogatory question towards Clinton.  But we know little about him.  In
the
>early stages of the campaign, both he and Hilary appealed little to the 
>people.  There was a 'manhattan' like project undertaken to redo his
image to
>appeal more the the Amerian public.  It worked.  And now we have no real
>idea who the president is.  

Well, he does have a record to examine (governor for three terms) and it
is an
excellent one. To say we know little about him ignores this fact.

>
>>Norman
>>
>>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>>Senior Engineer
>>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
>
>
>Wow, it sounds like someone is still camgaigning for Clinton.  The
election
>is over.  And even though he is probably not nearly all those things you 
>say about him, it is a moot point since we are stuck with him
>for the next four years.  
>There is one thing that Clinton is, a professional politican with
intelligence.
>Make no mistake about it, he knows the ins and outs of politics and knows
>how to project an image that appeals to both sides.  Now let's see if
>he can deliver and avoid messing up the country any more than it already
is.
>Saying and actually doing require two different abilities.

I am not campaigning. I was responding to one of those typical "the sky is
falling" statements from pouting Repubs who are predicting doomsday
because we have a Democrat President. He claimed Clinton did not have
enough "smarts" to handle foreign policy. I claim that this is a
conclusion
without factual basis.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 30 Dec 92 04:49:34 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1992Dec30.064117.3507@pegasus.com>, tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>  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.

I already have.

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

How horrid!

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.

What makes Weinberger/Bush et al more special than anyone else with evidence
that they may have broken the law?

Because they are rich and powerful, and they are above the law! It is
quite simple!

> 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.

I forgot. I must accept with blind allegience the dictates of Mein Fuehrer!

It makes alot of sense to me!

> 
> 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

I am amazed that you didn't change the subject by accusing Congress of
being worse! Good Republican! Now SIT!!!

> 

-Garrett
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons Iran-Contra scumbags
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:53:04 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>
>>(this was the guy who was President for a month or two, right) ?
>
>Am I supposed to answer?

You're under no obligation and no salesman will call... I could only
afford to get the first volume of "The Presidents" and it went up the
"G's".  Harrison was in volume two... I knew I should have bought it
when I had the chance.

tom
>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush