HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:07:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.173755.18087@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <cubsfan.725313723@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>>A couple thoughts...

>>1. A "pardon" implies that the person(s) being pardoned did something wrong.

>Incorrect in American jurisprudence.

Not true.  Read the Constitution:

Art 2, Sect 2:
"...he shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses
against the United States..."

Therefore, you can't pardon someone who hasn't committed an offense
against the United States, ie a crime.

>>2. Bush, who is very concerned about his place in history, must be
>>in very much fear that his actions in the Iran-contra case would
>>have been exposed to issue this pardon, which will undoubtedly
>>tarnish him in the history books.

>Doubtful - the only people who object to the pardon are people who
>already have a low opinion of Bush and Reagan.

Well, I don't know about Reagan, but I think most people in the country
have a low opinion of Bush.  I think he found that out Nov 3.

>>3. How can Bush (or anybody for that matter) consider it patriotic
>>to violate one's sacred oath to defend and uphold the Constitution?

>That would, of course, be unpatriotic.  Can you document any such
>violation?  I am aware of none by any of the people Bush pardoned.

You don't think violating laws established by Congress under their
legislative power under the Constitution is violating your oath to
defend and uphold the Constitution?

>>Far from being patriots, the men Bush pardoned (like Weinberger)
>>are *traitors* to the United States of America and should be
>>punished as such. Unfortunately, they never will be.

>Here, again, you demonstrate a truly amazing ignorance of the
>Constitution which you seem to feel is so important.  I strongly
>suggest you read it - treason is defined very exactly within it and I
>afail to see how Weinberger et al are even conceivably guilty of treason.

Well, only one definition of traitor involves treason; the other is:
"one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty."

By that standard, he is obviously a traitor.  That doesn't mean he's
guilty of treason.  

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 5 Jan 1993 13:03:43 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: copland.crhc.uiuc.edu

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>No, it's because of the hard time that homosexuals have opposing
>child molestation.

I'm gay, and I oppose child molestation.  I have an easy time doing so,
because child molestation is so clearly an evil thing.

I also oppose the lies Clayton has made it his life's work to tell about me,
because perpetuating stereotypes and with them the hatred and bigotry they
support is also clearly an evil thing.

Why does Clayton have such a hard time opposing stereotypes and prejudice?

Paul
-- 
Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.
Center for Reliable High-Performance Computing     Urbana, IL 61801
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign         (217) 244-7179
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:25:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

[soc.motss deleted because the poor dears can't handle reading things
they don't like.]

In article <1i0a1vINNilk@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
> > In article <13723@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) says:
# # #The average homosexual: he doesn't like what you say, so he threatens
# # #you with violence.
# 
# Or calls you insane, or a hypocrite, or resorts to foul mouthed tactics 
# etc. Two months ago, I'd have laughed at such a stereotype and generalization. 
# Then I found soc.motss....wouldnt have believed it if someone told me, 
# but seeing is believing.  
# 
# Walter

They have to use those tactics, because they know they are wrong.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Is the media liberal-biased? (was: Weinberger Pardon)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:40:57 GMT

> = (Ken Michael Edwards) writes:
>> = (Randall Rhea) writes:

>|> 4) Editorial writers in major newspapers, as well as TV editorial
>|> commentators, tend to be conservative.

>Please supply your sources for making these claims.  These four items are 
>difficult to beleive on the surface.  

The Rocky Mountain News is the leading daily in Denver, Co.

Since I moved here in 1980, it has endorsed: Reagan, Reagan, Bush and
Bush.  Additionally, the paper tends toward conservative, and Republican,
endorsements of Congressional races.  In '92, it was Terry Considine,
the Republican nominee - an anti-abortionist with heavy ties to
extremist fundie organizations.  What enraged me about THIS endorsement
was, they never mentioned Considine's abortion stance.  Just, "he'll
help cut spending, blah blah."

At least in Denver, Randall is el correcto.

>As a counter to item 4, the most powerful
>person in shaping the news released is the managing editor.  On the CBS side 
>of the network television news shop, Dan Rather IS the managing editor.  I 
>don't think anyone can argue that he ''tends to be conservative'. 

I agree.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Yeh Right!  
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:14:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.023858.7475@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>And what about the courts, police, and national defense?

What about them?  Ask people to support them.  If sufficient people aren't 
willing to support them,  the majority don't want them, and they shouldn't 
exist.


>What about company script? That was once legal until NeoSocailistPolicies
>made that illegal. Under Libertarianizm that would be legal since the 
>government wouldn't interfere with the way the company pays it's workers.
>In an area that has only one major employer (like a mining community) the
>mining company could rule every facit of the communities life from birth
>to death, forever. I guess life is a bitch.

If you don't want to work in that community, start your own.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (Smokers are productive, but death cuts efficiency)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Yeh Right!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:01:10 GMT

In article <ARCHER.724.726858851@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)                                  writes...
>In article <1993Jan12.023858.7475@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>>And what about the courts, police, and national defense?
> 
>What about them?  Ask people to support them.  If sufficient people aren't 
>willing to support them,  the majority don't want them, and they shouldn't 
>exist.

I have a two-part question.
A) How will you judge if people will support
them? By vote? Isn't "mob rule" what the libertarians are complaining about 
now?
B) What if people vote to reject them? Won't that mean we will have rule
of the gun? Whoever can hire the most guns rules?
> 
-garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67112 alt.activism:20355
From: robc@wicat (Rob Carlson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:07:13 GMT
Organization: Jostens Learning Corp

In article <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
>Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:55:29 GMT
>In article <robc.16.0@wicat> robc@wicat (Rob Carlson) writes:
>>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>: The crux of the matter is "freely contract". If there is only one employer in an
>: area and the only alternative to taking employment from them is to starve then
>: does that consititute a contract "freely entered into". 
>>
>>	If this situation was plausible, I might agree with you. But it 
>>is impossible in all but one circumstance.
>
>	Counterexamples coming up...
>
>>	How could there be only one employer in the area? Every person in 
>>the area is potentially an employer. They all need certain services and will 
>>hire others to do them. Companies don't grow on trees, they are created when 
>>a person is willing to pay another person for some good or service. You are 
>>always free to start your own company.
>
>	OK, let's see you:
>
>	Start your own airline. You must buy airplanes, hire a lot of
>pilots and flight attendants and reservations staff and buy space at
>airports to park your planes. You must also print or contract out the
>printing of airline schedules, among numerous other things. And what
>if the other airline companies don't want your competition...

	Or you could start one of these companies:
	1. A taxi service to shuttle people to and from the airport.
	2. A parking lot where people could store their cars while they are 
	   away.
	3. A security business that would protect people's homes while they 
	   are using the airport.
	4. A programming business that provides scheduling info for the 
	    airline.


 [ More extreme examples deleted]

>	These examples can readily be multiplied; I have to question
>the seriousness of anyone who claims it's simple to start a business,
>especially a big one.

	You are limiting the possiblities unnecessarily. The companies you 
can start are limited only by your creativity. There are many businesses 
that can be started with NO money. How about a window washing business?
Every month or so, a guy comes by my neighborhood offering to do odd jobs. 
This cost him nothing but his effort.



>
>>	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
>>force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
>>that employer and cannot form any business of your own.
>
>	Or when other companies lock you out, for example.

	It will take force (i.e. government) for them to accomplish this.

>
>	Ultra-capitalist romanticism has a certain entertainment
>value, I must concede.


	Anything short of a free market is just the 'Haves' using force  to 
keep the 'Have-nots' in their place.

>
>-- 
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/lip@s1.gov

Rob Carlson 
( still looking for a scenario under which there can be only one employer.)
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 6 Jan 1993 17:06:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 81924@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <1id686INNicv@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
> 

[In response to my asking where the monies for North's security system came
from:  ]

> 
> 
> From Secord, a private citizen.

Yes, but were they his own private accounts or were the monies from the 
profits of the "Enterprise" that was the sale of US arms to the Iranians
(through Israel)?  If it was the former, I have seen no evidence of this.
If it is the latter, then the monies were the property of the US government
and it was stealing from said government to use them for something not
appropriated by the Congress.


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!





Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67344 alt.activism:20470
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (Smokers are productive, but death cuts efficiency)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:47:02 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <90225@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)                     writes...
>In <1993Jan12.025131.9874@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>|In article <90191@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)              writes...
>|>In <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>|>|>	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
>|>|>force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
>|>|>that employer and cannot form any business of your own.
>|> 
>|>|	Or when other companies lock you out, for example.
>|> 
>|>How pray tell are they going to do this.
> 
>|Read up on the numerous anti-trust suits that were brought against
>|Standard Oil because he paid the railroads to charge his competition
>|much higher fares. 
> 
>Is this the same Standard Oil that was loosing market share while
>all of these shenanigans were going on.

Close. This was the same Standard Oil that was loosing market shares when
the states began taking them to court over their anti-trust practices.

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

-Garrett
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Man of the Year (was Re: Is the media liberal-biased)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:46:37 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan12.044846.122@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

|In article <43359@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

|>Almost all photos of Clinton
|>or his spouse are taken from a low angle looking up. Clinton is, of
|>course, usually smiling, upbeat, arm probably extended, exuding that
|>'good ol' boy' charm. Bush photos are taken with a level angle, with
|>him usually grimacing or frowning. Interesting choices, but effective.

|Excellent point. Most people are unaware the the absolutely HUGE number
|of photos available to TIME and other such publications. The choice of
|expression in such cases is NEVER accidental, although you would be
|very hard pressed to prove: 1) That the choices were deliberate (you would
|have to read the mind of the editor) 2) That they were aware of the
|effect of the choices and 3) That the choices really had a tangible
|impact on the public.

Back in 1981 the day after Reagan's inauguration, the Atlanta Constitution
ran a front page cover of Reagan at the inauguration.  In the picture 
Reagan was in the middle of a big sneeze.

To me it looked like the editors had deliberately looked for the most
undignified photo they could find, and then used it.
-- 
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: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: talk
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:16:13 CST


In article <1993Jan10.1778.29517@channel1>, "john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com> writes:
> This suggestion may be a little simplistic, but perhaps someone could
> flesh it out.
> 
> We have a large national debt, but since we owe it to ourselves, why not
> declare that we forgive ourselves the debt, and forget about it?

Gee, I'm and American, and my mortgage company is American (owned & run),
therefor we should forgive ourselves the morgage debt, and forget about it?

Somehow, I don't think the mortgage company would go along with this.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot and "United We Stand"  
Keywords: just let go and pray
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:05:22 GMT

In article <7JAN199323431046@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (=white ribbon=) writes:
>Michael Parenti _Democracy for the Few_ (4th Ed. **1983**) p. 112+
>	
>	As government plays an increasingly active role in
>	maintaining profit growth, it must spend greater and
>	greater sums, borrowing from the future earnings of
>	the people to shore up the present earnings of the 
>	wealthy. As with the debts incurred by our cities and
>	by Third World nations, the U.S. national debt seems
>	to grow at an increasingly greater rate. The more the
>	government owes, the more it must borrow -- which puts
>	it deeper in the hole. In 1940 the national debt was
>	$43 billion; the costs of World War II brought it to
>	$258.7 billion. By 1970 it climbed to $370 billion, but
>	by 1982 it had ballooned to $1 trillion and may reach 
>	$1.5 trillion by 1985. [Parenti cites NYTimes 9-30-81]

Thus Parenti shows his complete ignorance.  The debt in 1970 was lower
than it was in 1945, adjusted for either size of GNP, or inflation.

>Lester Thurow would agree. And thus "deficit spending" will continue 
>until the national goverment goes bust. I say lets help it along by 
>stopping resistance. The feds going bust is no big deal -- mainly
>hurts speculators.

Define "speculator" for us, Tice.  That's John Bircher for "anyone who
lives in New York or invests in business or bonds" no doubt.

As for Lester Thurow, he endorsed Clinton -- he essentially says the
same thing at MIT that Robert Reich did at Harvard.

>I've given up on trying to fight it. Largely because I finally got
>over identifying with the old USA, (though I'd been strongly pro-
>grammed by over a decade in the military), with the help of folks
>like David Nieporent, William Star, Ted Frank, and especially Bill
>Clinton. {Mainly, I think when I realized how uhmm... "noble" the
>academics thought it was to go off to Oxford for a couple of years,
>while other folks served and died in Viet Nam, or were strongly active 
>in war protests.} Now that government is academic, it's hardly worth
>foolin' with.

It's funny how you can be so patriotic that you oppose people exercising
dissent -- that's about as anti-American as you can get.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:00:46 GMT
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <C0JAsH.Mny@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Reagan and his men were BRILLIANT with the economy.  It took them 2 years
>to reverse a terrible economy with even worse direction/outlook.  He 

They were brilliant in deceiving the public.  His Voodoo Economics trippled
the average budget deficit in his 1st term of office.  The result is that
in 1993 and every tax-paying year for the rest of our lives at least
%25 of our federal income taxes are now wasted in paying interest on the
national debt.  Since the principle will not be payed off for a long, long 
time, the result is a permanently reduced standard of living for all Americans
from what it otherwise would have been.  If there were no debt, we could all
have %25 less taxes (!!!) without any reductions in government services.


>back then.  I lived through the 70s and remember how big a deal inflation
>and interest rates were.  I remember Brazil with 300% inflation, defaulting
>on its bank loans, and our inflation rate in double digits and rising.

The inflation of the 1970's does not cost me 25% higher taxes in 1993 
and every year in the future :-( , like the deficits of the 1980's do.


>FWIW, I liked the 86 tax bill, too.  It has long reaching ramifications, not
>unlike those we feel from FDR's terms.  It encourages a society without debt,
>rather than one with.  It eliminated a lot of loopholes for the rich and forced
>them to pay taxes (at all :).

Yes, the 1986 tax bill was one of the best things Reagan ever did, but it did
not make up for the Voodoo Economics catastrophe.
-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 08 Jan 93 16:41 PST
Subject: How USA-Today Lies (1)
Nf-ID: #N:9301090038.AA18788@tba.msi.corne:-2120620196:000:895
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Jan  8 16:41:00 1993


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: How USA-Today Lies (1)


"USA SNAPSHOTS -- A look at statistics that shape the nation," 
from USA Today, Tuesday, September 8, 1992 displays a farmy 
picto-graph of "Worldwide cereal food aid (in millions of tons)" and 
tells us that "The United States is the major donor of food aid -- 
mostly cereal -- in the world." That's all we are told. 

The following responses, from Oxfam Americas report _Honduras: Why 
Farmers Go Hungry_ ; Oxfam's _Focus on El Salvador_ and the recnetly 
released _We're Number One_ tell the real story. 

Harel Barzilai
Founder, Activists Mailing List (AML, Spring '90)
Co-founder, Co-moderator, ACTIV-L (Fall '90)
Co-founder, Co-moderator, misc.activism.progressive (MAP, '91) -- UseNet
Facilitator, justice.econ, zmagazine, chomsky.views -- PeaceNet (IGC)
Temp Facilitator, labor.grad.org -- LaborNet (IGC)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush