HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Corporations as Persons was Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Followup-To: misc.legal
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:46:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.213518.13697@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <1683@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com writes:
>#In article <1992Jul26.170803.26254@aero.org#, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>## You might also consider including the idea that Corporations are persons in 
>## your amendment. It would seem that the activist Supreme Court in the 19th 
>## century gave them many of the rights without some of the responsiblities 
>## of persons.
>#
>#If the corporations are people, can we charge the junk-bond people with
>#assault and murder?
>
>I have added misc.legal to the newsgroups because of the last question above?
>
>My understanding of the Corporation gaining the rights of a natural person
>came from a book on that subject. 
>
>Would anyone care to comment on the question above? What would happen
>if someone filed a charge in some State or Court that Joe JunkBond had
>killed cororation x?

They'd (1) be laughed out of the police station, and (2) Joe JunkBond might
even have a cause of action for malicious prosecution or harassment.

States tend to limit their murder statutes to homicides, the killings of
human beings, rather than fictional legal entities.

>What would happen if some overzealous district attorney charged a
>corporation with murder because that corporation hid information that
>resulted in the death of natural people? For example what would happen
>if someone filed murder or negligent manslaughter charges against Pan
>American Airways over the 107 crash?

A corporation can be charged with the crimes of employees acting in
the scope of their duties.  The result is usually a fine.  CEO's have
gone to jail for the crimes of subordinates, though usually for things
like food contamination rather than murder.

In the case of Pan Am 107, I don't think that even the most zealous
prosecutor believes that she could prove beyond a reasonable doubt
the culpability needed for a conviction for negligent homicide, much
less murder.  But other corporations have been prosecuted for
manslaughter for, say, factory explosions and the like.  
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:45:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.193039.14292@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes...
>I agree completely that the US interferes in Arab affairs far too much.
>My post was meant to be a contrast to the action that I think Bush is
>far more likely to take which I believe is bombing Iraq.

True -- Ignorance and over-confidence have always been the stepping-stones
to War. I find it amusing at times that Bush and many who supported his
actions in the Persian Gulf considered the assault on Saddam and Iraq as
a "war". I fear that Bush shall lead us forward in another "war", just to
find that he only won the first battle. While I'd love to see the look on
his face when the tables turn, even that image -- that end -- is not worth
the call to arms.
I would, however, like to know Clinton's thoughts on the topic. Anyone?

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:03:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <kePRZ7i00UhWQ5v5Vu@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>Nah, that would be too disruptive. Much better to re-run the Iraq war! Have
>>you seen CNN tonight? Old familiar faces are everywhere: Pentagon
>spokespeople,
>>mideast experts, Saddam strutting around, militant Iraqis, Bush standing
>>firm by UN resolutions and issuing ultimatums. CNN's expert reminds us that
>>Hussein again seems out of touch with reality, he must be receiving bad
>>advice. There you go again, Saddam, let us into that building or we send some
>>of our troops back in (now at 3% of wartime peak).
>> 
>>Oh, and you know why Saddam is taunting us like this? According to CNN, he
>>is taking advantage of President Bush's current political weakness.
>>How could we have been so fickle? Time to rally behind the chief again,
>>before somebody gets hurt.
>> 
>>I don't think the thyroid operation took.
>>---
>>Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
>
>If we do hit Iraq again and we see a surge in the presidents popularity
>I give up on the voters in this country. All an air strike on Iraq
>should do is point out how Bush has screwed up evry thing he's done with
>respect to Iraq.

    This is an unlikely scenario, because if we hit Iraq (and miss Saddam) 
    again, the oil prices would surge, and the stock market would take a 
    nosedive.

    On the other hand, toppling Saddam could bolster Bush's re-election
    campaign, hence no US intelligence operative in Iraq will be spared 
    to achieve this goal.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee)
Subject: Republican Convention
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:22:28 GMT


Just read in the papers that Barbara Bush has been drafted to speak
at the RNC convention. She will speak on Wednesday night about
family values. 

They are so desperate that they have to get the prez's wife to
speak (paper states that she has higher poll ratings than Bush).

Also heard that Bush will be coming out with positive ads in
the next few weeks before the Convention to portray his accomplishments
and what he plans to do next. I guess his accomplishments will
be 1% of the ads. 

							Saurav Chatterjee

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ "I'm on a five year plan - BA, MBA, BMW"              ** ** saurav@usa   @
@                                                       *  * (.ece.cmu.edu)@
@ 49'ers III-Peat! - never mind                         *  *  saurav@ocf   @
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** *  saurav@cory  @
@      Copyright (c) Chatterjee Enterprises, 1992        * *  saurav@ohm   @
@             All Rights Reserved Worldwide              * *(.berkeley.edu)@
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** **              @
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@




Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Control of Congress (was: More Bush-it)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:33:11 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul24.193235.24935@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
]Well, if you want to play THAT game, we can consider the JFK/LBJ
]years with a Democratic congress.  Boom years until Nixon mixed it
]up in his 2nd term.  (of course, ignoring such sundries as the war
]and the oil shock :-)

My point is that the Republicans have not had control of congress in
30 years. During that time the word "inflation" became known to
Americans for the first time in generations. Interest rates
rose dramatically. The growth in the standard of living of
Americans decreased dramatically. The federal debt increased dramatically.
Reagan was able to get a working majority in the first two years, and
that led to economic growth policies. By 1986, we had such abominations
as TEFRA, which seriously damaged things.

If people want change, they'll elect a republican congress.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: Iowa Political Stock Market numbers
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:42:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.191102.14469@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>What is the Iowa Political Stock Market? How does it work? Can we put
>our money where our mouth's are?

For information, you can contact:

   IPSM, PHBA / Univ. of Iowa
   Iowa City, IA 52242  /  319-335-0881
   ipsm@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu

If you send them electronic mail, they will send you the prospectus/manual;
at the end of the manual is an application form that you can use to enroll.
In order to enroll, you have to send in some sum of money, and then they
will open an account for you.  The Univ. of Iowa is running this for
educational purposes, and they don't charge any commissions -- in other
words, if you end up losing money, you will have lost it to the other
players.

You can telnet in (telnet 128.255.44.2) to find the latest prices, and
if you have opened an account you can then buy or sell shares.

There are several different markets.  In the Presidential market, the
share price after the election will be based on the candidate's percentage
of the popular vote, while in the Presidential Plurality market the shares
of the candidate with the most votes will be worth $1, and other shares will
be worthless (by the way, the current ask price for Perot -- or rather for
any third-party candidate -- is $0.002).  There is also a derivative market,
which is somewhat more esoteric.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:20:18 GMT

In <1992Jul23.202032.20852@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>I'm not so sure. By winning, Bill Clinton will have won a referendum on the
>past 12 years being a failure, and when he throws this country into a depression
>he will simply say that the country was now reaping what the Republicans
>had sown for the past 12 years. It sounds far fetched, but when you have a
>vindictive, spiteful media behind you, nothing is impossible. Hell, they've
>managed to convince the American public that Ronald Reagan,
>who brought 8 years of economic growth and won the cold war, wasn't that
>good after all. Tell a lie long enough, and the people will start to believe it.

I guess all those homeless people, who's populations increased immensely
during your 8 years of "economic growth", are my imagination, right?

Who's telling lies here?  What is the point of economic growth if it is
contained in the upper 10% of the class system we have in this country?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
        There are always connections; you have only to want to find them
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Arsenio Hall is a hypocrite
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 16:35:36 GMT

In <1992Jul21.015812.1090@leland.Stanford.EDU> jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:
>"I'd like to have any of the other presidential candidates
>[on the show]."
>				--Arsenio Hall, on Bill Clinton's appearance on the
>				  _Arsenio Hall Show_ (June 3 _Daily Variety_)
>Now, after a statement by the White House that Bush would "probably
>not" appear on Hall's show, Hall responds.
>
>"Excuse me, George Herbert, irregular heart-beating, read-my-lying-
>lipping, slipping in the polls, do nothing, deficit raising, make
>less money than Millie the White House dog last year, Quayle-
>loving, sushi-puking Bush.  I don't remember inviting your ass to
>my show.  I don't need you on my show.  My ratings are higher than 
>yours."
>				--Arsenio Hall, on his June 11 show.
>
>Either Hall is afflicted with Alzheimer's disease or he's a
>blatant hypocrite.

Or maybe he's just a little petty and pissed at Bush.  What is your
problem with the man to make a mountain out of such an anthill?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
  That's why I like this machine:  it's stupid, it doesn't believe, it doesn't
   make me believe, it just does what I tell it.  Stupid me, stupid machine.
                            An honest relationship.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: What is Marrou's position on research and space exp?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:33:04 GMT

In article <keRe2ZK00h5y9Cn6Fv@andrew.cmu.edu> Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Well that's all well and good, but in your post you kept referring to
>the goal to "eliminate government non-defense research".  Now you say,
>in the long run maybe we could eliminate government defense research
>too, but not for now.  Well, why eliminate non-defense research now?

The program I outlined to give incentive to the private sector to to 
defense research is speculative; it needs epxerimentation before being 
implemented.  Private R&D for civilian purposes has already demonstrated 
that it is far more productive than public R&D; the public projects could 
immediately be trimmed back (by attrition, not layoff), injecting $10's of 
billions into our economy, along with a huge pool of talent that our 
industries need to make the U.S.A #1 again.

>By addressing the issues that make eliminating defense research
>difficult, not addressing the issues that make eliminating non-defense
>research difficult, and calling for elimination of all "non-defense
>research", you make youself sound like a Republican. (Gasp!)

Republicans support higher funding for NASA, DOE, SSC ad nauseum,
as well as DoD research that is not directly related to defense of our 
own courtry.  Bush has again threatened to veto the _entire spending 
bill_ if it doesn't contain his favorite piece of pork, the $100 billion 
Winnebago-sized space "station"!  Those are hardly Libertarian positions. 
The Libertarians are the only major party that opposes this squandering 
of our nation's best talent on these bureaucratic quagmires.  If you want 
to see our economy competitive, vote Libertarian.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Bush's accomplishments
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 20:05:09 GMT

In article <15328@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu writes:
>As long as we're on the deficit, lets get down to it.  There seems
>to be a direct corellation with the 12 years of Republican Crapanomics
>and a very real debt problem.  Apparently some of you right wingers have

And there seems to be a direct relationship between taxing people less and
economic boom.  Which is more efficient:

a. Government administration of taxes to then pass money out for job programs.
b. Individuals spend their own money _or_ invest it as they see fit.

or how about this, who spends money most wisely/efficiently:

a. The government who spends someone else's money.
b. An individual who spends his own.

>Now Bush wants to blame Congress for out-of-control spending for the accumulated
>debt.  Uh-uh.   Facts are facts.  That lost revenue (with the largest

Fact are stubborn things.  You need a refresher course in Civics and in
particular the organization of the federal government.  It is not the
Presidency which appropriates funds, it is the House of Reps.  Furthermore,
the House Omnibus spending bills are more than half mandated (by law)
spending which the President couldn't touch even if he could use a line
item veto (as the Founders intended the veto).
>
>This is perhaps the only time in history 
>where deficit spending in real dollars has increased during a period of
>economic growth.  The best thing to do now is ride this recession out
>and wait 'til the next boom and then slowly kill the deficit.
>
You may be right here, that was you 0.05 that was correct ;)


Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9179 alt.politics.clinton:785
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: To Perot supporters
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:48:50 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul24.204200.27274@microsoft.com> chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron) writes:
>
>I have a question to the Perot supporters.  Since Perot took himself out of the
>race, instead of getting angry at Perot why don't you draft another candidate.
>
>Who would you like to see as your alternative candidate.  My first thought was



>Paul Tsongas, howeever he's committed to the Democrats.  Tom Luce is a close
>friend of Perot and ran in the Texas Repulbican Primary for govenor in '90.
>
>ChrisWa.

How about Andre Marrou?  If Perot was smart and if he didn't have such a big
ego he would have entered the race as VP to Andre Marrou, or economic
advisor.  By the way, why hasn't the press given any attention to the
LIbertarian party?  They came in third in New Hampshire.


*******************************************************
* Teddy Kalivoda  ------------ tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu *
* 	University Computing & Network Services       *
*	  Institute of Higher Education (Drtobe)      *
*                                                     *
* "Philosophers disagree about everything"            * 
*       --Henrikus Aggripus Cornelius von Nettlesheim *
*******************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9336 alt.activism:13697 nj.politics:417 alt.rock-n-roll:14323
From: cat@mips.dss.com (Iain Wacey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady!
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:18:56 GMT
Reply-To: cat@mips.dss.com (Iain Wacey)
Organization: Datability Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.132908.3689@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>,
bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger) writes:
> Come on folks, if it isn't mandatory and it isn't government funded or
> enforced, the use (or abuse) of labels comes down to a business decision
> of the record companies.  To say that people aren't allowed to give their
> opinions on a movie or record or that the studios aren't allowed to affix
> a sticker on the product advertizing that opinion is censorship as well.
> 
> -Bob

 Hmm, mandatory. The wife of a prominent Senator gets hearings before a
government
panel on the possiblity of labeling records.  After a while of being attacked
the record companies decide to "voluntarily" start labeling their
records. Sounds
voluntary to me. Just like the voluntary restrictions on imports of
Japanese cars.

  definition voluntary: either you do or we will make you do it
 
 Certainly sounds voluntary to me. :)

Iain Wacey
cat@pluto.dss.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: daveb@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (David Bennetts)
Subject: Re: Arsenio Hall is a hypocrite
Organization: Uni Computing Service, Uni of Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 05:55:07 GMT

Use Newspeak words and the votes follow
---------------------------------------

These are the Be-Sensitive-or-Else '90s and the language US political
candidates have used to discuss - or avoid discussing - the issues has been
far more explicit than it needs to be.

Here, then, in honour of the conventions, is a glossary of bias-, cruelty-,
gender- and content-free speech the candidates can use to ensure that their
future utterances are politically correct.

Acid rain: Poorly buffered precipitation.

Adultery: Consensual non-monogamy

The aging: Chronologically gifted persons; experimentally enhanced
	    individuals.

Boring speech: Differently interesting address; charm-free oration.

Cliche: Previously enjoyed sound bite.

Corrupt: Ethically different; morally challenged.

Drug addicts and alcoholics: The sobriety deprived; people of stupor.

Education: America's "education president" and his rivals should note that
	    America's school children are not "failing" - they're merely
	    "achieving a deficiency".

High school dropouts: individuals with provisionally unmet educational
			objectives.

Homeless: Underhoused; involuntarily undomicilied.
	   nb: "Homeless" must be discarded because it fails to stress the
	   role of society in depriving individuals of a place to live.
	   A Long Island teacher, quoted in the 'US News & World Report',
	   prefers "houseless" because, as she informed a group of local
	   street people, "home is wherever you are".
	   (In order to avoid creating the impression that they consider the
	   underhoused somehow inferior to those who happen to live in
	   buildings, the candidates should occasionally refer to those who
	   own or rent houses and apartments as the "non-vagrant homed".)

Hunger: Nutritional shortfall; caloric insufficiency.

Lie: Categorical inaccuracy; counterfactual proposition; strategic misrep-
      resentation; terminological inexactitude.

Lobbyist: Legislative leadership advocate.

Looters: Non-traditional shoppers.

Panhandlers: Unaffiliated applicants for private-sector funding.

Sadomasochists: The differently pleasured (a useful phrase for criticising a
		 program such as "Tongues United" without offending
		 individuals with alternative lifestyles).

Toxic Waste Dumping: Deep-ocean storage.



					(Henry Beard & Christopher Cerf)
					     - The New York Times
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:22:26 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A clear choice
	<92208.123438RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 26-Jul-92 Re: A clear
choice RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFOR (445)

> In article <2A72DAD1.29051@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu
> (Carl Edman) says:
> >
> >Mark Sablow writes
> >    I am amazed at how (almost) anyone will vote for Bush/Quayle this
> >November.
> >
> ......)

>   This guy is a blithering idiot! I don't want to dignify his inanitiies by try
> ing to refute them.

>        Rajagopalan "If you voted for Reagan/Bush/Quayle you are in part respons
> ible for bringing this great country to its knees"

Well, if all your arguments are as well-reasoned as that, I don't think
you have to worry about *dignifying* anything (yourself included)!

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ