HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:21:26 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1993Jan6.195018.10013@nntpserver.chevron.com>, jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:

|> This is NOT what Weinberger's notes said.  Unless you were there at the
|> meeting that I (through Weinberger's notes) am referring to, you must be
|> talking about a public version of what he said.

Well, no. I thought what I said was pretty much exactly what was in Weinberger's
notes (I couldn't make that up even if I wanted to). But I might be mistaken.

|> 
|> >|> Those are pretty close to the exact words, as I tried to embed it in my
|> >|> mind when I heard it (asked my wife to repeat it to me as she heard it
|> >|> so I could get it right).  I didn't think "Big Ron" had it in him, but
|> >|> no.  He knew what was happening, he knew it was illegal (~basically aid
|> >|> to an enemy).  And according do Weinberger's notes, he was doing it for
|> >|> personal glory (ok at least according to the one entry I heard).  When I
|> >|> first heard it, my first thought was that it sounded like an impeachable
|> >|> offense.
|> >

|> Wrong again.  If you are disagreeing with my last sentence, how do you
|> know whether or not I thought it was an impeachable offense.  And if
|> what they were doing was not illegal and they thought so, what are they
|> covering up the whole thing for?  And if Reagan knew that this "finding"
|> had been made, why didn't he soothe Weinberger's conscience by telling
|> him at the meeting I'm referring to that it *was* legal (in the eyes of
|> those justice department pawns -- don't get me started, but if you think
|> the justice department wasn't partisan, I have a nice oak forest in West
|> Texas to sell you).

I don't claim to read your mind. What I meant to say was that it probably was
not an impeachable offense if he authorized and signed a finding, regardless
of what you thought. As for why he didn't inform Weinberger at that meeting, I
gathered that that was because the finding came only after that meeting by which
time Weinberger was out of the loop as far as the operations itself were
concerned (Cap claims that he got most of his own info from foreign sources).

I didn't say  whether or not the Justice Dept. was partisan or
claim to answer why there was/was not a cover-up. Just trying to correct what
seemed like wrong info. And you can keep your oak forest, thank you.

|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
|> Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
|> Midland TX 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:24:53 GMT

In article <145664@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
>In article <1ilcd8INNc7@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>
>What a ridiculous point!  You won't find any mention of "North American
>Free Trade Agreement", "Head Start", "Environmental Protection Agency",
>"SALT Agreement", "Strategic Defense Initiative", etc. in the Constitution,
>either!  The Constitution can't mention every political issue or
>organization that is of interest.  What the Constitution does do, is allow you
>to vote for the people who do make these decisions.  

These items and many more have pretty much vaporized our beloved 10th
amendment.  Long Live State's Rights!  Let's hear it for amendment number 9 as
well!  Rights retained by the people?  Oh, hell, I'm still living in the
past......
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Didn't need no welfare state, everybody
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  pulled his weight...Those were the days!
This University is too Commie-	|  --From theme to "All in the Family"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:27:26 GMT

In article <8824.3410@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
    >The only alternatives I can see is: to cut off your genitals
    >and throw them away; put salt peter in your food; or have
    >your nervous system to your pleasure centers in your brain
    >surgically severed. No kidding here...I am thoroughly
    >depressed with the state of affairs concerning this
    >disease....and if this sucker was manufactured..hopefully
    >those who did it will catch it.

So, how is it working for you so far, Len?

Maybe :-)

Maybe not :-)



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66440 ca.politics:10522 ba.politics:8089
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:43:25 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1if28mINNsse@spim.mti.sgi.com> dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >So, I have never been to a VD clinic, Phil... Why does the
    >public dislike me? One can assume that it is related to the
    >fact that people such as yourself spread an incomplete
    >picture of the homosexual community. One can assume it is due
    >to a group of hateful people who are intent on spreading
    >hateful propaganda concerning homosexuals.

How does an incomplete picture turn into "hateful people" and "hateful
propaganda"?

For example, just what is the "public" supposed to think when a group
that *appears* to be speaking for homosexuals tries to defend the
practice of giving blood and imperiling the national blood supply?

Now, if you'd like to say that the group in question was radical
politically radical group that doesn't speak for mostr homosexuals, fine.
But then, where are the outcries and denouncals from most homosexuals?

If a group calling itself "Republican Steering Commitee" calls for
"sending all niggers back to Africa", and there are no outcries of
repudiation from Republicans in general, would it not be reasonable for
most people to think all Republicans are racist assholes???

    >So, Phil, was does most of the public not like lesbians?

I don't know if they do or not. Do they?



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66253 misc.legal:22055
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:29:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan2.042405.14887@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <Ax3es*6v1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
# #Bush could have done many things to win.  He didn't.  He lost.
# #
# #The entire Clinton campaign was based on the assumption that the voters are
# #stupid, ignorant, and have a memory which fades after a day or two.
# 
# This distinguishes it from the Bush campaign, which was forward-looking,
# intellectual, principled, and appealing to the best in the American
# character.
# 
# Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution

Well, no.  The Bush campaign had NO assumptions, because assumptions
require thought.  This doesn't mean that Bush is a dummy, and incapable
of thought -- simply that none was done for the campaign, and it 
showed.



-- 
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.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:45:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.030946.7892@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.024915.8715@Princeton.EDU> elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>>Yanamari once wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1gg27rINNbpa@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> schiesel-seth@yale.edu (Seth Schiesel) writes:
>>>>Sunday, December13 New York Times. There are accounts of three Croat and 
>>>>Muslim women in Bosnia who wre raped by Serbian soldiers. In fact, the 
>>>>Times says the Serbs have innaugerated an assembly-line rape operation in 
>>>>Bosnia with at least 50,000 women having already been violated. Just 
>>>
>>>	GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!GIF!!
>>
>>What could be the point in arguing with someone like this?
>
>
>	I also wrote:
>
>	"Oops!  Wrong group."
>
>	For the humor impaired, see alt.tasteless.  In any case,
>	it was IMHO quite proper to redicule that particular
>	message (an op-ed piece quoted as some sore of Newspaper
>	source) which had been posted twice, and was wholly 
>	inappropriate to the newsgroup.
>
>	Perhaps I should have put ":-)'s for the humor impaired
>	or the chronically stupid/hard-up"...?
>

Certainly you owe the Bosnian and Croatian people an apology,
Idjit.

--Frank

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Man of the Year (was Re: Is the media liberal-biased)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:17:13 GMT

In article <93012.153820MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <visser.726823495@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance
>Visser) says:
>
>>        I stopped believing in ABC as an unbiased source when they had
>>Ted Koppel read the ROTC letter on niteline in its entirty.  I could
>>have seen quoting parts of the letter on television, but doing the
>>whole thing it looked like they were flat-out trying to help him.
>
>Think about what you're saying. You don't think the media should give us all
>the information and let us decide? You think the media should instead
>selectively quote, to give the impression *they* want us to have?
>I thought that was everything you crusaders were fighting AGAINST. I
>suppose biased media is OK when it favors the "correct" side, ne?

        Interestingly enough, I believe it was Dan Rather who said that he 
didn't like CNN (and one can only assume C-SPAN) because they too often 
simply put the facts out without telling people what they mean.  He felt 
people couldn't make decisions about what facts meant, which is why they had 
news to make those decisions for them.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:37:13 GMT

In article <13869@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.012511.951@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, sbrack@jupiter (Steve Brack) writes:
>> gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>> : In article <1993Jan6.173125.875@uoft02.utoledo.edu> sbrack@jupiter (Steve Brack) writes:

># : #	Hang on a second...  you just linked man/boy love to child 
># : #	molestation using what has been called the "welfare argument."

># : I'm not convinced that NAMBLA is really about "man/boy love"
># : (if this means adults with teenagers) and not child molestation.
># : Roy Radow certainly seems unwilling to state this.

># 	Well, first of all, that's a very narrow definition of man/boy 
># 	love, and opinions still vary.  Personally, I believe it's a
># 	matter of individuals, not ages.

>So, you don't think that there's ever a legitimate point in drawing
>a line and saying, "Adults may not have sex with children under the
>age of N?"

Certainly it may be more *practical* to do it this way, but that doesn't
mean that philosophically we should.

And furthermore, I see you've changed your tune.  Now you admit that an
adult having sex with someone under 18 may not be child molestation at
all.  By your standards, you're now defending child molestation.  (Given
that you've accused MANY people of defending child molestation for
making the claim above.)

># 	When has Roy Radow been unwilling to say that NAMBLA is not about
># 	child molestation?  Just because people have an unrealistic set
># 	of criteria for child molestation (entirely age-based) doesn't
># 	mean that all forms of man/boy love or iintimacy are child 
># 	molestation.  Of course, there probably are child molesters in
># 	NAMBLA, but, then again, there are child molesters in every 
># 	organization you could think of. 

>I couldn't make up stuff as outrageous as homosexuals keep posting
>in defense of child molestation -- like Mr. Brack's postings.

He doesn't defend child molestation at all.  He says that sex with
children under a certain arbitrary age limit may not be child molestation.

But literacy never was your strong point...
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:47:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.174335.28627@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>A technical but important clarification: it is true that in a criminal
>trial, the prosecution always has the burden of proving beyond a
>reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime.<*>
><footnote deleted>
>BUT -- saying that the prosecution has the burden of proof on every
>element of the crime is not the same thing as saying that the
>prosecution bears the burden of proof on every item that's in
>controversy during the trial.

It should be noted that it is *not* an *element* of any of the crimes for
which North was indicted that the evidence not have been derived from
immunized testimony before Congress.

Ergo, this is not one of the things the prosecution must prove in its case
in chief. 


--Mike


 
-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The less government the better??? (was Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:08:44 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan11141604@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
: In article <1993Jan11.093849.28803@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I.
>Petrich) writes:
:    : In article <1ilcd8INNc7@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
: : 
: : What a ridiculous point!  You won't find any mention of "North American
: : Free Trade Agreement", "Head Start", "Environmental Protection Agency",
: : "SALT Agreement", "Strategic Defense Initiative", etc. in the Constitution,
: : either!  The Constitution can't mention every political issue or
: : organization that is of interest.  What the Constitution does do, is allow you
: : to vote for the people who do make these decisions.  
: >
: >These items and many more have pretty much vaporized our beloved 10th
: >amendment.  Long Live State's Rights!  Let's hear it for amendment number 9 as
: >well!  Rights retained by the people?  Oh, hell, I'm still living in the
: >past......
>
: 	   And let's go even further.
>
: 	   Let's abolish the Federal Government, and break the United
:    States up into 50 separate nations (more than 50 if one counts
:    territories like Puerto Rico).
>
>	Petrich thus displays the ignorance of the Constitution
>	which is a hallmark of "masterblaster" postings.

	I guess I should have stated that it was just satire. If the
Federal Government is the cause of essentially all the trouble in our
nation, as a lot of government-bashing rhetoric would seem to suggest,
then the ultimate solution is just to get rid of it.

	But if there are things that government is to do, then
_specify_ them, rather than to indulge in mindless government-bashing.

	That is because unqualified government-bashing sounds like
"I'd like to get rid of government once and for all".

>	One suspects that "Blaster" does the writing rather
>	than "Master"....

	Nosy, this is the first time I've seen you display a sense of
humor. Maybe there's hope for you yet :-)

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67417 ca.politics:10571 ba.politics:8166
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Date: 13 Jan 1993 03:00:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) says:
>
>The key issues are, in this gay, the ORDERS (plural) OF MAGNITUDE GREATER
>incidences of veneral disease among homosexuals. When 80% of the people
>in the VD clinics are from 4% of the population, that tells you something.
>
>And of course, unless you believe that AIDS was sent by God to punish the
>homosexuals, it didn't spread among homosexuals by random chance. It was
>vector by large scale promiscous sex -- and THAT can be mathemetically shown
>(and has).??


      Oh, my.  Haven't you heard?  I read an article just yesterday.
      AIDS was spread because of "ethnic discrimination".

       Luckily, I was paying attention during the early 80s.

       I weep for America.  

       The lack of common sense is just overwhelming now.

       Someone in talk.politics.guns.  was claiming the NRA was anti
       homosexual because they have never issued a statement EMBRACING
       homosexuals.

       A federal cabinet that will "look like America".

       " I'll half the deficit "  "

       Sad.

 
cin>
>
>-- 
>I believe Gennifer Flowers.
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:50:26 GMT


In a previous article, trimble@ph-meter.beckman.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) says:

>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>>>Need I say more?  We've got to do something about murderers!
>
>>Actually Amy Fisher only wounded the woman.  Seriously wounded, but I believe
>>she made a complete recovery.
>
> According to what I've seen on TV (which includes the story told by
> Amy Fisher), the wife had such serious head wounds that she can not
> really function any more.
>

Odd.  I saw Mrs. Buttafucho (sp) on Donahue yesterday, and she was lucid,
aware, verbose, able to logically argue, walk, smile, and defend her
husband, who she believes is innocent of the claims made against him.

And while this should in no way be considered justification for what
Amy Fisher did, if this is not functioning, I don't know how it would
be defined.




>   - Chris
>
>--
>Chris Trimble	         | I'll tell you why 
>B.I. Systems Services    | But you wouldn't believe me 
>chris1@uiuc.edu          | You just haven't earned it yet, baby    - The Smiths 
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 00:13:50 GMT
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College
NNTP-Posting-Host: ancho.gac.edu

In article <1993Jan5.094401.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>  writes:
>In article <C0CMoK.45t@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> 
>>>     "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
>>>appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.  Second, your use
>>>of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
>>>considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).
>> 
>> Well, if you hadn't said "definition", I would have let this go, but...
>> According to Funk & Wagnals Standard Desk Dictionary:
>> 
>> child:  1. An offspring of human parents.  2. A boy or girl, most commonly one
>> between infancy and youth.  3. A descendant.  4. A childish person.  5. A
>> product of a specified condition, quality, etc: a child of joy.
>
>     I used the word "child" based on the definition in Webster's Ninth 
>New Collegiate Dictionary (1991).
>
>       child: 1. a : An unborn or recently born person. 
>                 b (dialect) : A female infant.
>              2. a : A young person esp. between infancy and youth.
>                 b : A childlike or childish person.
>                 c : A person not yet of age.
>                 ....

2.c. is unspecific. It could be a meaning for "teenager."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67378 alt.activism:20488
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:03:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ARCHER.730.726862937@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

|In article <90224@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>there is nothing in libertaria that would prevent groups of people from
|>banding together in order to sell their labor.  (IE labor unions)
|>

|Isn't that a coercive monopoly, though?

Only if there were only one labor union and you were required to join that
union in order to work or hire from that union to get employees.

Without government backing labor unions are no more or less likely to
become monopolies than are companies.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections