HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Conspiracy theory, JFK murder
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:11:56 GMT


I don't understand why conspiracy theories rest on the Zapruder
film, or the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald, or any of those
issues.

The fact is that the chain of events alone is enough to make
one suspicious if one has that kind of mind, and I guess I do.

I think it is almost obviously a Mafia hit.

JFK was killed in Dallas, one of the few cities that one could
have accomplished the act.

Whether he was killed by a lone gunman or not doesn't matter.
Who paid the gunman (or brainwashed him, as Bobby Kennedy's
killer was) is what is important.

The reason I think it is so clear that it was a mafia hit is
that Oswald was killed.  I don't understand why more is not
made of that.

After all is said and done, what happened was that someone
with an inside track (known to some of the people in the 
police department) SOMEHOW got into the area where Oswald
was being moved and simply shot him.  As I recall that guy
was then shot.

They couldn't let Oswald live; he might lose his brainwashing,
or think better about being fried (doesn't Texas have 
capital punishment?)  In any event, would you want him running
around with a loose lip if you had hired him?

Ruby's story never made sense.

That's where the answer to the whole mystery is -- in the
assassination of Oswald...

Ginny


===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:23:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.193518.2483@netcom.com> rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
>The FDA can't be criminal, because it undoubtedly obeys all the relevant
>laws and regulations. The problem is not criminality.

They might very well be: The Constitution is one of the relevant laws.
The the laws passed by Congress (which the FDA follows) violate the
Constitution, the they are "null, void and unenforcable" and the FDA
_is_ criminal. The laws establishing the FDA are fairly questionable
and probably wouldn't hold up to close examination. Congress can
delegate regulatory powers _only_ under very limited circumstances
(e.g. when the regulations don't establish new laws but simply fill
in the details in a law _Congress_ passed.)

>The problem is that
>the political system and the regulatory framework they operate in have
>long-term and adverse consequences as the social-economic-political
>system evolves.

This is certainly a problem, and one of the main reasons the Constitution
grants only a few, limited powers to the federal government: These
unavoidable "long-term and adverse consequences" are often worse than
no government involvement at all. Therefore, it is a good idea to limit
the government and allow government involvement only when there is no
other alternative. Congress has been ignoring these limits (or taking
a very fast and loose interpertation of them) for decades. It would
seem this was a very bad idea...

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:25:44 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:

>>In article <1992Oct3.185621.18336@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>>>I wouldn't be that confident about them getting caught with that,
>>>however.  Lawyers apparently are taught that Supreme Court has a
>>>monopoly on interpreting the Constitution - though the Constituion
>>>mentions nothing about such a monopoly.

That is not what we are taught.  We are taught that since Marbury v.
Madison, the other two branches have grudgingly accepted the role
of the judiciary as reviewer of constitutionalily.  We certainly are
taught that the the Constitution itself is not explicit on this point
(just as it is not explicit on the right to privacy), though historical
context supports the notion that a constitution authorized by the people
requires comparison of legislation to the mandates of the document.  We
are also taught that it has, in fact, worked out that that the legislature
and the executive (the latter most notably in United States v. Nixon) have
come to accept the judiciary as the reviewer of constitutionality.

At my law school, we certainly were taught that the Constitution did not
itself authorize judicial review of constitutionality.  We were taught to
question whether or not the historical evolution of this review has been
in accord with original intent, public policy or general welfare.  We were
taught to question.  And encouraged to think.  Just like you.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:29:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.114942.15888@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>The basic idea
>behind the FDA is valid and important...

Why? I don't see any justification for keeping drugs off the market (except
the belief that the consumers are children and can't make their own judgements.)

>This doesn't mean that they always 
>do the job correctly but to go into a marketplace where we rely on the 
>manufacturers is pretty scary. 

It would be, but this isn't the alternative to the FDA: The alternative
is a marketplace that relies on the _consumers_.

>How can the individual know what the long term or even
>short term affects of a drug will be without some sort of organized help?

Such organizations would be very usefull, but that isn't what the FDA
does: They make decisions for the consumers, not inform them. 

A solution might be _optional_ FDA approval: That is a "seal of approval"
that the product is safe and does what it claims. This would give
the consumers the same information as the current system, but also
allow them to make their own decisions and possibly choose to take
risks. (AZT is a good example: Someone dying of AIDS might reasonably
choose to ignore long-term risks, if the alternative was death in the
near future.)

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:41:53 GMT

In article <BvMDI2.73J@acsu.buffalo.edu> v129nlgw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PAUL HOWARD) writes:
>What's wrong with herbalism?  At least 40% of all "orthodox" medicines are
>plant extractions or synthetic versions of what used to be plant extractions.

That's known as pharmacognosy, not herbalism.

>In many cases, herbal treatments are better.  Take poison ivy treatment, for
>instance.  The conventional method for treating it is by rubbing 
>corticosteroids on it.

No, that's not the conventional treatment.  Topical corticosteroids
are not particularly useful for treating poison ivy.

>This works by lowering the immune response, and 

Is that right, doctor?

>takes around a week to work.

In other words, as long as it takes to do nothing, which is in fact
the only real treatment for minor poison ivy.  Severe cases can be treated
quickly and effectively by oral corticosteroids, but you don't want to do
that unless it's necessary.  However, such short term systemic use isn't
associated with too many problems.

>In addition, the medicine is very expensive.

Depends on the steroid.  A potent topical steroid (which usually will
be expensive) is a waste of money.

>One common herbal method, a poultice of the common herb, jewelweed, works 
>in 2-3 days, and is much safer.

>I would much rather go to an herbalist for treatment than to a doctor.

Well, I hope you have the strength of your convictions when you get
something more serious than poison ivy.  

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:02:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.153637.4560@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>I wouldn't be that confident about them getting caught with that,
>>however.  Lawyers apparently are taught that Supreme Court has a
>>monopoly on interpreting the Constitution - though the Constituion
>>mentions nothing about such a monopoly. 

>Lawyers aren't taught that the Supreme Court has a monopoly on
>interpreting the Constitution. Lawyers (and everyone else who studies
>Constitutional law) are taught that the Supreme Court has a monopoly on
>*final* interpretations of the Constitution.

>This is a rather different proposition.

It's different, but the conclusion isn't any different: The Constitution
mentions nothing about such a monopoly. In practice, the Supreme Court
_took_ this power, and the people generally go along with it. However,
there is nothing legal about it.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: (none)
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:38:06 GMT

Subject:  AUTOMATED CLINTON/GORE MAIL SERVICE
 
 Bill Clinton and Al Gore are committed to bringing all Americans 
 into the American political process -- for the good of our country.  
 At this critical time in our country's history it is imperative that 
 we all do everything in our power to make our system work.  
 
 We are happy to announce a new step forward in 21st century 
 democracy: We now have a mail server that will allow you, the 
 internet citizen, to receive on-line campaign documents and send 
 your comments and ideas back to us.
 

 To learn more, send mail to the automated Clinton/Gore mail server 
 
    clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org



 RECEIVE THE LATEST SPEECHES:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info speeches" to the mail server, 
 you will receive all the latest Clinton/Gore speeches as soon as 
 they come on-line.


 RECEIVE ALL AVAILABLE POSITION PAPERS:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info all" to the mail server at, 
 you will receive the full set of Clinton/Gore position papers.


 QUERY THE CANIDATES -- INTERNET POLL:
 
 If you have a question for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 question to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "question propose".  

 Send the Subject line "question get" to get the current numbered 
 list of questions.  

 Send the Subject line "question vote <X Y>" to vote for questions 
 number <X> and <Y>.  For example, you would send the SUBJECT line 
 "question vote 3" to vote for question number 3.

 Each week the questions with the most votes will be forwarded to 
 Little Rock.

 
 SEND YOUR SUGGESTIONS & COMMENTS

 If you have a suggestion for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 suggestion to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "suggest propose".  

 Send the Subject line "suggest get" to get the current numbered 
 list of suggestions.  

 Send the Subject line "suggest vote <a b c>" to vote for suggestions 
 number <a>, <b>, and <c>.  For example, you would send the Subject 
 line "suggest vote 18 4" to vote for suggestions 18 and 4.
 

 The questions, suggestions, and the campaign's responses will be 
 posted to the network.  You can help redistribute this and other 
 information by sending the Subject line "volunteer email distr" 
 to the mail server at

 clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org
 


 Clinton/Gore '92
 Volunteer Email Effort


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 06:41:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

I am amazed that anyone on this forum would question the FDA! The FDA has
been quite consciously set up to protect the income of physicians.

The fact that its own internal studies show that the FDA's regulations kill
more patients than they save has been well-known for 20 years. These latest
attempts of the FDA to control the free flow of information are a linear
extension of their control of the use of drugs. At worst, a bureaucracy
gone awry. At best, further income for physicians.

Complaining about loss of freedom at this point! ?

Incredulously yours,

Lew
-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com	408-245-7488

"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Nils Bohr (or somebody like that).
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.mic,soc.culture.usa
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Summary: Translation
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: New-Speak
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:10:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.215212.26583@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)          writes...
>[From the Republican Platform posted to alt.politics.elections -cmk]
> 
I will translate some of this "new-speak" for the group.

>     Congressional Democrats reject Republican reform of the
>exclusionary rule that prohibits use of relevant evidence
>obtained in good faith and allows criminals, even murderers, to
>go free on a technicality. 

Evidence obtained in good faith= Evidence that was seized while violating the 
defendents civil rights (ie. the 4th amendment).

 They reject our reform of habeas
>corpus law to prevent the appellate process from becoming a
>lawyers' game to thwart justice through endless appeals and
>procedural delays. 

Reform of habeas corpus= Preventing the defendent from appealing
			a guilty verdict if he had an incompetent
			defense, or if there were biasness from the 
			jury or judge.

 They refuse to enact effective procedures to
>reinstate the death penalty for the most heinous crimes.

effective procedures= Death penalty without appeal.

[propoganda deleted]

 Their
>crime legislation, which we emphatically reject, cripples law
>enforcement

cripples law eforcement= Retains civil rights, which law enforcement
			 says they don't need to abolish.

 by overturning over twenty United States Supreme
>Court cases that have helped to reduce crime and keep violent
>criminal offenders off the streets.

= Just ignore the facts.

>continue to defend their country -- against the enemy within -

the enemy within= Minorities and the poor.

 By our insistence,
>multilateral control of precursor chemicals and money laundering
>is now an international priority. 

= Just look at BCCI and the S&L's. We know how to launder money.

 We decry efforts by
>congressional Democrats to slash international anti-narcotics
>funding and inhibit the most vital control efforts in Peru.

= Stick by a useless and failed cause at all costs.

>military, and launched mandatory testing for employees in various
>fields,

= The right of privacy is a priviledge, not a right.

> Drug trafficking and terrorism, often linked, menace
>Americans at home and abroad.

= Except when the CIA is involved.

>     In the Western Hemisphere, as elsewhere, we must promote
>democratic values. 

= When it's in the interest of big money.

>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:43:09 GMT

In article <h4+p+!a.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>The FDA's position on chemicals is that if the chemical is shown to
>have a beneficial effect then its a drug and concumers can't have it
>except by paying a doctor to write them a prescription for it.

Wrong.  Where do YOU get your information on the FDA and the Food, Drug
and Cosmetic act?  Your local _General Nutrition Center_ or the rabid
ramblings of a few submorons who can post but not think?  I thought so.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6153 alt.politics.usa.constitution:532 alt.drugs:16713
From: susan@korova.uucp (Susan)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:46:33 GMT
Organization: VHF void tube of the mind (713) 492-2783

> >>By the way, it's illegal to practice herbalism in nearly all the states.
> > 
> >Thank God for that, if it's true.
> > 
> >-- 
> 
> What's wrong with herbalism?  At least 40% of all "orthodox" medicines are
> plant extractions or synthetic versions of what used to be plant extractions.
> In many cases, herbal treatments are better.  Take poison ivy treatment, for
  
What, exactly, is herbalim -- if I go over to my neighbor's house, borrow 
some derb, use it according to her instructions and then sue for 
malpractice.  
  
I suspect that it is illegal to practice herbalism as medicine, but as 
far as I can see in 15 or so state, it's legal to sell herbs and 
preperations as over-the-counter treatments along the lines of blistex 
and Blue Star Ointment.  Seems reasonable to me.


--
              VHF void tube of the mind (713) 492-2783
        "where you can find the Zeta Greys SAFEWAYING themselves
                into the WONDERBREAD *heart* of America!"
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6127 talk.politics.drugs:6555
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 92 04:01:35 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Oct1.182614.5037@ncsu.edu> <BvIv9A.5n0@acsu.buffalo.edu>
  <1992Oct3.023725.15896@spdcc.com>

>>By the way, it's illegal to practice herbalism in nearly all the states.
>
>Thank God for that, if it's true.
>
>-- 
>Steve Dyer
>dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer

Let us pray.


The State is my shepherd...







              X      X     XXXXX    XXXXXXXXX
              XX     X    X     X       X
              X X    X    X     X       X
              X   X  X    X     X       X
              X    X X    X     X       X
              X     XX    X     X       X
              X      X     XXXXX        X



    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6121 alt.politics.usa.constitution:487 alt.drugs:16547 talk.politics.drugs:6552 alt.psychoactives:1290
From: v129nlgw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PAUL HOWARD)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:39:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct1.182614.5037@ncsu.edu>, dwharper@eos.ncsu.edu (DANTE WILLIAM HARPER) writes...
> 
>chemotherapy patients.  The spokesperson for the fda told the world that
>aids sufferers were going to contract salmonella from pot brownies, that pot was
>an untested drug, that since the FDA didn't fully UNDERSTAND the effects of THC
>on the brain and body, it could not release the drug.  Ive never heard such


They don't even know how aspirin works.

By the way, it's illegal to practice herbalism in nearly all the states.
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re:  Civil Rights are Absolute
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:58:09 GMT
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <1992Oct4.025354.3573@midway.uchicago.edu> elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu writes:

# In article <1992Sep29.201713.23940@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP 
#  (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) opines:
# 
# >"But, Andrew, the bill of rights establishes certain rights which
# >cannot be infringed."
# >   Freedom of religion  --- You cannot pray in public schools --- even if   
# >                            you want to.
# 
# Thatafact?  I seem to recall praying dozens of times when _I_ was in
# public school.  What were you trying to do, Andrew, take out your prayer
# rug during the middle of a lesson?
# 
# --                    __
# Ellen Keyne Seebacher \/             elle@midway.uchicago.edu

	Well, actually, it is only 'coerced' prayer that
	is not constitutional.  Anyone can pray to himself
	anywhere he pleases.  He just can't 'flaunt' his
	religious beliefs or force others to witness or
	participate in them.  That seems fair to me, actually.

	Another point about the demise of the bill of rights:
	True Conservatives, such as Barry Goldwater, also 
	believe in the Bill of Rights.  When the Reaganites
	were putting up the smokescreen about the court
	'legislating' and the court being too liberal, I thought
	they would appoint some true conservatives.  I don't
	believe even one appointment was a true conservative.
	They are all either radicals or people so under qualified
	that they can be talked into anything ...

	In general, what i consider to be true conservatives and
	what i believe to be liberals would agree on interpretation
	of the bill of rights. 



===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives