HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:24:16 GMT

In article <NEERI.92Aug27182449@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:

   In article <17ga7eINNa6j@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
   >Just heard on CBS that a Federal Judge has declared the trial of
   >former CIA Spymaster Clair George to be a mistrial after the
   >jury was hopelessly deadlocked on the verdict. Walsh now has the
   >opportunity to re-try him.
   >
   >What's the tally so far? 3 small cheeses, no big fish? Someone ought
   >to thank Walsh for showing us why this special prosecutor thing was
   >not that great an idea after all. 

   What makes you think that someone else might have been more successful? Or do
   you think that there shouldn't have been any prosecution at all?

That's right, none.  Why?  Because juries have consistently been
acquiting.  Time and again we see that this modern equivalent of
Torquemada is either unable to convince twelve ordinary citizens of the
rightness of his claims or, he is unable to provide a fair trial.

He should pack up and go home before he squanders any more of our tax
dollars or financially ruins another innocent person.
From: drm@stimpy.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:30:57 GMT
Reply-To: drm@stimpy.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

In article 14336@panix.com, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>That's right, none.  Why?  Because juries have consistently been
>>acquiting.  
>
>Like the North and Poindexter juries, right?  Ooops, better check
>those facts again.
>
>(And before you saddle up on your high horse, I know perfectly well
>that those convictions were vacated on appeal.  I could even give you
>a fair account of the reasons.  That doesn't alter the fact that the
>nonsense above about juries consistently acquitting is, well,
>nonsense.) 
>
OK, juries have been acquitting the defendents in every fair trail
conducted so far.

Walsh et al certainly look like they're on a fishing expedition here.
The conviction record is...less than spectacular.  As the WSJ put
it, Walsh got a few "sacrifice flies" from people who plea-bargained
rather than undergo a trail against a well-funded opponent, a couple
convictions overturned on appeal, and a string of acquittals.  Not an
impressive record for a person with the full weight of the US government
behind him.  To me this signifies a distinct lack of criminal behavior
on the part of the defendants (however stupid their actions may have
been).  

Would J. Random DA be able to continue prosecution with a record like
that? 

The proper place to play this out (at least after the North and
Poindexter convictions were overturned) was at the ballot box.  It's
a political question, not a criminal one.

---
Don McGregor | "That which does not overflow my swap file 
drm@esl.com  | makes me stronger."
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:50:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <95089@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <12028@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> BK:
# ## Boswell makes arguments that the early Church viewed itself as a liberation
# ## from the Holy Codes of Law in the OT. Why else would Paul try to crack down
# 
# CC #1:
# #Indeed.  Does that mean that all rules were abolished?  No.
# 
# then, inexplicably, CC #2:
# #As we have discussed, the New Testament wiped out the Holiness Code.
# 
# Which side are you taking, Clayton??

# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

The side of truth.

The New Testament condemnations of homosexuality are the ones 
binding on Christians.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43468 alt.activism:15878 misc.headlines:6167
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Aug28102416@world.std.com> <1992Aug28.181505.14336@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:08:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.181505.14336@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

   In <ART.92Aug28102416@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com sez:
   >In article <NEERI.92Aug27182449@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
   >
   >   In article <17ga7eINNa6j@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
   >   >What's the tally so far? 3 small cheeses, no big fish? Someone ought
   >   >to thank Walsh for showing us why this special prosecutor thing was
   >   >not that great an idea after all. 
   >
   > What makes you think that someone else might have been more successful? Or do
   > you think that there shouldn't have been any prosecution at all?
   >
   >That's right, none.  Why?  Because juries have consistently been
   >acquiting.  

   Like the North and Poindexter juries, right?  Ooops, better check
   those facts again.

A few months ago the Boston Globe published an interview with one of the
North jurors to get her reaction to the reversal.  She said "I thought he
was innocent of every thing, but I had to convict him of something.  How
could I face my friends and neighbors otherwise?"  How's that for an
impartial jury of your peers?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:39:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug25.220643.28500@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) should have written:

> [Because I'm a Canadian.]

Now shut up and mind your own business.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:09:47 GMT

>     This is fairly close to what we have now: poor single mothers are employed
>     by the goverment to look after their own kids.  The pay isn't as bad as
>     the welfare advocates would have us believe: here in Massachussets it is
>     $30,000+ a year for a family of three (this number is ~4 years old and 
>     includes Medicaid, foodstamps, subsidized housing, fuel assistance, etc.),
>     yet by all accounts the system is seriously broken.

Ok, fine, but what one also needs to remember is that welfare was never
meant to be a way of life.  The way the system is right now, can't continue
and must be changed to get these people back to work and doing something to
contribute to the community in which they live.
  
>     Instead of paying women for having children outside of wedlock and not
>     working, we should give parents who are unable to support their children 
>     an opportunity to temporarily place them in a foster home, get back on their 
>     feet, and take the kids back.  That will take away an incentive to raise
>     one's children poor with no man in the house, and reduce the number of 
>     children living below the poverty line.

This is the dumbest idea i've ever heard of....snatching children from
their mothers arms - how horrible.  There are much better solutions then
that one.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:17:47 GMT
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits

pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>In article <Btp1Cq.JvE@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <19778@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>>In article <3463@master.CNA.TEK.COM>, mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>>>} In article <BtLwqr.MHG@news.cso.uiuc.edu?? daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
>>>} 
>>>} ??I strongly agree with the (most) Republicans in their call for congressional
>>>} ??term limits.  I used to live in Peoria, IL and Rep. Bob Michel (currently
>>>} ??
>>
>>>"Vote for their opponent.", you say?  Well, what if they run unopposed? 
>>
>>  How often are Congressional seats uncontested?  (Ans: almost never)
>>

>I'm not sure this is correct. I seem to recall a report to the effect that
>a rather significant number of incumbents run unopposed in the typical election
>year, something like 10-20%. Also, 'unopposed' can also mean 'without
>credible opposition', by which is meant freak, single-issue candidates.

I agree here.  It is not correct, my old Rep. Bob Michel was obviously going
to win last election that the Democrats didn't even bother to run.  However, 
a third party candidate running on the Solidarity slate did decide to run.

Unfortunately for him and democracy, the Republican state committee took it
to court.  Sure enough, the Solidarity candidate was not permitted to run
because he nominated himself and he was not officially nominated by a
**STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE**.  That sounds sort of communist to me, eh?

>>---peter
>>

>Don Pajerek

Daniel Sawyer at UIUC       "Kick the kooks out, and I'll vote Republican."
-- 
Daniel R. Sawyer
daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:03:41 GMT

sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>A NY Times - CBS Poll of 903 registered voters shows that Bush has lost
>his post-convention bounce remarkably fast, even for someone with Bush's
>ability to screw things up.

>The current standings in their poll are:

>Clinton: 51%
>Bush:    36%

>This is widely different from a post-convention poll which showed
>Clinton leading by 45% to 42%. That one was a poll of 1186 voters.
>53% disapprove of Bush's handling of his job, 38% approve. This 
>figure is virtually the same as before the convention.

>Clinton's +ve rating is 36%, his -ve rating is 28%. His -ves
>have gone up 4% as compared to the pre-convention figures.
>However, it's a lot better than the 34% unfavorable rating 
>registered immediately after the convention.

Ah, but the polls can change quickly. Look what happened to a "reformed"
Labour Party in the United Kingdom.  John Major STILL won, despite the
worst recession since the 1930's.  AND all the polls said he would lose,
right up to election day.


-- 
Daniel R. Sawyer
daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:02:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Sep4.040226.23999
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <12129@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Or maybe I will take the collection of garbage I've been collecting
>from soc.motss and turn it over to Lou Sheldon at the Traditional
>Values Coalition and the Yes on 9 campaign in Oregon.  You know what
>powerful ammunition this stuff is for their side.

Snort.  Please stop with the jokes, Cl*yt*n, you'll give me a hernia.

>Do I make myself clear?

What's your phone number again?  I couldn't make it out scrawled on the
bathroom wall.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 21:37:39 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1685114F54.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> <64927@cup.portal.com>
  <1992Aug30.224640.20897@nuchat.sccsi.com>

> He *DOES* pay taxes in Maine? Documentaion please...since he is a legal
> resident of Texas, why would he have to pay the state *INCOME* tax in
> Maine, which is the reason why he is called a Tax-Dodger....I am sure he
> does pay state *PROPERTY* taxes in Maine since he owns land there, but he
> does *NOT* pay the state income tax, which is the reason he is a tax-dodger.
  
Check back issues of Money.  They looked at his taxes in detail.  The Maine
income tax comes from, if I recall correctly, investment income.  If you earn
income in a state, that state tends to tax it.  Bush spends about 10% of his
time in Maine, so they count 10% of his investment income as being earned in
Maine, so he pays a couple thousand a year to them.

I don't consider him a tax dodger, because after he loses the election and
goes back to Texas, if he continues to spend 10% of his time in Maine, he will
pay about the same amount of tax that he know pays to Maine.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41755 ca.politics:7032
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:18:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <11838@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>This may surprise you, but MOST people don't have sex and pain or
>sex and domination conflated.

So far so good...

>Yet, it seems to be a big part of the homosexual lifestyle.  Why?

Perhaps a better question for you to ask yourself, Clayton, would be
why you persist in using isolated articles to convince yourself that
they are representative of large groups of people. Perhaps only a
psychologolist could answer that for you.

And I hope that psychologist could also teach you something about
statistics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: NAFTA ... the fat lady didn't sing???
Keywords: canadian broadcast, non-usa government, government
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:33:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.214319.14289@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>Also, is there any news from up north about stronger links to the EC
>after they settle their Maastricht deal, one way or another?
>

If Canada had it's druthers, we'd rather just have GATT be successful.

Asia is as important if not moreso than Europe to Canada.
Trade-block-ism really isn't in Canada's interest, since we want
to trade with everyone.

The alternative to Mulroney free trade policies are

"Mr. Straddle"....Chretien won't say anything that might remotely
resemble taking a firm position...he is for "free trade", but he
is for "renegotiation" of the agreemments, but then if "renegotiation"
fails, he may be for abrogation.  The Liberals have no policy and   
don't intend to advocate one.  Political backbone is not something
Jean Chretien has.  What me lead?

The NDP is protectionist...they aren't talking about more trade with
anybody, but less.  McLaughlin is so "successful" as a leader that in
two years she can take the NDP from being equal in popularity to
the Liberals to being behind the universally despised Mulroney Tories
in national polls, even though there is a constitutional crisis,
high unemployment, and a weak economy.

The Maude Hurtig-Mel Barlow types are also out
there championing protectionism.

As much as one may dislike Mulroney, the Tories at least have policies
and stick with them even though they are unpopular.

The Liberals could blow the Tories out of the water if they adopted
a pro-free-trade stance, but say that they will do free trade the right
way...with worker adjustment and retraining programs.  It is almost
a position the general population could believe was credible...that
the global economy is a reality, but the Tories are failing miserably
on domestic policy in preparing Canada to deal with it.  But the
Liberals don't want to offend anybody, so they instead have no policy
at all. 

I still think it will be hard for Mulroney to win the next election,
but the Tories could pull a John Major and win.

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part III: Getting back on track.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:33:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep2.215850.6842@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>>	President Salinas: The main lesson is that you cannot spend beyond
>>your means, that the strengthening of internal savings is essential to sustain
>>the process of growth; that those who live on debt must pay its consequences
>>sooner rather than later.
>>
>>	[We'll pause for a minute while Capitol Hill reads that several times.
>> :)--Brett]
>
>It would be nice if Bush (and future president Clinton) read that several 
>times as well.

  As I said in an earlier posting, it would be nice if some people here
  could get it through their thick heads that THE VOTERS are the ones who
  ultimately determine fiscal policy.   As long as they continue to demand
  even more government services and refuse to pay for them we'll get
  massive deficits.  

>>	[Once again we'll pause while Capitol Hill gets a clue :)--Brett]
>
>Again, lets include the present and future president in on the clue
>hunting brigade.

  If we pause while some posters here get a clue we'll be waiting an
  awfully long time.



---peter
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43547 ca.politics:7417 ba.politics:5020
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:07:40 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Distribution: na
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <12100@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> It prohibits an employer from refusing to hire a homosexual.  (Actually,
|> because it doesn't define sexual orientation, I don't see how a
|> day care center could refuse to hire a guy wearing a North American
|> Man-Boy Love Association T-shirt, or someone with a history of rape
|> convictions).
|> 
That is incorrect.  It prohibits an employer from hiring someone because
of their sexual orientation, strayt or queer.  Why don't you post the text
of this legislation if you want to debate it so badly?

|> You engage in ad hominem attacks, rather than answer the question.
|> Mike has repeatedly taken the liberal position: support for the
|> continued operation of the National Endowment for the Arts, more
|> government spending on education, opposition to private schools,
|> etc.
|> 
It is interesting that if the NEA were abolished we would be the only
"first world country" where the federal gov't did not fund art.

Of course we could take the money from the NEA to fund Bread and
Circuses if you like.  Although we probably don't need that as we
have CBS/NBC/ABC/TNT/USA and the rest of the mind pap out there.

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Gender
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 23:19:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Followup-To: talk.abortion

Note followup to talk.abortion.

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes ...
>In article <7ybncfp.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>As for unborn son/daughter, I might point out that it isn't necessarily
>>either.  "It" would be more appropriate for the early stages, as no sex
>>organs have developed.  (and for the pedants out there, sexuality and 
>>gender are not determined solely by genes)
>
>Please explain yourself.  The ENTIRE individual is defined at birth.  

Incorrect.  One's genes are (generally) determined at conception.  Physical

One's gender is not solely determined by whether one has an XX or XY 
chromosome pair.  As examples ...

One genetic disorder blocks receptors for male hormones.  As a result,
such a person will appear to be female externally (and will probably
have been raised as a female) but will be reproductively neuter and
genetically male.

And what about those who have one gender physiologically and another
behaviourally?  Who are one sex but behave, dress, and percive themselves
to be the other.

More examples, but rather off topic.

>>>Killing the elderly because they burden us and our systems is also an
>>>after-the-fact correction.  Getting rid of immigrants after flooding
>>>our shores can also be construed to be an after-the-fact correction.
>>>
>>>I have nothing against 'correcting' someone with AIDS.

>I did not say anything about exterminating people with AIDS.  Please, I ask
>you, do not slander me.  Didn't I say that once a person has AIDS, I want
>lots of care and compassion for them no matter how they got it?  

My mistake.  
Your comments (quoted above) implied that "correction" = "killing"

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:58:39 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
: In article <1992Sep1.181045.8108@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
: >pn> Peter Nelson
: >
: >pn> As a recent poll posted here on Usenet, and plenty of others have shown,
: >pn> big government programs are what the voters WANT!  They demand that their
: >pn> elected officials "bring home the bacon" and this alone is the metric by
: >pn> which they judge and elect them.
: >
: >  You're half-right. Too many voters want the bacon, but without the pork or
: >  the *associated costs*. That's why people can say "Yes, I want national
: >  health insurance, and a strong defense, and welfare for the poor, and a
: >  secure SS program, &c, but go to hell if you expect me to pay more taxes!"
: 
:   I wasn't trying to leave that part out of the issue; I just took it for
:   granted that this was understood (that the nobody wants to pay for these
:   things).   
: 
You should not take it for granted. Many of us think that our taxes are the
price we should be paying for good government. It's not true that nobody 
wants to pay; we just don't want to pay more than our fair share.


Kathy
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41993 alt.politics.elections:11582 alt.politics.clinton:3021 alt.politics.bush:2936