HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:17:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

In article <ART.93Jan1120042@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.212641.12200@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>
>   1) What "voluminous quotations" were those, Ted?  I cited a few short
>   passages to explode Al's misguided claim that North asked the
>   government for home security and was refused.  Pray, how were these
>   factual excerpts (which I will happily resupply you with) "grossly
>   slanted"? 
>
>Well, all you really did was cite some denials from government agencies.
>The problem is that the denials were not made under oath, while North's
>claims were.


So that makes the officials' statements into lies?  Oh, I forgot, the
Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Corps counsel had *all kinds of
reasons* to lie about this, while North had none whatsoever.  Oh yeah,
Al, we're all overwhelmed by your logic.

For those who came in late, here's the news item at issue:

Associated Press, July 20, 1987:

  "In the Friday session, the committees released a letter from the
  secretary of the navy, James H. Webb Jr., and Peter M. Murphy, counsel
  for the Marine Corps, saying Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. North had
  never requested protection from terrorist attacks for himself and his
  family.  The letter said the colonel would have been given such
  protection if he had asked for it."

One more thing, Al: it's a felony to lie to a federal governmental
entity, whether or not you do it under oath.  (See 18 USC section
1001, which carries a maximum 5-year penalty.)  But of course you
already knew that, expert on federal criminal law that you are.



>   2) Among the charges on which North was convicted was that of
>   accepting an improper gratuity.  I'm sure we'll all be powerfully
>   entertained by your attempts to explain why the enactment of this
>   statute, or prosecution under it, criminalizes interbranch policy
>   disputes. 
>
>Enactment of the statute in and of itself does not criminalize policy
>disputes.  The problem is that the purpose of the statute is to prevent
>gov't employees from accepting bribes.  To chase North for accepting
>something to defend himself and his family from harm, the treat of which
>resulted from his performance of his official duties is a far different
>thing than accepting a free trip to the Bahamas or a fur coat for his
>wife.

Imagine my relief, knowing that North had those snow tires to fend off
Abu Nidal.  Or did you forget that inconvenient little fact too, Al?



-- 
			   797 F. Supp. 186

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:45:26 GMT

[It's hard to be sure, but I believe it's "mike myke schwartz"
 (mykes@shell.portal.com) who writes:]

>You could take the entire human race and put it in the state of texas, have
>1/3 the state left over to grow enough food to feed the people, and still
>have 1/3 of the state left over for natural habitat.

4.5 billion people in one-third of Texas comes out to 50,500 people per
square mile.  By comparison, the suburbs I grew up in probably have
under one thousand.  Detroit/Windsor has 6,700.  NYC has 11,460.  And
Tokyo/Yokohama, one of the biggest, crowdedest, most polluted places
you'll ever want to be in, has 23,400.

I don't think so, Mr. Schwartz.

(By the way, Hong Kong's the winner, with over five million people in
twenty square miles.  Several Third World cities top 100,000/sq.mi. as
well.  But 50,000/sq.mi. is the next best thing to living hell.)
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "A degree in Computer Science from Berkeley didn't much qualify me to uphold
  the banner of Chaos against the forces of Order."              - R. Zelazny
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65944 soc.motss:54471 alt.sex:40693
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:19:50 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Dec31.025057.21605@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy):
> In article <13744@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
> #Sadly, Greg, it is not a free speech issue.

> Err, the people involved say it IS a free speach issue. What right
> does anyone have to PREVENT them from marching? The parade is on a
> public street. 

A parade permit was issued for the event; it was not merely
a spontaneous assembly of people.  The parade committee
accepted NAMBLA as one of the groups marching in the parade,
a big mistake in my opinion.  This sort of crap gives
ammunition to the folks who try to like homosexuality to
child molestation.  We're talking "guilt by association,"
kind of like the GOP allowing Pat Buchanan to speak at the
convention.  That was not a free speech issue, and as a
result, it isn't hard for liberals like me to view GOP'ers
as knuckle dragging homophobic morons.  Get the analogy?
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hey, Bill, WAKE UP!!!!
Date: 26 Dec 92 12:22:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1h57fuINNddk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:

> I never said Clinton or Gore didn't have a solid grasp of the issues,

But you should have.
-- 
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: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:37:55 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <cubsfan.725313723@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>A couple thoughts...

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

Incorrect in American jurisprudence.

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

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

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

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

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

Here, again, you demonstrate a truly amazing ignorance of the
Constitution which you seem to feel is so important.  I strongly
suggest you read it - treason is defined very exactly within it and I
afail to see how Weinberger et al are even conceivably guilty of treason.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is it actually 10%??
Date: 26 Dec 92 12:23:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Of course not.
-- 
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???       ||
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush sends Walsh packing (practically)
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:04:59
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: world
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu's message of 24 Dec 1992 18:10:58 GMT

In article <1hcufiINNrel@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

> Bush has officially pardoned all the Iran-Contra defendants and prospective
> defendants for any crimes that they may have committed in that affair.

Ah, those damn Republicans, being soft on crime again.  When are they
ever going to learn that the only way to deter crime is to get tough
with the criminals?
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:01:47 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> 
|> > Ollie North was a criminal.
|> 
|> Not for his part in the Iran-Contra deal.  His conviction has been
|> overturned.

He is still a criminal.  The fact that he was acting in the interest
of those who get to rule on his guilt does not mitigate that fact
that he indeed broke the law, violated the public trust, and stole
money (even if for others).
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 02:04:33 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>These are the same people who complain that criminals get off because of
>all the bleeding heart liberals in the judical and legal system.  Well
>folkes, it is exactly the technicalities that you complain about that
>have freed your hero.

It's funny that with the erosion of most "technical" defenses (see the Bill
of Rights), the Fifth has emerged unscathed -- practically elevated to
the mark of true heroism. As opposed to, say, what most people thought of
criminals who "took the Fifth" during Jimmy Hoffa's day. The Fifth is like
the First, which although protecting the right of the Cincinnati KKK in
erecting their cross, does not dictate how the public should react -- in
most cases, with disgust.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:34:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.193406.11292@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:

>In article 9492@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>>In article <cubsfan.725313723@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>>
>>> Far from being patriots, the men Bush pardoned (like Weinberger)
>>> are *traitors* to the United States of America
>>
>>Why is Weinberger a "traitor"?  By all accounts, he had opposed the
>>so-called Iran-Contra arms deal.

>for those that don't know, Cap is in trouble not for the Iran-Contra
>deal, but lying (under oath) to Congress.

       One wonders how, among all the lies in all the committee hearings 
each month, anybody noticed.  No, what Congress is upset about is anybody
*but* Congresspeople lying to Congress.

>>> and should be punished as such.  Unfortunately, they never will be.
>>
>>Actually, the crime of "treason" is quite well defined.  Just what is
>>it that Weinberger did that makes him a traitor?  Or are you just an
>>airhead who is congenial to the idea that those who have policy
>>differences with some influential self-appointed elite should be
>>treated as criminals (at least in cases where you happen to disagree
>>with their basic ideology)?
>
>The reason Cap, et. al., should be punished is that our Federal officials
>need to be discouraged not to lie to Congress/the People for personal
>reasons.  There was no Natl security at stake here.  

          What exactly does national security have to do with anything.  Are 
we really ready to simply white-wash anything anybody says to Congress as 
long as it comes under the purely subjective heading of National Security?

>They got busted
>doing something wrong and lied to cover it up.  Just like Nixon.  
>It is bad enough with the partisan misinformation that comes from DC.,

          It's not misinformation.  It's out and out lies.  

>if politicans can get away with lying for personal/political reasons then
>our govt. is as bad as any monarchy.  Where does it stop?  the further
>it continues the more it approaches a communist regime.

          Get away with it?  They're *elected* for it.  Reagan, Bush, 
Clinton, hundreds of Congresscritters, and tens of thousands of state 
officials.
         

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:02:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <casseres-211292110000@missmolly.apple.com> by casseres@apple.com (David Casseres):

> Thassinneresting.  A while ago I claimed people could be unfree even if
> government left them alone, and gave the example of people being oppressed
> by their own churches.  And instead of agreeing with me, the way I'm
> agreeing with you, Libertarians were all over me like a cheap suit,
> lecturing me severely about how ONLY governments (and violent criminals)
> can possibly coerce anyone and make them unfree.

Well, yes and no.  By and large churches CAN'T oppress you unless you LET them
OR until you give them the power of government.  I know, I left the Catholic
church years ago, and the pronouncements of its hierarchy provoke only 
amusement in me.  Similarly, unlike some friends and loved ones I have not
as a replacement joined any of the multifarious charismatic religious groups.
I'm not interested in turning my brain off for anybody in Rome OR Tupelo, MS.

On the other hand, if you follow the example of Iran and make the church the
GOVERNMENT, you can hardly complain when it uses its governmental powers to 
further it's ideological values.

By the way, I'm not a Libertarian, so don't ask me how the above conflicts
with Libertarian dogma.... :)



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65063 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10595 alt.rush-limbaugh:12116 alt.politics.bush:14850
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:14:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Dec22.005651.3627@news.stolaf.edu> kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz) writes:

>>A recent German study of patent citations shows that space R&D is very
>>inefficient at generating spinoffs, compared to commercial R&D.
>
>And boy, those Germans have done a lot in space recently...

They're part of ESA, and part of the Arianespace consortium.  ESA sent
a probe to Halley's Comet, while NASA did nothing.  Ariane's boosters
swiped the commercial launch market from the shuttle even before the
Challenger accident.

A country that spends less on space is Japan.  Boy, that lack
of spinoffs has really crippled *their* technology.  And the
country that launches the most rockets, Russia, sure has the
world's most advanced technology, doesn't it?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Did the Corp go Gay??????
Followup-To: alt.sex,alt.crammer.hides.homosexual.yearnings
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:13:01 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
] 
] The average homosexual: he doesn't like what you say, so he threatens
] you with violence.
] -- 
] Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
] C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.


My God, Turn my back on the USMC, 
and they turn out to be a bunch of Faireys....

Who'd have thunk it....


ciao
drieux


ps: tell it to the marines,
the navy ain't buying it....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: machman@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: This week with David Brinkley -- third guest
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:05:04 GMT

subbarao@phoenix.fc.hp.com (Kartik Subbarao) writes:

>I missed the third segment of Brinkley today. Can anyone tell me who the
>guest was?
>
>	-Kartik

I believe it was Robert (?) Gates, the current head of the CIA.

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:07:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.150613.13970@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Let's give these
}#people a choice between going to a resort in Cuba or leaving it all behind,
}#taking the affiliated risks, and getting away from Cuba.
}#
}#What would they choose? Answer:  The plane landed in Maimi yesterday...
}
}Wrong answer. They WEREN'T given a chance to live in the resorts. 

Literacy check. "going to a resort" != "live in the resorts".
"a cuban resort" was the published destination of the aircraft.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 04:06:00 GMT

James Meritt writes:
#Next pop test:  Since you acknowledge that

Oh, excuse me. I thought you were interested in trying to have a
discussion. I now see that you want to puff your ego up by trying to
get people to jump through hoops.

I don't play that game.

#How about cleaning up after nuclear weapons production?

That requires the person in charge of the cleanup, perhaps a deputy
director, not necessarily the head. I'd prefer the head to think of
what the DoE is going to become in the future, not simply be mired in
the past.

#Am I to interpret this to mean that you believe that the production of, as
#well as use of, nuclear weapons should be a Department of Defense responsibility
#and removed from civilian control?

Production of? Yes. Just like they are in charge of making the specs
for the battleships, and tanks, and ICBM's. 

Use of? I think that civilian control of the US military is a Good
Thing.

I'd like to have the DoE be something besides an accounting trick to
hide the true size of the US military budget.



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Hey, Bill, WAKE UP!!!!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:33:55 GMT

In article <1h57fuINNddk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
}In a previous article, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) says:
}>Obviously this person has a great future as a fiction writer.  Anyone
}>who watched the conference knows that Clinton and Gore not only
}>stayed awake, but demonstrated a solid grasp of the issues discussed.
}
}  As a matter of fact I taped and watched the full coverage. And if 
}you didn't see Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore sitting in their chairs,
}eyes closed and head pointed toward their lap then you sir must have
}missed a large portion of this event.

That is what Polen means by "solid grasp of the issues"..asleep.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:31:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.021427.20976@vlsi.polymtl.ca> d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
}James Meritt (m23364@mwunix) wrote:
}: In article  d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
}: 
}: So he himself said it.  Golly gee, and sorry if that doesn't agree with
}: your preconceptions.  After all, he only lived there, and they were
}: his kids.  Why should he know what the situation, as it related to him
}: personally, was.  It MUST agree with your scenario!
}
}You are such a twerp, this was pure propaganda, look up the documentary
}"selling a war" by the CBC and you'll see that what is said is not 
}always the thruth. And I guess you have never heard of bias, that 
}would surely influence the way that the guy was talking about Cuba.

Naturally, that interview done when they caught him in a shoe store was carefully
choriographed by thge CIA...

Are you really this stupid?  (oh yeah - carried local news)

}: And naturally, she will have a much better picture than those who grew up
}: there, and just managed to get away a week ago.
}: 
}: sheesh.
}
}No but she knows people there and she can speak spanish so she can talk 
}to them.  Besides, I don't need another "we are right" man to respond to,
}one Mr Morton is quite anough.                                

Besides, she'll tell you what you want to hear...


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc