HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Summary: Just plain wrong  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:05:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.173821.64@mtek.com>, bud@mtek.com                                 writes...
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.163530.15699@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com writes:
>>>zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller) writes:
>>>But any country can pass into law whatever it damn well pleases with-
>>>out permission of any other country (with obvious exceptions).
>>But not in regards to what happens in that country.  A country can't
>>make it illegal for someone to do something in another country.
> 
>You may wish to consult the Israeli statute regarding prosecution
>of war criminals who conducted their unspeakable acts not only in
>Germany, but in Poland and other countries -- none of them Israel.

Those are war criminals. They are fugitives from "international law".
Not just Isreali law. Also, Isreal doesn't invade countries and kill 
thousands of civilians in order to get them.
> 
>>>Noriega was not tried on the basis of a treaty violation, since none
>>>had occurred.
>>Then why did we invade Panama at all?
> 
>Based on the treaty, which provided the U.S. the right to defend the
>Canal against hostile threats. In this case, Noriega's gang.

But Noriega never did break the treaty.
> 
>>So, again, the press got it wrong.  (1) They failed to report that this
>>"drug trafficking" was known of and tolerated by Bush for a long time.
> 
>Alleged. Not proven.

Wrong. Proven over and over again.

>bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: guru@halcyon.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:52:40 GMT

In article <168CC143D0.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1hqqqmINN5qa@spim.mti.sgi.com>
>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>
>>David Veal) writes:
>>|> Mike Polen) writes:
>>|>
>>|> >I find it humorous that libertarians can believe that complete
>>|> >individual freedom is possible without infringing on
>>|> >anyone elses freedom.
>>|>
>>|> 	Libertarians don't suggest that complete individual freedom won't
>>|> infringe on others freedoms.  The whole concept is built around individual
>>|> freedoms extending only to the point where they do harm to another
>>|> individual.  Libertarians accept restrictions on freedom, but only at that
>>|> point where the exercise of their liberty actually causes another person
>>|> harm against their will.
>
>>But some people belive that mere existance of pictures of copulating couples
>>causes them harm -- even if they are inaccessible.
>
>         If they can stick a thermometer in it and measure the harm, then
>perhaps they should file a lawsuit.
>
>>Who gets to decide
>>what harms another person, the harmer or the harmee?
>
>         I suppose you first have to define harm.  How *are* we defining
>harm?  In what way does the "mere existance" make it qualify?
>
>>Maybe we ought to
>>get together as a group and decide this.  Whoops, now we have a society
>>making decisions.
>
>          Society doesn't make decisions.  Society is not a discrete
>entity.  The group may reach a consensus, but the individuals come to
>a decision, and that's an important distinction.  Any logic which assumes
>that society has an existance outside of the individuals which comprise
>it of necessity must consider the society more important than the
>individual and thus invalidates *any* rights an individual may have.
>
>>I give up.  Libertarianism is too confusing.
>
>          Not to give offense, but all I see here is argument, not
>any attempt at understanding.  And stating your inability to understand
>doesn't make it confusing.  I think your main problem is that you and
>the Libertarians are using the same words with different definitions.
>
>          Note:  I'm not a Libertarian, but I do understand the
>philosophy.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
>               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
>               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1h5boiINNsop@spim.mti.sgi.com> <1992Dec30.090612.20666@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:29:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.090612.20666@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

   mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

   >How come when your
   >candidates lose it's underhanded and surreptitious, and when your guy
   >wins, it's just good clean politics.

   Oh, that's EASY--the difference is that the Democrats, unlike the
   Republicans, don't have dirty tricks squads, wiretaps, plumbers, etc etc.
   If you look at the last 30 years of American politics, the Republicans
   are winding up in jail at about a 10:1 ratio compared to Democrats. This is
   a simple fact--a matter of public record. We don't have a Nixon, an Agnew,
   a Sununnu, etc etc etc until you could scream. Democrats, see, are the
   good guys. We don't commit felonies to get elected. We don't rifle our
   opponents' passport files. We don't lie to Congress. We don't have to
   resort to pardoning felons in the middle of the night to save our own
   necks.

No, the dems just have 80% of the Keating five, Jim Wright, Tony Coelho,
Bobby Baker, Lyndon Johnson, Otto Kerner, the Greylord judges in Chicago.
I could go on, but I suspect you get the point.

Oh, speaking of committing felonies to get elected, would you care to
comment on LBJ's 1948 election to the Senate?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 07:34:52 GMT

lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

>In <bhayden.725731091@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>>I don't understand how you can be exonerated from a crime, and
>>yet you can be factually guilty.

>That's because you don't understand the burdens of proof in a criminal
>case.  In order to convict, the jury must be convinced beyond a
>reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question.
>For a jury (or a judge) to find a defendant "not guilty" they need not
>be certain of anything, they need only harbor a "reasonable doubt."  

>So the Court's determination that a verdict of "not guilty" should be
>entered in Ollie North's case only means that there remains some legal
>doubt (after certain inadmissible evidence was excluded from his
>case).  It is not a finding that he is, literally, not guilty.

That is no different than any other not guilty verdict.
Yet we consistently say in cases where a jury was able to find
a resonable doubt that the person was found innocent (or not guilty).

> The judicial determination of
>>the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
>>say that he was guilty anyway. 

>That's right.  The overturning of a verdict has nothing necessarily to
>do with its underlying truth value.

But - "guilt", especially in this context carries all of the judicial
gloss you just mentioned - constitutional rights, due process,
beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. It also means finding the proper
actus rea, and mens rea. .

I agree that you can maybe state that Ollie may have done certain acts.
The problem arises when you state that he thus is "factually guilty"
of violating some law when doing those acts. Under the American
system of jurisprudence, you are innocent until proven guilty, 
Yet - you (generically) are stating that he is guilty (factually)
despite the fact that a determination of guilt would not have
been reached if he had not been deprived of his constitutional rights.
(in all probability - since the overturning was essentially the end).

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay)
Subject: $40M, Walsh, Republicans
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:47:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

$40 million seems like a lot--it's just about what an inauguration celebration
costs. I feel like I got my money's worth, one of the few times since 
1980. What Walsh has provided is a credible picture of what the administration
really did. His inability to put people in jail for it is arguably
unfortunate, but I don't really care if people like Weinbarger or Abrams go
to jail. Their willingness to perjure themselves, obstruct justice, defy the
law, all these are celebrated Republican virtues as the discussion on the net
demonstrates. The Republican party is nothing if not the party of realpolitik,
and while their large following disturbs me greatly, I try to live in the 
world as it is. Are Abrams, Weinbarger, et al criminals? Only if you think
that breaking the law makes you one.

The good news that these folks are out of the government tempts me to favor
letting Walsh write his report and go home, but perhaps he can write a more
complete story if he can continue his investigation into the new administration.I'd like to know the full story.

cheers,
scott smay
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:25:01 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|> Matt Austern) says:
|> >
|> >Michael Ballard) writes:
|> >
|> >> Supply and demand seems to work to bring down the price of most
|> >> commodities.  "We" could either lower the demand by restricting who
|> >> could be eligible or "we" could increase the supply of health care.
|> >> For example, "we" could stop kow towing to the guild known as the
|> >> AMA and demand that more bright individuals be admitted to medical
|> >> school
|> >
|> >Most, yes, but all?  Is there evidence which shows that increasing the
|> >number of doctors lowers the price of medical care?  I can think of a
|> >great many reasons why it might, in fact, do exactly the opposite.
|> >After all, medical costs in America have been increasing far faster
|> >than inflation during just the period when we've been getting more and
|> >more doctors.
|> 
|> This idea, in fact, has a large literature in health economics.  It's
|> known as supplier induced demand (or physician induced demand).  As
|> long as there is some uncertainty about the effectiveness of
|> medical procedures and some informational advantage for physicians
|> physicians might be able to increase demand for their services.
|> Empirical evidence seems to support this idea, but it is by no
|> means a settled issue.
|> 
The laws of supply and demand only work if there is 1) limited gov't
intervention and 2) a competitive environment.  In the past, we
have been affected by (2), in that there are many characteristics of
a monopoly at work in the health care industry.  In the future, we
face (1), in that Clinton (like the leaders of nearly every
industrialized country in the world) believes that the way to eliminate
the current anti-competitive environment is to increase the amount
of gov't intervention.

The monopolistic characteristics is the medical industries control
over entry into the industry (AMA), the insurance companies making it
both difficult and unrewarding to negotiate with providers, etc.

This is not meant to address the issue whether or not a truely
competitive and unregulated environment would be an improvement
or whether the move toward some type of gov't directed environment
is a better answer.

At least if we understand the problems, we can address them.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: ""Gay rights group files complaint""
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:41:36 GMT

In article <13725@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#Odd.  But there are gay people who have become straight.

Err, Clayton, you claim that once a homosexual, always a homosexual,
(at least when dealing with those who molest children) so how can you
now make a different claim?

Or do you not worry about consistency?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: chris.morton@pcohio.wariat.org (Chris Morton) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The NYPD situation (w
Date: 29 Dec 92 08:16:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PC-OHIO BBS - Cleveland, OH - 216-381-3320
Reply-To: chris.morton@pcohio.wariat.org (Chris Morton) 

JL>Decent people in the US continue to pay for the bad behavior of
JL>Indecent people.  The Legal System has proven itself unwilling or
JL>unable to distinguish between Decent and Indecent, only to distinguish
JL>between Convicted and Acquitted.  There is a growing proportion of
JL>Americans that finds this inadequacy of the legal system unacceptable.

Yes, but this phenomenon is largely confined to CERTAIN areas of the
United States.  One of the foremost is New York.  Such places, New York
in particular, are like an armored personnel carrier with a runaway
engine.  Things go faster and faster (without moving anywhere) until the
system fails catastrophically, often resulting in fatalities to those in
the vicinity.

What the Rosenbaum case demonstrates is not just a failure of the legal
system, but of a failure of CIVILIZATION in New York.  The Rosenbaum,
Howard Beach and other cases show that to a considerable extent, NEW
YORKERS of whatever race have lost the ability to act in the ways we've
come to expect of human beings.  This is due to the utter bereftness of
the socio-political structure.  In NYC as in a number of other places,
the only party to get BLAMED is usually the VICTIM.

Considering the descent into savagery which seems to have taken hold in
NYC, coupled with the inability of population to defend itself, I
certainly wouldn't be surprised if it came to resemble Sarajevo minus
the artillery.

ps - This is being entered via fidonet style offline reader.  Any
anomalies are unintended.

 * OLX 2.1 TD * All wiyht.  Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?
                                                                                   
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       PC-OHIO PCBoard BBS - Cleveland, Ohio - 216-381-3320       |
|   Computer Shopper Best BBS in America - 35 lines USR DS 16800   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Term for blacks has changed
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:02:31 GMT

Whats wrong with Scwvartzes?

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS...) 1 OF 3
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:44:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.043015.16291@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>In article <merlyn.724871258@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) wr
>ites:
>>pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>>>Well I was wrong. I made 3 posts. The first dates 10/27/92...
>>...
>>>1. How many parents of 17+yr old children will welcome a man, who not only
>>>dodged the draft,but demonstrated against his own country on COMMUNIST SOIL?

>>England was COMMUNIST in the last Sixties!?  Boy, is my education lacking!
>>I would have sworn that England was a constitutional monarchy at the time...

>>Could it be that Clueless Boy is confusing Clinton's demonstrations against
>>US involvement in Viet Nam while in college in England with Clinton's tourist
>>trip to the USSR around the same time?  Naaa...

>   Aw, come off it. He was demonstrating in the U.S.S.R. and it's DOCUMENTED.

Well, I suppose the National Enquirer does count as a document.  Really,
now.  What the &*^) are you talking about?

Not to mention that you still fail to understand the difference between
demonstrating against a policy and demonstrating against a country.  In
fact, I must admit, you have me confused.  What does demonstrating
against a country mean?  What would it entail?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65934 soc.motss:54449 alt.sex:40690
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:10:20 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92

In article <13723@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) says:
>
>The average homosexual: he doesn't like what you say, so he threatens
>you with violence.

Yes, right, doesn't this just make you so mad? This typical confrontation
in our society, the queer beating up the straight boy? It just happens
all the time, and it's high time the straight boys put their precious
little feet down and said "NO MORE!!". Or maybe they can get their
mommies to do it for them.

H.

Herschel Browne
Might have been at "The" American University
From: doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel)
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Organization: Bell Communications Research
	<1992Dec9.010534.3600@s1.gov> <1992Dec9.081317.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
	<1992Dec10.022455.13782@s1.gov>
	<1992Dec10.081705.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
	<1992Dec15.003610.28723@ils.nwu.edu>
	<1992Dec15.093547.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
	<1992Dec22.201459.11968@ils.nwu.edu>
	<168C511000.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> <1ha5ioINNdgs@spim.mti.sgi.com>
Date: 28 Dec 92 11:09:19


In article <1ha5ioINNdgs@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

> There is no such thing as a stupid boycott, nor is there any suggestion
> that you should support every idea that you decide is "crack-pot."  After
> all, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell were considered crack-pots.  You have
> every right to encourage others to join or not to join a boycott, but
> arguing against the boycott itself demonstrates the lack of faith that
> BOB HOOKER refers to.

To illustrate the absurdity of this point, I hereby call the following
boycott: 

Product: M&Ms

Reason: For years, M&Ms have come in light brown, dark brown, yellow, green,
orange, and red.  How dare they leave out blue!  Many people consider blue
to be their favorite color and not making blue M&Ms surely shows a lack of
sensitivity on the part of the M&M/Mars company.  We cannot allow this kind
of mind control to continue!  Therefore, until M&Ms produces candies in the
colors I (or my PC buddies) deem acceptable, I call for all self-respecting
liberals to throw down their M&M wrappers at once.


No such thing as a stupid boycott indeed...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>
444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
Piscataway, NJ 08854

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:26:41 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <Dec.30.09.52.11.1992.9973@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu sez:
>eck@panix.com wrote:
>
>> Which means that North is factually, but not legally, guilty.  If you
>> missed Al Thompson's attempt earlier this year to muddy this
>> distinction (and my repeated explanations of why his take on the law
>> was wrong), I will be more than happy to disabuse you of the erroneous
>> notion that North's conduct was not criminal.
>
>I did not miss it.  But I found your voluminous quotations from
>grossly slanted press accounts far from compelling.  Ollie North's
>conduct can be considered as "criminal" only if you accept the
>outrageous attempts by congress to criminalize differences in policy
>with the executive as sound law.  

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"? 

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. 



-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65370 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10731 alt.rush-limbaugh:12302 alt.politics.bush:14939