HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 22:24:31 EST
Organization: Spaceley Sprockets, Inc.

Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes:

> A light went on in my head on this issue when ten years ago I visited
> the Kennedy Space Center and realized that a stream of total pro-space
> program propaganda was coming over the tour bus's speakers.

Weeeeelll... I'd hardly expect them to  spend the time endorsing
laundry detergent or something. Actually, I was down there in February
with my wife, and we went on the tour. Very little in the way of
propaganda - simply factual information; the space shuttle weighs X
pounds, uses X as fuel, and so on.

> picture was completed when I then remembered how in second grade people
> from NASA showed up at school for what I had thought was a niffty
> presentation and what I now realize was carefully crafted brainwashing
> of young future taxpayers.

Again, what do you expect? Every second grader has dreams of becoming a
"spaceman", or a fireman, or a policeman, or a doctor. When the local
firefighter shows up to lecture you about the importance of smoke
detectors, is it actually propaganda? You could make a much stronger
case using the example of police lecturing kids about drugs.

By the time you're old enough to pay any substantial taxes, hopefully
you have the commone sense to see what's a waste of money and what
isn't.

On second thought, I'll take that back. The 101st congress and Bill
Clinton are evidence enough that most Americans really don't pay much
attention to what the government is doing - or are so disgusted that
they simply don't want to dip their hands in the sludge.

> So today I chuckle to myself when I hear about these important manned-space
> missions used to study manned-space missions (like buying a second car
> so you can hire a builder to add on to your garage) and wish I
> had a say to stop the space program hand from keeping reaching into
> my wallet.

Yeah, but, on the other hand, you have to learn to crawl before you can
learn to walk. Technology is advancing by an order of magnitude every
generation; by the time my daughter's old enough to work, those
"wasteful" space shuttle missions may have laid the groundwork for much
more ambitious projects.

If you think you know better how to spend your money than the government
does, well, don't vote for a Democrat. Matter of fact, don't vote for a
Republican, either - vote for a Libertarian.


--
Socialized medicine: Health care with the compassion of an IRS auditor, the
intelligence of a DMV employee, and the cost control of the Pentagon.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:27:18 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <bhayden.725787292@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org sez:
>
>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).

Here's a little quiz for you, Bruce:

D shoots V in cold blood for no good reason.  The police arrest D
without a warrant, seizing the murder weapon in the process.  At
trial, the court allows the gun to be used as evidence, and D is
convicted. 

On appeal, the higher court rules that the gun was the fruit of an
illegal seizure in violation of the fourth amendment, and vacates the
conviction.  The government declines to reprosecute because it will
not have sufficient evidence to convict at a retrial.


QUESTION:  Is D factually guilty of murder?  (Note that the question
is emphatically NOT "Should D's conviction have stood?", nor is it "Is
D legally guilty?")



In your view, Bruce, D is perfectly innocent.  He did nothing wrong at
all.  Right?



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

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush CAN pardon himself
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:08:28 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1992Dec30.152259.3454@news.media.mit.edu> > 
> But
> please do not try to muddy the waters by equating lying to Congress with
> policy differences.
> 
The "Lying to Congress" rap is just a convienient peg for Walsh to hang  
his hat on. In many cases the predicate acts were not committed under oath  
or consisted of ommission rather than commission. I think in one or two  
cases Walsh was even trying to claim statements not made to congress at  
all were "lying to congress" since some congressmen might have heard them  
while listening to the tube.  

Weinberger et al would have been indicted for "Anti-Soviet Slander" or  
"Parasitism" if those had been available to Walsh.  Hell, I shouldn't give  
him any ideas.  

The whole point of indicting Weinberger was attempting to get him to roll  
over on bigger fish.  Walsh would have been happy to drop the whole thing  
if Weinberger had testfied the way Walsh wanted.  Think about this: is it  
a good idea to have a prosecutor with an unlimited budget and (seemingly)  
unlimited time rummaging around looking for ways to indict specific  
people? If your name comes up in the Walsh indictment lottery you face  
personal bankruptcy attempting to defend yourself.  Or you can cop a plea  
and do a few hours of community service (the judges have been less than  
impressed with the danger to the Republic posed by the defendants, and  
generally have imposed extremely light sentences).  Such a deal.  

Prosecutorial power is a dangerous thing.  It needs some check, and Walsh  
doesn't seem to have any, nor does he have any personal restraint or  
judgement regarding his investigation. Any decent DA would have pulled the  
plug on this thing long ago and moved on to better things.  Walsh's and  
his lieutenant's personal animosity towards the subjects of the  
investigation seem to have clouded his judgement; for example one Walsh  
lawyer recollected with glee being able to "go after the dark prince of  
Nightline, Elliot Abrams", and Walsh's statement on the day of the Bush  
pardons (and his appearance on Nightline a day or two later) reinforced my  
opinion of him as a dangerous, reckless goon with guccis and an  
unsupported conspiracy theory.

--
Don McGregor | The Revolution will have an alt newsgroup.
drm@esl.com  |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:49:22 GMT
Followup-To: poster

In article <1992Dec30.142658.14090@novell.com>, bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
> In article <C01x89.MC1@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
> >Do you get the feeling that I disapprove of homosexual sex?  
> >Does that make me a bigot?  I don't think so. It is my
> >contention that anal intercouse is WRONG, men butt fucking other men is
> >not a cute idiosyncrasy. It is a serious pervertion of the human body, 
> 
> So?  Some think male/female oral intercourse is a perversion, hell,
> I'd bet better than even odds you could find _somebody_ who thinks
> that male/female intercourse missionary style is a perversion if
> done outside of marriage.  My point is that different things are
> perversion to different people.  As long as you're not the object of
> that perversion, what are you complaining about?

The Human body, Whether you believe a God created it or we came from the
monkey, has many orifices that are there for obvious reasons. The nose 
for the inhalation and exhalation of air, the vagina for excepting the
male member into and the results thereof(see baby), and the anus for the
removal of waste. I believe each has a purpose and that purpose only.
The anus was not made for input, it is there for output. This is why I
feel that sticking something into the butt, for other than medical
reasons ;-), is wrong. This is why I feel sick when Homosexuals perform
that function not because "GOD" thinks so. Am I now to be called Homo-
Phobic? Also, Hetrosexual sex is not a perversion! Remember, the only way
the human species can exist is thru this process. The process thru which
the penis and the vagina exist.

David
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:27:12 GMT

In article <1hqipkINN475@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Bill Anderson) writes:
>|> Nosy) writes:
>|> : John Viveiros) writes:
>|> : <   chris@mcnc.org writes:
>|> : <   >
>|> : <   >  The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
>|> : <   >Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
>|> : <   >Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
>|> : <   >result are kinda scary.  
>|> : <   >
>|> : <   Sounds like those "Solid Liberals" (tm) want to enforce the Bill of
>|> : <   Rights, those scoundrels.
>|> :  
>|> : 	Can Viveiros show where in the Bill of Rights the "right"
>|> : 	to receive taxpayers money for "art" is located?
>|> 
>|> Well, certainly the 9th counts; it just doesn't apply to this 
>|> situation.  I think that hinging government funding of the arts
>|> dependent on the political content of those arts is a violation
>|> of the spirit (though perhaps not the letter) of the 1st 
>|> amendment.  Of course there is no requirement that the gov't
>|> provide money for the arts; but if it does so, it should do so
>|> without regard to politics.  
> 
>This comes to the crux of the matter.  It is true that the Bill of rights
>does not guarantee money for "obscene (as in the mind of the beholder)"
>art, any more than it does for any other kind of art.  But everything the 
>government does do, in this case it does support the arts, it must do
>without regard for religious or political bias.

         Actually, the tenth amendment, which last time I checked was 
both still in technical force (though ignored) and in the original Bill 
or RIghts, seems to say that funding for the arts should be a state job.

>There are those of us that won't agree with chris's definitions of
>"Obscene."  Some of us think that pictures of a half-naked male nailed
>to a wooden crossbar is violent and obscene.

	Well, it is, which is kind of the whole point to it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:51:29 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec18.212816.14505@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com writes:
]the members of the military are hardly a representative sample of the
]countries population.  i would suspect the homosexual % to be signicantly
]*higher* than the general population, because of the demographics.

Care to be a bit more specific about these "demographics?" 

Considering that it against the law to be gay in the military, are you saying 
that there is a significant percentage of gay lawbreakers in the military? Are
these the "responsible, mature" folks we should have in the service? If
gays are allowed in the military, would you favor discharging all of
those already in on the grounds that they are lawbreakers? It is bad
for military discipline for people to get rewarded for violating the
rules (which is what allowing currently gay people to stay in would
do).


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Mandatory Organ Donation
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:56:59 -0500

CNN reports this day that the 'Communitarian Party/coalition' wishes
to make into law the requirement to donate organs upon death. 

As with many so-called 'communitarian' initiatives, this proposal
sounds good on the surface. However, it does raise significant
questions about the traditional rights of persons or their 
relatives to control the disposition of their affairs after death.

Suppose the 'communitarians' insist that it is reasonable for all
assets of the deceased to be transferred into the care of charity
organizations or a general government-controlled distribution
scheme - to assist the needy for example ? Suppose the logic of
community-over-the-individual is extended to cover not only dead
persons, but instead to require blood and/or organ donations to
needy persons from living individuals regardless of the wishes of
those individuals. 

Somewhere there is a borderline between individual rights and the
rights/needs of the community at large. I believe that the
'communitarians' have placed that line much too far in favor of
the collective. What say ye ?

-- Jim Mason 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65683 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10873 alt.politics.bush:15038
From: kens@psc.lsa.umich.edu (Ken Small)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:21:02 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Originator: news@stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu

mike myke schwartz (mykes@shell.portal.com) wrote:

: 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.  The cost of moving
: people into outerspace is absurd, even for a handful.

I don't think the point is space, but rather waste.  As the population
grows, so does waste production, and we need a fair amount of space to
deal with that.  

--
Ken Small           kens@umich.edu
"I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused."
Consulting and Support Services, University of Michigan
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS.
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:15:01 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1ha1qtINNmn@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob De
guc) writes:
>In article 16291@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu, pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) wri
tes:
>> In article <merlyn.724871258@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
 wr
>> ites:
>> >pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>> >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 touris
t
>> >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.
>>
>
>
>I don't suppose that you would be willing to prove the above statement?  (I'd
>like some proof, not the garbage that Rush spews out).

     As we speak, I look...
     and what do you mean by garbage?



>
>
>
>
>Bob De Guc
>I vote, therefore I am!!
>
From: atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell)
Subject: Re: ""Gay rights group files complaint""
Organization: Enhanced Cybernetic Logic Operating Systems Group
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:16:27 GMT

In article <13725@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[ much deleted ]

>Why should I believe anything a homosexual says?  The most dishonest,
>lying people I've ever met are homosexuals.  There probably are some
>honest homosexuals out there -- but so few as to be irrelevant.

Ah, what a poor, wretched life you must have led, to have such hatred for
millions of people. Tell me, do you go to church?

--
David O'Donnell - No one is responsible for what I write but me


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: patrick@growler.owlnet.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS...) 1 OF 3
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:18:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.043015.16291@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:


>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.

Documented?  In the National Enquirer?  So...how was Elvis doing, the last
time you saw him?

--
Patrick L. Humphrey(patrick@owlnet.rice.edu)Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 527-4989 at Rice. 713 981-5952 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
                  COUGARS     TIGERS     RAVENS     HUSKIES
  OILERS     OWLS             *Any questions?*              ROCKETS     ASTROS
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:43:25 GMT

In article <13710@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>FALSE.  Depending on which study you read, at least 21% of molestation
>is by exclusive homosexuals, or about 30% is done by homosexuals or
>bisexuals.

Gosh, Claymer.  I thought that

[] Only a homosexual would think that bisexuality is dramatically
[] "different" from homosexuality.
[]   -- Clayton Cramer (cramer@Optilink.COM)

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:34:06 GMT

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.  
>
>> 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.  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.,
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.
From: sgoldste@phakt.usc.edu (Fogbound Child)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ...Psst. Ya wanta Merry Christmas?? Just ignore Washington DC!
Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:07:38 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu
Keywords: Ahh-ha-ha-ha-ha, ahh-ha-ha-ha-ha, ah-ha-ha-ha, ha-ha ha ha

max@admin.mport.COM (Max) writes:

>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Ignorance) writes:

>>There is only one true reality.

>>(hint: tain't media)

>there is no "one true reality". we swim in a sea of perspective and
>biology. realising not to trust the media is good, but they are only the
>smallist piece of the puzzles. gain what you can from you fellow people,
>but trust noone to tell you the "truth". 

>(hint: question reality)

>-max

>"dont trust leaders, watch your parking meters..."
>                            -dylan

Oh ye of little faith -- Repent! For there is One True Reality[tm], and it is
a registered TradeMark of Marx, Machiavelli, and Malthus, Inc., manufacturers
of Finer Social Systems since time immemorial.

Additionally:

MMM, Inc, is pleased to announce the availability of their newest product line,
the Personal Reality Debit System. These products will replace earlier, clumsy,
and otherwise awkward Reality Checks. Personal Reality Debit Cards (PRDC) will
allow instantaneous debits into your Reality Space, without the difficult
intermediate Philosophical processing traditionally related to this task.

PRDC is *Personal*, something we here at MMM, Inc are proud to support. The
PRDC is fully customizable to debit from a wide variety of realities, and
even supports add-in insurance policies so that you can perform debits against
fully uncertafiable delusionary reality accounts.




-- 
_________Pratice Safe .Signature! Prevent Dangerous Signature Virii!_______
Guildenstern: Our names shouted in a certain dawn ... a message ... a
              summons ... There must have been a moment, at the beginning,
              where we could have said -- no. But somehow we missed it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:36:56 GMT

In article <13710@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <BzMEHL.46t@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:


># 
># Come on, be fair!  97% of reported child molestation is done by hetro
># men.  The rest is made up of gay men and women.  Given these statitics
>
>FALSE.  Depending on which study you read, at least 21% of molestation
>is by exclusive homosexuals, or about 30% is done by homosexuals or
>bisexuals.
>
># ** Xavier Gallagher                        ***********************************
>
>If you don't even have the basic facts right, there's no point
>in arguing with you.


Name your sources cramer.  Mine is the 1989 British Home office report
on child abuse.  The *vast* majority of sexual abuse if *male adult*
on *female child*

Xavier Gallagher.

ps. I am sorry to break my promise so soon but I can't allow this jerk
to get away with telling me I don't know what I am talking about.


-- 
** Xavier Gallagher                        ***********************************
** Genius, Plumber & Madman                ******* s0xjg@exnet.co.uk ********* 
** Part time Dark OverLord Of The Universe ***********************************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65770 alt.sex:40550