HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:07:04 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University

In article <BsvGz4.MC9@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.002637.14449@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com  writes:
>>
>>> In article <BstxFE.C88@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>> >In article <1992Aug11.145521.29060@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>>> >...
>>> >>World govenrment is closer at hand now than in the 60's and yes I will
>>> >>not hide it Frank can speak for himself but I will stand proud and say
>>> >>I AM IN FAVOR OF WORLD GOVERNMENT AND I REFUSE TO FEEL ANY ALLEGENCE TO
>>> >>ANY SUBUNIT OF THE WHOLE COMMONLY KNOWN AS A COUNTRY!!!!
>>> >
>>> >    Do you realize that if the New World Order takes hold,
>>> >    there will be no place to hide?
>>> 
>>>    This is correct.   The single biggest problem with one world
>>>    government is that if you don't happen to agree with it or
>>>    like it you're still stuck with it.  Note that this is a 
>>>    problem even if it's not some sort of totalitarian police
>>>    state.   And what if is IS some sort of totalitarian police
>>>    state?
>>
>>Proof, I beg you-- PROOF!  I say that if you don't agree with the one
>>     world government, then change it.  You're allowed to do that
>>     in the U.S.; why not with a body that governs the world?
>
>   So I take it you agree with everything the US government does.  
>   (else you would have changed it; you're allowed to do that, you
>   know)  I hope you realize this makes you, personally, responsible
>   for the federal budget deficit.   (Let's get him, boys!)
>
>
>>The biggest (not the only) problem I see in implementing a body
>>     that would serve the world happens to be religion.  Beyond
>>     that (and some other problems, such as language), I see no
>>     evil in placing a government that would serve the needs of
>>     our Earth.
>
>   Who gets to decide what those needs are?   Why do you assume
>   that what the majority (I assume you have in mind some form 
>   of democracy) would want is what's good for the Earth?  Why
>   are you so sure that people won't just want what's good for
>   them, personally?   In America people vote for pork-barrel
>   projects to bring jobs, wealth, etc to them, by raising taxes
>   on everybody else.  Why wouldn't this just happen on a worldwide
>   scale?     Anyway, what gives a a bunch of French, Indians,
>   Argentinians, Chinese, or Swedes, the right to make laws and
>   decisions affecting *my* life?   
>
Ok the same thing that gives Texans Nevadans Vermontans etc..
what is the difference ? You seem to accept other americans
voting for a common government why not cut the atificial boundaries
and let all human beings do this. Or are you an Anarchist?
>---peter
>
>
>


ALEX 
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Scudbusters
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 21:11:13 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug13152818@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

>Remind me, is this the same Israeli AF that executed the infamous
>attack against the slow-moving, non-stealthy, and ill-defended USS
>Liberty?  A ship the Israelis couldn't identify after hours of recon,
>and didn't after three attack waves?  Or so goes the official story...
>
>Seems to me that either the Israelis aren't so hot at identifying and
>killing targets after all, or that the Liberty story as told in public
>is wrong.  Take your choice.

Israel found a ship that looked suspiciously like an American spy
ship.  They asked the Yanks who, after checking into it, denied that
it was American.  So the Israelis looked at it again and the Yanks
continued to insist that all American ships had been pulled out of
there.  The Israelis said that if it's not American, then perhaps it's
Russian, Egyptian or something else and we're gonna send it away.  The
Yanks said "Be my guest".

Now tell us who fouled up here?

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5621 alt.activism:14830 talk.politics.misc:39729
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:13:49 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug12.150704.6252@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>In article <BsvGz4.MC9@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.002637.14449@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>>>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com  writes:

>>   Who gets to decide what those needs are?   Why do you assume
>>   that what the majority (I assume you have in mind some form 
>>   of democracy) would want is what's good for the Earth?  Why
>>   are you so sure that people won't just want what's good for
>>   them, personally?   In America people vote for pork-barrel
>>   projects to bring jobs, wealth, etc to them, by raising taxes
>>   on everybody else.  Why wouldn't this just happen on a worldwide
>>   scale?     Anyway, what gives a a bunch of French, Indians,
>>   Argentinians, Chinese, or Swedes, the right to make laws and
>>   decisions affecting *my* life?   
>>
>Ok the same thing that gives Texans Nevadans Vermontans etc..
>what is the difference ? You seem to accept other americans
>voting for a common government why not cut the atificial boundaries
>and let all human beings do this.

   What's artificial about them?  Don't I have a lot more in common 
   culturally and economically with people in Texas, Nevada, or Vermont
   than I do with people in France, China, Argentina, or Nigeria? 

   Nations only work when there is a basic set of values or common
   culture to bind people together.  Attempts to create nations where
   these don't exist is folly.  Witness Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, 
   USSR, India before partition, etc.   

    
---peter


  

Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:53:14 GMT

In article <veal.200@utkux1.utk.edu> veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>
>     DIdn't the British go around trying to impose their own particular
>values and beliefs on everybody?
>
>     You're going to make the case that your beliefs entitle you to
>enforce *your* views with *your* army more than the British did?

Yes, once again it has become time to shoulder the White Man's Burden!  Like
heroes of the past such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, 
Queen Victoria, and Hitler, we will be able to imprint this world with our
ideals.

Seriously, the net effect of this stuff can be good or bad, but we have
too much federalism already.  While I would support a libertarian system
of world government, an authoritarian system of world government would be
far more likely.


Jens
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5624 alt.activism:14835 talk.politics.misc:39773
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:51:57 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 <1992Aug12.185205.8100@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.155221.3392@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>  Are you prepared to have your government force involuntary sterilizations 
>>  and involuntary abortions (and perhaps more) on individuals? In other words,
>>  is effective population control possible under a free system, or does it
>>  require a totalitarian system, a la China?

>NO NO NO! populartion control program can be EDUCATIONAL in nature!

They certainly can be, but will they be?  Given that we have a billion
voter bloc in China that needs mandatory controls because of their own
local population densitiy do you really think that they will be
sympathetic to others who do not want mandatory controls?

>>  Peace and security between nations, perhaps (by the threat of more force
>>  than they can bring to bear, remember!) but what about peace and security
>>  *from* the world government? If we cannot trust nations to refrain from
>>  warring with each other, how can we trust a world government to
>>  refrain from 
>>  making war on us?

>Democratically elected governments operate under a constitution and
>are restricted by this. A world government can no more make war on its
>people than the US govenrment.

Does this also apply to Serbia?  What about England and Northern
Ireland?  El Salvador?  The Philippines since Marcos?

>>ab>    Labor legislation (to ensure an even global economic playing field)

>>  Sorry, but the global economic "playing field" cannot be levelled. As I
>>  tried to point out to "Frank", a ski instructor just isn't going to be paid
>>  very much in Guam. Differences in geography, population distribution, re-
>>  sources, and so on, make it impossible to construct an economic system that
>>  overrides these differences. Just can't be done.

>This is true but standard laws for the labor negotiation process etc are
>nice

Why?  Personally I think they are very bad.  The current system
penalizes those who make ridiculous laws and makes it very obvious
they are screwing themselves.  If we're all hamstrung by the same laws
then the ill effects will not be so obvious becasue there won't be
anything to compare with.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Candidates and their women
Date: 16 Aug 92  11:16:00 EST

Organization: Dept. of Independence

In article <1992Aug15.094733.597@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...
>their picadillos but seems to just now be coming out of its strait
>jacket with respect to GHWB?


Because it's right before the Republican Convention, which is being
touted as a promotion of Family Values. For those who favor hitting
Bush on this issue, the timing couldn't be better.


 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Iraq renews threats against Kuwait
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 17:10:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.215329.700@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>  Puhleeze. The UN has hardly been the plaything of the US. Do you recall all
>  those wonderful votes by the so-called Non-Aligned Nations that were cur-
>  iously pro-USSR? Now, with the SU gone, the UN will start acting like a
>  civilized body.
>
>  Wait, don't tell me, you're in favor of World Government. Bzzznt. Join the
>  decade, "Frank". The '60s *ARE OVER*.



In terms of recent history, the US has pulled off more vetoes of General
Assembly positions and Security Council decisions than any other state.
Look at the votes regarding Israel, in particular.
That does not mean that my sympathies are with those states that ran with
the USSR in their day. But remember that the Security Council was made
up of the 5 largest world powers (victors of WW2), and not the so-called non-
aligned world, except where China fit into that category. China tended
to vote in the most opportunist fashion anyway and I would hardly suggest
that its recent votes were more pro-USSR than pro-US. Quite the contrary.

But if the UN is to be a "civilized body", then perhaps it should first
be democratic, in terms of national representation (if not population
representation). How can one state on the Security Council over-rule
the views of 150+ in the General Assembly and the SC still be civilized? 

I'm not of the 60s era, actually. I've always been a little more
level-headed than that. But I do insist on democracy at the UN and have
seen very little of it. Do you fear abolishing the veto? 

My view on world government is to start with democratization of world 
political bodies. And then we'll see what happens from there.


Frank.
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: More UN (was Re: Iraq renews threats against Kuwait)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:47:36 GMT

  Are you ever going to get your own account? 

f > "Frank" (Robin Collins)

f > [I]f the UN is to be a "civilized body", then perhaps it should first be
f > democratic, in terms of national representation (if not population
f > representation). How can one state on the Security Council over-rule the
f > views of 150+ in the General Assembly and the SC still be civilized?

  Oh, I don't know, perhaps the same principle that allows one individual to
  overrule the desires of a lynch mob. It's called individual rights. Now,
  it doesn't generally apply to whole nations, but I have no problem at all
  with one state having the power to override the wishes of many others.

f > I do insist on democracy at the UN and have seen very little of it. Do
f > you fear abolishing the veto? 

  No, I'd rather the UN go away entirely. Proto-governments are almost as
  bad as governments.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.culture.africa,soc.culture.latin-america
From: josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Subject: Re: More Sarajevo notes
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:30:09 GMT

In article <rdavis.713727159@connie.de.convex.com> rdavis@convex.com (Ray Davis) writes:
>packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>
>>Still not much has been published in the way of pictures
>>of the alleged destruction of Sarajevo.
>
>Huh?!?  I don't know what they've been showing on NBC, ABC
>and CBS, but on this side of the pond (Germany) there has
>been a LOT of coverage with plenty of pictures on ITN, BBC,
>ARD, ZDF and others.

No need to get upset.  Not much has been published in the way of
pictures of the alleged Charles Packer.  Until clear evidence of
his actual existence is found, we may safely assume that postings
under this name are simply a plot by USENET to generate more traffic.

   :-)


Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5836 alt.activism:15256 talk.politics.misc:41208
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Intellectuals and totalitarianism (was Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:28:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.013907.9370@tss.com> mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon) writes:
>By what measure do you mean healthier?  The American is still the richest,
>most productive worker in the world BY A WIDE MARGIN.

	[Rest of the long rant deleted...]

	But then why have we lost major industries to the Japanese and
Europeans?

	Example: consumer electronics.

	Which American company is still in _that_ business?

	And which countries produced small and easily affordable cars
for a heck of a long time? Hint: The US is not among them. Detroit has
had a lot of catching up to do.

	I don't know how much of this is really true, but I've seen
serious speculation that the US is getting a bit too Third-World-like
in exporting agricultural and mineral resources and importing
manufactured items. Now that the Cold War is over with the Evil Empire
having imploded (much to the dismay of a heck of a lot of Cold
Warriors, I'm sure), I think it time to turn to improving civilian
manufacturing.

	One thing that we can start working on, to name one of my
favorite examples, is high-speed railroading. The Europeans and the
Japanese are way ahead of us there. Amtrak's fastest route, the
stretch between New York City and Washington, DC, is a heck of a lot
slower than the French TGV, which travels at 180 mph on some routes.

	Public transit also needs expansion. Endless traffic jams and
freeway-building haven't done much to make our cities more livable.
Pushing gas taxes up to reasonable levels might be a good idea; that's
why European gas prices are a lot higher than ours.

	Screaming "We're the greatest!!!" is not going to do much
good.

	I like what one Canadian friend I once had said: what is
considered economically left-wing here in the US would probably be
called conservative (you got it, conservative) in Canada and other
places.


/Loren
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.culture.yugoslavia
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: More Sarajevo notes
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:47:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.183009.2470@src.umd.edu> josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>
>No need to get upset.  Not much has been published in the way of
>pictures of the alleged Charles Packer.  Until clear evidence of
>his actual existence is found, we may safely assume that postings
>under this name are simply a plot by USENET to generate more traffic.

Tonight on Unsolved Mysteries...Is Charles Packer an advanced AI
project, one that could pass a Turing Test?



--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5720 alt.activism:15046 talk.politics.misc:40500
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:39:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy, talk.rumors
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

All this talk about a world governemt, but what does it really
mean? IMHO: no national sovreignity; laws that supersede our
own; police powers granted to an outside authority; an
horrific tax structure to equal out the haves vs the have
nots; etc ...... In my opinion, a unified world is an
idealistic and wonderful dream. But on a prgmatic level, look
at the jerks who are running the show now? I don't want them
to have that kind of power over me and mine.

So in a One World Government, quite obviously each nation's
constitution would have to be subservient to the world
constitution....this would mean calling for a 

	constitutional convention

But for what reason....what purpose???? To eliminate your
constitution. The following file describes what they would
replace it with.

Len

STANDARD DISCLAIMER
================================================================

Article 18315 of talk.politics.guns:
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.guns
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Scudbusters
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug11134057@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Aug12.235016.23628@bony1.bony.com>
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:28:18

In article <1992Aug12.235016.23628@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug11134057@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>   >In article <1992Aug11.011856.26074@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>
>   >>   They would've flown lower and recognized the decoys.  The Americans blew
>   >>   up a lot of decoys.  Israeli air tactics, as demonstrated in the attack 
>   >>   on the Osirak nuclear reactor, are characterized by precision, not 
>   >>   by the sledgehammer approaches regularly utilized by Americans.  While
>   >>   sledgehammers make lots of sparks fly and sure do smash things up,
>   >>   they often miss the point.

...

>   Which is why low-flying, precision bombing as perfected by the Israeli
>   AF would have been effective here.

Remind me, is this the same Israeli AF that executed the infamous
attack against the slow-moving, non-stealthy, and ill-defended USS
Liberty?  A ship the Israelis couldn't identify after hours of recon,
and didn't after three attack waves?  Or so goes the official story...

Seems to me that either the Israelis aren't so hot at identifying and
killing targets after all, or that the Liberty story as told in public
is wrong.  Take your choice.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5688 alt.conspiracy:10090
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Candidates and their women
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:27:59 EDT
Distribution: na

In article <ART.92Aug17100856@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug15.094733.597@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> 
>    In article <1992Aug15.014816.26727@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> [...]
> 
> 	   But I think this misses the main point.  Why has the press had
>    free reign to bludgeon Gary Hart, Clinton and others with stories of
>    their picadillos but seems to just now be coming out of its strait
>    jacket with respect to GHWB?
> 
> Because these is objective proof that Hart and Clinton were fooling
> around.  There is no such evidence in Bush's case.  The putative
> statements of a dead man don't count for much.
> 

Isn't it interesing how some people associated with controversy about
Reagan or Bush are conveniently dead?

-Garrett



Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5617 alt.activism:14828 talk.politics.misc:39717