HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
X-Xxdate: Mon, 11 Jan 93 08:52:07 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:55:54 GMT

In article <C0KHCB.CoE@dscomsa.desy.de> Phill Hallam-Baker,
hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|>NASA may not but the DC program, funded by SDI and using NASA's
>|>NASP technology, will sooner than you think. You are not very
knowledgable
>|>about the state of the art in aerospace. I suggest you do some reading
>|>before you back yourself further in the corner.
>
>SDI is a con, a good excuse to get lots of tax dollars for pork barrel
projects,
>nothing more. Whatever technology is thrown at SDI can also be thrown at
evasion
>tactics. SDI would stand almost no chance against even existing
technology like
>Chevalene.
>
>Don't waste money on an obvious pork barrel with no hope of a spinoff -
military
>projects have negative spinoff value since they are secret and often
obstruct
>civilian work. If you want better drugs or whatever invest in basic
science or
>directly in applications. Spinoffs in the applications end of things
tend to be
>rare though so if you want a cure for cancer don't put the money in SDI.
On the
>other hand if you put cash in basic work you may strike lucky and get
some
>spinoffs.

You missed the point.

I am vehemently opposed to SDI as a total program. However, this one
project,
the Single-Stage-to-Orbit program, is an excellent technology  that just
happens
to be funded by SDI at present. This project is not spin-off producing,
it is
direct technology producing---it is capability producing. To say that no
military projects ever produce spin-offs or commercial technology is just
flat wrong. The military played a crucial role in microelectronic weight
reduction
and clock-speed increases as well as advances in control systems.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:02:44 GMT

In article <13867@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In <1993Jan7.184341.24169@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan7.140514.9595@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

># #In the Newsweek issue after the election special issue, one writer said
># #that it was no wonder Clinton was elected - the media elected him.

># The same media, no doubt, that published story after story about his
># "character problems" and unelectability during the primary season.
 
>Because he wasn't far enough left for them.
 
Which explains why the *real* leftist Democrats, Brown and Agran, were
treated so fairly and seriously by the news media.

Anyway, we now have the claim that, despite the fact that the media was
unable to defeat Clinton in the primaries, it somehow managed to defeat
Bush in the general election.  This is getting sillier and sillier.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:55:29 GMT

In article <robc.16.0@wicat> robc@wicat (Rob Carlson) writes:
>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
: The crux of the matter is "freely contract". If there is only one employer in an
: area and the only alternative to taking employment from them is to starve then
: does that consititute a contract "freely entered into". 
>
>	If this situation was plausible, I might agree with you. But it 
>is impossible in all but one circumstance.

	Counterexamples coming up...

>	How could there be only one employer in the area? Every person in 
>the area is potentially an employer. They all need certain services and will 
>hire others to do them. Companies don't grow on trees, they are created when 
>a person is willing to pay another person for some good or service. You are 
>always free to start your own company.

	OK, let's see you:

	Start your own airline. You must buy airplanes, hire a lot of
pilots and flight attendants and reservations staff and buy space at
airports to park your planes. You must also print or contract out the
printing of airline schedules, among numerous other things. And what
if the other airline companies don't want your competition...

	Start your own resort. You must buy land, and buy land at a
good resort spot (Hint: in the middle of the desert or on the top of a
mountain is not a good place). You must build the hotels and other
facilities, as well as roads and parking facilities, or perhaps even
an extension of a rail-transit line if you plan a spot close to a city
with a rail-transit system (sort-of example: the National Park Service
financed the construction of a Washington Metro station at Arlington
Cemetery).

	These examples can readily be multiplied; I have to question
the seriousness of anyone who claims it's simple to start a business,
especially a big one.

>	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
>force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
>that employer and cannot form any business of your own.

	Or when other companies lock you out, for example.

	Ultra-capitalist romanticism has a certain entertainment
value, I must concede.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67049 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12179 alt.rush-limbaugh:13551 alt.politics.bush:15786
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Date: 11 Jan 93 06:53:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan6.210636.18440@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Mike said that there were less than 40,000 bombs.  You show that there 
>are more than 40,000 warheads.  Have you ever heard of MIRVS?  You know, 
>where they put up to 16 warheads on each missle?
>
>Ted

If there are more than 46,300 nuclear warheads, but less than 40,000 atomic 
bombs, does that mean a sizeable number of nuclear warheads contain something 
other than atom bombs?  Really really big rocks, for example?

Note that MIRVs do not change the number of bombs and/or warheads,
just the number of delivery vehicles. Further note that nobody
was talking about delivery vehicles.  This is not germaine to the
discussion.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:45:05 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan6.031006.2712@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <Ti3wwB1w165w@surfcty.com> rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
>>mike@gordian.com writes:
>    >Of course; I do not deny that heterosexuals as well as
>    >homosexuals engaged in very promiscuous sex during the
>    >1970's. However, as Randy Shilts pointed out in his excellent
>    >book, {And The Band Played On}, with gays, promiscuity became
>    >part and parcel of gayness. 
>
>Worse yet -- unsage sex became part of the homosexual politicization of sex.
>

I beleive you mean 'unsafe' and this is not true.  Unsafe sex is a recent
term because of the discovery of an pandemic condition of a sexual disease.

Every heterosexual couple that uses no protection (ie. want a baby) are having
unsafe sex according to current philosophy, unless they know with all certainty
that they are both free of any STD's.

>As Randy Shilts also points out - "Gay men made up about 80% of the 70,000
>patient visits to [SF} VD clinics. ... and the [VD] clinic was considered
>an easy place to pick up both a shot and a date".
>

Well keep in mind that many men may just be tested for STD's it does not
mean they had anything.

And in SF there is a large population of gay people.  So what?  Many straights
are probably to proud and to dumb to go to a clinic.  So where is the data
showing how many people went to hospitals or private clinics to be tested or
treated for STD's?

>
>And homosexuals wonder why most of public "doesn't like them".
>

Yes and most of it due to fragmented reporting and using bits and pieces of
stories to make their point.

We are in a time when safe sex is a buzz word, and should be heeded.  We are
therefore in a time when the press will pounce and denounce anything they
can find out about anyone who does not practice safe sex.  SF is a microcosm
of gay people- there are many gay people who preach and practice safe sex.
There are many straights who do not.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:19:27 GMT

In article <ZoqVwB1w165w@surfcty.com>, rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
> Question: what is included in talking ill of homosexuality?  I personally
> have no problem with gay sex -- the act, that is.  Short of murder in
> the form of a duel, consenting adults should have the right to do 
> anything they want to, so long as it infringes on no one elses rights or
> property.

  How libertarian of you :-) Why the qualifier on "the act" though?

>  But am I allowed to say that gay political aims still seem,
> at least from some quarters, to focus on a return to a latexified 1970's
> where homosexuality = multiple partners with the added twist of a 
> barrier?  This is what I see in things like the "Guide to Safe-r Sex" 
> that has widely circulated on the Internet.

  I think that what is missing here is that this was not just a gay
phenomenon in the 70's -- it was widespread throughout heterosexual
society as well. Trying to imply that promiscuity was/is a gay quirk
does not acknowledge the wider context within which this was set. 
Remember _Saturday Night Fever_?
  Also, I'm not certain why you qualify disseminating safer sex
information as some sort of promotion of promiscuity, nor as
particularily "political" for that matter. Acknowledging the
reality of living in the age of AIDS is not tantamount to
promotion of promiscuity any more then acknowledging that
a car accelerator can allow you do 100 on the freeway. 
  Facts are facts, use them at your peril.  

> Now, clearly not all gays are of these opinions.  But the fact that such
> misinformation continues to spread worries me; it looks like nobody has
> learned much.

  And mostly the heterosexual set. Sigh

PS: Surfcity is in HB not Orange, Dude. Worse, it's east of I-5 where
    there is no life...
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:47:37 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>
>>...I think being left-handed is a more appropriate analogy.
>>It is obviously deviant by *your* definition.  Do we lock up lefties and
>>deny them basic rights?
>
>	Unlike homosexuality, left-handedness does not affect interpersonal;
>	interaction.

This is getting silly.  People keep asking you to explain what it is
about gays that might justify society's intolerance.  (Yes, I realize
your position is not that you agree with society, but that society is
entitled to its belief.)

You keep changing the answer.  First it's because society always tries
to cure "deviants."  Now it's only deviants whose deviations affect
"interpersonal interaction."

Plenty of left-handed people get in the way of right-handed people more
often than many gays get in the way of straight people.  When you knock
elbows with people at dinner, or when a friend doesn't have a pair of
right-handed scissors for you to borrow, that isn't interpersonal
interaction?

If not, then please make one more try at defining what you mean.  Keep
in mind that many people have gay acquaintances but don't know it, and
that many gays have lived for many years without anyone but their
friends knowing.

I think what you're trying to say is "gay people are offensive to many
people."  To which I (and others) will say, "Jews are offensive to many
people, is it OK to try to cure them of their Jewishness"?  To which you
will say, "more people are offended by gays than by Jews."  To which we
will say, "that doesn't make any difference, in a moral question like
this one."  To which you will say, "I'm speaking of society as a whole."

To which I will say, "oh, this is the most absurdly morally-relative
claptrap I've ever heard, and there's nothing important being said.
Either make a meaningful statement (and 'a society has a right to do
whatever it does' is not meaningful) or get off the soapbox and let
someone else have a turn."
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "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."     - Clayton E. Cramer, three days after Christmas, 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: AT&T Looney Bin
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:59:08 GMT

From article <1993Jan1.081548.36134@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, by pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER):
>>
>    Why should gays have special rights? I could care less what they do in the
>    PRIVACY of their own homes, I just don't want to see or hear about it. In a

	So, who's advocating SPECIAL rights?  The point is to allow 
homosexuals the ability to employ the full spectrum of rights that we
heterosexuals enjoy.  

>    recent post, it was suggested that homosexuality is genetic. I think it is.
>    I think it is a genetic defect of the hormonal sex drive in the brain. If
>    it was a "decent" thing to do, the Bible would not characterize the act as

	Many people in this country couldn't care less as to what the
bible says is "decent".  Besides, our country's guiding document is the
Constitution, not the bible.

>    "unGodlike" and "unholy acts", etc., etc. Why should gays have rights made
>    just for them? None are made for me. For instance; a hetero couple want to
>    spend a romantic interlude under the stars and the police catch them. The
>    charges in Pa would be 1 public lewdness 2 indecent exposure 3 disorderly
>    conduct. I should know...  So what, they want the right to legally marry,
>    adopt kids, etc., etc?

	How do you fucking under the stars with the right to marry, adopt 
kids, etc, etc?

>    adopt kids, etc., etc? What will be next? The right to do what I was cited
>    for? What?

	What will be next?  How about if everyone treats everyone else as
they would like to be treated?  How about if everyone realized that we would
all be better off if people would give up on controlling how other people
conduct their lives?  

>    I think homosequality is wrong. Wrong and disgusting. If you disagree, too
>    bad. I won't respond to immature comments from the liberal parade who think
>    that I'm a bigot, basher, whatever.

	In other words, "I won't deal with anyone who has a different
perspective.  God knows, they might be right and I'd have to change
my world-view."  Will any comment directed to you that doesn't agree with
you be treated as anything other than "immature comments from the 
liberal parade who think that I'm a bigot, basher, whatever?  Does this
liberal who missed the parade (I wish someone had told me about the
parade; it's not too big of a loss though, the marching bands are never
playing when they go by us) think you're a bigot or a basher?  No, I
think you're simply wrong.
 
terry
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:38:20 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Man of the Year (was Re: Is the media liberal-biased)
 <randall.726535889@seashore> <43359@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
 <1993Jan12.044846.122@cis.ohio-state.edu> <visser.726823495@convex.convex.com>

In article <visser.726823495@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance
Visser) says:

>        I stopped believing in ABC as an unbiased source when they had
>Ted Koppel read the ROTC letter on niteline in its entirty.  I could
>have seen quoting parts of the letter on television, but doing the
>whole thing it looked like they were flat-out trying to help him.

Think about what you're saying. You don't think the media should give us all
the information and let us decide? You think the media should instead
selectively quote, to give the impression *they* want us to have?
I thought that was everything you crusaders were fighting AGAINST. I
suppose biased media is OK when it favors the "correct" side, ne?

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

Think locally, act globally.               Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:00:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1hvjtuINNc8n@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com
(Mike Polen) wrote:
> 
> Bruce Hayden) writes:
> |> Tom Mayer) writes:
> |> 
> |> >>I don't understand how you can be exonerated from a crime, and
> |> >>yet you can be factually guilty. The judicial determination of
> |> >>the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
> |> >>say that he was guilty anyway. 
> |> >>
> |> I don't think you understand then what a reversal and/or a remand means.
> |> It means that his guilty verdict was overturned. In American jurisprudence
> |> you are innocent until proven guilty. He is technically innocent. Period.
> |> 
> True, but I started this thread with the statement he was a criminal, not that
> he wasn't technically innocent.  I stand by my statement.  If you believe that
> only the innocent are found innocent, then you live in a bigger dream world
> than I can comprehend.

Just one little point to add here: there is no such thing as a finding of
"innocent."  There is only a finding of "guilty" or of "not guilty" --
where the word "guilty" is used in the purely legal sense, ignoring the
obvious possibility that a person may commit a crime and yet not be
convicted.

Moreover, if I remember correctly Oliver North was not even found "not
guilty."  Rather, the case against him was dismissed.  In other words, the
court decided that it had *nothing to say* about North's legal guilt or
lack of it.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: robc@wicat (Rob Carlson)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Organization: Jostens Learning Corp
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:36:00 GMT

In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>The crux of the matter is "freely contract". If there is only one employer in an
>area and the only alternative to taking employment from them is to starve then
>does that consititute a contract "freely entered into". 

	If this situation was plausible, I might agree with you. But it 
is impossible in all but one circumstance.

	How could there be only one employer in the area? Every person in 
the area is potentially an employer. They all need certain services and will 
hire others to do them. Companies don't grow on trees, they are created when 
a person is willing to pay another person for some good or service. You are 
always free to start your own company.

	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
that employer and cannot form any business of your own.

Rob Carlson



>
>With the collapse of Reaganite ecconomics the Libertarians have retreated into
>the same hole that the Trotts did after they discovered that Stalin was a mass
>murderer. The system failed they conclude, because it was never properly tried.
>Practical politics excludes any policy that does not produce proportional
>benefits. The Free-Market ideology of Regan/Bush plunged the country into an
>ecconomic failure unparalleled since the last time deregulation was tried in the
>twenties. On this basis the New-Right Libs need a hefty dose of new thinking.
>
>--
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker
	
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The less government the better?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:06:41 GMT

In article <C0pzrA.L6s@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.020844.10428@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: 	But if there are things that government is to do, then
: _specify_ them, rather than to indulge in mindless government-bashing.

>A reasonable person would expect that it would be those who defend the
>actions of the federal government to justify its existence. Those who
>see its flaws, and the opportunities afforded by decentralization and
>privatization have no interest in setting theoretical limits.

	You seem to have some great grudge against our Government.

	Do you _seriously_ wish it to be abolished so that the the
good ol' U.S. of A. is broken up into 50-odd separate nations?

	That _might_ be possible with a self-destruction
Constitutional amendment.

	But in the absence of the Federal Government, how will all
these 50 nations cooperate? It seems that soon some bigger-than-state
government will be reinvented.

>It may well be the case that, in a post-cold war world, the federal
>government is obsolete. But that is a highly speculative, and academic
>question far removed from the immediate issues at hand. When the federal
>government exceeds even its own constitutional powers, what point is there
>in debating its existence?

	Well, I've read our Constitution and it's a lot more than
one-liners about the less government the better. Quite a number of
powers are specified, and not just military stuff.

: 	That is because unqualified government-bashing sounds like
: "I'd like to get rid of government once and for all".

>To which the defenders of the federal government reply...?

>If you think that the federal government does something which could not be
>done better by the states, cities, or, more particularly, by private
>institutsions, why don't you provide us with a list and let us have a crack
>at it?

	A big entity like the Federal Government has an easier time
dealing with big corporations, for instance, than a lot of small ones,
which is what you seem to want. Would you like some unscrupulous
robber-baron management to come to power and price-gouge and
empire-build with impunity, because there is nothing else strong
enough to challenge it?

>Or are you afraid that the existence of the federal government is
>indefensible?

	And if you are serious about your stance, then will you
introduce a Constitutional amendment to make it self-destruct?

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66789 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12000