HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Date: 27 Dec 92 21:09:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Dec25.044931.5750@samba.oit.unc.edu> Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes:
>>>> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>>>>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>>>>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>>>>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>>
>>One of the things that most people don't think about are the spinoffs produced
>>by the space program as things which were produced in getting us there in the
>>first place.
>
>If there were products which have merit outside of the space program there
>would be motivation to produce them regardless of any space program. This
>notion that if Al Bell had gotten run over by a bus or Marconi had gotten
>struck by lightning, today there wouldn't be telephone or radio is flawed.
>
>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. The
>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.
>
>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 wal

I feel the same way about social programs.

What I'd like to see is referendum vote held on important government funding
issues, after all, it's our money they're spending, so why shouldn't
we all get to vote on how it's going to be spent, rather than let Congress
bicker about it.

But then that would make Congress redundant, and we can't have that :-)
(sarcasm!)


Simon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Welfare vs. Workfare
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:37:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.222319.8702@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <4103@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM writes:

>>>There are a lot of people making a decent living
>>>mooching off of the hard-working Americans, and they're likely going to want
>>>to eliminate anyone who tells them there is no more free pie.

>>Yup. Millionaire cattle ranchers, wheat ranchers, logging company owners, 
>>land developers, corporate CEOs...  Just to name a few.

>>FIRST, wean the rich off the welfare rolls, THEN work on the poor.
>>MUCH more efficient way to go.

>I can't think of any instances where the people you just described are
>receiving welfare.  Some may be cheats, to be sure, but that is not quite what
>I was talking about.  Very few if any rich people are "on the welfare rolls",
>as it were.

>Oh, OK, I get it now!  You suggest that we don't let entrepreneurs keep what
>they stick their necks out for.  They pay the checks, and they take the risks,
>but they shouldn't be allowed to keep the profits if their endeavor is
>successful.  Gotcha.

>Somehow equating Commie-Liberal Pinko Bolshie Socialism with efficiency
>doesn't seem to quite add up.  Rewarding laziness is more efficient than
>punishing it?  Come now!  You must be joking.

>This was a joke, right?

>Right?

Maybe he's talking about
(1) Social Security
(2) Agricultural Subsidies
(3) Import Quotas
(4) Laws which allow those cattle ranchers to graze their cattle on
	public lands at a fraction of actual cost.
(5) Laws which allow developers to mine public lands at a fraction of
	actual cost.
(6) Federally subsidized insurance programs which allow developers to
	build houses on eroding shorelines and not have to worry about
	potential problems, because the government picks up the tab.
(7) Laws which allow CEOs of factories to pollute for free.
(8) Anti-free market/free trade anti-dumping laws.
(9) Ridiculously high amounts of FDIC insurance which allow banks to
	take a lot of risks without worrying about the potential cost.
(10) Tobacco subsidies + government funded and sponsored advertising 
	against the competition.

I'm sure there are plenty of others, but that's a good start.

-- 
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
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:20:40 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) 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 and should be
: >punished as such. Unfortunately, they never will be.
: 
: Here, again, you demonstrate a truly amazing ignorance of the

: Constitution which you seem to feel is so important.  I strongly



Treason is defined as levying war against the US or giving aid and
comfort to her enemies.  Hard to make a case against Cap, but I 
suspect we could probably stretch Ollie North's neck for him.  The
Iranians were our enemies, after all, and he certainly gave aid and
comfort to them.  Of course, you could make the argument that
treason should only be applied during wartime-  maybe we should 
just charge him with espionage, like we did the Rosenbergs, and
be done with it.
Actually, the legal situation surrounding the various scandals
and duplicities of the Reagan/Bush regime has become so complex
that's it's probably impossible to convict anybody of anything;
still it would be nice to see the truth come out.

Bill   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65909 misc.legal:21910
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:35:25 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <1992Dec31.162718.23434@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>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?


Better question:  Bruce, knowning these facts, would you hire D as
your babysitter?

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Me, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 20:13:04 GMT

>> They only way I would be defined as a homosexual would doubtless include you
>> and the rest of the human race as well.  
>> 	Homosexual:  "Anyone who has ever had sex with a same-sex partner."
>> 							Clayton Cramer
(extrapolation resolving this into "anyone who could conceive of having sex
..." deleted by ol' Clay)
>
>There are a number of surveys that show that only a tiny percentage
>of people EVER have sex with a member of the same sex.  See the
>December 3, 1992 _Nature_.  But I don't expect a homosexual to be
>capable of accepting data that interferes with his emotional
>problem.
>
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.

Clay, ya' ol' drag queen!  Thanks for taking my words out of context,
twisting the shit out of them and deciding my sexual orientation for me!  The
rest of you please refer to my previous post.

You also seemed to skip the fact that I'm serious about reducing child 
molestation (which does not seem to be an issue with you, just pointing
blame), don't appreciate your degradation of the issue, and would like to change
this thread to something constructive.  Anyone with anything usefull to
say, please do us all a favour and divert this mess!

happy new year

-chris blask

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: endora@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Ken McCamish)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:18:51 GMT

In article <13722@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <Bzrn5n.rx@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>> 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.
>
>I've already posted, repeatedly, a number of sources that show
>that men molesting boys are somewhere between 20% and 26% of
>child molestation.  That's about 5x the number of homosexuals
>in the population.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
And you think that those men were homosexuals?  No, no, no, my dear.  Most
of them are heterosexuals who get off on kids - no matter what sex.  Those
guys are the ones mentioned in many of the stats people have used in other
posts.  Sigh.  How tiring you have become.  Goodbye.

-Ken Mc.
Ce ne sont pas les idees de Purdue, pas de tout!
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS...) 1 OF 3
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:19:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

|> PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
|> 
|> >...
|> >>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.
|> 
Please provide the net with any source you have of such documentation.  Not
even Bush's State Department could come up with any documentation.  If he had
demonstrated in the U.S.S.R., it would have been big, big news -- then and now.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:51:37 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec22.201100.9106@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> James Meritt writes:
> #Question:  In you opinion, what conclusions may you draw from  
these facts
> #on the validity of the statement "get best qualified for the  
position"
> #posturing, and what is the likelihod that the decisive  
consideration was
> #NOT experience in the appointed position's functions?
> 
> It tells me that Clinton is going to return the Department of  
Energy
> into something useful, as opposed to its purpose for the past 12  
years
> of making the DoD expenditures look cheaper by having the DoE make
> the nukes.
> 

The DOE (or equivalent) has always made the nuclear weapons.
Before the DOE, ERDA did. Before ERDA, the AEC did.  The DOD,
to the best of my knowledge, never did.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:44:00 GMT

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

>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.

Maybe in the fifties. Nowadays, it wouldn't even rate PG.
Time for Christ to come back and update his image for the
new millenia.  "Now what will keep them shocked for another
2000 years," I can hear him asking himself.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: daz@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David A. Z.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:24:04 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

)In article <30DEC199216231034@morgul.carleton.edu.>, lambertn@morgul.carleton.edu. (Alas, my love, you do me wrong...) writes:

>>Many male pedophiles are straight men who abuse young boys simply because it
)>is much easier to get access to boys than to girls [...]
)>So, in many cases it is more a case of wanting sex with children and having
)>one gender be *much* easier to "get a hold of", than it is of being oriented
)>towards that gender in adult relations (many male abusers of boys find the
)>thought of sex with a grown man horrifying because "I'm not GAY, or anything!")

 
        I agree.   I once saw an interview with what they termed a
"high risk sex offender," a man who admits that he can't get within
about 200 yrds of a child without getting very excited.  He said that 
he got excited by "little boy parts because, at that age, they're not
very different than little girl parts."
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Date: 21 Dec 1992 21:08:34 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com
Keywords: Inconsistent, inconsistent, inconsistent

Douglas Meier) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec19.072817.8182@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
|> >Hey, Bob baby--you LOST! Get it through your head: your shot
|> >at the title went down the drain with Bush. You, Kemp, Baker,
|> >and Marilyn are the biggest losers in the entire country,
|> >and you know it (who in the right mind would vote for
|> >yet another corroded old Republican hack in '96?), and
|> >that's why you keep carping this ridiculous "Clinton doesn't
|> >have a mandate" bullsh*t.
|> 
|> They've voted for party hacks before, and they'll do it again.  Hell, they
|> voted for Clinton, who's beginning to show that he's just as capable of
|> making good ol' boy appointments as anyone else.  And Clinton's only true
|> mandate is to make sure his decisions don't piss off enough people that he 
|> gets voted out.  By several accounts, people who voted for Clinton voted 
|> for him because he wasn't Bush and they didn't think Perot or anyone else 
|> had a chance.  The rest of us who didn't want Bush to win and didn't like
|> Clinton either voted Perot or for a fourth party candidate.
|> 
This sounds just like what took place when Bush won.  How come when your
candidates lose it's underhanded and surreptitious, and when your guy
wins, it's just good clean politics.  How about we stop reliving the
last election and start working on the next 4 years.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Stupid Boycott Mentality
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:24:31 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Walter Smith) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> > Though I sympithize with the situation, ignoring the fact that the
|> > majority of voting Coloradans voted for # 2, would be worse.  
|> 
	[much deleted]
|> 
|> > My desire is to convice the people of Colorado that they collectively made
|> > a mistake, and I need to therefore deal with the people of Colorado
|> > collectively.
|> 
|> Wrongo, pal.  Reduce the situation to a more human scale.  You and 2 
|> co-workers are talking about gay rights.  You have your own cube, and
|> the other 2 share one.  One of them says that gays should have no rights; 
|> the other disagrees.  You're going to refuse to talk to the 2nd guy 
|> because of what the first guy says?  Better yet, you're going to try 
|> to hurt the 2nd guy financially, until he can convince the first guy 
|> to change his mind?  

This is a menaingless analogy.  In your example, a gay does not lose rights
just because one person thinks they shouldn't.  I don't boycott opinions,
only actions.  Colorado has not expressed an opionion on gay rights, they
have acted and placed gay's in a position where they do not have the rights
other Americans have.

As to your point of looking at the policies of companies I might deal with,
any business I do with them supports the company, its employees, and the
community as well.  I have no way of finding out how the employees or the
downstream economic community feel.

If the anti-boycotters believe that the motion was carried by a small
percentage of Coloradans, let them get the rest to change it.  I am only
trying to help them do that.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:06:01 GMT

d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
>Gary L Dare (gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: It's all right with me if the Cubans overthrow Castro & Co. if that's
>: what they want to do ... but in general, we don't have a grudge with
>: Cuba, per se, up in Canada.
>
>I meant the US embargo of course, I can buy cuban cigars 10 minutes 
>from where I live.

Yes, I know ... I went out briefly with a young woman from "society" in
New York's posh Upper East Side, and her father apparently gets Cuban
cigars smuggled from Canada through an underground pipeline connected
to one of the finer cigar shops (could be Davidoff's, but I can't say
'cos I'm not a cigar man and wasn't paying close attention ... not at
least to that detail (-; ... besides, I don't want any of Davidoff's
bigshot senior partner lawyer clients on my tail on Monday morning ...).

>truly underlines the fact that it is to please the american cubans 
>that the embargo is still going on. That also prooves that it is
>not for the good of the *poor* cubans that such a policy exists
>but purely for internal political reasons.

>BTW : My sister is going to Cuba, land of all evils, for the holiday 
>and she will be able to tell me more about the desperate plight of
>its inhabitants, imagine... No Mc Donalds :-).

My sister (who is with a major leasing company) was there last spring
and ran into my former Junior Achievement advisor from Xerox Canada's
Winnipeg office (JA is an entrepreneurial extra-curricular education
programme ... I was a snotty brat because I already had a couple of
years under my belt from "working" in our family business) ... Ed was
there to check out some copiers that were re-engineered because they
contained a chip that wasn't cleared by COCOM, and a board had to be
soldered in somewhere to replace it.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: $40M, Walsh, Republicans
Date: 1 Jan 93 07:53:28 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <C03JFH.9yw@boi.hp.com>, smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay) writes:
>$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.

    Typical. Another Democrap who is disgruntled by the fact that taxpayer
    money ($40M) and 6 years was spent without the benefit of being able to
    came up with a shred of evidence that would, in some way, discredit and
    ruin a soon to be former Republican President. Go cry on someone elses
    shoulder...
4 more years. If you liked Carter, you'll LOVE Bill Clinton. :-(
--Paul ;-)

>
>cheers,
>scott smay
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia