HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:36:02 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <83575@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
]material contradicts my comments.  You claimed that the SVN people were better
]off under one form of dictatorship than another.  Then you suggested that our
Yes, I did.
]presence there (or one justification for it) was to stop Soviet expansionism.
]In fact, early policy makers wanted to stop Communism in general and felt that
]the Chinese were the local relevant factor, not the Soviet Union.  "Soviet
]expansionism" never became a factor later on in the war.  It was the Chinese
]that were being contained in that area of the world.  US policymakers didn't 
]really understand the nature of the Vietnamese/Chinese rivalry until late in
]the war, nor did they really appreciate the Chinese/Soviet rivalry.  Communism
]was mistakenly taken to be monolithic in nature.  That was the attitude we had
]going into the war.

I think you just answered your own question. At that time, communism
WAS seen to be monolithic, and directed from Moscow. Thus, stopping
communism anywhere was fighting Soviet communism. When the Chinese/Soviet
rift occurred (helped along by Nixon, but inevitable), things changed. 
However, that was very late in the game. Until that time, containing
Chinese expansionism, or containing Soviet expansionism, was essentially
the same thing. Note also that the USSR had more influence in NVN
from the start, and we knew that.

-- 
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
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush, DNC Mole (was Re: Presidential Debates)
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:10:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct1.032604.1061@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>The explanation is obvious: George Bush is a mole for the DNC!
>There is no other logical explanation for someone who has so callously
>disregarded the American's who elected him to office while destroying
>the reputation of the Republican Party.

Actually I thought that Dukakis had offed Bush right after the election
and then put on a disquise.  Consider the two party platforms, which one
has come closer to being enacted.

BTW, it makes sense, has anybody seen Dukakis lately? ;^)

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:24:00 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <01GPA755G24G0017Q5@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:

>> The message you're sending is that you're a bunch of dupes who would
>> line up behind any Pied Piper who throws you a few meaningless slogans
>> that make you feel good -- and are brainless enough to do so even
>> _AFTER_ you've been screwed by him once.

> Not through "beating-up" others I see. This is a pretty harmless way
> to express your contempt, so if you need to flail away, have at it.

"Beating up" whom?  "Flail away" at whom?  You guys come off like a
bunch of morons.  I asked, does Ross listen to the "volunteers" only
on some days, or what?  I didn't get an answer.  Were the "volunteers"
telling him not to get in the race in mid-July, or did he just blow
you guys off?  What's the story here?

> As to having been wronged by Ross, I never felt that way.

You're an idiot.

> was glad he was in the ring for us, and when he'd had enough, I didn't
> expect him to continue to get bludgeoned with their lies.

> I would have been dissappointed [sic] if he hadn't climbed back up in
> the saddle after getting knocked down by the media though.

What has changed between then and now?  And how did the media "knock
him down"?  Or are the media going to be more compliant with Ross's
desires now?  George Bush and Bill Clinton have both been pounded by
the media (and others) for much longer than Ross Perot (particularly
in Bush's case) -- how is it that they haven't been "knocked down"?

Moreover, should Perot win (which he won't), what would he do when he
(inevitably) encounters some difficult crisis situation -- and the
attendant criticism from Congress and the media?  Quit, and say that
he never wanted the job, even Einstein couldn't do it, etc.?  And then
after the crisis abates, is he going to come back and say King's X, he
didn't really mean to quit, the people elected him, now he wants to
come back for the sake of the people?  Hello.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (moral responsibility)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:51:00 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes...
 
>  (STEPHEN TICE) discusses Original Sin:
 
>>|...The people who are responsible for this mess are the ones
>>|who year after year have been calling for bigger government
>>|and porkbarrel spending (definitely not me).   Those are the
>>|people who should pay...
>>
>>
>>Yes they should pay directly. Indirectly, you (and I) are also
>>responsible as well -- we willingly paid taxes which fed the hog.
>>
>>You'll say you had no choice since the law forcibly requires
>>contribution. Fact is, you chose to live in a way that fed the
>>power system
> 
>  What the F**K are you talking about?!  Thake you Thorazine and
>  go sit in the corner!
 
So how about the issue? You've paid taxes willingly. You sign the 
witholding forms or pay the tax check, or the property tax, or 
the sales tax. It's you who supplies the life blood of the system. 
 
Let me make this easy.
 
If a gun is held to your head with the demand that you kill someone
else or die yourself -- are you any less responsible for murdering
someone else?
 
The point is that you still acted somehow, and must take responsi-
bility for that. 
 
>  In the US you go to jail if you don't pay taxes.  
 
In the US you die, if you don't pay protection money.
 
If you do pay, the crook becomes stronger. What moral
choice do you have -- unite and fight, or close down
shop. Then again you could just whine and keep paying,
believing that at some future time it will all work out.
 
>>Your taxes feed the madness
> 
>  Well, you're the expert -- I'm not going to argue with Stephen 
>  Tice on the subject of madness.
 
So discuss the issue of moral responsibility instead.
 
>> And you have to take responsibility, and give responsi-
>>bility when you offer change. Recognizing that as tax-payers
>>*we are responsible*
> 
>  31% federal and 12% state tax is ENOUGH responsibility!
 
Yes. Too much.
 
Literally many thousands of dollars a year, if not 10's
of thousands (depending on your deductions), that you *give*
away for the opportunity of having an income in a high cost 
of living area --- as long as you pay-off the system.
 
You can attack me, and try to distract from the issue,
but the fact remains -- you are responsible. As a taxpayer
you feed the system.
 
-- Stephen
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Who's your math teacher??  (was Re:  Perot Again??)
Date: 25 Sep 92 00:26:26 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <visser.717354989@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
> 	Now, Perot is raising 750 billion dollars over five years to
> close the deficit.  300 bn * 5 = 1500 billion dollars in deficits over
> those years.  To me anyway something just does not add up here. 
> There isn't really enough solid information in the book to understand
> what exactly they are doing to close the deficit.   All sorts of 
> nice "corporate" charts and graphs, but no hard numbers.

  One problem with your math.

  That assumes that the deficit remains 300 bn.

  But let's try this, Lance

  1993  300 bn
  1994  200 bn
  1995  100 bn
  1996   75 bn
  1997   75 bn

  TOTAL:  750 Billion.

  You just believe that the deficit will stay 300 bn no matter what.

						Mike Falkner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Modern vs. Classic Liberalism (was Re: Guns)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:45:30 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep25.223221.21198@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> In article <Bv5J8t.IM1@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Ne writes...
>>In article <1992Sep25.202145.12091@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>>>  The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have a different meaning than they
>>>>did 200 years ago.
>>>
>>>You are 100% right. Which brings us back to the original question that
>>>I put forth: WHY? Why are the liberals abondoning their roots?
>> 
>>  They're not abandoning their roots.   Classical liberalism is not the
>>  root of modern liberalism.  They're just using the word a different 
>>  way.
> 
> [analogy deleted]
> 
> I think your comparison between the Minnesota Vikings and real vikings
> is a poor comparison. For the simple reason that the Minn. vikings di
> not come from Scandinavia.
> 	The modern liberals DID come from the traditional liberals
> though.  (unless you can prove otherwise , I will continue to believe
> this) The Democratic Party did come from Thomas Jefferson (traditional
> liberals). Somewhere along the line we came up with the Democratic Party
> of Ted Kennedy and friends (modern liberals). The question is, what 
> happend in between? And when?

	1) Abraham Lincoln
	2) FDR

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:41:04 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Why don't abortion opponents join together to help get a ban
on something around which a consensus could be contrived: say,
a ban on abortions after the first trimester? I don't know
of many people who are comfortable with the idea of abortion
after fetal viability. Most would back a ban. The current
state of the debate will almost certainly lead nowhere. I imagine
that skillful political maneuvering could manage a comfortable
margin for a ban after the first trimester. I think the moral
posturing around the issues: that people who want access to
legal abortions are evil is counterproductive -- for many reasons.
First, statistics show that women who oppose abortion are almost
as likely to choose to have an abortion as women who do not --
once they are faced with the dilemma of an unwanted or difficult
pregnancy. Second, the fact that there is a debate over abortion
should indicate that it is not just a prima facie question
like murder etc. There is a difference of opinion and it doesn't
serve the unborn to label opponents evil. And third, women
in enormous numbers will continue to have abortions despite
a ban, and a large percentage of them will suffer terribly.
It is not the place of those who oppose abortion to hide
behind self-righteousness and assume that complications from
abortion are God's retribution. None of us have been given a glimpse
of the Divine Will on this. The country is terribly divided
on this issue, but it is not too difficult a prediction to  
imagine that fewer abortions would be performed if the 
country were able to arrive at a consensus on what rights the
unborn have. A polarized debate which only serves the
sense of our peculiar righteousness serves no one.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48873 alt.politics.bush:7365 misc.legal:17920
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:38:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.220128.17284@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell, a.k.a. Ted Frank) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

[Re: the claim that the U.S. has 70% of the world's lawyers]

>> The claim is not new, nor is the figure original to Quayle.  This is
>> something that has been bandied about for years -- though there is
>> certainly quite a bit of controversy about it.

> But the fact is that Quayle continues to repeat the number, long after
> it's been disproved

Disproven by whom?  When?  Where?  Somehow I missed this.

Actually, what usually happens is that either some lawyer or some
liberal who is engaged in attempting to establish the liberal agenda
through the court system will offer alternate figures using a
different definition of "lawyer" and declare the matter settled (as
Mr. Frank does here, only he neglects to include the figures).

Let's see ... Mr. Frank is, what?  A _LAW_ student (if I'm not
mistaken) preparing to be a lawyer.  He wouldn't have a vested
interest in repudiating the above claim, now would he?  Naw ...
couldn't happen.

Actually, the relevant point in this discussion doesn't concern only
the raw numbers of lawyers in this country, but also the numbers of
lawsuits filed.  A more important question is, of all the lawsuits
filed in the world, what percentage of them are filed in U.S. courts?
I don't have any figures for this, but I am willing to lay odds that
the number is pretty high.

> (and the member of his staff who came up with it acknowledged that it
> doesn't have any basis in fact).

Does this staff member have a name?  When and where and to whom was
this "acknowledgement" made?

>> I suppose it must be beyond the mental capacity of morons to deduce
>> that there is probably an alternate explanation as to how the 70%
>> figure was arrived at.

> Yes.  It was made up.

By whom?  Why?  How do you know?  Documentation for this claim, please.

>> Dan Quayle has managed to get elected to the Senate of the United
>> States (no trivial task) -- more than once.  What have you
>> accomplished?

> Well, I've gotten better grades in law school than Dan Quayle did.

So you say.  If you want to prove the point, then please have your
registrar send me a copy of your transcript (with official seal,
please) -- and a comparison your grades with the VP's.

> Now, if only I had a family as rich as his...

However rich Quayle's family might happen to be, he only attended
public schools.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:35:31 GMT

In article <BvnGD7.53p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
    >>Secondly, if all this "Randroid drooling" is so "weak", why,
    >>then, it should be extremely easy for you to post your
    >>refutations.
    >>
    >Look, take some courses in logic. The onus is on the person
    >making the *positive assertion* (that's you) to prove it. If
    >I said "bander- snatch are frumious" (a positive assertion)
    >how would you go about DISproving it? You can't. But that
    >doesn't mean my claim is correct. The responsibility is mine
    >to define "bandersnatch" and "frumious" and describe how I
    >reached my conclusion.
    >
    >Rand's assertions are simply undefined and unsubstantiated
    >claims.

Well, then, per your post, PROVE IT. I have a dictionary of Rand's
terms, and it has 350+ pages in it. And she has at least a dozen
books that substantiate her philosophy.

Next?

    >>Every entity has the right to pursue survival in the way it
    >>has evolved too. A lion has a right to [try to] hunt to live,
    >>a rabbit has the right to try and run away from predators,
    >>and so on.
    >>
    >According to what? Why do you think this is true? This is a
    >good example of the sort of unsubstatiated "thinking" that is
    >at the base of your philosophy.

Pretty dumb, ain't ye?

As I said, and you edited out, that is a moral premise.

Since you don't know what that means, no what it implies, look
it up. Then apologize for your stupidity.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.singles
From: gdg019@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre)
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this Picture....
Organization: Ironpig Arcadia, Coventry, UK
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:37:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.004053.1155@u.washington.edu> skaven@milton.u.washington.edu (William Gilliland) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.204157.18785@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>] varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) opines:
>>] >A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
>>] >consent to sex.
>>] Thanks.  Next time I take a woman to bed, I'll have to remember that.
>>] Parthenogenetically,
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Some how I don't think Ellen Really Understands the
>>True nature of the Discussion....
>I want you to to look up that big long word that Ellen very discretely
>slipped in just before her .sig file.  It, and the context of her post,
>reveal that she is being sarcastic (SAR-kah-stick) and has a far firmer 
>grasp on the conversation than you realized.
>
>As for your idea about there being NO SEX if there isn't any possibility for
>procreation, is someone who gets his/her tubes tied incapable of having SEX?
>What about oral SEX? Why is SEX in all caps, anyway? What if its the wrong 
>time of the month (The Vatican (tm) non-birth-control birth control method) 
>for ovulation (AH-vyoo-lay-shun) to occur? While we're on the subject of
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

		British translation: OH-vyoo-lay-shun.

		Thank you.

Had to be done, sorry.
-- 
        	 **Ridley McIntyre - Ronin Ironpig**			
		     gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk
		 -----------------------------------
     	     "He's in a wibbly-wobbly world of his own."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Polling errors
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.004331.3493@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> adams@liszt.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz) writes:
>In article <Bvns4C.HJz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>The flaw in this has already been explained:  The typical margin of
>>error in a major poll is 3-5%, which is way over the % of the voters
>>who have voted for the L.P. in any presidential campaign, so there's
>>simply no rational reason for any polling company to include them.

>I believe this is an overly simplistic application of statistics.  There are a
>lot of assumptions that go behind calculating the margin of error (typically
>the margin of error corresponds the 95% confidence level in a statistic and
>is computed as 1/sqrt(n) where n is number of people polled).

The distribution of the error due to sampling is approximately normal with
mean 0 and variance pq/n if the sampling is random and the number of
individuals sampled is at all large; for the crude purposes here, if the
expected number of individuals in the class is even as large as 10, this
is not bad.  Now the square root of pq ranges from .4 to .5 as p is between
.2 and .8, so using the worst possible value .5 makes little difference.
For p about .1, the margin of error would be from 1.8 - 3%, and for p about
.01, from .6% to 1%.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48018 sci.environment:11592 talk.environment:3937
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 27 Sep 1992 02:45:34 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep25.200132.12018@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>   Category description                 $/gallon        Annual US subsidy
>                                        of gas          ($billion)
>
>
>2. Property taxes lost from             L  0.30         KK       66.1
>   land cleared for freeways                            V       246

How about property taxes gained from increased property values due to increased
access?

>6. Global warming                                       KK       25
>                                                        MDC   >> 27
>                                                        V        59.9

Since the effects of global warming are far from certain, I wonder where these
numbers came from.  The mere fact that this category showed up casts doubt on
the validity of the rest of the figures.

>8. Trade deficit, infrastructure                        V        59.9
>   deficit

And just what does this one mean?

>9. Sprawl, loss of transportation       L  0.60
>   options

Gee.  I guess that eliminating the most popular transportation option would
improve transportation options, eh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc