HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:41:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec23.155307.9734@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Spike Burkhardt) writes:

|In the paragraph about being beaten in "every phase of the game, from research"
|I would disagree with that.  Take notice of who's doing all the developement
|work for the: space station, gravity probe B, high technology flight, fusion
|reactors, medicines...  I just don't see it coming out of Japan except for
|HDTV.  Perhaps the Japanese are hoping that HDTV will cause R&D scientists
|to become high tech couch potatoes :-))

I wouldn't worry about the Japanese in regards to HDTV either.  The
American system is only a few years behind the Japanese, and it is
vastly superior to it.  The Japanese took an outmoded (analog) technology,
since that is what they were good at, at the time, and ran with it.
The American companies decided to wait a few years for a better
technology (digital).  Which is one thing that we are real good at.

As an aside to your friend who commented that most of the chips in his
PC were made by American companies.  If you add up the cost of the
various chips, the Americans come out ever further ahead.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:06:13 GMT

James Meritt writes:
#Let's give these
#people a choice between going to a resort in Cuba or leaving it all behind,
#taking the affiliated risks, and getting away from Cuba.
#
#What would they choose? Answer:  The plane landed in Maimi yesterday...

Wrong answer. They WEREN'T given a chance to live in the resorts. 

Cuba. A nice place to vacation. But you wouldn't want to live there.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:32:07 GMT

In article <C09FtM.6Ar@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

   Dr. Norman J. LaFave (lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
   : In article <C03q6D.J6y@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
   : mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
   : >Dr. Norman J. LaFave (lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
   : >: In article <C00z4x.8Ln@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
   : >: mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
   : >: >Jay Denebeim P025 (denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca) wrote:
   : >: >: In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com>
   : judy@technology.com
   : >: (Judy 
   : >: >McMillin) writes:
   : >: >
   : >: >NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...
   : >: > 
   : >: >: 1) The space program has always paid for itself by the worth of the
   : >: >:    technologies developed for it.  A very few are:
   : >: >:    a) Microelectronics without which we wouldn't even be talking.
   : >: >
   : >: >AT&T, the PHONE company (as opposed to a space technology company)
   : >: >invented the transistor.  Microelectronics would have happened without
   : >: >the space program.  DEFENSE technology had much more to do with all
   : >: >of the stuff you talk about here and even the space program itself.
   : >: 
   : >: And the space program was intimately involved in the development of the
   : >: integrated circuit. So what is your point?
   : >: 
   : >
   : >NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...
   : 
   : Oh, how so? The statement was made above that AT&T caused the
   : microelectronic evolution and the space program had nothing to do
   : with it. That is fallacious.
   : 

   Read again.  There are two false assertions above:
   1)	Without the space program, there would be no microelectronics
   2)	That anyone made the statement that AT&T caused the microelectronic
	   revolution and the space program had nothing to do with it.

   The assertion 1) was made, and simply proven false.  Without NASA we would
   have microelectronics.

Whether or not we would have had microelectronics without NASA is not at
issue.  The indisputable fact is that it was NASA's willingness to buy
microelectonic components at any price that brought microelectronics into
the consumer market place.  This is amply documented.  For openers I
suggest you look at "The Chip" by T.R. Reid.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Followup-To: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
Summary: More info  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:00:04 GMT

In article <Bzo279.JFC@unix.amherst.edu>, pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)    writes...
>David Veal (PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu) wrote:
>: In article <BzM8u5.JM3@unix.amherst.edu>
>: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>: >Jyrki Kuoppala (jkp@cs.HUT.FI) wrote:
>: >: I hear reports of a war being declared and fought in USA - a war
>: >: against "drugs", with the Bill of Rights being the major casualty.
>: >:
>: >Bullshit.  The Bill of Rights is alive and well.
>: 
>:         No, the Bill of Rights is dead and buried.  There are wisps of the
>: first still hanging around for, I would guess, sentimental value, but the
>: second through the tenth are, for all practical purposes, gone completely.
> 
>Then why are conservatives still screaming tha the police had be handicapped
>by it?

Becuase the conservatives are appealing to people that are scared. Scared of
other people, scared of the future, just plain scared.

> The only one I know that could be questioned is the interpretation
>of the due process clause.  Everything else is doing fine in my neighborhood.

You probably live in a nice neighborhood (as most people in this net do).
The fact is that the Second Amendment is no longer a right, it's a priviledge.
The Fourth Amendment is in it's dying throws (Thank the "John Doe" court
orders for that. And, of course, civil forfieture laws.)
Civil Forfeiture laws also take a big chunk out of the Sixth Amendment as
well (with the state bankrupting the defendent before the trial).
And the Tenth Amendment has long since been dead (the right of privacy,
and all).
	And let's not forget Habius Corpus, which is in the actual
text of the Constitution. That's pretty much dead.
> 
-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: DARE (Was: What is United States of America like?)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Dec22.211358.5768@pony.Ingres.COM>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:31:55 GMT

<In article <1992Dec22.211358.5768@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING) writes:
<   In article <BzM8u5.JM3@unix.amherst.edu>, pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)    writes...
<   >Jyrki Kuoppala (jkp@cs.HUT.FI) wrote:
<   >: I hear reports of kids trained to inform to the officials about their
<   >: parents.
<   > 
<   >That's plan silly.

<   No it's not. What do you think having classes for children too young to
<   think for themselves, and teaching them to fink on their parents is called?
 

	D.A.R.E., perhaps?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lion@netcom.com (carl loeber)
Subject: place for immigration policy discussion ??
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 10:21:24 GMT

 Is this a group in which to discuss public policy dealing
with the issue of immigration?  Any other possibilities which you know?
I thought there might be something sci.  like populations or 
demography. but haven't found one.

Pls copy Email to me.

Thanks
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:29:17 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
: 
: I disagree.  National security was as stake here, to some degree.
: Certainly those involved thought so.  I don't think Weinberger
: refused to tell all to Congress for personal reasons, but
: because he felt that national security was involved. We may
: disagree with whether it really was in this case, but I think
: Weinberger certainly thought so.
: 
: --
: Jim Mann    

Again, I must ask- what national security?  The Iranians certainly
knew that we were selling them weapons, and the Contras knew we
were arming them, and the Sandanistas knew we were arming the 
Contras, and the Soviets most likely knew about the whole damn
thing.  The only ones in the dark were the American people;
you're right- the boys were not (necessarily) in this for  
personal gain.  They were trying to advance a foreign policy 
which they though was right, but of which they knew the vast 
majority of US citizens would not approve.  That is why it was 
kept secret.

Bill

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Democrat Wars? (was Re: Democrat == Loony Left???)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:11:26 GMT

:       Just about every Republican since WWII has considered these
: wars to be worthy causes, indeed very noble ones. Just consider Nixon
: on continuing the Vietnam War before he decided on the "declare
: victory and quit" solution of "Vietnamization". And consider what
: Reagan thought of the war. He didn't say how awful it was of the
: Democrats to get us involved in it. He called it a "noble cause", as
: if that was somehow irrelevant.

Let's go ahead and rewrite history, It will be fun!

Republican D. MacAuthor *begged* LBJ on his deadbed *NOT* to send American
ground forces into Vietnam. The Republican objection to Vietnam is that
the Democrates WOULD NOT WIN IT they (Democrates) just sent more and more
American kids overthere to get killed. Then when Republican Nixon finally
DID WIN IT. The Democrates REFUSED to allow Nixson to enforce the Paris
Accords. (Bomb N. Vietnam). 

Also Truman practically invited N. Korea to invade S. Korea. The Chinesse
troops which reversed allied victories where "freed" for action when
Truman ordered the Seventh Fleet to protect the Chinesse main land from
Chiang Kai-shek. Thank God  F.D. Roosevelt was President during WW2 and
not Truman. 

jim shirreffs


 
Better wait a little longer if you want to rewrite history, there are 
still a few of us around that remember personally how things really
went down.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Summary: 11th Amendment  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:15:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.163530.15699@mtek.com>, bud@mtek.com                                 writes...
>zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller) writes:
>So the answer to your question is:
> 
>Because the treaty provision giving the U.S. the right to protect its
>interests in the Canal -- by military force, if necessary -- did not
>contemplate or provide for threats launched against it by a dictator
>who had seized -- by military force, where necessary -- control of
>the Panamanian government *itself*, with whom the treaty was signed.
>Noriega was not tried on the basis of a treaty violation, since none
>had occurred. 
>That Noriega had engaged in drug trafficking, though de facto "head
>of state" (but only by de jure contravention of recent elections),
>was cause for prosecution by the USG. And a charge subsequently con-
>firmed in court to the satisfaction of most disinterested observers).
>
He was tried under OUR laws. Don't you think it's a little bit wrong
to kidnap someone to OUR country and try them under OUR laws when they 
aern't a citizen of OUR country and don't want to be in OUR country?
Check the 11th Amendment.

>Though it may seem a bit far-fetched, in this instance the press got
>it right. Proving, I suppose, that even a pig has *some* good days.

The press was so strongly controlled that we may never know the
whole story. For instance, did you know that in the early hours of
the invasion we surrounded a poor neighborhood of Panama City and
leveled it without ever alerting the inhabitants beforehand?
>-- 
>bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:06:35 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <C03KAA.2zG@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>>>If homosexual sex is not wrong then it should have the same moral
>>>standing as heterosexual sex, then what? Group sex, sex with animals
>>>sex with dead people, sex with children, etc. If you are going to break
>>
>>    Grouping gay sex with these things is a very old tactic.  Don't do it.
>>It makes you look dumb.
>	I didn't think that the grouping was fair to the gay community
>	but my knowlegde of gays is slight, left over from childhood,
>	I'll withdraw all but the group sex. If I'm wrong I'm sure you
>	will correct me.

    I see nothing wrong with any consensual activity.  Sex with animals and
children is not consensual IMHO.  I can't imagine what objection you could
have to other people doing group sex...it really is none of your business.


>It is my understanding that gays are not persecuted in this country,
>the only institutional barrior that I know of the is ban in the military.
>Am I wrong? 

    Marriage, automatic inheritance for spouses...the list boggles the
rational mind.  And if you don't think that gays are persecuted in this
country, you are wantonly blinding yourself.  Gay-bashing and other hate
crimes are daily occurrences.


>What is an Xian?

    Xmas...Xian...get it?

>How about a little open mindedness for my beliefs? I am not
>afraid to admit I'm wrong, I do it all the time :( but I will not
>be hammered into submision. Address my concerns in an intelligent
>manner and you just might make a friend out of me.

    You and your beliefs are fine with me, as long as they don't impinge on
my rights.  Grant gays the same legal and societal support that you take
for granted and you just might stop alienating gay people.

> What you are asking me to do is to place on the same moral
>plan any two people that declar themselves a couple as I would a married
>heterosexual couple. I have a problem with that.

    Yes, I am.  Sorry to hear it.  If two people want to declare themselves
a couple, with the committments, etc. usually associated with such a thing,
it is none of your business.  And it certainly does not compare to tax
cheating and the other societal wrongs you cited and I deleted, since it
harms no one.  You aren't affected...you just don't like it.  

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65327 soc.motss:53756 alt.sex:40234
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:48:06 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA

In article <1992Dec23.172153.27129@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>************************************
>
>I had e-mailed Clay asking for the motivation behind his ongoing diatribe, and
>he responded that he can't answer "...every emotional distrubed homosexual...".

Sounds like you got your answer.  Clayton Cramers come and go on the net.
There have been others before him and there will be others to follow.
Their pattern is typical.  They start off with an "intellectual"
disapproval of homosexuality.  They dig up pseudo-statistics and act
as if these are the reasons for their anti-homosexual sensibility.
When no one buys into their load of crap and suggests that their
homophobia has deeper roots, they are reduced to the type of deranged, 
ranting posts that Clayton has been making lately.  Things like "All 
homosexuals blah blah blah" or "Only a homosexual blah blah blah".  
This can take a year or two.  Try to recall Clayton's posts from a 
year ago and compare them to his latest offerings.  It's like night
and day.   He has created his own nemesis which is his hallucination 
of some homosexual monster that doesn't actually exist.  Like the 
Frankenstein monster, it is a composite of different parts sewn together.  
In this case the parts consist of every evil quality ever observed in an 
individual who happens to be (or is believed to be) homosexual.  It's
not hard to see how this can make one so obsessed.

It's rather difficult to take it personally when someone like Clayton
calls us emotionally disturbed.  Just drop a quarter in his little
tin cup and wish him a better life someday.  In time, another
young buck will come along ready to take on the evil homosexual monster.
Armed with the same old ammunition that is only capable wounding one's 
own appendages, he'll wonder why he can't slay the imaginary monster.
-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |    
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  Too bad ignorance isn't really
                                     |  bliss.  Then it could be outlawed.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:07:41 GMT

Sir,

By changing the default condition, the Communiterian Society has
*asserted* that society has the more just claim on my giblets than *I* do. 

It will be I who has to make a special effort to keep my giblets in my
cold dead corpse.  

Also, with the default in favor of the ghouls and the cannabals if one
forgets to keep his organs they go to others.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 26 Dec 92 12:44:44 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <cubsfan.725313723@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:

> Far from being patriots, the men Bush pardoned (like Weinberger)
> are *traitors* to the United States of America

Why is Weinberger a "traitor"?  By all accounts, he had opposed the
so-called Iran-Contra arms deal.

> and should be punished as such.  Unfortunately, they never will be.

Actually, the crime of "treason" is quite well defined.  Just what is
it that Weinberger did that makes him a traitor?  Or are you just an
airhead who is congenial to the idea that those who have policy
differences with some influential self-appointed elite should be
treated as criminals (at least in cases where you happen to disagree
with their basic ideology)?
-- 
The 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,alt.activism
From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:40:57 GMT

In article <ARCHER.564.725725394@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.121703.12761@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
>>Can you touch a quark?  Have you actually SEEN a black hole?  No, but we
>>know these things exist because of the effects they have on other
>>visible bodies.  
>
>Umm... No, we don't.  They are theoretical constructs that fit the 
>observable characteristics of "something out there."  New evidence may 
>surface to indicate that there is no such thing as a quark or a black hole.
>
>>Society is much the same.  It is not just a collection
>>of individuals because that simply begs the question where did these
>>individuals come from?  I ask again, did you spring from the womb a
>>fully formed individual repleat with inalianable rights, or were you
>>made by society?
>
>And I will tell you again, that they came from the individuals around them.

And where did these individuals come from?

>
>>
>>Libertarianism has always seemed absurd to me because it is completely
>>blind to the nature of the individual.  It is a GIVEN that all people
>>are individuals in exactly the same way, something which social
>>anthropology and sociology have shown again and again to be a spurious
>>assumption.
>
>Please clarify, I don't follow you.
>
>Funny, communism has always seemed absurd to me, for the same reason:  it is 
>blind to the nature of the individual.

RIGHT!  You get 1/2 of the picture, now put the whole thing together.
Communism is the other side of the Libertarian coin.  Both sides deny
the others existance because they are UNABLE to see beyond the
boundaries of their own philosophy.  It is a dialectic requiring both
players: individuals and society.

>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

	-Phil
-- 
PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229
 University of    /     OS/2 is irrelevant.      \          (f) 804.243.0290
 Virginia,        \     UNIX is irrelevant.      /        prs9k@Virginia.EDU
 Neurosurgery     /     Openness is futile.      \     prs9k@Virginia.BITNET
 HP-UX is my life!\ Prepare to be assimilated... /   ...uunet!virginia!prs9k

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc