Chink-mobiles coming to america

In article . com>, wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> Quite a bit went out the door during the clinton admin. Both parties are
>> guilty.
>
> Hmmm. Not according to the actual record. More nuclear secrets in the
> Clinton Administration were *increased* in security classification than
> were declassified.

I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are doing.
Nuclear secrets aren't the only thing going to china. Under Clinton the
big technology transfers were guidence systems, high altitude atmospheric
research, radiation hardened electronics, and dual use technology such as
being able to launch multiple payloads (or warheads) from the same
rocket (or missile).

China could have all the nukes it can build but if it can't hit the
target it really doesn't count for much. Under Reagan and Bush 1 it
appears they got better nuke ability. Under Clinton the ability to deliver
them to the target and have their weapon systems survive a counter
strike. Under Clinton and the Bushes they gained economic advantages and
who knows what's going out the door under Bush jr.

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>,
wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> Quite a bit went out the door during the clinton admin. Both
parties are
> >> guilty.
> >
> > Hmmm. Not according to the actual record. More nuclear secrets in
the
> > Clinton Administration were *increased* in security classification
than
> > were declassified. A sizable percentage of those that the
scientists
> > (not politicians) had recommended to the Clinton admin for
> > de-classification -- about 30% -- were nevertheless rejected and
> > retained classified, and even a large number of the ones that
Clinton
> > agreed with the scientific community to declassify were
nevertheless
> > left unreleased.
> >
> > The actual espionage that was thought to have given the Chinese the
> > multiple-targeting capability from a single missile occurred on
> > Reagan's watch.
> >
> > Not that this demonizes Reagan. Not at all. If there was lax
security
> > in the 1980s that allowed it, perhaps Reagan should be blamed. But
it
> > wasn't suspected until 1995 and Clinton was informed of it in 1997.
> > Espionage occurs at all times. But the notion of Clinton or even
both
> > parties "selling" nuclear secrets is bogus.
>
> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
doing.

I'm not. I believe you are.

> Nuclear secrets aren't the only thing going to china.

That's what the discussion was, and to which I replied. It wasn't as
dire as the politicians, for whatever their political reasons, made it
seem to be.

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>,
wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> Quite a bit went out the door during the clinton admin. Both
parties are
> >> guilty.
> >
> > Hmmm. Not according to the actual record. More nuclear secrets in
the
> > Clinton Administration were *increased* in security classification
than
> > were declassified. A sizable percentage of those that the
scientists
> > (not politicians) had recommended to the Clinton admin for
> > de-classification -- about 30% -- were nevertheless rejected and
> > retained classified, and even a large number of the ones that
Clinton
> > agreed with the scientific community to declassify were
nevertheless
> > left unreleased.
> >
> > The actual espionage that was thought to have given the Chinese the
> > multiple-targeting capability from a single missile occurred on
> > Reagan's watch.
> >
> > Not that this demonizes Reagan. Not at all. If there was lax
security
> > in the 1980s that allowed it, perhaps Reagan should be blamed. But
it
> > wasn't suspected until 1995 and Clinton was informed of it in 1997.
> > Espionage occurs at all times. But the notion of Clinton or even
both
> > parties "selling" nuclear secrets is bogus.
>
> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
doing.

I'm not. I believe you are.

> Nuclear secrets aren't the only thing going to china.

That's what the discussion was, and to which I replied. It wasn't as
dire as the politicians, for whatever their political reasons, made it
seem to be.

In article . com>, wrote:
>> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
>> doing.

> I'm not. I believe you are.

How exactly is saying 'both parties are guilty' limiting the scope?

>> Nuclear secrets aren't the only thing going to china.

> That's what the discussion was, and to which I replied. It wasn't as
> dire as the politicians, for whatever their political reasons, made it
> seem to be.

Um no it wasn't so restricted.

In article . com>, wrote:
>> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
>> doing.

> I'm not. I believe you are.

How exactly is saying 'both parties are guilty' limiting the scope?

>> Nuclear secrets aren't the only thing going to china.

> That's what the discussion was, and to which I replied. It wasn't as
> dire as the politicians, for whatever their political reasons, made it
> seem to be.

Um no it wasn't so restricted.

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>,
wrote:
> >> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
> >> doing.
>
> > I'm not. I believe you are.
>
> How exactly is saying 'both parties are guilty' limiting the scope?

My reference was to "creating a false impression," not to "limiting the
scope." You accused me of creating a false impression and I take great
exception to that. The hysteria that was ginned up over this episode,
IMO, was in no way backed up by the actual facts.

> >> Nuclear secrets aren't the only thing going to china.
>
> > That's what the discussion was, and to which I replied. It wasn't
as
> > dire as the politicians, for whatever their political reasons, made
it
> > seem to be.
>
> Um no it wasn't so restricted.

Um yes it was. Here's the post to which I replied:

"And hear [sic] I thought it was clinton who sold all the nuclear
secrets to
the chinese. Then again, liberal revisionist history does that to
people."

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>,
wrote:
> >> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
> >> doing.
>
> > I'm not. I believe you are.
>
> How exactly is saying 'both parties are guilty' limiting the scope?

My reference was to "creating a false impression," not to "limiting the
scope." You accused me of creating a false impression and I take great
exception to that. The hysteria that was ginned up over this episode,
IMO, was in no way backed up by the actual facts.

> >> Nuclear secrets aren't the only thing going to china.
>
> > That's what the discussion was, and to which I replied. It wasn't
as
> > dire as the politicians, for whatever their political reasons, made
it
> > seem to be.
>
> Um no it wasn't so restricted.

Um yes it was. Here's the post to which I replied:

"And hear [sic] I thought it was clinton who sold all the nuclear
secrets to
the chinese. Then again, liberal revisionist history does that to
people."

In article .com>, wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>> >> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
>> >> doing.
>>
>> > I'm not. I believe you are.
>>
>> How exactly is saying 'both parties are guilty' limiting the scope?
>
> My reference was to "creating a false impression," not to "limiting the
> scope." You accused me of creating a false impression and I take great
> exception to that. The hysteria that was ginned up over this episode,
> IMO, was in no way backed up by the actual facts.

You are presenting a one sided view that it's those republicans who are
are at fault. Same statement applies, how is showing both at fault a
false impression?

In article .com>, wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>> >> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
>> >> doing.
>>
>> > I'm not. I believe you are.
>>
>> How exactly is saying 'both parties are guilty' limiting the scope?
>
> My reference was to "creating a false impression," not to "limiting the
> scope." You accused me of creating a false impression and I take great
> exception to that. The hysteria that was ginned up over this episode,
> IMO, was in no way backed up by the actual facts.

You are presenting a one sided view that it's those republicans who are
are at fault. Same statement applies, how is showing both at fault a
false impression?

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:17:12 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:26:03 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>David N. Goodman, Associated Press Writer
>>> >
>>> > DETROIT (AP) -- The man who brought the Yugo and Subaru to this country
>>> > has a new project -- becoming the first mass importer of low-cost
>>> > Chinese-made cars.
>>>
>>> Does anyone wonder if this article was slanted?
>>
>>Looks like a short statement of fact, to wit: Bricklin plans on importing
>>Chinese cars, the Chinese maker has been in business a few years now, the
>>top selling point will be low price, the quality will be very good they
>>hope, Bricklin's record is less than stellar. Now, how is this slanted?
>
>I see that subtle humor is completely lost on you.

Looks like it was lost on at least half the people who replied