waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
I am glad that you recognize that people should not engage in denial and repression, and should acknowledge such. The United States, with its people, have recognized that repression has taken place, with the loss and outright abrogation of civil liberties and constitutional protections of citizens. This recognition has taken the form of the civil rights law (let's just discuss the federal level for now), such as 18 USC 241 et. seq., 42 USC 1981 et. seq, et. al.    With this recognition of repression, at times manifested in the form of collective guilt, I want people to recognize denial.  Though it can be said that white people numerically commit more crimes in the United States, because white people are a majority, it can also be said that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United States, in their relation to their numbers in population.    My views are out of experiences when I was a police officer in a large metropolitan area, and of a citizen. Unless people account for their behavior, and for the behavior of their immediate community, nothing will improve.  Regards,
In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes: > [purile babble deleted]  Well, some form of guaranteed health care isn't a bad idea, but, yah, I'm a bit worried of a gubnint-run HMO myself.  I'd much rather have something like Canada has [and I'll *belt* anyone who tells me to move to Canada :)], but since people will yell and scream "NO!!! NOT ONE LIKE CANADA HAS!!!", we're probably all screwed.  >      BROMEISTER PREDICTED: > >	  " $1,000 per middle class taxpayer in NEW TAXES " > >          " A NATIONAL SALES TAX "   Impressive.  Let the "GREAT CHUCKMEISTER" make a couple predictions, if you will:  1.  The sun will rise tomorrow. 2.  Rush will bash Clinton on his next show. 3.  I will turn out to be Clinton's love child.  Chances are, I'll get at least one of those right, if I'm lucky. I may even get two.  >      Now, for more AAMMMAAAAZZZZZZIINNNNGGGGG Predictions! > >      i)   The NST will be raised from 3% to 5% by 1996. >	   Ooops.  They ALREADY DID it. >           >	   Okay, then.  The NST will be raised from 5% to 7% by 1996.   Can't argue with you there.  Once the gubnint has its hands in yer pocket, they just can't help but feel around a bit....   >      ii)  Unemployment will rise!   Oh, no SH**?!  You mean, our weakened economy will collapse in the face of all this gubnint tax-and-spending, and everyone will be in the handout line?  You're a GENIUS!!   >      iii)  Tax revenues will decline.  Deficit will increase! >	    We'll get another DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE by 1997! >	    Everyone will DANCE AND SING!   Deficit reduction.  Spending cuts via fee increases?   >      To paraphrase Hilary Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on >      the middle class to pay for my programs " > >      To paraphrase Bill Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on >      the middle class to pay for my programs "  No, any first-year PoliSci major will tell you that the Prez *never* raises taxes.  Congress does it.  All those who voted the Clinton ticket get to wear this *new* label.....  +----------------+ |     SUCKA!     | |                | |  Made in USA   |   +----------------+  Hook, line, and sinker!  *chuckle*  cpk --  It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
In article <C5qqKE.97J@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:     In <4916@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:     |>>|>       Excerpts from "Insight" magazine, March 15, 1993     |                       *Paranoia part deleted.*     |  Isn't Insight magazine published by the Mooneys?     I don't remember the article that you removed so I can't comment on it.    What I can comment on though is your response.     Do you really believe that what you wrote is sufficient to refute    the article?  Do have any facts in addition to your opinion?  No one has time to chase down every rumor that gets printed in the National Enquirer or whatever.  The point is to wait and see if the assertions of the (rather bizarre) original post will be corroborated in any way.  Perhaps they will. The recent posts of the rather bizarre original poster speak for themselves.
In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes: > In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes: > >In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes: > >> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower > >> the cost and definitely make them safer to use. > > > >  Yes. > >  > >> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine > >> legality. > > > >  Why not? >  >  > Where do they get these people?!      What, pray tell, does this mean? Just who exactly is *they*? You mean "they" as in people who do not blindly swallow every piece of propoganda they are given? Or "they" as in NOKD (not our kind, dear). Or "they" as in an appeal to some audience that is supposed to implicitly know and understand?  > I really don't want to waste time in > here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we > can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!      Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am not eager to make a fool of myself.   > My point was that it is pretty stupid to justify legalizing something just > because it will be safer and cheaper.    From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from anything other than the pragmatic standpoint, I'd be happy to hear  about it. The fact is that it wasn't.  > A few more ideas to hold to these criterion - prostitution; the killing of all > funny farm patients, AIDS "victims", elderly, unemployed, prisioners, etc. - > this would surely make my taxes decrease.    Only the first one make any sense. There is nothing to "legalize" about all the rest. Just in case you haven't made the connection  (which I expect you haven't) the connecting theme in this thread is a persons autonomy over their life and body. Vice statutes serve only to make it more expensive for the rich and more dangerous for the poor, as Tim so eloquently put it. People will, however, take autonomy over their lives, regardless of what the government says.   And why, pray tell, is AIDS "victim" in snear quotes? Are you of the revisionist sort that thinks there is no such thing as the AIDS plauge? Or do they just deserve it? --
In article <C5pEAy.M15@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes: >thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes: >>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes: >>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on >>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that >>                                                               ^^^^^ >>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?   >>> >>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important. > >       Black is a descriptive adjective that describes Mr. King.  From many >of the newspaper, radio, and tv news reports I have seen, this adjective       >is commonly in front of his name.  I have NEVER seen anyone complain about >the use of this adjective when used in a benign manner.  I did not say that >Mr. King was a no good black!  I do not know Mr. King and would not make this >ascertian without some evidence to this effect.  I used it PURELY as a  >descriptive adjective in the same manner than many ( most ) news people have >used it in the past.  No one is questioning whether Mr. King is black.  The question arises whether King's race should make police officers "afraid as hell."  Your statement seems to imply that cops should have a different standard for large black guys than for just large guys in general.    That two posts later you don't understand why anyone pointed out your use of the adjective is almost as informative as your original use.
piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt) writes: > Clayton Cramer (cramer@optilink.COM) wrote: > :    [...]     When you and the rest of the homosexual community > : pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to > : hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against > : my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying > : to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.  > Ahh, what's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for > the gander.  You don't want homosexuals to impose their moral codes > (such diabolical ideas as equal rights) on you, yet you are willing > to impose your moral codes on them.  Do I detect a double standard?     What *exactly* does the American Constitution say about "the right  to association" ?     Homosexuals, whether Clayton likes it or not, are as much members of society as he is. As such they have the right to participate and have an equal opportunity to pursue their goals.    No-one is saying that Clayton should be forced to associate with queerfolk in his private life (one suspects the gays in question would object also 8-) ), but by proclaiming the general right not to associate with them in the *public* sphere (which includes housing, hiring, etc), he's giving his right to non-association priority over their rights to equal access to opportunity.    Historically, people can associate publically with disliked groups with very little ill-effect, however cutting a group off from normal commerce has a severe impact on their lives.    Clayton, why exactly should your "right" to non-association in the public sphere take priority over homosexual's rights to equal opportunity ?
Wow, I hadn't realized how VENOMOUS this was getting!  Be careful here...the problem isn't the rich but the values and the systems that make the rich rich.  Things are designed in such a way that in order to go with the system and make money, everything ELSE we care about goes to shit.  I have to constantly remind myself that the goal of human society is not to make money.  Money doesn't make us happy; it just prevents certain things making us more unhappy.  Therefore, don't shoot the rich.  Shoot the conservatives!  Drewcifer
In article <15430@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > ># What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession ># with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent ># hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache. >#  ># (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours. >#  ># ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA! > >Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community >pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to >hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against >my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying >to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.  But aren't you imposing your moral standards against gay people because you do not want to rent to, or hire, or as you put associate with, ( and I do not know of a law that requires you to associate with gay people)?  It works both ways.
In article <1993Apr22.085907.19272@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes: >In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes: >><34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: >>>Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork >>>to defend the burning of the children. >> >> >>    Yeah, those Nazis. You know how we liberals just love those Nazis. > >Cigarette cops = Nazis.  Who said Nazism is dead?  We got a bunch of >them right here in the good 'ol US of A.  No we don't.  They might be zealous, and maybe the bureau shouldn't exist by some people, but they ARE NOT NAZIS.  Why do people toss around the Nazi label so easily?
In article <1993Apr16.164638.27218@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes: > In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners. # #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3. # #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, # #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that # #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general # #male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for # #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically # #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are. #  # Possibly because gay/bi men are less likely to get married?  Marriage isn't a requirement for a couple staying together.  # What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession # with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent # hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache. #  # (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours. #  # ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!  Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.
In article <1993Apr19.134809.24975@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes: > In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes: # # 	Actually, I was rather surprised to see an article on this subject # # (i.e. the "new, inproved" survey saying that roughly 1% of men are gay) # # on the front page of The New York _Times_ recently (I think it was # # on Thurs, 15 April).  The headline was something to the effect of  # # "New Survey Finds 1% of Men Are Gay" #  # Does anyone else see the difference between "1% of Men Are Gay" and 1% # of Men surveyed *say* they are gay?  Does the NY Times think that # there is no one "in the closet"?  I see.  When survey after survey show 1-4%, we are supposed to believe ONE survey, done with very poor assumptions, with a very atypical population, 40 years ago when the society was FAR more repressed about homosexuality than it is now.  Yeah, right.  # Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
In a previous article, smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) says:  >With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to >pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect >that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American >shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some
In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: > Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po.. > by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig  > [...] >  >>    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before   >> the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend. >>   >> Brett > Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated.  In billions of dollars (%GNP): year  GNP    receipts     outlays       deficit     debt    unempl%  admin ====  ====   ===========  ============  =========   ======  =======  ======= 1977  1930   355.6 (18.4) 409.2  (21.2) 53.6 (2.8)   709.1           Carter 1978  2174   399.6 (18.4) 458.7  (21.1) 59.2 (2.7)   780.4           Carter 1979  2444   463.3 (19.0) 503.5  (20.6) 40.2 (1.6)   833.8           Carter 1980  2674   517.1 (19.3) 590.9  (22.1) 73.8 (2.8)   914.3   7.9     Carter 1981  2986   599.3 (20.1) 678.2  (22.7) 78.9 (2.6)  1003.9   8.4     Reagan 1982  3130   617.8 (19.7) 745.7  (23.8) 127.9 (4.1) 1147.0  11.0     Reagan 1983  3325   600.6 (18.1) 808.3  (24.3) 207.8 (6.2) 1381.9  10.9     Reagan 1984  3688   666.5 (18.1) 851.8  (23.1) 185.3 (5.0) 1576.7   8.6     Reagan 1985  3958   734.1 (18.5) 946.3  (23.9) 212.3 (5.4) 1827.5   8.1     Reagan 1986  4177   769.1 (18.4) 989.8  (23.7) 220.7 (5.3) 2129.5   7.9     Reagan 1987  4442   854.1 (19.2) 1002.1 (22.6) 148.0 (3.4) 2354.3   7.1     Reagan 1988  4771   909.0 (19.1) 1064.1 (22.3) 155.1 (3.2) 2614.6   6.3     Reagan 1989  5201   990.8 (19.0) 1142.8 (22.0)	152.0 (2.9) 2881.1           Bush 1990         1031.2       1251.6        220.4       3190.5           Bush 1991	     1054.3	  1323.0	268.7       3599.0           Bush  [Source: Statistical Abstract of the US (1990 version), American Almanac  (1993 version), Universal Almanac (1993 version), Information Please Almanac (1991 version)]  		GRAPHICALLY: Deficits as a % of GNP, 1981-89  % GNP 7|  | 6|                       X  |                                       X       X 5|                               X                  |                                                 4|               X  |                                                       X 3|                                                               X       X  |       X 2|  | 1|  |____________________________________________________________________________ 0	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989  	Ironically, Bush could have frozen spending, kept his "no new taxes" pledge and balanced the budget.
In article <1993Apr19.031846.6874@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu  writes: >In article <C5pEAy.M15@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer  kyle cramm) writes: >>thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes: >>>In article <C5Lp0y.FDK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoef er kyle cramm) writes: >>>>How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives on >>>>the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy tha t >>>                                                               ^^^^^ >>>>took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?   >>>> >>>I'm curious why you think that particular adjective is important. >> >>       Black is a descriptive adjective that describes Mr. King.  From many >>of the newspaper, radio, and tv news reports I have seen, this adjective  >>is commonly in front of his name.  I have NEVER seen anyone complain about >>the use of this adjective when used in a benign manner.  I did not say that >>Mr. King was a no good black!  I do not know Mr. King and would not make this >>ascertian without some evidence to this effect.  I used it PURELY as a >>descriptive adjective in the same manner than many ( most ) news people have >>used it in the past. > >No one is questioning whether Mr. King is black.  The question arises >whether King's race should make police officers "afraid as hell."  Your >statement seems to imply that cops should have a different standard for >large black guys than for just large guys in general.  The original poster never said they were afraid of King because he was black.  In fact the officers were afraid of King because of WHAT HE DID, not because OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.  It is you, Mr. Frank that read the phrase "large black man" and cried racism in a typical knee-jerk fashion. When you (and others, I suspect) can get past this problem maybe the real problems in this issue can be discussed. > >That two posts later you don't understand why anyone pointed out your use >of the adjective is almost as informative as your original use. >-- >ted frank                 | >thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops." >the u of c law school     | >standard disclaimers      |
In article <F3ZB3B1w165w@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz>, system@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes: |> > brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes: |> >  |> > >Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because  |> > >someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....   |> > >Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero... |>  |> Hmmm, what statistics are these? Can you offer any references. The only |> studies I've seen indicate a higher proportion of homosexuals in prison |> than in the general population, but I don't think that allows for the |> "default" you refer to. Prison is not a normal situation... |>  |> But I haven't seen anything that suggests that the "default" proportion is |> lower than in the general population (although it seems plausible). |>  |> Anyway, as I say, can you provide any references? |>  |>   Is this an arguement against or for?  Or simply a statement of agreeance/ disagreeance.  The fact that there are more homosexuals in prison does not mean that homosexuals are immoral and more liable to commit crime.  And one must remember that prison is not necessarily a reflection of the type of people who are criminals.  What are the statistics for unsolved crime?    |> --  |> 	This posting is definitive. bljeghbe'chugh vaj blHegh. |>   Wayne McDougall :: Keeper of the list of shows better than Star Trek(TM) :: |>             Ask me about the Auckland Festival of Missions, 18-25 April, 1993 |> I always change my mind when new evidence is available. What method do you use? |>
In article <15440@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >>  >> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism.  >>  >> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia > >When you force people to associate with others against their will, >yes. >  You are forced everyday to associate with people that you do not wish to, and there isn't even a law that makes you do it.  But  you do, becuase you want to go shopping, or go to work, or go to a public park, or go to a baseball game, etc.
In article <1993Apr6.043935.27366@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes: >> >>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US >>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple >>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single >>act should never merit more than on charge.   > >So if I set off a bomb in the World Trade Center, I can only be charged with >more than one murder, and not the other five deaths and extensive property >damage?  After all, the bomb was a single act. > >ted frank                 | "However Teel should have mentioned that though   Again, Mr. Frank has come to the rescue with his cool headed reason.  How about, "One charge per victim?"  Of course I'll think about it in a few days and find a case where this doesn't apply either.    What the heck, I don't study law, I just hate lawyers. :)
A Alan Brock 4/14/93 Orange County Register Editorial titled "A case for   repealing the income tax" got my attention.    Some quotes:     "... a tax on income, because of the flexible definition of that    concept, invites the government to snoop into every nook and    cranny of our lives. Encouraging people to snoop on one another    and report transgressions against the almighty state, which most    Americans deplored in Nazi or communist regimes..."      "... Although most Americans paid no income tax at all 50 years ago    -- withholding began only during World War II, as a "temporary"    exigency, and in 1948 the median family federal income tax was $9..."     "Last year the federal government got only 37 percent of its income     from income taxes... How long ago was it that the federal government     somehow managed to stagger along on 63 percent of its 1992 revenue?     ... Would you believe five?..."