waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:   >Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for >their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have >understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything >against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning >signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh >into killing the children.   Janet Reno, the FBI, et al were nothing but pawns in Koresh's game. He was a madman who was going to hurt the children, and everyone else in the compound no matter what the FBI did.   >The situation in Waco was similar to a hostage situation with >a madman holding a gun against the head of an innocent person. >In such a situation, a person who provokes the madman and causes >him to pull the gun's trigger is responsible for the death of the >hostage.  Janet Reno blindly stumbled in there and basically >threw a tear gas container at the madman hoping that he would >release the hostage.  It's no surprise that the madman would >pull the trigger in response to that kind of provocation.   Such a hostage situation has taken place on numerous occasions with the result of the police trying to take the place by force and the result being the death of the hostages and the gunmen. However, this is the first time I've heard of the blame landing squarely on the police.   In this country we have a policy of not negotiating a back down from terrorists and hostage takers since that only encourages other terrorists and hostage takers.
In <C5q6Kx.C9H@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:  >In article 26032@cbnews.cb.att.com, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes: >>	"LESSONS FROM TIANANMEN SQUARE" by Neal Knox reprinted from >>	Guns & Ammo, September 1989 >> >>	Why the Second Amendment is so important, even in todays more >>	"progressive" era.  Included is a description of the 1932 >>	Bonus March in Washington, DC in which Gen. Douglas MacArthur >>	opposed with military force unemployed WWI veterans lobbying for >>	the government to immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.   >Larry,  >Now you can't SERIOUSLY suggest that the US Government >would be affraid of a bunch of Vets, and would UP and >call out the Military to PROTECT them just because the >US Government UP and decided to forget a generation of >veterans.........  >Now what was that some liberal was saying about the >advantages of a conscripted armed forces which we need >not actually pay for services render.......    You should be aware that the US Army was called to "fight" (and did) WW I veterans (bonus marchers) who marched on DC demanding bonuses they were promised for service. Becaues of the depression, they wanted them early.
>>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. >>-- > >Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality >uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all >homosexual and bisexual men.  Only the most comprehensive survey on sexuality in 50 years.  >  It would seem more logical to say that since >the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity >larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it. >  Chance and size have nothing in common on the multimillion number scale we are  talking about.   >Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three >times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin. > >So... whose promiscuous? >  Nobody said that you were.  Chill.  >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....  Well said.  >Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero... >  Actually, the Kinsley Report in 1947(or 48?) used a high percentage of  prisoners so...........
>>roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >> >>The real question: Should the Feds bail-out Steve Jobs & NeXT (a la Chrysler) >>so that important manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost?  "...a la Chrysler"??  Okay kids, to the nearest thousand, how many dollars did the government spend to "bail out" Chrysler?  More than zero you say?    Bzzzzzzzzzt.  Wrong answer.
julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes: |> In article <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: |> >  [With a tip of the hat to David Letterman for making the Top Ten format  |> >   so popular] |> > |> >Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia: |>  |> <looking around>  Who?  Where? |> Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other |> conservatives do as well.   |>  |> Julie |> DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else  Yes, it was Nixon who was most vocal about giving money to Russia.  It makes me proud to be a libertarian.  It appears both conservatives and liberals prefer to cold war until you win, then nurse the enemy back to health for another go around.  It's like subsidizing the wealthy countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) with free defense, and then trade-warring with them because of the economic competition.  It's like subsidizing tobacco farmers while paying bureaucrats to pursuade people not to smoke.  I ask myself, what law could we pass to prevent government from doing stupid, frivilous things with OUR money?  Then I think, the Constitution was supposed to do that.  Could someone please tell me what legitimate constitutional power the federal government is using when it takes money from my paycheck and gives it to needy countries?  Seriously.  Roger Collins
In a previous article, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) says:  >an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes: >>>Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the >>>president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and >>>the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision. >> >> >>       Or the contempt to ignore it. > >Yup, that was quite contemptuous of the President to make a decision that >12% disagree with...         Your ignorance is showing.  The BATF warrant was unsealed.         The entire operation was illegal from day ONE.
[much blathering on the Role Of Military Forces in Enforcing Civil Law deleted]  The main problem with trying to get the Military involved in Police work is the differences in the missions.  The Police take names, try and find out what happened, stop suspects (thats the meaning of 'arrest') and turn them over to the custody of the Judicial Branch for the adjudication of their case.  The Military's mission is to kill the enemy before they can escape or surrender.  chus pyotr
In article <1993Apr15.164605.8439@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: |> In article <SLAGLE.93Apr15000157@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes: |> >It is the government that is preventing entry to the market.  The |> >desire of those running established businesses to prevent or |> >restrict the entry of competitors is an understandable, though |> >generally unpleasant, human failing.  But without a means to act |> >on this desire, without a government with sufficient power to |> >restrict the options of the potential competitor, the |> >anti-competitive desire remains just an unpleasant wish.  The |> >government is the linchpin, so we seek to disengage it so we |> >don't get the shaft. |>  |> Once again, Mark, you don't specify the means through which the government |> is to be prevented from becoming the tool of business interests.  As a  |> left-wing, big government, conventional liberal, I'm just as willing as |> you are to vote against anti-competitive regulations that favor auto |> dealers.   |>  |> But what I hear from libertarians is a desire to limit incumbents' terms, |> to weaken government by eliminating its power to enforce antitrust laws, |> and a desire to eliminate legislator's pay.  Each strikes me as a  |> particularly ineffective way to insure that auto dealers and other special |> interests cannot influence public policy.  In fact, they seem clearly |> designed to accomplish the opposite.  This is similar to my saying that Clinton's timber summit does little to fix the health care problem.  Look at the whole picture, not just randomly picked libertarian positions.  If government is not allowed to use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.  The means to reaching such a restricted government is another topic which I'll address briefly.  It certainly won't happen until libertarianism is the dominate philosophy.  What means do we have to make libertarianism the dominate philosophy?  Statists run the education monopoly, so we have to be creative.  The Advocates for Self-Government reports 85% of their Seminar 1 participants "embrace" libertarianism. That's the best means I've seen yet.  We should lobby for compulsory Seminar 1 attendance. :) [in jest!]  Roger Collins
Just observed at the National Model United Nations here in NYC.     Just one word on it : AWSOME.                                  Peace, matt
In article <kbanaian.488.735081194@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu> kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes: >In article <1993Apr17.201310.13693@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes: >>In article <dasmith.734719640@husc.harvard.edu> dasmith@husc8.harvard.edu ( >David Smith) writes:>>Granted, the simple fact of holding down a job will  >improve these kids' chances>>of getting another job in the future, but what  >inner city kid would want to hold>>down just one more minimum wage job when  >there is so much more money to be made>>dealing drugs?   >> >>What suburban kid would want to hold down a minimum wage job when there is so >>much more money to be made dealing drugs? >> >>Yet, somehow, surburban kids do hold down minimum wage jobs.  So do inner >>city kids, when give the chance.  Any reason you think that inner city kids >>are incapable of doing legitimate work? > >I suppose the correct answer is not "family values"? > >S'pose not.  Never mind.  Sorry. > Are you assuming that families in the inner city don't have family values ? I sure hope not.
In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: >In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri >tes: > >>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you! > >A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid  >is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as  >me how, I just have seen the results. > >Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in  >the head.  I'm sorry about your friend.  Really.  But this anecdote does nothing to justify the "war on drugs".  If anything, it demonstrates that the "war" is a miserable failure.  What it demonstrates is that people will take drugs if they want to, legal or not.  Perhaps if your friend were taking legal, regulated drugs under a doctors supervision he might not be in the position he's in now.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious                    social problem." ---Edward Abbey The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
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?
:      Here's a hypothetical question...  If Clayton said something like "all : those niggers are really stupid."  (Please don't be offended, I'm not racist : but merely using an example of Clayton's malign logic).  And then said he : read a report that a lot of blacks in inner cities dropped out of school, I : bet he wouldn't have your support.  Yet he can claim that all homosexuals are : dishonest, evil, lying child molesters without *PERSONALLY* having a single : homosexual friend or acquaintance and you'll sit there and support him.  :      God created a place for bigots.  It's called Hell and Clayton is going : to burn there for a long time.  I pray for him to find in his heart the : Christian values he espouses so that he can learn to love his gay brothers : and sisters, because anyone with so much hatred in his soul coulld never : be righteous.  There is a difference between supporting Claytons opinions and supporting his right to speak.  I want you to know that you cannot educate and/or elevate ones understanding by calling him names.  Clayton has an opinion which in his mind is as valid as any opinion anyone else on the net has. If you were to walk up to black person to talk about blacks in the inner city and began the conversation with "Those niggers in th.......".  You would lose the attention of that black person by the time you spoke your second word.  All name calling and derisive remarks do is turn off the audience you are trying to address.  Clayton is guilty of that and as such has distracted attention away from his message to bits and pieces of his conversation.  I don't understand why people want to repeat his mistakes!
> Do you have a strange definition of "winning" that you titled this thread > "Winning Tax Case!"?  Sloan *lost*.  By a unanimous 3-0 decision that tore > his arguments to pieces.  He went to prison using these arguments.  See > United States v Sloan, 939 F2d 499 (7th Cir 1990), aff'g 704 F Supp 880.  The tax protesters are legally correct, but they are put in jail anyway.  The weakness of the governments legal position is shown by the fact that when someone protesting tax or gun laws on legal grounds gets a federal jury trial (very rare) the feds blatantly stack the jury, with the same old faces turning up time after time.  However Teel should have mentioned that though his advice is legally sound, if you follow it you will probably wind up in jail.
In article <C5HF6r.CG3@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: >In <C5FG7t.6At@exnet.co.uk> sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: > >|I have to disagree.   You do not take your logic far enough. > >|True, man did not invent the need for food, shelter, warmth and the ilk, >|but man did invent the property laws and the laws of trespass. > >I guess Xavier has never heard of territoriality in animals. Many animals, >especially preditors will stake out a territory and chase of any members of >the same species that tries to invade their territory.   Yes, I have!  Wasn't there a case of a single lion ruling all the land from South Africa up to Egypt across to the congo?  If my memory serves me correctly there was enough game to feed some 100,000 or more lions but he wouldn't let the other lions hunt as he wanted it all himself.  He died of a heart attack brought on by being overweight.  Good thing too as he had designs on Europe, America (north and south), and the Falkland Islands.  >Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: : In article <1993Apr5.045612.14229@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes: :  : > [...]  You're not breathing clean air provided by government : > regulations, [...] :  : If this doesn't beat all I ever heard!  The above certainly says a : mouthful about the mindset of Ted Frank, and also of statists : everywhere. : --  Yes, there's certainly no need to argue with him, or address the substance of what he says- he's a statist, after all.  Probably  politically correct, too...
Candidate Clinton promised to tax the rich, and most folks thought that was a pretty nifty idea.  Then President Clinton said he wanted families who make more than $100,000 to bear 70% of the new tax burden, and many were quick to complain that their six-figure income does not make them one of the well-to-do.  It's particularly ironic (to me) that it's in those traditionally liberal enclaves of the Bay Area and academia where the wealthy are struggling so to fit themselves into the mantle of "just regular working-class folk".  Nobody will ever admit to being rich; everybody's middle class.  So who are The Rich?  Well, I'll throw out some stats from the 1990 Census and let you be the judge...  Va negvpyr <mzimmersC5E1qK.Fn9@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) jevgrf: } In article <1qcdvbINN5ti@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> } fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes: } > [...] } >that would be about $55 to 65 thousand US, and that is what tenured } >professors can expect to make.  For a PhD with say 10 years experience, } >$65,000 is a lot less than what he could be making in industry.   }  } Oh?  As a 12-year veteran of Silicon Valley, I've seen precious few } employment ads that call for PhDs.  And $65K is hardly chump change; } it's well above the median *household* income for the state.  Bay Area average household income is in the mid-$40,000 range.  National average is $31,889.  The Bay Area has nearly twice the national average of six-figure income households (9.1% vs 4.8%*).  The cost-of-living here may be high, but I don't think it's twice the national average...  } >In Los Angeles, modest home prices can be $500,000.    A 1,500-square-foot tract house in a Bay Area working-class neighborhood goes for about $250,000.  I doubt that the Los Angeles market is all that different.  It would appear that this definition of "modest" is perhaps a bit immoderate...  } So what?  They're no cheaper for those who are gainfully employed. }  } >In California, $65,000 is not upper-middle-class. }  } It depends upon your definition; it's clearly above average.  It is more than what two-thirds of California households make.  Seems to me that belonging to the upper one-third is not an unreasonable definition of "upper-middle-class".  Note that if that professor's spouse earns $35,000 they become one of Clinton's "rich" families.  Here's a breakdown of national, California, and Bay Area household incomes:     <$30K  $30-50K   $50-100K  $100K+ ------------------------------------ US  49%     24%        23%      4% * the Census Bureau did some weird CA  41%     26%        26%      7%   rounding here...more like 5% BA  34%     25%        31%      9%  And to add a little prespective:  A minimum wage earner working 40 hours/week makes $8,840/year.  The poverty line for a family of four is $15,171.  If they make up to twice that, the government considers them to be "working poor".  Say we decide to call this the "lower-middle-class".  Then how 'bout:  $30-50K annual income is "middle-class".  $50-100K is "upper-middle-class". $100K+ is "rich".  $1,000K+ is "filthy-rich".  and $10,000+ is "Bill Gates".  make sense? ;^)  -timr
In article <1993Apr15.215747.17331@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes: >The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the >draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now, >and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior >with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us >on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and >Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to. >Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time. >Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit. > > >  - Dave Borden >    borden@m5.harvard.edu
In <1993Apr2.125134.3780@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Ben's dad) writes:  |In article <C4tAuw.Mrz@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: |> In article <1pasrg$ife@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes: |>  |> |	The title is self-explanatory; Isaac Asimov once pointed out |> |that curious fact. |>  |> Are you saying that it should be considered unpatriotic if you do not give |> everything you own to the state.  |Are you saying that it should be considered unpatriotic if you do not give |your *life* in battle for the state?  The PC (Patrioticly Correct) certainly |think so.  |>                                   I thought that kind of system collapsed |> when the Soviet Union did.  |No, the pentagon is still standing and collecting names for the draft.  |> If that's not what you meant. At what point does paying more taxes cease |> being patriotic?  |Your money or your life.  Which is more important?  Nice dodge. I give it a 9.2.  Now to answer your questions. I do not believe that there should be a draft. The armed services should be voluntary. Can you say the same about taxes.  I've answered your question. Would you now answer mine.
In article <C4vy56.C0t@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes: >In article <1993Mar31.185128.5668@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes: >>In article <1pasrg$ife@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes: >>> >>>	The title is self-explanatory; Isaac Asimov once pointed out >>>that curious fact. >> >>Well, since tax evasion is illegal, one generally would not bother to  >>consider whether it was unpatriotic or not.  How often does one think >>of murder as being unpatriotic? >> >>Perhaps a more appropriate question would be "why is tax *avoidance* not >>considered unpatriotic?".  The answer to this is simple.  Tax avoidance >>is simply defined as paying the minimum tax you are legally obligated to >>pay. > >There is a deeper reason. Taxes,  by their very nature, are un-American. >One need only look at the birth and history of the US to see this fact.  Wasn't the beef with the English over "taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION", not taxation itself?    From my admittedly dim recollection of US history, most of the problems  we Americans have had with taxes have been with unfair/unjust taxation schemes, not with taxes themselves.  It's pretty hard to run a government without any means of support.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious                    social problem." ---Edward Abbey The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
Is anyone out there knowledgeable on drug issues in Japan?  I'm interested in knowing if Japan has or has ever had a problem with drugs, and how they dealt with it.  I've heard, undocumented, that Japan years ago used heavy legal penalties to end a serious heroin problem.  I'd like to know both sides of the story.  Does anyone recall such a problem?  What were laws at the time relating to drug use, drug dealing, and drug trafficking?  What are the laws now?  What other anti-drug measures, like education and treatment has Japan used?  How are drugs regarded by the Japanese people?  How effective have anti-drug measures been in Japan?  Thanks for your help.