waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:  > > However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to > > be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never > > heard of a recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal > > meth and LSD.  The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine" > > cigarettes, pot and heroin. >  > Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican idea > that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and simply > decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please explain why > the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like cigarettes" > is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for nicotine...  I'm all in favor of drug legalization, but I do see some problems with it. My hope is that people disposed to doing so would simply overdose quickly, and be done with it, before making a mess of thisgs.
Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote: : 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.  Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer;   I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there.   Eliminate the C-17 transport. Overwight, overdue, overbudget, it was supposed to carry tanks. New tanks are now too big for the airplane.   Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine. The breakup of the USSR has left us with a number of sticky military problems, but NONE of them will require "God's gift to submarines".   Ground the B-2 stealth bomber. I'm sure it's a great airplane that will do EVERYTHING its designers said, but at half-a-gigabuck a copy, we can't afford for even ONE to crash. And airplanes DO crash.   Elmo Zumwalt said it best 20+ years ago; "High/Low". A MIX of a FEW extremely capable weapons systems and a LOT of CHEAPER, moderate-capability systems.  --  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell       | The powers not delegated to the United States by the kmitchel@netcom.com| Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are Citrus Heights, CA | reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.
In <11974@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  +>1.  There is no such thing as non-toxic tear gas.  Tear gas is non-breathable +>    remaining in it's presence will cause nausea and vomiting, followed eventually +>    by siezures and death.  Did the FBI know the physical health of all the people +>    they exposed??  Any potential heart problems among the B-D's??  	They certainly knew that there were pregnant women in there plus  children.  I could not believe when they said that the gassing was an attempt to "save the children" yesterday.  I can't think of a much worse sort of child abuse that pouring tear gas into a building.   +>2.  Have you ever seen a tear gas canister??  Tear gas is produced by burning a +>    chemical in the can.  The fumes produced are tear gas.  The canister has a  +>    warning printed on the side of it.  "Contact with flamable material can result +>    in fire."  Now, how many of these canisters did they throw inside a building  +>    they admited was a fire-trap??  	I have heard two things recently explaining this:  	1. They pumped the gas into the building from outside via some 	sort of pipe rather than by canister.  	2. The sort of tear gas they are using was described as some 	sort of powdery material that sticks to things.  Kind of 	like a powder cloud.  	And once again, these are government lacky explainations and 	since government stories always change, none or all of the 	information might not be true.   +>This whole thing was a case of over-reaction by the officials at every step. +>I hope it is thoroughly investigated and the responsible parties are held +>accountable.  But that is highly unlikely when you figure they are going to +>be investigating themselves.
I haven't recognized any names from previous discussions, but I do notice that there are a few who blame Clinton for the actions of the BATF in Waco.  Unless you felt the same way about what we did under Bush's *direct* command in Panama, it's just partisan whining.  Which is what I expect most of it to be.  I can see no way to condemn one and not the other.    But I'm sure some Limbot will tell me how killing thousands of Panamanian civilians to serve an arrest warrant is much better than allowing 80 religious fanatics to commit suicide following a botched attempt by the BATF to serve a search warrant.
In article <C5w51C.H39@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> patk@sr.hp.com (Patrick Kearney) writes:   > >Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Branch Davidian >people immolated themselves in the manner described by the >Federal authorities, why does the general consensus appear to >be that they -- the BD -- were insane? Is it the manner of their >behaviour before they died, or the fact they chose to kill >themselves rather than submit to the Government? > >I ask this question because there is a tradition, and one that >is highly regarded by many people, that several hundred Jews >elected to throw themselves off a cliff at Masada rather than >submit to Roman rule. The circumstances at Masada and those at >Waco would seem in general terms quite similar, and yet so far >as I'm aware nobody has seriously suggested that the Jews were >insane. > >The point of this comparison is to question the use of the word >'cult' in discussing the events at Waco. Why were the Davidians >a cult, and not the Jews at Masada? What constitutes a cult? Is >it the size of the membership, or a matter of respectability, or >perhaps the length of time it's been in existence? Are the >Catholics a cult? How about the Mormons or the Calvinists? Is >a sect a respectible cult? > >Dictionary definitions aside, since popular usage seems to carry >more weight, I suspect that the word 'cult' is used in a perjorive >sense when speaking of groups like the Davidians. It is rather >like the word 'boss' when used to describe someone unpopular -- >or someone the government wishes to *make* unpopular -- like, say, >Castro: "the Communist boss of Cuba." One doesn't hear Clinton >described as "America's Democratic [or Capitalist] boss." > >-- > Well, for one thing most, if not all the Dividians (depending on whether they could show they acted in self-defense and there were no illegal weapons), could have gone on with their life as they were living it. No one was forcing them to give up their religion or even their legal weapons. The Dividians had survived a change in leadership before so even if Koresch himself would have been convicted and sent to jail, they still could have carried on.   I don't think the Dividians were insane, but I don't see a reason for mass suicide (if the fire was intentional set by some of the Dividians.) We also don't know that, if the fire was intentionally set from inside, was it a generally know plan or was this something only an inner circle knew about, or was it something two or three felt they had to do with or without Koresch's knowledge/blessing, etc.? I don't know much about Masada. Were some people throwing others over? Did mothers jump over with their babies in their arms?
In article <20APR199312325032@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes... >In article <1993Apr20.151753.13020@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes... >  >>Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here. >  >>There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a >>no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw >>concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!) >  >	When did the BATF say this? Everything I've seen from the BATF, >	from the official version to the dissident statements of BATF >	officers who conducted the raid claims that the Davidians were >	shooting at the agents long before they were within grenade  >	range.   	What I saw on TV and what you claim are two different things. The Davidians did not start shooting until after the BATF lobbed a couple genades in the windows and started shooting themselves.  >	Also, if the warrant is sealed, how do we know it was a 'no-knock'?    	EASY! If you see federal agents in body armor with sub machine guns going in throught windows, that is a No-Knock warrant. Also since the  videotape shows the BATF throwing grenades before the BD's etunred fire,  you can safely assume that they didn't ring the doorbell.   P.Vasilion,
In <1r2seh$qv9@network.ucsd.edu> jschell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (ch'rowl-Captain) writes:    >I find it very interesting that you say there will be 2.5 million >queers in the march on Washington.  The largest figure I've seen in >the press is 1 million and we all know how liberal the press is with >their numbers. :)  >For another thing, 1% of 250 million is 2.5 million not 6.  Maybe >that's where you got the 2.5 million number.  Also, the number cited >in the actual report is 1.5% so that would be about 3.75 million.  >As for this march on Washington, I wonder how much the media is >going to inflate the numbers this time.  Last time, for the >pro-abortion rally, they more than doubled the actual number of >people who showed up.  That and all the stories coming out of how >the press "slants" the news really makes one wonder who's watching >the watchers.  Why are you all playing these pathetic number games?  The number of people showing up at the MOW hardly constitutes the entire queer populace.  I doubt that it constitutes more than a handful of us.  I'm queer, and I won't be there, simply because I don't have the time or the transportation.  What the hell makes you think the participants in the MOW embody more than a minimum number?  Face it, people, we're everywhere.  There are always more of us than you think.  Our numbers are constantly GROWING, not diminishing...some of your children will grow up to join us.  Hell, some of MY children may grow up to join us.  The best way to deal with this phenomenon is not to fear it and blind yourself to it, but to realize that you have nothing to fear.  We're not perverts, we're not dangerous, we're just here, and we're human just like you--er, most of you.  Idiots like Cramer and Kaldis can rant all they like.  It won't do them one iota of good.  Drewcifer  P.S.  I still can't get over the fact that some people actually believe that every queer in the U.S. would show up at the MOW, and that these numbers are meaningful.  And, come to think of it, what about those of us in OTHER countries?  Tree.
In article <SLAGLE.93Apr15000157@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes: >In article <1993Apr13.215245.2916@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: > >> In article <1993Apr13.083449.1058@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes: > >>>... the point is that this law protects no one but the >>>established car dealers or people with enough money to start a >>>fairly big operation all at once.  Protecting these folks from >>>competition protects the rest of us from low prices and high >>>quality. > >> An excellent point.  But you seem to be missing a more subtle >> point.  It is not "the government" that should be the recipient >> of your displeasure, but the established business interests >> that influence and direct government action in this case. > >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.  jsh > >=Mark
In article <1993Apr16.141409.25036@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale  Cook) writes: >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) w ri >>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. >  I do agree with you, in a way.  The war on drugs has failed, but in my opinion, that doesn't mean we have to give up.  Only change the tactics.  For instance, here are how some penalties should be changed.  Dealing Coke -- Death Dealing Heroin -- Death Dealing Pot -- Death Dealing Crack -- Death  The list goes on and on!!!......  JUST KIDDING!!!  However, on a more serious note, I do believe that we should take some money  away from the foriegn operations in South America and costly border  interdiction efforts.  (Don't think I'm going to say, "spend it to educate  people", because I know plenty of educated dopers).  Actually, spend it on   things like drug treatment programs.  I saw an interesting story on 60 minutes about how the British actually  prescribe and addict his "recommended" dosage, and try to ween him off from it, or cut the amount down to levels where it is "acceptable".  Sounds good so far  from what I heard with a decrease in cost, lower addiction rates by wiping out  the dealer's markets, etc. (But that was the only thing I have heard about it.)  However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to be  bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never heard of a  recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal meth and LSD. The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine" cigarettes, pot and heroin.
In article <1993Apr16.083029.12516@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) w rites: >In article <1993Apr16.031616.23130@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus. acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: >> >>This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the >>1980 election. >> >>This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame , >>pathetic, and old....... it's wrong. >> >>Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more tha n >>the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples' >>books.  What a joke. > >Drive down to Cincinnati and take a look.  Not pretty, is it?  But drive UP to Cleveland and it is about 10,000 times better.  I from Toledo  originally (but that place always as sucked as long as I've been on the planet.  >Things were much better there in 1980.  All that growth went into >the hands of Ron and Georgie's pals, and I DIDN'T GET A SINGLE >DIME OF IT, DAMMIT.  And, now, I'm gonna be bled to death by tax >leeches to pay for the damage.  F***ing great.  Republicans have been trying to pass a balanced budget amendment for the last  ten years.  > >Oh, here's another thing.  Seems like a lot of people in >Columbus drive over to Marysville and make Japanese cars.  Hm.  Because for a while, the American companies couln't even compete in THEIR OWN  COUNTRY, where free trade isn't even an issue.  However, even the automobile pendelum has swung back to the Big 3.  >I wonder how many American-owned companies employ those in >Central Ohio?  Other than Ohio State University.  :)  Oh, I don't know.  It's probably in the tens of thousands.
In article <15436@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  > [Some chump at Brandeis:]  >> I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long >> as you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.  > If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the > 10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into > obedience.  I wouldn't worry too much about it, though.  We are starting to find out how politically impotent homosexuals really are.  The Colorado boycott has fizzled, Slick Willie was effectively prevented from implementing his military policy wrt homosexuals by members of his _OWN_ party, this new study casts a large shadow of doubt on their claims of large numbers, and coming this Saturday they are going to wind up with _TREMENDOUS_ egg on their face when, I submit, no more than perhaps 35,000 queers will show up in Washington while they are promising crowds in the millions.  And most of the ones who will be there will look like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, not the guy working in the next cubicle.  As if that's really going to play in middle America.  Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet where they belong.
In article <1993Apr22.142032.26340@cs.nott.ac.uk>, eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright) writes: > In article <Apr.22.06.39.15.1993.27912@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: > |> In article <1993Apr21.222523.21713@news.cs.indiana.edu> alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes: # |# # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals, # |# # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read, # |# # addressed lesbians? # |#  # |# I can't really speak for Mr. Cramer here, but I can say that a # |# homosexual [male] is an entirely different animal than a lesbian. # |# There is virtually nothing that is analogous or related between the # |# aberrant behaviors practiced by these two groups of deviants. #  # Obviously.  A homosexual male is of the XY chromosome pair and the lesbian # is of XX.  Besides, what does that have to do with the price of eggs?  Since # Mr Cramer is _very_ straight, he most probably gets off to the thought of # lesbians, like the majority of adolescent males. #  # |#   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis # |  Adda Wainwright        |    Does dim atal y llanw!         8o)         |  I hate to disappoint you, but that's not the case.  I don't "get off" on lesbian sex, nor am I an adolescent.  Now, when I was an adolescent, I believed that homosexuals were just like everyone else.  But I've learned since then.
In article <19APR199319282297@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes: >>  >More likely than most places.  When I was there the most "important"  >state issue was whether to have a state income tax or instead legalize >a popular vice for fund raising,  and vice won a decisive victory! > >>jsh > >Mr. Grinch > >p.s.  Now that he's safely dead,  I expect David Koresh to become the >hero of popular folk ballads,  and the ATF to be generally equated with >Santa Anna     dead? I saw David Koresh at a local 7-11......
In article <1993Apr5.201051.15818@dsd.es.com>   Bob.Waldrop@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Waldrop) writes:  What did this have to do with SF?  And please don't answer that a number of libertarians are SF fans or vice versa. I know a  number of SF fans who are also baseball fans but I don't plan on  posting the Red Sox schedule.
In article <1993Apr21.090638.6253@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes: >In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) says: >> >>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE >> >>Man's contribution to environmental "pollution" are paltry compared to those  >>of nature. In her exceptional book TRASHING THE PLANET, former Atomic Energy  >>Commision Chairman Dr. Dixie Lee Ray notes based on the available data, > >Atomic Energy Commision - Hmm, they would say this. >  I'm no defender of the AEC, but it is worth noting that it is unfair to tar that organization with the decidedly minority scientific views of its former chairperson and one term Washington governor, Dr. Dixie Lee Ray. Dr. Ray's political agenda is well-known and documented.  Likewise, her lack of objectivity in analysing scientific data is well-known.  jsh
In article <1993Apr16.131615.8661@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: > 	Clinton has backed off from the $16 billion jobs bill. >  > 	Word is he's paring it down to the core: jobless benefits, money for > creating full time jobs (ie, no summer jobs money). >  > 	Chalk one up for holding the line on spending.  	It seems radio reports were overly optimistic.  All Clinton wants to cut is $2.5 Billion for community block grants, keeping in summer jobs.  	Hmmm, well, looks like we need to keep up the pressure on our congresspersons.
jpr1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (James P. Reynolds) writes:  >PEOPE JUST DOESN'T GET IT.  The current health care system is a cancer which is >killing our economic well-being.  Costs are still rising 10 percent a year >even as Americans by the tens of millions go without, or are forced into >managed-care programs, which are certainly pretty socialized already if you >ask me.  >A couple of months ago I posted a message asking any Hillary-bashers to please >come forward and present (no gimmicks, straight talk) just how THEY would set >about keeping costs down.  I didn't get a single answer.      The first thing I would do would be to disband Medicare and Medicade!  They are a primary reason why health care costs are going up.  To cover the people that are currently on these programs, I would sell their coverage in blocks to insurance companies.  The private companies would bid to get these large blocks of people, and prices would go down.      To get away from strong federal control on health care, I would pass off more control to the states.  Everyone is always spewing forth about how  wonderful Hawaii is doing.  Well, how about giving some other STATES incentive to try their own plans      What I would NOT do is try to implement some far reaching federal program program to cover all Americans, because this is the surest way to fail!   >How can anyone read the news, live under our system, and NOT see these faults? >How can we deal with the deficit, our cities, our educational system, our >infrastrucure, AIDS, modernizing our industry, etc. if we don't quit throwing >away money which could be used to SOLVE those problems?     One sure way to stop throwing money away is to stop giving so much to the federal government.  Our FEDERAL taxes should be slashed, and our STATE taxes increased.  A strong central government always fails.  Give power back to the states/counties/cities, where it belongs.  >America needs health care reform NOW.  Don't just sit there and Hillary-bash, >inform yourself!