waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr3.231858.27507@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:    In article <1993Apr3.223215.20655@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:    >	Well, the two nifty letters giving concrete proof that the    >Income Tax is voluntary and giving specific procedures for stopping    >withholding, et cetera have been out there for a while now.    >	There has been no refutation to date. Have the nay-sayers    >finally given up as defeated? Sure would like to hear there reasons    >for disbelief at this point.     Probably because you have yet to respond to the refutation I've posted.    Teel, it's bad enough you post this bs, it's even worse that you don't    even try to defend it when it gets torn to pieces, but then posting    that no one's looked at it and gloating when all facts point to the    contrary point to a severely deluded mind.  What I found interesting about Conklin's letter is the  6 cases he has won against the IRS.  Now, assuming that these cases really exist and were one by him (anyone checked?) they may have nothing to do with his major tax claim.  The IRS fought one of his deductions.   Defending your deductions seems puny when you believe that there is no need to file in the first place!
In article <1993Apr22.095731.20865@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes: > In article <1993Apr21.160722.6920@msuvx2.memst.edu> mech24135045@msuvx2.memst.edu writes: >>In article <93111.14430834AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: >>> Above quote from Rush's radio show yesterday, when he referred to recent events >>> near Waco, Texas. >>>  >> >>Me either. Yes, it's regrettable that eighty-some-odd people died, but >>they could have walked out the door with the simple turn of a knob. It's >>just plain stupid to lay the blame for this at anyones feet but ol' Vernon's. >>If the FBI/BATF started the fire, why did it take six or so hours to catch? >>Timed incendiary devices, you say? Could those idiots not have picked them  >>up and tossed them out the window? And what of this argument about whether >>a wood burning stove was being used? It's a known fact that when a city is >>under seige, the citzens thereof eat what they can, how they can. Hell, >>the BD's could've had MRE type grub for all any of us know. >>My conscience is clear. >  > Does the word smolder mean anything to you?  Several minutes can go by > before a smoldering cigarette butt in a couch sets the couch on fire. > Here's a possible (maybe very possible) scenario:  one of the CS gas > grenades that the FBI threw in earlier caused some material like the > drapes or carpet to smolder for an extended period of time.  Later > on when a tank punched a hole in the wall, knocking over one of the > BDs kerosene lanterns, kerosene spilled onto this smoldering material, > resulting in a fire that killed 86 people inside.  Another possibility  And this results in a fire that starts in one room and torches the entire place before anyone in the adjacent rooms can escape?  I don't think so.  So much for the smolder theory.
THE WHITE HOUSE                      Office of the Press Secretary  ____________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release                                  April 5, 1993                          REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT         EN ROUTE TO CAMDEN YARDS FOR ORIOLES OPENING DAY GAME 	                                    MARC Train                        En Route to Camden Yards    11:45 A.M. EDT 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, what do you think of Jesse Jackson's  protest today? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think it's an informational protest.   I think it's fine.  The owners put out a statement few days ago,  which they say was the first step in, you know, efforts to increase  minority ownership and minority increases in management.  I think we  should.  I'm encouraged by Don Baylor's appointment out in Colorado.   And I think it's time to make a move on that front.  So, I think it's  a legitimate issue, and I think it's -- like I said, it's an  informational picket and not an attempt to get people not to go to  the game.  So, I think it's good. 	      	     Q	  Do you think they're moving fast enough? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that it was a good first  step.  And I think you'll see some movement now.  And I think it's an  issue that deserves some attention, and they're obviously going to  give it some.  And I think that Reverend Jackson being out there will  highlight the issue.  So I think it's fine. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, how about the logjam in the Senate  on the economic stimulus plan?  Do you think they'll be able to break  that and get cloture? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't know, we're working at it.  I  mean, it's a classic -- there was an article in the paper today, one  of the papers I saw, which pretty well summed it up.  They said, you  know, this is a -- it's just a political power play.  In the Senate  the majority does not rule.  It's not like the country.  It's not  like the -- it's not like the House.  If the minority chooses, they  can stop majority rule.  And that's what they're doing.  There are a  lot of Republican senators who have told people that they might vote  for the stimulus program but there's enormous partisan political  pressure not to do it.   	      	     And, of course, what it means is that in this time when  no new jobs are being created, even though there seems to be an  economic recovery, it means that for political purposes they're  willing to deny jobs to places like Baltimore and Dallas and Houston  and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and Portland and Seattle.  It's very  sad.  I mean, the block grant program was designed to create jobs in  a hurry based on local priorities, and it's one that the Republicans  had always championed.  Just about the only Democrat champions of the  program were people like me who were out there at the grassroots  level, governors and senators.  I just think it's real sad that they  have chosen to exert the minority muscle in a way that will keep  Americans out of work.  I think it's a mistake. 	      	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
Here is a press release from the American Federation of Teachers.   HHS Secretary Shalala to Address AFT's Paraprofessional and School-Related Personnel Conference  To: National and Assignment desks, Education Writer  Contact: Jamie Horwitz of American Federation of Teachers,           202-879-4447     News Advisory:     Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala will speak to the 16th annual AFT Paraprofessional and School-Related Personnel Conference at 8 p.m., Friday, April 23, at the Washington Hilton.  Shalala will discuss HHS's agenda for helping children over the next four years.    AFT's Paraprofessional and School-Related Personnel Division includes school workers such as paraprofessionals and teacher aides, school bus drivers, school secretaries, school custodians and maintenance workers and school food service workers.  More than a thousand school employees will attend the conference which is being held at the Washington Hilton, April 23-25.  Most of the school workers attending the conference come from urban school districts where child health and nutrition, welfare reform and the availability of Head Start and other preschool programs are major issues.    Workshops scheduled for the conference include sessions addressing issues around reauthorization of Chapter 1; how paraprofessionals and school-related personnel, especially minority men, can serve as student role models; the increasing problem of school violence; dealing with abused children; and assisting children with serious health problems.    For a complete conference schedule, contact Jamie Horwitz at 202-879-4447.    The American Federation of Teachers represents 805,000 elementary and secondary teachers, paraprofessionals and school-related personnel, higher education faculty, nurses, state and municipal workers.  -30-
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:  >In article <C5nH58.Hp4@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. >> >>I'm curious why you took a beign statement and cross-posted it to several >>different news groups, including something along the lines of  >>alt.discrimination.    >Exsqueeze me?  I saw *your* original post in alt.discrimination. >Your post was cross-posted to three groups.  My followup was cross-posted >to two of those three (omitting soc.motss).  >Now, instead of engaging in meta-discussion off the topic, could you answer  >the question posed?  If your statement is so "beign"(!?), you should have no >trouble politely responding to a polite query.         Well, I don't think your query was exactly polite, but I will TRY to give you a polite responce.  Something atypical of the net, but here it goes.         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.         The entire second trial was about race, Ted.  I don't feel compelled to discuss Mr. King's racial background, but had Mr. King been white there would not have been a second trial.  You probably are saying that the beating would not have occurred if he were white, but that is an extremely difficult call to make.  It is possible the case, but not definately.          I still think your actions are crap, Ted.  They are far more divisive than me using the adjective 'black' in a non-derogenory manner.  Would you have been happier if I had used 'African-american' ?  If so, then you really are lost in the world of PC.  You have already been instrumental in getting one persons net access revoked, and I wonder if you have sent a copy of my  message to my sys admin with a plea that I am not worthy of posting.
In article <1qkl3i$9bj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) says: >In a previous article, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) says: >>In article <1qhr73$a8d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu >>(Broward Horne) says: >>>      It sure does appear that way, doesn't it? >> >>The attitude that people are stupid if they don't agree with you is not >>going to bring you great success in life. Free advice, there.  >      whew.  Mark, what on EARTH makes you think I give a FUCK >      about being a "success", particularly NOW when I'll just >      the HELL taxed out of me?  Oh, this is excellent.  That was hardly the point, was it? I was commenting on this all-too-common Republican attitude that if people disagree with us, they must be idiots, they must be sheep being led around by the Evil Liberal Media Conspiracy. This is a dangerous attitude indeed. Because it's not a very big step from "people are sheep, they can't think for themselves" to "people are sheep and need firm leadership from we, who know better"... this sort of attitude makes me worry about what'll happen to the United States if the extremist wing of the Republican party ever gets back into power again.  >      Holy christ! :)  Hey! This is a government-funded newsgroup! Let's have some separation of church and state, damn it!  >        Besides, let's <ahem> examine the record, shall we?  >    Broward:   " Clinton's going to taxe the HOLY FUCK out of you! " >    Mark:      " No, he's not.  Only $17 / month "  >   ( I STILL get a laugh out of this one! :) )  More like:  Broward: "Clinton's going to raise your income taxes by over $1000!" Mark:    "No, he's not, only about $204." Broward: (silence)  >    Want some more "free predictions" ?  OK, I predict that in 1996 the Republicans will STILL be bitter. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not very impressive to predict things that are inevitable...
In article <1qn57cINNabv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:     >It is very difficult for a young person to develop and build     >a positive view of themself when they are constantly being     >told implicitly and explicitly that they are wrong and     >immoral.  Yes, that is most certainly true. However, the paragrapgh reflects a value-less position and infers that what is more important than anything else is to have "a positive view" of one's self.  This of course, is foolish.  Should a mass murderer, a pedophile, a 10-year old pyromaniac have a "positive view" of themselves?  Of course not.  A person that engages in behaviour that a large number of people condemn, and IF you believe in the concept of "society", then your only choice is to expect that person to have a negative view of themselves.   --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
In article <1993Apr16.170521.21129@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes: > >SPEAKING OF VAT:  Did anyone see CNN's report yesterday (4/15)?  It  >was quite hillarious (no pun intended).  They ran down how a percent tax >was added at each stage of manufacturing, graphicaly depicting a stack of  >quarters being added at each wholesale stage.  When they got to the final  >stage (the actual retail sale) the small stack of quarters added to the >large stack already there was said to be "the amount paid by consumers." >In other words, they completed ignored the fact that at each stage the >tax would of course be passed on to the next buyer with the retail consumer >paying the full load. > >These are not journalists--they're lap dogs.        One of the commentators on one of the Big Three news programs  described the VAT (which ain't a sales tax) as a tax "government's love." I was even surprised he got the reason right:  it effectively hides the majority of the tax the consumer has to pay *from* the consumer.  It's kind of like they do with cars.  You pay far more for automobile taxes than most people realize because it's contained in two dozen different taxes, everything from your license to your tires to your gasoline.
In article <1993Apr16.221546.1208@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:     On the other hand, Rush made an interesting point: The Democrats ran    one of their best campaigns in years against a pathetic Republican and    a paranoiac and still only pulled 43% of the vote, lost 10 seats in    the House, and gained 0 seats in the Senate.  1994 might be pretty    interesting.  Clueless of the world, take heart!  57% of the electorate is willing to vote for "a pathetic Republican and a paranoiac"!!
In <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:  >Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:  [ edited ]  Now that's funny!  (remembering that good humor always dances uncomfortably close to the truth)   I can't wait to see the inevitable flames.  :-)
I am seeking any press references to how much tax Perot pays in income taxes.  I've heard the figure of 7 percent, since he gets most of his  his income from federal and municipal bond interest. Anybody read a reliable report somewhere? Thanks!
In article <15427@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes: >> In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: ># #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2: ># # ># #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low ># # ># #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough ># #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since ># #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2 ># #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and ># #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual. ># # ># #    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday ># #    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than ># #    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional ># #    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report. >#  ># 1) So what? > >Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate >involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.    Put up or shut up. Where is your evidence? Show a study indicating a link between liking >>GROWN UPS<< of the same sex and liking children. Saying that 30% of molested children are male shows nothing since it tells you nothing of the molesters preference in adults (if they have any at all).   >They also lie >about "10%" to keep politicians scared.  The politicians will have plenty to be scared of in one week be it 1% or 90%.  ># 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers >#    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of >#    us then this is an event unprecidented in history... > >But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but >other members of the leftist agenda.  I'm sure there will be a few non queers, but the vast majority are queer.
Since 1979, the members of the European Parliament (the parliamentary assemby of the European Community) have been elected directly by the citizens of the Member States. Before, the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) were just Members of National Parliaments (MNPs) elected by and from among their peers.  In the European Parliament, every Member State has a fixed number of seats, which increases less than proportionally with the population. Once in five years, a general European election is being held, in which the citizens of all Member States choose their representatives to the European Parliament. Next elections are due in 1994.  Now the voting system for these European elections still differs from one country to another. Although the European Treaty enabling the direct election of the MEPs requires a uniform voting system, up to now every country has just used its own system, more or less the same one used for national elections. British MEPs are elected in a first-past-the-post system with one MEP per district; nearly all other States have chosen a system with proportional representation. But then in some countries (France, Italy) MEPs are allowed to be a MNP as well, whilst in others they are not (Belgium, Netherlands).  The European Parliament is now working on a uniform election system for its own members, so that every candidate should have the same regulations to comply with, regardless of the Member State (s)he wants to be elected for. I would like to know what you people out there think of the following questions:  1. Do you think it is necessary to have uniform regulations or should every Member State continue to use its own regulations (for European elections that is)?  2. Do you think a system of majority voting should be implemented, with one or more MEPs per district, or would you prefer a system with proportional representation (for the whole of the Community or per state, per region, per district?).  3. Do you think the European Commission (or just its president) should be directly elected too, or should it be appointed by the European Parliament, or by the joint Member State governments as it is now?  4. The Maastricht Treaty allows subjects of Member States to stand for election in another Member State they are residing in. Do you think you would or could vote for a foreigner if his/her ideas appeal to you?  5. Do you think MEPs should be allowed to be a member of a national parliament or a regional parliament too? Or a member of a national or regional government body?  6. The European Parliament now has meetings in both Strasbourg and Brussels. MEPs themselves are for a complete move to Brussels in great majority, but political compromises between the governments of the Member States stick to the status quo. Do you approve of this or do you think the European Parliament should meet in one city only, and if yes, which?  Please post your answers to eunet.politics, to which all followups are automatically directed. If you do not have access to that group, please mail your answer directly to me and I will post it for you.  I hope many of you will take the time to post their views on this matter.
In article <stevethC5LI9y.C1v@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri tes: >In article <1993Apr16.171354.3127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.a cs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: >> >>However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to be >>bought like cigarettes is just plain silly. > >I don't find this silly at all.  I find it silly (black humor) that we're >spending billions of dollars and risking the lives and freedoms of every >American to save a bunch of by-choice druggies... > >Could you please tell us WHY you find this silly.  That's, WHY, letters >"W", "H" and "Y", rather than arguments like "oh, _everbody_ thinks such and >such is true".  First, the only drug that could possibly be put in drug stations are marijuana  or its derivitives.  Every other drug that I can think of can kill you if you  take to much.  (By the very nature of these drugs, your decision making skills  aren't up to par.  That is how it differs from asprin, flinstone vitamins, etc. We don't even allow penicilin to be sold over the counter.)  Second, we already have a big enough drunk driving and alchoholic problem in  this country.  If marijuana were legal, undoubtedly more people would use it,  and that IS a problem.  People use it, get stupid, and hurt other people.
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: |> > In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: |> > #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced .... |> >  |> > Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism.  |> >  |> > -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia |>  |> When you force people to associate with others against their will, |> yes. |>  |>    Good grief!  I do believe that for once you may have an argument which may be discussed intelligently!  I guess that you are a person who dislikes contact with people of ethnic minority.  However, your argument again falls flat on its face.  You state that you, under an anti-discrimination bill, would be forced to associate with others [homosexuals, I assume] against your will.  How do you know that you do not associate with them now, except they may be closeted?   Would you like to change your argument to read "forced to associate with truthfully homosexual people against my will"?  You have no proof that anyone you now know may not be homosexual and this punches a large hole in your argument.  Is it your belief that a homosexual comes in only one flavour (sic) and that is the camp mincing type?  Prove it.  You cannot.  I must admit though, that it looks as if you actually thought about your response this time instead of just raving.   |> --  |> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! |> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
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.