waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de                            writes... >In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes: >|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty >|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock >|>>set in. >|> >|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the >|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and >|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted >|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.) >  >The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in question. >The stripping of the powers of the House of Lords did not occur until 1914 >and David Llloyd George's budget. Even despite this the House of Lords has >considerable power even today and is far from a rubber stamping body.  >  Just how much power does the House of Lords have now?   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson "This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com settled into the situation and found my bearings. THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
#1  Clayton, my man...  You are a tad out of touch....  First, gay comunities all over the country are in the process of excluding NAMBLA from parades etc.  #2  Nobody from NAMBLA is gonna get a job in a day care centre.  The same liberals you are upset about are also passing laws that make tough background checks for childcare people.  #3  Tell me, how would you feel if your employer fired you for your antigay post on the internet?  Would you be upset ?  I`ll bet you would be pissed! To some, your posts ,ight make the company look bad. While your posts offend me I dont think it would be right for you to get fired over it.  I dont believe the gay comunity is asking for hiring quotas like the affirmative action laws of the 60's did. My understanding is that the gay community just wants the same rights the srtraights have.  I dont think people should have their leases cancelled when their landlord finds out they are gay.  I dont think that when someone sees someone walk out of a gay business and then blabs it all over work that the gay person gets fired. Do you REALLY think these are justified ?  #4  Clayton, I am told you are a parent a couple times over. Have you been following the strip in the paper "For Better or For Worse" ?  I honestly want your opinion as a parent on the strip.    Do you really care about your childeren as much as friends of mine tell me ?  How much do you care about your childeren ? How much do you care about other people's childeren?  Do you care about MY childeren? Do you care about my sister's childeren ?  If one of your kids told you he/she was gay, would you throw them out of your home in the middle of the night?  Would you approve of your childeren driving down to San Francisco to trow bottles at and beat up on gay people?  Would you condone your childeren beating up on someone elses childeren ?
Dave O'Shea (dos@major.panix.com) wrote: : 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.  It's actually quite simple. We sell Drug Use Licenses to anybody over age 18 who wants one.  Costs $100 and you're required to attend a week of night classes on the effects of drugs on the human body. At the end of the class, you sign an informed consent waiver acknowledging that you've been told that drugs are bad for you, but you want them anyway. In doing so, you giver up ANY right to state-paid medical care for whatever might happen to you as a result of doing drugs, or any right to collect welfare or unemployment should you lose your job as a result of using drugs. You'd also give up your right to drive a car.    Anybody caught using drugs without a license has a choice; pay a $1000 fine and accept a backdated drug user's license, or go to prison.  --  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 article <1993Apr3.185448.13811@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: > In article <kmitchelC4wA87.HLz@netcom.com> kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes: # #Slavery makes economic sense (it NEVER makes MORAL sense) when human # #muscle power is an economically valuable asset. Agricultural slavery might # #have lasted right up to the first mechanical cotton reaper, but no # #further; reapers are cheaper than slaves, and don't have to be fed during # #the winter.  #  # This argument makes a several fundamental errors.  First "agricultural" # slavery was not limited to production of cotton.  In the American south # slave labor was used extensively to grow tobacco, sugar, and rice, all # of which remained labor intensive enterprises well into the 20th century.  And of course, in states like Kentucky and Virginia, not well-suited to large-scale plantations, slave labor was used to make one of the most  valuable agricultural products of all: more slaves.  In some ways, this treatment of humans beings as breeding livestock is the most horrifying aspect of American slavery.  # Second, although mechanization of cotton production could be expected to # reduce the demands for labor eventually, it was only in the 1940's  # the mechanization of cotton production in the South largely eliminated # the labor intensive character of the operation, long after the "first # mechanical cotton reaper" was invented.  This is an interesting question.  Steinbeck's _Grapes of Wrath_ (published in the 1930s), uses agricultural mechanization of cotton production in Arkansas as the cause of the Joad family being evicted from the land.  How many years were involved in the mechanization of cotton farming?  When did this first appear?  # #Ken Mitchell       | The powers not delegated to the United States by the # Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM
pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:  > I want to know that I have a competent doctor when I am ill.  Government > regulations have driven up costs and decreased quality by providing a > monopoly for licensed M.D.s.  Many procedures could be performed by > qualified nurses but doctors are forced to do them.  The common cold > must be diagnosed by a licensed doctor who is the only one who is > allowed to write a perscription.  Doctor's are spending much of their > time on such mundane cases that they cannot have the time to spend on > the really tough cases.  This results in higher cost, lower quality > medical care.  Here in Georgia, the state legislature in 1992 "accidentally passed a law  lobbied for by Opthamologists prohibiting anyone but a licensed MD from giving shots. They were trying to limit Optometrists from competing with them. They inadvertantly forbade nurses, EMTs, dentists, and tattoo artists  from "piercing the skin." (probably diabetics too). The Secretary of State's  office announced on June 30th that they wouldn't enforce it pending reconsideration in the 1003 Legislature. In the hassle over the state flag I heard nothing about repealing it.
In article <1993Apr12.183349.23115@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:  [...]  > What I see is that the media is reasonably fair, but is seen as > 'liberal' by conservatives, and 'conservative' by liberals.  Not that I think anyone cares, but this pattern (using other examples of course) was discussed 2,000 years ago by Aristotle in _Nicomachean_Ethics_.   Note that you can't use this insight to reason backwards; e.g.:  Since the conservatives see the media as liberal and the liberals see the media as conservative, the media are fair!  (though I've seen this "reasoning" implied)    > Don Pajerek >  > Standard disclaimers apply.  Ken
In article <1993Apr17.055654.21764@midway.uchicago.edu>, dave@seaview.bsd.uchicago.edu  writes... >In article <1993Apr17.043704.23702@oracle.us.oracle.com>   >mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes: >> In article <1993Apr17.023211.23547@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM    >writes: >> >In article <philC5Lru6.LxA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)   >writes... >> >>In article <1993Apr15.195139.29457@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM    >writes: >> >>You dumb shit. >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >	It's amazing that someone with your limited vocabulary learned >> >how to use a computer. Didn't they require you to take English at the   >school >> > where you went? Or are you just crude by nature? >>  >  >I'm forced to agree with Garrett here.  There's no need for vulgarity, >or even hostility.  I mean, it's not as though Garrett _asked_ to be born >dumber than a bag of hammers.  While it can occasionally be annoying, >there is a noble tragedy to someone with no knowlege of geography or  >pre-Madonna history thinking that his political views are worth reading.   >Something like a hydroencephalic trying to master nuclear physics.   >I was the first to note that the population of the PRC isn't gonna >fit into Cambodia unless you puree them, so there's no need to keep  >pounding on that idiocy.  There are plenty of other idiocies in his post. >Find your own and stop hogging mine. >  At first this kind of ranting annoyed me, but now it's rather entertaining. These kinds of posts don't require ANY facts, logic, or even sense. It's  kind of like what 10-year old kids do on the playground. So go on and play. Not everyone on the net is as simple minded as you guys seem to be.  >Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago, >Biological Sciences Division               dave@delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu >Brain damage was what we were after. The chromosome damage was just gravy.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has          Garrett Johnson  come." --Tussman                                           Garrett@Ingres.com "The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action." - Unknown
cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  > the liberal Gov. Wilder vetoed it.  Which shows that liberals don't > give a damn about "best person for the job," it's just a power > play.     "Women are only interested in clothes and shopping"    "Whites are imperialist colonial fascists"    "Blacks are lazy uneducated scum"    "Men are rapists"    "Homosexuals support child-molesting"     Slogans, my dear Cramer, are not an adequate substitute for thought.
In article <C5wGMt.3p8@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes: -> In article <JASON.93Apr22113337@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes: -> >In article <1r52hf$ah4@calvin.NYU.EDU> hargitai@acf4.nyu.edu (hargitai) writes: -> >->  -> >-> For those who still doubt what is going on, this is -> >-> from the still uncensored AP wire: -> >->  -> >-> Two journalists from Houston arrested at gun-point and -> >-> cuffed and jailed for taking pictures of the compound today. -> >-> Later released on bail, but cameras and film were confiscated. -> >->  -> >-> jh -> > -> >	You could work for CNN.  Take a few lines from a story and -> >imply something with it but don't say what you really mean.   -> > -> >	The police always close off the area around a major crime -> >scene to keep evidence from being disturbed ->  ->     By taking pictures?  	They leave foot prints, they may drop some trash on the ground, and they may pick up something that looks interesting.  ->  -> >, and it is a misdemeanor -> >to enter the closed off area.  One of the photographers also quickly -> >spun around with a long lens camera while the officer was approaching, -> >a good way to get shot.   ->  ->     Well, that (hopefully) depends on what country one is in.  	It has nothing to do with the country.  You are coming toward someone in an area where there has been violent confrontations, and one guy spins around quickly with an object that looks like a gun. Police are not trained to stand there and let someone gun them down.  -> There was also no indication in that story -> >that they wouldn't get their cameras and film back after getting out -> >of jail. ->  ->     Once goverment agents have had an opportunity to check  ->     the film out.  	You're making statements that are not supported by facts. Don't let paranoia get the best of you.  Wait to see if the reporters don't get their film back or they get it back developed before screaming conspiracy.  ->  ->     I think it was Barry Goldwater who once said "the goverment ->     that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to ->     take everything from you."  You life and/or freedom including. ->     Of course, that could not happen to you, could it?  	Our government is not big enough to give you everything, despite the efforts of people like Bill Clinton.  Taking a statement like that and thinking `everything done in the name of law enforcement is wrong' is simple minded and ignorant of history.  A government is a necessary evil, and we must decide what it should be allowed to do based on facts, history, and not by baseless claims.
William December Starr writes...  in a typical lawyer baiting fashion, as usual.   (All the while ignoring every principle of the ACLU.)  Good to see your still out there WDS. Surely we've been around the ring enough by now, that you know  you can't spin me up with expletives.   Let's see if there's anything left worth responding to...  >Cyrus' "Achy Breaky Heart" ad infinitum until either Koresh surrenders or >the rest of the state of Texas is totally depopulated... :-)  E for effort. Heard about the folks who live around foghorns and  airports?  >> Erect an Inverted Cross, or a Star of David broken asunder, out in >> front of the Davidians to provoke them. Or boom out Islamic prayers. >> Or worse. What temple would you destroy?  What books would you burn? >> Will you kill clergy? Will you mock the Spirit of GOD before the >> innocent?? >  >Sure I would.  Why not?  Seems right in character to me -- creature of the state.  Btw, are you still happy with your presidents?  >> If you in government have no respect for other's faith, and no respect >> for the lives and well being of those innocent children caught in this >> hell you've created -- why should anyone respect your lipservice of >> "rule of law?" >  >What does rule of law have to do with respect for anyone's religious >faith?    See the part about the children following the "and" in the first line above.   As to a connection, your "cult" is "faith in rules".   >> No matter who the criminals are, or what they've done (and it looks >> like there are criminals on both sides of the matter) -- their >> conviction is not worth the abuse you're causing. >  >What abuse?  Please be specific.  Sure. My concern is the well being of the children.    >> If you are willing to ignore the children, or heap abuse, insult, and >> sacrilege on the children inside the Davidian house -- then GOD REBUKE >> YOU. Best you learn directly from the Lord the corruption you're >> committing. In GOD's good time and way, the LORD judge you -- I can >> not. For truth be told I would send you all straight to hell -- and >> GOD would be right in sending me right along with you. >  >Oh, fuck you and the God you rode in on, Stephen.  If you can show the >legitimacy of God's claim of sovereignty over man, please do so. >Otherwise stop ranting and raving about him already. >  >-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>  {Interesting that you would respond "emotionally" in defense of the  government. Maybe there is a beating heart there.}  For the record though, the biggest-baddest goverment on earth claims  the most sovereignty over man. Best I can tell God allows anyone to go to hell who wants to. Omnipotency logically determines that "allowing" and "sending" mean the same thing.  (Mere human concepts of course.)  So come on WDS. Why bother to try some flimsy facade of logic. Waco proves it's not needed -- the demonstration that government can walk over it's own rules in the name of justice has been made. No problem  by me. Noted and announced -- for the record. Just giving the govern- ment it's due, and getting back to more worthwhile non-government  concerns.
Hi,   Wonder how much money is being spent at Waco by BATF ?  Are we paying because BATF messed up and have made this a prestige issue ??   Girish    --   Girish Kumthekar		Unix Technical Support
In article <15149@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  >In article <113328@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:  >>When are you going to admit that the data you presented show >>just this---that only about 3% of child molesters are gay, and thus are >>NOT overrepresented with respect to the general incidence of homosexuality?  >When someone can show something besides a Redbook article.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this irrelevant?  Either the data shows something, or it doesn't. Regardless of what other studies show.  Admit it. What you SHOWED to us doesn't prove that gay men are more likely to be molesters.  Brian
In article <1r2g4oINNqa7@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House) writes: > >                           THE WHITE HOUSE > >                    Office of the Press Secretary >______________________________________________________________ >For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993      > >	      >                       REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT >            IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH THE PRESS  > > >1:36 P.M. EDT >	      >	      >	     THE PRESIDENT:  On February the 28th, four federal  >agents were killed in the line of duty trying to enforce the law  >against the Branch Davidian compound, which had illegally stockpiled  >weaponry and ammunition, and placed innocent children at risk.   >Because the BATF operation had failed to meet its objective, a 51-day  >standoff ensued.   >	      >	     The Federal Bureau of Investigation then made every  >reasonable effort to bring this perilous situation to an end without  >bloodshed and further loss of life.  The Bureau's efforts were  >ultimately unavailing because the individual with whom they were  >dealing, David Koresh, was dangerous, irrational, and probably  >insane.       >  The Stacy Koon-Lawrence Powell defense!  The decisions of Janet Reno and Bill Clinton in this affair are essentially the moral equivalents of Stacy Koon's.  Reno and Clinton have the advantage in that they investigate themselves.
In article <1qunlgINNfdr@titan.ucs.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes: -> >	I think he's talking about Kinsey who came up with the 10% -> >statistic used heavily by gay groups to push their political agenda. -> >Kinsey's work has often been accused of lacking a strong scientific -> >backbone.   ->  -> I really must defend my man Alfred.  Not that this poster was really -> to be taken seriously, since the deletiae are a phobe's rants.  But -> still, some who aren't such phobes mistakenly criticize my man.   	You really need to be able to support yourself without insults.  The article you're calling rants actually had absolutely none of my opinions and was only a series of factual statements.
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?!  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!    You asked a question, and now you don't want people to answer?  I believe a legitimate question was asked.  Why shouldn't cost and safety be used (at least in part) to determine legality?  I'd like to see you *prove* that drug legalization is an idiotic idea. Seems to me the evidence from Great Britain is pretty convincing that  drug legalization is a good idea.  Even such a noted conservative as William F. Buckley supports it. > >My point was that it is pretty stupid to justify legalizing something just >because it will be safer and cheaper. >  >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.  Your examples (except for prostitution) fail miserably to meet both criteria (safer AND cheaper).  Obviously, killing people is not "safe".  As for prostitution, why shouldn't it be legal? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...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 article <C4vxvK.Bxr@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) wrote:  > Top Ten Reasons Hillary and Chealsea Don't Like Men in Uniform >                             ^^^^^^^^ > [...] >  > 6.  They keep saluting and stuff. Its embarassing. >                                   ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ > [...] > Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993    Ed:      Before you ridicule the intelligence of other people, LEARN TO SPELL.  Your typographical errors are, indeed, "embarassing" to those of us who read alt.politics.libertarian for its allegedly superior ideas and writing.
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.
In article <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes: > Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon > homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot > of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged > to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks > put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual  Such as?  Not being able to get married isn't a roadblock to a permanent relationship.  Lack of a marriage certificate doesn't force a couple to break up.  This is an excuse used by homosexuals because the  alternative is to ask why they are so much more promiscuous than  straights.  > Dan