waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: > >The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the >Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.  Say WHAT?  Surrounding the compound with armed men and throwing grenades isn't a provocation?  >Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare >a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control >the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that >they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and  >attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang >the doorbell.  You're smoking something not legal in the US.  They never rang the doorbell.  Not even the BATF has claimed that they have. This was a no-knock search.  As to the good reason the BATF has-- the warrant and supporting affadavit have not been made public.
In article <Apr.16.20.34.50.1993.6677@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >So, one >should properly write "Who's promiscuous?"  The answer is: "Many >homosexuals are."   Not quite.  The answer is:  Many homosexuals, heterosexual, and bisexuals are, but then, many are not.   Or, more simply: Lots of people are.
ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:  >	If you are a "United States' Citizen" and a "resident" of the >state, then your citizenship is in D.C. and thus are a 14th Amendment >Citizen. Are you a Citizen of the State in which you live? If you are >a "resident" then you *are not*.
In article <15437@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes: >> 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be  >> promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners? >>  >> 	Just a thought. >> 						-Matt > >You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than >straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are. >  This is getting sad.  All you can do is make this ridiculous statements, based upon some old information and a Press Democrat article that was poorly written.  Please show the numbers for your use of "MUCH more".  I have not seen them.  And I want them to be true and accurate, or at least show a  trend within the everyday gay population.  There are all kinds of 'damaged and screwed up' people, and most of them are not gay.
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 than  >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? 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.  Oh, here's another thing.  Seems like a lot of people in  Columbus drive over to Marysville and make Japanese cars.  Hm. I wonder how many American-owned companies employ those in Central Ohio?  Other than Ohio State University.  :)  cpk --  It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:  |>>Come to that under the original plan there wasn't meant to be anything |>>much for the federal government to do except keep the British out. |> |>       That's also untrue, but at least we're wandering a little closer |>toward reality.  That the Articles of Confederation fell apart is enough |>proof it was there for just a tad bit more.  Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. They certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this was not necessarily their true position.  |>>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.    |>       My reading of the Constitution and other writings gives me absolutely |>no reason to believe the Senate wasn't intended to make use of their  |>law-making powers.  In fact, grid-lock appears to have been designed |>into the system, with the Senate being a more deliberative body to act |>as a check on the more-often elected House.  The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up a bit too slow.   |>       On what basis do you suggest that the Senate was supposed to be |>some sort of rubber-stamp for the House?  You'll note that while the |>President's veto may be over-ridden, the House can't do anything about |>a "veto" by the Senate.  The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent of being a check on unreasonable legislation. The veto was clearly regarded  as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.
In article <1phgakINN9pb@apache.dtcc.edu>, bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:  |>In article <1993Apr2.093952.1149@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes: |> |>>	Ed, they are losing their humor. Please take a break until they |>>get funny again (?), if that is even possible. I liked a few of these, |>>but that list is not even sarcastic, just insulting and definitely not |>>one of your best. I look forward to some better lists after a sabatical? |>>ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU |> |>  No, they must be working, they are getting lots of these 'complaints' |>that they are not funny....  Keep 'em coming, it they weren't funny or |>bothering them they'd just ignore them....     If a six year old child does a funny trick and you say well done he will do it again and it may be funny. Then they may repeat it over and over again bu you still have to pretend its funny even though it isn't any more. Once they are older than six you expect them to realise that doing the same thing over and over again isn't funny any more.  Basicaly Ed fails to be amusing because he is merely crass. He does not make jokes that have any political content beyond attempting to ridicule their target. Calling someone Slick Willie is not funny even if you put on a red nose while you say it, it was a good debating point used on the spur of the moment 12 months ago but now its use merely demonstrates that the user couldn't think of anything original to say.   In the UK there is a tradition of old retired Colnels who bore the dinner guests rigid with their descriptions of old campagns. Ed is clearly one of this type of people who fails to see when a joke is spent.
In <1993Apr5.172920.11779@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:  >In article <bob1.734020014@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes: >>In <1993Apr2.230831.18332@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes: >> >>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: >>># sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >>># >We already kill people (death penalty), and that costs even more >>># >money, so you could as well complain about this extremely barbaric >>># >way of justice. >>># >>># But the death penalty is right. >>># >>># And how expensive can an execution be? I mean, I think rope, cyanide >>># (for the gas), or the rifles and ammunition to arm firing squads are >>># affordable. >>># >>># Now, perhaps lethal injection might be expensive, in that case, let's >>># return to the more efficient methods employed in the past. >> >>>Oh, sure, the death *penalty* is fairly inexpensive, but the trial and >>>sentencing can run millions. >> >>That's assuming our attack puppy is willing to grant people trials in >>his new order.  >And why the hell would I waste my time doing that??  >(to a convicted criminal getting a death sentence)  >'Go directly to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200' >(judge laughing)  Hey puppy, you are getting further around the bend every day. But I wouldn't miss your adolescent ravings for the world, everyone needs a good laugh now and then. :-)  >Simon
In article <1993Apr16.131508.9518@ra.msstate.edu> fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes: >kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes: >>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. > >I'm really surprised Clinton hasn't already tried to do this.  He seems >to want to tackle other irrelevant issues first, so why not this one as well.  Considering that Clinton received a draft notice and got out of it (he admits it) the political feasibility of him abolishing it is not something he would be inclined to risk any extra exposure on.  > >>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.  > >Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, very few >airplanes haven't, but getting rid of something we need is not the >answer.  What do you want to do, start over a rebuild a new airplane >from scatch?  It'll have its problems as well and there will be calls >again, for it to be scrapped.  THe other option is to try to extend >the life of the C-5s and C-141s that are getting extremely old.  If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the  program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.  > >>Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine.  >>Ground the B-2 stealth bomber.  > >It'll cost jobs, but I'm for it.  We especially don't need a B-2. THe >SSN-21, I know litttle about. > Agreed. Congress took money from NASA and FHA to fund the second Seawolf. The shipyards are still building Los Angeles Class submarines and there is a lack of ASW foes to contend with. The Navy is considering reducing the number of attack subs to 40 (Navy Times) and that would entail getting rid of or mothballing some of the current Los Angeles class.  Politically, General Dynamics is in Connecticut and we will get Seawolf subs whether we need them or not.  In addition, more bases need to be closed. Probably Long Beach Naval Station and others. The Navy is talking about three main bases on each coast being  required to home port a total fleet of 320 ships.  The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down a pork happy Congress.
sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: :  : No.  I make a distinction between working for yourself to survive and : paying dues to Mother Nature in the form of labour and working for : Joe propertyowner because you do not have the option of working for : yourself.  Joe propertyowner stands between you and the earth you : work and expects you to pay him *and* mother nature for the right : to survive.  The property laws create a layer of parasites that get : fat on the fact that people have *no option* except to work in : factories.   :  I want people to be able to get the things they need in life.  Property ownership may not be ideal, but it is far better at letting people get what they need to live a productive, fulfulling life.  The first experiment in America, where property ownership was denied, caused, starvation, hunger, and death.  Few people know that the Pilgrims originally tried to have common property to grow food and a common food store.  Many people know the hardships they suffered the first few winters because of it.  After arriving, the Pilgrims made all property common.  They all shared in the work and the resulting crops went into a common store.  After much debate the new Governor Bradford privitized the land; assigning plots to each family.  According to Perry D. Westbrook:  "The change was immediately justified by the increased industry of the inhabitants and by the larger acreage planted."  Bradford himself acknowledged this failure of communism.  He wrote:  "The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.  For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."  Bradford did not blame this failure on the "strangers", but on the basic selfishness in all men.  He wrote "seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them."  In other words, according to Westbrook, "Bradford found private enterprise to be the most suitable economic policy for mankind in its fallen state."  Let's not make the same mistake that the Pilgrims made.  Private property allows a society to flourish, the alternative brings starvation, poverty and discontent.
In article <Apr.15.21.39.43.1993.8726@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study >(discrediting Kinsey) says so.  Wow, does this mean 2 out of 5 homosexuals will be at the March on Washington?  How *very* interesting.  cpk --  It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:  |>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes: |>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes: |>>}  |>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the |>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline |>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ... |>> |>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more |>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care... |> |>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is voluntary  Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of collection effectively makes it a tax.   |>... but like "basic plus" cable, you have to tell them that you don't |>want it ... for example, Hutterite colonies in western Canada are not |>part of it (Mennon and Hutter were fundamentalist Protestants from |>Germany whose followers left for the New World ... Mennonites are a |>very diverse lot while Hutterites are similiar to the Amish).  The |>American idea being floated today gives you no option but to live |>off the land ... |> |>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has |>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through |>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.  Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy has done to the country.  Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselves, thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle class.
Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very       own CNN news LOGO!        Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.        Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this        seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching        time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by        now.              YEAH!  Free HEALTH CARE!   Oh, yeeaaaahhhh!        heh heh        " Bill makes me feel like DANCING! "        MORE AMAZING PREDICTIONS FROM THE INCREDIBLE BROMEISTER!       --------------------------------------------------------        We take you back to Feburary 20th, when the INCREDIBLE        BROMEISTER PREDICTED:  	  " $1,000 per middle class taxpayer in NEW TAXES "            " A NATIONAL SALES TAX "        Now, for more AAMMMAAAAZZZZZZIINNNNGGGGG Predictions!        i)   The NST will be raised from 3% to 5% by 1996. 	   Ooops.  They ALREADY DID it.            	   Okay, then.  The NST will be raised from 5% to 7% by 1996.        ii)  Unemployment will rise!        iii)  Tax revenues will decline.  Deficit will increase! 	    We'll get another DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE by 1997! 	    Everyone will DANCE AND SING!        Yup.  I'm gonna <glancing at watch> bail out of here       at 1 PM, amble on down to the lake.  Hang out.  Sit       in the sun and take it EASY!   :)   Yeah!          I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who       was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".        To paraphrase Hilary Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on       the middle class to pay for my programs "
In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes: >Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been >better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?  Well, they never should have gotten into this situation.  Look at the history of this group. David Koresh has been arrested ?twice?  by local police. Both times, he accepted the arrest warrant and went peacefully. So, the feds decide to arrest him. How do they choose to arrest a person with a record of peaceful obedience under arrest? They throw a concussion grenades at his building.   In addition, we KNOW that we've been lied to. Initially, we were told that they suspected him of molesting children and having several wives. But these are NOT ATF offenses, were they? So they changed their story, several times. And the original warrant is STILL sealed. And we were told about the rockets and ammunition they had... but did anyone notice any ammo exploding in the fire? They claimed that Koresh hadn't left the compound in months... but people in town report seeing him just a week before the raid.  How would I have handled it differently?   Well, first, I haven't seen any evidence that the BDs did anything wrong. There's a sealed warrant, and a collection of stories which keep changing about what they did. So I might not have done ANYTHING.  OK. Now, supposing that I know what the BDs are being arrested for. Well, they've got a history of accepting arrests... so, I send officers to the door with a warrant. Wearing bulletproof vests. Covered from a distance by sharpshooters. Now, there's no good reason to suspect that these people will do anything, right? Why didn't anyone TRY serving a warrant?  OK. Going further. They refuse the warrant. It becomes necessary to raid. You plan a raid. You hear an hour before that there was a leak, and they know your coming. SO what do you do?  Well, change your plans, right? Nope... they go ahead with it anyone... including sending in unprotected men to break into the place. It was idiotic. I don't know what I would have ended up doing. But that original raid should NEVER have happened.  The shit that came later should NEVER have happened.  The full record of the raid should be released to the public to let us know what the hell really happened there.  The lies should NEVER have been told.  	<MC>
In <Apr.17.06.54.41.1993.15825@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:   >> 1) So what?  >So this bolsters the contention that many homosexuals are liars.  This statement is just so blatantly disgusting and free of any implicit neural activity that I will almost completely ignore it.   >> --  >> ------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               . >> \    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . . >>  \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . . >              ^^^^^^^^^^^ >>   \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .  >The above smacks of antiHispanic bigotry.  Sigh.  It's so amusing to watch bigots point fingers at what they imagine to be other bigots.  I do believe this person meant "bean *counting*".  And are you trying to suggest that only Hispanics eat beans?  Or that they even have a monopoly on eating beans?  Or that this person is seriously promoting what is obviously a tongue-in-cheek .sig?  You must have a brain somewhere, if you can cause your fingers to type.  Use it.  Drywid