waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <15APR199320293386@utkvx.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes: >In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes... >>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes: >>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C >>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes: >>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling >>>>his so called stimulus package. >>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free >>>>immunizations for poor kids. >>> >>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to >>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents >>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done. > >I don't know where YOU live, but this is not the case nationawide. >Perhaps your state or municipality has put together the funds to  >do so, but in my area and most areas where I know people, immunizations >cost $$$.      Nationwide, the immunization rate among toddlers is about 50%, but     it is reportedly as low as 10% in some inner-city neighborhoods.     I bet more than 10% kids living in such neighborhoods are already      covered by Medicaid.      Here in Massachussets, we have had a universal immunization program,     the kind of Clinton seems to be proposing, for many years (two decades?).     Mass' immunization rate is 65%.  What about the other 35%?  I guess     some parents are indeed too ignorant or too lazy , or simply do not      care.    > >Sorry to shatter your stereotypes.      ??? > >>  >>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health >>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give  >>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services >>    delivered to their doorsteps. >>  >>  >>--  >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's. >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes: :  : >It's quite possible that a buyer and seller will both : >trust some third party more than either trust the other, and : >will desire the moderation of that third party.  But if a random : >third party assumes the right to interfere in a transaction contarary : >to the wishes of the primary participants, odds are pretty good the : >results will be detrimental. :  : So we try to ensure that the process of deciding whether to introduce : third parties isn't random.  As Steve said above, there are examples : where third parties *are* less ignorant or corrupt than the two : primary parties; should this knowledge not be able to help? :  A third party should be able to use persuasion to sway the transaction. If, on the other hand, we condone the use of force or threat of violence  by the third party, then we are in trouble.  A fourth party could say  that it knows better than parties 1, 2, and 3.  And a fifth party... and  so on.  Who wins?  The one that can use the force or threat of force the best.  In other words "Might makes right."  Let's abandon such aggressive tactics and work from voluntary cooperation and respect from  others.  That is what libertarians want.
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. > >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. > >The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked >assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they >expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who >would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up >in a tank and broken the door down on day one.  So, you approve of the BATF launching a 100-person raid, complete with flack jackets, men hidden in horse trailers, stun grenades, semi-auto weapons on peaceful citizens?  who would also accept a search authoried by a court?  There is still no proof that the Branch Davidians had illegal weapons. Nothing else was in the jurisdiction of the BATF, unless they were thought to have a still, or be smoking untaxed cigarettes.  The automatic firearms violation is a TAX matter !  You don't serve no-knock warrants on someone with .50 CAL MGs.  It isn't necessary (they can't flush a machine gun down a toilet, you know), and it isn't smart (if you are right, you got a good chance of getting blown away. if you are wrong, you shouldn't have done it.)  > >The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by >ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police.   The stupidity was indeed related to this.  But the stupidity may have been to attempt to serve the warrant by ludicrously over-armed, over-protected and over-confident gestapo.  Escalation isn't automatically brilliant.  IT WAS A TAX MATTER !  YOU CAN"T FLUSH MGs DOWN THE TOILET ! YOU DON"T NEED NO-KNOCK WARRANTS FOR EVERYTHING.  Actually, IMHO nothing justifies them, but that is another argument . > > >If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing >the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could >hear it. > There wasn't any murder of police officers.  There was probable cause to arrest them for murder perhaps.  We US citizens are innocent until proven guilty.  There also wasn't any killing until the BATF screwed up real bad.  > >Phill Hallam-Baker >  Lew
In <1993Apr5.204531.9006@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:  >In article <C4zA0H.IHD@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com writes: >>In article 1pamhpINN7d3@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu, taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes: >>>I'm prepared to instruct individuals in the proper use and  >>>handling of firearms.    >>>As a Desert Storm vet with six years in the National Guard, I have a >>>great deal of experience in handling weapons and tactical training.    >>ps: anyone up for a discussion of counter sniper operations? >>Security drills, Your Friend the Counter Terrorist Operation.....   >If twit promises to train them in tactics and weapons handlings, I doubt >any of them will last long enough to become terrorists. Look for a sudden >rise in firearms accidents among the Fiends of the Fetus, though.
rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:  >Very simple.  An 'Insurance Commissioner' is a bureaucrat - a regulator. >It is his/her duties to make rules to enforce laws.    ...and to make life difficult for us actuaries..... :-/  --  Michael D. Adams	(starowl@a2i.rahul.net)	  Champaign, IL / southeast AL
In article <C5wA2G.1CC@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes: > In article <C5w51C.H39@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> patk@sr.hp.com (Patrick Kearney) writes: > > > >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. >  >   As has already been pointed out, the Jews faced a totally >   different fate at the hand of the Romans than did Koresh  >   at the hand of the feds.  The Jewish men would most likely >   have been crucified, the the women and children sold into >   slavery.   One can well argue that Koresh may have *thought* >   that a similar fate awaited him, but there was scant rational  >   basis for that fear, so "insane" seems to describe any such >   belief.  What is the penalty if convicted of murdering 4 Federal agents in Texas?  The death penalty.  >   None of which excuses the reckless action of the feds, who >   allegedly believing they were dealing with a nut, should  >   have exercise much more restraint.  Indeed, given their  >   *stated* goals of saving the children, one might also apply >   the moniker "insane" to the feds' actions.  Yup.
In article <1r7prg$hpq@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@spam.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes: >In article <1993Apr22.031648.2886@a.cs.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes: [...]  > >You are speculating that the FBI purposely started the fire?!?!?  Please, >if you've got such a ridiculously extraordinary claim, and have no evidence >whatsoever, at least give us a speculatory reason why the FBI would want to >do such a thing. > >The possibility that the fire was started accidentally is much more reasonable, >but we don't have anything but contradictory anecdotal evidence right now. >--  >*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___   Mr. Kuo: I don't recall seeing your byline around much before (at least on t.p.m). Let me clue you in on this newsgroup. t.p.m is populated largely by people whose hatred for the U.S. government, especially the government of Mr. Clinton, is literally boundless. To these people, the suggestion that agents of the U.S. government would carry out a spectacular massacre of its own citizens, in full view of TV cameras, is not an 'extraordinary claim'. It's just another day in the life of these United States.  They don't have to suggest any reason why the FBI would want to publicly massacre citizens. Have you seen 'The Crying Game'?   	"It's in their nature".   Don Pajerek
In article <31MAR199317363332@jane.uh.edu>, mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble) wrote: Christian Struble writes:  > Some people are not very good at getting the best deal for their  > effort, and others are unwilling to put forth much effort, even in > the face of economic incentives. There will always be some people  > who are stupid or lazy, relative to the ability or effort of most  > others. The question is what do you do with them? There are three  > options: > [...] > 2) Kill those who are not productive as a drain upon "society".  >    This is the communist ("All who do not toil shall not eat" -  >    Lenin) or fascist approach. > [...]      You're being too generous to the communists, I think.  In practice, communism has "solved" the problem by killing off anybody who is _too_ productive, and who therefore raises embarrassing questions about why the rest of the group is a bunch of sluggards.  The mass butchery of "kulaks" in the USSR is a good instance of this.     A poor second best is to have a neighboring capitalist country to which people of politically incorrect skill and ambition flee.  I often wonder just what Castro would have done if the Cubans presently in Miami would have been forced to remain in Cuba.  Would they have revolted and killed him off, or been killed?     Best of all is to build a wall locking the citizens of your country in, load it up so heavily with attack dogs, barbed wire, and land mines that most people fleeing over it die, and then give everyone the choice of obedience, prison, or flight.  This would be a bad science-fiction novel, if the East Germans hadn't actually done it.  The last person to die crossing the wall, as I recall, was an unarmed woman who was shot in the back.  Erich Honecker was going to go on trial for that, but he fled to socialists in Chile.     It's good to be kind to one's intellectual opponents, but sometimes it's a sheer waste of time.
>>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 think that you all have it bad....here at good ol' Southwest Missouri State U., we have 2 parties running for student body president.  There's the token sorority/fraternity faces, and then there's the president and vice president of NORML.  They campaigned by handing out condoms and listing their qualifications as,"I listen really well."  It makes me sick to have a party established on many of the things that are ruining this country like they are.  I think I'll run next year.:(
In article <1993Apr14.152634.16128@pony.Ingres.COM>, jab@Ingres.COM (jeff bowles) writes: > tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes: >>questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate in?" >>and you think he made a good case????? The arresting officer said the >>bastards told him they did it on purpose and hoped the victim would die, >>and you think the defense made a good case????? No wonder we're losing!  >>We're aparently not trying to win! >  > The clip I saw was even worse than that. The defense attorney was asking > something like "what have you done to serve YOUR country, as compared to > these fine upstanding examples of patriotism?" >  > I didn't see the response; I don't think it was shown on TV. I wish the > response had been "I vote. I pay taxes. I pay my salary. I support the Bill > of Rights, unlike you, Counselor." >  > In my dreams :-( >  > Now, the real question is, could this be a federal civil rights case, since > the state case was a sham? (Sound like a well-known Los Angeles trial?) Probably > not: fags and dykes aren't protected (for being fags and dykes) under civil > rights laws. >  > I would doubt any civil rights case would be in order for the point that you mentioned.  Even if it were possible, I think it is a bad idea since it smacks real strongly of double jeopardy.  A civil case for damages is fine since that is a trial that would proceed regardless of the first.  I think a bad precedent has already been set in the King trial in L.A. and something like this would make it worse.  Regardless of how bad anybody feels about this decision, it must stand that charges of assault were not not proven against the three marines and that's how it should stand.  Frank (who is still mad, but now somewhat sane)   --------------------------------------------------------------------------  Frank R. Chloupek  CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu  Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University (Not just any Ohio State University)
Rich Thompson posts some blather about the Libertarian Party:  >August 30, 31, Sept. 1:           Everything You Always Wanted to >                                  Know About Winning Elections, but >                                  Didn't Know Where to Ask!   What pray tell do the Libertarians know about winning elections?  Bob   --
In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes: >>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: >>:  >>: As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face >>: is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the  >>: tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda. >>:   [...]  >It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any >reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  You seem to be saying that a LIMITED government will provide MORE opportunities for private interests to use it to pursue their own agendas, and asking libertarians to prove that this will NOT happen. While I can't offer such a proof, it seems pretty damn plausible that if the government does not regulate a particular area, it cannot become a tool of private interests to pursue their own agendas in that area. I rather suspect that it's the sort of government we have NOW that is more likely to become such a tool, and that it IS such a tool in many instances.  >Just >as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and >the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how >weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human >condition.  I suspect that this is because "improvement in the human condition" as you define it is not the primary goal of libertarianism, and would not be the primary goal of a libertarian government.  My impression of libertarianism is that its primary goal is the elimination of government coercion except in a very limited cases. --  Ian Sutherland ian@eecs.nwu.edu
In article <15427@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: ## Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners.... # #Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.  Err, earth to Clayton, you posted this to show that 2% were homosexual. So if we assume EVERY homosexual was promiscious, that leads us to conclude that 23 percent of heterosexuals are promiscious. And that first assumtion is a bad one.  Clayton, it *IS* suprising from the claims you are making.
In article <1993Apr16.164750.21913@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:  >In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes: >>      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. >>       >>      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who >>      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ". >> > >Actually, Jerry Brown essentially did...and Clinton, in his demagogue >persona, condemned Brown for it in the crucial NY primary last year. > >However.... > >Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they >will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible >(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they >have in Europe) >and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate >and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give >the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform,          The Republicans are, in general, fighting any tax increase. There is also worry that a VAT would be far too easy to increase incrementally.         (BTW, what is different between Canada's tax and most of Europe's that makes it "visible?")  >and >force an agreement with the Democrats that the top income tax >rate would then be frozen for the forseeable future and could >be increased only via a national referendum.         This would require a constitutional amendment, and Congress enjoys raising taxes too much to restrict themselves like that. (Besides, with the 2/3 majority necessary to pull that off you'd  have a difficult time "forcing" anything like that.)  >Why not make use of the Clintons to do something worthwhile... >shift the tax burden from investment to consumption, and get >health care reform, and a frozen low top marginal tax rate >all in one fell swoop.         Primarily because it's a practical impossibility to "freeze" tax rates.         However, this is something that bothers me.  We're always talking about "consumer confidence" and "consumer spending" as gauges for the economy.  If they really are important, wouldn't shifting taxes to consumption provide a disincentive to spend money?
In article <1r1pit$n7k@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes: > In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes: > >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? > > > >	Firstly, they could have backed off. >  > Regardless of who was at fault in the first assault (the one in which > four ATF officers died), once that was over backing off was no longer > an option.  The people inside, particularly Koresh, were criminal > suspects.  They could have made a case of self-defense, if they wanted, > in a court of law.  Until then the police had the responsibility to > capture and arrest them.  I've never heard of a case where the police > knew there was a criminal suspect in a building, and still decided > to back off.  Continuing the siege was one of the few alternatives > to what actually took place, and it's a matter of debate whether any > of these would have ended any better. >   How about letting in the press?  How about letting Koresh out to talk to the press?  Maybe if he had been allowed to talk with the press/TV for a couple of days he would have surrendered peacefully.   How about letting the relatives of Koresh`s followers talk?   Seems to me when you isolate someone, try to send them crazy by playing loudspeakers through the night of Tibetan chants, etc., you don`t have much to stand on when they behave as if they are crazy.  (I`m not too sure of their sanity to start with.)  I am VERY suspicious when the government controls all communication, and sends the press 2 miles away.  I have a gut feeling that no-knock warrant, which is sealed, would not stand up to scrutiny.
In a previous article, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:  > > >reports that a survivor of the Waco massacre states that a tank, when >making a hole in the wall of the building, knocked over a kerosene >lamp and that is how the fire started.  Attempts were made by the >people inside to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly.
cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  > You mean, if a large part of the population supports discrimination  > against homosexuals, they will be injured.  But if a large part of the > population supports such discrimination, how did that law get passed?     An addition to anti-discrimination laws which includes homo and bisexuality ? One would assume it would be because politicians were listening to the people coming up with rational arguments rather than variations on bigotry. Logic sometimes prevails.    BTW, glad to see that you've admitted sexual attraction to children is a seperate sexual orientation. Didn't think you had that much honesty.
In article <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:  |> The situation in Waco was similar to a hostage situation with  |> a madman holding a gun against the head of an innocent person. |> In such a situation, a person who provokes the madman and causes  |> him to pull the gun's trigger is responsible for the death of the |> hostage.  Janet Reno blindly stumbled in there and basically |> threw a tear gas container at the madman hoping that he would |> release the hostage.  It's no surprise that the madman would |> pull the trigger in response to that kind of provocation.  Just out of curiosity, what else was there to do in this situation? Wait another 51 days/weeks/months/years???  Was there anything indicating that these children and the other people were going to get out alive?