waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:  >In article <1993Apr5.050127.22304@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes: >>In article <1993Apr4.011042.24938@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com >>(Steve Hendricks) writes: >>>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu> >>>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes: >>>>... >>>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and >>>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of >>>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again? >>> >>>() To deter an epidemic of "gay bashing" that has not been deterred by >>>   assault laws.   >> >>So we ought to make beating up a homosexual more illegal than beating up a >>straight?    >And who's advocating that?  Hate crimes laws are aimed at the motivations >of the acts.  Just like premeditated homicide is treated stricter than >heat-of-passion homicide.  But you still get into trouble. For example - how often are crimes of violence not "hate crimes"? The question is then who are you hating? If its another gang member, then its better than if the person you hate is of a differnt color?   Also, is it realistic to declare that crimes of hate are worse than crimes of gross negligence? (Like random drive by shootings where they can't be hate crimes because the shooter doesn't know who he is going to hit - he just shoots into the crowd).  >>>() No, it is not "double jeopardy."  A single act may lead to multiple >>>   charges and multiple crimes. >> >>I think what you meant to say here was, "With the current mutation of the US >>Constitution under the current police state, someone may be charged multiple >>times for one act if the victim in question is of the right shade."  A single >>act should never merit more than on charge.    >So if I set off a bomb in the World Trade Center, I can only be charged with >more than one murder, and not the other five deaths and extensive property >damage?  After all, the bomb was a single act.  First, I heard today that there is a good chance that the U.S. instead of New York is going after the bombers. This means no capital punishment.  Secondly, double jepardy does help keep the government from going after you for first one murder, then the next, etc. A "sovereign" has essentially one chance with a single fact pattern (such as the World Trade Center bombing). That is why the bombers will in all probability be tried for all the deaths, as well as the property damages, as well as conspiracy, at once. Of course, as we discovered in the Rodney King case, there are two "sovereigns", neither of which can try you twice for the same crime.
In article <eZ0J2B3w165w@unkaphaed.jpunix.com> popec@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell) writes: -> croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) writes: ->  -> > Besides which, we don't *want* Clinton assasinated, because that would make h -> > a martyr a la JFK. -> >  -> > It's a much better deal to have him end his term of office in disgrace, after -> > watching all his liberal democrat friends on his staff run this nation down t -> > toilet. -> >  -> > Assuming, of course, that the riots a fortnight from now don't do it for him. ->  ->  -> He'd have to go a far ways to run things down as bad as Reagan and Bush  -> did.  We didn't have riots but Bush got dumped out on his spotty Behind. ->  ->  -> We'll see in 4 years. ->  ->  -> Pope Charles Slack in our time! ->  -> ?s  	You need to stop watching TV and start reading some history.
In a previous article, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) says:  >In <20APR199308471949@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: > >|In article <visser.735286101@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes... > >|>	I can't wait for the investigation.  Considering that everyone >|>is dead now and the place is burnt to the ground, I guess "honest citizens" >|>will just have to take the word of the ATF about how much of a "threat" >|>these people were.             The BATF warrant was unsealed yesterday.           The entire operation was illegal from day ONE.          No authority for a "no-knock" raid.        No authority to use the Texas helicopters.        No authority to search for a "drug lab".  More ATF lies.
In article <1993Apr21.211635.3737@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) says:  >I'm no defender of the AEC, but it is worth noting that it is unfair to tar >that organization with the decidedly minority scientific views of its >former chairperson and one term Washington governor, Dr. Dixie Lee Ray. >Dr. Ray's political agenda is well-known and documented.  Likewise, her >lack of objectivity in analysing scientific data is well-known.
Yesterday, the FBI was saying that at least three of the bodies had gunshot wounds, indicating that they were shot trying to escape the fire.  Today's paper quotes the medical examiner as saying that there is no evidence of gunshot wounds in any of the recovered bodies.  At the beginning of this siege, it was reported that while Koresh had a class III (machine gun) license, today's paper quotes the government as saying, no, they didn't have a license.  Today's paper reports that a number of the bodies were found with shoulder weapons next to them, as if they had been using them while dying -- which doesn't sound like the sort of action I would expect from a suicide.  Our government lies, as it tries to cover over its incompetence and negligence.  Why should I believe the FBI's claims about anything else, when we can see that they are LYING?  This system of government is beyond reform.
In article <1993Apr22.163758.17886@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes: > In <15491@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >In article <852@esun179.gdc.com>, piatt@gdc.COM (Gary Piatt) writes: # ## Ahh, what's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for # ## the gander.  You don't want homosexuals to impose their moral codes # ## (such diabolical ideas as equal rights) on you, yet you are willing # ## to impose your moral codes on them.  Do I detect a double standard? # ##  # ## -garison #  # #What do you mean?  If adults want to get together for sodomy in # #private, that's their business. #  # And that's precisely what they do.  So what's your problem with the queer # population, boyo?  The only difference between us is what we do in # private--who we love. #  # ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!  Do it in private, and it won't be a problem.  But the reason that the homosexual activists are so hot on antidiscrimination laws is that they want:  1. To be able to wear that lovely chiffon evening gown to work, and not have people get disgusted;  2. To be able to wear their NAMBLA T-shirt and not worry about getting fired;  3. To be able to have access to young boys, so that they start making the next generation of homosexuals.  If your right to privacy is what makes sodomy laws unconstitutional (a position that I agree with), then keep it private, and there won't be a problem.
In article <1qia48INNgta@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes: >	      >	      >	     SECRETARY RILEY:  Good evening and welcome to all of you  >in the thousands of communities around the country that are taking  >part in this satellite town meeting for the month of April. >	      >	     You know, today is April 13th.  In 1743, Thomas  >Jefferson was born, 250 years ago.  I think that's appropriate to  >mention at the beginning of this meeting because since that time he  >has been, of course, a person who has been one that we've all  >followed in terms of our democracy and the importance of education  >here in this great country.  The success of our democracy according  >to Jefferson really depends upon the success of our educational  >system.         I wonder if he realizes the irony of a Federal Secretary invoking a rabid anti-federalist in support of federal education programs?
garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:  >rn11195@medtronic.COM (Robert Nehls)             writes...  >>Jason K. Schechner (jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU) wrote:  >>: In article <1pf22mINNd7c@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:  >>: >What decade did you live in?  Unemployment dropped during the 80's,  >>: >inflation dropped during the 80's and interest rates dropped during >>: >the 80's.   >>: 	This all may be true, but we're paying for it now, through the >>: nose.  Our current recession (and some would argue the world's                      ^^^^^^^^^ >>First off, we're not in a recession.  We've had a record number of months of >>straight economic growth.  Even the democrats are admitting that the >>recession ofcicially ended in March of 1991.  >This months's unemployment rate in California was 9.4% >Sure feels like a recession to me.  Maybe we should ask the 83,103 people who were laid off this January whether or not we're in a recession. That was a figure that was reported in the New York Times. There is no official figure, because the Bureau of Labor Statistics stopped government tracking of layoffs eight months ago due to budget cuts.  (The above information was published in Harper's Index, Harper's magazine.)
In article <C5JH23.Eu8@encore.com>, rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:  > Look at the whole picture, not just > randomly picked libertarian positions.  If government is not allowed to > use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest > can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.  Either the government has force available to it, or it doesn't.  The Libertarian position is that the government can use force only when someone else uses force first -- even when that first force is not directed against the government, but one of its citizens.  That all being true,  what safeguards do we have against the government CLAIMING that some initiation of force on its part is really a response?  (Like the burning of the Maine, the Tonkin Gulf incident, or the assault on Waco?)  I ask this not to argue, but to understand.  (Followups to alt.politics.libertarian only.) --
In <1993Apr2.154706.15557@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:  |Congress is NOT allowed to abrogate the constitutional rights and privileges  |already enjoyed by persons, however, unless the abrogation has a "rational  |reason" or a "compelling interest" to it, depending on which standard is  |applied. This is relevant because granting a right to one class of persons  |by definition ALWAYS impinges on the rights of another class or classes or |persons, to some degree. In the case of abortion, establishing rights for |the unborn impinges GREATLY on the rights of pregnant women. There has yet |to be presented a sufficient justification for such fetal rights.  Not to your satisfaction. But the arguments have convinced me, and others.
In article <15457@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  >The Waco/Whacko Bar-B-Q caused me to remember an official explanation >from the Vietnam War.  The 90s, liberal version is:  >    "It was necessary to incinerate the children in order to save them."
In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:     >It seems that conservatives are putting a lot of effort into     >showing up the 10% figure, but that really doesn't make a     >difference. Like I said, who cares how many there are? Would     >the fact that they're only 1% of the population justify     >discrimination against them? I don't think so.      Uh, well, Golly Gee Whiz. Let me see, when the new President, as his first big "policy act" tries to force homosexuals (acceptance thereof) on the military, despite polls showing a consistent 75%+ against it, and the minority is only 1%, well, gee, I sure think that is newsworthy.  Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....   --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes: >  > In article <C5G1su.K27@wolves.Durham.NC.US>, wolfe@wolves.Durham.NC.US (G. Wo > > A sad day for civil rights.  But typical of NC (unfortunately.) >  > If it is typical for the principle of reasonable doubt to be upheld in > North Carolina, then I would count that in the state's favor.  >  Reasonable doubt dates back to Human Rights. We are now in the time of Civil Rights. Civil Rights are issued by the State with whatever strings attached they choose as the Grantor of said rights. And if that means that  verdicts are determined by the needs of the state rather than by guilt or  innocence in a traditional sense, so be it. Being subjective rather than  objective may make it harder to anticipate what is right, and you may be  sacrificed for being wrong inadvertantly once in a while, but that really is a  small price to pay for the common good don't you think?
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes: > >In article <1993Apr14.135948.3024@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>,  >tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) said: > >> A good case? A F**KING GOOD CASE? The defense lawyer asked the victim >> questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate >> in?"  and you think he made a good case????? > >Speaking as someone who's only about six weeks and a $6,900 tuition bill >away from becoming an unemployed slob with a law degree, I'd really like >to see a transcript of this trial.  I'd especially like to know what >happened immediately after the defense attorney asked that question >(assuming that the reports that he did so are accurate... I'm not >accusing Tom Farrell of making anything up, but this _is_ the sort of >case that spawns garbled misquotes, false rumors and urban legends like >tribbles).  It'd be nice to think that the prosecutor objected >(irrelevant, prejudicial, inflammatory... take your pick) and that the >judge upheld the objection.  	Having watched most of the televised trial, I can answer that when such statements were made by the defense atty, the prosecutor did object, and the judge tended to sustain the ones that were obviously falling under the "self-incrimination" type of objection.  There was quite a bit of meta-discussion during the trial over the use of graphic language, with most folks asking the judge if she wanted to hear the exact language.  Practically every time the defense tried to get the plaintiffs to "self-incriminate" by asking them such questions, there were objections and sustains.  	At one point the defense managed to get in a quip about "solicitation for a felony" and the judge herself said "sustained" before the prosecutor could get the objection stated.
In article <Apr.17.06.54.41.1993.15825@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulu .rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >> --  >> ------          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.       Really?  What if it said "lentil eating" or "legume eating",      what then?       And I suppose "Accept 10" is anti-Octal bigotry?      Geez, how PC can you get!?       Uncle Fester
In article <1993Apr20.125526.23076@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:     >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.  You are quite incoherent. Perhaps YOU should be forced to associate with some people against YOUR will. I think a nice large group of skinheads in a locked basement for 12 hours will wonderfully educate you.  After all, as you don't believe in Freedom Of Asscoiation, you can't complain can you.  Bloody turdlet ...   --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes: >bross@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes: > >> In the world of the future, Bill Clinton will appoint Canadians to >> govern all American institutions (starting with the American health >> care system).  We will be benevolent Canadian dictators. > >With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to >pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect >that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American >shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some >time between 1966 and 1968, tutored him in the ways of Canadian >socialism, awarded him with smokeless marijuana cigarettes when he got >the correct answers, then returned him to the states (under the >control of the domineering wife assigned to his case) to attain high >public office and destroy the evil individualistic and free market >forces in America, thus shaping America in the Canadian image.   And not only that, made a second clone from the same tissue sample after that of said domineering wife, to run at the helm of the more-pro-business party under guise of more free trade ... and she did inhale, many times, to boot ...  (-; (-; (-;   gld
THE WHITE HOUSE                      Office of the Press Secretary ______________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release                             April 20, 1993       	                             REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT                 IN PHOTO OPPORTUNITY WITH VACLAV HAVEL 	      	                                 The Oval Office  	       5:00 P.M. EDT   	     Q	  Mr. President, President Havel is here for the  Holocaust Museum opening, and you toured the museum last night.  All  this focus on the Holocaust, how does that weigh on your decision- making process as far as Bosnia is concerned? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think the Holocaust is the most  extreme example the world has ever known of ethnic cleansing.  And I  think that even in its more limited manifestations, it's an idea that  should be opposed.  You couldn't help thinking about that.  That's  not to compare the two examples.  They're not identical; everyone  knows that.  But I think that the United States should always seek an  opportunity to stand up against -- at least to speak out against  inhumanity. 	      	     Q	  Sir, how close are you to a decision on more  sanctions on Bosnia? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, of course, we've got the U.N.  vote.  Ambassador Albright was instrumental in the U.N. vote to  strengthen the sanctions and they are quite tough.  And we now are  putting our heads at the business of implementing them and looking at  what other options we ought to consider.  And I don't have anything  else to say, except to tell you that I spent quite a bit of time on  it and will continue to over the next several days. 	      	     Q	  Following your meeting today, sir, are you any  closer to some sort of U.S. military presence there? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I have not made any decisions. 	                                       * * *                                	      	      	     Q	  President Clinton, why have you decided to meet  with Mr. Havel? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I'm just honored that he would  come and see me.  I'm glad he's here in the United States for the  dedication of the Holocaust Museum.  He is a figure widely admired in  our country and around the world, and a very important person in  Europe, and a very important person to the United States.  So I'm  hoping that we'll have a chance to talk about the new Czech republic  and what kinds of things we can do together to support the causes we  believe in.
bross@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:  > In the world of the future, Bill Clinton will appoint Canadians to > govern all American institutions (starting with the American health > care system).  We will be benevolent Canadian dictators.  With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some time between 1966 and 1968, tutored him in the ways of Canadian socialism, awarded him with smokeless marijuana cigarettes when he got the correct answers, then returned him to the states (under the control of the domineering wife assigned to his case) to attain high public office and destroy the evil individualistic and free market forces in America, thus shaping America in the Canadian image.
In article <15416@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: #That describes some straights -- and nearly all homosexual males.  Can you provide any evidence that doesn't ahve massive selection effects?  No, I thought not.  Just slander on your part.
In article <1993Apr19.201836.12436@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:  > Theodore A. Kaldis:  >>> ------          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.  > You smack of idiocy, T*d. I don't suppose you've heard of Pythagoras > before?  I have indeed heard of Pythagoras, but I don't know that he was ever disparaged as a "bean eater".  In the American Southwest and West (e.g., Texas, California, Colorado), the term "bean eater" is sometimes used as a slur against those of Hispanic heritage (generally Mexicans, in those parts) -- much like how the Irish in the Northeast are perceived (by some) as voracious beer guzzlers.
In <1qqfam$ogh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:   >In a previous article, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) says:  >>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  Look Rodney King is black and large.  I have several large black male friends,and they are referred to as being large black men ( to their faces, and by >>themselves ).  You know, Ted, I have a large number of adjectives for you, >>but I will spare you most of them because I try not to get into personal >>flame wars.  Let me just say that I think your action of cross posting this >>was total BS, and you're trying to start some crap.  Hopefully, others will >>see through your trite little game and not play along.    >      You still haven't addressed Ted's statement.  We're waiting.  	Yeah, I'm also curious as to why you felt compelled to remind us of the guy's race. BTW, I don't mean to imply that you're clueless or anything, but the statement was *hardly* "benign".  --