waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <15377@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >I'm sick of it.  This continual effort to inflame the passions >of Americans by playing every trial as completely sexist, racist,  >or gay-bashing, when the realities are seldom this simple.  This >is what happens when a society becomes tied up in ideologies.  	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA 	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.  	In a not so subtle way they are preparing their audience for the 	worst and even going so far as to want SOMETHING to happen for 	their viewers with all their commercials and their "we are ready 	for anything so watch US" messages...  carlos.
Now, that Clinton can get e-mail, i'm wondering if Congress is also going on line.. If so, does anyone have the address to reach them?? I'm also looking for Bill's e-mail address. please e-mail me, i am not a regualar reader of this newsgrouop.
In article <15453@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes: #Really?  I thought that insurance companies hired all of #their actuarial staffs to determine the risks correlated #with all groups of people, and that gays are more likely #to have AIDS than are those of other sexual orientations.  Correlation != causality.  The risk factor is having non-monogomous unprotected sex, not being homosexual.
In a previous article, ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) says:  >Let the "GREAT CHUCKMEISTER" make a couple predictions, if you >will: > >1.  The sun will rise tomorrow. >2.  Rush will bash Clinton on his next show. >3.  I will turn out to be Clinton's love child.        Hey, *I* wasn't the one dancing and singing on Jan. 20, now      WAS I?   I was roundly ridiculed for my "predictions".       Sure they were easy.  TEll that to the other 43% of the people. :)   > >+----------------+ >|     SUCKA!     | >|                | >|  Made in USA   |   >+----------------+ > >Hook, line, and sinker!  *chuckle*         Just WAIT until the see what Clinton has planned for        their pension funds!  :)  This one doesn't take much thinking        either.    Uncle Sam needs money, BAD, and pension funds got it.        Well, they USED to have it.  Turns out the states  have been       plundering state employee funds for the past 2-3 years.  ;)
In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:   >The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners. >The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3. >Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, >and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that >homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general >male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for >straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically >how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.  Possibly because gay/bi men are less likely to get married?  What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.  (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.  Drewcifer
Marc.Steinkoenig@f4567.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Marc Steinkoenig) writes:  >*** Quoting Drieux, Just Drieux to All dated 04-11-93 *** >>  >> My point, if it alluded you, is that as LONG >> as the USA remains in the State of REBELLION >> against God's Divinely APPOINTED Vicar over >> these colonies, what more can YOU expect from >> PaganIdolators Alienated From God's Wonderful Plan??? >>  >>  >> ] > obGeoPoliticalContext: I was Pleased that the  >> ] > restoration of the Bourbon de Bourbon's to >What tree did you just climb down from, the church is an opressive farce which >destroys cultures. I'm not knocking religious "morality", but I think that >Americans take their religion TOO SERIOUSLY to the point of trying to convert >anyone or anything to their particular sect. It's a  question of power and not >salvation... All monotheistic religions breed intoleraance into their flock >(Islam, Judaism, AND CHRISTIANITY). Religion is not the opiate of the masses, >fanaticism is and brother, it lookes like you're pretty hopped up on your own >self-rightousness.   never heard of arguement by absurdity, eh no?  Also called sarcasm.  The usual procedure is to accept some part of the 'oppositions' arguement and run with it until one goes beyond 'rational thought' and then ring the changes.  z.B. The idea of a minimum wage is considered a good one. And in these times of economic difficulty, the Washington legislature is propossing to raise the State MinWage from $4.25 (the federal level) to $4.90 (fifteen cents over Oregon's). 	It would seem to me that this increase does not keep pace with inflation, that the minimum wage should be to $6.08 by my figures, so it is proposed that we raise the minimum wage to $6.50 per hour by 1 July and then give a 10% cost of living increase every 4 July.  and anyone who doesn't like it is obviously a country club republican getting rich off the exploitation of poor people.  chus pyotr
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?  For starters, they could have gone on waiting and negotiating.  The Davidians weren't going anywhere, and their supplies had to be limited.  Large, perhaps, but limited.  If they had simply fired the compound by themselves without gov't tanks smashing down their walls, then at least the gov't would not be guilty of having _again_ used an inappropriate level of force, and would have been able to use the meantime to continue to pressure and negotiate.  No, they would not have looked good on the news in six months or a year.  But they sure as hell don't look very good now.  Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
In article <1r7cftINNrbt@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House) writes: > > >THE WHITE HOUSE > > > >Office of Communications >_________________________________________________________________ >For Immediate Release	      	   	Contact: Bob Boorstin >Thursday, April 22, 1993      	   	Phone: 202-456-7151 >                                  > >         HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TO REVIEW CLINTON PROPOSAL >                          AS IT DEVELOPS     Too many MDs on the list and not enough RNs in my opinion.    Doug
In article <1993Apr17.111713.4063@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:     >In article <philC5LsD9.Ms3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil     >Ronzone) writes:     >     >>Libertarians want the State out of our lives.     >>     >>NAMBLA members want to fuck little boys.     >>     >>NOW do you get it?     >>     >I see! Libertarians want to have the right to fuck little     >children of either sex, and want to make sure everyone else     >has this right too. NAMBLA just wants to have the right to     >fuck little boys.     >     >>Or are you just a secret member of NAMBLA?     >>     >You're the one who suddenly seems to be defending the right     >to fuck children. How many little girls have you raped today,     >Phil?     >     >If wanting to abolish the age of consent is not repectable,     >it is not respectable for anyone.  Hmm, you still don't get it. Then again, I'm not posting from a  University where the hue and cry was raised against "Jewish physics".  Tell me, committed any anti-semitic acts today? What kind of boots do you wear?  And still -- Libertarians want the State out of their lives. Parents are very capable of protecting their children against the predations of pedophiles, which, BTW, you still haven't disassociated yourself from.  Are you, or are you not, a member of NAMBLA?    --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
On 21 Apr 93 00:07:20 GMT, Theodore A. Kaldis observed: : as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (some caifone) writes:  : > because if she heard : Thankfully, you got the gender right.  For I am not a deviant.  Bigots aren't classified as deviants?  How sad.  : > how disparaging you are towards political minorities, : Sexual deviants do not comprise a "political minorit[y]".  So, what's this I hear about a March on Washington...assuming you are still considering homosexuality and bisexuality as subsets of "sexual deviants?"  : > and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door. : I only associate with girls who do indeed have self-respect.    I trust that many self-respecting *women* might take some sort of offense to your use of the term "girls" in the above sentence.  -- Michael D. Adams          (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)          Enterprise, Alabama
In article <C5pyAB.1wJ@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com    (drieux, just drieux) writes: > In article 1@hirama.hiram.edu, I went and stepped in it: >>In article <1q7sddINN5iq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,    wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:  >>> I never knew that soldiers were supposed to salute any civilians except >>> for the Commander-in-Chief...  >> >>The CINC is not a civillian. >  >  > Ding Ding, Planet Earth Calling.... >  > I will Agree that CINCPac and CINCLant are NOT CIVILIANS, > but the CINC is still the president, and unless things have > changed a whole LOT with the Arrival of the BIllaryKlintonKlique, > I don't recall as how the Current President Gots Himself > Much more than CIVILIAN STATUS.....[1]  As far as a member of the Armed Forces is concerned, the President is whatever the h*ll he wants to be. All of them recently have rather insisted on being treated as something other than a *mere* civilian.  > If it Moves, salute it, > If it Don't, Pick it Up. > If You can't pick it up, Paint it.  So if Hilary were asleep at the time......  >  >  > ciao > drieux >  > [1] Nothing personal Jeff, but I LIKE living in countries > where the Head of State is a CIVILIAN, it sorta limits > the habit of using the Military as the First Choice for > solving domestic problems....  I like living in a country where the head of state is not a military officer too. But this point about not using the military as the first choice for solving domestic problems....  Didn't they go after these Branch Davidians with a *tank*, after all?
In article <C5LA55.Bwq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >Clayton Cramer writes: >#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, >#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that >#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general >#male population. > >Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing >to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more >willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly >promiscious)? >  Oh yeah, and men just haaaaate to brag about "how many woman they've had."
>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >> When I entered 1st grade, Eisenhower was President and John F. Kennedy >> was just a relatively obscure Senator from New England.  So how old do >> you think I am now?  And we all hope, Teddy, that you will graduate from the first grade while Clinton is President. Keep trying.
In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: > 	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two > new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not > from the fire. >  > 	Thoughts? >  > 	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start > denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led > to the previous ruling appear.  Welcome to the conservative judiciary.  > 	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?  > Shouldn't that be up to a jury?  I think Scalia's point was that you get one chance.  If new information comes out later, tough.  If the conviced want justice, they have to hope the governor is feeling charitable.  There's a guy on death row in Texas that was denied a new trial, dispite evidence of his inocents.  > 	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk > shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for > a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial? >  > 	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?  It got swept away in the Reagan Revolution...
Chris Cooke (cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk) wrote: : In article <15440@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: :  :    When you force people to associate with others against their will, :    yes. :  : People are *forced* into the USA armed forces?  They were in the recent past, maybe someone knows for certain if the usa has decided if it wants a conscript army (as they sent into south east asia) or a volenteer one?  --
muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes: >fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes: >>> >>>Eliminate the C-17 transport.  >> >>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, ........ > >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.  I do read Av Week and don't remember this.  Could you supply the date of the magazine?  As for C-17 vs. C-5 , the C-17 can't carry as much but has more capability ( read : can land at smaller airfields of which there are more of ) than the C-5.  Now is the C-17 pork?  It depends on whether your job relies on it or not.  :)  In California right now, I would say that it is not pork since due to peace dividend so many  people are out of work.   >The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down >a pork happy Congress. > >-- Marc Mueller  Huh?  Shouldn't that read "The question is whether a social-pork happy Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down a jobs-pork happy Congress."
In article <C50sMA.3GK@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes: >  >  > In article 164871 in talk.politics.misc, margoli@watson.ibm.com  > (Larry Margolis) writes: >  > >>I would suggest that legal precedent defines a human being (i.e., a person > >>whose rights are protected by the Constitution and the law) as someone with > >>a functioning brain. >  > >No, if you want to use legal precedent, you should take a look at the > >Model Penal Code, on which many states base their criminal code: >  > My apologies if I was unclear; I was not trying to start a statutory  > debate, since there are many (in some cases conflicting) statutes on > the books.  I was merely suggesting a paradigm that might make sense > for a pro-choicer IMHO.  Cite one of these conflicting statutes.  You keep making these assertions, but you haven't supported any of them yet. I am speaking of statutes that conflict with the definition Larry posted.  Why did you delete the code that Larry posted?  Also, the Model Penal Code made perfect sense to me.  Were you, perhaps, confused by it?  Also, I am still looking for your definition.  The one you used clearly indicates that a fetus is not a human being.  > >>This is not likely to please either pro-lifers or > >>pro-choicers, but it is pretty clear from the legal/medical concept of > >>"brain death". > >"Brain death" is a method of deciding when a (known) person is legally > >dead; there's no analogous concept of "brain birth". > I have just coined it.  You may object to the paradigm, but it would > make our treatment of human life statutorily consistent.  Circular arguments are usually very consistent.  > >>>>         3) If a parent has the right to choose to not take responsibility > >>>>            for their own child, why are there laws and penalties against > >>>>            child abandonment? > >>>This last question is irrelevant and something of a non sequitur. > >>>Can you establish some relevance or even some sense for it? > >>If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly > >>have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward > >>their children. > >And no parent can be forced to supply bodily resources toward their children, > >even if necessary to save the child's life. > There is a confusion here between action and inaction: a parent does not have > to run out in front of a bus to save their child's life either, but a parent > IS required to feed his children.   Again, your desire for consistency disappears when it does not suit your needs.  The principle of protecting life is abandoned based on "action versus inaction."  Not much of a principle.  Suddenly you recognize that the claim on bodily resources is dependent on circumstances other than this principle of life.  That's a very conevnient principle you have there, Matt.
tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes: >>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the >>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.  >I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been >convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite >sufficient.
In <1993Apr15.045651.6892@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez: >In article <1993Apr14.135227.8579@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >> >>	No, I'm saying any long term investor (the ones likely to have large >>capital gains) would be foolish to sell in order to avoid a tax hike that a) >>might disappear in any given year and b) be overcome in a year or two by >>accumlated gains. > >To which my response is--so what?  Not all people who pay capital gains >taxes are long term investors.  More than enough of them aren't for there >to be huge blip whenever capital gains taxes get raised. >   I never said that *everyone* would find this advantageous.  I said that >more than enough would for the result to be readily noticeable and distort >"trends".  Even if Brett's eventual-return figures were correct -- and they clearly weren't -- he'd still be wrong about the cause for the '86 blip because he fails to consider 2 basic factors:  1) As Ted notes, not everyone is a long-term investor.  One might find oneself, as I did in late 1986, anticipating expenses in the near term that require selling off holdings.  Given the choice between waiting a few weeks (and taking an extra tax hit) or selling in December with preferential tax treatment, only a fool would choose the former.  2) The fact that Brett can now construct _post hoc_ calculations of what would have been more beneficial to investors is in many respects beside the point.  There was plenty of _Money_-style advice given to unsophisticated investors in late 1986 to "sell now and save on taxes."  In case anyone missed it, there was no shortage of similar advice late last year (in the NYTimes, e.g.), even though that advice was based not on the foregone conclusion of enacted law (as in 1986), but merely on the *assumption* that Clinton would raise tax rates (without capping CG taxes, contrary to the current proposal).  It's nice to think that investors always behave in their optimal economic interest.  Like assuming weightless ropes and frictionless pulleys, though, this sort of thinking often fails to describe accurately what happens in the real world.
Kaldis writes: #The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was #presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court #apparently found this compelling.  Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and they are not prostitutes.  #Because the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the #Marines were engaged in self-defense.  Got it, knucklehead?  Gee, Both Clayton and Kaldis engaging in ad hominem arguments.  I presented evidence that what you said is *NOT* what the judge ruled. Provide your evidence. Repeating a false claim is not evidence.
(misc.legal trimmed)  In article <C5uqsM.3I9@encore.com>, rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:  > Let me explain some possible "means" to libertarian-style government > one last time.  > If the dominate philosophy of a society held that it was OK to kill your > neighbor for sport, no government system (except a strong tyranny by the > minority) could keep the people from killing each other.  > The dominate philosophy in our society holds that it is OK for people to > steal and coerce each other as long as it's done by vote or through the > government machine.  Libertarians realize what this legal stealing and > coercion does to a society.  > So just as a society of non-murderers would not vote for the "right" to > murder, a society of non-coercers would not vote for the ability to > coerce.  > If libertarianism became the dominate philosophy, the people would do a > good job of restraining government (to the extent that libertarianism > was dominate).  > So means #1 is educating the people to become libertarian.  Well, that's the obvious conclusion, given your train of logic.  The corollary then is that it must be a waste of time for the party to run candidates until the educational program has shown some results.  Followups to a.p.l. --
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu  writes:  Kaldis, you are a worm.  > Rank balderdash!  America's reputation abroad has become tarnished > because of feckless and pusillanimous cowards who apparently do not > have the requisite gonads to stand up for American honor and dignity.  Translation-  It's them DAMN liberals again!  > The American Way may not be the only way, and you may not consider it > to be necessarily the best way, but, by God, it's _OUR_ way and we're > going to stick with it!  If you can't go along with the program, then > perhaps you should consider moving elsewhere.  Who gave you the authority to create and enforce this rather hazy thing called "the American Way"?  This is a democracy, and we don't need to stick to it or stick up for it unless we so choose.  Remember that, Ted, from Civics class in Greeley, CO?  > That is exactly the _PROBLEM_ with Canadians!  They don't stand for > anything with certitude.  Nice generalization.  > You pipsqueak!  You mouse!  If you are sorry to intrude then why do > it?  Don't you have the courage of your convictions?  Hell, do you > even have any convictions to start with?  What kind of example of > manly dignity is this?  Sheesh!  Coming from such a crass example of "manly dignity," he must feel _really_ hurt.
In article <18APR199314034390@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes: >In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes... >>  >:It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal >:setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose >:that never seems to occur?... > > >I fail to see why you should feel this way in the first place.  Constant >combat isn't particularly conducive to intellectual theorizing.  Also, >they tend to get invaded before they can come to anything like a stable >society anyway.   And the reason that the Soviet Union couldn't achieve the ideal of pure communism was the hostility of surrounding capitalist nations...Uh huh. Somehow, this all sounds familiar.  Once again, utopian dreams are  confronted by the real world...  > >Mr. Grinch