waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr3.165155.1@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz>, quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes: > cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # # I thought I was clear.  Because homosexuals support laws to force # # employment of homosexuals against the will of some employers, they # # are attempting to interfere with private acts between mutually consenting # # adults. #  #    Ok, I'll leave others to discuss your use of statistics, but I think I'm # able to discuss liberterian ideas. #    The ideas are good. They seek to maximise individual rights by keeping # governments out of transactions between consenting adults. If an employer wants # to discriminate against a group, she/he should be allowed to to maximise their # freedom. The discriminatees can go elsewhere. #    Unfortunately, it doesn't relate to maximising total individual rights # within a community. If an employer or shopkeeper or whatever can discriminate # in this way, then the freedom of the discriminatee goes down. Because people do # not live in perfect economic conditions, with perfect mobility, unlimited # numbers of potential employers of their skills, unlimited places to buy goods, # the liberterian argument leads to a *decrease* in the amount of liberty in the # community.   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?  # Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand. Quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes: >In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes: >> In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes: >> >In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes: >> 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!   > >  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am >not eager to make a fool of myself.   Oh, you foolish person.  I do know what the fuck I'm talking about and will gladly demonstrate for such ignorants as yourself if you wish.  The legalization of drugs will provide few if any of the benefits so highly taunted by its proponents:  safer, cheaper drugs along with revenues from taxes on those drugs; reduced crime and reduced organized crime specifically; etc, etc  If you would like to prove how clueless you are, we can get into why - again a lot of wasted posts that I don't think this group was intended for and something easily solved by you doing a little research.   >  From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification >if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize >alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from    Making you look bad is too damn easy.  The vast social and historical differences between alcohol and other drugs make this comparison worthless.    >Vice statutes serve >only to make it more expensive for the rich and more dangerous >for the poor, as Tim so eloquently put it. People will, however,   And so it shall be if the government (by the people) decides that these vices are detrimental to the society as a whole.   >  And why, pray tell, is AIDS "victim" in snear quotes? Are you of >the revisionist sort that thinks there is no such thing as the AIDS >plauge? Or do they just deserve it?
In article <C5KMz5.Hy4@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes: :>Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans :> :>10. Institute a national sales tax to pay for the socialization of :>    America's health care resources. :> :>9.  Declare war on Serbia. Reenact the draft. :> :>8.  Stimulate the economy with massive income transfers to Democtratic :>    constituencies. :> :>7.  Appoint an unrepetent socialist like Mario Cuomo to the Suprmeme Court. :> :>6.  Focus like a laser beam on gays in the military. :> :>5.  Put Hillary in charge of the Ministry of Truth and move Stephanopoulos :>    over to socialzed health care. :> :>4.  Balance the budget through confiscatory taxation. :> :>3.  Remind everyone, again, how despite the Democrats holding the :>    Presidency, the majority of seats in the House, and in the Senate, :>    the Republicans have still managed to block his tax-and-spend programs. :> :>2.  Go back to England and get a refresher course in European Socialism. :>    ***SNIP***  And the number one way Slick Willie could improve his standing with Americans...  (Drum roll Anton)  1.  Get himself an appointment with Dr. Kervorkian - and keep it!  --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **        John Kerrigan        a.k.a.  jmkerrig@vela.acs.oakland.edu        **
In article <1993Apr6.175543.19590@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: |> Thought others on the net might be interested in a selection of findings |> from the New York Times/CBS News poll on national health care.  I'll leave |> it to Doug Fierro to enter the entire article if he chooses.  What follows |> is a selection of the findings.  (Paraphrased without permission.  Any |> errors are mine, not the Times.  The NY Times doesn't make mistakes.) |>  |> [poll results deleted]  The economic and political ignorance of most Americans can be truly scary. Price controls and government intervention.  The surest route to disaster.  It's amazing, people never seem to learn from history (or common sense).  Price controls do not, and cannot work.  I would have thought our last experiment in the 70's would have been enough to  dampen the belief that price controls can actually work.  As for government intervention, people never seem to get the irony of what the are saying.  We are told that entitlements are the biggest portion of the budget and they must be 'controlled'.  We are presented with horror stories of waste and fraud in almost all government agencies. We are shown stories about the miserable treatment our veterans get in our government run hospitals.  We are just now seeing stories about how Social Security isn't going to cut it in the future (as if that should come as any surprise).  And yet, people choose to ignore all of that and believe in the fairy tale of the government coming to the rescue.  Simply amazing.
visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:  >In <1993Apr19.223257.24652@teetot.acusd.edu> jerry@teetot.acusd.edu (Jerry Stratton) writes:  >happen.  It seems that what they were trying to do was get the >children out.  The idea was that ramming the compound with the >tank and pouring in tear gas was supposed to send all the "mothers" >fleeing outside with their children.  If any reliance was put on women's "mothering instinct" in an official explanation of a govt. action during a Republican administration, would it generate so few complaints?  (as opposed to complaints about the action itself)  -- "Spending programs are now 'investments,' taxes are 'contributions,' and  these are the same people who say _I_ need a dictionary?"  - Dan Quayle 2/19/93
In article <cmi32B1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes: >              Does anyone have knowledge about how this was handled in >the past, such as with the Louisiana Territory or the Northwest >Territory?  Those areas became states.  Puerto Rico has the population needed to become a state.  But the ethnic mix there is such that Puerto Rico will probably never become a state.  I say we cut them loose.  If they don't want to become a state, we shouldn't continue to subsidize their existence.
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) Subject: F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. compares... Children/Elderly in Poverty  F<O>CUS/HEALTH: How U.S. compares... Children/Elderly in Poverty    ==================================================================    Percentage of children and elderly living in poverty 1984-1987:(3)    ==================================================================   =================================================                        CHILDREN            ELDERLY  COUNTRY              IN POVERTY         IN POVERTY  =================================================  United States           20.4               10.9  Canada                   9.3                2.2  Australia                9.0                4.0  United Kingdom           7.4                5.2  France                   4.6                4.5  Netherlands              3.8                3.4  Germany                  2.8                2.8  Sweden                   1.6                4.3   Source: Timothy M. Smeeding, "U.S. Poverty and Income Security Policy in a  Cross National Perspective, October 1991, Luxembourg, October, 1991,  Luxembourg Income Study, working paper 70.   ******************************************************************  =====================================  Of the 19 Western Industrial Nations:  =====================================   Western Industrial Countries having a National Health Insurance plan  providing universal coverage:   Australia      YES    Sweden             YES  Canada         YES    United Kingdom     YES  Denmark        YES    Austria            YES  Finland        YES    France             YES  Ireland        YES    Switzerland        YES  Italy          YES    Spain              YES  Japan          YES    Belgium            YES  New Zealand    YES    Germany            YES  Netherlands    YES    Norway             YES     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   Western Industrial Countries NOT having a National Health Insurance  plan providing universal coverage.    United States       NO    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   ******************************************************************  From page 74 of:    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     _We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New       World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.       New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.      $10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -      [Transcribed by jhwoodar@well.sf.ca.us (Joe Woodard)]       ``America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.          This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The          facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But          ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation.''
In article <ericsC4x1K9.Apz@netcom.com>, erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes: > gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes: #  # #Are you saying that: #  # #(1) People voted for Hitler, and he became Reich Chancellor, in good # #part because he used bully boys to attack communists, #  # Hitler did not become become Reich Chancellor because people voted for # him. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that or not, but I just thought # I'd bring that up. #  # Eric Smith  Hitler became Chancellor because people voted for his political party.  That's not a huge difference in a parliamentary system.
In <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes:  >brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes:  >(No axe to grind here I'm just a scientist and I hate to see statistics abused.)  Pity you didn't say something about the use of statistics to justify targeting and persecuting a minority, then.  >>Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three  >>times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.  >I am a hetero man and have had sex with one woman in my life (my wife).  It is  >very pleasing to me to be able to say that.  I hope you have the same feeling >as I do.  I also wish that you could (if you wanted) experience the joys and >trials of being committed to someone for life (there is something about marriage >that makes the commitment much greater than one might expect).  What in the Tree makes you think we queers CAN'T experience that commitment?  What's stopping us from committing to one partner for the rest of our lives?  I have every intention of doing so, once I find the right person...and whether that person is male or female, I seriously doubt that a church ceremony/public vow/licence will make any difference whatsoever in the sort of commitment I experience with that person.  You have no conception of the difference marriage makes since you have never known any other way.   >>Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...  >Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon >homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot >of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged >to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks >put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual >community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays  >are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might >just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?"   You're getting to the right idea here...just be careful of making statements like the above, and you'll be part of the solution and not the problem.  >Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)  No flames necessary. :)  Drywid
In article <1ql6bgINNklu@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:  >                 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY  >     The President will travel to Pittsburgh on Saturday, April  >17 to talk about his job creation plan and its impact on the  >state of Pennsylvania, where it would create as many as 3,818 				 ^^^^^                   ^^^^^ *Would*? Ha Haaaa Haa ha haAA  How the hell can they come up with a number, specified to the units column, on something as complicated as this?  Face it, it's the perceptions that matter here, folks, not the facts. Especially this one:   >full time jobs and up to 21,240 summer jobs.  He will make a  			  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that means over 7200 new jobs for Allegheny county (metro Pgh) alone!  Haaaa   HAAA ha HA HAAA heh heh  HAAAA  <snif>  Doing what?  I hope it's fixing the potholes on my street.   Let's face it, folks, we're in a depression and this is the WPA.  Clinton's really coming here to beat on Sen. Arlen Specter, who happens to be vacationing in Africa (Don't know whether to laugh or cry)
In <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu sez: >	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.  There's this minor thing called "interest of finality/repose".  What it means is that parties aren't dragged into court over and over again because the losing side "discovers" some "new" evidence.  I don't know about you, Brett, but I suspect GM had the resources to find just about as many expert and fact witnesses as it wanted before the trial started.  Letting them re-open the case now is practically an invitation to every civil litigant on earth to keep an ace in the hole in case the verdict goes against him.  BTW, in federal criminal cases, Rule 33 does permit a motion for a new trial "based on . . . *newly discovered* evidence" if made within 2 years of the verdict.  (Emphasis mine.)  If you're trying to make a backhanded point about criminal justice in a discussion that has little to do with criminal trials -- as the estimable David Brock did in his amusing WSJ piece last week -- save your breath.    >	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be  >believed?  >Shouldn't that be up to a jury?  Yup.  Which is why they shoulda been brought around the first time through.    >	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?  Unless there's some reason to believe that this supposed bias predated the trial (as opposed to being a product of it), and that GM was unfairly prevented from discovering it (by venireman concealment or otherwise), why should GM be allowed to complain?
In article <FOX.93Apr20083448@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes: >No one has time to chase down every rumor that gets printed >in the National Enquirer or whatever.  The point is to wait >and see if the assertions of the (rather bizarre) original >post will be corroborated in any way.  Perhaps they will. >The recent posts of the rather bizarre original poster speak >for themselves.  This story was in the LA Times a few months ago. The Clinton administration is exploring every avenue of "revenue enhancement", but not all will be chosen.
The White House  Office of the Press Secretary -----------------------------------------------------------------  For Immediate Release                             April 19, 1993                      STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON   I am deeply saddened by the loss of life in Waco today.  My  thoughts and prayers are with the families of David Koresh's  victims.  The law enforcement agencies involved in the Waco siege  recommended the course of action pursued today.  The Attorney  General informed me of their analysis and judgment and  recommended that we proceed with today's action given the risks  of maintaining the previous policy indefinitely.  I told the  Attorney General to do what she thought was right, and I stand by  that decision.
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.  	More "gridlock" talk from another relic of the past.  The Selective Service system creates jobs and is an investment in  the future of america......and whats wrong with that?  	We need jobs because at this point in the recovery, the economy should have generated 10 billion jobs and since it has not, the government has to step in and help.  Shutting down selective service would cost "good jobs" and we can't do that.    	What we really need is to involve selective service in a more closely directed manner.  We need the selective service involved in environmental protection, high-speed rail, commuter aircraft,  civil rights, national service and health care.  Every dollar we put into selective service now will get us $10 less spending in future.  	I really believe now to think about it that selective service is long-past due for the creation of a cabinet position.   	Your not beyond hope, just get back on america's side and start doing your part for change.  What Bill needs from you now is support for the economic stimulus and health care reform. You need to devote all your energies to fighting gridlock and supporting change.  Get on the team.  After all, the evil has been banished from washington and the time for complaint  is past being neccessary.
In article <1993Apr23.121140.8913@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >	Cancel private health insurance? > >	When government care that only covers 20% of the population consumes >42% of the spending for health care? > >	NOT! > >	National Health Expenditures: 1960 to 1990 >(Includes Puerto Rico and outlying areas.) > >Year	Health Services and Supplies ($billions) >	Private		Public >==================================== >1960	$19.8		$5.7	(22% of total) >1970	$44.1		$24.9	(56% of total) >1980	$140.7		$98.1	(41% of total) >1990	$374.8		$268.6	(42% of total) > >[Source: American Almanac, Page 97.  1992-3 Edition] > >	Now you understand where most of that 12.2% of GNP is going--to waste. > >	By these figures, private insurance is spending 58% of the money to >cover 4 times as many people. > >	Go figure. >  The private insurance industry skims the cream off the milk...simple.
In article <1qpaujINNecq@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes: > In article <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough # #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since # #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, #  # Right off the bat this information is flawed.  "Most throrough"?  I'm # sorry, but Masters & Johnson put out a report within the past few # years.  The Kinsey Institute has been quite active since it was # founded oh-so-many years ago.  They, too, recently put out a new # report on sexuality.  I was quoting a news story.  I have no idea why they claim this was the most "through examination."  # #    shows about 2 # #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and # #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual. #  # I hate to be picky, but let's do the math.  If we take the cities of # New York City and Los Angeles alone, we can find approximately 3.5 # million gay people...making about 1.75 million gay men.  WHAT?  Even in San Francisco, the Dept. of Public Health estimates that only 11% of the male population is gay.  What you are claiming is that of the 16 million people in the NYC and LA areas, that more than 10% are gay.  What is the source of your numbers?  Keep in mind that attempts by CDC to determine homosexual percentage in American cities have given numbers <3%.  # 1% of the American male population is about 1.25 million. #  # So what this study says is that all gay males live in New York City or # Los Angeles, and about half-a-million people are lying about being gay. #  # Something smells funny....  Yes, your 1.75 million number smells funny.  # Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
In article <1qjtmjINNq45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes: > 	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA > 	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.     Why is this surprising? Then the _Times_ can get a few more Pulitzers the same way they did last year. --
>>You selfish little bastard. Afraid you might have to sacrafice somthing >>for your country. What someone not approve a lone for you ? To bad. >>What is immoral is: people like you and the current president who don't >>have any idea why this country still exists after 200+ years. > > >I don't consider these ideas selfish; I consider them rational.   I agree with the body of your post, but please reconsider your phrasing here.  I think these ideas are selfish AND rational, which is commendable.  Don't give selfishness a bad rap.  If we were all selfless there would be no moral reason NOT to have a draft.  It [the draft] is the ultimate  in mindlessly serving your fellow man with no thought to the importance of the self.