waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <2671@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes: >shapiro@sofbas.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes: >:  >: Oh, and BTW, its William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. > >No, it's not- and I really fail to understand the use of that name >as an insult.  Do you feel that being adopted implies some sort of >moral failing?  No, it's a sign of aristocrtic out-of-touchness with the middle class.  You ask George Herbert Walker Bush about that.  And that's not his full name?  What, then, is it?  --- "Even Quayle had his honeymoon period.  It lasted a full 48 hours  after he was chosen as Bush's running mate."
Hmmm...intersting (and long) message, but TWICE? Well, I don't care for libertarianism, but that is a philisophical disagreement, not a tactical one. Reform of existing laws would be an awfully good idea. You wouldn't believe some of the outrageous things the guardians of our two party  system do to shut out dissent.  ============================================================================ David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
In <1ppjruINNhnt@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:  >In article <C4y3DD.L1n@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes: >>     But this does not imply that ALL relationships between youth >>     and adults are exploitative and abusive.  >>The critical factor here is whether the sexual activity is "forced"  >>or whether it is an activity that is consensually agreed upon and  >>freely engaged in by the people involved.  >>When a child is "forced" there is often "damage", on the other hand,  >	Wholeheartedly agree here.  >>"consensual" relationships are often found to be "positive experiences"  >>for all concerned.  >	Why do I find this hard to believe? >	Care to convince us?  Carlos,     Why not check out some of the scientific research that has been done in this area and convince yourself.     Research around the world indicates that the issue of coercion is the critical factor.   For those interested in research on the topic I can suggest, Li et al (England), Constantine (United States), and Sandfort (The Netherlands). I especially like Sandfort's research for he actually quotes what the boys who are involved in the relationships have to say.    Children and Sex: New Findings, New Perspectives by Larry Constantine   & Floyd M. Martinson (eds.). Little Brown & Co., Boston, 1980. Boys On Their Contacts With Men by Theo Sandfort, Global Academic   Publishers, Elmhurst, New York, 1987. Perspectives on Paedophilia by Brian Taylor (ed.). Batsford Academic &   Educational Ltd., London, 1981. Paedophilia: A Factual Report by Frits Bernard. Enclave, Rotterdam,   The Netherlands, 1985. Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys by Parker Rossman. Maurice   Temple Smith Ltd., Middlesex, Great Britain, 1985. Children's Sexual Encounters With Adults by C.K. Li, D.J. West & T.P.   Woodhouse. Gerald Duckworth & Co., London, 1990.   Yours in Liberation,  Roy
In article <C5IAK2.5zH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: > In article <15377@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > #But what came out, > #in much lower profile reporting, was that the "victim" was a > #prostitute, and the man had not paid her -- hence the false > #accusation. >  > There was no evidence the woman in question was a prostitute, the > defense merely alledged that she was. Even Clayton knows the > difference. Err, perhaps Clayton doesn't know the difference.   Evidence given for her prostitute status, besides the admittedly  questionable claim of the man on trial included:  1. Prior employment in a number of massage parlors, with women who claimed that she worked as a prostitute;  2. Walking around a truck stop at 4:00 AM wearing a lace miniskirt, a halter top, and no underwear of any sort;  3. Not having a purse or other I.D. with her.  Not enough to convict her, but enough to create reasonable doubt whether a rape actually took place, or theft of services.  Are you just ignorant, or lying again?  > #the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the  > #Marines were engaged in self-defense. >  > No, the judge found that the prosecution did not carry out the burder > on proof. A small clipping from clarinews, under fair use guidelines:  >  > #	New Hanover District Court Judge Jacqueline Morris-Goodson ruled in > #the benchtrial that the state failed to carry its burden in proving the > #Marines acted to cause injury.  The accounts on the evening news indicated that they claimed self- defense, and the judge agreed that they were so operating.  > -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
In article <pdb059-220493100923@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes to Clayton Cramer:  >When are you going to stop lying and admit >that the whole crusade is based on your own personal hatred, fear, and >obsession?  You need help, Mr. Cramer.  The saddest thing is that most people, like Cramer's wife, learn dislike for homosexuality early in childhood.
In article <1qs7anINNin6@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dyoung@ecst.csuchico.edu (Douglas Young) writes:     >>You should face the facts. Love Canal was not, and is not, an     >>environmental disaster, nor even a problem.     >>     >>Nor is Times Beach and TMI and acid rain killing trees and     >>....     >>     >Not a problem? Would you move to Three Mile Island? I would     >imagine there is some cheap property available!  No, because I don't like the weather back East. However, it would bother me not one bit to live in an equivalent area here. By the way, do you KNOW what the extra exposure to radiation from TMI was?      >The naturally occurring catastrophic events [disasters] that     >destroy property (ie: hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes) do     >not usually leave toxic wastes that prevent people from     >re-building their lives there. The man-made disasters (oil     >spills, toxic dumping, radioactive waste dispersions) cause     >death and make an area unliveable far beyond the initial     >event.  O.K., in the U.S., tell me about some of these deaths and some of these unliveable areas. Oh, and if you manage to find some of these unliveable areas, tell me what percentage of the total US land area they are. (Hint - the total waste produced by all nuclear reactors in the US can be safely stored in the area of three footbal fields.)   --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes: >Which makes it legally unsound.  If I were representing Mr. Teel,  >I'd try a procedural approach if I could find one, or recommend  >he plea-bargain.  He's setting himself up to be in hot water.  Indeed.  Reading the cases of people who've tried the various things Mr. Teel suggests show that defendants fall into two classes: (1) those who win on procedural grounds or some grounds not related to their claim, and (2) those who lose.  Consider Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir.1985), which I've seen cited by tax protestors other than Mr. Teel as a win for Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff offered $100,000 on TV to anyone who would call in the show and cite any section of the Internal Revenue Code that says that an individual has to file a return.  Mr. Newman took him up on it.  Mr. Newman had seen the show in a rebroadcast the next morning.  Mr. Schiff claimed that the offer only extended to people who actually say the original broadcast, and so there was no offer for Mr. Newman to accept, and so no unilateral contract was formed, and so Mr. Schiff did not have to pay $100,000.  Mr. Schiff was correct, and so won.  So, yes, Mr. Schiff won against a claim on the $100,000 reward.  However, his win had nothing to do with the tax code.
In a previous article, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) says:  >In article <1qhr73$a8d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu >(Broward Horne) says: >>      It sure does appear that way, doesn't it? > >The attitude that people are stupid if they don't agree with you is not >going to bring you great success in life. Free advice, there.         HAHAHAHAHAH.  Oh, CHRIST!  Oh, HAHAHAHAH.        whew.  Mark, what on EARTH makes you think I give a FUCK       about being a "success", particularly NOW when I'll just       the HELL taxed out of me?  Oh, this is excellent.        Holy christ! :)          Besides, let's <ahem> examine the record, shall we?      Broward:   " Clinton's going to taxe the HOLY FUCK out of you! "     Mark:      " No, he's not.  Only $17 / month "     ( I STILL get a laugh out of this one! :) )      Broward:  " Oh, here comes a National Sales Tax "     Clinton Supporter:  " Oh, no, Bill never said that "       Want some more "free predictions" ?       :)   >>     It always makes me smile, to see George Bush used to defend >>     Bill Clinton.  Can you imagine anything sadder than to be left >>     with GEorge Bush as a final argument? > >True. The Republicans did look pretty pathetic in November of '92. >:-)         Yup.  They surely did.        Almost as pathetic as Clinton suppoters are looking in       April of 93.        Well, chumbo, I see my my watch here that my "appointment"      at the lake is about 2 hours past due! :)
The federal civil rights trial against the four LA police officers accused of violating Rodney King's civil rights is now history:    Lawrence Powell:	guilty   Stacey Coons:		guilty   Theodore Brazenio:	innocent   Timothy Wind:		innocent    Sentencing slated for mid August, appeals expected.    So far, all is calm in LA... --
In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes... >  :Of course, one again faces the question of how one circumscribes government :power (and keeps it circumscribed) in a complex society when it is in the  :interest of neither capitalists nor consumers to refrain from using  :government power for their own ends.  But apart from that little  :conundrum... >  	Without having a complete answer to this question,  I should think it obvious that the first step should be to convince people this would be a desirable result.  There are still quite a lot of people who feel that the command economies of eastern Europe failed due to corruption rather than essential weaknesses of caommand economies,  and you still have a majority in this nation that favors keeping unenforced and unenforcible laws on the books in order to "send a signal".   :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.    >>..."regulation" is such a vauge word...   >  :I wouldn't call it "vague."  I'd call it elastic.  All "regulation" is  :not necessarily the same.  By opposing all government regulation, some  :libertarians treat every system from a command economy to those that :regulate relatively free markets as identical.  That's one reason :many of the rest of us find their analysis to be simplistic.  >   Umm, is there any distinction between "vague" and "elastic" in this context aside from one having a more positive connotation than the other?  At any rate,  we've been through all this before.  :Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM    :"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh : the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826   Incidentally,  this is a libertarian newsgroup,  you can get away with saying,  "bullshit" here.   You're welcome,
In article <15441@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  |> # I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a |> # huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being |>  |> That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are. |>   Hey, Clayton, it's me again!  I just love your arguments.  They completely clinch each and _every_ one of your points!  But then again, that, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up your are.  Hehe.  I haven't had so much fun since I started blasting christians in alt.atheism!    |> # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! |> # Xavier |>  |>  |> --  |> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! |> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
In article <C5KH8G.961@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: > >[ These two paragraphs are from two different posts.  In splicing them  >  together it is not my intention to change Steve's meaning or misrepresent >  him in any way.  I don't *think* I've done so. ] > >>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.  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.  		   [Patrick's example of anti-competitive regulations for             auto dealers deleted.] >Here's what I see libertarianism offering you: >... >This does not seem to me to be a utopian dream, but basic human decency >and common sense.  A real grass-roots example of freedom and liberty. >And yes, not having a few people acting as our masters, approving or >rejecting each of our basic transactions with each other, does strike me >as a wonderful way to improve the human condition. > >   Thanks awfully, >             Patrick  Let me try to drag this discussion back to the original issues.  As I've noted before, I'm not necessarily disputing the benefits of  eliminating anti-competitive legislation with regard to auto dealers, barbers, etc.  One need not, however, swallow the entire libertarian agenda to accomplish this end.  Just because one grants the benefits of allowing anyone who wishes to cut hair to sell his/her services without regulation does not mean that the same unregulated barbers should be  free to bleed people as a medical service without government intervention.   (As some/many libertarians would argue.)    On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of  difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic,  to say the least.  I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education,  national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile  analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.    jsh
In article <1qpvj2$dfp@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU>,  william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu said in response to Dave Borden:  > 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.  William: If the reason that this country still stands after 200+ years is that it uses military conscription to force young men to fight for causes that they don't believe in strongly enough to volunteer for military service in support of, then perhaps the fact that the country is still standing is not good news...
In article <C5MMEp.19n@panix.com>  gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes: >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:  >> 51 Arrested for Defying Judge's Order at Abortion Protest Rally >> The Miami Herald, April 11, 1993 >>  >>    Circuit Judge Robert McGregor's order prohibits anti-abortion pickets >>    within 36 feet of the property line of Aware Woman Center for Choice. >>    Even across the street, they may not display pictures of dead fetuses >>    or sing or chant loud enough to be heard by patients inside the clinic.  > Several years ago, Justice William O. Douglas, who was > about as libertarian as you can get about free-speech  > and similar issues, wrote a majority opinion in which > the Supreme Court turned down an appeal by a group of > people who had been prohibited from demonstrating in > front of their landlord's home.    Do you have a cite for the case?  You don't give enough information to be able to compare the two situations. If the demonstrators had been blaring loud rock music  into the landlord's home all day and night, then I could see how the opinion would be justified.  But this court order had prohibited abortion protesters from displaying pictures of dead fetuses, which doesn't disrupt the privacy of anyone inside the clinic.    > He pointed out that > people have a right to be free _from_ speech,   Perhaps in the privacy of their homes, but not on public property.  Did the Korean grocery store owner in New York city have a right to be free from the speech of the protesters  outside his store?  Patrons inside the store could hear the  protesters asking them to re-consider shopping there -- how  is that different from the abortion protesters asking women  to re-consider getting an abortion at a clinic?    > Harassment goes beyond > expression to direct attack on particular persons, > in this case the workers and clients at a clinic. > Its purpose is clearly not to convey information or > express an opinion, but to intimidate and do harm to > other others.  Even if the protesters' speech could be considered "harassment" (which it is not), hate speech laws have  generally been struck down by the courts.  I don't see  how the words ``don't kill your baby'' or ``abortion is  murder'' could be considered harassment.  > Anti-abortionists have lost the battle for public > opinion, and the more psychopathic among them have > turned to harassment, arson, bombing and murder to > carry on their war.  There is no reason not to  > restrain them to protect the ordinary civil rights > of everyone else.  Some of the protesters were arrested for simply praying quietly on a public sidewalk.  Yeah, I could see how that might be equivalent to "bombing" and "murder". Uh huh.  Let us know when you get a grip on reality.    > )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*( >( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
THE WHITE HOUSE                    Office of the Press Secretary                                                                    For Immediate Release                              March 14, 1993             PUBLIC EVENTS ON THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE FOR           THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1993      	           10:20 am EST   The President meets with Leadership of Law 	                  enforcement organizations -- The Rose           	        Garden      	       	    	       	       	    	      OPEN PRESS       3:00 AM EDT    The President meets with the National      	        	  Ambassador for the March of Dimes Birth      	    	       Defects Foundation -- The Oval Office      	        	       	    	 TV POOL, OPEN STILL PHOTO, WRITING POOL            3:15 AM EDT    The President meets with Mosaic Minstrels of       	       	    New York, NY -- The Rose Garden       	       	    	 OPEN PHOTO, WRITING POOL       3:30 AM EDT    The President meets with the Berwick, PA, 	        	       High School Bulldogs, AAA State Football      	        	  Champions -- The South Lawn       	       	    	 OPEN PHOTO, WRITING POOL       	       	               UPCOMING EVENTS ON THE PRESIDENT'S  SCHEDULE       	       	    	       	             	       April 16, 1993      The President meets with 	       	       	    	      Japanese Prime Minister  	    	       	       	    	 Miyazawa, The White House       	       April 26, 1993      President Clinton meets with         	       	    	      President Amato of Italy, The 	       	       	    	      White House
In article <1993Apr13.123404.18191@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes: | |Automobiles belonging to personnel associated with the embassies from various |nations have diplomatic license plates.  They are red, white, and blue and |read DLL #### where "L" is a letter and the #'s are numbers.  The "D" means >diplomatic and the "L"s indicate which country.  A few years ago the  actually,  teh D means the registered driver has diplomatic immunity. That means they can do as they damn well please on the roads, and you have only God as your protection.     The state Department Issues Saa-XXX  plates for personnel  who work at the embassies but haven't been granted  immunity.  Most embassies have restricted parking for embassy personell  street side.    The S plates allow them to use  those parking areas as well as the restricted lots at National and State dept,  without a lot of crap.
In article <15437@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:    |> You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than |> straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are. |>   Excuse me a moment when I laugh my head off...  I defy you to prove your statement "damaged and screwed up".  You can't?  Oh dear.  Your argument, once again, Mr Logic(NOT!), falls flat on its face.  Take a course in civil behaviour and logic.  Then come back and defend your arguments.  |> --  |> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! |> Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.