waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr16.174304.26360@ra.msstate.edu> fpa1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes: >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?   Aviation Week March 15 1993 p.48  "the CBO estimates that matching the capability of 100 C-17s would require 70 C-5s at a total cost of $14.4 billion. This option is still more than $10 billion cheaper than completing the C-17 program, which the CBO estimates will cost $24.7 billion."  Sorry, I was nine billion off. The C-5s would be ten billion cheaper. >  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.  > Well, California voted overwhelmingly for change, right? The argument to continue military programs just to support jobs is a poor one. It's kept quite a few bases open that should have been closed years ago, wasting billions of taxes.  >>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." > >fpa >
In article <C5qL3y.Avt@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale) writes: > In article <15325@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # #However, monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare that for practical # #purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS. # #--  # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! # #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.  # You fucking homophobic moron!!!!!!!!!  What about IV drug use?  What about  # tainted blood?  What about multi-sexual partners?  If you knew anything  What about them?  Those also spread AIDS.  Where did I say anything different?  Go back and read what I wrote.  The statement "homosexuality spreads AIDS" is not made false by the fact that there are other methods of spreading it as well.  # about what you are talking about, you would be dangerous.  As it is right now, # you are a persistent boil on the skin of humanity that needs to be lanced. #  # Joe Cipale  Typical homosexual response.
In <C4v13w.Dup@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:  >In article <bob1.733696161@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes: >>In <C4ruo8.77r@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:  >>>  Norway (where you appear to be posting from) is just such a  >>>  place, although it has always escaped my understanding just >>>  what the appeal, to allegedly rational people, of such a >>>  scheme might be.  What gives King Olav V (or whoever it is >>>  now - my atlas is from 1987) the right to any special legal >>>  status or title based on a mere accident of birth?  >> >>To begin with, it's quite inexpensive compared to here, what with our >>having six former presidents still alive, drawing pensions, expense >>accounts, and secret service protection.  >  Maybe so, but they were, after all, President.  In the corporate  >  world it's SOP for retiring senior executives to be given nice >  pensions, etc.  The point is that they performed a service and >  this is part of the compensation package.   The only "service"  >  royals have to perform for their free ride is being born.  We might be better off had some of our former presidents done nothing.   >---peter
In <30146@ursa.bear.com> halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat) writes:  |>In article <1993Apr17.161720.18197@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu 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?  Oh yeah, did you watc |>h |>>> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge |>>> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to   |Even if Rodney King had come out of that car waving a gun and they  |managed to disarm him, the police still had no right right to beat |him senseless the way they did once he was on the ground.  If they  |can't handle their jobs, they should be relieved of them.  They police did not beat King when he was on the ground. They beat him when he was on his knees trying to get back up. If you had watche d the entire video you would have seen this.  |Additionally, Anna Quindlan of the New York Times said it best (paraphrase): |Many people bring up what happened before what is shown on the tape.  Here's |what came before:  the 80's, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, racism,...  If you think this is true, much less relevant, than you are in sadder shape than I thought.
In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: > >The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the >Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush. > >Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare >a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control >the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that >they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and  >attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang >the doorbell. > >The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked >assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they >expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who >would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up >in a tank and broken the door down on day one. > >The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by >ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police.   Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.  There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)  >If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing >the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could >hear it.  Let's be realistic here, shall we?  You're a member of a rather paranoid religious organization. Someone comes to your building, dressed in black suits, carrying firearms. They throw a concussion grenade at the place, and try to break in. What, exactly, are you going to do?  I would not allow anyone to enter my home without first identifying themselves. If someone attacks my home by firing weapons or throwing explosive, I think I'd be entirely justified in defending myself.  Regardless of what I think of the BDs, and regardless of whether or not they were guilty of firearms violations, this is NOT the way you treat people in a supposedly free society.  	<MC>
cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > ># #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3. >#  ># Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners.... > >Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.  ...which would make the number 15%, right Clayton?
it may be a little late to reply to your tirade and also on an inaapropriate board but along with all of the so called great things the white male has done they have also contributed to society by means of mass genocide, the theft of ideas and cultures, creating and the perptration of historical lies throughouttime among many other horrible activities. but every culture has its upside and its downside.  it seems to me that the  white male (must be extremely ignorant to qualify for the following - if you're not disregard) and western culture are the only things that look to  actively classify things as good or bad, worthy or unworthy (ya dig) it can be seen with slavery and the manipulation and destruction of the  american indians civilization.  nothing but selfish acts that benefit one  group of people (and not even their women get or got respected or regarded as equal - ain't that some stuff)  white men - not being specific - but in a lot of cases are just wack or have wack conceptions of how the world is to serve their purpose.    just look at david koresh - throughout history (i may be shortsighted on this one so excuse my predjudiced ignorance) only white men associate themselves withbeing GOD.  no other culture is ignorant or arrogant enough to assume such a  position.  and then to manipulate and mislead all those people.  hmmm...  i'd say look in your history books but since it seems that history  has been written to glorify the exploits of white men you'd only find lies.  awww that's enough already from me because this has nothing to do with sex or this board.  if ya'd like to continue this discussion e-mail me and we can  compare and contrast ideas  			i like conflict - it's educational when the  			communcation is good......................  my $.02 worth  (i apologize to those who thought this was going to be about SEX but i was prompted by a response i found up here)
In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com>, steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: > In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: > >In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri > >tes: > > > >> > >>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you! > >> > > > >A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid  > >is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as  > >me how, I just have seen the results. > > > >Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in  > >the head. > > >  > I'll answer you're sarcasm with more sarcasm: >  > 	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from > 	being screwed up in the head, given that example! >  > (Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to > get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal > drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's > not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an > immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice > THIS to THAT!).  And not only that, but if the drugs were legal we could have pharmacists instead of pushers selling them, and the pharmacists could be obligated to not only inform the purchasers of the dangers of drug use, but also show them how to use the drugs in relatively safe ways.  And the dangers of impurities (responsible for much of the suffering that drugs cause) would be all but eliminated.
In article <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu>, slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes: |>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6011 talk.politics.misc:22764 |>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!slp9k |>From: slp9k@cc.usu.edu |>Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc |>Subject: Re: Welcome to Police State USA |>Message-ID: <1993Apr20.030234.66491@cc.usu.edu> |>Date: 20 Apr 93 03:02:34 MDT |>References: <1993Apr20.004224.66488@cc.usu.edu> <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> |>Organization: Utah State University |>Lines: 34 |> |>In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes: |>> Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been |>> better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months? |> |>	Firstly, they could have backed off.  When you put a power freak, like |>David Koresh, in that kind of situation he is going to explode.  (no pun |>intended).  Koresh wanted to be a martyr and the government played right into |>his hands. |> |>	If the government hadn't given him the attention he wanted nothing |>would have ever happened. |> |>	Secondly, the Davidians were expecting everything the government did.  |>They thought that they were facing the apocalypse, and that they were to perish |>in fire.  They weren't scared of the FBI.  They are not the average hoods, they |>are very devout followers of a religion.  PsyOps didn't work and the government |>got frustrated so they murdered them.  |> |>	The BATF should have left at the beginning, they should have looked at |>Koresh's personality.  Instead they thought, "They have guns.  We have bigger |>guns.  Let's go get 'em!" |> |>	They botched it from day one.  They shouldn't have been there in the |>first place.   The above conveniently ignores the murder of four BATF agents by the Branch Davidians in an unprovoked ambush.  Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and  attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang the doorbell.  The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up in a tank and broken the door down on day one.  The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police.    If anyone on the net cares to suggest a sure fire method of bringing the murderes of four police officers to justice perhaps we could hear it.
In article <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes: > >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?"  > >Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :) > >Dan  This is a very good point.  One that I have held for sometime.  We do not allow people to develop on the paths that they choose or desire.  Even with heterosexuals we tend to leave some hanging in the sense of knowledge and information about sexuality and relationships.  It is very difficult for a young person to develop and build a positive view of themself when they are constantly being told implicitly and explicitly that they are wrong and immoral.
In article <rogerdC5x5DF.JHz@netcom.com> rogerd@netcom.com (Roger D.) writes: >Adisak Pochanayon (pochanay@cae.wisc.edu) wrote: >: >>In article <15501@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >: >>|> Homosexuals are vicious, screwed-up, often >: >>|> really evil people. >: >>|> I've learned quite a bit in the last two years.  Evil, vicious, >: >>|> dishonest, lying scum is the only way to describe homosexuals. >: >>|> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! >:       I believe that Clayton is full of shit.  Who could believe anyone so biased >: and so obviously misaligned?  If he were the slightest bit open-minded, he wouldn't >: write such slanted smears.  Especially to generalize an entire group of people.  > >I would say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black! > >      Really now.  Why is this the pot calling the kettle black?  I am stating that a person who shows a continually biased opinion is close-minded and that his opinion should be ignored.  Clayton is stating that a group of at least two million (1%) American citizens are evil vicious malicious child-molesters.       Here's a hypothetical question...  If Clayton said something like "all those niggers are really stupid."  (Please don't be offended, I'm not racist but merely using an example of Clayton's malign logic).  And then said he read a report that a lot of blacks in inner cities dropped out of school, I bet he wouldn't have your support.  Yet he can claim that all homosexuals are dishonest, evil, lying child molesters without *PERSONALLY* having a single homosexual friend or acquaintance and you'll sit there and support him.
demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >harelb@math.cornell.edu writes: > >>     "IT IS A MATTER OF LOGIC that government-run systems are >>     inefficient, and the fact that the highly bureaucratized private >>     sector system in the US is vastly more inefficient is therefore >>     irrelevant.   > >	Proof that the entire private sector is vastly more inefficient?  Good point, Brett.  It might merely be proof that basic health care markets operate differently, with certain nonmarket phenomenom that the private sector can't handle well (like armies vs. warlords). In that respect, the effects on American society vs. Canadian/European society might also be different.  >> 	It is, for example, of no relevance that Blue Cross >>     of Massachusetts employs 6680 people, more than are employed in >>     all of Canada's health programs, which insure 10 times as many >>     people" > >Blue Cross is the government health insurance provider.  Good point again.  Blue Cross in the U.S. is quite convoluted compared to the Canadian and German insurance funds, which have a minimal organization to coordinate it.  If anything, bureaucracy now needs to be built up in Canada to combat fraud, such as Americans crossing the border individually to use insurance cards borrowed from friends and relatives or using phony domestic addresses, or fraud rings stealing them in blocks.  Our private practices are now recording insurance account numbers, both public insurance and private insurance, which most have never bothered to do before on assumption of an honour  system.  gld
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.
cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form >of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of >recent works suggest.  Oh, please, enlighten us all. What articles in particular are you quoting from? I'm doing my Masters in Psychopathology and it would interest me greatly in seeing these articles that you know exist (yet I know nothing about). I'm sure I could give them to people doing their PhD's. With information like this, they'll have their degree in no time.  (sprinkle sarcasm where applicable)  Don't bother with the little-girl-is-raped-by-her-daddy-and-is-now- a-lesbian-because-of-it studies. They have always been under critical  scrutiny as to their validity. (Correlation != causation).
Well, the message was interesting (and long), but TWICE? Oh Well. Personally, I loathe libertarianism, but my disagreement is philisophical, not tactical. Election law reform is a good idea. You would not believe what kind of stunts the creatures of the 2 party system are capable of pulling. ============================================================================ David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes... >mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: >>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes...  >>>We're hearing it.  It sure rings true-- it's consistent in a way that >>>mass suicide by fire is not.  This survivor is also saying that they >>>were trapped inside by the damage done by the tanks.  >>	Why is an accidental fire more plausible than a mass suicide,  >>	considering that the Davidians were an apocalyptic cult with >>	a history of armed violence? If the FBI has reason to lie  >>	about the cause of the fire, if it resulted from their own >>	negligence, then the BD survivors also have reason to lie if >>	they started the blaze.   >The FBI claims the fire was set simultaneously in three places.  They >claim the building was filled with tear gas.  Electricity was cut off, >tanks were rolling all around.  How did the BDs co-ordinate the >setting of the fire?   	It's fairly simple. It was decided to burn the place down, 	and more than one agent was dispatched to set the fires in 	separate parts of the compound. I doubt that "simultaneously" 	means "at the exact same time" in this case. It likely means 	"close enough together to preclude them from being part of 	the same fire."   >The FBI claims that men with torches set the fires-- but haven't released >any evidence of this, though it seems inconcievable that they don't have >any if it was true.  	They might be waiting until the evidence comes in from the 	site, and the investigation is at least well underway.    >All of the BDs >previous actions were aimed towards their survival, not their death.  	The same could be said of Jonestown.  >The idea that kerosene lamps would be all over the place (with >electricity cut off) makes sense.  The idea that ramming tanks into >the building would spill them and cause a fire makes sense.    The >possibility that the FBI wouldn't know this is nil.  It wasn't simple >negligence.  	Maybe. Then again, I've been suprised at what folks have missed 	in the past in similar situations. Don't jump t oconclusions.                    _____  _____                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________ ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/ \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/                 \_ / /__________/                  \/____/\\\\\\  			 \\\\\\
Turkish president Turgur Ozal has passed away today after a heart  attack in Ankara at 11:00 am GMT . Mr. Ozal was 66 years old.