waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <philC5HsII.GFt@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:  >In article <1993Apr13.121723.20568@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:  >>When are Libertarians going to draw a clear line between >>themselves and NAMBLA? By your own statements, you were once >>a member of an organization which you *knew* supported >>exactly what NAMBLA supports, namely abolishing the age of >>consent. I've never supported any such organization. YOU >>have.  >While both organizations may, on paper, support the abolition of the age >of consent, there the resemblance stops.  >One supports the removal of a coercive law, the other a paper facade >to "legitimize" sexual relations with children.  What's the difference, in practice?  It amounts to your saying, it's disgusting but should be legal,  ***or***  someone else saying, let's allow the parties involved to decide what is disgusting.  Or, if you're like me, you think that it ISN'T a coercive law, because some children can't make informed consent.  Brian
In article <1993Apr20.135819.14473@e2big.mko.dec.com> busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com writes: > >In article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes... >>  >>In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes: >>|>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm >>|>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) >>  >>|>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:  [unrelated text deleted]   >>|>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within >>|>a mile of the compound? >>  >>Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that >>has a range of 3000 meters. > > >  What crap, Phil. 50mm? Wrong. To give you a clue as to how big 50mm is, the > F-16 fighter aircraft have 20mm gattling guns used to shoot down other  > aircraft. A 50mm gun would be somewhere in the `cannon' realm. They might > have had .50 calibre but definitely not 50mm.  > >  I think that Phil needs to get out a ruler and see exactly how big 50mm rounds are - roughly 2" diameter.  The type of stuff used in Anti-Aircraft gunnery. .50 calibre is much smaller, but the 3000m effective range (~2mi) sounds about right. Maybe he just got the two confused..... The FBI's reasoning was sound, but the note from PH-B was factually wrong.  Tom H.  > ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > > Paul R. Busta	                                    Busta@kozmic.enet.dec.com > Salem,N.H.                                    > 603-894-3962 > > >           "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make >                       violent revolution inevitable..." >   --  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt                                  I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've    thyat@sdf.lonestar.org                     suffered quite enough, thank you!    Arlington, TX                                                                                                                                                    Help! I'm being repressed!  -M.Python                                          -------------------------------
william@fractl.tn.cornell.edu writes: : In article <1993Apr15.215747.17331@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes: : >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. : > : > : >  - Dave Borden : >    borden@m5.harvard.edu :  :  : 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. 					 					This country still exists after 200+ years 					because the  					people have to be forced by the government to 					fight in foreign wars? 					I don't think so...
In article <20APR199312325032@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: |>Xref: dscomsa alt.activism:6038 talk.politics.misc:22844  |>In article <1993Apr20.151753.13020@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes... |> |>>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!) |> |>	When did the BATF say this? Everything I've seen from the BATF, |>	from the official version to the dissident statements of BATF |>	officers who conducted the raid claims that the Davidians were |>	shooting at the agents long before they were within grenade  |>	range.  |> |>	Also, if the warrant is sealed, how do we know it was a 'no-knock'?    Hey don't confuse these guys with facts dude! You might break some beautiful illusions!  Of course by BATF admits this they mean that the BATF did not deny some post by a pro-Koresh/gun lobby person some time back.  If anyone wants to understand the paranoid mindset of Koresh I offer you talk.politics.guns. There you can dredge the sewers of minds so hung up on power and ego trips that they bend reality arround their own particular set of beleifs.  I long ago gave up arguing the case for arms control directly. Instead I invite people to ask themselves, would you want to be in a room full of the occupants of talk.politics.guns, their personal armouries and attempt to enter a discussion with them?
In article <186042@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes: > In article <Ufk_Gqu00WBKE7cX5V@andrew.cmu.edu>, ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu > (Ashish Arora) writes: > |> Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 5-Apr-93 Re: Supply Side Economic Po.. > |> by Not a Boomer@desire.wrig  > |> [...] > |>  > |> >    The deficits declined from 84-9, reaching a low of 2.9% of GNP before   > |> > the tax and spending hike of 1990 reversed the trend. > |> >   > |> > Brett > |> Is this true ?  Some more details would be appreciated. > |>  > |> cheers >  > Actually not.  Brett himself has actually posted the data previously. > What declined from 84 to 89, as I remember it, was _percent > increase_in_deficit_growth, i.e. the rate of growth of the deficit  > (2nd derivative of total deficit with respect of to time) decreased.  	Would you please define "nth derivative of debt"?  Last time I asked you seem to have disappeared....  	And it's the deficits themselves that came down to 2.9% of GNP.  The numbers are posted in the previous posting.  > Brett apparently has numbed himself into thinking that the deficit > declined.    	Cute, Paul, but with no numbers you still look foolish.  > If you keep spending more than you earn, the deficit keeps > growing.    	Paul, like many others, is confusing the deficit with the debt.  > If you keep _borrowing_ at a lesser rate than you borrowed > previously, the deficit increases.  You only decrease deficits when your > income exceeds spending and you use the difference to pay off debts.  	Not in terms of GNP, the one universally accepted measure of deficits (at least among rigorous economists :)  ... > arguments were brilliant.  He confirmed, with data, what many of us know > with common sense -- the boom of the 80's has nothing to do with government > policy, particularly "supply side" policy, since taxes do not "cause"  > economic activities.  People cause economic activity.  More can be   	Semantics.  Lindsey proves otherwise.  Taxes make people change their economic activities. 	Or shall we debate whether it is the gun, the bullet, or the person who does the killing?  > explained by watching population waves roll through the years and  > create cycles.  He has made models and predictions for years well into > the middle of next century.  It will be neat to see how accurate he > is.  	Or whether this gentleman can win the same praise as Lindsey. :)
In article <15445@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) wrote: > 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.  Mr. Cramer, when are you going to stop indulging in such blatant lies? This is not only not true, you know damned well that it's not true.  None of your research supports this; no mental health expert has taken this position.  This is *your own* opinion which is not backed up by any research or any knowledge.  According to one survey, done in San Francisco, the number of heterosexual men who were molested as children was on the order of 5%.  The number of homosexual men who were molested as children was on the order of 8%. Source:  a book on sexual abuse of children by David Finkelhor (sorry, the title escapes me).  Conclusions that can be drawn from this:  none.  > If homosexuals would stop using the government to impose their > morality on others (antidiscrimination laws) and leave our children > alone, I wouldn't care in the least what they did in private.  But > until they get over the liberal notion that the proper role of  > government is to tell peaceful people how to live, I have no choice > but to continue to point out that homosexuality is not an "alternative > lifestyle," but a sickness.  Oh, you definitely have a choice.  You realize, of course, that you are approaching the two-year anniversary of your crusade.  How are you planning on celebrating two years of lies?  Incidentally, we are still waiting your crusade against African-Americans, women, and other minorities who also want to "impose their morality on others".  After all, they also want the government to "tell peaceful people how to live."  Therefore, you really "have no choice", but to continue to point out that being a woman or an African-American is not a lifestyle, but a sickness.  It's bullshit, Mr. Cramer.  It was bullshit when you began this crusade and it's still bullshit.  I am continually amazed at the depths to which you'll stoop to carry on this deliberate attack.
kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes: >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.  I'm really surprised Clinton hasn't already tried to do this.  He seems to want to tackle other irrelevant issues first, so why not this one as well.  >Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer;  > >I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there.  > >Eliminate the C-17 transport.   Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, very few airplanes haven't, but getting rid of something we need is not the answer.  What do you want to do, start over a rebuild a new airplane from scatch?  It'll have its problems as well and there will be calls again, for it to be scrapped.  THe other option is to try to extend the life of the C-5s and C-141s that are getting extremely old.  >Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine.  >Ground the B-2 stealth bomber.   It'll cost jobs, but I'm for it.  We especially don't need a B-2. THe SSN-21, I know litttle about.
In article <15430@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  |> Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community |> pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to |> hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against |> my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying |> to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.  Your post is based on the premise that the laws as they stand do not discriminate anybody, so your argument falls over immediately.  Are you really that dumb as to use emotive language to prove an argument? Please feel free to answer, that is, if you have anything intelligent to say on the matter.    |> --  |> 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 <C5Jy07.8GK@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes: > >In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia. edu (Gary L Dare) writes: > >|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes: >|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes: >|>>} >|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the >|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline >|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ... >|>> >|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more >|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care... >|> >|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is voluntary > >Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of collection >effectively makes it a tax. > >  >|>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has >|>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through >|>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend. > >Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they >don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy >has done to the country. > >Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselve s, >thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the >ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle >class. >  This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the 1980 election.  This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame, pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.  Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more than  the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples'  books.  What a joke.
>In article <C4vBM1.Gs0@NCoast.ORG>, cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:  >|>As quoted from <C4vCtB.J1H@dscomsa.desy.de> by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker): >|> >|>> Isn't it wonderfull the way people can make the sadistic and indescriminate >|>> murder of the Bader-Meinhof gang sound like altruism? >|> >|>Gee Phil, I'd remember where you are and that these people are monitoring the    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >|>net.  I'd also remember that they have about as much sense of humor as Ed    ^^^
In article <15407@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes: #There is a big difference between running one's business #affairs, and actively ripping people off.  And charging homosexuals more becuase people think that AIDS is a "gay disease" is actively ripping people off.
THE WHITE HOUSE                     Office of the Press Secretary _________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release                        April 5, 1993                     PUBLIC SCHEDULE OF THE PRESIDENT                      TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1993    11:15 AM EST   	    PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS REMARKS with                      Egyptian President Mubarek, the East Room,                      The White House                 	    Open Press                     FUTURE SCHEDULE OF THE PRESIDENT   APRIL 16, 1993 	    PRESIDENT CLINTON MEETS with Japanese Prime                      Minister Miyazawa, the White House
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.  >	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?  >Shouldn't that be up to a jury?  >	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?  First, people should be aware that Brett's (no last name listed)  posts on bit.listserv.politics indicate that he has been   hostile toward GM's hiring policies and to the Moseley verdict  when it came out.  Equal opportunity disagreement, I guess.  :-)  My guess, without seeing the judge's opinion, is that GM's motion  was denied on due diligence grounds.  Otherwise, a party to a  case could always keep one or two semi-credible witnesses in  reserve to spring if they lose.  Not exactly a way to promote  repose.  						Daniel Reitman
Has anybody heard an explanation of why the FBI was using tear gas in a 35 mph wind?  Doesn't seem like vry good tactics to me ...  Any other explanations?  Lew
Do we know yet who will be holding the hearings? And, if so, do we know who is on the committee of question askers? I'm sure many of us have potential questions we'd like to send to them.
I don't want to attack anyone's personal opinions and thus have not included any articles - but it seems to me incredibly ridiculous and pompous for someone to sit back with the benefit of hindsight and point fingers at Clinton, Reno, the FBI, or whomever.  First of all, it is a knee-jerk judgement.  The facts are quite muddled at this point and will likely be for quite a while.  Secondly, things do not improve by pointing blame and accusatory fingers.  Pointing fingers is a destructive action.  If everyone sat around pointing fingers all the time, nothing would get done and nothing would ever get any better.  And despite the tragedy, we can learn something from this - if it is approached in a  constructive manner.  Doesn't it seem that working together is more productive than working against one another?  Thirdly, it seems incredibly hypocritical to place blame given the benefit of hindsight - something that those who made the decisions did not have the benefit of.  Why not give them the courtesy of acknowledging that they did the best they could with the data they had - in a very, very difficult situation.  Some responses have gone so far to suggest that the actions were done without regard for the lives of the people in the compound - give me a break.  Be part of the solution - not the problem.  And that's MY opinion -
In article <C4zI26.34D@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com    (drieux, just drieux) writes (about the armed services): >  > ps: Maybe even privatize the organization, or consider > 'out sourcing' various aspects of the DOD as a part of > the current 'Down Sizing' - Who Knows, Maybe if we  > Finally Allowed to "Free Market" to take control, we will > no longer have a military run by the same folks who are > running the post office..... >  > pps: slow down, and think before you flame, Rhetoric is an ArtForm.  Well, uh, actually I agree.
In a previous article, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) says:  >Aside from the fact that i disagree w/ you, she did offer to resign and the >president rejected the offer.  She was willing to take responsibility, and >the president has the balls enough to stand by a decision.
In article <C5t74u.5vC@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill   Hallam-Baker) writes: >  > The point is though that you learn through mistakes. The govt > played the wrong card and lost. Thats not a big deal. They > had had four guys murdered at the begining and maybee they  > just were not prepared for wuite this situation. Who could be? >  > If the same thing were to happen all over again we might perhaps > be able to castigate the Govt if they used the same tactics and failed > in the same way. As it is I can't say that I would not have made the > same mistake. Maybee I wouldn't because I don't as a rule go in > for a confrontational situation if I can avoid it. Maybee I would > because with all those press about its very difficult not to try > the macho stuff.  My god, how many chances do they get?  Operation Move (Philedelphia, early   80's), Black Panthers (Chicago, 1969), etc., etc.  Hell, we get heavily armed millenial cults out west every couple of years.  Do with have to start a   cascade of times the feds have been in situations like this?
In article <15196@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Homosexuals have been lying about the 10% number for so long that >the politicians are running scared of them.  Of course, homosexuals >lying should be no surprise. >  How can you lie about something that no one knows for sure.  I am the first to state that the 10% figure may be too high- but it may just be too low, depending on what you are talking about.  Keep in mind that there are 'practicing' heterosexuals that are actually gay.  These people chose to take a road that avoids being harassed and they wanted to 'fit-in' with everyone other 'normal' person.  But let's get off of this irrational behavior of calling everyone a liar, you cannot even start to support such claims.  >Also, the corrupt, criminal and lying nature of Kinsey's work, which >provides much of the justification for homosexual "rights" in the modern >era, should make people step back for a moment and question the rest >of the crap that they have been force-fed by the news media.  This sure sounds definitive.  How do you label Kinsey's work like this, from that factually based and scientific journal WSJ?  >--  >Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken) writes: > >Here's a question:  what if, instead of a true VAT, the federal  >government imposed a sales tax of say 2-3%?  The tax would only >be paid on retail sales (thus not building up at all levels of >production costs that are just passed on to consumers anyway), >and would only go to reducing the deficit.  (I know that this  >would never happen, but it seems a lot more palettable than >a VAT).  Canada's GST is collected as a sales tax and is considered a VAT. Funnily, the previous hidden wholesale tax that it replaces was never referred to as a tax (or, people never paid mind to it, thus the uproar when it was brought up front as the GST ---  one party has actually campaigned on hiding the tax again).  The stated intent of the Tories was to use the GST to write down our deficit.  Unfortunately, their legislation didn't include any mechanism for disbursing the collected funds in such a manner and the money is now sitting in escrow.  I don't know what is involved in releasing the funds, but one dilemna is that the Tories are not fiscal conservatives themselves though while taxing and spending, they've made moves to apply the breaks to a runaway locomotive by the end of this time --- the end of their second term (~9 years). While they do have chances of getting a third term, catching up in the polls to their more moderate/slightly leftish pro-business rivals, the Liberals (as in Euro/UK), the Tories' heir-apparent  for the leaders' mantle has been termed a clone of Hillary  Clinton ...  gld