waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <15177@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <113567@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes: >> In article <cjkC4MCwp.8ox@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes: ># #If homosexuals did keep themselves in the privacy of their own home, this  ># #wouldn't be a problem.  However, there are various 'cliques' (sp?) that ># #don't.  They want to present the argument that it is just as moral and ># #right as heterosexuality. >#  ># You know, I'm offended by newspapers publicly announcing weddings. ># Heterosexuals should keep their nutpials out of the public eyes. They ># should be banned from wearing wedding rings. From having legal recognition ># of marriage. >#  ># Anything that's public and sexual don't mix. > >The difference, of course, is that we are right, and you are wrong. >If you are a minority that wants freedom, it helps to not be  >obnoxious about it.  It does not surprise me that as groups like  TRANSLATION- you minorities stay in predesignated areas.  We the majority are 'right', anything you do is 'wrong', since might makes right, and the majority always rules.  >Queer Nation become increasingly belligerent in their public  >demonstrations, that violence against homosexuals rises.  Anything >that reminds the crazies who like to beat up homosexuals of their >presence is going to aggravate things.   Oh- crime prevention at its best.  Well let's extrapolate this, maybe if  you didn't display all of your private property, then those nasty theifs wouldn't go after it.  And don't carry any money, that way those muggers won't bother you.  > >And you still don't realize that either way it is, says that homosexuals >are very dangerous to children. > >#  ># So tell me---what's immoral about homosexuality? > >The promiscuity and fetishism that characterizes it.  The sexual >predatory component that glorifies the pursuit of "candy-ass" and >"hairless cocks" in the words of Le JoJo, the typical homosexual.  Oh I did not know that Le JoJo is a typical homosexual.  Stop making statements about something you know nothing about, that is gay people.  You make your sweeping generalizations with no grounding  in reality.   What I hope is not true- That you are a typical heterosexual.  Anyone want to comment on this?  And if you are typical then I can start extrapolating a lot of interesting conjectures about heterosexuals.
In article <1993Apr15.175829.22411@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman)        writes... >In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes: >>In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes... >>>Correct. JFK was quite disgusting in that way. The reports of the women that >>>he coerced via power of the office are now in the dozens. Today, we';d >>>call for immediate resignation for that kind of behaviour. >  >>I guess coercing women into having sex is MUCH worse than stealing, breaking >>and entering, rigging national elections, starting secret wars that kill >>hundreds of thousands, and using the powers of your office for personal >>gain like Nixon did. NOT! >  >Garrett, you are a really pathetic liar.  Isn't name calling fun! >  >Some of your charges are arguable, but most of them are obvious lies. >I challenge you to present us with any evidence that Nixon stole, >rigged a national election, never mind elections, or used the powers >of his office for personal gain.  What do you think happened at Watergate? What do you think they broke into the building for? It wasn't to just look around. Do I have to draw you  a picture? >  >You can't because there is absolutely no evidence that any of these >events occurred.  Whatever...  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson "This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com settled into the situation and found my bearings. THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
Janet Reno killed the Waco children.  She is responsible for their deaths.  She should resign immediately.  She should have  understood that David Koresh was a madman who would do anything against the children if he became provoked.  All the warning  signs were there and she ignored them.  She provoked Koresh into killing the children.  The situation in Waco was similar to a hostage situation with  a madman holding a gun against the head of an innocent person. In such a situation, a person who provokes the madman and causes  him to pull the gun's trigger is responsible for the death of the hostage.  Janet Reno blindly stumbled in there and basically threw a tear gas container at the madman hoping that he would release the hostage.  It's no surprise that the madman would pull the trigger in response to that kind of provocation.
Does anyone know where I can access an online copy of the proposed "jobs" or "stimulus" legislation?  Please E-mail me directly and if anyone else is interested, I can post this information.  Thanks,  Mike Brooks  NOTE:  My E-mail address in the news header is NOT correct.  My correct  address is:
Thanks to everyone who sent replies regarding this case.  A few of them were very informative and helped very much.
I am so tired about all this debate on how many gays there are!  Such arguments are basically worthless, imho.  Would it  really matter if it were millions of people who are regularly denied access to housing, employment, and personal security or even only one?       As for death threats, I happen to know from personal experience that gay people are far more likely to receive them based on political veiws or even personal philosophies related to the issue of sexual orientation than are heterosex uals. Not a week goes by that I personally or one of my friends is not physically or verbally harrassed for even appearing to be gay.        Everyone is garaunteed certain unalienable rights under our current form of government in theory, yet every day  gay people are victimized by their local governments, by the police force, and by (for the most part) an uninformed and ignorant public. Is this democracy? I don't think so.    A society's sense of justice is judged on the basis of the treatment of the people who make up that society. All of those people. And yes, that includes gays, lesbians, and bisexuals whose "crimes" have no victims, and who are as varied and diverse as the society of wich they are a part.
In article <1938@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes: >	My mother-in-law, who grew up in Germany, doesn't believe in  >money at all. She started out as a real estate developer, and now raises >horses. She keeps telling me that inflation is coming back, and to lock >in my fixed rate mortgage as low as possible.
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: >>> In article <1qd1snINNr79@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes: >>> >I would be upset that, although abortions would continue, they would be >>> >a lot more expensive for the rich, and a lot less safe for the poor. >>>  >>>  >>> So now things are supposed to be legal just to keep their cost down >>> and the safety factor high??   >>>  >>> Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower >>> the cost and definitely make them safer to use. >> >>  Yes. >>  >>> I don't think we want to start using these criterion to determine >>> legality. >> >>  Why not? > > >Where do they get these people?!  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!    Go for it.  I have yet to see anybody justify the prohibition on drugs and the ensuing War On Drugs.  In the world of *.politics here on Usenet, it is YOU that is crazy.  ANYBODY--who gives the matter any thought beyond reading headlines---cannot justify this atrocity, this all out war on individual rights.  Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!  > >My point was that it is pretty stupid to justify legalizing something just >because it will be safer and cheaper. >   Once again, in chorus: WHY is this "stupid"?  > >A few more ideas to hold to these criterion - prostitution; the killing of all >funny farm patients, AIDS "victims", elderly, unemployed, prisioners, etc. - >this would surely make my taxes decrease.  The above paragraph is gibberish--that all I can make of it...
*Teddy O'Neill-Creature with furry Hobbit feet from Bath UK*, a sentimental fool, posts:        With the force of a world-wide youth movement, it ought to      be possible to establish a coordinated global program to      accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the      internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty year period.  Evidently there are no open questions, either scientific or about how people prefer to live.
In article <1993Apr4.054843.22307@mks.com> richw@mks.com (Rich Wales) writes: >Why can't you just cite us a case in which Joe Schmoe, a regular >employee earning regular wages from a regular company, refuses to pay >his income tax, gets hauled into court, is convicted of wilful tax eva- >sion, and then has his conviction overturned by the US Supreme Court >with a landmark 7-2 majority ruling that income tax is indeed totally >voluntary?  What, you say?  No such case exists?  Hmmm, I wonder why >not; why haven't you?  Unless I've got my notes mixed up, 939 F.2d 499 comes close to this. Regular guy.  Blue-collar worker at a regular company.  Hauled into court.  Convicted.  Appeals to 7th circuit.  Makes all the right arguments (his brief is cited by Mr. Teel as an example of a "winning" brief).  Shot down, 3-zip by the 7th circuit.  Appeals to the Supreme Court.  And...  ...Certiorari denied.  Defendant goes to jail.  Oh well.
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.  Part of what started this was my earlier example of Illinois, USA requiring anyone doing more than X automobile transfers a year (X = 10, I think) to become licensed as a used car dealer.  In addition, it requirs anyone with a used car dealer's license to own at least 10 cars at a time, all the time.   Let me continue with this example and try to answer Steve's questions.  Steve, let's say you have the talent and inclination to fix up and resell cars.  Either you've gotten good enough at it in your spare time to bump up against these limits, or you would like to do it full-time but these stupid, arbitrary laws prevent you from starting out small and pulling yourself up.  So I'm protected from a hungry neighborhood competitor willing to take a low profit while working extra hard to fulfill my needs, and you're protected from doing what you want with your life.  Here's what I see libertarianism offering you:  Your money is truly yours; it belongs to you.  You can use it to buy a car. If you use it to buy a car, it is truly your car; it belongs to you.  You can use your money to fix up that car.  Since it is your car, you can sell that car.  Your life is truly yours; it belongs to you.  It matters not if someone thinks that it's "wrong" for you to buy and sell 10 cars within 12 months rather than, say, 9 cars.  They may dissaprove, but it is not their life or their money, it is your life and your money.  My money is truly mine; it belongs to me.  I can use it to buy a car. Perhaps your car.  Perhaps that 10th car, the one that someone, somewhere dissaproves of you selling and, presumably, of me buying.  That someone could go to the government and insist that the government make us stop it.  But the government would be powerless to stop us from doing what we like with our own property, in the abscence of fraud or agression. And it would be powerless to stop us from associating with each other.  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.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:  > 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.  As does the idea that a CS gas canister can get hot enough to ignite dry baled hay.
In article <7166@pdxgate.UUCP>, a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf) writes: > MCARTWR@auvm.american.edu (Martina Cartwright) writes: # #The official and legal term for rape is "the crime of forcing a FEMALE  # #to submit to sexual intercourse." #  # Please, supply me with some references.  I was not aware that all states # had the word "FEMALE" in the rape statutes.  I am sure others are surprised # as well.  I know thats how it works in practice (nice-n-fair, NOT!!), but # was unaware that it was in the statutes as applying to FEMALES only, # uniformly throughout the U.S. #  # -Chris  There may be some confusion here.  The Uniform Crime Reports program run by the FBI defines rape as a female victim only crime -- even though some states have the laws de-sexed.  I suspect that this causes male victims of rape to be left out of the UCR data.
steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: :  : It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal : setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose : that never seems to occur?...   Advances in freedom have been made in the past.  The "divine right of king" concept was questioned at one time and may have used the same argument, that it hadn't come about before.  But our ancestors had the courage to throw off the old system that said that one man ruling many was necessary to have a decent, wholesome society.  In the 1800s the  concept of slavery was questioned.  Our ancestors had the courage to question a practice that had existed for thousands of years.  Was the idea that one man owning another necessary to have a decent,  wholesome society?  Now libertarians question the necessity of majoritarianism.  Is it necessary that many people rule over many others to have a decent, wholesome society?
In article <C5uxHI.H2B@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes: >In article <DZVB3B6w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes: >>FURY OF MOTHER NATURE >>Clearly, man has a long way to go to match nature as a "despoiler" of the  >>environment. > >BULLSHIT. How many lakes have ceased to be able to support life from >purely natural pollution? Man has already done this to scores of lakes. >Also, much of the "degredation" you cite was done by cows and pigs.  You have perhaps heard of the Dead Sea.  I may be wrong, but I believe it is not misnamed.  And I don't believe that humans had a hand in it, although it is possible since the great cedar forests of Lebanon were but a memory by the time of Christ if not earlier.  But, more on the point, while Nature is the may be the more prolific "despoiler", Man is certainly the more creative.  We have to our credit pesticides and heavy metals, not to mention radioactivity, which is so wonderfully persistent and fatal (not that we invented radioactivity or heavy metals, we only concentrated them so that they would be a more lethal threat).  In general I find Mr. Bacon's arguments rhetorical, devoid of sense, and therefore trivial.  BTW, is there any reason this discussion is on phl.misc?
In article <1993Apr5.195216.27893@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners) writes: > >     Plug this one in- I'm a Conservative, I *hate* Pee-Cee's (although I >have to use one at work), and am a proud owner of a NeXT Station. > >The real question: Should the Feds bail-out Steve Jobs & NeXT (a la Chrysler) >so that important manufacturing jobs wouldn't be lost? >--   You have just reminded me of an old Tom Paxton song...  I"M CHANGING MY NAME TO CHRYSLER (Tom Paxton, 1980)  Oh the price of gold is rising out of sight And the dollar is in sorry shape tonight What the dollar used to get us Now won't buy a head of lettus No the economic forecast isn't right But amidst the clouds I spot a shining ray I caneven glimpse a new and better way And I've devised a plan of action Worked it down to the last fraction And I'm going into action here today.  Chorus:    I am changing my name to Chrysler   I am going down to Washington D.C.   I will tell some power broker   What they did for Iacoca   Will be perfectly acceptable to me.   I am changing my name to Chrysler   I am heading for that great receiving line   So when they hand a million grand out   I'll be standing with my hand out   Yes sir I'll get mine  When my creditors are screaming for their dough I'll be proud to tell them all where they can go They won'y have to scream and holler They'll all be paid to the last dollar Where the endless streams of money seam to flow I'll be glad to tell them all what they can do Its just a matter of a simple form or two It's not renumeration it's a liberal education Ain't you kind of glad that I'm in debt to you  Chorus  Since the first first amphibians crawled out of the slime We've been struggling in an unrelenting climb We were hardly up and walking before money started talking And it's sad failure is an awful crime It's been that way for a millennium or two But now it seems there's a different point of view If you're a corporate titanic and your failure is gigantic Down in congress there is a safety net for you.  Chorus...    Perhaps Steven Jobs should take Paxton's advice and change his name to Chrysler, or perhaps set himself up as an S&L, maybe Neil Bush could give him a hand?  ================================================================ akasacou@alfred.ccs.carleton.ca  No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn...                                       J.Morrison
In article <1993Apr21.224506.922@a.cs.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes: >I completely agree with you.  The *illegal* invasion of Panama was >something Mr. Bush never did have to answer for.  Remember, not >only did a lot of Panamanian civilians get killed, but more than >a few American soldiers died too.  All this for arresting a petty >dictator.  Here's the icing on the cake:  to my knowledge the flow >of drugs from Panama hasn't slowed down at all with the removal of >Noriega.  So, what good did it do to remove him from power?  The >cigarette cops and the FBI killing the Branch Davidians in Waco is >equally reprehensible. > >BTW, I've cross-posted this article to t.p.d. because I want to >hear from knowledgable people on whether or not the arrest of >Noriega affected the drug trade in any way.  The arrest of Noriega did not have any major adverse effect on the drug trade going through Panama. Money laundering continues to be Panama's main industry. In fact, it is bigger now than before Noriega was arrested [1]. Panama's current administration also has ties with the Colombian cocaine cartels [2]. And large amounts cocaine still flow through Panama on a regular basis [3].  Oh well...  Sources (from the book _Drugs in America_ by Vincent Bugliosi): [1] IRS Criminal Investigations Divison [2] _New York Times_ [3] U.S. State Department
In <1993Apr19.221331.26203@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM  sez: [re Michael Friedman and Phil Ronzone] > >O.K. So far you guys have called me: >1) An ignorant asshole >2) Ignorant slut >3) Dumb as a bag of hammers >4) Dumb shit >	Am I missing any?  Try asking Michael whether he still thinks the M-16 "is one of the most beautiful machines around."  Or ask Phil if he still claims that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment apply to the federal government.  The responses should be as enlightening as the recent name-calling, and about as relevant.  --  They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
In article <1r1pn6$nap@lll-winken.llnl.gov> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes: >This, too, is ridiculous.  In no way can the provoker be considered >to have played more than an exceedingly minor role.  A person >who kills is ultimately responsible for his own actions. >  Finally, someone seems to be making sense in this thread.
Last night I heard something about Bill Clinton's sister being involved in a marijuana bust, and the news being suppressed. I also heard something about her being an "ex-con". This source is not reliable, though. (It was a collage/booklet advertising a local band.)  Can anyone on the net verify this or provide more details? I'm surprised I haven't seen anything about this in this newsgroup.  Also, does anyone know what happened to the charges that Shalala was a regular pot smoker when she was in college? This ghastly accusation was reported on CNN Streamline News the day she was nominated, then I never heard anything about it again.  It's almost enough to make me want to start an Act-Up type campaign to invade the privacy of closet smokers! (If only this type of publicity didn't violate people's rights. . . .)  Jake.
In article <15218@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: #Yet, when a law was proposed for Virginia that extended this  #philosophy to cigarette smokers (so that people who smoked away #from the work couldn't be discriminated against by employers), #the liberal Gov. Wilder vetoed it.  Which shows that liberals don't #give a damn about "best person for the job," it's just a power #play.  Of course Clayton ignores the fact that employers pay health insurance, and insurance for smokers is more expensive than for non-smokers.