waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <RLM.93Apr2050627@helen.surfcty.com>, rlm@helen.surfcty.com (Robert L. McMillin) rants: > The left likes to dodge the issues of morality and behavior, crying that > anyone who raises them "blames the victim."  Nonetheless, as a recent > editorial in the {Los Angeles Times} pointed out, the free love > advocates of the 1960's have demolished the poor.  It's one thing to > have children out of wedlock if you're, say, Murphy Brown (or someone > like her), turning over a six figure salary -- and quite another if > you're sixteen, have no skills, and no income.  And how did the "free love advocates of the 1960's" manage to perform this demolition--forced breeding programs or something?  > By accepting and even celebrating single, out-of-wedlock parenthood, the > 1960's radicals espousing free love set the stage for catastrophe among > the poor. They must account for this...  Now let me get this straight.  After a nice, long rant about how people need to take personal responsibility for their economic and social lives, all of a sudden 1960's radicals (such as me, I guess) are responsible for poor people's lifestyles?  Tell me how that works--or do you think that poor people are just too dumb to think for themselves?  There are many reasons for the disintegration of the family and support systems in general among this nation's poor.  Somehow I don't think Murphy Brown--or Janis Joplin--is at the top of any  sane person's list.  You want to go after my generation's vaunted cultural revolution for a lasting change for the worse, try so-called "relevant" or "values" education.  Hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time.  How were we to know you needed a real education first--I mean, we took that for granted.
In article <15312@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <1993Apr08.092954.13507@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes: ># Face it, Clayton, he was not found guilty, and so what if gays sometimes ># make it consensually with 16 year old boys. There ARE 16 year old gays, you ># know. And as I recall, the case of the state rested on the testimony of one ># "victim" who declined to testify, even under threat. I have had teens since ># I was 40, and so have a lot of people. Face it Clayton, you're just a jerk! ># -RSW ># --  ># * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  * ># * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   * ># * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   * > >I am always amazed to see people admit to breaking the law -- and >putting their address in the signature.  Please tell us more about  >this.  Were they 13?  14?  Would you like to make a statement for >the district attorney?
In article <1993Apr17.145045.12449@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes: >steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: >: In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes: >:  >: It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any >: reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.   > >...Society would collapse if most people were evil most of the time." >			-- David Bergland Agreed. > >"If people are basically evil, the last thing you'd want is a big >government staffed by those evil folks exercising control over you." >			-- David Bergland Agreed.  >"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and >leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report  Agreed.  >: The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those >: who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe >: government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and >: those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical  >: grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds. > >Good summary...  Selling your labor or goods so that you can eat  >and buy a house is essential so that you can excercise your  >personal freedoms. >--  >Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President  And this demonstrates, I assume, that you're a liberal. :-).
In case you missed it on the news....the first 16 Haitians of many that tested positive for HIV and were being held on a base in Cuba have been flown to the U.S.      Further a U.S. judge has ruled that they must receive medical treatment or be returned to a place where they could receive same.        So guess what folks, we taxpayers get to pick up the tab  (just as you might have expected) for people who have never contributed a dime to the U.S. society.
In article <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: > >In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (La >wrence C. Foard) writes: >>In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >>> >>> >>>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2: >>> >>>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low >>> >>>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough >>>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since >>>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2 >>>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and >>>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual. >>> >>>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday >>>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than >>>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional >>>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report. >> >>1) So what? > >So there are less gays, then the gays claim.  Last I checked I was one person, I haven't even been elected as a representative for "gaydom". Should I ascribe every thing you say as representing every member of the straight community?  >>2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers >>   gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of >>   us then this is an event unprecidented in history... >> > >Dream on.  Abortion and African-American Civil rights rallies don't even bring >in half of that.  Thats the point. If there are several million queers in DC you had better start wondering about the validity of the study.
In article <1qn73aINNmq9@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:  > I recommend the book "Adams _v_ Texas", the story of a man (Adams) who > was sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit.  Most of the book > is the story of the long appeals process, and the problems and delays > caused by not being able to introduce new evidence in certain courts.  And I recommend the movie _The Thin Blue Line_, which is about the same case.  Not as much legal detail, but still an excellent film.  It shows how very easy it is to come up with seemingly conclusive evidence against someone whom you think is guilty.
OK Phil, you're right. So far the "evidence" suggests that Nixon was a victim of overzealous underlings and Kennedy was a womanizing disgust-o-blob with a dash of megalomania. After crushing the CIA and FBI who's to say Kennedy  wouldn't have created his own version of American Friendly Fascism?  Unfortunately however, we don't have all the evidence. So far this nation's citizens have been privy to about 12 hours of the total 4,000 hours of Nixon's tapes. What's on the rest of those babies? Some archivists have alluded that there is "evidence" to suggest that Nixon and his cronies, including George Bush, were aware of the plot to murder Kennedy before he was shot in Dallas.  Ask your local D.A. what the charges are for the above crime.   And so I must ask you, Phil me putz, when all this shit finally comes out when you and I are old men, I would appreciate the privilege of sticking a pole up your ass and parading you down Main Street with a sign on your chest:  "I was an Apologist for the American Fascist Regime circa 1944 -- 2010"  (How's that for a lovely Brecht-ian image:-)   There, that ought to get a reaction. Unless I'm in his killfile this week...
In article <C4vrII.H2@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: > In article <15150@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >In article <C4oBCK.761@unix.portal.com>, drakon@shell.portal.com (Harry Benjamin Gibson) writes: # #They believe that they have a right to FORCE people to hire them, # #rent to them, and do business with them, regardless of the feelings # #or beliefs of the other person. #  # Cramer, you are off your target again.  The law *forces* no one to obey # it.  At every point any individual may stand up and say *this law # sucks*.  Even you could say this.  Gay men and women have not *forced*  You mean they passed a law that does nothing at all?  No enforcement mechanisms?  As usual, you are wrong.  # any off this.  Changes in the law have been brought about by # democratic* processes, those same processes are the ones that protect # you from certain abuses.  Yeah, right.  I guess the next time a homosexual complains about sodomy laws, I can just echo your stupidity about "democratic processes" and he won't have any basis for complaint.  # #I must admit that I never understood why it is referred to as an  # #abomination, until I started to read soc.motss, and started finding # #evidence that homosexuality is a response to child molestation -- # #which is disproportionately done by homosexuals.  (Just to make # #Brian Kane happy -- 30% of molestation is done by homosexuals and # #bisexuals, but it is possible that this is because homosexual/bisexual # #molesters have far more victims than heterosexual molesters.) #  # No it isn't.  No it isn't. No it isn't and it depends on the subset # (note *subset*) of abuse you look at.  Repeating it three times makes it more correct?  # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine! # #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all. #  # * Xavier Gallagher*************************** Play  ***************************
In article <1993Apr22.114736.8864@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >In article <1993Apr21.181131.1751@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: >> In article <1993Apr20.124746.8765@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >... >>>	Blue Cross is the government health insurance provider. >>> >>>	Oops. >>  >> Oops?  Blue Cross may well be the insurer for government workers in >> Massachusetts as it is for a number of state and local governments, I >> don't know.  But Blue Cross is certainly NOT a government agency.   >> It is a private insurer. > >	Yes it is a private insurer that has to deal with government >regulations concerning how it's employees are to be covered processed, etc.  >There are a mountain of forms that gov. employees have to go through.  Sorry, but this is a red herring.  Are you contending that the "mountain of forms" are processed by Blue Cross?  Having had Blue Cross insurance both as a government employee and as an employee of a private corporation, I saw no difference between the two sets of forms.    Moreover, the administrative costs associated with Medicare/Medicaid, the two primary forms of "government" insurance are considerably lower than the average for private insurance companies.   (5% versus 14%-16%).  If you have any evidence that Blue Cross bears a heavier burden in insuring government employees than private employees, post it.  Otherwise, try to stick to factual assertions.  > >> And as the original post implied, it is private insurers in the US  >> whose administrative costs are significantly higher than the administrative >> costs of tax-supported health care systems in Canada and elsewhere. > >	Only those that remain paper-bound and refuse to standardize.  Well now, that's an interesting defense of the "free enterprise" system. Are you contending that it is government intervention that prevents  private insurance companies from "standardizing?"  In fact, it is true that some of the red-tape burden stems from the  lack of standardization among the 1500 or so private insurers in the US, but it's a little difficult to understand how this is anything other than "free enterprise" at work.    By the way, Barron's, the bible of Wall Street, this week admitted that administrative costs were significantly lower in Canada because "....a single-payer system is always cheaper...".  Guess even the "free enterprise advocates" are beginning to see the light. > >> Try again. > >	Why?  My HMO provides good service at a low cost.  And I don't have the >government telling my doctors what they can and can not say about medical >procedures.  Sorry, but you seem to be confusing proposals with health care reform with the Bush administration's gag order on federally funded family planning clinics.  There are no proposals that would control what your "doctor...can and cannot say about medical procedures."  Try again.  jsh
In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: > In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: > #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced .... >  > Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism.  >  > -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia  When you force people to associate with others against their will, yes.
In article <fern.735342004@camelot> fern@camelot.bradley.edu (Jill Rosencrans) writes: >In <1993Apr20.153450.27407@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: > >>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. > >she "provoked" koresh?  excuse me, but David Koresh killed  >the inhabitants of that compound, not a gov't official.  These people  >were controlled by koresh...he killed them a long time ago >when he refused to release the children and other "hostages" as you  >call them in your comparison.      This is the first I hear that Koresh refused to release     someone.  In fact, a lot of people, including children, came out     during the stand-off.      How do you know Koresh killed his followers?  The FBI said     he had had no such plans (and they had the place bugged), Koresh's      attorney said the same thing, and the survivors claimed that the      fire was started by goverment agents.        --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
In article <C5L4rp.EBM@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:  >>  From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification >>if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize >>alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from > >Making you look bad is too damn easy.  The vast social and historical >differences between alcohol and other drugs make this comparison >worthless.  This meaningless statement makes YOU look bad.
People *die* of natural causes, too.  We hear all this bellyaching over things like murder and war while Mother Nature is killing people all of the time.  In fact, more people die of natural causes than due to the conscious actions of other people.  So, what's a few murders here and there?   --
In article <1993Apr4.005634.24695@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: > In article <1993Apr3.002339.22888@rigel.econ.uga.edu> depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken) writes: > >In article <1993Apr2.154232.29527@Princeton.EDU> glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes: # # "labor" is a tough one. Labor is defined, economically, as the efforts, # # both mental and physical, of humans. Capital is defined as intermediate # # goods used to create other goods and services. Now, if a slave is considered # # an intermediate good, then the slave has now been dehumanized and is  # # simply a machine. Not good for the anti-slave (i.e. pro-human rights)  # # argument. So, slaves are humans, and they produce labor.  #  # Sorry.  The question of defining slave "labor" is no "tough(er)" than  # defining the "labor" of a horse, an ox, or any other livestock.  Both # legally and economically in a slave-economy, "slaves are (NOT) humans,"   # they are livestock.  Can you provide some evidence that the slave states regarded slaves as not humans?  They were "outside our society" and similar phrases that basically meant that they didn't have to recognized as having the same rights as a free person, but they were never considered "not human" to my knowledge.  # Like a horse that pulls a plow, a slave's "labor" is the return on the # capital required to purchase and feed him.  The parallel is so obvious # I'm not sure how you missed it.  After all, its was the "liberty" to  # use their "property" as they saw fit that motivated Southern planters # to emphasize the importance of "states' rights."  If that were the case, the slave states would not have passed so many laws that restricted the freedom of slave owners to do as they wished with their property.  Examples: laws prohibiting manumission without legislative grant; laws prohibiting teaching slaves to read & write.  # #Craig. # Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM
In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes: >steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: >:  >: 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. >:  >: Believe it or not, we "liberals" are frequently as opposed to >: anti-competitive measures as you "conservatives."  We don't believe, >: however, that competition will necessarily be protected by the actions  >: of business interests in a "free-market."  After all, in the example >: you cite, it was not "liberals" that pressed for such regulations, but >: good staunch conservative businessmen. >:  >: As Adam Smith so eloquently demonstrated, the "free-market" is not  >: something that capitalists seek to protect when they can profit from  >: its elimination.  The same point was made by Marx -- a point of agreement  >: between the two theorists that should tell us something. > >I do not want the government to become a tool of private interests. >Limited government cannot insure that private interests will not use >this government for their own agenda.    Agreed.    >But this is not a failure of libertarianism.  It is the fact that  >"Utopia is not an option."  There is no single system where everything  >is perfect.    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.  >So it is wise to look >for the best solution.  If you  compare countries to see which ones >people would rather live in, which ones have less starvation, hunger, >poverty, and misery, you will find that they have a more limitted >government than countries with alot of poverty, misery and suffering. >No, limitted government cannot "insure" anything, but it sure is better >than the alternative (big government.)  This is a strawman argument and fails on several grounds.  In this case, "limited" and "big" government are not defined.  I would point out that Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia are by some definitions nations with "limited" government, while the US, Canada, and nations in Western  Europe (where "people would rather live") are often pointed out as  nations with "big government" from a libertarian point of view.    The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical  grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds.  jsh >--  >Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
In article <1993Apr18.172531.10946@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: |> In article <16APR199317110543@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes: |> >In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@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...   This is a difficult problem for which there is no obviously good solution.  One approach is simply to try and move political opinion and hope a new more libertarian consensus lasts for a while.  Another approach is to try and amend the constitution.  The original constitution restrained the U.S. government from economic intervention for 100 to 150 years, depending on just how one wants to count it. The First Amendment, though weakened in many ways, still restrains government (particularly state and local), even though on many particular issues the majority is in favor of censorship.  I think libertarians would be happy with another 100 years of restraint via an amendment or two (not that I think that's likely to happen).  Not necessarily Mr. Hendricks, but other posters seem to see this as a problem with libertarianism, that it cannot be stable.  That might be true, but it is not an objection to libertarianism per se.  If a libertarian political consensus forms for a decade or two and then falls apart again, we would just be back where we are now.  This is unlike the case for socialism where a socialist consensus that held for a while and then fell apart would not leave us where we are now, but instead with lots of bureaucracy that would be hard to get rid of, if not tyranny as the end condition of a strong socialist consensus.
In <C50sMA.3GK@voder.nsc.com> matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043) writes: >In article 164871 in talk.politics.misc, margoli@watson.ibm.com >(Larry Margolis) writes: > >>>I would suggest that legal precedent defines a human being (i.e., a person >>>whose rights are protected by the Constitution and the law) as someone with >>>a functioning brain. > >>No, if you want to use legal precedent, you should take a look at the >>Model Penal Code, on which many states base their criminal code: > >My apologies if I was unclear; I was not trying to start a statutory >debate, since there are many (in some cases conflicting) statutes on >the books.  I was merely suggesting a paradigm that might make sense >for a pro-choicer IMHO.  And I was pointing out that legal precedent defines a human being as referring only to the born, so your suggestion was incorrect.  >>>If at some point an unborn child is a human being, the parents clearly >>>have the same responsibilities toward her as any other parents have toward >>>their children. > >>And no parent can be forced to supply bodily resources toward their children, >>even if necessary to save the child's life. > >There is a confusion here between action and inaction: a parent does not have >to run out in front of a bus to save their child's life either, but a parent >IS required to feed his children.  There is a confusion here about what "bodily resources" constitutes.  Blood transfusions and organ donations involve bodily resources; your examples do not.