waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes: >      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very  >      own CNN news LOGO! > >      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often. > >      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this  >      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching  >      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by  >      now. >       >      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who >      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ". >  Actually, Jerry Brown essentially did...and Clinton, in his demagogue persona, condemned Brown for it in the crucial NY primary last year.  However....  Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible (the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they have in Europe) and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform, and force an agreement with the Democrats that the top income tax rate would then be frozen for the forseeable future and could be increased only via a national referendum.  Why not make use of the Clintons to do something worthwhile... shift the tax burden from investment to consumption, and get health care reform, and a frozen low top marginal tax rate all in one fell swoop.
In article <philC51D4F.G2J@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: -> In article <1993Apr5.193616.14521@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes: ->     >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. ->  -> The 1960's generation were the most spoiled and irresponsible. ->  -> The Depression had create mothers and fathers that were determined that their -> kids would not want for anything -- going overboard and creating a nation of -> brats. ->  -> Consider the contrast between two famous events in July of 1969. ->  -> Apollo 11 and Woodstock. ->  -> Which group had large numbers of people that could not feed themselves and -> reverted to the cultural level of primitives (defecation in public etc.). ->  -> And which group assembled, took care of itself, and dispersed with no damage, -> no deaths, no large numbers of drug problems .... ->   	Wasn't Woodstock also called the biggest parking lot in history?  They rejected society and went back to nature in their parent's cars.
In article <JASON.93Apr22113337@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes: ... > a good way to get shot.  There was also no indication in that story > that they wouldn't get their cameras and film back after getting out > of jail.  	Oh they'll get it back, with exposed film. :(  	Shortly after the Rodney King episode, a woman here in Dayton used a camcorder to tape the police arresting several youths.  	Upon noticing her, the police arrested her (for jaywalking!) and "accidently" erased the tape while they had it.  	Yep, they'll get their film back allright....
In a previous article, riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) says:  > >	I don't believe in the "Wave Theory".               You don't have to.  *It*  believes in YOU.   >horses. She keeps telling me that inflation is coming back, and to lock >in my fixed rate mortgage as low as possible.           Well, looking at our new government pals, I'm inclined to         agree.  I don't much believe in our money, either. :)   >	Maybe you'd like to invest in some foreign currency.       Oh, ho HO!   If only you knew!  :)      Yup, I'm DEFINITELY checking out foreign currency, thanks to     to this newsgroup.  It sure doesn't take much thinking to realize     what direction the U.S. is headed.   >	(Sigh - speculators never learn.)
visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes: > +>I can't find my source. > +>But.  If you state that you will retract your claim, I'll go dig one up > +>at the library.  Fair enough? >  > 	ARE YOU SERIOUS?  I'm not talking about retracting anything until > you have produced SOMETHING. >  > 	If you were not just talking off the top of your head, I would > assume that you have SOME memory of what your source is. >  > 	PUT UP NOW without conditions!   Yes, very serious.  I claim that I can substantiate my statement that Rudman says he doesn't believe Perot was investigating him.  You claim Perot was investigating him.  If you will state that you were in error on this point, provided I produce the source, I'll go dig it up.  Now give me one reason why I should go to the trouble if you won't agree to this?  It is simple enough you know.  But I don't have time to waste if you'll just blow it off with more of the tripe you usually post.
In article <1993Apr5.140934.876@colorado.edu>,  ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes... >	The [McDonald] case was dismissed in the interests of Justice  On whose authority do you have this and on what grounds was it  dismissed?  						Daniel Reitman  HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED  One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as  tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the  survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the  said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights  and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof  at the death of the other."
In article <15454@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes: >In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: > >> Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits >> if the oppertunity presented itself? > >> I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a >> huge variety of willing partners. > >If true, and if gays were the same as straights except >for sexual preference, I would imagine that gays would >have much less sex than straights because the available >pool for dates is less than one-tenth what it is for >straights.  Somebody correct (flame) me please!   You miss the point.  A lot more negotiation is needed to convince women to have sex because there is a big taboo about women being free with  their sex.  Many of the women I know would do almost anything rather than be known as a slag, slut or whore.  With men however there is *status* attached to being able to fuck  constantly.  And with gay men, where both partners can prove status through their constant verility then you are going to get a situation where there is a lot of sex.  The difference is between het sex being rationed as a valuable commodity and gay sex being virtually unlimited due to the *appetites* of men.  Straights suffer a bottle neck where women are concerned, gay men who do not experience this bottle neck go to excess.   >--  >Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
In article <1993Apr13.150740.6221@iqsc.COM> rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black) writes: >rail in Texas.  Being from California, I have come to the conclusion  >that one has two choices for preventing economic strangulation through >traffic:  High speed rail or growth limits. > >Rex
In article <15437@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes: >> 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be  >> promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners? >>  >> 	Just a thought. >>  >> 						-Matt > >You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than >straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.  Your starting to sound like a little child who wants ice cream. If you kick and scream enough you think people will believe you. Sorry proof by vigorous ascertion doesn't hold any water. I can insist that cats are dogs all day, it doesn't make it so.
In article 23791@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes: >In article <C56HDM.945@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes: >> >>Well Actually its a case of Resolving whether one >>Supports Biblical Literalism, and the Enerrancy of the Bible, >>or Whether on wished to Jump On the SeXularHumanist,  >>Detain all the True Christians in Death Camps approach >>of the Northern Liberal Abolitionists and their EFFORTS >>to Destroy the Bible, Corrupt the Moral Fibre of American >>and Lead the God Fearing into the Bondage of Liberal Degeneracy. >> >>But I guess one needs to know a little about the bible, >>christianity and american history..... > >Mt. St. Helens didn't spew such crap.  How do you manage, >drieux, day in & day out, to keep it up??  So which are you advocating?  That You know Nothing About American History,  Or that You Know Nothing About the Bible?  Is this a Restoration of the "Know Nothing" Party?  ciao drieux  ps: what WAS the "Free Negro Sailor Act" about, and what was the Supreme Court's Ruling On it... and More Importantly, how does this Complicate the Mythology that all blacks were slaves????
In article <93Apr22.234553edt.47633@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes: > Did anyone notice that Clinton was smiling and making jokes just before > this press conference? Considering the number of people killed, this  > seems very inappropriate to me.  Why?  He, Reno, and the FBI got what they wanted -- a reminder of who is the boss in America -- the thugs who work for the government.
#> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism.   Clayton Cramer writes: #When you force people to associate with others against their will, #yes.  Earth to Clayton, the topic under discussion was the US military, an all volunteer force.  I realize you can't stop your knee jerking, but at least use half a clue.
In article <1qocun$h2r@access.digex.net> carlaron@access.digex.com (Carl Aron) writes:  >>and the word "liberal" definitely has a different connotation  >>than what you have written above.  Just ask Michael Dukakis.  > >Yeah, the Republicans have defined it to mean "spends money on things that >don't make our rich buddies richer" 	If you have something reasoned and intelligent to say then you should post. If all you can do is rant and rave- save it.  > >or maybe they mean that liberals believe in "tax and spend" rather than >"borrow and spend" 	True conservatism is cutting spending and taxes. It's a matter of debate just how succesful the last few presidents have been at that.  > >finally, it means "open-minded about things that I don;t want to be open >-minded about" 	I hear it again and again, and I've noticed far more often from  liberals than anyone else- "if you don't agree with me you are close-minded" 	Look who's talking. I suggest you take a look at your post. I see nothing but unfair and unsubstantiated generalizations. It suggests that the author is anything but open-minded. 	Next time you feel like posting something like this- save it for  somebody who cares.  > >Carl
A few questions for Janet Reno:  	Why don't you think generals have any place in law enforcement?  	If the ATF/FBI had proof that Koresh was:  		A child molester 		A child abuser 		A wife abuser 		Bigamist 		Sexual Deviant (not a crime in all 50 states, yet) 	As well as 		Illegally modify weapons  	Why wasn't he simply arrested during one of his morning jogs?  Why did the allegations of child/wife/sex crimes only come out after the Branch Davidians repelled the initial assualt?  	Was it because it became necessary to demonize David Koresh?  Do you feel responsible for the deaths of over 80 people?  How many would be alive to day if Koresh had been arrested outside the compound?   	Inquiring minds want to know.  	[Although Janet was installed after the siege began, her purge of the justice dept. leaves only her people in charge.]
ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes: >There is a deeper reason. Taxes,  by their very nature, are un-American. >One need only look at the birth and history of the US to see this fact.  So that's why the 13 newly independent states all had tax systems...
In article <Apr.9.08.39.25.1993.15639@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >civilized society.  The _ONLY_ way a homosexual can maintain even a >modicum of respectability is by remaining in the closet. >--  >  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis >  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu >  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis >  as this would hold such views??? |  Once again, it appears that the one-eyed man has appeared in the land of the sighted and for some strange resaon has appointed himself the ruler and supreme power.
In article <C5Jv9A.F1B@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: > 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? #  # I had sex with a 13 year old boy, it was great, we did *everything*, # well, a hell of a lot.  It was fun anyway.  Oh, and before you turn  # purple with rage I was 12 at the time. # #--  # #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!  The Walz monster above, however, was past 40 when he molested these kids, as he says above.
In <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.                            etc. etc.....   >The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners. >The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.      ^^^^^^  ***Sure!!! And what's .3 of a woman??? Any hypothesis??     How can you trust a report from people that have *no idea*    of what a MEDIAN is?     The same bullshit article reported that 22,5% of all the men have    sex 10 times or more a week (Elf, how many times did you fill    one of those questionnaires?) and had other statistics that took    in no consideration different class backgrounds, marital status    etc.  No information on sampling were given.  >Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, >and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that >homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general >male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for  Do you think you can compare so lightly secondary data from 2 very different (and discutible) surveys???  >straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically >how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.  It just shows how dramatically ignorant are press release writers and most pople that read them.....
In article <C5JLq3.2BL@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com                               writes... >In article 23791@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes: >>In article <C56HDM.945@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes: >>>But I guess one needs to know a little about the bible, >>>christianity and american history..... >> >>Mt. St. Helens didn't spew such crap.  How do you manage, >>drieux, day in & day out, to keep it up?? >  >So which are you advocating? >That You know Nothing About American History,  >Or that You Know Nothing About the Bible? >  >Is this a Restoration of the "Know Nothing" Party? >  Go easy on him drieux. It is the right of every American to know nothing about anything.   >ciao >drieux  >"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy! >All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!" >		-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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
In article <115993@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes: > Clayton Cramer, did you read this carefully?  : >  > In article <C4tz28.Cpp@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes: >  > >it should not be assumed that we [NAMBLA] agree with the specific  > >agendas of each and every other participating group, nor  > >should it be assumed that each and every other group  > >supports our specific goals and ideals.   Yeah, just like you shouldn't assume that Aryan Nations supports genocide.  Who are they (and you) fooling?
In article <9649@kielo.uta.fi>, csfraw@vehka.cs.uta.fi (Francis Akoto) writes: > I would like to know Clintons background. Is he Anglo-saxon, Irish, Italian > hispanic etc.  	He's 1/2 liar, 1/2 cheat and 1/2 demagogue.
If the heading is true, Mr. Frank should be ashamed of himself.  Nothing makes me gag more than people who don't respect the rights of others to voice their opinions.  My idol Lenny Bruce once commented about "that asshole Time Magazine" when they advocated censorship of his material.  Time actually sided with the cops' and their arresting of Bruce at his shows, whereby he routinely would say "cocksucker", then the cops would rush the stage to arrest him.  My, how the times haven't changed...  I can't help but think of how Lenny would be received in today's politically correct arena.  Heck, I even support the right of neo nazis to speak their opinions and march down the streets.  And before Mr. Frank or anyone else makes any wisecracks about anti-Semitism...I'm Jewish, a longtime member of AIPAC and the JNF, and have contributed over $1000 apiece to these fine groups.  I'm a regular contributor to every pro-Israel group I can find, but I still support the right of people like Arf to speak up and vomit his propaganda.  I want to know just WHO these people are !!!  I'm basing all this on the assumption that Mr. Frank did indeed write to some sysadmin requesting Mr. Teel to be admonished.  If this is not the case, I hereby retract these nasties directed toward him.  If not, I stand against Mr. Frank and his trashing of the First Amendment.
In article <1993Apr16.131041.8660@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >In article <1qksa4INNi7m@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes: >> What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at >> the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics, >> emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the >> first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and >> forgot to call all of your witnesses. > >	They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first >trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses >beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".  The test isn't whether GM knew--otherwise that would reward GM for its stupidity.  The test is whether GM reasonably should have known of their existence.  It works both ways--if GM had won the trial, and the plaintiff turned up two witnesses who came forward after the first trial who should have been located beforehand, too bad, so sad--no new trial.  Like Tim said, you don't get a new civil trial because you screwed up  the first time around.  Unlike the criminal justice system, repose is much more important in the civil justice system.
Can people please stop the 'I think/know the BATF/FBI are completely responsible but they'll cover it up so that the investigation will show that Koresch is responsible' bs. In an investigation of this size with the feds, state, and civilians involved in the investigation it would be practially impossible to cover up. And with Republicans like Arlen Spector calling for investigations, this isn't going to be handled with kid gloves.
In article <C4tz28.Cpp@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes: >In <15148@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:  ##It should be noted that NAMBLA has not been present in the ##other 600 or so gay parades in the nation. While I view this ##as an isolated event, I am very troubled by its reccurence.  >I hope I'm not going to hate myself for getting involved in >this discussion, but I felt obliged to keep things factually >accurate.  >Last year NAMBLA marched in the Pride Parades in Boston, New >York and San Francisco. It was not the first time we >participated in these parades and it will not be the last. (I >have marched with the NAMBLA contingent in New York, every >year, for more than a decade.)  Thank you for correcting the error in my post to the net. This information came from a newspaper article that was fuzzy in my mind.  I can only wonder if there have been similar outcries about NAMBLA's presence in the parades of New York and Boston.  Yours in Liberation from Molestation,  Mark  North American Micro-Biological Laboratories Association For a packet containing a sample bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage to...  Note:  Sometimes I do the darndest things while trying to squelch my desire to flame the living daylights out of somebody for their beliefs and/or associations, especially if they are so genial...  Phil, take it away!  :-)