HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:26:08 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: DC

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
>On Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:02:54 EST Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
>> Large U.S. cities, with the exception of Washington, already have
>> representatives in Congress. Washington has none. That doesn't
>> seem very democratic.
>Who said anything about democratic?  2 senators from each state is
>not very democratic either.

So, there are good reasons to have 2 senators for each state. Otherwise,
since it IS undemocratic I would have a problem with that, too.

>> By the way, I don't think D.C. itself CAN get statehood, not without
>> a constitutional amendment. I think Congress will have to pull a kind
>> of trick. It will have to shrink the Capital down to a very small,
>> non-residential area. The rest of Washington it can make into
>> a state.
>Actually, I imagine, with the permission of Congress, DC could easily
>become a state.   Since Congress is the true "state legislature" of
>DC, Congress could apply for admission for DC as a state, and, since
>Congress can approve the application, I see no trouble for DC state-
>hood.  I think it would be stupid, though.

We've already addressed this.
There IS a problem, but it can be circumvented by first changing the
boundaries of DC, THEN making what's left over into a state.

Why would it be stupid? (Dare I ask.)

>I have another question: constitutionally, does a person have a right
>to move to another state without the state's permission?  If so, where
>is this right listed in the Constitution (explicit or clearly implicit
>is fine with me)?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States.

IV,2.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:12:37 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Ronald Reagan lives on
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Jan 26, 93 9:36 pm

>
> > It's interesting that people talk of such great change in government when on
e
> > of the most important branches still lies in the hands of the right wing
> > (definition anyone?). Between Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the composition

>  of
> > both the Supreme Court and the Federal Judgeships are extremely conservative
.
> > Any new Clinton policies, program etc. are someday going to see the inside o
f
>  a
> > courtroom and then we'll really see where the power is. Clinton can only und
ue
> > so much (by appointing new liberal judges) in four years. Will it be enough?

> >
> This is true.  However a couple of addendums need to be added.  First, even
> though Reagan/Bush filled (I believe) over 80% of the current slots in the
> federal court systems, there are an unprecedented number of replacements
> that need to be named.  These were being held up by the congress until
> PRESIDENT CLINTON (God, I love the sound of that) got into office.  I believe
> 200 seats need to be filled immediately (or relatively immediately).  That
> number could be wrong, but it's a lot.  Second, the people on the Supreme
> Court are getting old.  SC watchers say that as many as _5_ could retire
> in the next 4 years.  That would change the court!  The consensus seems
> to be 3, but even that would be a substantial change.  Considering that
> Carter didn't get to nominate anyone.
> > -Dan
> >
> Jonathan
>
That many? I'm impressed, I wasn't aware of those figures. Where did you get
them?

-Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:08:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics

Kerry (Stephenson...hell no, not Kilburn!) says:

>Hoping Rush has the tenacity of Morton Downey?
>
>Too late, my friend.  Rush has already outlived MD's tenure, dwarfed
>his audience, and gone far beyond his scope.

Dwarfed his audience, yes,.....[place your favorite punch line
here...it's too easy for me to do it...]

You're right about the scope...like Rush, MD Jr was tacky, rude and
hate-filled - but didn't cross the Truth line quite as often as
WantTheTruthListenToSomeoneElsePal Rush.  And certainly Rush is more
of a blatant ("Movin' On Up...") racist than MD Jr.

>Best Seller List, Baby.  NYT.  17 weeks and counting.  3 hours a day,
>10 million-plus listeners.

Currently (01/24/93), there are seven books on the NYT Best-seller list
that have been on the list longer than Rush.  It only shows how many copies
were sold (including the hundreds on Rush's TV Set); like the Oscars,
it has never said anything about A. The book's "superior" content or
B. The author's "superior' ability.

Come on, I mean - you're placing your "man" in the same company
as Madonna, Norm Schwarzkopf, Stephen King and John Grisham!  Not exactly
the definitive American Literary Character Witness Association!

Father Coughlin had far more listeners...and Joe McCarthy far more
viewers...both of them, I imagine, are preparing a place in Moral
Obscurity (not to mention the Hot :> Place) for their peer Rush.

>
>It don't get much bigger than that.

Let's hope Rush doesn't, either...


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:38:58 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: count them bodies

Hi, Bob (Do I have to take a drink now--or did drinking games go out
with junk-bond financing?):

Thanks for the support.  I was wondering what had happened to the other
side of the list--you know, the right side.  And the one with the
sense of humor.  (Not actually the exact same sides, those; there's
kind of an overlap thing going on here.)

BTW, do you suppose (judging from the "Thank god [little 'g', due to
the source] we're free now" commentary from Babs Streisand and the
Hollywood left) that Arnold Schwarzenneggar and Charlton Heston will
be replacing Bob "Bullwhip" Mapplethorpe and Shirley (at the moment,
anyway) McLaine in the dungeons of artistic suppression?

Just wondering.  Good to be back.

--NINAR Kerry, Former Fetus
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:55:22 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>It is amazing that this claim is made many times but one
>rarely sees the proof.

        Ask and ye shall receive:

        Year:   Revenue from cap gains (millions):

        1965    $4,100
        1966    $4,000
        1967    $5,500
        1968    $7,200
        1969    $5,900_________rate hike here
        1970    $3,600
        1971    $5,300
        1972    $6,900
        1973    $6,900
        1974    $5,600
        1975    $5,600
        1976    NA
        1977    $8,104
        1978    $9,104________rate cut here
        1979    $11,669
        1980    $12,459
        1981    $12,684
        1982    $12,900
        1983    $18,500
        1984    $21,800
        1985    $26,500
        1986    $49,700_______rate increase here
        1987    $32,900_______crash here
        1988    $38,900
        1989    $36,020

        And I'm searching high and low for the 1990 numbers.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:38:45 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:55:22 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>
>I asked for a proof not mere data.  I think Peter did a

        !
        Well, perhaps if you would list the criteria for "proof" you wouldn't
reveive "mere" data.

>good job of pointing out why this data does not
>necessarily prove your assertion.
>One more thing.  Maybe maximizing revenues should not
>be our only goal.  How about perceived fairness and
>implied messages.  Say the middle bracket for income
>tax is 25%.  Now any capital gains tax lower than this
>gives the perception that the society rewards gains by
>buying stocks and real state more than earned income.
>I for one think that that is the wrong message.  Why
>not consider capital gains (minus the inflation part)
>as income and tax it at the same level.  THEN, one can
>argue for lower taxes across the board.

        No argument here.  I'd be the first to cheer indexing for inflation.
As far as any other indexing goes, do we index by income (outside of the
gains), by size of the capital gain, or both?

>I agree with Peter that reducing capital gains tax is
>simply giving free gift to bunch of already rich
>people.
>--KAT

        How so?

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:14:52 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      ADA Regs

Hi All:

I need some politics expert help.  More specifically, some policy-wonk
assistance.

My boss is convinced that the specifics we have seen on the ADA Regs
are so ridiculous that we will never be expected to comply with them.
I argue that the law exempts small businesses *for one year,* not
forever, and that what the law will eventually see as "reasonable
accomodation" and what he defines it as may well not intersect.  My
feeling is that we should be attempting to comply as much as possible; his
is that we should essentially ignore anything that can't be immediately
done for free.

One of the specifics we have seen in a retailing publication, which I think
we should be prepared to adopt (even though it is a ridiculous pain in the
you-know, and time-consuming) is that letters on signs should be at least
3" high, in 1/32" raised lettering, and the message should also be in
braille.  This, I argue, is difficult but not impossible, and I would bet
the farm that the federal government would consider it "reasonable."

Can anyone send me the exact text of the ADA itself?  Or can you direct
me to an ftp site?  I would really like to see just how specific and
enforceable these regulations are.  We are having enough trouble right
now, and we don't need the prospect of a lawsuit to drive us over the
edge into bankruptcy--particularly one that could easily be prevented
by being just slightly alert to the law.

Thanks,
       --NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:SWEDE@DRYCAS>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:40:00 EST
From:         bone machine <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      those hypnotic democrats, or, 'blanded by the light'
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>Why is we can look at a Democratic Presidential ball for hours and
>not have the obvious things pointed out to us (like they are in any
>display of Republican celebration).

Blink.  We can look at a Democratic Presidential ball for hours?
I barely could take a minute before I lunged for my remote control,
to banish the scenes of destabilizingly bland non-splendor.

>Amazed by the crudeness of it all,
>                                    P.S.Ruckman, Jr.

Amazed at P.S.'s boredom threshhold,
Gary W. Olson
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:32:43 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: and another thing
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              93 6:41 pm

>
> >From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
> >
> >May be I missed something, but...
> >
> >Somebody noted that there are protected classes, which that person
> >listed as race, gender, and religion.
>
> That was me.
>
> >Where did that come from?
> >
> >As I understand it, laws are (generally) held to a "reasonable
> >basis" test, unless the classification in question is "suspect,"
> >in which case the state must provide "compelling state interest"
> >under "strict scrutiny."  These "suspect classifications" have
> >been limited to race and national origin.  Gender is not among
> >them, nor is religion.
>
> Women compose a class that is protected in this sense: that
> laws designed to disadvantage its members are subject to
> constitutional challenge. Reed v Reed, and Mississippi
> University for Women v Hogan.

Gender however does not receive "strict scrutiny" nor is a "compelling state
interest" required. The test for gender is a minimum scritiny test that
requires a REASONABLE state interest. It's under a different priority than
race or religeon (yes, religeon falls under strict scrutiny).


>
> I have no citation for religious belief counting similarly.
> Now, come to think of it, I can't think of any relevant
> case at all. So I will withdraw that one, esp. if someone
> knows of a counterinstance.
>
> Jamie
>
- Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:17:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC

Brett' says:

>        From what I've heard, Mario would rank on the same plane as Clarence as
>far as qualifications go.  (Clarence said he thought he would be nominated, but
>not until 1995...assuming GB II, of course.)
>

Oh?  I didn't realize that Clarence Thomas had been a law professor at
one of the top law schools in the country...that he had an impeccable
record representing the people of his home district as a legislator...
that he is regarded by friend and foe alike as one of the best legal
minds in country....also as one of the best public policy minds, too...
that he had proven himself in more than simple _appointed_ positions
in government...that he has a long record of eloquence concerning the
law and its application in society....


I thought Clarence Thomas was a butt-kissing appointee with no respect
in any circle, legal or otherwise (acceptance by the Republican Party
as a rubber-stamp token black is neither respect nor something of
which to be proud).


Thanks for clearing that up, Brett'.  I only have to figure out: since
Thomas and Cuomo are on the same "plane", should I lower my original
opinion of Cuomo or raise (significantly) my opinion of Thomas?



-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:17:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...

rufus says:

>   don't forget ramsey clark's new book, "u.s. war crimes in the gulf",
>available now at all cpusa offices . . .

Should the fact that the Nuremburg Trial Charges were brought about
by capitalists against facists have changed their validity?

The US has committed war crimes in almost every decade of this century...
the entire operations in Panama & Grenada in and of themselves were War
Crimes.....

And thanks for the tip...I hadn't heard of that book yet :)

[_Eastern European Communism_ has failed...easy on the CP USA....

Socialism has worked for the Orders of the Roman Catholic Church
for Centuries....it simply wasn't implemented in EE Communism...]


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:08:19 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>        Just to mention it Brett'... It was Bob Simon who was captured near
>the Saudi/Kuwaiti border, suspiciously soon after he had, for all intents
>and purposes, called a detatchment of Saudi Soldiers craven cowards
>for their quick retreat from their positions after an Iraqui raid...
>        BTW, not all citizensof an agressor state can rightly be called
>aggressors themselves...esp. folks in a country run like Iraq.
>
>                                Travlr

        True up to a point, but they're still accountable.  I'd hate to think
they're all waiting around for us to finish the job (ie kill Saddam) if they
really don't approve.

        I'd hope that a few people in this country would learn how to operate
automatic weapons if we ever succumbed to totalitarianism.

        Not that we should target civilians, before anyone throws a strawman
into the fray :).

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:42:04 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Sultan and DoD policy

Hi, y'all:
Mike, our beloved History Czar, wrote:

>     The fear over possible breaches of security should be
>eliminated with the lifting of the current ban, since this fear
>assumes that a servicemember would be vulnerable to extortion to
>prevent his or her exposure as a homosexual.  If that
>servicemember can realize his or her sexuality freely, there
>should be no fear of extortion.

Which reminded me of an NPR story I heard during the Gulf War, and which I
mentioned some time ago.  Seems a number of women claimed that they were
experiencing a lovely form of harrassment from their male comrades-in-arms:
"sleep with me or I'll tell the Captain you're a lesbian."  Because such a
charge, if leveled, required the *woman* to prove she was *not* a
homosexual (rather than for the guy doing the alleging to prove she was),
it was a very effective form of coercion.  If we lifted the ban, things
might just get better for lots of folks -- not just homosexuals.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:23:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      secular humanism II

Kerry,

Were the cases you were discussing (on secular humanism) related to
the establishment clause, or the draft ?

P.S.Ruckman,jr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:00:37 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      On the feds witholding funds
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        If the feds say "no highway funds if you don't have a 55 MPH speed
limit", fine.  Their money built/maintains it, they have a say in how it works.

        But when they start saying "no 21 age limit for alcohol, no funds" then
they have crossed into unconstitutional coercion of the states.

        It's too bad Ohio (which was going to 21 anyway) didn't have the balls
to tell the feds what to do with their highway money.  And oh, by the way, no
more federal traffic across Ohio. :)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:18:19 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      A renewal of my argument about "rightism" ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

This is Caius and Val discussing 'rightism' a nebulous term if I've
ever heard one.

> >Nazism (national-socialist) is not conservative, and not reactionary.
> >So it cannot be rightist. Can't you see it?

> I contend Caius is wrong here - Nazism wanted very much to "favor
> tradional views and values" - a strong central state ala the Second
> Reich of Bismark, protection and alliance with the established
> classes of property (the army, the Junkers, businesses like Krupp and
> IG Farben), and restablishment of the might of Germany as a "great
> power" as it had been prior to the "stab in the back" of 1918 by the
> Socialists and Communists, as represented by Ebert. My day-to-day
> dictionary says reactionary = "opposing progress or liberalism."
> (American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College edition) I contend that
> that Nazism fiercely opposed "liberalism." The Nazis suppressed the
> Communists, they suppressed and destroyed the Social Democrats,
> destroyed "free unions," rebuilt the army to twice what it had been
> in the Kaiser's era, created a police state closer to the monarchial
> control process than ANY Socialist manifestations, and generally
> behaved considerably more to the right side of the spectrum than the
> left.

A recent development in 'rightist' theory is an aggressive lassaiz
faire wing. It is shown in American politics as the Libertarian
party, although I think it is influential in other places under other
names.

Using the "Libertarian" spectrum, "right" is individual rights, and
"left" is state control. Using this spectrum, National Socialist fascism
in Germany is very "left." Incidently, the US government is also
portrayed as "left" in this sense.

My personal spectrum places the Nazi party firmly on the "Right,"
but I think Val and Caius could understand each other better if
they understand each others yardsticks.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:13:12 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>ARGH! I'm agreeing with brett' again! MAKE IT STOP!!
>
        Ahhh, the long-distance channeling project is a success!  You will
receive further instructions directly from Jay.

Brett'
Bwhahahahahahaha!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU