HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: acm@grendal.Corp.Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:23:47 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%92041215121447@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU> MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
>From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM>
 >> Well, my point is that it is incumbancy itself that provides
 >> the advantage.  That the only way to remove the advantage is
 >> to invoke term limitation.
 >
 >But not every advantage is unfair.  You don't want to remove
 >fair advantages, do you?


Yes.

					Andrew MacRae
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:20:13 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET

>(ditto).  The court has said that the due process clause of the 5th
>applies equality to an extent to the federal gov't too.

Could you explain what you mean by this?
The Due Process clause of the Fifth seems to be directed more at the
fed than at the states. But it just says that citizens shall not
be deprived of x y or z without due process of law. Right?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 10:58:06 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Political Prisoners

>Eugene Debs was not a political prisoner. He broke the law.

Then there must be no such thing as a political prisoner. Nelson Mandela
broke the law. Czechoslovakia's current President Vaclev Havel was not a
political prisoner of the Communist regime, he merely broke the law.
We honor Nathan Hale, not a patriot who had but one life to give to his
country, but a lawbreaker.


"There is no God, there is only the law."

                 Inspector Javert in 'Les Miserables'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:34:17 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

KAT, feel free to apologise.

Since I am self employed, I pay 15.5% SE self employment tax.  This is in
addition to my regular income tax rate of 28% (which is the braket I am in
because I am sucessful, don't cheat on my taxes, and am married to a
professional).

Perhaps this little dose of reality can affect your 'tax em more' plans.

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:49:36 EST
From:         renee <RLLESS00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      limits on federal campaigns

 Someone mentioned that it might be a good idea to lessen an incumbents
chance of re-election if all political campaigns were federally financed.
  This is a good idea, but if you do this then you have to consider...
1.  Where is the money going to come from in the first place to pay for these
campaigns?
2.  What kind of spending cap do you put on each race?
3.  Who decides the rules for controlling such elections?

Any suggestions?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 08:42:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Death Penalty

One HAS to suspect that what Jay means by "effective deterrant" in relation
to the death penalty is that TV show all of them to a national audience. I
suggest that bringing back the wheel and drawing and quartering in public
may not be "effective deterrants." Perhaps Jay would like to explain or exposit
on this point? VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
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:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:58:26 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?

Jay writes:
>I agree with Kerry about
>
>1) the enforcement of the SC ruling keeping unions from spending the money
>they
>force from non-members trying to elect democrats

That's not what I said.  I feel it fair to keep unions from spending non-
members' money to support candidates said non-members don't support.  I
also see union spending on support for specific candidates as a separate
issue from union dues generally (bearing in mind Peter's comments).

>and
>
>2) Incumbant presidents should be charged what the other candidate spends on
>travel.  Clinton gets secret service men for free, and its costs some to ship
>them around, but if Clinton spends $500,000 for air travel, then CREP should
>pay the same to the treasury.  There are some costs, like the security
>officer carrying the football, that simply go along with being president.

Well, I think incumbent presidents should be charged the actual cost of
travel.  If Bush wants to use Air Force One, his campaign should be charged
with the full cost -- I don't want to subsidize his campaign with my tax
dollars.  In some recent news report or other I heard that, for example,
the Bush campaign is charged the cost of a commercial first-class ticket
plus $1 for people flying in military jets.  That doesn't come close to
covering the actual cost of such flights.

Oh, yeah -- the "other" environmental post was in response to your post on
water vs. salmon in CA.

Kerry
From: Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: College Students and Politics
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:56:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr15.185607.5355
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Notre Dame

Do the major parties offer any summer jobs to college students?  If so, how
does one go about getting one?  If one aspires to hold office one day but 
has no connections, should he 'get going' immediately or should he focus on
developing his person(school, job,etc)???  Oh, I guess the 'he' is me.  
Any suggestions?
Brennan  
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:32:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>Walking barefoot in wet grass at night, looking at the stars is
>enjoyable, but one part of it is killing snails.  ....
>
>Killing is not essential for the pleasure of hunting.  I've seen
>hunters after both "successful" and "unsuccessful" trips.  If
>anything, they enjoyed the "unsuccessful" ones just as much.  The
>thrill is the hunt, which may, or may not, end in death.


   Oh, come on.  If that were true, then people would hunt and not kill.
  If the challenge is in the hunt, then why don't you hunt with non-lethal
  weaponry?????  The fact is you hunt with a gun, a tool designed to
  OBLITERATE THINGS, not just to send some projectile at high velocities.
  All else is secondary.

  What I object to about hhunting is the fact that many people do it for thhe
  pleasure of the kill.  I have no problem with peopnecessity.  However, I
  don't understand people who go out and kill a deer for the fun of it.
  I also object, by the way, to people who let others go out and kill their
  food.  I thhink thhat that's even worse than killinng for fun, and I
  agree withh whoever it was among the hhunnters who broughht up that point.

             --G. Racz

  PS sorry about thhe repetitious letters -- this terminal is shhot.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:32:16 -0400
From:         kirk raymond <GR8724@SIUCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      note to 'give me sodomy or give me death'

 in today's world, you can have it all.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:14:03 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hunting

>the worst an asshole who is hunting can do is accidentally kill me while
>i am out in the wilderness or perhaps my parents back yard.  the difference
>is the gun.  there are assholes in every walk of life, indeed, but you
>need not let them have guns.

I actually agree with that.  My disagreement comes in when you get to
the "and we can't (be bothered to) figure out who the assholes are so
..."  There's also the "can you stop assholes from getting guns"
question.  Maybe you can, but you can't stop criminals from getting
guns, and they wreak the most havoc.  (Those who've seen this argument
before know why I'm intentionally baiting the Brady Bill and gun
control fans.)

Speaking of assholes, hunting accidents claim less than 1k/year.
(That number is high because we know that a lot of "hunting accidents"
are actually duels, but there's no way to prove that in many cases.)
If you're worried about assholes with dangerous tools, there are other
tools associated with far more death.  If "dangerous assholes" are
really the issue, that's fine, but has little to do with guns.  If
you're worried about assholes with guns, you're not worried about the
danger, you're worried about the gun.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:56:13 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

Reply to Andy Freeman:

> How is it that the people can collectively have a right that no individ-
> ual has without the permission of a government?

Are you serious?  Andy, without any permission from anyone, can you practice
law or medicine, teach in a school, operate a saloon, fly a plane or drive an
automobile, represent your state in Congress, seize and take control of the
property of another, make your own personal treaty with another country?

You can do most of these things if you are a certified doctor, lawyer, teacher,
a licensed pilot or constable, or if you have received a license from the local
liquor board or a certificate of election from the Secretary of State.
These are rights the people collectively confer upon individuals but which no
individual may assume without such permission. Try exercising any of these
rights without the permission of the relevant governing agency and see what
happens.

In addition, I don't think talking about social responsibility in the same
breath with social rights and freedoms is an effort to curb freedom or take
shortcuts with personal liberty. Liberty has its bounds and the bounds are
responsibility. Liberty without bounds is license, and nobody displays more
license than a tyrant.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:04:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:15:43 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
> >> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
> >> the privileges or immunities off citizens of the United States...."
>
> >The overturning of Roe v. Wade will mean that abortion is not one of
> >these privileges.
>
> No, it won't mean that. If it happens, it will mean that the
> Supreme Court thinks that privacy is not a privilege or an
> immunity. But the Supreme Court may be wrong.
That's for a future SC to decide.

> Jamie
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:26:13 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy
              14 Apr 1992 16:34:17 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

Jay said:

> This year, I apid 28% income tax plus 15.5% self employment tax, for a total
> of 43.5% in come tax.  Think about your annual salary. Now, imagine writing a
> check to uncle sam for 43.5% of it.

I said:

> This absolute nonsense.  There is no one in this country
> who would pay 28% of his paycheck in income tax and 15.5%
> in taxes.

> Now, let's see if Jay is smart enough to realize what a
> big mistake (and I am not talking about a small technicality
> such as SSI taxes are 15.6 and not 15.5% -- I am talking big
> conceptual mistake) he has made and ask for forgiveness.

Jay said:

> KAT, feel free to apologise.

> Since I am self employed, I pay 15.5% SE self employment tax.  This is in
> addition to my regular income tax rate of 28% (which is the braket I am in
> because I am sucessful, don't cheat on my taxes, and am married to a
> professional).

And now my reply:

OK, I apologize.  I apologize for giving you too much credit.
I suspect you don't even know what a bracket is.

If Jay could produce any fictitious income level that would
pay 28% of the income in income taxes and 15.5% in Social Security,
I will pay his next year federal tax.

I put my money where my mouth is.  What about you?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:48:27 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      gun control again?

Haven't we been here before? :)

When I think about "gun control", I think about two specific problems: (1)
the use of guns to commit crimes; and (2) gun accidents.  I don't see that
any form of control anyone has yet come up with will solve (1).  Number 2
might be addressed by requiring the equivalent of a driver's license -- a
user's permit that can be acquired after one has demonstrated at least a
rudimentary understanding of safe use (via equivalents to the driving test
and written exam) and the various laws involved (via the written test).

Would requiring such a license for the purchase of a gun violate the second
ammendment?

Thanks
Kerry (who chooses not to hunt deer, respects those who do so responsibly,
and would like to propel projectiles in the direction of those who do so
irresponsibly :))
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:36:57 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jay's quote...

KAT:  your point about women is true.  But, my point about race not being an
independent variable when education is held constant is also true, these
statistics from the Social Science Register.

Sorry that reality isn't conforming to your ideas.

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:37:54 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin

From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>

> KAT, I would be unwilling to do that, since I don't have
> the time, but gathering dust would surely be one of the
> largest catagories, followed a far way with target practice.

> Dave

I *did* include target practice in my list.  I agree that a
good portion of guns collect dust but when they were bought,
they were bought for the one of the purposed that I have
previously listed.

They should have bought a dust cloth if collecting dust WAS
the major goal.        :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:07:01 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      The perfect Solution to Congress
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.BITNET, emly@UCHIMVS1.BITNET,
              gaw3@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, bfb1@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, dgh@edsi.plexus.com

Lets take a page from Peru.....

First, we elect a Japanese person (who is I guess, genetically superior in
economics :)   )

Then that person disbands and arrests the congress, citing their corruption
and unwillingness to implement the president's economic reform plans.

Why does this sound like a GOOD idea?

Why are we punishing Peru for her actions?  Sounds like a role model to me.

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Type faster."    - Issac Asimov (?-1992), when asked what he would do if he
                    knew he only had six months to live.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:33:56 EST
From:         K-A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: jay's fortune cookie
              14 Apr 1992 16:24:08 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

> After Eve ruined it for everyone, well all have sinful urges.  Homosexuality
> is one of those.  I really recommend you read the bible.

Is it me folks, or is this a classic case of "shifting
the blame?"  Maybe I am wrong but wasn't it Adam that
ate the apple?

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:27:38 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      missing persons report

WHERE IS ANNELIESE? IS SHE A CAPTIVE OF THE SHADOW GOV'T? I MISS HER!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:28:57 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

>Dear Jamie:
>
>I wish some long-haired types would pay me money to sit and argue all day.

Yeah, that's what you said several times. Then, you dropped the
topic at hand and spewed out thousands of lines on something else.
So it's hard to believe it's a time constraint that is responsible
for the visage of your back.

>You lost the Sweden issue, arguing (my memory here is weak) that 31% <> 1/3
>or something like that.

Yeah, your memory is as weak as your math. I won't go into all
the gory details, but your last words were something like,
"I don't have time to talk about this anymore."

>I apologised for the NYT thing, having finally received the cite from you.

I gave the cite as soon as you asked for it. You ignored it. As far
as I can tell, you NEVER looked it up.

>So, pick one issue, give me some time, and I will stay with it as long as you
>like or someone begs us to stop.
>
>Choose carefully - you should select a topic that will be of marginal
>interest to the rest of the list.

I'll choose a topic if you want, but I won't guarantee that it
will be uninteresting to everyone else.


>Oh, and if you want to go on about my spelling or math mistakes, then I
>suggest that you find a way to tie it to a larger issue.  I am not the first
>great man who could neither spell nor never make math mistakes....

Um, no, you aren't the first great man who couldn't spell or add,
but that's not for the reason you think....

Ok, here's a position. Perhaps you will agree with it, in which
case I will choose another.

The death penalty in America should be abolished.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:39:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Puerto Rico

On Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:14:00 EDT Travis Kidd <That's me> said:
> Clinton 98%--51 delegates
> Brown    2%-- 0 delegates
>        Clinton is now over the halfway mark to getting the nomination.
Correction: He is .5 (Yes, that's a point) delegates under the halfway
point.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:40:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!

In article <tfilt203824@drew.edu>, Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
> No, article 1, section 8 speaks of state militias, militias which are
> not referred to as "well regulated".  "Militia" in the 1790s meant
> nothing more than an armed group of people.  One type, a select
> militia, was also referred to as an army.  Note the use of context and
> modifiers to distinguish different types of armed groups.  Section 8
> explicitly discusses state militias, and gives the feds considerable
> veto power over them.  The 2nd refers to well regulated militias,
> which aren't govt militias by definition.
>
I partly disagree, and will note my area of questioning for I submit
that you are knowledgable on the subject (I know flattery will get me
nowhere).  Article 2 separates a militia from an army for
clause 12 speaks of them, and Article 2 gives the president power over
both the army and the militia.
    Also why does "well regulated" make it the militia mentioned in
amendment 2 so different from the one mentioned in Article 1 and 2?
Article 2 explains various ways how this militia should be regulated,
while amendment 2 just states that there is a need for a well
regulated militia, but gives us the right to arms.  So this
Congressional power was weakened.

> BTW - Even if the 2nd conflicts with Section 8, the 2nd takes
> precedence; that's how amendments work....
>
it doesn't!  the second just takes the power of removing arms from the
people from the Congress' militia power.  How is a slight difference
of wording change the type of militia in question?  Are you saying in
a time of invasion, the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment can't
be called up to defend our country by Congress?  What backing do you
have?

> Actually, it was intended that the people should destroy the govt
> "when in the course of human events" that became necessary.  Adams put
> it "Whenever the militia comes to an end, or is despised or neglected,
> I shall consider this union dissolved, and the liberties of North
> America lost forever."  (Jefferson, being a redhead, was a bit more
> radical; he thought that a revolution every two generations would be
> necessary.)

that's the Declaration of Independence, which would also null the
treason clause too

>
> The notion that the militia clause somehow limits "the right of the
> people" is fairly new; I've never found a cite to it older than 1920

I'm admitting that the 2nd amendment gives the people a right to bear
arms, after all that's what the amendment says.  But, just like the
1st amendment doesn't say the people can assemble inside of jails, the
2nd amendment doesn't say the gov't can't say require us to learn how
to use guns to be more well regulated or even require our militia to
serve our country as it was meant to.

                   -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU