HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:09:08 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Abortion in Washington DC

>..liberals are anti-death penalty but pro-choice; conservatives are pro-
> death penalty and anti-choice...one wants to kill before birth and the
> other after birth...

Then, there are radicals like me. I don't want to kill anybody!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:02:47 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      random comments

Evelyn, keep an eye out for the imminent return of the
fair liese.

Constantijn, what culture is that? Oh, you mean all those
dead painters? Yeah, they were good, I guess. But what have
you done LATELY? (The Doors were American, ya know.)

Jamie

p.s. Does anyone have James E.'s sister's e-mail address?
     I bet she'd be more fun than James.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:48:33 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: one party control of both legislative and executive?

   kat,

    regarding "face the nation"; you could be right. oh well.
what do i know, anyway? i guess i'm prejudiced; they all look
alike to me . . .

rtf, bigot at large
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:56:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      re : uzi on the street

jay said....
The consequences of allowing any person who is not a convicted fellon or
mental patient to walk down the street with an Uzi is simple: far, far less
crime.

We let everyone have a car.  care to discuss how many people are killed each
year by cars?

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

"Sherman slept in this home.  Major renovation since."
    - Add about house for sale in Atlanta


***********************************************************

well, this is the second time i'm typing this.
the first time y'all sent me a bunch of messages and filled up my
account and i had to trash it so that i could empty my account again.
sigh.


ok here goes.
the purpose of cars is to provide transportation.  they also have the side
effects of possibly killing things, causing pollution, and providing car
salesmen with a job.
the purpose of guns is to kill things.  they also have the side effect of
sometimes only wounding them.
there is a significant difference.

i have always been anti-gun, but that sentiment has been significantly
strengthened by an incident that happened just before xmas last year.
a hunter shot at a deer and missed. the shell blew a hole in the wall
of my parents' house, travelled across the room, and blew another hole
in the opposite wall on its way out of the house.  the second hole appeared
about 2 or 3 inches away from my mom's head as she was bending forward to
pick something up off the floor.  there were several results of this shooting:
1) my mother feels unsafe in her own house, since you can apparently shoot
through walls nowadays (the police suggested that if my parents hear shooting,
they should remain indoors--gee thanks, occifer.), 2) my parents had to pay
a large amount of money to fix the 2 fist-size holes in the walls of the
house, and 3) the 2 men that the police caught were fined $25 each, for
hunting in a residential area, but they would not question them further
than a "did you do this?" "no" "well, we know you and we know that you
would never tell a lie, now don't do it again."

when the constitution was written, the "arms" that one would bear were
significantly different from the ones that exist now.  i will support
the constitutional right of americans to bear muskets or the occassional
single-shot muzzle-loaded pistol, but i do not think that the "framers"
of the constitution would have included this had they expected it to be
extended to modern weaponry.  they needed people to have guns in order to
fight wars since there was no standing militia.  this is no longer a need.
our militia is so big it can stand anywhere it damn well pleases.  i can
see no reason for anyone in our country to need to own an uzi.  i can see
a lot (2 words!!) of reasons why they should not.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:12:22 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?

On man and fish:

1) I agree that water issues are complex.  There is a simple choice here,
agriculture or fish.  2) biodiversity is a fancy word that probablky could
stand the loss of one species of salmon who were dying anyway.  3) It is
beyond dispute that the starving people of the world are fed with the surplus
agriculture of america and that California is the leading state in the union.
 4) your faith that some conservatives have no interest in humanity, but only
want to destroy species is silly and sounds like something that KAT would
say.

Just what have I said that makes you think I have no interest in either farm
workers or the starving of the world? My opposition to world socialism?

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
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:08:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>

> It would seem Mr Evans is leaving us.
>
> I understand fully how he feels.  Fortunately, I also know that the members
> of this list are firmly in the minority, without the political savy, economic
> resources, or interest to run or affect policy.

The rich shall inherit the earth, eh?  Wasn't the original different?

> Consider the 750K people who went to the abortion rally last month.  When the
> general election comes around, less that that number will say that they voted
> the way they did primarily because they are pro-choice.  Feminism, like most
> other liberals extremes, have a loud bark but no bite at election time.

Yes, it takes the Right to really DISCIPLINE their supporters.  We
lefties still hold to outmoded beliefs, like the complexity of issues,
and the value of people making up their own minds.

> If Mr Evans is still listenbing, I hope that he remembers our duty to turn
> the other cheek in the face of such people.  They have the right and
> privildge to be wrong, and most of them are 1) harmless, 2) disaffected, or
> 3) imature, wiating to grow into republicanhood.

For some reason, David Stockman's eloquent image of the pigs lining up
at the government trough during the early Reagan years comes to mind.
Ah, the rewards of Republican Hood (he was the guy who stole from the
poor, right?).

> To the other members, I'll just pint out that this is why conservatives don't
> hang around.  That, plus the time it takes to rule the world.

Ah.  I thought you hung around to whine about how misunderstood you are
by all those hordes of brainwashed PC zealots and the all-powerful gay
lobby.

And I'll take one of those pints, bartender.

> (as I grin thinking of 5 more years of torry rule and the precident it sets
> for 4 years of bush and 8 years of kemp).

You REALLY have to do something about that spelling.  My 9-year old does
significantly better.  Don't you proofread?

Best,
Peter

> Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu

"Type slower"--nearly everyone's advice to Jay   :-).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 11:13:16 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Sundry items

Well, only a few off hand remarks today.

On Jay's Megapost: Sheesh. Did ANYONE read the whole thing? I admit that
I didn't. I dearly hope that no one will reproduce the whole thing with
comments!

On Jay on stereotypes: Good point, o Sultan. I thoroughly agree.
Stereotypes are necessary.

On political prisoners: I was pleased beyond description to see that Joe
Sullivan and Mike McCarthy had posted the same comparison (Mandela) that
I did. We were a bit behind here at BROWNVM yesterday and didn't get
those postings until today.

On Anderson and Reagan: I doubt that Anderson made a decisive
difference. But I think it's commonly accepted wisdom that Nixon won
because George Wallace ran as an independent, that Humphrey would
otherwise have won the general election. What about Perot? Myself, I
think the Bush campaign should pay Perot to run, instead of sweating
over the possibility as they are alleged to be. Perot will sap "protest"
votes from whomever the Democratic choice turns out to be.


I still owe youse some info about sin. I'll try to get to it later
today.


Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:46:07 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

Reply to Brni:


* 750000 attend pro-choice rally, etc...

Brni says: This all depends upon how you define 'person' isn't it?

My response:  Yes.

* Any question about who's behind the presidential candidates?

Brni says: Tell that to the non-soviet socialist countries.

My response: Huh? I don't know if you got the gist of this part of the post.
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Tax Policy
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:36:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92106.173630DGS4
Organization: Penn State University

There is a big difference between marginal and average tax rates.  The
last computation by KAT was average tax rate.  Jay was referring to
his marginal tax rate.

And Jay is correct (roughly).  Someone else had the more precise
numbers posted which subtracted out the half-credit you get for
being self-employed.  The marginal federal tax rate (including
SS and medicare) for a person who starts in the 28% bracket
is about 41%.  If you include state tax and local tax (=4.1% in PA)
you have a marginal tax rate over 45%.  That rate drops
dramatically once your total income exceeds about $55,000 because
then you've exceeded the current cap on SS payments and you no
longer have to pay the SS portion of the tax.(Medicare keeps going
up to about 100,000).

To give you an example, as a professor I make about $40,000.  I earn
about $12,000 gross from consulting which is self-employment income
Each year I set aside about 45% of that so that come April 15 I have
money to pay taxes on that.

For those who don't believe those calculations or who try to use KAT's
17% figure, I'd suggest you try it yourself.  The first time I did work
as a graduate student consulting for an independent company, I ended
up borrowing more than $1,000 from my parents to pay my taxes because
I had only set aside 28% of the gross income!

Dennis Shea
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:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:15:02 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

Hi.  Andrew MacRae writes:

>By the way, I am not against someone sitting out an election,
>then running again.  Quite a few states have laws that prevent
>a governer from running for re-election.  They have to wait
>one term before running again.  Seems to work.

I sure wish I had paid more attention to politics when I was in grad school
.  New Mexico has this kind of situation.  What I remember about
gubernatorial politics is that (1) governors do get re-elected following
their time off, and (2) they seem to have relatively little power beyond
appointing people to various positions.  That is, because their time in
office is limited, the legislature (and special interests) have most of the
political power.  What I wonder about is this:  we have a term limitation
on the presidency.  If we impose a term limitation on the Congress, who
will wind up being the real power in the federal government?  (I know we've
been over this before :)).

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:16:16 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hunters: who needs them?

> Someone (KAT I think) said that the nonhunters are not responsible for the
> plight of our native wildlife. I dispute this claim. .....................

It was not me.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:00:20 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

Given the budget deficit, I think we should try to maximise the revenue
received through the tax system.  After all, the reason we started an income
tax was to pay for the costs of government that could not be paid by the
tarrif income.

Certainly, there are other incentives built into the tax system, but they
primarily have as a goal 1) makeing the economy prosperous (such as
investment credits) or 2) saving the government money (such as deductions for
charity).  Add to this some element of fairness, so that the tax burdern is
distributed "fairly" and we have a tax code.

I cannot think of any portion of the tax system that does not relate to the
first two goals.

There is a seperate question of whether we OUGHT to use the tax code to
influence behavior that does not affect either the economy or government
expenses.  Should racists pay a higher tax?  How about whites?

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.

If our taxes are not to pay for our necessary societal costs, then what
behavior is this rate supposed to discourage?  Being in business for myself
and doing well?

Oh, where is the box I check to direct my money toward nuclear testing and
CIA torture?

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:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:04:59 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Death Penalty

>From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
>
>As currently implemented, the death penalty is inneffective and should be
>abolished, replaced with one that provides an effective deterent.
>
>How's that?

For a start.
I'll second Val's request for more info on how you plan on
making it more effective, and especially what evidence you
have that your method will be effective.
Then I'll ask some hard questions.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:28:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Term Limits

> Interesting point.  I remember hearing, way back in high school civics, I
> think, that our founding fathers intended the Senate, with its longer terms
> , to be the real power in the legislative branch.  It would consist of
> reasonably wealthy, educated, upper-class types, while the House would be
> composed of the "little people".  A cynical view, but I don't know but what
> it makes some sense.

Also, House members were the only ones elected by the people.  The
Senate and President were elected by the people already in charge
(Senators by state legislatures, if I remember correctly--gotta schlep
a copy of the Constitution in here someday  :-).  So, speaking rather
cynically, the chances of riffraff finding its way into the House was
significantly higher.  Of course, these days the riffraff in the state
legislatures is often much worse...

Best,
Peter

> Kerry
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:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:57:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: hunting

>}From:       GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
>
>}>Conclusion: Assholes don't kill; guns kill.
>}>
>}>--KAT
>}>
>}>        better conclusion:  assholes with guns kill.
>}>        brni
>
>}             Even better conclusion: guns make it easy for assholes to kill.
>}                 --G. Racz
>
>How about: Guns make it possible for assholes to kill each other.
>
>-Greg

     Nice try, but assholes don't just kill other assholes (unless you
  are saying that all living creatures are assholes, which is a defensible
  opinion)

           --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:29:50 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Tax Policy

>In simple terms.  if you tax at 0% the government takes in $0.
>if you tax at 100% no one produces anything so the government takes in $0
>
>There is no big revalation in this, The argument is whether the current
>tax rates are the the right or to the left of the peak.

Hmm.  Is maximizing revenue the primary goal of a tax system?  (If so,
the marijuana tax rate is obviously wrong, as is the "birth" tax.)  It
appears that we tax for lots of reasons and I'm not convinced that
maximizine revenue is, or should be, one of the biggies.

-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:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 07:49:24 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
              7 Apr 1992 13:25:04 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>> and kill animals for pleasure.

> Nope.  Hunting is enjoyable, and killing is part of hunting, but
> killing for pleasure is not the purpose of hunting.

Now, in the previous post, Andy was quick to say that
gun manufacturers don't pick targets for gun owners.
But now he claims *he* has the right and the power to
assign or withhold motives to hunters.

And if someone takes a gun, goes in the woods, kills animals
for the pleasure of killing, you wouldn't call that act hunting
and that person a hunter?  Well most of people do (I think).

-andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:38:06 EDT
From:         Jacob Levy <ST802099@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Daed political prisoners?

I heard that there was a bizarre thread going on here, so I came by and
scanned it...
     1) Andre Marrou is not in jail.  I'm not sure where Jay heard this.
It's perfectly plausible that Marrou could go to jail someday, but he hasn't
yet.
     2) Lyndon LaRouche is in jail.  He claims to be a political prisoner,
"the only opponent Bush feared enough to put into jail."  He committed
major credit card and mail fraud.
     3)  Jay said (correcting for spelling) "Eugene Debs is not a political
prisoner.  He is in jail because he broke the law."
          A.  Debs is not a political prisoner, nor is he in jail.  He's
been dead a long time.
         B.  Debs *was* a political prisoner, as the law which he broke
was one aimed at censorship of ideas.

4) Larry Agran was arrested?  This is a new one to me.  Of course, I found
the whole Fulani/Agran phenomenon quite amusing.  By whining and bitching
a whole lot, Fulani and Agran have gotten hundreds of times more media
coverage than Marrou.  Yet, when they all ran against one another, Marrou
got 20x the vote total of Fulani and Agran combined (in NH).

3. Didn't we hash out Jay's views on homosexuality before?  Oh, well.
Before I leave: Jay, why do you think that *heterosexual* couples should
be entitled to specific legal benefits if they register their relationship
through marriage?  Marriage-as-we-know-it is a perfectly legitimate but
religiously grounded institution.  Either disestablish it, and let anyone
call themselves married who wants to but give no one any special benefits
from it, or extend the legal benefits and protections to Mormon polygamous
marriages, same-sex marriages, and so on.

Jacob T. Levy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:19:52 EDT
From:         "Patrick W. Hamlett" <PWHMDS@NCSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Voting in Primaries?

On Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:11:00 EDT Michael J. McCarthy said:
>        A news article over the weekend here in West Virginia noted that, due
>to WV's voting laws, those who sign petitions supporting the candidacy of H.
>Ross Perot will be UNABLE to vote in West Virginia's primary.  I am curious
>about:
>
>        1)  The constitutionality of this law.  How many restrictions can a
>        state place on its primary election?  Are primary voting rights
>        protected under the Voting Rights Act?
>
>        2)  How common this type of restriction is.  Do any other states have
>        similar prohibitions?
>
>
I am not familiar with W/Va law, but perhaps the issue is that primaries are
intended as candidate selection methods for *political parties* (quasi-
private institutions) not gov't offices, and therefore can be more restricted
than voting in the general election. Signing a petition for Perot may mean
that the voter is not a member of any political party (since Perot is not
running for a party nomination), and thus cannot vote in a party election.
Just guessin...
Hamlett
>---
>Mike McCarthy
>Marshall Univ. History Dept.
>Huntington, WV 25755, USA
>YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
>YEA003@MUVMS5.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: HUGIN::NORWCH::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:09:00 EST
From:         "PRINCEPS IMPERATOR" <MACYM%MUNIN%HUGIN@NORWICH.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: something completely different

Kerry,

        A "superdelegate" is the party's members in Congress, who also vote
at the conventions.

        Matt
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:05:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      help

set politics nomail
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:34:52 CST
From:         Type Faster <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the 2nd amendment was put in place not only to protect the country
by outside invaders, or the populace in general against marauding bands,
but as the last resort against a gov't that disregards the rights of
citizens.  The authors of the Constitution feared a large and unresponsive
gov't, one that had a large army and police force to enforce it's will
against not only the indiviual, but the whole citizenry.  Much as it
does today.

This, in my opinion, makes the 2nd amendment just as viable today as
it was 200 years ago.

-Nick
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nick, I was logging onto ILLUMINATI BBS a while ago and someone said
what you said in another form. He said, "if someone comes to my house
and tries to take action against me, I'll use my .32, badge or no
badge."

Steve Jackson had a reply to this, which is the same as I feel
about your comments about the 2nd Amendment.

I admire your stand, and I will send flowers.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Ask not what your government can do for you,
ask what it is doing to you.
              --Jerome Kingsbury
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU