HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:05:02 CDT
From:         "Robert G. Heidlage" <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      U.K. needs popular front

The conservatives have won a slight majority in the Parliament, and
will form another government.

Some background on the Brits election system is in order.  Seats in
Parliament are won by plurality; a majority isn't required.  The
conservatives have won their parliamentary majorities with no more
that 43% of the popular vote, the rest is split between Labor and
other smaller parties.   Many conservative Members of Parliament
won only 35 - 45 % of the votes *IN THEIR DISTRICT*

The important thing for Americans to know is that in each of the
so-called "winning" parliamentary majorities of the conservatives
since 1979, the vast majority of Brits have voted for other parties!!

The election system is highly rigged.  Everyone in UK knows it.  I
expect that there will be a new period of serious trouble, including
possible violence.

The conservative parliament majority also is almost entirely from
England; Wales and Scotland elect virtually no Tories to parliament.
There will be very great separatist pressures in Wales and Scotland.

The situation is really explosive.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:51:42 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>What exactly does the amendment say about "priviliges and immunities"?
>(sorry, I don't have a copy of the Constitution with me)

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities off citizens of the United States...."

>No, I was saying that his views should not be a basis for nomination,
>but rather his ability to conform his views to the Constitution.

Oh. But you do think his views *of* the Constitution are
relevant? I do. And that's what Clinton was suggesting.

>                                           However, if the Supreme
>Court now decides that Roe. v. Wade is wrong, the Freedom of Choice Act
>has no Constitutional basis.

It does, it has a basis in the Fourteenth Amendment.

>And also, remember that Supreme Court decisions are based also on the
>ability of the attorneys arguing the case.  If an attorney forgets
>about Clause X of Article Y of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
>may not consider it in their decision.

Uh, yeah. But why is this relevant?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R3).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:58:13 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

}From:       GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET

}    Sorry--my rhetoric got worked up.  but let me ask you-- if someone
}  were to shoot you dead, would it matter much to you after the fact
}  whether or not there were a recognizable portion of you left?
}
}       --G. Racz

Not really.  I refuse to be food for worms (i.e. I'm going to be
cremated)

-Greg
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 21:05:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Travis Kidd's ? on 2n

In article <tfilt204385@drew.edu>, Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:45:05 -0700 Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> said:
>>
>> 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.)
> You mean like the one in the early 1860's?

in theory, I guess yes.  For 11 states to rebel, they must surely had
a major reason for doing so though a split by section is quite
dangerous.  The revolution suggested by Andy would be a lot safer and
successful if the country across the board had one, but if fascists
gain control of all but the SW, surely the Southwest can rebel.

>
>> Dred Scott says that "negroes" obviously weren't people because if
>> they were, they'd have RKBA, and that was simply unthinkable.)

since I'm doing a paper now on this case, let me point out negroes
wasn't citizens of our country because they were seen as "degraded".
This state of being meant they had no rights "a white man was bound to
respect", and one such right was RKBA. Only felons, minors, and
the mentally ill don't have this right to bear arms, and bringing up
race when the discussion is guns in general.

> What is RKBA
>
the Right to Bear Arms

         -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 11:42:54 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: [Dusty_Kramer.Wbst845@xerox.com: RE:The Embarrassing Second
              Amendm

> I believe that Jay made some sort of editing error. Maybe he
> could explain what the point of all of this was supposed to be.

> Jamie

Let me try to explain it.  Jay just got his hand on a
spell-checker.  Then he wrote a very long post.  After
he funneled it through the spell-checker not much was
left of it.

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:18:21 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      guns don't kill people, tv kills people

A little food for thought for the anti-gun lobby. The number of incidents
of violence portrayed on tv/per hour is incredible. I think that we should
outlaw television as it promotes violence. When was the last time you saw
someone go through a background check before purchasing a gun on tv, or
taking any type of firearm training, or going to court for blowing
someone away?

Guns don't kill people, television kills people.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Original-To:  POLITICS@UCF1VM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:32:00 EST
From:         BBOARD@VUVAXCOM.BITNET
Subject: Re: The perfect Solution to Congress

Retransmission from ACM Bulletin Board System at VUVAXCOM-(Villanova_University)
To.................> POLITICS@UCF1VM
Please reply to....> DISIMONE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET
Date of posting....> April  8th, 1992
Subject.....> Re: Re: The perfect Solution to Congress



      I heard on the radio this morning a rumor that U.S, involvement in the
situation in Peru is being considered by the President.  Has anyone heard
anything along these lines... I feel that the U.S. choosing to involve itself
in restoring order in Peru would be a complete catastrophe.  I can't believe
that it is even being considered.  Any insight into this rumor would be
greatly appreciated.
                                                       F.G.
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:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:06:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

In article <tfilt200531@drew.edu>, Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:

> OK thanks.  I agree with that, mostly.  But I think a constitutional
> amendment is in order that would make an exception for the trans-
> portation of illegal drugs.  If drugs are found in your car, that should
> be sufficient to denote probable cause that drugs are in your car (makes
> sense, doesn't it?). That would put a major dent in drug trafficking,
> IMHO.

there's no point to this, or any other cluttering of our constitution
with such useless amendments.  You have to have a probable cause
before you have the search, though the court's rulings on cars and
other matters seems to feel that a person's car is somehow different
than his home.  This idea that the drug war should run roughshod over
constitutional liberties like in the mandatory sentencing law
discussed on "Crossfire" tonight is wrong.
>
>> Homosexuality was not found to be a right by the SC too, so I guess
>> the Congress can't protect this either.
> No, it can't.

the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s (Title VII?) protected women along
with blacks etc. in its protection without the Court ever saying women
are equal under the law (actually in loads of cases it said it they
weren't including being lawyers before it).  So, I guess this was
wrong too.
>
> OK--say Congress decided burning the flag wasn't a right--could they
> pass a law against it, given the current SC ruling?
>
no because the Court said it can't.  Until the court says Congress
can't pass the Freedom of Choice Act, it is constitutional under law.
A case of the SC on the Voting Rights Act rejected the idea that
Congress has to wait until the Court tells them a right is fundemental
or it has to do something before it can protect the rights of the 15th
amendment.  The 14th amendment came from the same cloth.

>> especially) to decide.  Well the Congress is a legislature and has a
>> constitutional right to decide on the 14th amendment via legislation.
> DOES NOT!!!

sure it does.  Read section five of the amendment: "The Congress
shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article."  The Congress doesn't need to ask the
court to do this, only not do anything the court said it can not do.

> -Travis
>
         -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 09:49:00 EST
From:         "Jonathan Walkup" <JWALKUP@NAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Jay's quote...

Unfortunately, as many wealthy social-security recipients
and corporate farmers would attest, often "empowerment leads
to entitlements."  Is this any better, Jay?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:02:13 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC
              6 Apr 1992 03:37:31 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

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

> 1) A majority of Americans are pro-choice.

> In fact, a majority of americans favor regulated abortion, which is what the
> Penn. law does.  If the Penn law is upheld, it is not necessarily a reversal
> of Roe (which should die IMHO).  Anyway, only 15% of americans favor abortion
> on demand.

In FACT, nothing that you said contradicted (1).

Will you tell us whether majority of Americans are "pro-life?"

> 6) Don't let George Bush send you to that back ally butcher.

> Well, even if abortion is outlawed (which I doubt), it seems that the woman
> has a  ** C H O I C E ** as to whether to seek a backj ally abortion.  She
> also has a choice to not become pregnant.  Finally, George Bush really doen't
> care.  He used to be pro-choice, remember?

You are pushing a meaning of ** C H O I C E ** a bit to the extreme.
Women have a choice of not to become pregnant as opposed to what --
not having sex at all?  (I remember a certain man who was complaining
why women don't make the first move.  So which way is it?  :-)

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:14:13 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      hunting

Having been a hunter for over a quarter of a century, I have a few
observations to add to the hunting debate.
1) Hunting is an excellent way to develop child/adult relationships
2) Hunters do not shoot cows, road signs, or your mother. Those people
are called a**holes and you find them in every walk of life
3) Hunters are more environmentally conscious than your average couch
potato.
4) Hunters eat what they kill. They don't have someone else kill it for
them then whine about cruelty to animals through hunting.

My children are being raised to enjoy hunting and are learning gun safety
at the same time. Spend some time with your kid in the great outdoors.
If you are not inclined to hunt, then go birdwatching or camping.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:47:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      silence means lambs

> Subject:    silence means authority, silence means approval...

Actually, it's "Silence means security, silence means approval..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| John D. Hopkins, Operational Support    |                               |
| Terry College of Business Computer Ctr. |  jhopkins@cbacc.cba.uga.edu   |
| University of Georgia, ph.(404)542-3829 |                               |
| Athens, Georgia  30602-6270, USA        |                               |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Con is the opposite of Pro.  That means Congress must be the opposite  |
|  of Progress."                                                          |
|                           -- Gallagher                                  |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


oops.
it was late.
i was tired.
at least i'm not the only one who can understand what stipes is saying.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:51:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Banning Political Ads

> But, if you want TV coverage, you can either get an ad or you can get
> news coverage.

Assuming you can afford the ad.

> The pot legalization folks have had very little success in getting
> their message out through the news.  Most of the current (albeit
> meager) coverage comes out of their efforts to place an ad.  Abolishing
> ads cuts them out quite effectively....

But nobody is proposing that their ads be banned.  What people are
proposing are regulations in the ways in which political campagins are
run.  Every one of the proposals that I have seen combine a ban on
paid advertising with free air time for all candidates on the ballot.

That way we don't have to depend on the editors or on the sales
managers.

Not to mention the contributors.

And I'd rather have executives and legislators selected for their
ability to contribute to government than for their ability to raise
funds.  I've worked with a number of excellent fund-raisers in various
institutions and they have almost invariably been totally useless for
anything other than fund-raising.  Unfortunately, they were also top men
in their organizations, with significant other duties, including
personnel management and administration.  The other duties of their jobs
were usually neglected or done very badly.  This has not been a good
thing for the institutions.

> >I trust the news organizations far more than I trust the sales managers.
>
> I don't trust the news organizations enough to give them complete
> power.

Complete power?  What about leaflets?  What about print ads?   What
about personal appearances?  What about direct mail?  What about
volunteers ringing on doorbells?

If you're talking about complete power over what gets on the air,
that's already in the hands of station management.  But free public
service air time as a requirement of licensing would take a bit of
that power away.

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:46:37 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      who's afraid of the big bad union?

GHWB has decided that four years is long enough to contemplate the meaning
of a 1988 decision which forbids unions to use money from non-members to
support political causes. This raises several interesting questions:

1. Why is this an isssue in a presidential election year but was not an
issue in previous years when it could have been used to influence the
congressional make-up? (That is , why is george using the issue to help
himself instead of his party).

2. Since these people are benefitting from the activities of the union
as far as wages and benefits can the union refuse to represent these
persons in their meetings with management? Contrary to what you have
heard in the sound bytes, the unions are not stealing this money.

3. Why is the savings and loan industry worth bailing out at a 70+ billion
price tag but our industrial base is left to fend for itself or allowed
to export jobs? Is the ownership of these industries primarily republican
or democratic?

Since I feel obligated to take a shot at Jay (metophorically speaking!),
where in your bible does it say "And God created the liberals and the
homosexuals for the pity of the christian conservatives"?

2nd shot at Jay in case the first one missed: I don't cheat on my taxes,
I work hard and I have a college education. If you would like to trade
your 6k in taxes with 30k spending money for my 3k in taxes and 15k
spending money, I will be happy to trade checks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:04:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: jay's fortune cookie

On Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:18:00 EST "PRINCEPS IMPERATOR" <MACYM%MUNIN%HUGIN@NORWICH
.BITNET> said:
> >Well, there is only one God so your question is meaningless.
>
> Tell that to a Hindu.

Yeah, and if you need help finding a convenience store, let your fingers
do the walking.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 08:34:43 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Bye
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.BITNET, emly@UCHIMVS1.BITNET,
              gaw3@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, bfb1@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, dgh@edsi.plexus.com

I have to leave, as I travel to attend the non-virtual wedding of a list
member.  I will be back on monday.

While I am gone,

1) Is Peru about to become another Chile under Pinochet?

2) When will the world learn about the CHicago downtown's sewer system?
(they are made of wood and were built in 1899)

3) Can the democrats salvage the election (restated: can the economy get
worse?)

4) Are the democrats unable to serve any role other than minority party?

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:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:42:51 EDT
From:         Anne Diffily <ADBAM@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Poor Jay, society's victim

>Hi.  Just a quick question for Jay:  you're kidding about blaming your lack
>of spelling skills on your (presumably K-12) schooling, right?

Kerry:  I'm afraid Jay wasn't kidding.  He's simply borrowing a
page from the book of those wimpy liberals whom he so loves
to vilify on this list -- blaming society (in the form of the
public education system) for his own shortcomings.

Like others before him, Jay is discovering how good it feels
to claim he has been victimized and is unable to rise above
his past.

   - Anne, who lerned how to spel in the publik skools and
           has never requird a spel-chequer, thank u
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:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:04:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Banning Political Ads

>     Well, I'll argue against this tired old canard.  (Remember the exchange
>between Harkin and Brokaw on this subject during the first debate?  Harkin
>complained that there wasn't going to be enough free airtime given to the
>candidates.  Brokaw responded that there would be six hours of airtime
>given to Dem. primary debates alone.  Harkin made some inane comment about
>how much time was given to football games and b-grade movies, to which
>Brokaw replied that if Harkin paid as much as football advertisers do,
>or attracted as wide an audience as a football game, there would be no
>problem.)

I think that perhaps Brokaw may have unwittingly laid the groundwork for
a proposal that would work well for the American public; ie., make the
political process more entertaining. I think that Jerry Brown would do
really well on "Wheel of Fortune," and could you imagine what might have
happened if Adlai Stevenson had been able to compete on "Jeopardy?"

How about Nixon on "Truth or Consequences?"

Gary Hart on "Candid Camera?"

We could really get the lowdown on what the American public *really* wants
to know about candidates if we just had them participate in popular TV
shows...

Think about it, all one needs to be president is...

Acting ability (any sit-com)
The ability to lie convincingly... ("To Tell The Truth")
The ability to appear to be someone they're not... ("What's My Line")
The ability to tell a joke (guest host spot on "Saturday Night Live")
The ability to look macho and combative... ("American Gladiators")
Sex appeal... ("Studs", "The Dating Game")
The ability to make nonsense sound erudite... ("Firing Line")

Throw in one of those team-style obstacle course with mudpit shows
and maybe a couple of specially created games for politicians, and
you will have voter participation like you never dreamed possible
in America. Hell if we switched over to voting by call-ins to 900
numbers with a $1.00 charge per call tied in with a lottery where the
winner splits a 10 million dollar pot with the winning presidential
candidate we could pay off the national debt in just a couple of
elections.

>     Mandatory free airtime is unfair, arbiotrarily shifting the cost of
>campaigns to broadcasters; and it holds little promise that I can see of
>improving things.

Stick to my plan and the broadcasters will be lining up for more... B)

>Jacob Levy

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU