HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:33:26 EDT
From:         Thomas White <GTW100C@ODUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hunting et al.
              8 Apr 1992 10:00:00 EST from <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>

First I would like to state than I wholeheartedly agree with both fred and
Chris in their stance on hunting.

I personally was born in the big city Miami, Fl. Then moved to NC where I first
experienced hunting. Hunting as fred said and KAT maligned is a great bonding
experience for parent/children. (Not Bondage KAT)
I learned more, while hunting, about nature than many of the so called
environmentalist who complain about the cruelty to animals that hunting causes
while they stop at McD's for a McLean Deluxe.

I also realized while reading Chris' post that most of the people I grew up
in the "sticks" of North Carolina have more respect for all life animal and
human than any people I have met in the Miami or Norfolk where I live now. I
believe Norfolk has had 30 murders so far this year, while back home in NC. The
murders number 3. I know your saying but that's in the small little NC town.
Well the town I grew up in now has 100,000 people in the county and 1.5 million
in the associated metropolitan area. I will probably always live in the bigger
cities since I have become accustomed to them. But when I have children of my
own I plan to take them hunting to teach them the little lessons which I have
learned that allow me to respect all life, animal, human, or yet to be born.

Your in the respect of life,

Tom White (GTW100C@ODUVM
"The buck stops here" Harry S. Truman - The last great Democrat
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:49:00 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

I guess Nicholas Hester is technically correct about the militia. There is
a distinction made between the organized and unorganized militia. The latter
is what Nicholas referred to his last post, and he's right; it is composed
of virtually any able-bodied man (women were traditionally exempt of course).
Probably the best example of this was the Minute Men of the Revolution.
I can't speak for the rest of the country, but up until the Federal Militia
Act of 1903, New England communities held an annual muster day in which all
able-bodied men were expected to report to the village common or to the
local armory parade ground to drill and train with arms. (Thoreau offers a
humorous discussion of Concord's 'muster day'--to which he reported--in
Walden). Those arms were drawn from the armory and were the property of the
state, and rarely, of the town. The unorganized militia was not expected
to supply its own arms and the fowling pieces that some of these Yankee far-
mers owned would have been a trifle inadequate for defense. It is because of
this that I stand by my earlier contention that the "right to bear arms"
refers to the civilian's right to participate in his own defense, but in an
organized or community fashion. Without this point, a constitutional provision
about the right to bear arms has no more meaning or purpose than a constitu-
tional provision about the right to wear a hat. It's significant that nowadays
people are quick to see the rights safeguarded in the Constitution, but
curiously myopic about the responsibilities entailed therein. The Founding
Fathers may have been virtual geniuses in their ability to codify freedom,
but they seem to have failed to anticipate an immature and self-indulgent
citizenry who clamor for rights while artfully evading responsibility.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:28:01 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street

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

> Hold it! I own a rifle, and if it is only used to kill things,
> using G.'s definition, I am a killer or a potential killer.

OR, you are a potential self-defender, or maybe you are amused
by the power that guns have, OR.......

No one suggested that the only purpose of guns are to kill
except that Andy is pretending that everyone is doing that.

> Dave

--KAT
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 21:11:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: something completely different

In article <tfilt204394@drew.edu>, PRINCEPS IMPERATOR <MACYM%MUNIN%HUGIN@NORWICH
   .BITNET> writes:
> Kerry,
>
>         A "superdelegate" is the party's members in Congress, who also vote
> at the conventions.
>
>         Matt

and governors, and maybe others.

        -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:49:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: EuroDisney

>I wonder if  it occurs to any of these intellectuals that there woul   d be
>no demand for American culture in their countries if their indigenou   s
>culture wasn't so god awful?
>                                                 -Jay Steven Sultan
> What? American culture superior to *our* culture? Bwaaaaahahahahaa.
>                                                         -Constantijn
>
>         Please realize Jay's opinions are his own and are not reflective
>         of everyone on this list. Only Jay could make a statement like
>         that.

First of all, it may not be wrong to say that American culture is
"superior"--it all depends on your definition of superior.
Make no mistake--American culture certainly *IS* the most widely
appealing culture in the world (Protesters in Tiananmen square
quoted Jefferson, for example, Jazz for another.)
To say other countries' cultures are "god awful" is not very kind, to
say the least.  But obviously Constatijn was not so offended as to
lose his sense of humor.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:29:47 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Victory for America, Loss for UAW
              15 Apr 1992 19:13:05 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

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

> With a flood of qualified applicants for replacement jobs, massive defections
> of the picket lines, and a complete lack of sympathy from the middle class of
> america, the UAW gave up unconditionally, taking an offer that Cat had put on
> the table foour months ago.  This is the same plan that the UAW rejected just
> three days ago.  This is the same plan that the UAW refused to let the
> workers vote upon, in fear that they would approve it.

I might be wrong (like I was about the tax rates and tax brackets --
yeah right) but UAW did NOT "give up unconditionally."  They ended
the strike unconditionally.  And they did NOT "take an offer that Cat
had put on the table only four months ago."  They are still negotiating.

This is the news as of late last night.  Unless something happen
today that I am not aware of, Jay is BSing again.

> Thank you democrats, for drafting laws that make a terrible situation even
> worse.

Thank you Jay, for your presence on this list makes all of us look
a bit (and some of us a lot) smarter.     :-)

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:12:01 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin

>So what did you add to my note -- nothing.  I said the (main)
>possible uses of guns are 1) kill/wound/destroy things 2) target
>practice, and 3) collecting.  Would like to add to this list?

I did, but KAT didn't bother to read the whole paragraph.  Hint: it
was a non-shooting use, the most common use "against" people.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
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 00:25:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Thoughts?

anyone have any opinions on this new campaign finance bill proposed
that the president rejected?

                      -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:39:11 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: andy's water info

>OK.  First, unless andy has data to support otherwise, ground water is non-
>renewable on human timescales.

It can be replenished at the same rate that it can be depleted; pumps
work both ways.

     I would ask if you were really that dumb, but the bylaws of this
     list preclude me.

     1) What is a well? A well is a hole in a rock. Aquafers are deep
     down, normally warm bodies of water saturating rock. Put a hole
     in this and the water comes out naturally (pressure, of course)
     That hole will leak a long time, hoss.

     2) Southern California, our nations fruitbasket, is built on
     a desert. A desert is an area with little precipitation.
     Building agriculture on desert lands is a water-intensive
     proposition. If you were the water manager for southern
     California, would you pump water back into an aquifer if you
     had a use for it above ground? HELL NO YOU WOULDN'T.

     A large chunk of water takes a right turn out of the Colorado
     river near Lake Mead. This supplies Los Angeles, over the mountains
     away from the lake. Another large chunk takes a left and heads
     to Phoenix.  Later on, a third chunk heads to San Diego. Out of
     this, Las Vegas, 30 miles away from the lake, gets a small amount.
     The cities of the American Southwest are so thirsty that towns in
     Colorado cannot take water from the river because California has
     water rights, and on the other end, the Colorado doesn't reach
     the ocean. Unless 15 million souls die in the Southwest within
     the next ten years and agriculture stops cold, those aquafers
     are dead.

>Well, some largeish chunk of SoCal's water comes from the Owen's valley.
>Bunches of the rest comes from Northern California, from various sources.
>Again, though, to the extent that non-ground water supplies SoCal, it
>contributes to depletion of aquifers in other parts of the state.

Not necessarily.  (As a NoCal person, I'm supposed to harsh on SoCal
water use, but as an ex-Valley person, I like to remind folks that the
SF Bay Area is WORSE than SoCal as far as water goes.  We not only
steal water from the Sierras, we're depleting an aquifer.)  A whole
heap of that water used to go into the sea during melt months.

     Things are tough all over.

BTW - I've nothing against depopulating CA.

     I'd like that except *WE'D* have to deal with you granola-eating
     Birkenstock-wearing California flakes.                B)

-andy

Dave
"Computers are useless; they can only give answers."
              --Picasso
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:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:04:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: hunting

>>     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)
>
>It turns out that they do in surprising numbers.  Wolfgang found that
>the most common last words are along the lines of "come on sucker".
>(Criminals have criminal acquaintances and reasons to take each other
>out.)


   The point is that assholes don't JUST kill other assholes.  Sorry for
  not emphasizing the first time I wrote that.

        --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <WSHERMAN@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:09:37 EST
From:         WSHERMAN@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU
Subject:      Presidents
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@NOC2.DCCS.UPENN.EDU

To answer Darin Reid's question of who the most important president is,
I'd say Washington certainly deserves consideration.  Washington did
something that none of the other presidents have had the opportunity to
do and which many leaders of the rest of the world have been unable to
do - he did not establish himself as a tyrant/king, even when he could
have done so fairly easily - some of his advisors in the army apparently
recommended it to him at the end of the revolutionary war.  In many ways,
Washington's resisting what must have been a tremendous temptation is
a truly remarkable event in world history, one of several unique events which
all were necesary for the US to develop the remarkable government it has today.
Certainly there are countless examples in other coutries of rebel leaders
becoming tyrants in their day, often to the chagrin of the rest of the
country (Lenin & Stalin taken together are perhaps the most pronounced
example).

Bill Sherman

PS I'm afraid I haven't been able to keep up on my reading around here lately,
I hope I'm not repeating what someone else said.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:43:36 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Conviction of a thug

Travis asks how Noriega could be under the jurisdiction of US law.

Well, since about 1850, we have recognised a number of different types of
jurisdiction.  Stepping out of my list persona, and into my grad student
role, I can tell you that

1) jurisdiction is not always bound by territorial limits
2) extra-territorial jurisdiction happens all the time
3) my thesis has a lot to do with this.

What I don't understand, still, is why Noriega was not protected by the FSIA
(foreign service immunity act) which makes political leaders (especially
soverigns) immune from their actions.

I can only think of two possibilities.  First, the can say that running drugs
is not an official act and therefore he was not acting as a soverign (a
dangerous precident for such an accusation - this is different than crooked
business deals).  Second, they can say he was no longer the "leader" since he
lost the election (but his "crimes" happened while he was in power).

OK  Back to being a Hack Jass.

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

"I smoked pot, but don't worry, I didn't inhale."  - Bill Clinton
"I shot heroine, but don't worry, I missed the vein." - man at Clinton rally
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:12:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: PHONE CAMPAIGN

> Good luck.  Tsongas' best chance is a brokered convention, which will not
> happen.  Just look at the umbers.                                     fornia

Yes, conventions are such colorful and earthy occasions, aren't they?
:-)

Best,
Peter

> Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
>
> "Type faster."    - Issac Asimov (?-1992), when asked what he would do if he
>                     knew he only had six months to live.

I wonder if Asimov endowed a foundation in his will (groan)?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 07:48:08 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Victory for America, Loss for UAW

*********************
Jay,

        If the government supplied such things as health care and a DECENT
social security program, unions wouldn't have to fight for these things.

Derrick

"Nonviolence is the only true force." -Gahndi
**********************

    the thing is, derrick, someone has to pay for these things. who?
the people who worked their asses off to get ahead in this life and
now are treated by many people as lepers? the last statistic i heard
was that the top one percent of earners in this country pay 20% of
taxes. the mddle class? they already (imho) pay too much. the poor?
they don't have enough money to get by as is.

   let's get real, derrick. either we jack up taxes to pay for these
things or we resign ourselves to doing without. and please, don't
give me the crap about germany or canada or england doing all these
things and doing well. if they had been paying for their own defense
all these years, they wouldn't have much more than we do in the way
of social programs.

   i would love to see cradle-to-grave security and all the frills in
the u.s. however, as long as this remains a dangerous world, we won't
have it. i hear the dutch and the danes are pretty good at it, though.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:33:22 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: one redneck on gun control and hunting

>here's my bottom line. There should be gun control. For
>guns that are not used in hunting, like handguns,
>semiautomatic machine guns, and things of that nature.

Remember what I said about technical properties.  A machine gun,
by definition, is not "semiautomatic".

I actually don't care all that much about hunting.  (BTW - If you
think that handguns aren't used for hunting, you don't know much about
hunting.  Remember what I wrote about hunter preferences in guns?
Handgun hunting is harder and significantly more enjoyable.)  Since
hunting guns are significantly more lethal than self-defense guns,
there's no rational reason to regulate handguns more than rifles.

Gun control measures which push criminals towards more lethal weapons
are a bad idea.  In this world, any long gun is just a saw blade away
from being short, and is then significantly more lethal than almost
any made as handgun.  Think about the properties of the "not good for
anything except niggertown on Saturday Night Special".  Would you
rather have criminals using guns like that or 12 gauge shortbarreled
shotguns or deer hunting rifles?  (It turns out that criminals who
actually shoot at people do not prefer small caliber inexpensive
handguns, but shotguns and deer hunting rifles are much more lethal
than what they do prefer.  Typical handgun calibers are about as
powerful as small game rifle calibers.)

>I don't believe that the NRA has a leg to stand on when
>they say that you need a machine gun to hunt ducks.

The NRA doesn't say that, and never has.*  It has pointed out that the
second amendment doesn't protect hunting, which is an unpopular
position among hunters.  The NRA has pointed out that semi-automatics
aren't "different" in any meaningful way from other types of actions,
that certain gun control arguments are based on "differences" that
simply don't exist.

BTW - How many of you know what the machine gun laws are and what
effect they've had?  (The latter has two very different answers,
depending on how you measure "effect".)  Do you know what the federal
laws are WRT interstate gun sales?  Do you know how criminals acquire
guns and what alternatives they have, let alone the supply required?

-andy

* - I seem to be in the minority on this, but I find that asking the
NRA what its positions are is more reasonable than assuming that its
opponents accurately state the NRA's positions.  Similarly, I find
that asking HCI about its positions is more reasonable than relying on
the NRA's description.
--
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 17:04:22 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!
              14 Apr 1992 13:18:25 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

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

> The anaology between cars and guns is bad, but...

> There is no "right" to own a car, even though they kill lots of people, and
> are sometimes abused by dangerous people.  Yet we still have the (regulkated)
> option to own a car.

> Why should guns be different?

Because "The analogy between cars and guns is bad."

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:16:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Abortion in Washington DC

On Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:54:00 EST "PRINCEPS IMPERATOR" <MACYM%MUNIN%HUGIN@NORWICH.
BITNET> said:
> Not to long ago a comedian made an interesting point.  Liberals are anti-
> death penalty, yet support abortion.  Conservatives are anti-abortion and
> support the death penalty.  One wants to kill before birth, the other after.
>
>         Matt

One wants to kill people for their mother's convenience.
The other wants to kill people for heinous crimes.
The two are not comparable.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: silence = hypocracy
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:11:36 GMT

In article <POLITICS%92040512120817@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, 
MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
> Now regarding calling Jackson an anti-semite: This from a person
> who has criticized Israel, Israeli lobby, those members of the
> Congress who are influenced by the Israeli interest!  From what
> *I* know Jay and I are more of an "anti-semite" than Jackson is
> and I don't believe Jay and I are anti-semites.

I do all those things, and I am a Jew!  Being anti-Israel does not make one
anti-Semitic, no matter how much the Pro-Israeli lobby may wish it were 
otherwise. 

> But then again I might be wrong.  So I am asking Jay to tell us
> exactly why Jackson is an anti-semite (saving the universally
> known comment that Jackson made calling NY a hymie-town.)

Rev. Jackson's Hymie-town comment about sums it up, KAT, what more do you want?
There is also his support of Rev. Farrakhan.

But to answer Jay's question:

I assume the white belonging to a discriminatory club you refer to was Clinton. 
When I heard about it, Clinton was apologizing for playing golf at a
discriminartory club, and saying that he wouldn't do it again.  Criticism seems
late there.

When I heard that Brown was wooing Jackson, I also heard the New York Jewish
community, in which community I was raised, saying that Brown had just killed
his chances of getting elected.  Criticism seems, again, redundant.

When the press does a serious investigation of Bush's affair with Fitzgerald, I
will continue to state that it is a moot point.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Saddam Hussein still has a job.  Do you?
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU