HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:26:31 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GIU6IATRMA8WXH4W@WVNVMS.WVNET.EDU>, KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU writes:
 > Me, too.  I wonder what would happen also if we increased the term for
 > members of the house from 2 years to 4 or 6 -- so that the ratio of "time
 > spent doing the job" to "time spent campaigning for re-election" is
 > increased.


I have been tempted by that thought as well, but generally drop it
after contemplation.

Each of the institutions (House member, Senator, President,
Supreme Court Justice) has a certain inertia built in due to the
term length of its members.  The SC has the heaviest inertia as
its members are appointed for life.  Its political makeup is very slow
to change and generally reflects views popular eight to ten years
before.

The Senate, with its six year terms also has a fairly heavy inertia and
as a result is slow to change its political profile.

The House, with the lightest inertia load, tends to reflect the
current political makeup of the country.

The Presidency should be somewhere between the Senate and the House due
to the four year term, yet the custom of presidents serving two terms
is so expected, that you could almost call it an eight year term.

So, if we increase the term of a House member to, say, four years, we
lose much of the immediacy aspect of its nature.  I am not sure I
want to lose it as it provides a balance to the slower to change
Senate.

After all, the time wasted 'campaigning for re-election' is really
spent chasing the dollars needed to do the campaign, rather than
the campaigning itself. (But that is the topic of another thread.)

						Andrew MacRae
						
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:35:04 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>>Yes, part of the hunting is killing.  Part of walking barefoot in
>>wet grass at night is killing also.  That's just as "real".
>
>    Difference-- hunters are trying to kill something, barefoot walkers
>  are not.

No difference.  Hunting involves killing, just as barefoot walking
in wet grass does.

>>Yes, one can stalk without killing.  One can also "play basketball"
>>without shooting, but it's a different experience.
>
>    So, now you've said that the point of hunting is killing.

No, I haven't.  I've said that hunting includes the possibility of
killing.

>  As a basketball player (in my spare time) I can safely assure you that if
>  you are not shooting the ball, you are not playing basketball.  You
>  may be playing WITH a basketball, but that's different.

Precisely.  Playing with a basketball isn't playing basketball, just
as running around the woods isn't hunting; there has to be the potential
for killing as well.  Similarly, just shooting isn't playing basketball
either, just as just killing isn't hunting.

Of course, there are differences.  Not scoring is a bad basketball
experience, and not winning may be.  Hunters are satisfied even if
things don't work out.

>  If killing weren't the point, I would
>  think that hunters would go out and simply not use lethal means.

Why?  Would you play basketball and not shoot?

>  Can you explain how you come to believe that killing is not the point, given
>  the fact that most hunters don't even consider not having the kill as
>  a final outcome?

The "fact" given isn't true.  Hunters do consider that they might not
kill, that's even the typical result in many/most cases.  It doesn't
seem to bother them that much, but they do have to try as part of the
experience.

-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:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:54:12 CDT
From:         "Robert G. Heidlage" <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject:      UK/US conservatives in same boat(was Bill Clinton...
              9 Apr 1992 11:33:05 EST from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

It is interesting to me that the UK conservatives and US republicans
find themselves in the same boat.  Once they get power for a while,
they lose their message.  They're basically anti-government, and when
the anti-government crowd have been the government for a while, they've
got nothing left to say.

What CAN they say?  Vote for me and I'll do more of nothing !!!
Majors (UK pm) has been bordering on the absurd.  He hasn't had
a message.  He's gone through 6 or so changes of image, none of
which are believed.  US conservatives have resorted almost exclusively
to smear tactics, which aren't going to work this time.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:23:36 EDT
From:         Jacob Levy <ST802099@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: bbanning political ads

In re: my objections to free airtime for broadcasters
>******************************************************
>
>        well, i wouldn't expect the tv stations or the networks to
>        pay a disproportionate amount of money for this.
Depends what you mean by "disprportionate", but if you mean "my plan
doesn't shift the burden onto broadcasters", then in that your plan
would be rare among such plans.  Ordinarily that is *exactly* what
people mean.
>
>        actually, i expect that there are 2 ways this could be implimented
>        1) using the networks and independant broadcast stations.  in this
>        case, i think that it would be reasonable to require the companies
>        to charge only the cost of broadcasting (including salaries, etc.)
>        and that this cost would be covered through tax money that would
>        be specifically set aside for this purpose.

That's like saying that you'll shut down one of the currently operating
airlines for a day, let the presidential candidates use them, and then
pay them for fuel.  You're depriving them of a day's worth of
*revenue*, revenue which goes to cover all of their costs of doing business,
from the broadest overhead to the cost most specifically associated with
the project at hand.  Broadcasters can't afford to give up massive
chunks of their advertising time, even if you do pay the costs which are
most directly related to the production.  It's *time*, not camera crews,
that costs money.

>        2) have a separate politics network which  would be broadcast
>        everywhere that normal tv is.  this would be a non-profit
>        organization which would provide both news coverage and equal
>        broadcast time for  all candidates.  it would also be funded
>        by the government (the taxpayer).
>

Oh, hell, if that's all you mean then fine... altho' I'd even question whether
you need the taxpayers.  C-Span is privately funded.  If all you want to
do is set up a private cable service, not interfere with the operations
of other broadcasters whose lifeblood is *not* their good deeds, then
go for it.  I'd be surprised if more people watch it than watch C-SPAN,
altho as a politics-geek I watch the latter and would be inclined to
watch the former.

Jacob.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:40:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street

dave,

no.  nobody said that guns are used only to kill things.
what we said (and that andy denies) is that guns were
created and designed for killing and wounding things.
someone didn't spend years developing the gun for the purpose
of simply propelling an object, then wander around with it for
a while until he shot it at something and it died, and then decided
to market it as something that propels objects, but can also
be used to kill things.  after blasting powder was discovered,
people said "now how can we use this as a weapon?" and they developed
the gun, bombs, canons, etc.

likewise, nobody sat around for a couple days with a bunch of gates
and circuits designing a machine for the purpose of regulating the
flow of electric current (simply because they enjoyed regulating
electric current, i suppose) and then suddenly said: (with surprise,
lightbulb plainly visible above head) "Hey!  I bet this could run
Wordperfect 5.0!  and Windows!  I wonder if my next door neighbor just
coincidentally happened to develop a mouse?"

y'all are mixing up the Ends and the Means.

and with that i am bowing out of this debate, because, due to the impending
end of semester crunch, i am unable to deal with the quantity of words
that andy is producing.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 10:34:47 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Victory for America, Loss for UAW

>From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>

>    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.

This argument would be more compelling, rufus, if other
countries with national health care spent more on health
care than we do. But they don't, they spend less, a lot
less.
Someone has to pay for health care, no matter what system
we use. Personally, I'd rather pay less.

Jamie

> i hear the dutch and the danes are pretty good at it, though.

Constantijn, that's your cue!
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 19:18:00 EST
From:         "PRINCEPS IMPERATOR" <MACYM%MUNIN%HUGIN@NORWICH.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: jay's fortune cookie

>Well, there is only one God so your question is meaningless.

Tell that to a Hindu.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:54:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      silence means authority, silence means approval...

A presidential candidate is a member of an all-white country club.

A person affilitaed with a pres. candidate makes a baseless accusation that
has been proved false, regarding another candidates' personal life.

A presidential candidate chooses, for his running mate, and anti-semite.

----
Jamie was quick (and right) to complaign about a REPUBLICAN candidate who had
a campaign manager who was anti-semitic.  I wonder why Jamie does not
complaign about a DEMOCRATIC candidate who wants to make an anti-semite
vice-president?

Bruce would complaign about a REPUBLICAN who was a member of an all-white,
elitist country club.  It is an example of Republican race-hate.  Why don't
the bruce's on this list decry the DEMOCRAT who belones to an all-white club.

        why don't we all admit to the fact that for the most part all
        political figures, democrat or republican, belong to an almost
        exclusively all-white, all-male, and all-rich club?  why don't
        we try to address this fact and try to figure out what this
        may have to do with how the country is run?  why don't we
        realize that it is membership in this club that dictates
        who gets nominated as candidates, before we the people get
        to vote?

KAT believes that checking information should be kept private.  There is wide
agreement that personal allegations should not be made against a DEMOCRATIC
candidate, especially when the allegation is known to be false.  Why no furor
about allegations of this type against a REPUBLICAN.

        KAT already responded to this misunderstanding.

----

Wouldn't it be scarry if the left ever tried to be coherent?

        wouldn't it be scary (one r) if a certain conservative realized that
        there are very few leftists here and mostly a bunch of moderates?

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
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 00:19:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

In article <tfilt202377@drew.edu>, GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET writes:

>     OK.  When someone hunts, if they don't kill, they have failed their
>   goal.  Failure is not defined as when a person is not happy about the
>   results of an endevor, but when they have not accomplished the goal they
>   have set out for.  I don't give a flying fig whether they're happy about
>   the kill or not.  The important thing is that that was the goal.
>
>     BTW I'm really tired of this debate.  The real debate is gun ccontrol,
>   sincce the cconstitution never did establish the right to hunt.
>
>           --G. Racz
>
I agree I'm quite tired too, but don't go overboard.  The second
amendment [no I didn't leave out an "and" when I typed it] speaks of
no limitations for guns for that "well regulated militia".  Hunting is
an important part of a militia.  Furthermore, the ninth amendment may
be very vague, but I can't see the Founders in 1789 believing hunting
isn't a right of the people. Hunting like many other rights
found in the Constitution imho has to be limited in some degree for
the good of society, but the question is how much [even Andy probably
would agree selling 5 year olds uzis can be outlawed to take it to
extremes].

            -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:05:55 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      JOE's query

>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET

>P.S. does anyone else have anything to say about this case?  having
>only Jay's one-sided views really isn't a balanced look, and the other
>side's (Jamie?) view would be much appreciated.  Thanks.

Unfortunately, I couldn't tell WHICH case JOE meant.
If it's the reapportionment case in Georgia, I have
already posted my view of that case.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:42:58 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin

KAT, I have a friend who owns cannons. I don't think he's ever
fired projectiles with it, but he has used them often.

He does recreations of the War between the States

Dave
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 19:39:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

>>   -- how about
>>  government financing of all campaigns?
>
>What a novel idea!  Unfortunately, it can't help unless you also
>forbid independent political speech.  (Oh, and the parties are going
>to insist on getting their cut.)

   I don't quite understand.  Ccan you explain the forbidding independent
  political speech part?

    --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:15:17 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      response to jay's post : the military

One of the Army's excuses is "Well, that person could be easily
blackmailed about his/her sexual history or preferences," or
something along those lines. Besides those currently in the
military, that catagory has been mostly bogus for nearly
twenty years.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:42:46 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Personal SURVEY: U.S. Presidents and Dates (two questions)

In response to survey:

1) FDR.  Exactly because he was devious, duplicitous, underhanded, and other
good things.  His leadership, world view, and efforts to make the US a world
power are to be remembered as putting the US on the scene for the fights
against facism and communism, our historical role.

2) The Civil Rights Movement.  100 years after justifying the war between the
states as an attempt to make men truly equal, good and bad men did good and
bad things to start the end of racism.

I am aware that both of these are current (although I was not alive for
either).  I believe that, apart from the War Between the States, the
diresction of the US has been set by these recent events.

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
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:34:50 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: More guns 'n bull...

>I just got a copy of the new "Weird Al Yankovic" CD (I work in a
>radio station among other places) and these lyrics spurted out of
>the speakers, just thought I'd share since the topic's been booted
>around again (note the sly reference to shoes) B).
>
>"Trigger Happy"

And to think that there's currently a discussion about the evils of
unjustified negative portrayals of some group....  Unjustified
negative characterization is wrong unless it is done to "them" and
then it's "can't you take a joke"*.  The principle involved is
obvious.

It really is a culture war.

-andy

* - The song IS funny, but so is Amos and 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 15:52:53 CDT
From:         "Robert G. Heidlage" <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      Bill Clinton - Best Demo Pol since JFK

Three months ago I didn't know who Bill Clinton was, so I'm no
long-time fan.  But I have to say that I think he has run the
best organized, most disciplined, and well-thought out primary
campaign since Jack Kennedy.

The truest thing Jerry Brown said during the NY primary campaign
is that running against Clinton is like running against Dick Nixon.
Clinton is incredibly tough, and gritty.  He can take hits and give them
out.  He can be nasty if he needs to.
As far as I'm concerned, that's great - that's what we need in a
democratic candidate.

I see many of the things Clinton does as intentional.  His golf
at an all-white club certainly *prevents* the Repubs in the fall
from labeling him with the "politically-correct" tag.  It won't
prevent any moderate - moderate progressive from voting for him.

Hilary Clinton's comment about Bush girlfriends is a warning shot -
talk about ours, and we'll talk about yours.  !!!

He will be able to compete for southern state electoral votes, thereby
taking away the ****MAJOR**** Republican edge in presidential
elections during the past 20-24 years.  Clinton represents the
success of the southern strategy.

I don't think the White House is at all confident about the fall.
They recognize Clinton as a much more durable and formidable
candidate them previously  thought.  He wins one election after another
in spite of incredibly bad press.  The White House is beginning to
sense that this year their usual smear tactics aren't going to work.

I see Hilary Clinton as a political asset, particularly in light of
the Perot candidacy.  Perot is popular mostly with older white males
with a business backgound, or a low-education.  Those men takes their
wives votes with them (i.e., older married women tend to vote the
way their husbands vote).  The same is not true with baby-boom age women
or younger; they will vote for BC because of Hilary (and abortion). The
people who would vote for Bush because of a dislike of Hilary will be voting
for Perot.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:26:06 CDT
From:         "Robert G. Heidlage" <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: UK Election
              8 Apr 1992 23:59:34 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

yes, I predict a 15-19 seat majority for labour
A writer for the Independent, tonite on C-Span indicated that almost no Tory
window posters were present in the Greater London area.
I take that as a sign that the polls are wrong, and that labour will
get a working majority.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:29:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!

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?

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

> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU