HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 07:12:11 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM>

>>>>> Well, my point is that it is incumbancy itself that provides
>>>>> the advantage.  That the only way to remove the advantage is
>>>>> to invoke term limitation.

>>>> But not every advantage is unfair.  You don't want to remove
>>>> fair advantages, do you?

>>> Yes.

>> Why?

> Because I am mean, unfair, and nasty.  Because when faced with a ballot
> choice (say for circuit judge) where I know nothing about either the
> incumbent nor the challenger I always vote against the incumbent.

So you are doing what you desire.  You have a system: when you
don't know about the incumbent or the challenger you automatically
vote against the incumbent.  Just imagine, if we limit all offices
to only one term then you are frequently faced with situations
where you don't know none of the runners and none are incumbent.
Therefore your automatic pilot system would not work any more
and you are faced with thinking for yourself.  Now you don't
want to think while you are "mean, unfair, and nasty?"

Seriously, you did not say anything here that helps your
argument for term limitation.

>> Let's face it.  I simply don't like people who get into office and
>> stay and stay and stay and stay and stay and stay ...

I don't know if you noticed but your stance is self
contradictory.  How can you advocate removing "fair" advantages?
By definition if you remove fairness you are left with unfairness.
And by definition we should be for fairness and against
unfairness unless you are saying that good is bad and bad
is good.

Will you please answer when you are not "mean, unfair, and nasty?"

> Andrew MacRae

--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:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:49:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject: RE: Abortion in Washington DC

>> 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.

    This misses the issue.  The statement that fetus' are people is based
  on a religious conviction that they have souls.  However, US law cannot be
  based on religious convictions.  At present, a fetus is not legally
  considered a person until it is capable of surviving (with medical help)
  outside of the womb.  A criminal is also capable of surviving outside of
  the womb (and furthermore has proved that capability).  So, no matter
  what their crime was, execution can be considered "cruel and unusual
  punishment" which is against the law of the land.  Another issue is the
  effectiveness of capital punishment.  Should we be killing people when
  there is no proof that this is an effective deterrent to crime (I'm not
  and expert on this, but I actually think there's evidence that links the
  death penalty to an increase in crime).
    Furthermore -- I personally believe that the animals that humans eat
  DO have souls, so I don't eat them. However, I do not wish for meat to
  be illegal.  My views should not be forced on the population of the
  United States, and neither should that of the anti-abortionists.

     --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:52:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      response to jays post: marriage

hi
before i start i want to say that i haven't finished reading this thing
but i want to start now while before i reach data overload.
i stopped reading at the part where you start KAT-bashing...:)
so i realize that you may have made further points that i am missing.
i have split this into separate topics for the sake of clarity and sanity.

first, though, i would like to thank jay for making this a really thought-
ful and sincere post, even though i disagree with most of it (as i'm sure
you anticipated).

ok, about marriage:  my personal feeling toward marriage is that it has
historically been the codified ownership of women by men, and that the
wedding ceremony is the transferal of ownership from father to husband.
this is not something that is still in effect, but its affects are still
felt.  while it is possible to circumvent these affects, it takes conscious
efforts on the parts of the participants, which i do not wish to deal with,
which is why i do not expect to ever get married, although i am sure that
i will at some point make a lifelong commitment to someone.

however, marriage is an institution and there are plenty of others who
want to be married.  that is their choice.  i think it is destructive
to the individuals in the marriage, and hence to society, but i am not
interested in making this belief law.

however, i would like to see an equalization (or elimination) of benefits.

i do not think that it is an appropriate role of our government to enforce
or encourage certain types of behavior over other types of behavior, as
long as that behavior is not harmful to others.  since you admitted that
homosexuality is not harmful to others, i do not think that the government
should discourage it, and should protect homosexuals with all the rights
that are accorded to them as humans and as citizens of the united states.
since heterosexuality is not harmful to others, i do not think that the
gonvernment should discourage it either.  they should be treated equally.

there is no reason that is not based on religion or a certain morality
that you have provided (even those based on the majority religion or morality)
that is sufficient to deny homosexuals their rights as Persons.  as a
country that stands for Freedom, there is not reason to try to legally
force a set of actions upon people contrary to their belief systems,
simply because a majority of people hold the opposite belief system (unless
of course the actions in question are harmful to others).

you have said that you are homophobic (as everyone else understands the
word) and that this is an irrational fear.  yet you are willing to deprive
people of the right of marriage because of this irrational fear.  you
are intelligent enough to see the conflict here.

(btw- i do appreciate your openness here; it is commendable)

enough on this: i have so much else to comment on...

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:08:06 EST
From:         Evelyn <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
              10 Apr 1992 10:33:39 EST from <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>

No, in your case it would have been cruel to let it live, as hurt as it
was.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:45:05 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!

>    Article 1, Sec. 8 speaks of various powers over the militia by
>Congress, allowing them to call them to serve and organize them.

No, article 1, section 8 speaks of state militias, militias which are
not referred to as "well regulated".  "Militia" in the 1790s meant
nothing more than an armed group of people.  One type, a select
militia, was also referred to as an army.  Note the use of context and
modifiers to distinguish different types of armed groups.  Section 8
explicitly discusses state militias, and gives the feds considerable
veto power over them.  The 2nd refers to well regulated militias,
which aren't govt militias by definition.

BTW - Even if the 2nd conflicts with Section 8, the 2nd takes
precedence; that's how amendments work....

>a totally independant force of society.  To argue this, would argue
>that the Constitution supports those who would usurp its power,
>something not meant for such a document.

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.)

The notion that the militia clause somehow limits "the right of the
people" is fairly new; I've never found a cite to it older than 1920
or so, and that didn't include any supporting evidence.  The only
questions before then were concerning whether or not slaves and freed
slaves were people, the 14th notwithstanding, slave codes and
freed-slave codes were the only gun access restrictions.  (In fact,
Dred Scott says that "negroes" obviously weren't people because if
they were, they'd have RKBA, and that was simply unthinkable.)

We really haven't moved much beyond gun control as race control, a
point that Sherrill makes quite well in "The Saturday Night Special".

-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:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 11:17:00 EDT
From:         GU091DCF@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Victory for America, Loss for UAW

Rufus,
        Sometime next week, I will post an editorial that appeared a few
weeks ago in the New York Times written by a high-ranking official in both
the Reagan and Bush adminstrations (he chose not to disclose his name).

        Basically the editorial says we have the means and methods to
implement many such programs, but the Washington politicians, both
Republicans and Democrats alike, are too afraid to.

Derrick

Currently looking for a new quote.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 15:04:28 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM>

>> Ok, the incumbents have unfair advantage.  Let's take it away.
>> If we try every avenue of taking the unfair advantage away and
>> we still fail then I probably would say we should look at term
>> limitations.

> Well, my point is that it is incumbancy itself that provides
> the advantage.  That the only way to remove the advantage is
> to invoke term limitation.

But not every advantage is unfair.  You don't want to remove
fair advantages, do you?

                                        Andrew MacRae

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:25:04 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>hunters don't kill for sport?  they are a bunch of humantarians, huh?
>I'm not going to be all high and mighty after eating salami and cheese
>today, but let's admit the facts here.

Let's see some facts....

>but it's purpose is to hunt,

Yup.

>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.

>Theodore Roosevelt may of been both a hunter and a conservationist,
>and this might be right to a point, but I will never say it is the
>best way to protect our wildlife.

In this world, it is the only way.  No one else gives a damn, or
rather, a dollar.  (Some countries have lots of elephants and some
don't have any left.  Guess which ones have elephant hunting.)

-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:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:53:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      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).

-other Andy

"Trigger Happy"

Got an AK-47, well you know it makes me feel all right
Got an Uzi by my pillow, it helps me sleep a little better at night
There's no feeling any greater
Than to shoot first and ask questions later
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

Well you can't take my guns away, I got a constitutional right
Yeah I gotta be ready if the commies attack us tonight
I'll blow their brains out with my Smith and Wesson
That ought to teach them all a damn good lesson
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

Oh, I accidentally shot daddy last night in the den
I mistook him in the dark for a drug crazed Nazi again
Now why'd you have to get so mad
It was only a lousy flesh wound, Dad
You know I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

Oh, I still haven't figured out the safety on my rifle yet
Little Fluffy took a round, I better take him to the vet
I filled that kitty cat so full of lead
We'll have to use him for a pencil instead
Well I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

Come on and grab your ammo
What have you got to lose?
We'll get all liquored up
And shoot anything that moves

Got a brand new semi-automatic weapon with a laser sight
Oh, I'm prayin that somebody tries to break in here tonight
I always keep a magnum in my trunk
You better ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk?
Because I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

           -Weird Al Yankovic
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, 6 Apr 1992 17:12:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

In article <tfilt196695@drew.edu>, Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
>                                               V
> 1) The freedom of choice act would be federalo-imperialistic, hence
>    unconstitutional.

I guess you don't agree with the arguement I used a few weeks ago that
since the right of abortion is based on the 14th amendment, which
gives the Congress a right to make laws protecting it, the Congress
has such a right, and would indirectly be getting the support of the
states.  Some also argue that sexual equality -- arguably protected by
the "equality under law" protection of the 14th amendment -- would
equally work.  Or maybe the fact that what composes a person or life
to protect is a matter of religion (many of which allow abortions), so
it too is part of the "liberty" part of the 14th amendment.

> 2) A president should pick justices based on their devotion to the con-
>    stitution and their legal experience, not on their personal opinions/
>    interpretations/wishes about what the constitution means.

since judges aren't machines, but judgemental humans, a president must
choose what type of judge should be on the bench.  This includes legal
experience and skill, but "devotion to the constitution" is a very
loose term.  Justice Scalia would not think Justice Brennan, Marshall
or even often Stevens, Blackmun, and on occasin O'Connor is devoted to
the constitution.  And vica versa.  Part of a good court is relative
balance of judicial philosphies, with a tendency toward the politics
of the present to be a bit stronger.  Our present court is much too
conservative to meet such a standard, imho, especially in the area of
criminal justice.

             -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:04:05 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: one redneck on gun control and hunting

A few points:

I get about as much thrill from the kill as you probably get driving to the
grocery store.

I have hunted with guns, spears, arrows, and my blowgun.  None of them are
needlessly savage and the killing was done to ither kill other predators or
to eat.

Guns will always be with us, like drugs, their criminalization will neither
remove them from society nor replace the needs that cause them to be used.

Even if there were no guns, people would just use other weapons.  It is the
desire to kill, not the availablity of the weapon, that is at issue.

Guns can be used by criminals to hurt innocent victims (the Yankee view) or
they can be used by the innocent victim to keep the criminals from hurting
them (the southern view).

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:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:57:26 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street
              10 Apr 1992 15:39:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

>        Guns do not have purposes, only people have purposes
> (and maybe a few animals).  "Purpose" is a mental-state term,
> like "intention" or "belief."  Things that do not have mental
> states do not have purposes.  When we speak of the purpose of
> and object we are indirectly referring to the purpose that some
> person or group of people have for that object.

I don't know whether you are talking philosophers' language or
regular every day language here.   :-)

I looked it up (as I always do when I run out of ammunition):

      1.  something one intends to get or do
      2.  resolution; determination
    * 3.  the object for which something exists

It seems to me that both peoples and things have purposes.

>         The "original intent" of the production of most weapons
> is to sell them.  The "purpose" for which people buy guns are
> varied.  Most, I would wager, are bought for the purpose of killing
> people.  (Police and the military are major purchasers of guns, and
> the reason they carry weapons has to do chiefly with their useful
> ness in the wounding and killing of human beings.)  However, none

And I guess the original intent of the person who acquires
the weapon (don't make me look up the definition of weapon --
it is ugly :-) is to buy it.  Can't we get past this game of
definitions?

> of the people I know who own guns bought them for their usefulness
> as a means of killing persons, and almost none bought their weapons
> for the purpose of killing anything.  They are bought for target
> practice--an entertaining hobby.  (If you do not believe that
> target practice can be entertaining, that the real purpose must be
> to kill people, then explain why archery is popular?  Or bowling,
> for that matter.)

"None of the people I know" on this list implied that target
shooting is not one of the *purposes* of guns.  Are you willing
to guesstimate the percent of people (saving military and
police) who buy guns mainly for its purpose, er capability of
killing and wounding animals and people?

>                                       Richard A. Fyfe

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:12:43 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: alex I'll take history for $500

I agree with fred that 1) there is an element of truth that our government
failings are caused by the democratic leadership of the congress 2) there is
pleanty of blame to be spread, and 3) we must be more united to solve our
problems.

I guess that such division is the price of democracy.  Israel, England, even
Canada seem to have such problems.

The president started his term off trying to cooperate.  His poorly placed
faith was abused in the democratic tax increase, the largest in US history.

The problem is that both sides must be trying to cooperate.  It is fairly
clear that some leaders of congress were only trying to acheive political
gain, not to further the goals of government.

I think it will require a large scale turnover in congress and a change in
the presidency to acheive cooperation.  Given the state of the economy, I'd
say Bush is about a shoe-in.  Further, history teaches that congress is a
fairly stable creature, even if things are looking up for the "throw the bums
out" movement.

The only other solution is if there is some sense of urgency, a crisis that
is seen as such by all.  But, this entrenched group of democrats have to go.
Remember the gulf war?  With our soldiers, sons and daughters in harms way,
facing such a frightful enemy, the democrats tried to do a lot of damage.
They sat on the fence all during the deployment, and then sought to gain
political advantage, at the expense of the people of Kuwait, our economy, and
worst of all, our soldiers.

If this group of democratic leaders cannot see beyond partisan advantage in
the face of such a crisis, then at a minimum, we need new democratic leaders.

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

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:02:47 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin
              9 Apr 1992 16:12:01 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

>> 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.

I did read your post and as far as I remember you mentioned
something about mere holding the gun will work as a deterrent.

But the only reason guns work as deterrent is because they can
kill and wound.  Next time hold a toot brush against and intruder
and see if THAT deters anything.

I am intrigued why you would not list (like 1.,2.,3.) the
many usages of guns (saving of course the propelling of
projectiles).  Once you do that it becomes apparent to all
that the main function of guns is to kill/wound/destroy
people/animals/things.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:40:27 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Brown's records

Dave:

It was CNN.  They plaed tapes of about 5 differnt people who explained how to
do it.

On another note, we learn that drugs were openly used at parties held by Guv
Moonbeam.  What a shock.  That's like Teddy Kennedy drinking a beer in
public.

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