HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:59:49 EDT
From:         Thomas White <GTW100C@ODUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bill Clinton - Best Demo Pol since JFK
              8 Apr 1992 23:19:13 CDT from <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>

What we don't need is a democratic president with a democratic congress.
But, we do need the congress and the president from the same party.
So this year go out and vote for the Republican representative or
senatoral candidate in your district or state.

Tom White (GTW100C@ODUVM)
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 10:33:39 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

About a year ago I bought my truck. (Ford Ranger XLT, 1989)
It had only 25K miles on it and I loved it.  Not a scratch on it.

Well about 2 1/2 months after I bought it, I took it down to Ohio
University in Athens, OH to visit a friend.  The day I left I wasn't
even out of the city limits and a buck broad-sided MY TRUCK!  I was
pissed!  I pulled over to the side and watched the dumb animal get
hit again from a van going the opposite direction.

It was still alive and got up and stumbed off the road.  A local
pulled over to the side to check to make sure everyone was alright.
He pulled his rifle out of his truck and started after it.  I tagged
along (being the seasoned hunter that I am).  When we caught up to it
I shot it... twice.  Nothing ever felt so good before.  I've killed
`em before, but this was different.

Call it hunting, call it a mercy killing (it was pretty messed up),
or call it cruelty.  I don't care.  I did it and I'd do it again, and
again, and again.

-Greg    Bambi is dead!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:00:47 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Sundry items

On the length of posts:

Whjat should I do?  Post less, and simply suffer the slings of those who say
I didn't respond to them, or wrtite posts that no one reads?

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

"Type faster."    - Issac Asimov (?-1992), when asked what he would do if he
                    knew he only had six months to live.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Apparently-To: <sult>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:15:07 CDT
Comments:     Resent-From: jay steven sultan <sult@midway.uchicago.edu>
Comments:     Originally-From: Jay Steven Sultan <sult@midway.uchicago.edu>
From:         jay steven sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      [Dusty_Kramer.Wbst845@xerox.com: RE:The Embarrassing Second
              Amendment]

This is another long post.

With the two seperate threads on gun control and the constitution, I thought
this would be of interest to a few here.

Two years ago, I would have agreed with what I assume Jamie thinks about the
second ammendment.  They, I was given the following.

It is the report of a liberal who doesn't like guns, who sought to discredit
the NRA position that gun control is unconstitutional.  He was unable to do
so, and had the courage to admit so.
                ---------------

Received: from GODIVA.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU by midway.uchicago.edu Tue, 7 Apr 92
 10:51:02 CDT
Received: by GODIVA.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU id ab15596; 7 Apr 92 10:27:45 EDT
Received: from cs.cmu.edu by GODIVA.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU id aa15326;
          7 Apr 92 8:39:19 EDT
Received: from alpha.xerox.com by CS.CMU.EDU id aa00749; 7 Apr 92 8:38:48 EDT
Received: from Return_To_SenderII.Wbst845.Xerox.xns by alpha.xerox.com via XNS
 id <11671>; Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:38:36 PDT
X-Ns-Transport-Id: 0000AA00932A29BD2D7A
Date: 	Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:38:16 PDT
From: Dusty_Kramer.Wbst845@xerox.com
Subject: RE:The Embarrassing Second Amendment
To: Firearms-politics@cs.cmu.edu
Message-Id: <" 7-Apr-92  8:38:16 EDT".*.Dusty_Kramer.Wbst845@Xerox.com>


Someone asked for reference to "The Embarrassing Second Amendment:"


The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson
[The Yale Law Journal, number 3, Volume 99, December, 1989]







Dusty Kramer
DUS.WBST845@Xerox.com


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

"Type faster."    - Issac Asimov (?-1992), when asked what he would do if he
                    knew he only had six months to live.


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

"Type faster."    - Issac Asimov (?-1992), when asked what he would do if he
                    knew he only had six months to live.
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:32:50 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com


In article <POLITICS%92040912391596@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
 > You are also guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of --
 > not listening closely -- AND guilty of splitting hair.

You thought the best reason for term limitation given by the
proponents was because of the screwed up campaign finance situation.
I merely pointed out that by all measures this wasn't true.


 > It seems to me that term limits and meddling with the Constitution
 > that has worked (more or less) for the past two hundred years
 > should be done only as a last resort not to kowtow to mob
 > mentality of disgruntled voters OR some Republicans that are
 > using this issue to increase their numbers in the Congress.


Term limits for governors have been in effect in many states for
quite a few years and have have done a fine job in achieving their
objective.

We have had term limits on the president for almost fifty years now
and, again, it seems to have done fine.

Are you suggesting that the state term limit laws or the constitutional
admendment limiting a president's terms are wrong or that they have
done harm?  Seems to me that they are proof that term limitation works.

Finally, each state can enact term limitations on their congressional
reps without any change to the federal constitution, thus I don't
understand your reference to 'meddling with the constitution.'  Could
you explain a little further, please?

						Andrew MacRae
						
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:46:27 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      boy, he had me fooled

Jay has had me fooled all along. Who would have thought that someone
who argued so vehemently against alternate lifestyles would have a
cat fetish?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: UVa PCMail 1.6.1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:56:37 EDT
From:         "Scott W. Fischer" <swf7q@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: one party control of both legislative and executive?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS%ohstvma.BITNET@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU>,
              Scott Fischer <SWF7Q@Virginia.EDU>

On Apr 14, 12:47am, "rufus t. firefly" wrote:
> Subject:      one party control of both legislative and executive?
> In-Reply-To:  In reply to your message of MON 13 APR 1992 08:19:04 CST
>
> ******************
> I don't know if any of you saw Face the Nation yesterday or not, but  a
> Republican Congressman made an interesting comment.  "I don't think we will
be able to get this country out of the mess it is in unless we have one party
wheter it is the Republicans or the Democrats controlling both the
legislative and the executive branches." Any thoughts?
>
> -Renee
> ******************
>
>    i would suggest that anyone thinking that should look at the last
> time that both sides were controlled by one party. you'll hear a lot
> about that time, soon, from george and company.

That last case of single party control may not be the most appropriate case.
Jimmy Carter ran as an outsider who could care less about the Democratic
party, especially its members in Congress.  When Carter entered office the
first thing he tried to do was cancel the pet water projects of certain
congressmen.  While this was an admirable proposal, he didn't know enough
about how Congress operated to pull it off.  Carter though that relations
with Congress would be just like those with the Georgia legislature.  The
other major example would be the Johnson administration up until the last two
years.  Johnson was able to pass an enormous amount of legislation with his
party's support until he became bogged down in Vietnam.  Johnson would never
have been able to do as much if he faced Republican majorities in Congress

I agree with the GOP comments that we need single party control to promote a
greater degree of responsibility for governmental action.  Right now, the GOP
can blast an evil liberal Democratic Congress while the Dems note that the
GOP has controlled the White House for 12 years and for 20 of the last 24
years.  Both points are valid.  For people who point out the Carter
adminisration, it should be noted that single party control only provides an
opportunity for leadership or coherent policy--it depends on what the
president and the leaders of Congress agree to do and how much leadership
they provide.

Single party control would allow one party to take credit for getting out of
the mess we are in, or at least allow them the chance.  If they fall flat on
their faces, the election becomes a referenda on whether or not they should
be thrown out of office.

Scott W. Fischer
Woodrow Wilson Department of
    Government & Foreign Affairs
Mr. Jefferson's Resort
University of Virginia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:23:58 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM>

>> It seems to me the best reason forwarded by the proponents
>> of term limits is "...the campaign finance situation in the
>> US is so screwed that gives a tremendous edge to the incumbent
>> and THEREFORE we should impose term limits."

> Then I am afraid that you haven't been listening closely.

> The main arguments I have heard for term limitations include
> the incredible advantages the incumbents have by way of free
> mail, free tv air time, and the ability to hand out pork barrel
> projects to important special interest groups.

You are also guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of --
not listening closely -- AND guilty of splitting hair.

The thrust of my post was that the complain is the unfair
advantage of the incumbent.  So why term limits, why kill
the good guys with the bad guys?  Why not correct the problem
directly?  Why not taking away their unnecessary privileges?

It seems to me that term limits and meddling with the Constitution
that has worked (more or less) for the past two hundred years
should be done only as a last resort not to kowtow to mob
mentality of disgruntled voters OR some Republicans that are
using this issue to increase their numbers in the Congress.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:44:05 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      stop trickling down on me

As a leader in the fight to get JSS to cite his sources for his items
that he wants us to accept on face value, I would like to see what list
members have to say about his theory that we are better off now than
we were prior to voodoo economics.

I am currently making 25% less than I was 6 years ago. In spite of a
college degree and several years of business experience, I have been
laid off twice in the last five years.

My current tax bill is higher than it was prior to the Reagan administration.
My income adjusted for current buying power has also dropped.

I guess that makes me a not better off, in spite of Jay's assertion to the
contrary. Anyone else care to contribute?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:07:51 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

From:         Jacob Levy <ST802099@BROWNVM.BITNET>

> One of my favorite quotes:

> Milton Friedman, upon having the laffer curve-tax cut theory explained to
> him:
> "Well, if revenue rises, obviously you haven't cut the rates enough."

> JTL

Another brilliant statement by Milton Friedman:

Milton Friedman, in response to a suggestion that Reagan had cut
taxes, said: "The real taxes are equal to what the government
spends not equal to what it collects."

And of course we all know that spending had been increased by
Reagan.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 09:22:47 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      my take on hunting

Hi.  I couldn't resist putting in my 2 cents worth, mostly because I'm
procrastinating on writing a test :)

1.  Reasons for hunting are probably as diverse as people who hunt.  Some
hunt for food, some hunt for trophies, some hunt for other reasons.

2.  The "need" for hunting exists to the extent that we've removed "natural"
controls on wildlife populations (especially deer) and to the extent that
large populations of one species threaten populations of other species.
Here in WV, deer populations are *way* up and are beginning to destroy
populations of various endemic plants.

3.  Hunting works to control wildlife populations to a limited degree.  For
deer, controlling populations means killing does, not bucks.  If population
control and food are the reasons we should hunt, then we should hunt only
does and ban buck season.

4.  Hunting generates revenue for wildlife preservation to a limited degree
.  As I understand the situation, most of the funds generated from, for
example, hunting licenses, return to states for use in game management
programs (here, the game division of the Department of Natural Resources).
Some funds (like Pitman-Robertson funds) go to the non-game wildlife
programs.  This  creates some interesting situations.
Here in WV, for example, we can spend lots of money putting trout in acid-
killed streams, but virtually no money on endangered species projects (the
state has a single individual in charge of all endangered species, and lots
of game managers).  On the flip side, without those hunting revenues, we'd
have even *less* money for endangered species.

The same ironies (paradoxes?  I'm not sure of the right word) hold for
other aspects of wildlife management.  Some of the strongest proponents for
habitat preservation are various hunter-and-fisher-types.  So they help by
adding their voices to the call for habitat conservation.  They hurt,
though, by insisting that land be managed explicitly for the production of
game species, sometimes at the expense of non-game wildlife.

I'm not sure what any of this means :)
Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Republicans
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:05:26 GMT

In article <CMM.0.90.2.702633883.sult@quads.uchicago.edu>, 
sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU (Jay Steven Sultan) writes:
> The unknown republican who will run against Brawn for Dixon's senate seat
> made an important announcement today.
> 
> He is pro-choice.

Unfortunately, until he made this announcement, his record has been decidedly
anti-choice.  You will understand if I have my doubts about him and cast my
vote for Braun, based on this issue and others, including her support of Gay
and Lesbian rights.

-- 
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
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4b).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:50:08 EDT
From:         "John D. Hopkins" <JHOPKINS@CBACC.CBA.UGA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control again?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> But, you are still in much more danger every time you get into a cat or in
> the bathtub than when you pick up a gun or are around someone who has one.

You're right about that!!!  The last time I got into a cat, I just about got
clawed to DEATH!!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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                                  |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:13:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street

>>   I said that the purpose of guns is to kill things.  Not that everyone
>>  uses them for that purpose, but that is the original intent of their
>>  production.
>
>Original intent by whom?  When?  Where?  How about some cites
>(assuming that we're not projecting again....)?
>
>The first person to figure it out almost certainly didn't have that
>intent, but someone figured out fairly quickly that killing was
>something one could do with a gun.  That's not particularly
>interesting because modern designers are making decisions inconsistent
>with that intent.

  Looks like it's time to look up "gun" in the trusty encyclopedia so
    we can decide without spewing speculation at each other.

                      --G. Raccz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 09:39:53 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      more environmental extremism

Hi again.  Boy is it nice to have my terminal working :)

I heard on NPR this morning about a problem arising in Texas.  Seems that
salt and toxin-laden water from abandoned, uncapped oil wells is poisoning
farmland.  The farmers (the guy speaking had 160 acres; the problem seems
to be with small family farms) want regulations enacted to prevent drillers
from leaving uncapped wells.  The oil folks, primarily small, independent
drillers, are vehemently opposed.  They say such regulation will cost money
and jobs, and will reduce the domestic oil supply.

I will be very interested in seeing how this shakes out.  I have a feeling
that public opinion on this will be quite different than it would if the
poisoned land were, say, "only" wildlife habitat instead of farmland.  Any
thoughts?  I'm especially interested in hearing from Jay on this one (since
he ignored my last response on environmental issues :)).

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:16:40 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Banning Political Ads

>andy is concerned that if we remove the one of these forms, we would
>have to rely solely on the news for our understanding of a candidates
>position.  since it is obvious that we are then at the mercy of the
>newscritters, (i will even extend this past the chief editor, the journalists
>themselves, and the network to potentially include the companies that
>advertise during this time) we will be given a skewed and less whole
>view of the candidates than we would with both news coverage and paid
>political ads. he is right.

Thank you.

>however, andy has continually ignored the suggestions of both myself and
>andrew mcrae that _equal and free_ broadcast time be given to all candidates
>instead of paid ads.

I've ignored them because there hasn't been enough detail to judge
whether or not the proposals can overcome the obvious problems.

For example, what does "all candidates" mean?  Does Marrou get the
same coverage that Bush does?  Who decides?  (If it is the newsfolk,
the people who didn't bother to report votes for third parties in the
last presidential election and even rigged the percentages so that it
appeared that Dukakis and Bush got 100% of the vote ....)  If you tie
it to ballot access, then things aren't much better.  Then there's
"equal".  Does this mean that all candidates get the same production
budget, or do they show up with their 20 minute tape ready to roll?

>this would decrease campaign expenditures and

Yes, it would do that.

>increase the candidates ability to include substance in their debates
>and speaches.

How does the ability to buy TV ads affect what Clinton says about
Brown in a debate or speech?

-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, 16 Apr 1992 08:39:28 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jay's Taxes

brni:

Well, it am not such a sercetive person....

My wife makes 45K a year.  I took about 30K income from my business,
sheltering the rest through legal means.

That does not mean I paid 43.5% of 75K.  It does mean that I was in the 28% +
15.5% bracket.  It means that if I took 31K in profit from my company, I
would have paid 43.5% of that next 1K in taxes.

Would someone please explain this to KAT while I am gone?

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:         Sun, 5 Apr 1992 23:49:12 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Justice at the Supreme Court

JOE,

I also wonder why I take time to answer your exasperating posts.

Bill Clinton is from Arkansas, not Alabama.

Not that northerners tend to steriotype southerners, or group us all into one
indistinguishable pile.

At least we agree that the North's racism is worse than the South's and has
been completely unaddressed by the liberal inteligensia.

PS - "Sperm" Thurmond is a local nickname - he fathered a child at a rather
old age.

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