HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:31:00 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

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

>Practically speaking, the SC *IS* always correct.

"Practically speaking"? What does that mean? As you say,

> Of course, actually, the SC CAN be wrong.

Right. And often has been. Justices are not popes.

> It is up to the "next" SC to determine that.

Again, in a trivial sense, it is. But ONLY if Congress first
makes its own determination. And when the "next" Supreme
Court decides, it could be wrong, too.

>And now that I think about it, what Congress thinks the Constitution
>means doesn't really matter, unless thed SC agrees.

That's ridiculous, frankly. What Congress thinks the
Constitution means matters *A LOT*. For example,
Congress can impeach Supreme Court Justices. That's
an extreme example.
Do you think the President's interpretation of the
Constitution is irrelevant too, or just Congress's?

>The SC has the job of interpreting the Constitution, not Congress.

A popular misconception.
Try to find the place in the Constitution where it says so.
And of course, even if you found a place, someone would have
to interpret the wording....

In fact, every branch of government has to interpret the
Constitution.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:36:28 EDT
From:         Jacob Levy <ST802099@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:38:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Banning Political Ads

of course marrou would get the same amount of coverage as bush.
why not?
bush already gets more coverage elsewhere.  if the people in power
get to express their views more than the people out of power do,
then we get, um, we get, um, what we have now, i suppose, where
incumbants are difficult to remove and just about the only people
who can get elected to a position of power are people who are
already *in* a position of power.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: legitimizing homosexuality
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:00:18 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Kerry writes:

>You also argue that homosexual couples can achieve the same legal benefits
>as heterosexual couples by drawing up a legal agreement (like prenuptials,
>I assume, or the contract my SO and I are working on prior to buying our
>house).  Now, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that such an agreement can
>only cover a portion of the benefits conveyed by marriage.  The thing that
>comes to my mind immediately is insurance -- a spouse can get coverage, but
>I don't think a non-married domestic partner can.  Maybe I'm wrong.

I am not familiar with how things are organized in the good old US of
A, but I can tell from what I know from the situation in the Nether-
lands (where I live) that the best legal agreement is still... a marriage.

You can of course draw up a contract, but the big problem is that
only the two parties involved have legal obligations to that contract. 
The government or private organisations dealing with things like
insurance, tax, social health care, unemployment benefits, etc. etc.
are not committed to such.

I saw a documentary on Dutch TV the other day, it was about a
homosexual couple. They also had spotted the differences between
'just living together' and 'being married' and they really tried
hard to find gaps in the law in order to make a marriage
possible. The Dutch law never mentions that a marriage is exclusively
meant to be one between man and woman, but the judge ruled that one
should look at the intention expressed in the law and that the
question of whether to allow marriages between homosexuals is a
decision of the legislator (the parliament).

And that's where we are now. A commission has reported to the
Minister of Justice, recommending changes in the law to grant
homosexual couples the same legal status as heterosexual ones. 
It's up to our MPs now. 

Constantijn
-- 
"Uta'lom az ege'sz huszadik sza'zadot" La'szlo' Lugosi/Fero' Nagy

Constantijn Wekx
email should be addressed to: mad-2@kub.nl
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:01:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Conviction of a thug

If Noriega was in Panama at the time he committed these crimes,
how could he be under the jurisdiction of U.S. law?
From: acm@grendal.Corp.Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:27:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GISIICIGBM8WX20W@WVNVMS.WVNET.EDU> KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU writes:
 >I sure wish I had paid more attention to politics when I was in grad school
 >.  New Mexico has this kind of situation.  What I remember about
 >gubernatorial politics is that (1) governors do get re-elected following
 >their time off, and (2) they seem to have relatively little power beyond
 >appointing people to various positions.  That is, because their time in
 >office is limited, the legislature (and special interests) have most of the
 >political power.  What I wonder about is this:  we have a term limitation
 >on the presidency.  If we impose a term limitation on the Congress, who
 >will wind up being the real power in the federal government?  (I know we've
 >been over this before :)).


If the reason that term limited elected officials have too little power
is because they are in office too short a time, perhaps the
answer is to increase the length of the terms.

Personally, I believe that two terms for senators and six for members
of the house (12 years in both cases) should be more than enough time
for someone to make a difference.


						Andrew MacRae
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:32:54 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: guns don't kill people, tv kills people

>    Yep.  The other day, I got real mad at my next door neighbor, so I
>  took the tv out of the living room cabinet, walked right ovver, and
>  smashed it over his head.
>
>    Of course people would still kill each other if they didn't have easy
>  access to guns.  But having a gun in your underwear drawer makes it A LOT
>  easier to blow the next person that pisses you off away.

Oh goody.  We've found yet another person who believes that if s\he
had a gun, s\he would be a murderous thug, but lacking a gun means
that s\he's a nice peaceful sort.  Or, is it that "other people" are
transformed by gun ownership....  (Before making that argument, it is
good to the gun ownership stats that it depends on, the stats that
destroy it.  Similarly, knowing something about the psych research is
also useful.)

Hint: people who kill, unlike other people who get mad, have a history
of violence.  Yes, they kill people they know, because aquaintance
provides both opportunity and reasons they find sufficient, just as it
provides them opportunity and motive for other acts of violence.  It
looks like we've found another projector, but then gun control types
do seem to be especially violent sorts....

>  Yes, we live in a violent society.  But a good way to make an immediate
>  impact on the amount of vviolence is to reduce the means for vviolence.
>  That means gun control.

"A good way" suggests that "gun control works".  Perhaps someone can
come up with an example of a gun control success.  You know, evidence
that gun control actually helped somewhere, some time.  Hint: "after"
numbers alone aren't sufficient; you have to show that things would
have been worse otherwise, and showing that they were worse before
would be a good start.  (In other words, if someone claims that
England is a gun control success, I'll point out that gun control was
not associated with an improvment in the murder rate in the UK; if
anything, it got worse.  I'll then start pointing out how certain
other gun control measures have been associated with drastic increases
in the murder and crime rate, suggesting that gun control disarms the
wrong people.  Yes, I'll point to DC because I'm familiar with the
arguments for its "success"; look at population changes before you
cite Loftin's work.)

So, who's going to pop up with "guns aren't useful for self-defense
because ..."?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: re : uzi on the street
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:22:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.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.

I have never used it to harm more than grass (and a pair of glasses,
once), and I am offended by that characterization.

If we (the POLITICS Gun Lobby) concede that the one true purpose
of a gun is to kill, the next logical step is debating how we
remove guns from the hands of the people.

I am not and would not be willing to make that concession.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:44:50 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Conviction of a thug
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.BITNET, emly@UCHIMVS1.BITNET,
              gaw3@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, bfb1@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, dgh@edsi.plexus.com

With the guilty verdict of Noriega, a chance for the left to whine has been
lost.

But, even with the administration's victory, I will clearly state my opinion
that it doesn't matter.  We did not do JUST CAUSE to get one drug pusher.  It
was about restoring democracy and installing a legtimate government, about
abiding by our treaty requirements, and about protecting the lives of US
citizens (recall, the trigger was the abduction, torture, and sexual assualt
of the PDF on US citizens).

Innocent or guilty, Noriega is only a thug, not a world leader.  In fact, I
have some reservations about the conviction.  It seems to be a violation of
the FSIA.  Can anyone explain how they got away with it (legally)?

Anyway, the real winners are the Panaminian people who not only have their
democracy back, they now need not worry about him returning.

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:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:39:54 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: one party control of both legislative and executive?

If the Republicans have really spent 12 years to create a secret government
then why are we still at the mercy of the democratic congress?  Or are
republicans inept as well as evil?

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:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:42:43 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

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

>> >The overturning of Roe v. Wade will mean that abortion is not one of
>> >these privileges.
>>
>> No, it won't mean that. If it happens, it will mean that the
>> Supreme Court thinks that privacy is not a privilege or an
>> immunity. But the Supreme Court may be wrong.

>That's for a future SC to decide.

Well, in a sense it is. But a future SC couldn't decide it unless
Congress made some judgment about it first.

I THINK you are implying that if the Congress and the Supreme
Court disagree about the Constitution, then the Supreme
Court must be correct. If so, then your implication is
wrong.

Jamie
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:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:00:48 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      shooting deer

Hi.  Boy will I be glad when my own terminal is fixed :)

I just wanted to respond to Greg's story.  One of my least wonderful field
experiences was when a group of us found a buck that had been hit by a car.
 It was still alive, but barely.  We were sincerely sorry that the only
firearm we had was a 22 pistol loaded with dust shot (great for collecting
lizards).

I don't own a gun, but have taken a hunter safety training course.  I
really like the idea of setting up courses like these and requiring both
the course and successful completion of an exam before gun purchase.

Oh, yeah -- andy asked something about why guns aren't so great for self-
defense.  Well, in my case, it goes like this: to be used for self-defense
in my home, a gun must be loaded and accessible.  The equation of loaded,
accessible gun + child doesn't add up for me (sorry, Tim :))

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:41:55 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: [Dusty_Kramer.Wbst845@xerox.com: RE:The Embarrassing Second
              Amendm

For some reason, the text of the Levinson article didn't get sent.  I
apologise, but can get the cite (Yale Law Review, I think) if anyone is
interested.

Jamie, did I understand you to say that you do not know if the second
ammendment protects an individual's right to bear arms?  I assumed that you
took the traditional academic position regarding militia.

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:35:55 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: jay's fortune cookie

>From:         K-A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>Is it me folks, or is this a classic case of "shifting
>the blame?"  Maybe I am wrong but wasn't it Adam that
>ate the apple?

Kaveh,
Eve ate it first. Adam tried to avoid responsibility by blaming
her.
But anyway, I thought it was Lileth who ruined everything, wasn't
it? Or is that apocrypha?

I love this sin stuff.

Jamie

p.s. Constantijn and Travis et al.: American culture *IS* better
than anyone else's. This is obvious.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:42:29 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Political Prisoners

"There is no God, there is only the law" - Javert

Well Quoted.

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:55:00 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The English language

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

>As the worst spelling offender on the list, I would like to offer several
>defenses:
>
>1) MM doesn't have a spelling correcter, like "real" software
>2) continuing decline in public education caused by lack of choice and
>   emphasis on secular huminist cirriculum
>3) time better spent learning to spell is wasted making jokes about liese's
>   footwear
>4) people who can spell have real jobs
>5) the various (and often humorous) mispellings just add to the sureal
>   quality of the list
>6) if I didn't mispell words, giving people someting to joke about, they
>   would have to argue against my posts, a thankless task

Well, I'll vouch for that last one. Oh, I occasionally get thanked,
I guess.

>Now, I count 9 mispelled words.  How about you?  (huminist cirriculum?)

Including that very line?
I counted only 8, but no doubt Patriotically Correct counting
accounts for the discrepency.

"correcter"
"huminist"
"cirriculum"
"mispellings"
"sureal"
"mispell"
"someting"
"mispelled"

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:11:22 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin

KAT, I would be unwilling to do that, since I don't have
the time, but gathering dust would surely be one of the
largest catagories, followed a far way with target practice.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:14:17 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more environmental extremism

on well seepage:

Perhaps I misunderstood the first post.  If the effect is local, then there
is little problem.  A farmer has some right to have the water on their
property not dammaged by their neighbor's actions.

I am all for the market cleaning out the small farmer.  As I said, it doesn't
matter is the property next to the wells is a farm, forest, nunnary, or
nucvlear testing lab.

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
X-VMS-To: HUGIN::NORWCH::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:54:00 EST
From:         "PRINCEPS IMPERATOR" <MACYM%MUNIN%HUGIN@NORWICH.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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:21:54 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jay's quote...
              14 Apr 1992 16:07:31 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

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

> Blacks and whites with the same educational level acheive roughly the same
> levels and make about the same amount of money.  Education is one important
> form of enpowerment.

To claim this, it implies that there is no more racism at
significant levels in the US, and even Jay has repeatedly
agreed that there is still substantial racism.

There is data that women with the same educational level as
their male counter-part are only paid a fraction of what men
are paid.  Now to claim that blacks are paid the same level
as white is simply ridiculous.

However, I agree with Jay that education in one important
from of empowerment.

Now, if only Jay would try and empower himself.  :-)

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:27:26 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      anti-hunters

KAT: you arque so strongly for the right to pursue a particular lifestyle
based on sexual preference yet you dismiss that hunting can have any
positive qualities. Just because it doesn't trip your trigger doesn't give
you the right to lump every idiot with a gun under the term hunter.
Far more people are killed by idiots with cars than by idiots with guns
so if your objection is to unneccesary slaughter then outlaw idiots not
hunting.
The plains indians existed for thousands of years in harmony with their
environment. They were hunters. It has taken the anti-hunting people less
than 200 years to totally screw up our environment. Let's look at the big
picture and place the blame where it belongs.
I won't encourage you to adopt my lifestyle but I don't know what grounds
you have for discouraging it. If we all had to hunt our food we wouldn't
have steroids and cancer producing agents in our diet.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:15:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Shadow Jay's false modesty

>If the Republicans have really spent 12 years to create a secret government
>then why are we still at the mercy of the democratic congress?  Or are
>republicans inept as well as evil?

It is a small matter of funding problems and legitimacy.

They're working on it though. B)

Beyond that, I wouldn't say that it is the republicans that have been
creating it, rather I would say that a smaller group of people working
within the Republican Party with links to the intelligence community,
organized crime, some portions of the business and banking community
and the military have been working to create a secret government.

(I've probably left somebody out; I'm sure Jay as
the official rep of the shadow gov't on this list could fill in the
details. B))

I suspect that most of those involved have not set out with an intent
to create such an organization; it has probably been the result of
poor judgement, poor ideology and something not unlike religious zeal.

Regarding "being at the mercy of the democratic congress," I say pfffft;
look at the outcome of the Iran Contra affair. Virtually none of the
criminals were prosecuted, some of the biggest crooks of the affair
are still in office/on the government payroll. Most of all though, we
still don't know the truth and congress does not have the collective
balls to force the bastards to tell the full truth.

If I ever committed a major crime; I would pray that I could be investigated
or prosecuted by the congress that let these bastards off the hook, rather
than "a jury of my peers."

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

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)