HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: EuroDisney
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:56:06 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

In article <CMM.0.90.2.703232214.sult@quads.uchicago.edu> sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU (Jay Steven Sultan) writes:

>I wonder if it occurs to any of these intelectuals that there would be no
>demand for american culture in their countries if their indigenous culture
>wasn't so god awful?

What? American culture superior to *our* culture? Bwaaaahahahahahaha.

Give me a break.

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

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:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:04:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

On Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:16:10 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
> >>        As has already been pointed out, the Congress has the
> >> power to pass such an act, under the Fourteenth Amendment.
> >
> >Tell me again--what part of the fourteenth amendment gives Congress
> >the power to do anything it wants?
>
>
> The provision that Congress would be enforcing with the Choice
> law is the "privileges and immunities" clause.
What exactly does the amendment say about "priviliges and immunities"?
(sorry, I don't have a copy of the Constitution with me)
>
> Travis explains,
>
> >Yes, if the justice can back his arguments up, which I doubt in this
> >case.
>
> So you mean the nominee should be required to give arguments
> for his interpretation of the Constitution? Then I guess it
> must be legitimate to ask what his interpretation of the
> Constitution *is*. I thought that's what you were denying.
No, I was saying that his views should not be a basis for nomination,
but rather his ability to conform his views to the Constitution.
I have read Roe v. Wade, and I believe that it was a good decision,
one which they supported well, although I still don't agree with it.
But that's up to the new Court to decide.  However, if the Supreme
Court now decides that Roe. v. Wade is wrong, the Freedom of Choice Act
has no Constitutional basis.
And also, remember that Supreme Court decisions are based also on the
ability of the attorneys arguing the case.  If an attorney forgets
about Clause X of Article Y of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
may not consider it in their decision.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 12:00:40 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Bombings in Britain

I just heard that a second bomb exploded in London.  Does anyone have
the full news?

Evelyn Duncan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: areid@mary.fordham.edu (Darin Reid)
Subject: Personal SURVEY: U.S. Presidents and Dates (two questions)  
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:54:00 GMT

Hi,

      Since I finished high school I've always had two questions in my mind. 
The first concerns U.S. Presidents the second U.S. dates.  In fact I bet
everyone else has had these questions cross their mind.

     Well being a junior in college and discovering the Usenet has finally
given me a chance to ask these questions of everyone else.  Please send your
responses to me by E-mail as I don't regularly read the groups I'm posting this
to.

  The survey is simple.  Please send answers with reasons behind them i.e. no
cheerleading or slamming for one Pres over another.  If you choose one Pres
over another tell me why.  

   I'm posting this with a _world_ access because I'm _very_ interested in
non-U.S. views on the U.S.  So let me see some answers from everywhere
(especially British, French and Africans).

Please answer the following two question:

              1) Who do you think is the greatest/most important U.S.
                 President of all there have ever been.  Answers don't
                 have to be long but should have reasons (no so-so's the
                 greatest. stuff)

              2) What time in America's history (WHILE NOT AT WAR) do 
                 you think was/is it's most important.  This could be _any_
                 non-war time in U.S. history - 1780's, 1850's, Reconstruction
                 (the period after the U.S. Civil War), 1960's are a few
                 examples.

  _Most_ importantly, I am NOT a CIA operative!  I will not create a file with
names of the people who answer.  This is for my own personal consumption and
knowledge.  Like I said I've wondered how other people feel about these
questions for a long time.  And remember have fun at it.

Thanks in advance to all that answer,
- Darin

----
Fordham University
Internet:Areid@Mary.Fordham.Edu
Bitnet:Areid@Fordmulc
AT&Tnet:(212) 749-8187
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:05:59 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

Try reading slower KAT.

I never said that I paid 43.5% of my total income in tax (but, that may be
correct with property and sales tax worked in).  But, I am in the 28% bracket
(whose existance you seemed to doubt)  and I do pay 15.5% self-employment tax
(whose existance you also seem to doubt).

See if you can deny the following:


Every dollar I earned at the end of the year, I had to pay 43.5 cents to the
government.  When I am giving a chance to do more work, I have to ask,'am I
willing to do this for only 56.5 cents on the dollar (and run the risk of
moving up to the next bracket.

My tax form has 13 pages.  I'm guessing you were trying to use an EZ.

KAT, you you can stop looking ignorant, why don't you try to form some simple
questions that will lead you to the conclyusion that I was in the 28%
bracket, that I pay 15.5% SE tax, and that one can add those two together.

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-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:29:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: hunting

>THe only conclusion you can get from the above is that assholes don't
>necessarily kill, but that assholes with guns can kill.  We also know
>that assholes with cars can kill and we know that guns alone can't
>kill.  Therefore, we can conclude that assholes with things that can
>be used to kill will use them that way.

     Therefore, make guns harder for assholes to get, so they CAN'T
   kill as easily.

        --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:55:14 EDT
From:         Jacob Levy <ST802099@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The House and the Presidency

>I hope that you are right about not having to worry about there not being a
>majority, and the reasoning that place behind your assertation is sound.
>However, recent polls show Perot with about 20% of the vote in a 3-way race
>and if he can maintain that, then the plurality issue may become very real.
>
     Me, I'd be entertained as hell if it went to the House.  It's not
a constitutional crisis-- whichever party has more delegations wins.
I think the GOP has more delegations (remember, every small rurla state's
delegation counts for as much as the big industrial states' delegations,
and there are more of the former), and I'm glumly beginning to think that
Clinton will lose to Bush.  (NB:  no one _wins_ this election.  It's
a question of who loses worse.)  Perot's something of a dingbat, and I have
no use for his policies, but I have to admit a certain sympathy for him
(the same sympathy I had for Jerry Brown and Pat Buchanan).  No, flipping
off the Washington Establishment isn't a productive thing, but it feels
good; and it's no more unproductive than *supporting* the establishment.
     However...

>Funny how the Libertarians are flocking to Perot in droves and forgetting
>about Andre Marou and Nancy Lord.
     Nobody this little Libertarian knows.  There's a certain amount of
sympathy and a great deal of bemusement, but I don't know any Libertarians
who've jumped to the Perot campaign.

      Absent Marrou-Lord, the best combination I can think of: Democratic
President, in control of foreign policy and Supreme Court nominations.
closely divided Senate.  Heavily Republican House, where the tax bills
come from.  Granted, Clinton supported the war and the GOP has *not*
proven itself trustworthy on tax issues-- but the present combination
seems to be the worst of all possible worlds.

>Regards,
>Brett

Jacob Levy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:18:32 -0400
From:         kirk raymond <GR8724@SIUCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      campaign finance etc.

 the democratic plan for 'campaign finance reform' reported earlier
 on this list is an excellent reason for why it is silly to let
 lawyers make laws.

 they (the democratic cabal on the hill) have a two-fold goal in
 their plan.

 1)the cap on the amount spent per race - brilliant, it speakes rhetorically
 to the voter of the 'interests' who buy and sell elections. now they
 will be limited to so much spending and their pernicious influence
 will be thwarted. However, the result of such a cap would be to magnify
 the incumbents advantage in name recognition and previous service beyond
 what a challenger could muster on the same budget. granted, that a
 challenger does not have to outspend an incumbent to win, but it
 helps.

 2) the limit on pac contributions - while much heavy breathing is being
 done over pac contribution, there has yet to be a study which
 indicated that pac contribution affected congressional votes on
 an aggregate scale. The usual result was that a member would have
 voted for the pac's position for other reasons or that the
 competition between pac's had made it easier to find money no matter
 the ideological stripe.

 this provision is meant to strike at the soft money war chest of the
 republican party which has used this area of campaign finance to
 build an impressive infrastructure of campaign support for its
 candidates. The tv and radio studio, polling data, and outright
 grants to state parties for 'registration' activities have been
 funded with pac money. since the gap in these resources is narrowing
 (and their effctiveness is being called into question) it is easy
 for the democratic leadership to sacrifice this source of income
 which generally favors incumbents but would favor republican's in
 general.

 and anyone wonders why bush would veto this bill.

 you may liken this fight to one over redistricting in a state with
 split government. a plan that favors one party over the other
 is doomed while the result will be a bi-partisan (read incumbent)
 compramise.

 you will know when they are serious about campaign finance reform when
 they advocate spending limits that give the challenger greater funds
 than the incumbent. but of course that is a ridiculous proposal
 on the face of it. imagine the consequences if challenger's could
 actually make themselves known...

 cordially,
 kirk


 p.s note to the list member who talked about being involved...

 does this mean that you are a point of light?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:47:03 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: [Dusty_Kramer.Wbst845@xerox.com: RE:The Embarrassing Second
              Am

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

>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.

I don't know what you understood me to say.
I suppose that I know that the second amendment does protect the
right to bear arms. But I don't know exactly what that right is.
Nor do I know what the "traditional academic position regarding
militia" is.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:50:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: jay's fortune cookie/Reagan

On Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:37:55 EDT Phillip J VanFossen <pvanfoss@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-S
TATE.EDU> said:
> I was under the assumption, perhaps incorrectly arrived at, that this list
> existed to discuss politics.  Perhaps I am but a naive neophyte, but the above
> stricks me as having very little to do with politcal views and everything to d
o
> with religious dogma.
>
> pvf
> >

Well if a dog were your ma, you would be a son of a bitch!!!
(Unless you are a girl, of course, then you would be a daughter
of a bitch, which doesn't go over for the joke very well.)

Anybody hear about Reagan being attacked in Las Vegas??
I know it's not fun to blow all your money on the slot machines,
but you don't have to take it out on a former president!!!!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:04:54 EST
From:         Bill Orme <ITHQ100@INDYCMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uzi on the street
              5 Apr 1992 03:36:56 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO .EDU>

First of all, not everyone gets a car.  There are age, vision, and rules
restrictions on obtaining a driver's license.

Secondly, few people in cars have been able to kill from the convenience of a
sixth story window or a bell tower.

Thirdly, we do require that car ownership be registered with state government.
If you are suggesting that should apply equally to gun ownership, I might agree

with you.

Bill Orme
ithq100@indycms
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, 9 Apr 1992 17:56:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: guns don't kill people, tv kills people

>A little food for thought for the anti-gun lobby. The number of incidents
>of violence portrayed on tv/per hour is incredible. I think that we should
>outlaw television as it promotes violence. When was the last time you saw
>someone go through a background check before purchasing a gun on tv, or
>taking any type of firearm training, or going to court for blowing
>someone away?
>
>Guns don't kill people, television 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. 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.

       --G. Racz
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, 7 Apr 1992 23:33:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

In article <tfilt198251@drew.edu>, Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>>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.
>
hunting is enjoyable, one part of it is the kill.  Now if the kill is
not essential for this pleasure, then killing is gratutious.  If
killing is essential for hunting (it seems to be required; hunting
without killing [or wounding] is a nature journey), then killing is
part of the pleasure.  QED

> 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.)

it may be on the whole the only way, though all this "whining" against
environmentalists shows there is some who feel sacrifice is just, but
I fail to agree it's a good way.  As noted elsewhere, hunter self
interest supports select animals and habitats for protection
unproportionally over others, showing a flaw in the system.  Also, a
movement toward a bigger appreciation for wildlife and nature seems to
be needed in this world, and I'm not ready to say this is an utopian
goal.

                  -JOE

P.S. I'm inclined to agree that if you kill for food (though some
animals raised supply more than food i.e. leather, hormones, etc.), it
isn't _that_ much different than eating a steak.  I personally believe
that hunting has negative consequences of which are somewhat
subjective [_Animal Liberation_ and _Man Kind?_ influencing me some],
which are debatable.
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 13:55:29 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

}> 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!

}I am curious, what would you have done if instead of a buck
}a 2 year old child or a mentally handicapped adult had broad
}sided your truck?

}--KAT

In today's world?  You really want me to say? (seriously)
I'd call an ambulance and my lawyer, but probably my lawyer first.
There's my straight answer.  Anybody else wanna include their
actions???  Anyone brave enough?

-Greg
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 10:33:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>>  The fact is you hunt with a gun, a tool designed to OBLITERATE THINGS,
>>  not just to send some projectile at high velocities.
>>  All else is secondary.
>
>Again, actual hunter behavior is inconsistent with the theory.  When
>hunters ask "will this obliterate the animal?", if the answer is yes,
>they choose a different weapon.  Within economic constraints, hunters
>appear to try to hunt with the minimum gun necessary to cleanly kill.
>(The economic constraints are that few can afford a different gun for
>every different type of game, let alone different sizes of a given
>species.)  The errors they make are in direction of "too little gun".

    Sorry--my rhetoric got worked up.  but let me ask you-- if someone
  were to shoot you dead, would it matter much to you after the fact
  whether or not there were a recognizable portion of you left?

       --G. Racz
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 17:04:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Uzi on the street

>The consequences of allowing any person who is not a convicted fellon or
>mental patient to walk down the street with an Uzi is simple: far, far less
>crime.

   Let's see some statistics that prove that more guns means less crime.
 Just speeking in terms of common sense, don't you think that more people
 are likely to give in to that temptation to pull the trigger if the trigger
  happens to be within easy reach?

>We let everyone have a car.  care to discuss how many people are killed each
>year by cars?

  In case you haven't noticed, CARS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO KILL OTHER HUMANS.
  Guns are.  Or should we also discuss how many people are killed every year
  by slipping on a banana peel and cracking their skulls open?  Get real!


  PS about last post -- I missed one word (about the checking scandal in
    Congress) and pulled an "open foot insert mouth" (or something like
    that).

     --G. Racz
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Moving the Capitol
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:49:16 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com
Cc: acm


Anyone who visits Washington DC cannot but be impressed by the
tons of granite used to create those monsterous buildings that
house those everlasting government agencies.  Washington DC is
in many ways a very pretty city, and a lot of money goes into
keeping it that way.

Every four years, a different city in the world hosts the Olympics.
They spend a fair amount of money (100's of Mill) to clean up their
burg and build new structures to house the event.  The reason, of
course, is the incredible amount of money that the visitors and the
press corp bring to town.  Also, after the Olympics are over, the
facilities remain to house subsequent conventions, etc.

My Proposal:

Move our nation's captital every four years.  Pick cities that could
really use the overhaul, perhaps make downtown Detroit the first,
with St. Louis perhaps the next site.

Another advantage would be it would cut down on the number of
congress-critters who just stay in office all their lives.  How
many would overstay their welcome if faced with having to move
every four years?

Yes, it would cost money to move every four years, but think how
much excess baggage would be tossed.

Comments?

						Andrew MacRae
						
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU