HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:24:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Abortion in Washington DC

> the SC's Webster decision decreased the protection of the right of
> abortion by saying public hospitals, even if the staff wants to, can't
> perform abortions.  So, 79% of the area of the country doesn't have a
> place to have an abortion.  The upcoming case of Casey (which Bush

To nitpick:  I don't think they prohibited abortions in public hospitals
but instead allowed states to do so.  I say that because there is a
public hospital in this town that does perform abortions.

In fact, North Carolina is one of the few states to fund abortions for
poor women (though it's done very grudgingly).  You have to be REALLY
poor and even then the fund runs out after about 7-8 months and there's
nothing for the rest of the year.  In recent years the fund has been
cut from over a million dollars to about $400,000, but there's never
been a legislative majority ready to kill it completely.

The hospital I mentioned has a policy of serving all comers without
regard to ability to pay.  This has allowed some local poor people to
get care they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.  A couple of years ago
it came to the attention of antiabortion activists that this included
abortions, even after the abortion fund ran out.  They started
protesting, saying that the legislature had not authorized the use of
state money for these abortions.  The hospital countered with an
opinion from the AG that the legislature had known about the policy
when they wrote the law, and if they had wanted it to change they
would have addressed the subject.  What I find amusing is the official
pronouncement that the NC General Assembly knew what it was doing :-).

Best,
Peter

> >>                 -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:35:47 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bombings in Britain

lynda:

I make no claims about the proportion of people who realise that their money
is being used to murder innocent civilans.  I point to a state department
report, which showed that some 90% of the money collected by pro-Irish
sympathisers was collected with the promise that it go to education, medical
supplies, and other positive things.  That same report shows that, in
reality, some 75% of that money is used to fund violent activities, mostly to
buy arms on the black market.

I am not saying anything about the legitimacy of the claims of England on N
Ireland.  But, phrases like "rash generalizations" do not change the fact
that the US is the major exporter of deathfor the IRA.

It is our propblem and we should deal with it, as surely as we punish Libya
for their support of terrorism.

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:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:00:08 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

I would like to say more about firearms later, but for those who consider
standing in line at the Kroger man's quest to feed himself, let me tell you
that, intil I went to college, venison was my primary protien source.  I
hunted deer since I was old enough to carry a gun and we ate every part.

Oh, I didn't keep a single trophy.  I find them vulgar.

Those who think that all hunters simply enjoy killing are sadly mistaken.
There are some like that, but they are the city people who often have the
firearm mistakes.  Darwin in action.

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:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:20:33 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin

From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>

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

> He does recreations of the War between the States

> Dave

If your implication is that I said that the ONLY use of
guns are to kill you are mistaken.  I have always been
careful to say things like "main function" and "most
people".  I even listed the possible usages of guns a few
times saying that they can be used for 1)kill/wound/
destroy people/animals/things, 2) target shooting, and
3) collecting.  I think your friend's use is qualified
under number 3.

Maybe YOU would be willing to list the possible usages
of guns and tell us the frequency of each use.

--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:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:42:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bill Clinton - Best Demo Pol since JFK

   Great.  So we ennd up withhh annother George Bushh inn the WH, only
   his nname happens to be Bill Clinton.  Proof of my point that the
   Dems and Reps are more like twin brothers than opposinng parties and
   that the American election system is in need of some major reform.

     --G. Racz
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: one party control of both legislative and executive?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 02:22:34 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Congress has been writing most of the legislation for the past 40
years. For the past 12 years the Republicans have been busily creating
a secret government that the voters have no knowledge of or control
over. The republicans have also been making the work of Congress
increasingly irrelevant by making more and more administrative law
that Congress plays no part in.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
Republicans believe in the "carrot and stick" approach to social problems:
 	   - carrots for the rich and sticks for the poor -
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 09:13:31 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The perfect Solution to Congress
              7 Apr 1992 03:07:01 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

On Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:07:01 CDT Jay Steven Sultan said:
>Lets take a page from Peru.....
>
>First, we elect a Japanese person (who is I guess, genetically superior in
>economics :)   )
>
>Then that person disbands and arrests the congress, citing their corruption
>and unwillingness to implement the president's economic reform plans.
>
>Why does this sound like a GOOD idea?
>
Because it is only a partial truth.  You left out suspending the consitution
and initiating martial law.  Military juntas are a GOOD idea?

>Why are we punishing Peru for her actions?  Sounds like a role model to me.
>
Sounds like you need to take your brain down to the shop for a reality
alignment.

BTW, if this was inteded as a joke, it wasn't even close to being funny.
    todddddddddd
>Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Of course he's guilty!
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   We don't investigate
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    innocent people!" -MEESE
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 12:48:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

>No I am not suggesting THAT.  What I am saying is: let's
>look at the root of the recent discontent.  It seems to
>me that people are saying that the incumbents have an
>unfair advantage.  Never mind that the same people say that
>their representative is OK and that only every other
>representatives are bad, for now I am not gonna question
>the voter's discontent.
>
>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.


   I've been observing this debate and it seems to get nowhere fast, along
  with the parallel debate on banning tv political ads.  I have an idea
  that may be interesting to the parties of both debates -- how about
  government financing of all campaigns?  This would eliminate the
  incumbent's money-raising advantage, eliminate the election of candidates
  who are good fundraisers but lousy politicians, and decrease reliance
  on tv ads (each candidate would probably not get a lot of money, and
  besides all their ads could be just as effective).  It could also
  release the stranglehold that the Democratic and Republican parties
  have on American politics.

        --G. Racz
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:57:48 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%92040512341155@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
 > 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.

						Andrew MacRae
						
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 17:30:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where's the politics in POLITICS??

In article <tfilt200268@drew.edu>, "Robert G. Heidlage" <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.BITNET>
   > This discussion group should be called "Ideology" or
> something else (philosopy?).  There's very little real politics...

> this business of guns, gay rights, whatever...
> THAT'S not politics.
> Let's have some politics:  What are the Ulster unionists going to
> demand for     their 6-7 seats if the Parliament is hung ??

all these issues are political.  we are speaking about how the gov't
should decide on thes issues either state or federal gov'ts.  In a
democracy the people are those who should be the final arbitrors of
our country's destiny, so we are discussing the issues of the day.
Sidebars and tangents appear to be a part of the game here.

              -JOE

P.S. this seems mostly to be a group on United States politics, few
seem to know that much about Ulster unionists.  How about some
background?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:31:22 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hunting

>> the worst an asshole can do to me in the Super Fresh is run over my foot
>> in an effort to get in front of me in the checkout line, and then glare
>> at me when s/he is foiled.
>> the worst an asshole who is hunting can do is accidentally kill me while
>> i am out in the wilderness or perhaps my parents back yard.  the difference
>> is the gun.  there are assholes in every walk of life, indeed, but you
>> need not let them have guns.
>
>Well put!
>
>Conclusion: Assholes don't kill; guns kill.

KAT-logic strikes again.

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.

-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:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:15:17 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

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

>>>>> Yes, part of the hunting is killing.  Part of walking barefoot in
>>>>> wet grass at night is killing also.  That's just as "real".

>>>> Difference-- hunters are trying to kill something, barefoot walkers
>>>> are not.

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

>> Look the intent, the purpose, is different.
>> Now, all of a sudden the purpose -- as in the real purpose of
>> guns is to propel projectiles -- is no longer important???

> Guns <> Hunting.  The purpose of guns is to propel projectiles.
> People hunt for other reasons.

I have no idea what "<>" means.

I think it is not consistent on the one hand to say even though
the purpose of walking on the grass in not killing and one of
the goals of hunting is killing that the intent makes no
difference and then turn around, split hear, and say "....but
(one of) the functions of guns in not killing but is to
propel a projectile."

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

>> you conveniently responded.  I think the suggestion was that most
>> hunters do not consider not killing AFTER the point that they are
>> able to kill.

> And that suggestion is wrong.  I've talked to before first time
> hunters.  They've considered the possibility that they won't kill
> anything.  They still expect to enjoy themselves and they're hunting
> whether or not they do.

The suggestion was NOT that hunters do not consider it rather that
MOST hunters do not consider not to kill.

Or are you suggesting that MOST hunters do routinely consider not
to kill and by some coincidence most decide to kill after all?

Or are you suggesting that MOST hunters do consider not to kill and
as a result don't kill, period?

I agree with the other one or two posters that this debate is becoming
tiring quickly.  As if the goal is to tire the other side before he gets
a change to convince you.

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: HUGIN::NORWCH::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:14:00 EST
From:         "PRINCEPS IMPERATOR" <MACYM%MUNIN%HUGIN@NORWICH.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

Joe,

        I don't remember who, or if it was this list, but someone brought
up the point of hunting as a way to control animal population.  The jist of
his arguement was the humanity has altered the environment in some areas, that
the natural predators of some species of game have been eliminated.  Without
some method of control, the animals would over saturate a region.  No hunting
may be as bad as over-hunting.  My father tells me of when finding a deer in
central Indiana was rare, due to the fact that the deer population was over-
hunted.  Now, with controls, the deer population is quite healthy.

        Matt
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:43:22 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?
              14 Apr 1992 12:58:26 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

>> 2) Incumbant presidents should be charged what the other candidate spends on
>> travel. Clinton gets secret service men for free, and its costs some to ship
>> them around, but if Clinton spends $500,000 for air travel, then CREP should
>> pay the same to the treasury.  There are some costs, like the security
>> officer carrying the football, that simply go along with being president.

> Well, I think incumbent presidents should be charged the actual cost of
> travel.  If Bush wants to use Air Force One, his campaign should be charged
> with the full cost -- I don't want to subsidize his campaign with my tax
> dollars.  In some recent news report or other I heard that, for example,
> the Bush campaign is charged the cost of a commercial first-class ticket
> plus $1 for people flying in military jets.  That doesn't come close to
> covering the actual cost of such flights.

Wait a second!  Presidents have some fringe benefits not to have
perks per se but rather their jobs require it.  Look, no one
should want the president to fly coach even if he so desires.  In fact
I think it should be illegal for the president to fly coach or
recklessly endanger himself.

Having said that I don't see why Bush should be forced to pay
the actual cost of Air Force 1 when he used the plane for his
campaign trips.  As long as he pays coach fair + $1 it is good
enough for me.

> file file kat

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 07:19:55 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street
              7 Apr 1992 13:17:22 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

>> the purpose of guns is to kill things.  they also have the side effect of
>> sometimes only wounding them.

> No, that's not the purpose of guns.  Guns have a function, to propel a
> projectile, and one can use them to accomplish a purpose, but the
> designer doesn't pick the target or the circumstance.  (The designer
> does have some effect on how effective a given gun will be on a given
> target.  For example, the M-16 designer made decisions that made that
> gun less likely to kill than previous military issue....)

And the purpose of scud missiles is not to destroy, they
could be used as part of parades in front of Hussein.

So most people that buy guns for self-defense don't say
to themselves "I am gonna buy a gun so if attacked I can
protect my family."  Instead they say "I am gonna dish
out a few hundred bucks to propel a projectile."

If that is the standard then I am pretty sure I can refute
most sentences that says X is for the purpose of Y.

> Yet, if she'd been killed by a drunk driver, no one would have advocated
> banning cars.  Guns do have a strange effect on people....

Well I am not surprised of this answer.  As long as you
claim some kinda analogy between guns and cars you are
bound to make illogical statements like this.

And maybe one day when the dangers of cars outweighs
the advantages we *would* ban cars.  Say in a 100 year
the technology of transferring people from one place
to another -- Start Trek style -- is perfected.  Most
people get rid of their cars and people start using
streets to take short walks.  Then comes this group
of people who cannot part with their cars.  Some
use it to go from one place to another and some
go bananas and drive into crowds of people killing
tens.  I'll bet you that then we WILL ban cars.

In short, those of us who are agist guns or who are
for more gun control think that the disadvantages
of having guns has long outweighed the advantages of
having them.

And please don't use 2nd Amendment arguments when/if
replying because as you know I have no opinion on
that one.

> BTW - Laser printers and modern presses are much further from 1790s
> technology than modern guns.  Does that mean that their use is not
> protected by the 1st amendment?  (If not, then perhaps a better
> discussion of the relevance of technology is in order.)

1st preserves free speech; laser printers are a means to
express your opinion.  2nd preserves your right to bear
arms; and then what?????  Where is the analogy?  Laser
printer is to the 1st as is what(?) to the 2nd?

-andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 5 Apr 1992 23:50:11 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Justice at the Supreme Court

JOE, Jay says something is Liberal or Conservative, and I really don't
see whether I should agree to something just because it's Liberal or
Conservative.

Jay would probably call me liberal. He already knows I'm too conspiracy
minded for my own good B). But, I believe in open gun ownership combined
with universal gun education. I realize that, due to the near total
destruction of natural predators to deer, elk, and other animals, they
either spread so far significant numbers become roadkill or starve, so
as effective managers of our wilderness, we must allow hunting. I feel
less government is better than no government. These are all conservative
positions coming out of someone who'd be a liberal democrat poster child
if you saw me walking down the street.

The partisanization of our governmental bodies blinds them to logical
solutions. It also blinds the people. Fortunately, so much of Jesse
Helms' ideas strike me as odious that I can hate him even if I become
Republican.

Greetings from the Peanut Gallery
Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
"We are living in a revolutionary situation."
              --Henry Kissinger

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty, or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
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 10:06:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Justice at the Supreme Court

In article <tfilt196291@drew.edu>, Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
   writes:
> JOE,
>
>
> Bill Clinton is from Arkansas, not Alabama.

I was laying down watching t.v. and said damn, I put Alabama instead
of Arkansas, better correct it.  Wouldn't you know it, you caught it,
as I feared.  Again you highlight one narrow part of my post and
forget about the rest.

> At least we agree that the North's racism is worse than the South's and has
> been completely unaddressed by the liberal inteligensia.
>
Uh Jay, I didn't say that, sorry.  I said that the North may sometimes
be worse than the south, but sorry I didn't use sterotypical hyperbole
in my post.  Sorry to tire you out with another post, it must be very
tiring to be corrected so much by us liberal intelligensia ignorant
procovative hypocrites.  We all should be shot, I know, but life would
be boring without us, wouldn't it?

                 -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:06:18 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

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

>OK.  Now, now that you have beat up on the defenseless, who wants to take me
>on?

I really tried to ignore this. Really. But it's just too tempting.

I'd love to take you on, but I have scruples--I don't like
to stab when your back is turned. And that seems to be
your favorite position.

Shall we reminisce?

Sweeeeeden statistics
Death Penalty statistics
Looking things up in the New York Times
Dropping decimal places, and other Patriotically Correct arithmetic
Whether the Supreme Court has "changed radically"
Whether Eugene Debs was a political prisoner

MEMMMMMMM-ries!

Jamie