HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:29:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.081752.18171@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>    "Will the Gentlemen Please Yield? A Defense of the Constitutionality of
>>  State-Imposed Term Limitations" by Neil Gorsuch and Michael Guzman is no.
>>  178 in the Policy Analysis series published by the Cato Institute, an
>>  independent public policy research organization in Washington, DC.

>How do they deal with the fact that many of the early states had term
>limits, but removed them before the Constitution was created, and the
>fact that the Framers voted unanimously to not have term limits?

I'm not familiar with the study, but I don't see how either is
relevant: The Framers rejected constitutionally imposed term limits,
but this doesn't mean rejecting term limits imposed by other means 
(e.g. state laws). Also, the fact that the States, under the Articles
of Confederation, choose not to have term limits doesn't mean they 
gave up the power to impose them. (If a publisher sells his printing
press, this doesn't mean he is forever waiving his right to freedom
of the press...)

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
From: jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: From CDC Summary 8/4/92 and 9/21/92
Date: 4 Oct 92 01:50:20 GMT
Organization: Systems'n'Software

In article <8424.1778@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
>In rebuttal to Mr. Cramer's blatent anti-homosexual
>campaign...I post the following. You'd best start teaching
>your kids Cramer and forget this stupid war of yours.
>****************************************************************
>
>"Teenagers and AIDS" Newsweek (08/03/92) Vol. 120, No. 5, P.
>45
>(Kantrowitz, Barbara et al.)
>     Teenagers are becoming increasingly at risk for HIV
>infection resulting from ignorance about the disease.  A congressional
>report released in April cautioned that HIV is "spreading  unchecked
>among the nation's adolescents, regardless of where  they live or their
>economic status."  More than 5,000 children  and young people have died
>of AIDS since the beginning of the  epidemic, and the disease is now
>the sixth leading cause of death among those aged 15-24.  Within the
>past three years, the total  of those aged 13-24 diagnosed with 
>AIDS rose 77 percent. U.S.Surgeon General Antonia Novello said that the
>ratio of female to  male AIDS patients has doubled in the last four
>years.  Females  accounted for 39 percent of adolescent cases last
>year, up from 17 percent 1987.Even frank discussion of AIDS has not been
>effective for teens because they still feel they are not at risk. While
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        This is exactly why the GREAT CONDOM give away and the "SAFE SEX"
        myth has had no effect on this problem. Until we start telling
        these kids and adults admit that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
        SAFE SEX" AID's is going to continue to run unchecked through
        society.

        I know it's tough on you liberals out there, but there is no cure.
        And the only answer is to return to teaching tradition morals. I
        know some of you just went ballistic!!!!!!!!! tough. As far as I am
        concerned anyone teaching kids that there is such a thing as "SAFE
        SEX" is no better that a killer, because that what you are doing
        to these kids, Your killing them by telling them there is safe sex.



___________________________________________________________________________
                                   \ /        \  /
I had a seat in the very first row +-------------+ 
I heard it all on my radio         | 0 -(....) 0 |    uunet!jack!jsb
                                   +-------------+                         
___________________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49220 ca.politics:8382
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:03:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <2745@uswnvg.uswnvg.com>, dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:
> In article <12559@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# :Supporting the right of someone to do something unpleasant
# :(free speech, homosexual sex, drug abuse) isn't the same as
# :supporting them.  They have the right to do it -- as unpleasant
# :as I find it.
# 
# I can't believe he just said that.  Here -- let me replace one
# set of words.
# 
# "Supporting the right of someone to do something unpleasant
# (NAMBLA marching in some parade) isn't the same as
# supporting them.  They have the right to do it -- as unpleasant
# as some find it."
# 
#      Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

I wouldn't march with a drug addict, or a Nazi, or any of a number
of other characters whose rights I support.

Homosexuals don't seem to understand that you don't have to express
support for NAMBLA by marching with them.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 01:54:22 GMT
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>] 
>] 	A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
>] consent to sex.
>
>Sure, and when you go bungee jumping, you consent to the possibility
>that the cord will break and you'll smash into the ground.  Having
>consented, all should let you lie there, offering no aid.


You're right.  And yes, I would expect aid.  However, I would NOT expect
the GOVERNMENT to pay for the ambulance and doctor...would you?

Save for some _private_ donations from people who might want to donate to
my cause, I would expect to pay for it on my own, wouldn't you?

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Kathryn Scholl  -- Above text reflects opinions of the author, not VMark --
 Vmark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA  01701, USA
 Internet: uvmark!scholl@merk.com, UUCP: uunet!merk.com!uvmark!scholl
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:29:01 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>
>> ... and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
>
>What on earth, though, does this have to do with the wild accusation
>that Clinton wanted to renounce his citizenship?  The story just makes
>no sense on its face: it is impossible for me to believe that Clinton
>would want to renounce his citizenship, and it is also impossible for
>me to understand why anyone would think there is any connection
>between a tourist visit to Moscow and an application for British
>citizenship.

American citizens can ACQUIRE additional citizenships as long as there
is no conflict arising from renunciation oaths in the foreign country's
naturalization process (as with America's).  Many Americans obtain dual
citizenship by heritage (e.g., Ireland) or for residence purposes (e.g.,
Canada) as long as there is no conflict due to renunciation (the State
Department takes that very seriously and they know just which countries
those are).  Even some countries with renunciation have an exemption
for people applying as legacies (i.e., ancestral heritage).

Rich Wales of UCLA has a file on American dual citizenship available
by anonymous FTP:

valeria.cs.ucla.edu:~ftp/pub/faq.dualcit -- last revised 8 Aug. 1992

Service in a foreign military is not grounds to lose citizenship as
long as that nation is not at war with the United States.  Americans
serving in Israel and those who served in the RAF/RCAF in WW II prior
to America's entry (the famed Eagle Squadrons, documented in Cagney's
film "Captains of the Clouds") are examples of Americans in a foreign
service without conflict to their citizenship.

Given this situation, and his acknowledged political ambitions, Bill
Clinton could only have applied for British citizenship on grounds of
intending to live there for an extended period (residency), possible
marriage to a British citizen, or ancestral heritage.  None of that
would disqualify him for the Presidency being a dual citizen ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Effects of U.S. national debt
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:45:53 GMT
 <TOM.92Oct2073804@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> <fV2-xNB@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

The data on FICA collections and expenses can be found on a monthly
basis in the Social Security Bulletin and on an annual basis
in the Annual Statistical Supplement to the SSB.  Here are recent
numbers (in millions):
              Total Receipts         Total Expenditures
1990          286,653                227,519
1989          264,653                212,489
1988          240,770                200,020

These data are also broken down in the SSB for DI, OASI and DI
combined.  In addition, you can look at components of receipts
and expenditures.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:20:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.180310.8796@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Sep29150251@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>I think the interstate system is paid for out of user fees, but the
>>local streets come out of local general taxes.  Is that right?
>
>	That is only _partially_ correct.
>
>	General funds go into roads, also.

Petrich "forgets" that many auto-specific taxes also go directly into
the general fund.

If there really was an auto subsidy from the general fund, if the mass
transit advocates were really interested in diverting it to their
boondoggle, said advocates would go after said subsidy and try to get
it spent on their preferred transportation means.  Yet, they don't.
They go after auto-specific taxes.

Why?  Because they're not really interested in economically efficient
transportation; they just hate cars.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:19:21 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep29.013321.414@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.234633.22246@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >In  <1992Sep28.164104.18842@ms.uky.edu>  fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>
> >> I don't know of many people who are comfortable with the idea of abortion
> >> after fetal viability.
>
> > 1.  Fetal viability is closer to the third trimester.
> > 2.  Perhaps you've heard of something called Roe v. Wade?
>
> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the
> term of pregnancy.

This is not true.

> The Supreme Court ruled that the states may
> prohibit abortion during the third trimester except when the
> abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's "health" or life,
> but they gave "health" a very broad definition, including emotional
> and psychological health.  Thus women can obtain abortions
> throughout the term of pregnancy for practically any reason.

This is not true.

In fact, since there are only 3 doctors in the U.S. who perform third-
trimester abortions, and they only do them for serious health reasons,
it's more reasonable to state that there is a virtual *ban* on third-
trimester abortions, even though the Supreme Court leaves it up to the
states to decide whether or not they should be allowed.

There are about 100 abortions *per year* performed in the United States
after 24 weeks.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 00:45:52 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Oct3.031102.1065@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
 
>But when I talk to a pro-choice advocate, abortion seems to be the only
>choice they want to discuss.

Have you ever talked to pro-choice advocates when not talking about 
abortion?  When discussing abortion, naturally they discuss abortion.
However, pro-choice generally means they want as many available choices
as possible.  Pro-life is the group that wants to restrict the number
of choices available.  I would be very surprised if you could find a 
pro-choice advocate that would want to make any of the other feasible
options such as adoption illegal.  I would be extremely shocked if you
could find a pro-choice advocate who wanted to outlaw abstinence.

Pro-choice as a political movement would stop immediately if pro-life
would drop their legislative agenda.  Pro-choice is a response to
pro-lifers attempt to legally restrict women's choices.  Stop your
political agenda and pro-choice will drop theirs and then we can 
all work toward eliminating the large need for abortion.  

In 1990, Planned Parenthood of America's legal costs were 1.6 million
dollars.  Much of these dollars were spent fighting nuisance law suits
brought by pro-lifers, along with appeals to stop the federal government
from cutting funding.  1.6 million dollars could assist a lot of 
under-privileged women in getting contraceptives.  

>Here's a good choice for couples: abstinence
>until they are fully ready for children.  I mean, in all the arguements that
>concept always gets lost.  And some folks think you just beamed down from a UFO
>when you bring it up.

Of course your idea about abstinence doesn't get brought up very often.
It doesn't get brought up because it is none of your damn business.  What
I and what ever consenting adult I invite, do in the privacy of our own home 
is absolutely none of your damn business.  I'd appreciate if you keep 
your ideas out of my bedroom unless I invite you to get involved.
 
>Simon

Dan King
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Classic vs. Traditional liberalism (Re: Guns
Summary: point/counterpoint
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:45:08 GMT

In article <PA146008.333.717556134@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Ve writes...
>In article <1992Sep25.204441.13543@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> 
>>In article <PA146008.2.717440083@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Ve writes...
>>>In article <1992Sep25.015533.23286@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>>  
>>Which, once again, brings me back to the same question: WHY? It is
>>this question that got to start this discussion, and so far nobody
>>has tried to answer it. Can you answer it?
> 
>     Modern liberalism and historical liberalism are different, because
>that's the way the term works.  If liberals push for change in the
>status quo they can't, *by definition* maintain a consistant set of
>beliefs, because *if they manage to implement their beliefs* they all
>of a sudden *are* the status quo.  And if they *defend* their status
>quo (ignoring whether or not they are "right") they have become conservative,
>and somebody else is the liberal.

Finally, someone answers the question! Congrats. So what you are saying
is that by virtue of the liberals winning their battles they are loosing
their "roots" and becoming conservative? Interesting.

>     Two hundred years ago liberals were advocates individual rights, 
>property rights, capitalism, and restricted government.  They got what
>they wanted in the U.S., to a degree.  Modern liberals (and here's where
>I step on plenty of toes) advocate individual rights where they don't 
>conflict with group rights, limited government intervention in personal
>choices in certain areas, and extended government involvement in social and 
>economic engineering.

All true (except maybe, the personal choices part).

>     The reason modern liberalism is opposed to an individual right to keep
>and bear arms is that it is very much centered around a parent/child care
>relationship with the government.  When you stumble and fall (lose your
>job) the government is supposed to be there to help you back up.  (The
>safety net.)  The government is there to protect people both from each
>other and themselves.  (Being a "nice guy" is part and parcel of liberalism,
>for the most part.)

I think you are partially right. But is the "protector" government the 
real reason for gun control? So far your reasoning is impressive. Can
you expand on this one? Or can someone else?


>     Of course, this doesn't being to go into the "Guns are bad.  Guns
>kill people," problem, but this could easily turn into a book on the
>subject.

-Garrett

>David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Health care costs
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:39:01 GMT

I saw a figure somewhere comparing the overhead bureaucratic costs
of the private sector vs Medicare. It was:

Medicare: 5% of expenses
Private sector: 20%

Does anyone have info verifying or denying this figure?
I'm talking real info not "WEll, it could(n't) be true.." conjecture.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				"If you don't vote, you don't count!"
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	"Eligible non-voters are hypocrites."
CLARKSON '95
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"It is better to have clean hearts and dirty hands than 
 dirty hearts and clean hands."   ---Rev Jesse Jackson			


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:12:35 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct6.092628.1598@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>Term limits were proposed for the Constitution, and voted down unanimously.
>Do you have any evidence that the Framers considered placing a child
>molestation clause in the Constitution?  If not, then your posting makes
>no sense.  There's a huge difference between something not being in the
>Constitution because the Framers actively decided not to put it there,
>and something not being there because there was never any consideration
>of putting it there.

There is also a big difference between the framers not putting term limits
in because they didn't want term limits and there not putting it in
because they didn't think it would be necessary.

This may be apocrophal, (legal historians can jump in now).  I remember
reading that when the senate was discussing the amendment that allowed
for income taxes, somebody proposed an amendment to limit the tax rate
to 3%.  It was voted down because they thought that nobody would be
foolish enough to raise the rate that high anyway.  sigh.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49130 ca.politics:8364 ba.politics:5794
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Another Typical Posting From Soc.Motss (Re: About My Fettish In Clear Plastic)
Keywords: Answers
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:26:30 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <12585@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

Clayton's repost of a person who enjoys clear plastic, rather harmlessly
I might add, is deleted.

Clayton, what was the purpose of the post?  Your sick and twisted attempts
at net-voyeurism have proven nothing over the last couple of years, beyond
challenging Ronzone for the award of "Top Reactionary Fascist Idiot of the
Net."

You are one maladjusted little twerp.  The shame of it all is that your 
postings used to reflect someone who possessed some well-reasoned logic...
you are a total waste of time, now.

Congratulations.

George Lambert
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48549 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6053 alt.politics.elections:14616 talk.abortion:39337 alt.sex:31288 alt.politics.clinton:7732 alt.politics.bush:7127