HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:22:44 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

From:         "James W. Evans" <MM12@NMUMUS.BITNET>

> I am disgusted with this liberal BS that most of you are advocating,
> and must remove myself for health reasons (because I involuntarily
> vomit after many of the posts, especially from someone hidden under
> the initials brni). I would like to say if this list, pertaining to
> its liberal content, is any indication where this country and our
> society is headed, I WANT OUT! How far do individual right have to go
> before, everyone is "HAPPY" and content and not stepping on the feet
> of others. I must go to church now!

Wow, we must come a real long way from those dark ages.  There
is even a church that accepts people who .........  :-)

OK, I give this one to brni, but if Carl does not come back
I want you all remember that *I* send him the last nasty-mail.  :-)

But seriously, I suppose you are upset because of the cheerleading
that you received from this group when you announced that you are
in love with and want to get married to your sister.

Well, just think about it.  As much repulsive as you may think our
suggestions were, it was YOU who were sarcastically suggesting that
we, the liberals, are for having sex with even our sisters.

So grow up and stop wining.  It was your own doing.

--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:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:45:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

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

I'm sure Mr. Evans will thank you for calling him defenseless; does that
mean that you have less respect for him than we (the intellectual, commie,
pinko, mouthy minority) do?

At any rate if you would care to respond to my response to your rationalization
of the imposition of your personal morals on society, then I certainly
will be happy to entertain any further arguments (or rationalizations)
that you may have.

I just love the smell of conservatives frying in the juices of their
moral assertions. - goes well with coffee B)


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

-other Andy

>"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan

"Enfranchisement leads to positive social participation and the decline
of criminal activity." - Steve Rafferty
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, 15 Apr 1992 14:30:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re:

>> On a different note, since you seem to know something about this:
>> according to international law (ha!), could the US invade Libya to remove
>> the two guys we want to try for the Pan Am bombing, using the same
>> rationale we did to invade Panama?  Honest question!

>Or, could India send undercover agents to US to try to
>apprehend the CEO of Union Carbide?

Sure they can, they've got "the bomb," don't they. Might makes right
in the world policeman game (as Jay says); and the bomb is the
great equalizer, right?

>--KAT

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:46:49 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: new math

>Could someone explain to Jay that there is a hell of a difference
>between paying 43.5% tax on 1K versus paying 43.5% on 75k?
>1st scenario - $435
>2nd scenario - $32250
>I believe Jay stated "my taxes totaled 43.5% of my income".

  Hey, more than one great mind has played fast and loose
with numbers in order to pretend to substantiate an other-
wise incoherent claim.  (42.3% of our nation's intellectual
elite regularly do such savage injustice to arithmetic.  I
got that from a very reliable source, BTW.)

               -Tim"won the battle and lost the war"J
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:39:14 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy
              16 Apr 1992 20:18:15 EST from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

My guardian angel tells me that "no dah" is rather a
juvenile expression.

I blame this on my inferior culture.

You may replace all those "no dah's" with "oh really's."

--KAT

p.s. to my guardian angel: if "guardian angel" is also juvenile,
don't bother mentioning it to me.  You may have the rest of the
night off. (It's 10:50 pm EST now)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:11:00 EDT
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET>
Subject:      Voting in Primaries?

        A news article over the weekend here in West Virginia noted that, due
to WV's voting laws, those who sign petitions supporting the candidacy of H.
Ross Perot will be UNABLE to vote in West Virginia's primary.  I am curious
about:

        1)  The constitutionality of this law.  How many restrictions can a
        state place on its primary election?  Are primary voting rights
        protected under the Voting Rights Act?

        2)  How common this type of restriction is.  Do any other states have
        similar prohibitions?


---
Mike McCarthy
Marshall Univ. History Dept.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
YEA003@MUVMS5.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 11:05:30 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: [Dusty_Kramer.Wbst845@xerox.com: RE:The Embarrassing Second
              Amendm

>From:         jay steven sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
>
>This is another long post.

It was 70 some odd lines. Most of them were blank.
But it was the least coherent post we've had in a long time
(with the possible exception of Carl's).

>With the two seperate threads on gun control and the constitution, I thought
>this would be of interest to a few here.
>
>Two years ago, I would have agreed with what I assume Jamie thinks about the
>second ammendment.  They, I was given the following.

Huh?
In any case, whatever Jay meant by that, I will now tell you what
I think about the Second Amendment.
I don't know what it means.

Jay then included a long header of a forwarded letter, from Dusty
Kramer, with the following text:

>Someone asked for reference to "The Embarrassing Second Amendment:"
>
>
>The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson
>[The Yale Law Journal, number 3, Volume 99, December, 1989]

Jay then included his own sig file, twice. Presumably he thinks
it is so clever that we need to see it twice per posting now.

I believe that Jay made some sort of editing error. Maybe he
could explain what the point of all of this was supposed to be.

Jamie

(I bet it's the fault of those damn Georgia public schools. If
only they weren't integrated, then Jay could spell and use an
editor. In fact, it's all the liberal Supreme Court's fault.)
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 13:52:13 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hunting
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

From:       GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET

}>How about: Guns make it possible for assholes to kill each other.

}>-Greg

}     Nice try, but assholes don't just kill other assholes (unless you
}  are saying that all living creatures are assholes, which is a defensible
}  opinion)

}           --G. Racz

Sorry, I live in my own idealistic Reality.  :)

-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:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:36:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

In article <tfilt197051@drew.edu>, Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:

>
> It isn't obvious that many, let alone most, hunters kill for sport.
> I've known poachers to near trophy hunters and they all ate what they
> killed (well, some of them only got to eat what they could get away
> from me, but that's another issue).  Given that practice, I don't see
> how they're all that much different than those of us who stalk the
> wilds of the meat section of the local supermarket.

hunters don't kill for sport?  they are a bunch of humantarians, huh?
I'm not going to be all high and mighty after eating salami and cheese
today, but let's admit the facts here.  Hunting may have a side
benefit of population control (control only necessary mainly because
man messed up animals' habitats),  but it's purpose is to hunt, and kill
animals for pleasure.  The abuse by some hunters aside, saying most
hunters don't kill for sport seems to be going to far.

> Hunting is a strange passion.  If you think that the kill is the
> point, you don't understand it.

Yes, I'll buy it is a strange passion, and that the kill is not the
point (after all fishing is not just about catching fish, but the
whole experience), but killing is a part of the whole thing after all.
And my personal displeasure of this aside, facing facts demands the
truth of the matter be admitted.

>  No one else is
> willing to put out the money, as measured in the only reasonable way,
> actual expenditures.)

Theodore Roosevelt may of been both a hunter and a conservationist,
and this might be right to a point, but I will never say it is the
best way to protect our wildlife.  It sounds too much like letting the
fox guard the henhouse -- he'll let some live so his family will
survive, but who benefits more in the end, the fox or the hens?

>
> I'm actually a big fan of gun control that works (we know how to amend
> the Constitution); that's why I oppose gun access restrictions....
>
amendments to the constitution especially to amend the Bill of Rights
is such a slim possibility that there is nearly nihil chance they'd be
passed, and the attempts have often show this to be a good thing.  You
either have to accept some kind of restrictions as not "abridging the
right to bear arms" or accept none.

                  -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:35:50 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      liberal intelligensia

I have noticed that Jay often refers to the liberal intelligensia but
never to the conservative intelligensia. Does this mean that the two
terms are mutually exclusive?

Saying that you cannot spell because your software won't check for
errors is like saying you can't practice birth control because your
condom comes in a package.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:14:48 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      jay's fortune cookie

AN ADVANCED DEGREE PAIRED WITH A CLOSED MIND DOES NOT LEAD
TO ENLIGHTENMENT.

OBTW- WHICH GOD CREATED THE LIBERALS AND THE HOMOSEXUALS?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:46:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: EuroDisney

this was so beautiful that i just had to repost it,
just so i could see it again
:)
thank you, constantijn
brni

***********************************************

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
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:16:23 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              14 Apr 1992 01:01:42 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

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

> It would seem Mr Evans is leaving us.

That's James, to YOU.  Why so formal all of a sudden?

> I understand fully how he feels.  Fortunately, I also know that the members
> of this list are firmly in the minority, without the political savy, economic
> resources, or interest to run or affect policy.

> Consider the 750K people who went to the abortion rally last month.  When the
> general election comes around, less that that number will say that they voted
> the way they did primarily because they are pro-choice.  Feminism, like most
> other liberals extremes, have a loud bark but no bite at election time.

You would criticize them whether they vote single issue or not.

> If Mr Evans is still listenbing, I hope that he remembers our duty to turn
> the other cheek in the face of such people.  They have the right and
> privildge to be wrong, and most of them are 1) harmless, 2) disaffected, or
> 3) imature, wiating to grow into republicanhood.

Again, it is Mr. Evans to *us*.  To *you*, it's James, pal.

Mr. Evans was never listening......

> To the other members, I'll just pint out that this is why conservatives don't
> hang around.  That, plus the time it takes to rule the world.

And how do you explain your staying around.  You seem to be
contributing a lot (quantitatively, of course).

> (as I grin thinking of 5 more years of torry rule and the precident it sets
> for 4 years of bush and 8 years of kemp).

I think you may get your 4 more years of Bush, but 8 years of Kemp?;
what about Danny boy?

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:03:14 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>>>> 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.

>> 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.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
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 23:38:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street

>Nope.  Most people who buy guns for defense buy them with that purpose
>in mind.  People who buy the very same guns for other purposes have
>other purposes in mind.  Notice that the gun doesn't determine the
>purpose.


  I wish you'd stop playing withh definitions.  Admit it -- guns are d
  designed to kill things.  From that fact, we can thhen begin a
  discussion on gun control.

>>> 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.
>
>I'm not claiming an analogy.  I'm pointing out that the issue isn't
>death, it is guns.  Death is merely an excuse that the "guns kill"
>people don't actually care about in other circumstances.

   Actually, thhere is a national campaign against drunk driving, whichh
   I think was the point you made to begin with.

>If you want to argue that death is important, then guns are way
>down the list....

   Again, you're playing withh definitions.  We're talking about guns,
   whichh are designed to kill, versus cars, which can kill.

  I think it's important to realize these thinngs BEFORE engaginng in
  a gun-control debate.

    --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:09:40 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.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.

The cite is 99 Yale Law Journal 637 (dec 89 for those of us who prefer
years and months to volume and page).  I'll e-mail a copy to anyone
who requests it.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:52:15 EDT
From:         Phillip J VanFossen <pvanfoss@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Steven Sultan" at Apr 14, 92 4:34 pm

                                              >

>
  Since I am self employed, I pay 15.5% SE self employment tax.  This is in
> addition to my regular income tax rate of 28% (which is the braket I am in
> because I am sucessful, don't cheat on my taxes, and am married to a
> professional).
>
> Perhaps this little dose of reality can affect your 'tax em more' plans.
>
If one is in the '28%' tax bracket, one pays 15% on income up to $29,750.  The
effective (marginal) rate of 28% applies to income over $29,750 but not
exceeding $71,900.  Assuming one has taxable income of $71,900, the actual tax
rate is 22.6%.

pvf>
From: GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: re : uzi on the street
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:24:00 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.

   I said that the purpose of guns is to kill things.  Not that everyone
  uses them for that purpose, but that is the original intent of their
  production.

          --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:00:25 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more environmental extremism

In article <CMM.0.90.2.703230773.sult@quads.uchicago.edu> you write:
>If we are sure that it is the uncapped wells causing the problem, they should
>be regulated.  Wilderness or farmland, if the drilling has this effect on the
>land of others, then they are responsibile.

Umm, I think it depends very much on the scope of the pollution.  If
it is quite local, there are no externalities (and seepage from
wellheads sounds like it is quite local).  The farmers in question
control drilling on their land.  If they want to foul their nests,
fine.  If they want them clean, they also have that choice.  If
they're not competent to make these sorts of choices, they'll be
replaced by people who can; that's how the market works absent some
new subsidy for farmers who foul their own land.

Of course, that's what the real issue is.  They screwed up and are
looking for a handout, someone else to take responsibility and pay the
price for their mistake.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
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 20:00:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Delegate Count

In article <tfilt196694@drew.edu>, Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:14:00 EDT Travis Kidd <That's me> said:
>> Clinton 98%--51 delegates
>> Brown    2%-- 0 delegates
>>        Clinton is now over the halfway mark to getting the nomination.
> Correction: He is .5 (Yes, that's a point) delegates under the halfway
> point.
>
The New York Times gave the delegate numbers today; you seem to have
mixed up number of delegates used up (about half) vs. how many Clinton
have (about half of needed to nominate).  Here's the figures:

Clinton - 1118
Brown - 175
Tsongas - 413
Uncommitted - 556
Needed to Nominate - 2145
Total - 4288


Bush - 778
Buchanan - 46
Uncommittted - 6
Needed to Nominate - 1105
Total - 2209

              -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:05:08 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

> My congradulations and thanks to brni.

>   Jamie

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


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