HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:11:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: James the unhappy camper talks to god

> 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!

Boy, I bet it would piss you off if you found out that you and a few
homosexuals had to share the same god.

Being as most folks who spout off about morality like you do, claim that
their god created everything and everyone; maybe you'll want to file a
complaint about god's handiwork while you're at it. Imagine that, god
asking *you* to share a planet with a bunch of liberal, commie, pinko...

The nerve of that god...

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 5 Apr 1992 22:29:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: data please

hey jay,

how do you feel about us incoherent leftist liberals
who like using aborted feti for scientific advancement
and who agree to using animals for scientific advancement
but feel that using animals to generate badly analyzed data
for the purpose of creating a body of "knowledge" that can be
used in court against those who would sue a company after having
sustained injuries due to use of a product is reprehensible?

brni

ps please forgive the length of that sentence; i was in a thomas pynchon mood.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Errors-to: Kris Eckols <ECKOLS_T_KRIS@LILLY.COM>
X-VMS-To: MCDEV1::POLITICS
X-VMS-Cc: RX80640
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:45:00 EST
From:         Kris Eckols <ECKOLS_T_KRIS@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Tax Complexities

    Everyone trying to figure how Jay comes up with
    his taxes.....

    Did you hear that only ONE Congressman ACTUALLY
    does his own taxes. Even the people who wrote
    the Tax Code can't even do it themselves.

    Kris Eckols
    ECKOLS_T_KRIS@Lilly.Com
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 13:20:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

 So here's our second amendment:

>"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>infringed"

   Not exactly one ot the greatest pieces of English literature ever, huh?
  Only one sentence, and a runon one at that.  Are you sure you didn't
  accidentally leave out the word "and" before "the right of the people..."?
  It really doesn't make sense unless you insert the and.
>problems: - what is a militia?
       I think it's a body of citizens armed for the defense of the state. This
         purpose is now served by the army, but at the time it was necessary for
         the citizens themselves to be armed to defend against invasion.
>          - what about well regulated? seems to limit the militia some
       It could mean organized by the government, much like the militia was
         organized by the Continental Congress during the revolution.
>          - the "being...State" phrase seems redundant, like saying
>         speech is needed for an informed populance
       The Constitution has a lot of redundancies (most constitutions do)
>         - how broad is "keep" and "bear", i.e. a license like a
>          driving license for guns or waiting periods may arguably not effect
>          this, or like in speech cases infringe it
>          - how broad is "shall not be infringed" esp. with regulated
>          in there
>          - how outdated is this in today's society?
>          - why did the court so rarely discuss this case? somewhat
>          an unclear case allowed a federal law limiting the right somewhat

        These questions are the nitty-gritty. IMHO, this amendment IS outdated,
      because it was designed as a political right, to serve a purpose which
      is now served by the military and the police.

>definitely one of our most problematic amendments.

      YEP!

>          -JOE

    Thanks for providing the exact words which are the center of the debate.


             --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:31:03 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Justice at the Supreme Court

Jay, JOE,  Everyone stereotypes someone.

But then again, that's a generalization

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:44:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:06:00 EDT JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET said:
> In article <tfilt200531@drew.edu>, Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
>
> > OK thanks.  I agree with that, mostly.  But I think a constitutional
> > amendment is in order that would make an exception for the trans-
> > portation of illegal drugs.  If drugs are found in your car, that should
> > be sufficient to denote probable cause that drugs are in your car (makes
> > sense, doesn't it?). That would put a major dent in drug trafficking,
> > IMHO.
>
> there's no point to this, or any other cluttering of our constitution
> with such useless amendments.  You have to have a probable cause
> before you have the search, though the court's rulings on cars and
> other matters seems to feel that a person's car is somehow different
> than his home.  This idea that the drug war should run roughshod over
> constitutional liberties like in the mandatory sentencing law
> discussed on "Crossfire" tonight is wrong.
No, I am just saying that if the officers are DAMN sure that there
are drugs in your car, they should be able to stop you so you can't
drive 500 miles while they swear out a warrant.  If they search and
don't find drugs, you can sue the hell out of them for false arrest.

> no because the Court said it can't.  Until the court says Congress
> can't pass the Freedom of Choice Act, it is constitutional under law.
OK, I agree with you here.  But my opinion, and what I believe SHOULD
be the court's decision should a case arising from this law come up,
is that the law is unconstitutional.

>          -JOE
-Travis
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 08:05:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

In article <tfilt200886@drew.edu>, Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM> writes:

> Finally, each state can enact term limitations on their congressional
> reps without any change to the federal constitution, thus I don't
> understand your reference to 'meddling with the constitution.'  Could
> you explain a little further, please?
>
>                                               Andrew MacRae
>
This is debatable; the Constitution only explicitly (as the 17th
amendment made clear) gave the states the right to choose who could
vote and the procedure of voting for those in Congress.  Term limits was a
practice in many states back in 1787, and the idea was debated, but nothing was
put in the constitution to support the idea.  The founders appear to
have wanted no term limits, one reason why a constitutional amendment
was needed for the presidency.  I think a move as big and as
questionable constitutionality should be made into an amendment, and
as was the case in Washington last year, I doubt if you'd get 37
states supporting it.

               -JOE

P.S. The presidency is one person, and the amendment only was put
after FDR was in for what was surely a quirk in history, so it is not
the same as Congress.  Also, the amendment is much maligned for many
see it as the anti-democratic, people don't  know what's good for them
thing it is-- much like term limits for Congress says.
   Free air time for candidates, suggested by one to solve this
incumbent problem, would in the long run be expensive (what about minor
candidates?) and infering with what the press can do with the content
of their medium.  Some kind of arrangement should be done unofficially
though, it being worthwhile in the news standpoint  alone.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:52:17 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: data please

>    You've forgotten one thing -- the aborted fetus' are not produced
>  specifically to be used in scientific research, but the animals are
>  ONLY used for it.  If women were coerced/forced into an abortion for
>   the scientific value of the fetus, I most certainly would have a
>  problem with it.

A couple of months ago, there was story carried on every network and a
number of major newspapers about a woman who decided to have another
child because a previous child needed a bone marrow transplant and
there were no available matches.  She had the new kid because there
was a 25% chance that said kid would be an acceptable donor.

Today on a CNN talk show there was a discussion about the use of fetal
tissue in research and treatment.  The current rules ban its use for
specific identifiable people, but one caller vehemently objected.  She
said that she'd gladly get pregnant if the fetal tissue could be used
to help her mother with Parkinson's disease.

-andy thinks that women should be allowed to sell their fetal tissue
      or to rent their wombs.


--
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 07:25:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

In article <tfilt198434@drew.edu>, PRINCEPS IMPERATOR <MACYM%MUNIN%HUGIN@NORWICH
   .BITNET> writes:
> 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

the justice of hunting obviously is sujective, so the justice or right
of such a use of animal control is equally sujective.  My point
previously was 1)humane reasons don't seem to me a leading reason why
one hunts and 2)there are other ways of doing this.   So you are
right, because of human action, enviroment ecosytems have been messed
up, but I don't find it fair that once we mess up the system we don't
try a more humane way of making it right.  "Humane" is subjective, and
you can debate that hunting isn't "hamane", but that's my opinion.

          -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:52:09 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Jay's confused
              15 Apr 1992 16:05:59 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

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

> Try reading slower KAT.

Are you sure that is what you want?  I mean if I pay more
attention to what you say I might find more humiliating
mistakes.

> 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.

With the status of "married filing jointly" the tax bracket is
increased from 15% to 28% at the ADJUSTED income level of $34,000.
It seems that Jay thinks there is a sudden risk of moving up to
the next bracket.

So I have this simple question for Jay:  What is the tax difference
for incomes of $33,999.99 and $34,000.01?  (That is, what's the RISK
of moving up to the next bracket?)

Well, Jay, since the chance of you figuring this up is
hopelessly small, I give you the answer.

The answer is practically zero.

Yet another evidence that you knew very little about the
concept of bracketing.

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT

"Want to know what hurts the image of homosexuals?  .........

Jeffery Dahmer.
Man/Boy love association.
etc.
                                   - Jay Steven Sultan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:16:54 EST
From:         "James W. Evans" <MM12@NMUMUS.BITNET>

First of all I would like to thank Jay for being one of the only
reasonable, intelegent, MORALly sound (I realize that the word moral,
as in pertaining to the fear of GOD, scares some of you) person on this
list. I would like to appologize to anyone who is truely a good
conservative, and to ask that they disreguard the first sentence.
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!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:34:32 -0400
From:         Tim Pierce <twpierce@AMHUX1.AMHERST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals? Again?

>        Actually, I do not think it is fair to blame the film
>industry for the fact that material that portrays homosexuals
>in a bad light is economically successful.  If an accurate survey
>were taken, I believe it would show that there is a quantitative
>superiority of material which which portrays homosexuals in a
>positive light.  Unfortunately, it does not sell; or, at least,
>it has not sold very well.  You will find it in markets where
>homosexuals are the dominant consumer group; gay book stores and
>the like.

That's exactly the problem; as long as gay-positive material is
relegated to the "gay market," no mainstream producer is going to
sponsor explicitly gay-positive material, and no average Joe is going
to be exposed to these sorts of positive portrayals unless he walks a
mile out of his way to find them.

>Most of the movie-going public simply is not interested
>in such a movie.  And any movie company looking at the bottom line
>will see it as foolish to produce a movie which will offend 50%
>of those people who are most likely to go to movies.

I'm not particularly asking producers to start making movies that
scream about how wonderful it is to be queer.  I'm interested in their
ceasing to produce films that portray me as a murderer.

>        Second, I believe that the percentage of heterosexuals
>portrayed as murderers and the like on movies is vastly out of
>proportion to the percentage of heterosexuals in real life which
>are murderers.

So?  No one is likely to get the impression from this that
heterosexuality is a sign of depravity or psychosis.

>Arguing for limits in terms of ratios will not
>get very far.  I would say that, on average, most movies have
>a 50-50 percent ratio of good-guys to bad-guys.  Homosexuals should
>expect at best the same ratio of homosexual good-guys to homosexual
>bad-guys.

That's all I think is fair.  So where are my homosexual good guys
already?

--
____ Tim Pierce                / "Well, I've never been to heaven / but
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  I've been to Oklahoma ..."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /    -- Three Dog Night
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:29:22 EST
From:         Bill Orme <ITHQ100@INDYCMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: guns don't kill people, tv kills people

Good point.  This is very close to the point of view which prevails in many
European countries.  Depiction of violence is often restricted while depiction
of nudity is generally seen as non-threatening.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 14:28:00 EDT
From:         LUCEYCA@SUNYJCC.BITNET
Subject:      Tsongas Speech

From:   NAME: Carol Lucey
        FUNC: APPLIED SCI & MATH
        TEL: (716)665-3793                    <LUCEY, CAROL AT A1 AT JCCV03>
To:     IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"@MRGATE@JCCW22


For anyone in Western New York who is interested:

Paul Tsongas will give a public address at S.U.N.Y. Brockport
(just outside Rochester) on Monday, April 13, at 8:00 p.m.
in the Seymour Union Building on campus.  Talk is sponsored
by the Brockport student association.
e-mail me for further details. (Talk is open to public
at cost of $1.00)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:07:15 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: data please

Jay:
>Kerry, I think you could find a number of other factors that could explain
>any changes in abortion rates.  I think, once you find the numbers (and the
>clinics tend to underreport) you will see a steady slow increase in abortions
>since 1974.

No question -- that's why I said comparing rates would be "quick and dirty"
.  In fact, I suspect that folks on either side of the debate could massage
the data to support their views.  But Bush's stance isn't, from what I've
heard, very finely nuanced, so a data check would be a good place to start.

>If I were to defend Bush, it would be more of a principal argument: if it
>even encouraged one abortion, it would be a bad policy, he might say.  Of
>course, not paying money for the aborted fetus / dead baby would be one way
>to solve that problem.

Well, to my knowledge, women agreeing to allow tissue to be used in
research weren't paid.  I could be wrong, though.  In any case, I'd agree
that donating tissue shouldn't be a for-profit enterprise.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:11:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

On Mon, 6 Apr 1992 03:37:31 CDT Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU> sai
d:
> 3) If Congress is unwilling or unable to pass a national abortion rights
> law...
>
> I know the constitution is little concern to liberals, but abortion is a
> matter for the state legislatures, not congress.  The constitution is very
> clear, if the left would only read beyond the first ammendment...

I agree wholeheartedly.  Down with federal imperialism!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:06:49 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: data please
              5 Apr 1992 23:44:03 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

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

> You are trying too hard to find things to shout about.

OK, I admit, I spoke too fast.  There is the difference
of intent between killing people for their kidneys and
using the tissue of aborted fetus.  However,.......

> No, I do not think that abortion is the same thing as Nazi war crimes and
> atrocities.  I do think abortion is genocide.

I looked it up (you know the book that you rarely use.)    :-)

Genocide: Deliberate mass murder of a race, people, or minority
group.

Now I don't see any particular race, people, or minority is the
abortion issue.

> If it required controvercial religious beliefs to determine what the Nazis
> did was wrong, then I might council tolleration.  Of course it does not, and
> I want to quickly remind you that I think Christians should tollerate the
> decisions made by those who choose abortion, rather than use law to force
> them to carry a child.

And you can't have it both ways.  You cannot say that it is easy
to see the wrongness of Holocaust without any use of controversial
religious beliefs and then turn around and say that although abortion
is murder but you won't want to force people to stop abortion.

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:39:18 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      something completely different

Hi.  Excuse the sig file, but this ain't my terminal (pout).  Two quick
questions on topics other than firearms and hunting (how's that thesis
coming, andy?).  First, has anyone heard what's happening with the recision
list Bush handed down to Congress?  Second, could someone please explain
what a "superdelegate" is?

Much obliged
Kerry
              /\           /\
             /  \   ^.^   /  \
            /    \ <   > /    \    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           /      \_\ /_/      \   West Virginia's one and only
          /         ksk         \  travelling snake and bat show
          \                     /  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           \  /\/\       /\/\  /         /~~)
            \/    \     /    \/          \ \           \
                   ^^ ^^                  \ \/\/\/\/\/\/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:13:16 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

One more on guns:

Kerry:

I am one of the gun nuts that has no problem with manditory training or
licensing.

The current court interprets the 2nd ammendment to not be an individual
right, but a societal right.  So, Georgia can have a milita to use against
imperialism (like the union), but a person has no right to own a gun.

This is not what the founders intended, but what is anymore?

So, under current law, manditory training is constitutional.  The court has
ducked the issue for a long time.

I am a merit badge counciler for the shooting sports in the summer.  With
responsibile training, the number of accidents with guns could drop even
less.

But, you are still in much more danger every time you get into a cat or in
the bathtub than when you pick up a gun or are around someone who has one.

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

"I smoked pot, but don't worry, I didn't inhale."  - Bill Clinton
"I shot heroine, but don't worry, I missed the vein." - man at Clinton rally
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU