HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:53:56 EST
From:         Bill Orme <ITHQ100@INDYCMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Guns and Cars

I agree that the analogy fails.  It was, however, YOUR analogy.

I don't really care to make arguments about the technical properties of guns
(any more than I am interested in arguing about the technical properties of
various cars).  Your `don't' list seems rather restrictive, though.  If we all
stuck to arguing what we are expert about, there wouldn't be ANY traffic on
this list, would there?  :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:37:55 EDT
From:         Phillip J VanFossen <pvanfoss@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: jay's fortune cookie
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Steven Sultan" at Apr 14, 92 4:24 pm

>
> fred:  which god created the liberals and the homosexuals?
>
> Well, there is only one God so your question is meaningless.
>
> After Eve ruined it for everyone, well all have sinful urges.  Homosexuality
> is one of those.  I really recommend you read the bible.
>

I was under the assumption, perhaps incorrectly arrived at, that this list
existed to discuss politics.  Perhaps I am but a naive neophyte, but the above
stricks me as having very little to do with politcal views and everything to do
with religious dogma.

pvf
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:02:41 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      re: hunting

From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>

> 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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:15:12 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Jay's dishonest

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

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

Well, let's see what you said in your first post.

> This year, I apid 28% income tax plus 15.5% self employment tax, for a total
> of 43.5% in come tax.  Think about your annual salary. Now, imagine writing a
> check to uncle sam for 43.5% of it.

This is in black and white.  You are saying 43.5% of your annual
salary.

> See if you can deny the following:

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

Why should I deny something that is correct?  But this is not what
we were discussing as it is evident from the quote I brought from
your first post.

I can guess what your excuse will be this time.  You want to pretend
that you understood the concept of bracket all along and that you
simply were typing fast (as Asimov told you) and made an innocent
mistake.

Of course I cannot be 100% sure but I am fairly confident that
you never understood the concept of bracketing till I caught you.
Even then it took you a couple of days and a few posts to figure
out where you went wrong.  I bet you either had to spend hours
with your calculator or you had to ask for someone's help to
figure out what's happening here.

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

Your guess regarding EZ form is as well founded as your assertion
that I am a Democrat which was as well founded as your claim that
I didn't have the money to pay your next year's federal tax.

The maneuvering that you have performed in the past couple
days is simple dishonesty.  I think you owe everyone who
spends time on this list an apology.  An apology not for
the mistake that you originally made, but rather for the
dishonesty involved in pretending that you meant 43.5% of
your last dollar all along.

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:36:07 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: anti-hunters

KAT, how can an inanimate object have wants, and more specifically
why would one want to kill you?

Dave
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:53:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      response to jays post: JRM (the Jay's Rights Movement)

jay, this really struck me as funny, in a perverse way, of course.

you say
>Such a society is an infringement of *MY* rights.

you find a marriage between two men or two women offensive and against
your personal beliefs.  therefore YOU have a right to prevent that
marriage.  i can't see how this follows.

i mean, look:  i have friends in the gay-bi-les community who find it
offensive that heterosexuals can get married and homosexuals can not.
they are offended when heterosexuals get married, and they have a personal
belief system to back it up.  therefore we should not allow hetero
marriages.
a racist is offended by mixed-race marriages; we should dissallow mixed
race marriages because s/he has the RIGHT not to be offended.
when my ex-girlfriend married a navy guy, i was offended (mostly that
i had been replaced by someone whom i had little respect for), so that
marriage should have been prohibited.

pretty soon, nobody will be allowed to marry anybody.

face it jay, you have as little "right" to prohibit a marriage as i do.

jays other rights, based on his religion/morals/personal belief system:

the right not to employ homosexuals or adulterers or racists:  unless
said offender specifically does things on the job or on the premises
of the place of employment, such as making advances on the employer or
other employees, engaging in extramarital sexual activities in the
office, or making racial slurs, etc , i do not see why this is of any
relevance.  what matters is job performance.  you don't have to live with
them.  you don't have to play golf with them.  as much as i would love
an excuse to discriminate against racists in the workplace, i cannot
condone it.  the racist has as much right to believe what s/he believes
as i do, and as long as that does not cause problems in the working conditions
(which it shouldn't as long as the racist realizes that i (as hypothetical
employer) do not want racist statements or acts in the workplace and
adheres to my rules) then i have no right to deny employment to that person.

the right not to participate in a system that supports things that one
objects to on religio-moral-personal_belief grounds:  i have to pay taxes.
my tax money goes to several things, much of it to the defense budget.
i am a pacifist.  i am opposed to violence, and to institutions that are
geared toward violence, and used in wars that i am against.  i still have
to pay taxes.  i suggest that you find yourself in the same plight here
that i do, but with a different referent.

brni
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:57:26 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%92041008511983@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
 > 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.


Well, my point is that it is incumbancy itself that provides
the advantage.  That the only way to remove the advantage is
to invoke term limitation.

By the way, I am not against someone sitting out an election,
then running again.  Quite a few states have laws that prevent
a governer from running for re-election.  They have to wait
one term before running again.  Seems to work.

					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:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:10:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

>>  Most people who buy a gun for self-defense don't really think they will kill
>>  another person some day.
>
>Projecting again, aren't we....
>
>As much as I enjoy reading fantasy situations invented by people who
>don't know what they're talking about, they are fantasies and don't
>tell us anything about actual experience.  The reason I've cited
>Kleck's Point Blank is that it includes the relevant stats and
>discussion.

    Well, I didn't think that you would assume that I had made all that
  up.  Actually, the thoughts came from a speaker (whose name eludes me
  at the moment) who is an expert on self-defense advice for the average
  person and appeared on a PBS special on the subject of defense in
  March.

      --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:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 13:13:35 CST
From:         Type Faster <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

Andy, again, if you limit Congress, you are adding to the power
of staffers and bureaucrats, who you as a voter have no choice over.
if a Democrat runs unapposed for senate, that is the Republican's
problem, not a problem that the Government is supposed to fix.
Same thing when reversed: if a Republican runs unapposed, the
state Dems are falling down on the job.

Really, I think a lot of this could get cleaned up if we had
NOTA.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
"While I do not call for no government, I call at once for a better
 government" -Henry David Thoureau
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:17:01 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: help

From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>

> set politics nomail

This reminds me of a routine that Johnny Carson uses from
time to time.

In response to a recent State Department travel restriction,
Johnny Carson would come out and say:

"Did you folks hear that the State Department has put
restrictions on travel to," say, "Iran and Libya?"

Then he would add:

"Damn!, there goes my vacation plans for the next Thanksgiving and
Christmas."

Now, Carl has set "no mail."

Damn!, there goes my...............

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:52:20 CDT
From:         "Robert G. Heidlage" <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      Where's the politics in POLITICS??

This discussion group should be called "Ideology" or
something else (philosopy?).  There's very little real politics...
candidates, platforms, parties, elections, legislatures, seats therof,
more elections, legislators, personalities, campaigns, more elections...
bills, resolutions, treaties, ...etc.  you get the idea.
That's politics.  Where's the politics in this listserv?  What's
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 ??
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:45:46 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

Sorry about the header.  I was "R"eplying to a thread...

If I am limited in how much money I can give, then I cannot fully participate
in the political process.

Besides, there is always the Jerry Brown method.  For those who don't watch
CNN (and they did not make enough of it, IMHO), CNN called the infamous 800
number and asked to give more than $100.  Three different people explained
how to do it, using other people, changing the spelling of your name, etc.


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
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:24:41 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

Dropping matching funds would serve to discourage lower-end but
qualified individuals from running, Jay. There are arguments you
could make to drop matching funds, but as a fairness issue, it
sucks

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:34:33 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

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

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

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

What if the intent of hunting were to improve motor skills?  Or used
in deterrence?
What does the amount of water on the ground have to do with
hunting???

}>    So, now you've said that the point of hunting is killing.

}No, I haven't.  I've said that hunting includes the possibility of
}killing.

Or the chance of becoming hurt/dead which is the responsibility of
the individual to take care of.

}>  As a basketball player (in my spare time) I can safely assure you that if
}>  you are not shooting the ball, you are not playing basketball.  You
}>  may be playing WITH a basketball, but that's different.

So basketball = shooting the ball, right?  What about dribbling the
ball?  Or passing?  Or learning the rules?  (There are some
"understood" rules for hunters as well)

}Of course, there are differences.  Not scoring is a bad basketball
}experience, and not winning may be.  Hunters are satisfied even if
}things don't work out.

Yeah!  A chance to get away from the wives!  HA!

}>  Can you explain how you come to believe that killing is not the
}>  point, given the fact that most hunters don't even consider
}>  not having the kill as a final outcome?

Relief, a revival of "back to basics" type of attitude, or make your
own up.  Everyone has their own thing that they do.  Some just do it
simply because.  I wouldn't even question that reply.  Half the point
is We do it, deal with it.  The other half is If we didn't we'd be
pretty puny, i.e. lack of meat & protein.

-Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:35:37 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

>    Well, ok, but it's been a good long time since the American people
>  have had independent military power.

No, it hasn't.  I doubt that the US military would have 5 million in
the event of a revolution, and there are enough privately own guns for
almost everyone else.  Sure, the US military could nuke the US, but
that's not a win.  (BTW - The National Guard is not a militia; it is
legally defined in its authorization act as a strange branch of the US
military.  That's why governors have no real control over it and why
it can be sent overseas.  It was also created in the 1900s....)

The US military recently lost a revolution against people with small
arms.  (They, in turn, were internally betrayed and another force got
the credit for winning in Vietnam, even though the Viet Cong had
greater military success than the NVA.)  The US military lost even
though it could do things that it can't do while fighting a revolution
in the US; they can't afford to wipe out towns here.

The Soviets didn't do much better.

In fact, since 1945, modern militaries have LOST most of the violent
revolutions, against people with small arms, the small arms that are
supposedly so inadequate.  The big war toys are useful against other
big war toys, but they can't do certain things and they are vulnerable
to people who can blend in so they don't have to try to hold ground.
It takes foot soldiers to win a revolution, and they use small arms.

>    Also, I ask a question -- how many people own guns for the reasons
>  originally stated in the second amendment?  My guess would be very, very
>  few.

On what do you base that guess?

In any event, if someone owns a gun, it is available to them for
use in a revolution....

-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-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:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:06:19 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

Andrew:
>Each of the institutions (House member, Senator, President,
>Supreme Court Justice) has a certain inertia built in due to the
>term length of its members.  The SC has the heaviest inertia as
>its members are appointed for life.  Its political makeup is very slow
>to change and generally reflects views popular eight to ten years
>before.
>
>The Senate, with its six year terms also has a fairly heavy inertia and
>as a result is slow to change its political profile.
>
>The House, with the lightest inertia load, tends to reflect the
>current political makeup of the country.

(stuff deleted)

Interesting point.  I remember hearing, way back in high school civics, I
think, that our founding fathers intended the Senate, with its longer terms
, to be the real power in the legislative branch.  It would consist of
reasonably wealthy, educated, upper-class types, while the House would be
composed of the "little people".  A cynical view, but I don't know but what
it makes some sense.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:57:14 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: who's afraid of the big bad union?

Reply to fred on this new union rule:

1) Some unions do support republicans (the smart ones).  But, I largely agree
with fred that Bush's timing really sucks.
2) The unions most certainly do steal money from the few non-union employees
in the few unfortunate states that are not 'right to work.'
3) We are not bailing out the S&L's.  We are paying the insurance claims that
we should have never made.  I believe that no bank is too big to fail, etc,
etc

1st shot at me: God created liberals in Genesis 1:20-21  "And God said, let
the waters bring forth abundently the moving creature that hath life, and
fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. (21) and
god created great sea monsters ...

I figure that liberals are either the fowl (foul?) or the sea monsters - God
also created evolution and it seems liberals devolved from their start.

(BTW, I am not one of those christians tworships the bible instead of God.  I
think that the Bible is a bit more than any of us can understand and that
religion is a matter of feeling and action, not words).

Homosexuals were created with all men.  They are normanl men and women who
have given into temptation (temptation is introduced in Genesis 3).

2nd shot at me: fred, do you think that I do not pay enough tax?  If so, then
how much should I pay?

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:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 12:21:12 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin
              10 Apr 1992 13:23:29 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

>> I did read your post and as far as I remember you mentioned
>> something about mere holding the gun will work as a deterrent.

>> But the only reason guns work as deterrent is because they can
>> kill and wound.

> So?  That's still a use.  And there was another "use", one that didn't
> involve any interaction.

It is still a use but it mainly depends on the ability of
guns to kill and wound not that it could propel a projectile.

>> Once you do that it becomes apparent to all that the main function of
>> guns is to kill/wound/destroy people/animals/things.

> That's not true in any useful sense.  ...........................

"useful"???  Then why don't you tell us what guns are used for
beyond the "dishonest" purpose-of-guns-are-to-propel-a-projectile.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 5 Apr 1992 23:52:13 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The English language

The standards at Chicago are just fine, more rigerous in fact.

I just avoid in class essays and process all my work through a spell-checker.

I am a perfect example of what is wrong with US education.  I am at an elite
school, about to start a PhD at another elite school, and I commonly make
math and spelling mistakes.  What is worse, I am aware of the problem yet
cannot fix it.

Oh, the last bastion of reaction has turned into a sad echo of Stanford
liberalism.

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

"Sherman slept in this home.  Major renovation since."
    - Add about house for sale in Atlanta
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU