HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 17:25:50 EDT
From: Nicholas C. Hester <IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

In article <POLITICS%92041217532196@UCF1VM.BITNET>, J Sullivan
<JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET> says:
>
>Nicholas Hester is right. The preface to the "the rights of the citizens
>to bear arms" line is important: "A well regulated militia....."
>In this context, the term "to bear arms" refered to actual military service
>in the name of the Crown. This was not a 'right' (or a duty) so much as it
>was a profession. The use of professional soldiers to fight the King's battles
>is well known--especially here where regiments of Hessians were hired to put
>down the Revolution. What the constitution states in this regard isn't that
>society will be much freer if everybody owns tons of guns (there's nothing
>free about our cities), but rather that you and I have a 'right' to defend
>our own nation as MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA. Boiled down it amounts to this:
>If you feel the need to tote a rifle around, join the National Guard.

Interesting that you consider the National Guard to be The Militia.  I
do not.  The Militia is comprised of citizens of legal age who are legally
able (read no felonies) to possess firearms.  You do not need to be in
the Guard to be in the Militia.

Nicholas Hester
ia80024@maine.bitnet
ia80024@maine.maine.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:20:45 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Banning Political Ads

>There is nothing in my proposal against ads being run to legalize
>a substance.  My proposal is a ban on paid advertising for political
>races.  (Of course, you knew that all along and were just pretending
>not to have a clue.)

Fine.  Then it doesn't affect political ads pomoting causes, like
Brown's flat tax....  It isn't hard to campaign for/against someone
without ever mentioning a name.  To the extent that this increases the
distance between "independent issue advocates" and actual campaigns,
this reduces the control that candidates have on their campaigns, but
....  (Contributors can effectively campaign for someone even without
having contact; they can figure out from publically available info
who's best for them and act accordingly.)

> >You're going to let "independent" groups run political ads?  What a
> >deal.  At this point, I withdraw all objections because the proposal
> >doesn't affect access at all.
>
>What a funny world you must live in.  Haven't you every watched or
>were even aware of the League of Women's Voters and their debates?
>I will give you a hint.  Those televised debates were not political
>ads yet they were paid for.

I'm not referring to the League of Women's Voters.  I'm referring to
the League of Andy's Voters.  We're also going to "inform" the
electorate, with MacRae's blessing.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:59:34 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      UK Election
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.BITNET, emly@UCHIMVS1.BITNET,
              gaw3@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, bfb1@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, dgh@edsi.plexus.com
Comments: cc: goldstne@athena.mit.edu

If my calendar is right, this is the last chance to comment on the UK
elections.  Any thoughts?

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-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:52:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Union Busting at its best

  Thanks for the informative post.  Yes, it sounds to me too like the union
 is trying to break Cat's power, if the sticking issue is indeed 10 year
 job security.  Of course, other eye-witness accounts have stated that
  the company has also been stubborn beyond reason.  So it could be that
  the whole thing is a power struggle between a company and a union, neither
 of which care about the workers.  That's sad.

>With or without a bad economy, unions can make themselves the problem.  Just
>ask the GM workers at willow springs.

   Companies can also make themselves the problem.  Just ask the residents of
  Flint, MI (Ever seen "Roger and me"?) and the workers at several other
  plants that are closing down due to poor management in the seventies and
  eighties.  And just how much IS the GM president paid every year?


     --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:54:25 EDT
From:         BAFEI@CONNCOLL.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The House and the Presidency

>
> Brett:
>
> (btw, good luck in your bid.  I wish I were electable, and am glad that
> someone who is electable is trying)
>
> I have heard the infamous lack of plurality concern myself.  I wouldn't worry
> one little bit about it.  Perrot may get more than anderson did, but unless
> the economy goes south again, I expect Bush to get +70 of the electorial
> votes.
>
> Perot's best atribute is that people know less about him that Clinton/Bush.
> He is completely unelectable due to his policies, like them or not.  In fact,
> as people learn more about what his views are, he will plummet.  Bush/Clinton
> won't even aim at him, the press will do it.
>
> 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
>

Thanks for the good wishes Jay.  Should I ever become President, I will let
you take over as Sec'y of Health and Human Services and straighten out that
morass of bureaucracy and unneccessary entitlements.

I hope that you are right about not having to worry about there not being a
majority, and the reasoning that place behind your assertation is sound.
However, recent polls show Perot with about 20% of the vote in a 3-way race
and if he can maintain that, then the plurality issue may become very real.

Funny how the Libertarians are flocking to Perot in droves and forgetting
about Andre Marou and Nancy Lord.

Regards,

Brett

--
   ________________________________________________________________________
   | Brett A. Feinstein                       |   Elect BRETT FEINSTEIN   |
   | BITNET: bafei@conncoll.BITNET            | 39th District State Rep.  |
   | internet: bafei@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu     |    for New London, CT     |
   | Voice phone: 203-447-1911                | " Working with you for a  |
   | snail mail: Box 3337 Connecticut College |        better CT"         |
   |             270 Mohegan Avenue           |                           |
   |             New London, CT, USA 06320    |  Vote REPUBLICAN in Nov.  |
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:20:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

i know of one person who definately hunts for the hunt,
not the kill.  he goes out with his bow and stalks deer.
when he finally gets in position to shoot and knows that
he is close enough that he can not miss, he stands up,
knowing that he had done well, and that he had not harmed
anything.

so it's not always about the kill.
i think that a lot of people just never considered the alternative.
(hell, if *I* could stalk, i'd do what this guy does: it sounds like
a lot of fun)

bnri
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:19:50 EST
From:         Bill Orme <ITHQ100@INDYCMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The House and the Presidency
              5 Apr 1992 23:34:28 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO .EDU>

A few passages from Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1980 (p5-B):

If Anderson had not been on the ballot, Carter probably could have carried
several more Eastern states, including vote-rich New York (41 electoral votes)
and Massachusetts (14).

But the problem for Carter in the East was more than Anderson.  Probably no oth
er region was plagued more by a low Democratic turnout.

The defection of many Democratic blue-collar voters to Reagan was one of the ke
ys to the Republican landslide.  As a Baptist from the rural South, Carter had
never been particularly popular among urban Catholic ethnic voters, many of the
m blue-collar workers.

It goes on.  The bottom line is, no--Anderson didn't cost Carter the election.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:16:10 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>>        As has already been pointed out, the Congress has the
>> power to pass such an act, under the Fourteenth Amendment.
>
>Tell me again--what part of the fourteenth amendment gives Congress
>the power to do anything it wants?

Let's see. Travis thinks that the only way that Congress can be
authorized to do anything is if it is authorized to do anything
it wants. That's an unusual view.
The relevant part of the Fourteenth Amendment is the part that
JOE cited weeks back, and that he and I discussed for a while.
It is Section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce,
by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The provision that Congress would be enforcing with the Choice
law is the "privileges and immunities" clause. I think JOE
suggested the "equal protection" clause instead. That might do
as well.

Travis said,

>> >2) A president should pick justices based on their devotion to the con-
>> >   stitution and their legal experience, not on their personal opinions/
>> >   interpretations/wishes about what the constitution means.

I replied,

>> This makes no sense at all.
>> A Supreme Court Justice's main job is to interpret the Constitution.
>> A President should choose Justices who will interpret the Constitution
>> well. How can the President do that if he doesn't know what the
>> (potential) Justice thinks the Constitution means?? Should he
>> pick someone who is really devoted to "the Constitution" but
>> who thinks that the Constitution favors Marxism?

Travis explains,

>Yes, if the justice can back his arguments up, which I doubt in this
>case.

So you mean the nominee should be required to give arguments
for his interpretation of the Constitution? Then I guess it
must be legitimate to ask what his interpretation of the
Constitution *is*. I thought that's what you were denying.

I would be very glad to see a President pick a nominee for
the Supreme Court explicitly on the grounds of that nominee's
interpretive approach to the Constitution. Then the Senate
could interrogate, asking what the arguments for that approach
are. Conservatives have decried this conception of the
appointment process. Clarence Thomas got through without
saying ANYTHING about his interpretive views, and by renouncing
everything he had ever said or published about his approach
to interpreting the Constitution.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:07:21 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Jay's Taxes

Jay, as your luck has it, Bush made his tax return
public today.  He has paid $204K tax on an income of
$1.3M.  That is a rate of 15.7%.  And incidentally,
he paid no state taxes.

Do you still claim that you paid 43.5% in federal taxes alone?

Now I remember you some time ago attacking the black leadership
in the US.  Care to make a comment regarding a president
who signs tax increase bills, pays only 15.7% taxes on an income
of $1.7M and rents a hotel room in Texas in order to avoid state
income taxes.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:35:20 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street

>   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.

Original intent by whom?  When?  Where?  How about some cites
(assuming that we're not projecting again....)?

The first person to figure it out almost certainly didn't have that
intent, but someone figured out fairly quickly that killing was
something one could do with a gun.  That's not particularly
interesting because modern designers are making decisions inconsistent
with that intent.

-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@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R3).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:56:25 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hunting
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

}From:       GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET

}>Conclusion: Assholes don't kill; guns kill.
}>
}>--KAT
}>
}>        better conclusion:  assholes with guns kill.
}>        brni

}             Even better conclusion: guns make it easy for assholes to kill.
}                 --G. Racz

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

-Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:55:19 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy
              14 Apr 1992 13:00:20 CDT from <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

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

> 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.

Jay, you are more dangerous with a calculator than with a gun.
I advised you to stay away from mathematics but you had to do it
anyway.

This absolute nonsense.  There is no one in this country
who would pay 28% of his paycheck in income tax and 15.5%
in taxes.

Now, let's see if Jay is smart enough to realize what a
big mistake (and I am not talking about a small technicality
such as SSI taxes are 15.6 and not 15.5% -- I am talking big
conceptual mistake) he has made and ask for forgiveness.

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:34:15 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tax Policy

KAT, not that you have the money to back up your boast, but what evidence do
you need.  Want me to fax my forms to you?

AGI over some number (say $35,000 for agrument) pays 28% income tax.  Do you
beileve this?  There is another 33% bracket I think?  Do you believe this?

If one is self-employed, one must pay an additional 15.5% of his
self-employed income to social security.  Do you believe that?

Why is it so har for you to believe that people actually have to pay for all
your political ideals?  You must be a democrat.

What don't you believe?

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

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:37:05 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%92041508073754@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
 > I don't know if you noticed but your stance is self
 > contradictory.  How can you advocate removing "fair" advantages?
 > By definition if you remove fairness you are left with unfairness.
 > And by definition we should be for fairness and against
 > unfairness unless you are saying that good is bad and bad
 > is good.


Really, KAT, it is quite simple.

Good is good unless it is Tuesday in which case two wrongs make
only one and a half rights which results in an unbalanced equation.

My goodness, even the Great Jay of Chicago could follow *that* math.



 > Will you please answer when you are not "mean, unfair, and nasty?"

Sorry, but those times are few and far between these days.


						Andrew MacRae
					
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 09:19:04 EST
From:         renee <RLLESS00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      one party control of both legislative and executive?

I don't know if any of you saw Face the Nation yesterday or not, but  a
Republican Congressman made an interesting comment.
  "I don't think we will be able to get this country out of the mess it is in
unless we have one party wheter it is the Republicans or the Democrats
controlling both the legislative and the executive branches."
Any  thoughts?

-Renee
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 17:17:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: silence = hypocracy

>My point is that many have called Buchannin anti-semitic. I accuse the left
>(as usual) of being hypocritical and using PC standards.


  Well he's certainly a xenophobe, whether or not he's anti-semetic.
  I didn't keep track of his candidacy enough to know more than that
  (look at his proposed trade policies).  But anyway, it seems to me
  that plenty of liberals aren't afraid of criticising democrats also.
   Remember that not all liberals are democrats -- some of us are more
  than a little disenchanted.  Sorry again that this is probably days behind.

       --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:05:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: guns don't kill people, television kills people

From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      guns don't kill people, tv kills people

A little food for thought for the anti-gun lobby. The number of incidents
of violence portrayed on tv/per hour is incredible. I think that we should
outlaw television as it promotes violence. When was the last time you saw
someone go through a background check before purchasing a gun on tv, or
taking any type of firearm training, or going to court for blowing
someone away?

Guns don't kill people, television kills people.

        hmmm. actually, tv usually doesn't kill people.  nor do
        guns.  in fact it is usually the bullet that is fired from
        the gun that kills people.  i'll accept the right to
        own guns as long as ammunition is strictly prohibited.

        i do think that it is high time that we re-evaluated
        what goes on tv, and also what we can use tv for, and
        put some pressure on the networks.

        oh yeah, fred said something else in another post...

It has taken the anti-hunting people less than 200 years to totally
screw up our environment.

        so it was the anti-hunters that went out and shot all the
        wolves?  other than the wolves thing, i think our environmental
        screwups were completely non-hunting-related, and that non-
        hunters and hunters alike are equally to blame.

Outlaw idiots not hunting.

        its a tempting idea....
        if only it weren't for those pesky human rights.  damn, maybe
        we should take jays advice and have a military dictatorship
        like peru, or perhaps like El Salvador...

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:07:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      The Great Napkin Conspiracy

> Laffer's curve (aside from its apt name and the fact that its originator is n
> shamelessly plugging Cadillacs) rests on several problematic assumptions.
...
> 2) Fullerton has conducted analysis of the Tc and notes that is is near 70%.
> That is, the point at which taxpayers would seek to for go work and seek
> avoidance is at a rate of 70% (most tax payers pay marginal rates much less
> today than when Fullerton did this work in 1983).  Thus, it seems unlikely th
> marginal tax rates, under any candidate would approach the rates necessary to
> invoke any of Laffer's thesis.

In fact, I can think of only one group of Americans who experience a
marginal tax rate near this magnitude--welfare recipients.  Even the
more "generous" plans involve an effective tax (loss of benefits) of
at least 50 percent of their earned income.  Most are significantly
higher.

Thanks for the insight into Laffer's arguments.

Best,
Peter

> PVF

(Do Clinton's economic advisers use rolling papers?  Do Bush's use
the backs of old veto messages?  Do Duke's use old bedsheets? :-)
From: dletcher@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Drew Letcher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Iowa Political Stock Market
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:48:44 GMT
Organization: U of Iowa, Iowa City, IA


ANNOUNCING:       THE IOWA POLITICAL STOCK MARKET  (IPSM)

Here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is!

The IPSM is a real (non-profit) securities market exchange.  Where people
can invest from $5-$500 and trade in political candidates.  The premise
we are trying to prove is that a stock market where people have money
on the line will be more accurate in predicting election outcomes than
the opinion polls you see in the news media.

There are currently two different markets one for the Democratic Primary
and one for the November Presidential Election.  The current prices in US$
as of Wednesday April 8, 1992 are:

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY                   PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
                                     Bush                0.501
Clinton         0.904                Clinton             0.405
Brown           0.008                Brown               0.008
Tsongas         0.025                Tsongas             0.033
Rest of Field   0.050                Rest of Democrats   0.037

(The prices can be interpreted as percentages by multiplying by 100.)

TELNET ACCESS TO THE IPSM:

To see the current prices and to check out the IPSM trading program you can
telnet to the following Internet address:

     IPSM.BIZ.UIOWA.EDU   128.255.44.2

After you connect just follow the prompts.  You'll need a full screen
terminal such as a VT100.  The IPSM supports over 30 different terminal
types.  For more information write or call to the following address.

IPSM
556 Phillips Hall
University of Iowa          phone: (319) 335-0881
Iowa City, IA  52242        email: ipsm@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU