HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:36:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

  I think you need to re-read this exchange:

>>>Yes, one can stalk without killing.  One can also "play basketball"
>>>without shooting, but it's a different experience.
>>
>>    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.
>
>>  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.
>
>Precisely.  Playing with a basketball isn't playing basketball, just
>as running around the woods isn't hunting; there has to be the potential
>for killing as well.  Similarly, just shooting isn't playing basketball
>either, just as just killing isn't hunting.

    You've contradicted yourself.  I said "the point of hunting is killing."
  You said, "I've said that hunting involves the possibility of killing."
  Then you said, "...just as running around the woods isn't hunting there
  has to be the potential for killing as well."

    Now, the point you are about to make (I think) is that you used the
  phrase "potential for killing."  So, that's the only difference between
  what you are saying and what I am saying.  The word potential.  But
  the point is the same -- without killing it's not hunting. You also
  made the point that just killing isn't hunting.  Well, yes, I guess
  if a deer just happens across your path and you just happen to shoot it,
  then you weren't hunting.  However, that's kind of rare, isn't it?

>>  If killing weren't the point, I would
>>  think that hunters would go out and simply not use lethal means.
>
>Why?  Would you play basketball and not shoot?

   Again, you agree with me that hunting NEEDS killing.

>>  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?
>
>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.

    OK.  When someone hunts, if they don't kill, they have failed their
  goal.  Failure is not defined as when a person is not happy about the
  results of an endevor, but when they have not accomplished the goal they
  have set out for.  I don't give a flying fig whether they're happy about
  the kill or not.  The important thing is that that was the goal.

    BTW I'm really tired of this debate.  The real debate is gun ccontrol,
  sincce the cconstitution never did establish the right to hunt.

          --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:44:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: campaign spending limits

 Someone mentioned that it might be a good idea to lessen an incumbents
chance of re-election if all political campaigns were federally financed.
  This is a good idea, but if you do this then you have to consider...
1.  Where is the money going to come from in the first place to pay for these
campaigns?
2.  What kind of spending cap do you put on each race?
3.  Who decides the rules for controlling such elections?

Any suggestions?


        1) we could invade a small central american country and then sell
        the cocaine ourselves.

        2) depends on the going price of cocaine.

        3) a cooperative effort of anarchists and unificationists (moonies)

        :^>

        brni
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 10:48:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

>  Those of you who remember
>previous versions of this discussion (or who've done the relevant
>research; there's a reason that I provide cites) know that we're
>talking about well under 2k lives/year, and that overstates the
>potential benefits because not everything that is classified as an
>accident is an accident in any reasonable sense.  (For example,
>dueling hunters or suicides misclassified by police who figure that
>"gun cleaning" is a blessing to the survivors.)  If we concentrate on
>certain legal channels, we miss a large fraction of the "at risk"
>population.

   OK. You're talking accidents.  I'm talking about the wide availability
  of guns in general.  One reason you give for owning a gun is that of
  self-defense against criminals.  Here's an interesting thought on that--
  criminals are more likely to use their guns than non-criminals.  Most
  people who buy a gun for self-defense don't really think they will kill
  another person some day.  I realize that they SHOULD, but most people don't
  want to think about it. Now, let's see this scenario -- someone breaks into
  your house, so you grab the gun and go downstairs, thinking that you're safe.
  But the "Bad guy" also has a gun.  Who do you think is more likely to shoot
  first without thinking?  My bets are on the intruder every time.  That's why
  the police don't want people trying to defend themselves in that way --
  they want people to concentrate on escaping.

    Another thing is that you seem to think that 2,000 people dying per year is
  insignificant (and those are only accidental deaths).  I don't think that
  it's insignificant that one person dies every year if there is something
  that can be done about it.

         --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:19:53 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: UK/US conservatives in same boat(was Bill Clinton...

Mr. Heidlage drew some comparisons to US/UK conservatives, suggesting that
they both had done little to move their countries forward.

While I agree that they have similar characteristics, I look to the positive:
privateization, winning the cold war, success in Iraq, tremendous economic
growth, and a number of other advances.

He also fails to pint out the same is true of the liberals in both countries.
 They promise evberything to everyone, cater to every minority, promise to
raise taxes (Kinnock (sp) wants a top rate of 59%), and are hostile to jobs
and economic growth.

I shall answer my own question.  I have heard and read much about how labor
will win, how much anger there is, and how close it will be.

I think it is wrong.  I have faith in the British people to act in their
self-interest, and voting for labor (especially with their plan to capitulate
British soverignty to the Germans through the EC) is clearly not in their
self-interest.  Like the feminists, I think the left in  Engalnd is vocal but
unable to mobilize the vote among its supporters.

Look for Major in a comfortable win.

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:49:01 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: missing persons report

I can neither confirm or deny that we hold the redhead.

As events further develop, and we decide that the information's release will
suit our purposes, we shall manipulate the media as we see fit.






















did you know she wears......

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 09:43:13 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Moving the Capitol

From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM>

> My Proposal:

> Move our nation's captital every four years.  Pick cities that could
> really use the overhaul, perhaps make downtown Detroit the first,
> with St. Louis perhaps the next site.

> Another advantage would be it would cut down on the number of
> congress-critters who just stay in office all their lives.  How
> many would overstay their welcome if faced with having to move
> every four years?

> Yes, it would cost money to move every four years, but think how
> much excess baggage would be tossed.

> Comments?

Andrew, it is amazing that you don't have time to answer my
post (which was written is response to yours) but have the
time to write posts like this.      :-)

While we are at it why not move around the United States of
America (actually I mean the powers, privileges, special
status of the US) to different country every 4 years.  This
way we would make 1st worlds countries out of many third world
countries and may eradicate all the evils of the world such as
hunger, disease, poverty, communism, dictatorships, torture,
political operation, etc.

> Andrew MacRae

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:32:44 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      alex I'll take history for $500

Something that bothers me about the present political climate and the
discussions on this list is the use of democrat as a synonym for
'undesireable human being'. GHWB blames our domestic problems on the
democratic leadership in the legislative branch. Although there is
a grain of truth in this arguement, there is plenty of blame to go around
for all political ideologies.

Anyone on this list old enough to know anything about Nazi politics? If
you aren't a Nazi you are an enemy to be destroyed. If we spend all of our
time fighting each other instead of the problems we face, the end of the
great experiment could arrive in our lifetimes.

Placing the blame on "those other guys" releases you from any searching
for the solution. If we ship all of the liberal democrats to Russia will
we achieve a trade balance, meaningful employment, and a clean environ-
ment? NOT!!!!

The only solution is for everyone to take responsibility for our future
and our past mistakes. Pointing fingers won't improve our status in the
world. We can't wait for government to take the lead because government
is too interested in preservation of the status quo. We need individuals
to get involved in youth programs, environmental clean-up, and planning
for the future.

If we don't all pull together we will all go down with the ship.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re:      Re: Brown, Reagan, Laffer, Napkins???
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:43:44 GMT

In article <9204131203.AA12230@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Phillip J VanFossen <pvanfoss@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> writes:
>
>several problematic assumptions.
>These consist of 1) the inelasticity of the tax base w.r.t the tax rate.
>Laffer assumes that this inelasiticity gives way to elasticity at some point
>Tc, thus resulting in lower revenue as those whose actual rate is above Tc
>choose to forgo income in lieu of the tax, or seek avoidence or evasion.  The
>point at which this transition from inelasticity to elasticity is crucial for
>Laffer's arguement and yet he has failed to adequately examine this aspect,
>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 that
>marginal tax rates, under any candidate would approach the rates necessary to
>invoke any of Laffer's thesis.
>
>PVF

In simple terms.  if you tax at 0% the government takes in $0.
if you tax at 100% no one produces anything so the government takes in $0

in between the government take peaks somewhere.  like this...
     #                            ##############
     #                       ##                   ##
     #                   ##                           ##
     #                #                                   #
     #               #                                      #
     #            ##                                          #
     #          #                                               #
     #        #                                                   #
     #      #                                                       #
     #    #                                                           #
     #  #                                                               #
     ## #  # #  #  #  #  # #  #  #  #  # #  #  #  #  #  # #  #  #  #  # # ##
     0%                                                               100%

There is no big revalation in this, The argument is wether the current
tax rates are the the right or to the left of the peak.
-Ted

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:58:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      A short reply to a long post

Jay--

If time allows I'll post a somewhat fuller reply to your megapost
(yes, Jamie, I read the whole thing (whew!)).  But I'd like to
suggest that you try a little experiment.  Feed your file into
an editor and replace all instances of "homosexual" with, say,
"Catholic" or "Jew."  Then read it carefully and decide whether
your would consider the writer bigoted against Catholics or Jews
or whatever non-criminal group you choose.

Don't argue that homosexuals do nasty things together, because you
can make that argument for just about any group you like.  For
example, most people who take the time to think about it would find
the idea of transsubstantiation a little . . . icky ("Eat raw flesh
and drink blood?  Ugh!").

Besides, homosexuals and heterosexuals do many of the same things--
the difference is in who they do it with.  Should heterosexuals who
practice, say, oral sex be the targets of discrimination as well?

Finally, consider this:  you confess freely that your main feeling
about homosexualtiy is an irrational fear.  Yet you claim that your
intellectual positions are not based on that irrational fear.  I
think that most of us see the matter differently.  In fact, I think
that most people who have strong and irrational reactions to a subject
are unable to think as clearly about it as others who do not carry
the same emotional baggage.  I doubt that any objective observer
would conclude that someone who mentally equates homosexuality with
necrophilia is really thinking dispassionately.

Best,
Peter

PS on spelling:  are you really taking responsibility for your poor
spelling skills if you blame them on the educational system?  Or if
you inflict them on others just because your mail system has no
spell-checker?  Remember, you carry a wetware version around with
you all the time.  And it is a sign of politeness to your audience
to refrain from throwing obstacles in the way of your message.
Most mail systems don't include spell-checking.
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, 13 Apr 1992 10:05:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?: Some info on the campaign bill

In article <tfilt203048@drew.edu>, KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU writes:
> JOE asks:
>>anyone have any opinions on this new campaign finance bill proposed
>>that the president rejected?
>>
> I'm still waiting to find out exactly what the content of the bill is - any
> help?
>

the bill would establish voluntary spending limits of $600,000 for the
House and population based limits for Senate candidates of between 1.5
million and 8.25 million.  Incentives: upto $200,000 in federal
matching funds and lower postal rates for each House candidate (don't
House members already having franking rights?) -- and more matching
funds if an opponent spent beyond the limit.  Senate candidates who
complied would be able to save money on tv ads through vouchers that
would provide some free time and discounts on further ads.  The Gov't
would pass for this.  Problems: Republicans complain about the cost
and help this will have for incumbents (isn't that the whole point of
the bill?)  Also, the bill will limit Senate candidates to collecting
a sum equal to 20% of their state spending limit of pacs and cut
maximum PAC contributions from 5000-$2500.  House candidates will have
a $200,000 limit of all PAC monies.  Info from 4/10/91 New York Times.


> On a similar subject: I understand Bush is going to enact some kind of rule
> forbidding unions from supporting political candidates with money received
> from non-union members (this to enforce a SC ruling).
> Kerry
>
This ruling is by Justice Brennan, and Bush's not supporting it (union dues
would largely go to Democrats) show how he is wavering on doing much
in way of a program of his own.

                           -JOE

P.S. Why should presidental candidates have campaign support through
matching funds etc. and not Congress?  Wouldn't such aid broaden the
system and the incumbent advantage that we have now?  Why do
Republicans use the idea that it would help incumbents as a complaint
of the bill?  Seems dumb.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:43:06 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: predictions for Tuesday

Hey, Minnesota has both a caucus and a primary. Why? The Norwegians
wanted a caucus, the Danes wanted a primary, and the Swedes couldn't
break the tie.  B)

But anyway, just because Harkin won earlier doesn't mean much, IMHO.
It doesn't mean that Minnesota's republican.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 09:39:26 EDT
From: Nicholas C. Hester <IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

In article <01GIOMGYHQHS8Y5JK1@ITHACA.BITNET>, GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET says:
>
>>"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"
>
                   < Series of questions deleted >

>
>        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.

No, the 2nd amendment was put in place not only to protect the country
by outside invaders, or the populace in general against marauding bands,
but as the last resort against a gov't that disregards the rights of
citizens.  The authors of the Constitution feared a large and unresponsive
gov't, one that had a large army and police force to enforce it's will
against not only the indiviual, but the whole citizenry.  Much as it
does today.

This, in my opinion, makes the 2nd amendment just as viable today as
it was 200 years ago.

-Nick
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 15:02:00 EDT
From:         GU091DCF@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: EuroDisney

>>I wonder if  it occurs to any of these intellectuals that there would be
>>no demand for American culture in their countries if their indigenous
>>culture wasn't so god awful?
                                                -Jay Steven Sultan
>>What? American culture superior to *our* culture? Bwaaaaahahahahaa.
                                                        -Constantijn

        Please realize Jay's opinions are his own and are not reflective
        of everyone on this list. Only Jay could make a statement like
        that.
                                                        -Derrick

        PS to Jay: I'm in the process of gathering information to respond
                        to your post on homosexuality.
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 11:23:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Dave's comment on hunting

In article <tfilt203826@drew.edu>, Let It Rain <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET> writes:
> Joe, or is it JOE,

Joe is my name, while JOE is my signature, but wouldn't it be nice to
have a name like JOE, like I'm MR. JOE

>I feel right now, as we have nearly destroyed
> all of the natural predators of North America, it is left to us
> to be temporary preditors while we work on reestablishing wolves
> and other predators in natural areas.
>
well, you're right about the first point, but is hunting the only way
to solve the problem?  We're fairly intelligent people scientifically,
and wildlife management can be done in ways more than hunting.  Now,
is hunting wrong?  Well, that's a whole different ball game, and
hunting may have a side benefit of wildlife management, but I refuse
to say that it's the reason one hunts.

> I'm not saying it's the right decision, but it works for now.

if you don't believe it's the right decision, then support
alternative ways. Don't just say "it's the only way people will
support" because that's a cop out and tries to escape the problem
One problem straight off is the type of kill.  A
hunter would often aim at the most healthy animal, while a predator
would aim at the least healthy or weakest one for it's easier to catch.
Now a wildlife conscious hunter may do things differently, but
self-interest often overwhelms such sentiment.

          -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:26:21 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: anti-hunters

>   Let's not equate the rights of hunters with the rights of homosexuals.
>  Remember that hunters set out to kill something for sport (I don't care
>  about the counter-claims that the joy is in the hunt -- if that were true
>  then the majority of hunts would NOT end in a kill)

And another one "still doesn't get it."

>    Since some hunters on this list have claimed that the joy is in the
>   hunt and not the kill, how about just outlawing hunting with weapons?

Because that's not hunting.

>   And about this car argument, need I remind you that cars are not built
>   with the purpose of killing in mind?

And, neither are guns.  I've read gun design documents.  I'm familiar
with designs that would be different if they were intended to kill.

BTW - If guns are designed to kill, then why are they so ineffective
at it?  They're far less effective at killing people than many other
items, whether you measure "effectiveness" as "number of deaths given
an attack" or "number of deaths/use".  (There are some 1-200 million
guns in the US and billions of rounds fired each year, so either guns
aren't designed for killing people, or they aren't very good at it.)
Surely the "design for" argument should at least be internally
consistent.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU