HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:11:48 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: anti-hunters

From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>

> KAT: you arque so strongly for the right to pursue a particular lifestyle
> based on sexual preference yet you dismiss that hunting can have any
> positive qualities. Just because it doesn't trip your trigger doesn't give
> you the right to lump every idiot with a gun under the term hunter.
> Far more people are killed by idiots with cars than by idiots with guns
> so if your objection is to unneccesary slaughter then outlaw idiots not
> hunting.

First of all your analogy fails because homosexuals do not
hurt me but guns do.

Secondly, you are accepting Andy's perception of what I think.
I challenge you to bring direct quotes from me.  I am by no
means against hunting in general.  I am against those hunters
who kill for no other reason and no other purpose than killing
an animal.  I will never be able to hunt myself.  When my wife
yells there is a cricket in the house, I spend several minutes
to persuade (with logic) the cricket to leave the
premises then I spend several more minutes to capture the beast
and let it free outside.  I have respect for those who hunt as
a means of survival.  I cannot understand hunting as a sport
(why not target practice).  I am damn concerned about the
availability of guns.  If Jay and I were both armed and where
in close proximity of each other while debating, I am pretty
sure one of us would have been dead by now and all of you
would have been deprived of the gift of my logic.   :-)

> I won't encourage you to adopt my lifestyle but I don't know what grounds
> you have for discouraging it. If we all had to hunt our food we wouldn't
> have steroids and cancer producing agents in our diet.

I have nothing against hunting in general and definitely am not
anti-hunting or anti-hunters.

My MAIN problem is with Andy's claims that guns are not made
for destruction/killing/wounding.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:24:08 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: jay's fortune cookie

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.

As far as liberals are concerned, I think they were created with all the
other plants and animals, an object of our sympathy, socrn and amusement.

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:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:32:29 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

Now, now, boys, play fair.  Besides, we have more important things to
think of, such as where is the fair anneliese?

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:07:31 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jay's quote...

Jonathan:

My quote is intended to describe the problem with the status quo.

But, I think that enpowerment leads to self-entitlement.  When one has the
ability to do so, they provide for themselves.  Your examples are cynical,
but basically correct.

Blacks and whites with the same educational level acheive roughly the same
levels and make about the same amount of money.  Education is one important
form of enpowerment.

The current give-away welfare system, in place for 40 years, has not done
anything to change the number of blacks who are educated.  In fact those
numbers are getting worse.

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
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:34:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: anti-hunters

>KAT: you arque so strongly for the right to pursue a particular lifestyle
>based on sexual preference yet you dismiss that hunting can have any
>positive qualities.

   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 that homosexual
  people don't set out to do harm to anyone.

>   Just because it doesn't trip your trigger doesn't give
>you the right to lump every idiot with a gun under the term hunter.
>Far more people are killed by idiots with cars than by idiots with guns
>so if your objection is to unneccesary slaughter then outlaw idiots not
>hunting.

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

>The plains indians existed for thousands of years in harmony with their
>environment. They were hunters. It has taken the anti-hunting people less
>than 200 years to totally screw up our environment. Let's look at the big
>picture and place the blame where it belongs.

   Seems to me that all of western society, hunters and non-hunters alike,
  has screwed up the environment in less than 200 years.  It seems pretty
  feeble to blame the fact that we don't hunt on the destruction of the
  environment.

>I won't encourage you to adopt my lifestyle but I don't know what grounds
>you have for discouraging it. If we all had to hunt our food we wouldn't
>have steroids and cancer producing agents in our diet.

   Aeryone hunt just seems like a good idea for increasing the number of
  accidental hunting deaths, and for starving most of the population.


        --G. Racz
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 21:04:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

In article <tfilt199099@drew.edu>, Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>
> Let's look at the "proof".
>
> Walking barefoot in wet grass at night, looking at the stars is
> enjoyable, but one part of it is killing snails.  ....
>
this is an absurb comparison; you don't go walking barefoot in the wet
grass planning to kill anything, while hunting has a purpose to it,
killing.  Why go if you don't want to kill?  Why hunt at all?
If the pleasure is to go out to commune with nature, or to build up
father-son (or whatever for equality) relationships, then killing is I
repeat gratitous or as one person said anti-climatic.  Just admit it,
part of the whole event is to kill something, really face reality.

>>Also, a movement toward a bigger appreciation for wildlife and nature
>>seems to be needed in this world, and I'm not ready to say this is an
>>utopian goal.
>
> That's possibly a noble goal (although I detect a whiff of something
> else), but the habitat and species have to be preserved NOW.

ok, I don't see me saying a law against hunting should be set up.  All
I'm saying is that people can appreciate wildlife and nature without
hunting.  I found a tad perverse another poster's comment that he
hopes all will go with their sons to hunt so by killing animals, we
can appreciate life better.  "This son is a wonderful piece of nature
son, be careful to get a clean kill.  And remember this is not about
killing but the pleasure of hunting and wildlife."  Don't  be
surprised if he says "huh?"

> Yawn.  When you're perfect, we can talk about saving me from my sins.
>
> -andy
>
I didn't ask you to support my ideas, I just included them to be
honest.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: The recognition of Macedonia
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:18:04 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

VAL writes:

>This state, and Croatia and Slovenia (but not Macedonia, I wonder
>why!), were recognized today by the United States as independent
>states after EC recognition yesterday.

Well, the US Foreign State Department follows the EC blindly in
this matter. After "we" recognized the break-away Baltic republics,
the US followed., after "we" had recognized the CIS republics
(except for Georgia), the US followed, and now after "our"
recognition of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina (earlier
this week), logic tells us that the US had to follow.

The reason why the US didn't recognize Macedonia is simple...
because the EG didn't. And that's because of the Greek veto.
The Greeks are in favour of independence for the former Yugoslav 
republic, but they don't want it to be named after a Greek province...

Constantijn

-- 
"Uta'lom az ege'sz huszadik sza'zadot" La'szlo' Lugosi/Fero' Nagy

Constantijn Wekx
email should be addressed to: mad-2@kub.nl
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:44:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: silence = hypocracy

>  I wonder why Jamie does not
>complaign about a DEMOCRATIC candidate who wants to make an anti-semite
>vice-president?

    I assume you're referring to Brown's promise to choose Jackson as
   a running mate.  Well, I for one AM upset by that decision.  However,
   he has not been chosen yet, and I doubt the convention would go along
   with it anyway -- two liberals on one ticket.

>Bruce would complaign about a REPUBLICAN who was a member of an all-white,
>elitist country club.  It is an example of Republican race-hate.  Why don't
>the bruce's on this list decry the DEMOCRAT who belones to an all-white club.

   Who? Let's hear that name. (Sorry- I live in isolated academic-land)

>KAT believes that checking information should be kept private.  There is wide
>agreement that personal allegations should not be made against a DEMOCRATIC
>candidate, especially when the allegation is known to be false.  Why no furor
>about allegations of this type against a REPUBLICAN.

   My turn to complain about coherence.  What are the allegations, and who
   were they leveled against?  Also, I don't see wide agreement that personal
   allegations should not be made against Democrats.  Of course the Democrats
   will complain -- it hurts their chances. (BTW I'm not a Democrat -- they
   remind me too much of Republicans)



>Wouldn't it be scarry if the left ever tried to be coherent?


 Wouldn't it be wonderful if the right ever tried to listen?

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

   --G. Racz

  PS sorry if this is belated, there's something wrong with the system I'm on
 and there isn't outgoing mail today.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:45:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

Jay, you say "who wants to take me on?" but when someone does, you lapse
into silence all too often. Why is that? VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:26:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: hunting

> 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

        better conclusion:  assholes with guns kill.
        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 08:30:02 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Death Penalty

As currently implemented, the death penalty is inneffective and should be
abolished, replaced with one that provides an effective deterent.

How's that?

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

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:41:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hunting

In article <tfilt201248@drew.edu>, Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KEN
   T.EDU> writes:
>
> It was still alive and got up and stumbed off the road.  A local
> pulled over to the side to check to make sure everyone was alright.
> He pulled his rifle out of his truck and started after it.  I tagged
> along (being the seasoned hunter that I am).  When we caught up to it
> I shot it... twice.  Nothing ever felt so good before.  I've killed
> `em before, but this was different.
>
> Call it hunting, call it a mercy killing (it was pretty messed up),
> or call it cruelty.  I don't care.  I did it and I'd do it again, and
> again, and again.
>
> -Greg    Bambi is dead!
>
now watch out now.  Can't have people think hunters actually like to
kill animals -- put wrong ideas in our heads.

             -JOE
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 11:07:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Personal SURVEY

In article <tfilt202582@drew.edu>, Darin Reid <areid@MARY.FORDHAM.EDU> writes:

>
>               1) Who do you think is the greatest/most important U.S.
>                  President of all there have ever been.  Answers don't
>                  have to be long but should have reasons (no so-so's the
>                  greatest. stuff)

Abraham Lincoln.  He's a person who knew how to be a politican
(controlled a Cabinet that often felt superior to him), worried about
the situation over pure ideology (I want God to be on my side but I
need Kentucky), and still taught us a lot about being an American.  He
also was a real person, with doubts and worries that saw no end, and
didn't get to see how the war would end.  He was a surprise but great
president for his time and in our history.
>
>               2) What time in America's history (WHILE NOT AT WAR) do
>                  you think was/is it's most important.  This could be _any_
>                  non-war time in U.S. history - 1780's, 1850's, Reconstruction
>                  (the period after the U.S. Civil War), 1960's are a few
>                  examples.

1785-1800  Here we had growing pains, wrote down our Constitution and
each part of government set down precedents that would establish how
the gov't would run in the future.  We survived to grow into the
country we are today.

               -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:04:27 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>So when we "gun" down a person, we are just propelling a
>projectile into their chest.  The act of killing is simply
>a side effect.

No, the gun is propelling the projectile.  The targetting and intent,
the purpose, are the shooter's; neither the gun nor anyone involved in
its design or manufacture have any effect on them.

>I wouldv'e thought that it would be to your advantage not to
>lump all hunters into one category.  But now you are their
>spokesman.

No, I'm just reporting what I've learned from them.  I find that more
relevant than KAT's fantasies, unless, of course, we're talking about
KAT.

>But then again you are withholding the designation of
>hunter from a person who kills only for the joy of killing.

Yup.  That's reasonable because we're using "hunter" to refer to a
subset of people who actually exist and KAT's "pleasure killers" don't
seem to exist in significant numbers outside KAT's mind.

>> KAT claims that he knows why people kill animals, but he can't
>> distinguish people who kill for different reasons; all he can do is
>> assert that he knows because he wrongly believes that no other reason
>> exists.  That's not much of a qualification.
>
>I have made no such claim.  But I am more than capable -- without
>reading half a dozen books recommended by Andy -- to list the
>possible motives for people who kill animals, one for pleasure,
>one for feeding self and family, etc.

Lots of things are possible, but only a few happen often enough
to worry about.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:19:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: one party control of both legislative and executive?

sounds great!
i understand that other countries with single party systems have
had unparalleled success in dealing with economic and social
problems, even if they were unable or unwilling to stiffle
free speech and dissent.
;^>
brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 11:56:00 EDT
From:         LUCEYCA@SUNYJCC.BITNET
Subject:      PHONE CAMPAIGN

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


Tcitizens to Draft Tsongas is making an attempt to get superdelegates to
sit firm, or to get into the Tsongas camp.  If you would like to
participate in the attempt, here are the people to whom calls are being
directed.  They are recommending people call immediately.

National Democratic Headquarters
Fax Machine:  202-863-8028
Ron Brown's Office:  202-863-8000

George Mitchell's Office:  202-224-5344

Tom Foley's Office:  202-225-2006

The hope is, that these critters, already jittery about Clinton's ability
to get elected in the fall, will see the light and recommend the party
get behind a new candidate while there is still a mathematical possibility
to do something.

Carol
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:05:35 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

Correction:
"... of citizens..." (not "off citizens").

The management regrets the error.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:38:31 EDT
From:         "Patrick W. Hamlett" <PWHMDS@NCSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: jay's fortune cookie
              14 Apr 1992 17:33:56 EST from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

On Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:33:56 EST K-A*T said:
>From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
>
>> After Eve ruined it for everyone, well all have sinful urges.  Homosexuality
>> is one of those.  I really recommend you read the bible.
>
>Is it me folks, or is this a classic case of "shifting
>the blame?"  Maybe I am wrong but wasn't it Adam that
>ate the apple?
>
Of course not, since there is no truth to the whole myth...
Hamlett

>> Jay Steven Sultan
>
>--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:39:27 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

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

>1) The freedom of choice act would be federalo-imperialistic, hence
>   unconstitutional.

False. As has already been pointed out, the Congress has the
power to pass such an act, under the Fourteenth Amendment.

>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.

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?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:36:37 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

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.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:38:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jay's Taxes

ah, but remember,
jay is being taxed not just as a citizen,
but also as a business,
with the addition of a spouse to bump the income up a bit
(to a higher level, i assume).

jay, don't answer this if you feel it is too intrusive,
but just for the sake of knowing at what point someone
in business for her/himself might be paying 43%,
what is that a 43% of?

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:58:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:42:43 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
> >That's for a future SC to decide.
>
> Well, in a sense it is. But a future SC couldn't decide it unless
> Congress made some judgment about it first.
>
> I THINK you are implying that if the Congress and the Supreme
> Court disagree about the Constitution, then the Supreme
> Court must be correct. If so, then your implication is
> wrong.

Practically speaking, the SC *IS* always correct.  Of course, actually,
the SC CAN be wrong.  It is up to the "next" SC to determine that.
And now that I think about it, what Congress thinks the Constitution
means doesn't really matter, unless thed SC agrees.  The SC has the
job of interpreting the Constitution, not Congress.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU