HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:26:28 EDT
From:         Thomas White <GTW100C@ODUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: predictions for Tuesday
              6 Apr 1992 14:22:25 GMT from <ncovey@BRONZE.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Neil,

Minnesota was already taken months ago by Tom Harkin. It's a Republican only
state this time around.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:14:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Thoughts?: Some info on the campaign bill

> 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

Franking is for non-campaign mailings only, or "official government
business" as the phrase goes.  Some argue that anything that gets
a Congresscritter's name in front of the public contributes to the
campaign, and of course they are right.  But that doesn't erase the
distinction between business and campaigning.

> > 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.

His timing on these rules is designed to disrupt union PAC's as much
as possible.  The actual Supreme Court decision was some time ago.  The
big laugh of the week is his order to the NLRB to give top priority to
complaints about political spending.  Personally, I think they should
get the same swift treatment that complaints of unfair labor practices
get (these are currently aged like fine wines).

>                            -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.

If most incumbents were Republicans I suspect they would sing a
different tune.  Although, if done right, public financing should
help challengers more, since incumbents usually have an easier job
raising money than challengers.  That's one of the main roadblocks
in the way of campaign finance reform--everyone who gets to vote on
the issue is an incumbent.  :-S

Best,
Peter
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 10:09:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: hunting

>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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:17:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

On Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:51:42 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
> >What exactly does the amendment say about "priviliges and immunities"?
> >(sorry, I don't have a copy of the Constitution with me)
>
> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
> the privileges or immunities off citizens of the United States...."
The overturning of Roe v. Wade will mean that abortion is not one of
these privileges.

> >No, I was saying that his views should not be a basis for nomination,
> >but rather his ability to conform his views to the Constitution.
>
> Oh. But you do think his views *of* the Constitution are
> relevant? I do. And that's what Clinton was suggesting.
No, not his views.  How he rationalizes them.

> >And also, remember that Supreme Court decisions are based also on the
> >ability of the attorneys arguing the case.  If an attorney forgets
> >about Clause X of Article Y of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
> >may not consider it in their decision.
>
> Uh, yeah. But why is this relevant?
Not very relevant, if you have good lawyers.  But it does say that
the way the SC decides depends on more than just the justices them-
selves.

> Jamie
Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:14:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Puerto Rico

Clinton 98%--51 delegates
Brown    2%-- 0 delegates
       Clinton is now over the halfway mark to getting the nomination.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:44:18 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: PHONE CAMPAIGN

Good luck.  Tsongas' best chance is a brokered convention, which will not
happen.  Just look at the umbers.  He cannot get more than 30% of California
and he cannot win without more, even assuming that he does very well
everywhere else.

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:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:21:11 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

Dear Jamie:

I wish some long-haired types would pay me money to sit and argue all day.
Really.  But, in fairness to you I don't want to turn my back on all these
issues.

You lost the Sweden issue, arguing (my memory here is weak) that 31% <> 1/3
or something like that.

I apologised for the NYT thing, having finally received the cite from you.
It is still the word of one paper against another, and it paled in the larger
question of Cuomo's electability.

So, pick one issue, give me some time, and I will stay with it as long as you
like or someone begs us to stop.

Choose carefully - you should select a topic that will be of marginal
interest to the rest of the list.

Oh, and if you want to go on about my spelling or math mistakes, then I
suggest that you find a way to tie it to a larger issue.  I am not the first
great man who could neither spell nor never make math mistakes....

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:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:02:02 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Lilith

>> p.s. Constantijn and Travis et al.: American culture *IS* better
>> than anyone else's. This is obvious.
>>
>for Constantijn, I believe (can be wrong) this is sarcasm, not mean
>to be taken seriously as you did.

It wasn't exactly sarcasm. And believe me, Constantijn didn't
take it seriously! His ear for sarcasm is quite refined.

Jamie

I'll take rap over that Dutch music any day....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:11:18 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin
              8 Apr 1992 13:58:37 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

>> Not true.  One of the specific purposes of guns is killing/
>> wounding people/animals.  The other two purposes that I can
>> think of are target practice and collecting.  Can you think
>> of any other purpose(s), (saving propelling projectiles :-) ?

> Apart from decorative uses, the purpose of guns is to propel
> projectiles.  That purpose can be put to different uses.  One can
> propel projectiles to make holes in (or break) targets.  One can
> propel projectiles to murder someone, or to stop someone who's
> attacking yourself or another.  (Some killing is bad, but other
> killing is better than the available alternatives.  Guns don't care
> any more than cars do about how they're used.)  One can also use a gun
> to make a credible threat involving propelling projectiles; again,
> that can be good or bad.  One can also use a gun to feel secure; fire
> extinguishers share that purpose.  (The last two are mental "uses",
> but can't exist without the physical property of being able to propel
> projectiles.)

So what did you add to my note -- nothing.  I said the (main)
possible uses of guns are 1) kill/wound/destroy things 2) target
practice, and 3) collecting.  Would like to add to this list?
And I can safely say -- without reading half a dozen books
recommended by Andy -- that most people who are buying guns buy
it for the sole reason that it could kill/wound/destroy things.

So what/which is it that you (or anyone else) are (is) disputing/
objecting?         :-)

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:39:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      re : uzi on the street
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

>   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.
>
>          --G. Racz

        Guns do not have purposes, only people have purposes
(and maybe a few animals).  "Purpose" is a mental-state term,
like "intention" or "belief."  Things that do not have mental
states do not have purposes.  When we speak of the purpose of
and object we are indirectly referring to the purpose that some
person or group of people have for that object.

        The "original intent" of the production of most weapons
is to sell them.  The "purpose" for which people buy guns are
varied.  Most, I would wager, are bought for the purpose of killing
people.  (Police and the military are major purchasers of guns, and
the reason they carry weapons has to do chiefly with their useful
ness in the wounding and killing of human beings.)  However, none
of the people I know who own guns bought them for their usefulness
as a means of killing persons, and almost none bought their weapons
for the purpose of killing anything.  They are bought for target
practice--an entertaining hobby.  (If you do not believe that
target practice can be entertaining, that the real purpose must be
to kill people, then explain why archery is popular?  Or bowling,
for that matter.)

        I own a gun.  I have fired about 5,000 rounds of ammo
out of it.  I fired 1 round for the purpose of killing.
The victim was a rattlesnake that had found its way into my
parents' country cabin.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
From: mad-2@kub.nl (C. Wekx)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: EuroDisney
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:15:27 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Derrick writes:

>        Please realize Jay's opinions are his own and are not reflective
>        of everyone on this list. 

Yeah, sure, it was Jay's "we are simply the best" rap (the culture mix)
featuring Jamie on keyboards (progressive provokative beat)
and DJ Travis (Jefferson quotes and jazz samples). :)

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:10:14 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Brown, Reagan, Laffer, Napkins???

I think the interesting thing for liberals to note is that both of Laffer's
plans are geared toward making the rich richer.  At least with supply side
economics, the middle-income and poor get richer too (as 12 years of evidence
proves).

As I have said many times before, the rich of this country would be highly in
favor of the flat tax plan (because it makes them much richer) if it wasn't
for the side effect it would have of completely destroying the economy.

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:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:15:43 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

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

>> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
>> the privileges or immunities off citizens of the United States...."

>The overturning of Roe v. Wade will mean that abortion is not one of
>these privileges.

No, it won't mean that. If it happens, it will mean that the
Supreme Court thinks that privacy is not a privilege or an
immunity. But the Supreme Court may be wrong.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:21:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      response to jay : combining vices

ok, next:

i have difficulty with the fact that you combine homosexuality,
necrophilia, and beastiality in your mind.  you have already linked
pedophiles in previous posts.

what you get is homopedonecrobeastiality: sex with underage samesex
roadkills.  :)

yes, sexual abberance is easy to lump together, but one should resist the
temptation (just like people tend to lump all drugs together, and ignore
fact that they have very different effects and results).  it is counter-
productive to view things in this way.  while i agree with you that
generalizations are an essential tool to learning (and to thought and
language, btw), they are also something to be wary of as they lead to
wrong conclusions (for example, me assuming that you are just like *all*
conservative republicans and are therefore always wrong about everything).

one major (and most important) difference is that homosexuality harms
no one.  (i have no idea where i stand on the rights of the dead, though,
so don't ask me.)

i can't explain to you why you should see them as different, since i'm really
not comprehending how hyou can think this way, so i'll try an analogy:

if it is illegal, it is indistinguishable: we should not differentiate
in any way our reactions to murder, child abuse, possession of 1 joint,
shoplifting, armed robbery, going 57 mph in a 55 mph zone, or building a
structure that inadvertantly is too close to someone elses property. they are
all criminal acts and should be dealt with as such.

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:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:19:00 EDT
From:         LWONG@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      arafat

hey folks!

anybody hear anything more 'bout yasser arafat's plane crash?  it
seems that his plane had to go down due to a sandstorm in Libya.

*update*newsbrief*update*newsbrief*update*
arafat's fine.  the three other ppl in the plane were killed, though.
arafat was just bruised.

damn. and i was just going to incriminate the mossad.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:19:00 EDT
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET>
Subject:      Eugene V. Debs

        Jay has claimed that Eugene V. Debs was not a political prisoner;
rather, that Debs "broke a law."  I would be interested in Jay's elaboration on
this point.  If the sole motivation for Debs's imprisonment was the alleged
threat he posed to America's war effort, why was he not released after the
Armistice?  Do you believe that Debs truly threatened America's fight?  Using
this rationale, would you conclude that others, such as Nelson Mandella and
Adrei Sakharov deserved imprisonment because they, too, "broke laws" in their
respective countries?

        My apologies if this is a bit non-topical, and I would be happy to take
the discussion to private mail if it does not relate to POLITICS.

---
Mike McCarthy
Marshall Univ. History Dept.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
YEA003@MUVMS5.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:00:13 EDT
From:         Joe Bob Bruce <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

>From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
>
>One more on guns:
>
>
>But, you are still in much more danger every time you get into a cat or in
>the bathtub than when you pick up a gun or are around someone who has one.
>
>Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
>University of Chicago
>
Well that there is a whole different story. I definately think that
cats should not be left in the hands of those who abuse them.  If you
can't use a cat responsibly, then you shouldn't have one.
As i well know, it is indeed dangereous to get into a cat, especially
if they have not been declawed.  'course then you get into the
animal rights issues and all those g-darn sierra club bleeding
heart liberals. Now, i don't think that government to should
stick its nose where it don't belong but men are losing
important manly body parts when they get into a cat without the
proper training. And well, as my mama said, if you ain't got
jewels you better get some tools. and even though i don't rightly
know what that means...i think that the government should protect men's
private parts, therefore i support mandatory cat training for those
who use cats both recreationally and in business.

Joe Bob Bruce
*disclaimer* i do not NOT advocate the use of cats in bathtubs.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:04:40 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
              8 Apr 1992 14:01:23 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

>> Now, in the previous post, Andy was quick to say that
>> gun manufacturers don't pick targets for gun owners.
>> But now he claims *he* has the right and the power to
>> assign or withhold motives to hunters.

> I've bought guns; the gun manufacturer didn't determine the
> use that I bought them for.

Though correct, the above statement does not add anything
to our debate, for the same can be said for every product.

While manufacturers do not force any particular use for their
product it is very easy to determine the function and the
primary use of most products.

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.

> I've had considerable experience with hunters; I'm merely reporting
> their views.  Unless KAT can read minds ....

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.  But then again you are withholding the designation of
hunter from a person who kills only for the joy of killing.
Reminds of my student  who when discussing religion would not
consider but his own small sect a christian.  To him catholics,
protestants, baptist, etc. were not christians.

> 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.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:09:00 EDT
From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      Talk about a vague amendment!!!

The Second Amendment goes to show you that puncuation *IS*
important.  Exactly what does the second amendment say, and
what does it mean???
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:10:00 CST
From:         DG7631R@DRAKE.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Jay's Taxes

Considering the nature of the postings on this bulletin board, may I humbly
submit that it is now high time that "Jay" open his own personal bulletin
board and spare the rest of us the trials and tribulations of his Hyde Park
existence and opinions.  DJG
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:39:03 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

History of the 2nd Amm - short version.

Like most else, the 2nd Ammendment was a compromise, where two phrases were
combined.  If you drop the intorductory clause, the ammendment becomes clear.

Also, recall that in their time, the reason to won a gun was to protect
against tyranny, not gangs.

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
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:16:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?

>> 2) Incumbant presidents should be charged what the other candidate spends on
>> travel. Clinton gets secret service men for free, and its costs some to ship
>> them around, but if Clinton spends $500,000 for air travel, then CREP should
>> pay the same to the treasury.  There are some costs, like the security
>> officer carrying the football, that simply go along with being president.

> Well, I think incumbent presidents should be charged the actual cost of
> travel.  If Bush wants to use Air Force One, his campaign should be charged
> with the full cost -- I don't want to subsidize his campaign with my tax
> dollars.  In some recent news report or other I heard that, for example,
> the Bush campaign is charged the cost of a commercial first-class ticket
> plus $1 for people flying in military jets.  That doesn't come close to
> covering the actual cost of such flights.

Wait a second!  Presidents have some fringe benefits not to have
perks per se but rather their jobs require it.  Look, no one
should want the president to fly coach even if he so desires.  In fact
I think it should be illegal for the president to fly coach or
recklessly endanger himself.

--KAT

        oh, come on... let bush recklessly endanger himself!
        i think that what this country needs is: Dan Quayle '92!
        (that'll keep them guessin'; not even danny boy will know
        what he's doing: the plan's locked in a safe.)

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU