HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Congress has exempted itself...
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 20:20:54 GMT

dchatham@utkvx3.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes:

>In article <1992Sep21.155208.8338@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com 
>(Joe Collins) writes...

>>But how about this- CONGRESS HAS EXEMPTED itself from many of these same laws.
>>Here is a short list of what we must comply with and what they don't have to
>>comply with (why is that?):
>> 
>>Social Security Act of 1933
>>National Labor Relations Act of 1935
>>Minimum Wage Act of 1938
>>Equal Pay Act of 1963
>>Civil Rights Act of 1964
>>Freedom of Information Act of 1966
>>Age Discrimination Act of 1967
>>Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
>>Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972
>>Title 9 of Higher Education Act Amend. 1972
>>Rehabilitation Act of 1973
>>Privacy Act of 1974
>>Age Discrimination Act Amendments of 1975
>>Ethics in Goverment Act of 1978  [!!!]
>>Civil Rights Restoration ACt of 1988
>>(Reference: Wall Street Journal, 10/4/91)
>> 
>>

>However, I'm writing to try to explain the sick reasoning behind these
>exemptions.  The Congressmen are afraid of being hassled and possibly
>arrested by the agents of the executive branch.  After all, if they
>were not exempt, they would all be criminals.  Therefore, Congress
>convinces itself by a specious "separation of powers" argument that it 
>must write in these monstrous exemptions to protect the dignity and 
>privilege of the two Houses.

Could you in *rational* terms explain why the separation of powers
argument that Congress makes is "specious", especially in light of the
kinds of abuse of executive branch powers we've seen in recent years?

The more important issue is, does Congress actually *abide* by the laws?
Far as I know, all Congressional staff are paid at least minimum wage and,
judging from the seniority of some members, age discrimination is hardly
a problem.

Does anyone have instances of Congressional violations or is this simply
an ideological issue?
-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cmhaar@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Chris Haar)
Subject: Re: Veto Override
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Chemistry/Northwestern Uni
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:13:18 GMT

In article <mancini-061092221222@usx215.fysik.uu.se>, mancini@fysik.uu.se
(Derrick C. Mancini) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Oct6.050303.23654@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec2.wustl.edu
> (Greg Lyon) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >   If you haven't heard already, the Cable TV Re-regulation bill became the 
> > first bill to be have a veto by President Bush overridden.  The votes were
> > something like 75-24 (Senate) and 308-114 (House).
> > 
> >   Any comments on possible effects on the upcoming election ?
> > 
> 
> I think it is the first indication that if buy some fluke Bush is
> re-elected,
> he will have a most cantankerous congress, and will likely be a very in-
> effective lame duck president.

Among other like-minded responses.

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but perhaps it will have no effect on the election. 
And as far as I can tell, it was good legislation, and King George had no
business vetoing it.

cmh
Vote, dammit!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14971 talk.politics.misc:49184
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:12:56 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Oct1.193750.6546@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>From article <1992Oct1.155806.6031@netcom.com>, by nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle):
>> 
>>       But there's no excuse for only accepting "yes" votes.
>
>Nonsense, did the Democrats allow Republicans to vote "NO" on Clinton
>at their convention?  The Republicans?  It doesn't make any difference 

The Democrats allowed other democrats to vote NO on Clinton.  The
Rebuplicans allowed other republicans to vote NO on Bush.  These
votes were cast in the primaries.  Since both had enough votes to
get the nomination of their party before the convention started the
conventions weren't useful for deciding who the candidate would be.

>how many people don't want Perot to run.  If a significant number of 
>people want him in the race he should run.  I'd say that the 9-17% he's 
>running in the polls now constitutes a significant number of people.
>

He can certainly run if he wants to.  What I object to is the claim
that all these phone calls indicate wide spread support and a mandate
from his people to run.  There may be wide spread support but this
poll of his is totally useless for determining what the support is.
If he really wanted to know what the level of support was he would
have conducted a real poll of UWSA or even the entire country.  What
it looks like is he wanted a mandate to run so he created one.

>
>"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
>                                          AT&T Network Systems
>                                          att!cbnews!nrc
>                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com


-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Secord says Bush is lying about Iran-Contra
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:48:58 GMT

spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes:

>In article <cortez.717570954@milton> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>>Some time after Nir died in a plane crash in Mexico, his widow's home
>>in Israel was ransacked and his personal records collection stolen.
>>The thieves took nothing else of value.

>His personal records?  Oh my, I hope that they didn't get the complete
>Elvis collection.

>:-)

Well, you know, the Iranians have Elvis too, but their
asking price was too high.

>							spl

>-- 
>Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@dim.ucsd.edu
>UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
>"When the cells are talking, you have to listen to them..."
>                            - Liz Yoder, UCSD Neuroscience graduate student
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: New CNN Poll
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:23:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.023309.5662@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>
>   A new CNN/Time magazine poll was released tonight.
>Results in a three candidate race :
>
>Clinton           42 %
>Bush              33 %
>Perot		  17 %
>
>I don't remember the exact results in the three person race, but Perot had 17 %
>and Clinton had a 7-10 point lead on Bush.

I just saw it reported last night; as I recall.:

Clinton 44%
Bush    31%
Perot   17%
Undecided 9%

Clinton's lead over Bush only shrank by 1 point with Perot included;
this was emphasized in the story, as meaning that Perot was having
relatively little effect.

The margin of error (whatever that means? s.d.?) was 3 points.  Numbers
add to 101 because of rounding.
-- 
Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15320 alt.politics.bush:7865 alt.politics.clinton:8662
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: 1992 REPUBLICAN PLATFORM (1/5)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:49:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

StarOwl@uiuc.edu said..
>: America must remain neutral towards particular religions, but we must
>: not remain neutral towards religion itself or the values religions
>: supports.  Mindful of our country's Judeo-Christian heritages and rich
>: religious pluralism, we support the right of students to engage in 
>: voluntary prayer in schools and the right of the community to do so
>: at commencements and other occasions.
>
>While all this is well and good, what protections will be taken to
>protect the rights of atheists and agnostics.

George Bush doesn't feel that is necessary to protect the rights of
atheists and agnostics.

     RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
          Americans who are atheists?"

     GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
          nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under
          God."

GB = George Bush
RS = Robert Sherman, chief spokesman for American Atheists
Mr. Bush made the comments during a campaign stop at O'Hare airport. 

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer                                       Notice 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com       Due to budgetary constraints the light at 
aschaffe@netcom.com                 the end of the tunnel is being turned off.
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call 1-800-272-9763.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Party Registration
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:04:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
In article <1992Sep30.132053.3243@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew >> political party function if it has no control whatever on who
>> joins it? If anyone can walk in off the streets and be signed
>> up as a member of a political party, able to decide who its
>> candidates are and what is to be in its platform, what is to
>> protect a party from being taken over by people opposed to all
>> it stands for?
>
>Because in America we have the freedom of association. If I want to
>participate as a Republican or a Democrat, that's my choice. I can
>change my mind the day of the election if I like :)

I am sorry - this is *not* freedom of association. If a group
of people is *forced* by law to accept anyone who wants to join
them to the point where those they are forced to accept
can dictate to them what they should do, then they have
lost the freedom to associate. Freedom of association must
necessarily include the freedom to exclude.

In the UK, given that most political parties are short of funds
and helpers we generally accept anyone who wants to join. I
have only known a couple of times where someone has been
refused membership because their personal views were grossly
different from the stated aims of the party, or where it was
suspected they were supporters of another party who had joined
ours to damage it. Nevertheless, to me, that freedom to exclude
is a very valuable and necessary democratic safeguard.

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14533 alt.politics.clinton:7614 alt.politics.bush:7026
From: mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush and Iran Contra
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:37:24 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Ah, Mr. J. Wagner, where shall I begin......

Let me begin by stating that I am NOT a Democrat, so that you won't reply with
your silly, stupid assertion that all that I need is a good party change.  You
have completely missed the point of what was wrong with Iran-Contra.  It 
violated the trust of the Congress, violated the trust of the American people,
violated the law (which I guess is meaningless to you, so I'll not overemphasizethat part), and never, ever came clean about what it was doing.  If your 'men'
in charge were so obviously right and just in what they were doing, why didn't they come clean with the people of this country, state that they broke the law
(law is an unfortunate obstacle for a good state at best, right?), and let the
obviousness of their righteousness speak for them?  No, instead they just lied,
lied again, forgot, and so on.  This is not to excuse Democrats of all blame of any kind.  They have messed up plenty of things when in power.  But I find it so
ammusing that someone can be so partisan and short-sighted as to attempt to 
justify something that was a mistake, plain and simple.  By the way, ask the 
Nicaraguan people if they really want a democracy, of if they'd rather just havefood and medicine, and I'm sure you and all your Reagan crusaders will be very
surprised to hear that life is more important than liberty for most.  But alas,
I don't expect you to see that.

You know, you make your case even worse by making the case against academic
achievement.  I have a feeling most of your readers saw that and automatically
assumed that you were a mental loser (which may or may not be true).  Look, it
does indeed make sense to put smart people in power.  What type of qualification
exists other than sheer mental comptency?  And if you imply in response that
morality is the key, and that Republican morals are beyon reproach, I will not
respond.  I'll be busy laughin hyserically, followed perhaps by a few dry       
heaves.  Our nation's problem is that we are ruled not by leaders, but by well-
advertised products.  Most votewrs don't know a thing about their candidate, 
and the population that is politically aware is so partisan as to be closed-
minded in a spooky extreme.

I'm tired of this.  Guess I will go renounce my citizenship, and live without
a state.  That would be nice.

Matt Ivaliotes
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14831 talk.politics.misc:48923
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:16:37 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Oct1.010309.1470@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>  OK.  Let's assume, therefore, that 10% of the callers actually want Perot
>out.  And that each person calls an average of 10 times.
>
>  That's still 90000 people in just 12-16 hours.
>
>  And I think that there are a lot more than just 90000 people that want Perot
>in.
>
>  <Just trying to apply some logic>
>
>						Mike Falkner
>

How about we assume that 95% want him out and the 2 guys made all the rest
of the calls.  That's 2 people in just 12-16 hours.

My assumptions are, of course, ridiculous.  But we have no way of knowing
whether the correct answer is closer to your assumptions or my assumptions.
Maybe each person only called once and only a handful want him out.
They point is that there is know way to know so claiming that 1,000,000
calls equals X that support him is ridiculous.  Counting these calls
doesn't tell you anything.

I would have expected Ross Perot to be smart enough to conduct some kind
of scientific poll if he really wanted to know what people think.
Maybe this 'poll' gives us some indication of how he would run his
electronic town hall :)

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:53:40 GMT
Followup-To:  talk.abortion
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

Sorry for this character's cross-posting habits.  Follow-ups
to talk.abortion.

In article <1992Sep27.211618.15622@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> 
> What I am upset about is the way abortion is sometimes used as a method
> of birth control.
> 
> You've got to admit, there some hypocrisy on the part of some pro-choice
> promoters- they say abortion is ok, then talk about the "tragedy" of the
> death penalty.

Ain't strawmen fun?

And isn't it just the grandest fun to call a large group of people
hypocrites after first misrepresenting what many of them think?
And isn't it also a gas, I mean just a real hoot, to misrepresent
them in the first place and to not bother to find out what the
issues really are?

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:45:40 GMT

In article <Bv5o3D.J64@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>
>Sounds to me like you met an anarchist who was calling himself a
>Libertarian, for reasons I wouldn't even attempt to guess at.
>Mainstream Libertarians recognize the limitations of voting (it's
>wrong to have a vote on who to eat for dinner, for example) but are
>otherwise not "opposed" to voting.
>
>I suggest that you read our Party Program instead of paying attention
>to rude people like that.  I can email you a copy if you like.

Thank you, but someone has already sent me a copy. I will be honest and
say that I haven't had time to read through it thoroughly yet, but I
will. 

Vickie
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: WATCH THIS SPACE--REPUBLICAN PLATFORM COMING SOON
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:24:17 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
: 
: I have been typing in the Republic Platform and am currently on page
: 56 (there are 71 pages).  After a final spell check and a proofread,
: I am estimating that I can have it posted by 10/2/92 (possibly today,
: but I doubt it).  Enjoy!

Thank you!

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:19:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles


Our national debt has reached $4 trillions and is raising with explosive 
speed. In average, a family of 4 has $ 80,000 of public debt. Is this normal?

I have found a way out of this mess, and I believe that it is the only way.

To get rid of this debt, simply pay back less than we're supposed to !

But How ?

We can do it legally by having an INTENTIONAL HIGH INFLATION RATE !

The benefits of this policy is:

* Most of our national debt has fixed interest rates. With a high inflation 
  rate, we will end up paying lower net interest rates.

* The principal of the debt itsefl will be devalued by inflation.

* To promote inflation, the goverment will create new money, which will help
  to finance the budget and reduce the deficit.

Of course, this policy has winners and losers.
The losers are the owners of the public debt: big banks, foreign investors,
"fat" corporations ...
The winners are the majority of American people. With a reduced burden of debt,
the goverment can spend more on education, development and social programs, and
can reduce tax at the same time.
But how about millions of Americans who own Govt. Bonds ?
Well, if their family owns less than $80,000 of govt. bonds, they are still
net debtors: They are still winners.

The only problem of this policy is that the FED, under the influence of big
banks and shark lenders, will never let it happen.

American is destined to bankrupcy !

Kan Nuel.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lestrade@Ra.MsState.Edu (John Patrick Lestrade)
Subject: Re: Interesting Happenings on Larry King Live (STL)
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:00:14 GMT

gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:


>   Just before the start of Larry King Live this evening, featuring an interview
>with Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the TCI Cablevision signal for CNN became 
>disrupted (it looked similar to the scrambling used on Pay-TV channels).

>   At 9 PM, just after the show ended, the signal returned to normal.

>   TCI Cablevision was not sure of the cause, at the last I heard.

>   Just makes you wonder...

>Greg

>-- 
>*******************************************************************************
>Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
>gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 

Oh, please Greg, tell us, do you also believe in little green men?

--
John Patrick Lestrade, PhD        
cnesta::lestrade
lestrade@ra.msstate.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14832 talk.politics.misc:48924
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 1 Oct 1992 10:27:30 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Oct1.010551.1471@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>  I don't.  I think that, if you are going to have the system, you must be
>ready to accept the consequences.  You don't like that???????????
>
>		CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>  Personally, I think that much of any other system just serves to preserve the
>Republocratic PUKE that we have to put up with.
>
>  Bend over, Chris, and bend over a little more when the Republocrats want you
>to.

Your getting a little personal now aren't you?  I believe this thread
started about Perot's stupid 800 number and if it is an accurate method
to determine if he should run.

Not that its relevant to this discussion but I would like to see Perot
run because throwing a wrench in the system might just be what it needs
right now.  I couldn't support Perot for many reasons but if he wants
to run then he should go for it.  I also think his non-candidacy (so far)
has helped bring attention to other third party candidates.

Lighten up Mike, you were (are?) making claims that 1,000,000 people
called Perot's number to tell him to run.  You also claim that not
very many people want him out of the race.  I was disputing these
claims - thats all.

>
>						Mike Falkner


-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: NYT Poll 10/6 (Perot groundswell? NOT!)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:31:29 GMT

goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>                                                           error   date
>>Washington Post/ ABC News: Clinton 48,  Bush 35,  Perot 9    4     10/5
>    
>    Other - 8
>
>>USA Today/CNN/Gallup:      Clinton 47,  Bush 35,  Perot 10   3     10/5
>
>    Other - 8
>
>    Looks like Perot is capturing a major portion of the undecided vote
>    thus leaving Bush little or no chance of getting back into the race.

One of the subheadings in the NYT article was "Grim Findings for Bush."
The overall headline was "Poll Finds Hostility to Perot and No Basic
Shift in Race."

The only bright spot for Mr. Bush was that Gov. Clinton's unfavorable rating
has gone up from last month, from 28% to 35%. However, Mr. Bush's
unfavorable rating went up too, from 44% to 48%. Perot's unfavorable rating
soared from 38% to 59%. 

It looks like Perot is not going to shake things up for Mr. Bush, so the
debates are his major hope right now. 67% of the people polled said
they intend to watch the debate this Sunday.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.censorship