HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hhuang@m4-035-15.MIT.EDU (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Bush's 1993 Federal Budget
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:55:20 GMT

Well, I haven't gone to my Congressman or Senator for a a review or summary of
the budget, but I was looking at the Bush 1993 budget, and this is the one
which is currently being haggled over in Congress.  This list is from 2/1's
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Review (CQ for short).  This is the summary
sheet of summary sheets.  For anybody curious, I strongly suggest looking at
the dozen or so more pages on greater specifics.  I am not clear on what the
difference between "budget authority" and "outlays" is, but "budget authority"
are the figures which make it into 7 o'clock headline news and front pages of
newspapers.  I imagine outlays is actual cost (notice defense).  To repeat,
this is the proposed Bush 1993 budget, with all the subtleties you can derive
from that (like lower defense cuts and lower entitlements increases than a
Democratic budget).  Treasury is the interest on the debt, and I'm pretty sure
offset receipts is whatever the government gets from selling bonds and
investing, etc.  I can make sure of this if anybody is curious.

Figures are in millions:

				Budget Authority	   Outlays
			92 estimate	93 proposed	92 est	93 prop

Legislative Branch		2684	2855		2760	2788
The Judiciary			2389	2833		2371	2763
Executive Office of the
  President			226	264		199	255
Funds Appropriated to the
  President			25135	11691		11482	11316
Agriculture			62163	64840		61794	59373
Commerce			2938	2829		2869	2883
Defense - Military		276020	266996		294422	277786
Defense - Civil			28015	29221		27890	29250
Education			29441	32339		26528	30410
Energy				16868	17070		15719	16292
Health and Human Services,
  except Social Security	264623	290418		263409	289342
Health and Human Servies,
  Social Security		284440	298593		280654	295817
Housing and Urban Development	25165	24323		24184	28141
Interior			7007	6333		7098	6542
Justice				9873	10745		9367	10354
Labor				37855	35601		42286	38443
State				4683	5381		4539	5175
Transportation			36103	38963		33371	34495
Treasury			292239	313734		290613	312114
Veterans Affairs		33578	34192		33603	34109
Environmental Protection Agency	6504	6785		5948	6164
General Services Administration	598	347		444	1183
National Aeronautics and Space
  Administration		14321	14994		13819	14088
Office of Personnel Management	36830	39786		36141	37593
Small Business Administration	1173	738		455	297
Other independent agencies	72132	75372		66593	76547
Allowances			-96	-464		-96	-426

Undistributed Offset
  Receipts			 -115986   -124808	 -115986   -124808
(On budget)			(-84529)  (-91326)	(-88036)  (-91326)
(Off budget)			(-29948)  (-91326)	(-29948)  (-33482)

TOTAL				1455425	 1501160	1440977	 1497472
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: PC incident for the day
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:54:38 GMT

mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:


>[From _Reason_ magazine, April 1992]

>It's tough to be politically correct. Just ask the people at the
>Harvard Divinity School. Doing its bit to save the planet, the 
>school placed recycling bins around campus to collect paper. The
>bins were originally labeled "white" and "colored." Someone 
>anonymously relabeled the latter bins "paper of color." _Penthouse_
>magazine reports that the school then relabeled all the bins
>"bleached paper" and "dyed paper."

They should have been smart enough to use the "bleached" and "dyed" terms from
the onset.


-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  "D.C. IN 93!"
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"You know, you should really change your position on abortion."
                                 --Katharine Hepburn to George Bush, Nov 1990
From: cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: RE: Term limits etc...
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:35:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: ulkyvx.1992Apr9.093523.1
Organization: University of Louisville

Sorry, I don't have the ability to cut and paste, so I hope I don't confuse
anyone.

Someone asked why I thought it was ok for presidential term limits and not
congress.  I don't, I was just pointing out what has happened since Roosevelt.
(You didn't misrepresent my opinion, I did)

Several people jumped to the conclusion that Reagon would certainly have been
reelected.  Could he have beat Bush and Dukakis?  Maybe.   But consider a few
things:  1) Since he didn't run, he didn't have to go through the campaign
scrutiny that Bush and Dukakis did.  (I think the press would have really
gotten on him, justifiably or not)  2) If he had run, a different democrat may
have challenged him.  I think alot of people (including the democrats) assumed
they were a shoe-in against Bush and were surprised when Dukakis dropped the
ball.  A possible third term for Reagon may have brought out a different set of
people - Cuomo (without his Hamlet routine), Bradley or whomever.  Since we
can't find out, I guess we'll never know.

My point was that in many of the cases - Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford - the
people imposed term limits with their votes and opinions.  The problem is that
people don't get informed and vote.

Regarding my oil company comments:
No, I can't prove that oil companies keep solar power a dead issue (but you
would have a hard time convincing me otherwise).  

Oil for plastics:  Most of the plastic items we use can be made from
synthesized organic materials (or so I am told by a GE plastic's person).
Gasoline?  I'll say something I've been saying for 10 years.  Run cars on
alcohol!  We can make it ourselves!  Farmers need the work!  It pollutes less!
It's higher octane! (but my mechanic said it will screw up my engine)  It
screws up your engine because it has rubber parts in it that alcohol dissolves
over time.  Use an all metal engine and you won't have that problem.
(gee, we could stop our dependence on foreign oil and help our farmers at the
same time!)

Someone said that the people with the oil at the end wins.  Not neccessarily.
We may reach a point where we don't need oil at all!

PS I do not consider myself "politically correct". PC is an oversimplification
of issues, in my opinion.  If I have to catagorize myself, I'll call myself a
rationalist.  (i.e. not political)
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Vegetarians...brutal plant killers
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:45:40 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo) writes:
>There are some other selfish reasons for not eating meat:  I don't
>smell as bad (body odour and breath).  I don't get 'meat sleepy'
>(digesting meat is way way harder and takes a lot longer which
>is the reason you stink more......you literally have rotting meat
>inside of you for 2-3 days!).

However, veggie farts are lethal...

>Not so selfish reason:  You get 16 times the amount of grain that
>one cow will use up.  About half of the harvested land in America
>is used to feed animals.  If most of that land was used to produce
>vegetables, fruits, grains, beans etc then 20 billion people could
>easily be fed.

Where are people starving, and why?  Where grain is being grown?  No,
where grain doesn't grow and where the government has policies which
encourage starvation.  Say we took all the grain being fed to cows.
Would that get to the starving in Africa, and could those starving
people somehow magically begin to grow grain on their land?  Are they
growing grain there now that is being fed to cows?  No, no, and no.
It's not a matter of a maximum amount of grain we can grow, it's a
matter of distribution, politics, and people living in a wasteland.

And of course, if there were no more demand for grain for cattle,
would people continue to grow it?  No. We've already got a surplus.
-- 
An example of hard water is ice.
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Term limits
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:23:46 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:
>>That is precisely why term limits are a good idea -- the incumbent can't be
>>voted back in office no matter how many people want him there again.

>	The replacement for the old congreesman will be Joan of Arc or
>	St. Francis of Assis?  He'll be a different face, true.
>	But since he's put in office by the same voters, then he will
>	have promised the same goodies, to the same people, and if he
>	wants a second term, or to move up the ladder, he'll have to deliver.

But he might not have the power.  The longer a congressman stays in
Washington, the more he spends.  The more power he gets as he achieves
seniority, gets on important comittees, and gains power.  Eventually
you get a situation where a pork-king like Byrd can spend whatever he
wants to, and can even call himself a "billion dollar industry" for
his constituents, because everybody needs his support as head of the
(appropriations?) committee.

At the very least you shuffle people around, and you don't leave them
in there for years to get more and more comfortable with the "you
spend for me, I spend for you" way Washington works, which eventually
seems to get to almost all of them.  Keep them moving, don't let them
get comfortable, keep them off guard.


>	What you need to do is replace the incumbent voters with people
>	who are mature enough to accept that there's no free lunch..

And be politicians at the same time?
-- 
We are only immortal for a limited time.
From: pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul A Prior)
Subject: Re: politically correct terms
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:38:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.141220.26019@ms.uky.edu> bee@ms.uky.edu (Elizabeth Gilliam) writes:
>A few weeks ago I mentioned something about posting this
>list of politically correct terms from SPY magazine.
>Unfortunately, it took me this long to get my magazine back
>from a dear friend.
>
>
>But here they are!
>
>
>			"We're in the Nineties Now"
>
>Maligned Group				New, Politically Correct Name 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Angry persons 				People of choler
>Priests					People of collar
>Square-dance deejays			People of caller
>Sorting assistants, collators		People of culler
>Doughnut glazers			People of cruller
>Great Bear repairpersons		People of cooler
>Denverites				People of Colorado
>Vegetarians				People of cauliflower
>_The Heart is a Lonely Hunter_ fans     People of McCullers
>
How about:

People infected with Vibrio sp.         People of cholera

(well, maybe not... ;)

-- 
--------pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu----(614) 297-8474----------------
Paul A. Prior    Ban anchors, not reef tanks   "With friends like this,   
2nd year medical student		          who needs anemones?"
The Ohio State U. College of Medicine   Tobacco Kills- Please don't smoke!
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: term limits
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:28:14 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>We have had a two term limit on the president since the anti-Roosevelt
>amendment.  Since then, how many presidents could possibly have served a third
>term?

>Reagan:  It would have been tough for him to win again after Irangate but not
>an unthinkable prospect.  (personally I don't think he would have won)

_Bush_ won, for crying out loud.  He was the little Reagan, who Reagan
supporters weren't sure they wanted to vote for because they didn't
think he had "the vision thing."  And they were right, but...  And
against Dukakis?  Reagan would have beat him by a bigger margin than
Bush did.  Reagan had the Irangate baggage, but Dukakis had Dukakis
and the Democratic Party.

-- 
"Why do we need to Socialize banks and factories?  We Socialize human beings."
  -- Adolf Hitler
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU (Nick Jovanovic)
Subject: Re: Term limits
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:20:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.145138.26120@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
>
>In addition to term limits, how about paying the congresscrumbs _exactly_ the
>national average income.  At least that way they might get some idea of how
>much their theft-by-taxation hurts...
>
>-- 

OK.  While we're at it, let's limit all corporate salaries to the present
national average as well.  The money saved can be used by business to 
invest in new production and employment.  

Labelling taxation as "theft" is quite an emotional response.  It would
seem to me that people who are lucky enough to be wealthy (on a world
average scale -- most Americans) OWE a good portion of that money back
to the system that made it possible for them to acquire the wealth in the
first place, and that means taxes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: surprising article on harassment
From: krueger@galileo.uucp (Ted Krueger)
Date: 10 Apr 92 08:32:27 MST
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Apr10.025704.13076@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> gonzalez@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin M. Gonzalez) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.163128.8906@acsu.buffalo.edu> v070km6q@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (John B Schutkeker) writes:
>>

[stuff deleted disagreeing that "all sex is rape" and "all men are rapists"]

>>
>>						John Schutkeker
>
>John,
>  If the people with whom you associate make these kinds of arguments, then
>  it is time to change the people with whom you associate, at least
>  intellectually.
>
>  That these silly sort of "all sex is rape" arguments are all you hear is
>  more of a function on the people YOU associate with rather than on the
>  world of interested thinkers.
>
>  If someone makes a stupid argument, chances are that they are stupid.
>  Why do you talk with them?
>
>  Martin Gonzalez

Martin, if I may be so bold as to respond for John, the reason that 
we are forced to talk with stupid people is that the media, and 
many others (including my University Administration) actually believe 
that these stupid people are credible and go as far as to make 
university policy based on these stupid people's arguments.  [If you 
would like to discuss the recent sexual harrassment case at the 
UofA physics department, I will be happy to oblige.]

Ted


Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: That's not funny.
---------- krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu ----------
From: jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Term limits
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:09:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr16.230932.2428
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158

In article <rdippold.703463060@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
>>In alt.politics.correct, best@anasaz (Mike Best) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr6.172037.25939@cs.yale.edu> jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU (Nick
>>>In theory you are correct that citizens are responsible to support the

Please stop attributing comments to me that I never made.
Edit your messages more carefully.

The above was a reply to my comments, not my opinions.

-Nick Jovanovic
From: gonzalez@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin M. Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: surprising article on harassment
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:57:04 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Apr8.163128.8906@acsu.buffalo.edu> v070km6q@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (John B Schutkeker) writes:
>
>Now, applying the "Alice's Restauraunt" principle, which says that if
>one person believes something, it doesn't matter much, but if two people
>believe something, it might be a conspiracy, and if three people believe
>something, then it must be a movement.  This may mean that we
>here have two women guilty as charged of (gasp!) a conspiracy of open-
>mindedness, and that if we search hard enough we might be able to root
>out some more.  In fact, I can think of two that I know (or know of)
>off the top of my head.  I wonder what it means.  For one, it might put
>a damper on a little of the anti-PC bitching.  Now if only the highly
>reputed universities, such as McGill, where PC is quite strong, would show
>themselves to be so open-minded.  I personally have had my fill of "all sex
>is rape" and "all men are rapists."  Only a delusional psycho-neurotic
>could believe that lunacy.  "All femnism is rape," would be more
>accurate.
>
>						John Schutkeker

John,
  If the people with whom you associate make these kinds of arguments, then
  it is time to change the people with whom you associate, at least
  intellectually.

  That these silly sort of "all sex is rape" arguments are all you hear is
  more of a function on the people YOU associate with rather than on the
  world of interested thinkers.

  If someone makes a stupid argument, chances are that they are stupid.
  Why do you talk with them?

  Martin Gonzalez
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Term limits
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:50:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <rdippold.702685426@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> >>That is precisely why term limits are a good idea -- the incumbent can't be
> >>voted back in office no matter how many people want him there again.
> >	The replacement for the old congreesman will be Joan of Arc or
> >	St. Francis of Assis?  He'll be a different face, true.
> >	But since he's put in office by the same voters, then he will
> >	have promised the same goodies, to the same people, and if he
> >	wants a second term, or to move up the ladder, he'll have to deliver.
> But he might not have the power.  The longer a congressman stays in
> Washington, the more he spends.  The more power he gets as he achieves
> seniority, gets on important comittees, and gains power. 

Well, when EVERYBODY is term-limited, and there's still all this power to
be parcelled out, SOMEBODY has to get it.  It just doesn't go away.

> Eventually
> you get a situation where a pork-king like Byrd can spend whatever he
> wants to, and can even call himself a "billion dollar industry" for
> his constituents, because everybody needs his support as head of the
> (appropriations?) committee.

So now it'll take six years to grow a pork king instead of decades.

There are good arguments for term limitations, but keeping power away
from congressmen isn't a viable one.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman )
Subject: Re: Term limits
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:57:22 GMT

mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

>   I am perfectly aware that people love their local Congressman and want him
>back in office every time so that he can give them goodies from the Treasury. 
>That is precisely why term limits are a good idea -- the incumbent can't be
>voted back in office no matter how many people want him there again.

	The replacement for the old congreesman will be Joan of Arc or
	St. Francis of Assis?  He'll be a different face, true.
	But since he's put in office by the same voters, then he will
	have promised the same goodies, to the same people, and if he
	wants a second term, or to move up the ladder, he'll have to deliver.
	What you need to do is replace the incumbent voters with people
	who are mature enough to accept that there's no free lunch..

	- Michael Goldman

-- 
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in adapting the world to himself.  Therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
	Disclaimer:  All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
	<sun!sono!miklg>  or  [miklg@acuson.com]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
From: vagus@saturn.sdsu.edu (Alexander Vagus)
Subject: Re: Pancho Villa
Organization: San Diego State University, Math Dept.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:00:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.141438.4054@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> gonzalez@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin M. Gonzalez) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.085450.9874@newshub.sdsu.edu> vagus@saturn.sdsu.edu (Alexander Vagus) writes:
>
>Stuff deleted
>>
>>My dear Francis, I think you should rely more on history books than
>>some popular TV shows. However, both are equally distasteful.
>>Although it is true that, USA send thousands of troops into Mexican
>>territory to capture "Pancho Villa", yes that included what we later knew
>>as the famous general George S. Patton. But, you should know that general
>>Pershing got back to the USA empty handed. Actually, after *years* of chasing
>>Pancho Villa, Pershing's troops were the ones who got their ass kicked.
>
>Since you excoriate Francis for inacurracy, I think it only proper to ask
>where you read that Pershing got his ass kicked.  To the
>best of my knowledge he did do battle but with Venustiano Carranza's troops,
>never actually meeting up with Pancho Villa and his troops.

Listen to the mexican corridos :-)

>>It is really amazing to see that people actually rely on TV shows. Where true is
>>the first thing to get twisted. No matter how Hollywood may portrait Pancho
>>Villa, they  simply can't change the true. They can misslead people, of course.
>>
>>Now, a few more things about Pancho Villa, a guy who's methods of waging war
>>were copied in world war I by European nations. A guy who didn't let the
>>Germans to place military bases in Mexico.
>
>Wow!  and here all these years I thought that it was Villa that had
>not adjusted to hte machine gun and barbed wire (WWI fighting methods)
>and that is why he got HIS ass kicked at the battle of Celaya. (April 1915)

Mistakes are costly, in this case, it was Villa's stubborness and sense 
of bravery the reason for his defeat and not the stupid machine gun
or barbed wire(WWI fighting methods). Which by the way Villa's
troops were decimated, and never able to fully recuparate.

>I also had not understood that he had the power to deny the Germans
>military bases in Mexico since he was never ever fully in
>control of Mexico.

No, not officially, but then, since when the nations of this world abide
solely on official rules? with so many flagrant and gross violations to
internaltional laws ---US bombing of Lybia, US invasion of Panama, Irak's
hostile takeover of little Kwait, Russian's invasion to Afghanistan and so on.

>Methinks you have failed to stand up to your own standards.
>

Rethink.

Alexander Vagus ||vagus@saturn.sdsu.edu
From: cedman@714-725-3177.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: term limits
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:55:48 GMT

cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
> Just another thought on term limits:
> We have had a two term limit on the president since the
> anti-Roosevelt amendment.  Since then, how many
> presidents could possibly have served a third term?
> [...]
> Reagan:  It would have been tough for him to win
> again after Irangate but not an unthinkable prospect. 
> (personally I don't think he would have won) 

I don't think that is correct. If I remember correctly, there were  
polls showing that Regean would have beaten both Bush and Dukakis by  
significant margins if he had run against either of them.

	Carl Edman
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:3586 soc.culture.british:5879 soc.culture.usa:2792