HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: michael@marcel.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: 1996 GOP Veep Choice (Was: Re: Complete this sentence)
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:43:00 GMT
	<1992Nov11.190041.6137@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
	<1992Nov11.225808.4541@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<92Nov12.104733est.109@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu's message of 12 Nov 92 15:47:45 GMT

In article <92Nov12.104733est.109@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
[preceda deleted on Gen. Colin Powell]
  =his parents are from Jamaica, General Powell was born & raised
  =in Bronx.  
      ^^^^^

Ack!!! That's THE Bronx! The only borough of NYC to have a definite article! 
It's true, though- he did grow up there (and was probably born there).
He even picked up a little yiddish on the side, I understand.

Just missing home,
Chaplin.
--
=========================================================================
Michael A. Chaplin           If you want *their* opinions, ask *them*.
michael@albert.bu.edu ....The Einstein Papers Project, Boston, Mass., USA
chaplin@husc.harvard.edu ....Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., USA
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: The real Dan Quayle
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 08:32:39 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


train@gvls2.gvl.unisys.com (Herbert Rutledge) writes:

> v115r4q5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) doesn't know when to quit:

> >Quayle has embraced the conservative philosophy that will surface in the 1996 
> >Presidential election, and this coupled with his ability to overcome the nega-
> >tive press he endured in his four years as VP should put him in a commanding 
> >position in the 1996 campaign.  

>    I would submit to you this:  Dan Quayle's negative press wasn't something
>    that was merely endured.  It was earned.

As for the conservative philosophy that's about to "surface" (as if
it's somehow been underground for the last 12 years), surveys taken
since the election have shown that the word "conservative" now creates
a negative image in people's minds. It's likely that the term is going
through the same transformation that happened to the perception of "liberal"
in the '70s. In the '60s, being labelled a conservative was just about
the kiss of death for a political candidate. At the 1964 Republic Convention
Barry Goldwater had to plead "conservatism in the defense of liberty
is no vice", but he went on to a crushing defeat in the election. We
are once again at the start of a period when voters want a more active
government, similar to the mood of the '60s, and conservatism is likely
to be identified with tired old trickle-down economics and government
gridlock.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Right-Wing Token-Ring Network?
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:47:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov16.133504.1875@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> sab@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>I: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>
>          [logic and observations deleted]
>
>   Consider:
>
>   Kurt Ludwick and Robert Davis are the same poster.
>   John Switzer and huang from Canada are the same poster.
>   Both Switzers are the same poster.

This post is certainly obscure, to say the least, but be aware that there are 
at least three different Switzers posting on the net - two of whom have the 
first name of John. Clever net users can take notice of the source hosts and 
ping them to get the IP addresses; this along with the net maps will show 
the uniqueness of all posters.
-- 
John Switzer               | "If you ask me, Larry, the Clinton Presidency
                           | has failed. What has he done? Nothing!"
CompuServe: 74076,1250     | --Dave Barry to Larry King, November 12, 1992
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | (P.S. Impeach Clinton, support the coup!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske)
Subject: Re: The real Dan Quayle
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:54:01 GMT

crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:

>I don't think you should hope for the incompetent (being safe..they
>have to lose), we republicans did that this year.  We thought surely
>that a draft-dodging adultering waffle king with a bad record on 
>raising taxes on the people of a small state that happens to rank
>about last in all positive measures would be a sure thing for us.
>I actually worried that Paul Songass (sp?) would get nominated and
>give us a run for the money.  Don't underestimate the gullability
>and naivity of the voter.

>Chad

Spelling flame? Especially one involving the letter "e"?  Nah...I'll 
forget about it.

What is this post insinuating?  Is it insinuating that President-Elect
Bill Clinton is incompetent?  I don't think that anyone can deny that 
Clinton appeared to be a candidate who had weaknesses that the Republicans
could exploit.  But incompetent?!  I don't think too many people will
agree that Clinton is incompetent.

I agree that we shouldn't underestimate the gullability and naivEty of 
the voter.  I fear that Quayle could emerge as a presidental candidate in
'96 precisely because of the gullability and naivEty factor (at least 
among the Republicans voting for him in primaries).
Oh yeah, about gullability and naivEty...need I mention Uncle Ronny?      
Nah.

p.s. Maybe if these rabid posts critisizing Clinton were punctuated just
     a tad more adroitly, we could take them a little more seriously.
     Food for thought, eh Chad?

John Ganske
From: echeverr@scf.usc.edu (Commie Pinko Liberal)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Re. Integrity
Date: 18 Nov 1992 18:12:28 -0800
Organization: <censored>
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

In article <1992Nov17.151753.24181@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pat@sphinx.phys.Virginia.EDU (pat walsh) writes:
>Brian D. Carlson writes:
>>	The one thing I don't understand is this. If liberalism is the
>>ultimate anser to all of our countries ills, why are the majority of
>>liberals I have met bitter and seemingly miserable people, while the
>>majority of conservatives I have met are easy going people who seem much
>>more happy with who they are in life?
>. . . .But that bit
>about the majority of conservatives being happy, well-adjusted people and the
>majority of liberals being miserable misfits really needs some convincing
>support, which just doesn't appear in the post.

I dunno, i think he's right.  The conservatives i know always walk around
with a satisfied air amongst them, while i'm bitter and maladjusted.

Oh, i know why.

Ignorance is bliss.


5150
and them's happy as a little girl
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:48:56 GMT

In article <By2p39.EG5@ais.org> spencer@ais.org (Spencer PriceNash) writes:
>
>Nixon with a beard?  It might have solved some image problems.  Quayle
>with a beard?  That would be quite interesting.

I just had this image of Quayle as "Bjorn the Swedish Lumberjack,"
with the flannel shirt, axe and suspenders.  And a big beard that juts
out from his body.  Dan-O has to get built before he can reincarnate
himself on the national scene in this fashion.

He, of course, can continue on his tirade on owls, whatwith the axe.

"I'm a lumberjack, and I'm OK..."


A cartoon found in last week's New Yorker:
Picture: Middle-aged man talking to another middle-aged man in a bar.
Caption: "I just heard that Superman is going to die.  He's the same
	  age I am!"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: ralph@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (ralph.winslow)
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:44:29 GMT

In <BxnynA.8Ln@acsu.buffalo.edu> v115r4q5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) writes:
>
>   I can't believe the overwhelming disrespect I am constantly encountering in
>this newsgroup.  Perhaps it will take a few months of a Clinton administration 
>for some people to realize it, but Vice President Quayle has been the best 
>political mind in the White House for 4 years, and considering the recently 

That may, horrifyingly, be true.

>elected crop, there won't be a man to top his stature for years to come.  Did 
>anyone watch the debate and actually believe that Al Gore won? Be real!

Jeez, I want some of what HE'S smoking!

Ralph
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:7064 alt.politics.bush:14004
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush wins doublespeak award
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:52:12 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)

In article <D2150056.j7s2ki@erics.infoserv.com>, erics@infoserv (Eric S. Smith) writes:
>George Bush won this year's Doublespeak Award, given annually by the
>National Council of Teachers of English for "public figures who have
>perpetrated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive or euphemistic".
>William Lutz, chairman of the council's Doublespeak Committee, cited
>three examples:

None of the examples were much in the way of doublespeak.  Just lies.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu) "[George Bush] is a man
 who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." --Jim Hightower
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: pat@sphinx.phys.Virginia.EDU (pat walsh)
Subject: Re: New Job for Dan
Organization: University of Virginia Physics Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:02:15 GMT

cka52397@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

>	Hey, I was just wondering, do you think that maybe we could find 
>small, totaly figurehead job for Dan, I really think I'll miss the guy after
               ^^^^^^^^^^
>he provided us with four great years of entertainment.  Any Ideas?

By George, they don't call you Slartibartfast for nothing!  This is the best
idea I've heard yet.  Let's mount Dan on the prow of one of our warships.
That way, he may yet get to experience the heat of battle!

                                                 ______
                                           _____| 
                                          |
                   ------------------------------------
                }8-|\
                     \         000 000
                      \        0 0 0 0
                       \       000 000
                        \
                         \
                          \____________________________

Anchors aweigh!

:-)

- Patrick Walsh
  University of Virginia Department of Physics
  pw@virginia.bitnet, pw@virginia.edu, pat@gomez.phys.virginia.edu
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: How related......
Date: 18 Nov 1992 12:19:51 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

	What is the relationship between Dan Quayle and Barry Goldwater?
CNN or ABC reported on it just before the election.  Well, I don't remem-
ber that now.....

Thanks.

V:
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: What are the chances of a Quayle presidency?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:41:55 GMT

In article <D2150056.ir82ah@erics.infoserv.com> erics@infoserv.com writes:
>What are the chances that Dan Quayle will someday be president of the
>U.S.? Slim to none if history is any guide, assuming Bush survives until
>January 20.

<<Statistics on Veeps omitted>>

Remember, though, that the chances Clinton would be President were next to 
nothing when he entered the campaign in October, 1991. If statistics could 
be followed, the chances of an Arkansas Governor becoming President would 
be slim to none, too. 

Four years is a HUGE amount of time in American politics, and I still have
to laugh at Walter Mondale's column in May, 1991 in which he pleaded for 
Democratic party to take the Presidential elections seriously and run a 
serious candidate. A lot happened between May, 1991 and November 1992, 
and even more is possible from now until November, 1996.
-- 
John Switzer               | "If you ask me, Larry, the Clinton Presidency
                           | has failed. What has he done? Nothing!"
CompuServe: 74076,1250     | --Dave Barry to Larry King, November 12, 1992
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | (P.S. Impeach Clinton, support the coup!)
From: byers@cl2.cl.uh.edu (Unbeliever)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Periods in Quotes (was Re: Have some respect)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 12:27 CST
Organization: The Land
Distribution: world
Reply-To: byers@cl.uh.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhcl2.cl.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  

In article <BxvBEH.439@mail.boi.hp.com> rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) writes:
>AND NOW....
>For something completely different:

>In article <1992Nov17.130605.2568@gvl.unisys.com> train@gvls2.gvl.unisys.com (Herbert Rutledge) writes:
>>
>>  [Lots of discussion about NPR deleted]
>>
>>  A small grammatical flame.  The characters .". I assume to be punctuation
>>  marks rather than UNIX C shell metacharacters.  If so, please be advised 
>>  that periods never appear outside of double quotation marks.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

>This is one rule of grammar I have never understood.  I didn't understand
>it in grade school and I still don't get it.  I have always gone out
>of my way to make sure I break this rule.  To me it makes perfect sense 
>that the punctuation belongs to the sentence not the quotation - why
>put it in there where it doesn't belong?  The grammar police have a slow
>day at the office or what?

FINALLY, someone who agrees with me!  Of COURSE the punctuation belongs to the
SENTENCE, rather than to the quote.

Consider the sentence pair:

She said, "What's that?"
She said, "What's that"?

The first sentence is a STATEMENT about what she said.
The second sentence is a QUESTION asking if I heard her right.

In my case, I >ALWAYS< put the quote inside the quote marks, and then end my
sentence with the punctuation of my choosing.  Thus:

I said, "This is how punctuation SHOULD be used.".
I asked, "Doesn't this make sense?".
Did you say, "I agree with you."?


                        PEOPLE AGAINST BLINDLY MAIMING
                              LITERAL QUOTATIONS
                         WITH EXTRANEOUS PUNCTUATION
                                   UNITE!!!


ObDanQuayleReference: DAN QUAYLE would fully support the maiming of innocent
                      quotations.  After all, maiming one of HIS quotes
                      could only improve it...


                                             Be True...
                                        -=*> Unbeliever <*=-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|* * * * * *         Preferred Address: byers@cl.uh.edu            * * * * * *|
| * * * * *   Emergency Backup Address: reed@unkaphaed.gbdata.com   * * * * * |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the Day:
         Appearances are not everything; it just looks like they are.
From: pat@sphinx.phys.Virginia.EDU (pat walsh)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Re. Integrity
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:02:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Physics Department

Rocky Giovinazzo writes:

>It sounds like you've been listening to Sam Donaldson defending himself
>lately.  I agree with you for the most part, but I'm obliged to point
>out something Eleanor ___ (from _Newsweek_) mentioned a few days ago.
>Apparently, the "media" consists of quite a lot of young people these
>days, and this, she says, may or may not contribute to a tendency of
>some organizations to report with a bias toward Clinton.

Well, if I've been listening, it's all gone in one ear and out the other
since I'm not sure what Sam has to say about this -- but if I sound like
Sam, then Sam must be right!  :-) :-) :-)  Seriously, I have strong doubts
about Eleanor (Clift?)'s thesis because 1) history, in the guise of Jimmy
Carter's and Lyndon Johnson's administrations, suggests that we'll soon find
out just how evenhanded the media can be and 2) an awful lot of young people
these days are very conservative indeed!

I do think that recent presidents -- from Johnson on -- have generally had
a tougher time dealing with the media than their predecessors, chiefly
because of the enormous effects of Vietnam and Watergate.  These two national
tragedies left the American public much less willing than before to trust their
leaders, and I think the press has mirrored this change in attitude.

It's also possible for media savvy to make it easier for the president to
deal with the press.  John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt both seem to
have had an easier time than most since they both seemed to genuinely enjoy
dueling with the press and outwitting them on occasion (Ronald Reagan, the
"Great Communicator" -- who couldn't tell you his own name if you caught him
without his note cards and Teleprompter -- pales by comparison, though he did
outperform most other recent presidents in this respect).  Nothing to put the
press (and your political opposition) in its place more effectively than a
little well-placed wit and humor; for example, contrast FDR's famous remarks
about "my little dog, Fala" (enormously effective) with Nixon's "Checkers
speech" (pious, humorless and embarrassing); or watch virtually any of JFK's
press conferences.  I don't think we can expect this level of media savvy from
Clinton, though he'll probably be a big improvement on Bush.

- Patrick Walsh
  University of Virginia Department of Physics
  pw@virginia.bitnet, pw@virginia.edu, pat@gomez.phys.virginia.edu
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:11:30 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Edward J. Branley (elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us) wrote:

: Danoe is history, and will most likely never hold another national
: office.

i've been wondering about this. people seem to be assuming that dan'll
just hop right back into elective office, but it doesn't seem like too
many ex-veep's have done that (i haven't researched it; does anyone
have any stats about what vice-presidents generally *do* when they
have to leave office?). once you've held the second-highest office in
the land (well, in theory it is), can you really go back to a lesser
office without losing face? assuming you have any left to lose, that is.

it must be weird for quayle to be kind of obsolete at such an early
age...

--
sine nomine | debbie martinson
what's red and invisible?
no tomatoes.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cka52397@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Slartibartfast)
Subject: Re: New Job for Dan
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:23:05 GMT
Keywords: Management trainee

In article <1992Nov15.140140.17753@gvl.unisys.com> train@gvls2.gvl.unisys.com (Herbert Rutledge) writes:
>In article <BxoonE.H21@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cka52397@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
>(Slartibartfast) writes:
> 
>|> 	Hey, I was just wondering, do you think that maybe we could find 
>|> small, totaly figurehead job for Dan, I really think I'll miss the guy after
>|> he provided us with four great years of entertainment.  Any Ideas?
>
>  Commissioner of Baseball, of course.  
>
>  I mean, he's the former head of the Council on Competitiveness.  Who else
>  in American has had more experience in taking orders from business owners?
>

	Good Idea, Fay Vincent should be appointed to the Cabinet to compensate
him for his trouble with the damn baseball owners.  BTW My team (the Orioles
of course) voted to retain Vincent, and for that they deserve credit.


-- 
"The Clergy Dazzle us with Heaven or they Damn us into Hell"  Billy Bragg!!!!!
IIIII  L    L    IIIII NNNNN IIIII   Chintan Amin c-amin1@uiuc.edu DEPT of E.E.
  I    L    L      I   N   N   I   RUSH	YES FLOYD METALLICA PEARLJAM REM PG
IIIII  LLLL LLLL IIIII N   N IIIII   GO TARHEELS  GO CAPITALS GO COWBOYS
From: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Re. Integrity
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:40:17 GMT
Reply-To: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In article <carlson.722007837@cwis>, carlson@cwis.unomaha.edu (Brian D. Carlson
) writes:
>wilder@nx03.mik.uky.edu (jeff wilder) writes:
>
>>Well, as a "non-traditional" college sophomore (I'm *ancient*!), I prefer
>>to comfort myself with the belief that the young people you reference in
>>#2 are just too damn stupid to know any better, and might, as their educa-   
>>tion progresses, learn to develop opinions, rather that adopting Mommy and
>>Daddy's.
>
>	BTW I am a conservative, and I know why I am a conservative. My
>parents are both liberals. The majority of my family are liberals. I
>just don't agree with the idea that the state is the answer to all our
>problems. I don't think that the state should fund any and all abortions
>for whatever reason they may be wanted. I believe that people should
>have incentive for hard work, and those who don't work hard shouldn't be
>patted on the hand with entitlements that cost our government (that's
>you and I) the majority of our budget.
>
	Since you say you are open to constructive comments, I'll give
it a try.  Suppose we abandon the liberal and conservative labels.  Suppose
we agree that liberals have misperceptions about conservatives and vice
versa and call it even.  The real problem(s) we are all talking about is
the number of casualties we are sustaining in our march to wherever it
is we are marching.

	Suppose a hard-working member of society has an auto accident
and becomes paralyzed.  His wife and kids go out and get jobs, but
it's still not enough to pay his medical expenses.  What are you
gonna do about it?  Shoot him?  Of course not, the burden for his
care is going to fall upon the society as a whole, and I don't
think anyone of any political stripe would disagree.  

	Okay, let's ;abel him a casualty--someone we have to take
care of.  A constructive argument is: what casualty rate are we
willing to accept?  Currently about 25 to 33% of our population
never reaches full functioning adulthood.  Would you not agree
with me that that is too high?  Can we not now start talking
about strategies to reduce that number of casualties rather than
obsess, on a theoretical level, about "the role of government in
our society"?

>Brian D. Carlson
>
From: gillon@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: U2 and almost-ex-vice-president-Qualyle
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:21:04 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1992Nov13.031157.26698@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
> 	Just thought I might post this for amusement. I saw U2 in 
> concert last weekend and they used our hero giving a speech for a 
> backdrop to one of their songs.
> 
> 	I don't remember the name of the song (I was rather intoxicated at 
> the time), but on their HUGE TV screens they ran a tampered with recording
> of Dannikins giving some rediculous speech on family values and Murphy Brown.
> 	U2 cut and spliced the video (it was obvious. They didn't try to
> hide it.) to make the Danster say (in a rap style) "Watch..Watch..Watch
> more TV. Television...Television...Television is doing the job."
>  	They then panned the video to show the president shrub and 
> all the other Republicans applauding.
> 	(To give you an idea of what U2 was trying to get across with
> this message, their tour is called "Zoo TV".
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Garrett@Ingres.com  

First, of all, I can't believe that I'm even reading any trash about 
Quayl. No e. But U2 caught my eye. They also used George for the 
backdrop on one of their songs::: "We will, we will rock you" is what 
he was saying. NOT!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle