From: coolidge@cauldron.next.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: QuayleWare
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:43:08 GMT

In article <1jdm11INN3ea@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>  
rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) blathers:

> If not mistaken, I think the original posting that I replied to 
> said bonding, not bondage, but I could be wrong.  

Yes, you are mistaken. Your hero said "bondage". You ought to at  
least bother to find out whether or not somebody actually said  
something before you publicly bray that he didn't.

> Judging by the fact that
> you misquoted me below leads me to believe that you may have 
> changed the above wording. 

Judging from the fact that you aren't even familiar with the passage  
being quoted leads me to believe that everything else you say is  
similar horseshit.If you'd ever bothered to find out anything at all  
about the people and ideas you idolize, you might find out how silly  
you and they really are.

> Nonetheless, I'll give you the benefit of the
> doubt and shall still reply to the above.  Even if that is what he 
> did say, your reply still indicates typical "far-left wing liberal
> thinking" (now there's an oxymoron, far-left wing liberal 
> "thinking"), where an innocent statement is misconstrued.  Can't
> liberals get their minds minds off of perverted sex acts?  

No, we can't, thank God! Nor, apparently, can Dannoe. Could he  
secretly be...one of US???

> It might not be a bad idea to also have such people
> subjected to all of the speaches of Ronald Reagan, Dan Quayle and 
> Pat Buchanan. 

In truth, that's how you make somebody a liberal in the first place -  
providing they have at least three connected neurons (planaria barely  
qualify). At the very least, that's how it worked for the nation with  
the televising of the Republican National Convention, with speeches  
by (drumroll...) Ronald Reagan, Dan Quayle, and (best of all!) Pat  
Buchanan.

> If that is what you would really like to think, then don't let me 
> stop you from believing that be has no influence whatsoever.  I
> don't wish to deny anyone their fantasy.  Just remember, Rush is 
> only the "tip of the iceberg"... 

Gee, based on a few careful and objective listenings, that's not what  
_I_ thought he was a tip of, to get back to your earlier comments  
about liberals and perversion...:^)

> there are a LOT of conservatives out here who have not
> been as outspoken as he is, so beware. :-) ...you are the ones who
> are really outnumbered.  

62% of those who bothered to vote rejected George Bush. To me, you  
sound a lot like Custer counting the Lakota at Little Big Horn. :^)
 
> One more thing for you to think about: had Ross Perot not run for
> President, because he held a grudge against President Bush, Bill
> Clinton would most likely not have won the election.

Every exit poll that was done, and every survey that was also done,  
on the subject of "If you hadn't voted for Ross, who would you have  
voted for?" showed that a strong majority would have voted for  
Clinton, giving him a larger margin of victory than what he actually  
achieved, and larger, in fact, than Bush's '88 margin over Dukakis.  
Since all the facts contradict your claim, just what do you base it  
on? More of Beloved Rush's lies?

But thanks for brightening our days with your humorous postings, and  
for giving us here on a.f.d-q something more interesting to do than  
just smugly pat each other on the back.

Don Coolidge
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle