HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Bush eats it!
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:31:07 GMT
Organization: Just Some Guy

In article <1992Nov9.171208.24832@u.washington.edu> twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>>>>and grand juries for the next two years.  I hope he ends up in the same 
>>>>cell as Jimmy Bakker.  Or Lyndon La Rouche.
>>>>HE"S GONE!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
>
>Hey, was it just urban legend, or were Baker and La Rouche actually cell
>mates at one point?
>
>If so, I think someone needs to write a play. Throwing Bush in would be
>great too. Kind of like Down By Law. :)


	More like "No Exit" if you ask me.

Bakker: 	Oh, will this accursed suffering never end?
LaRouche:	Shut up, you flaming liberal!  Until we get that drug-running
		scum Royal Family out of Britain, the whole world will fall
		prey to the criminals and the communists!
Bakker:		Demons!  I see Demons!
LaRouche:	Yes, I saw them too.
Bakker: 	Look, the gate is open!  Perhaps we should leave.
LaRouche:	Where would we go?  The world is a hostile, pinko place, full
		of media and Jews.
Bakker:		Media?!  I'm stayin'!

--
Steve Buffum           | (They do not move.)
swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | -- S. Beckett
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Aren't we forgetting something?
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 08:46:54 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


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

> erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith) writes:

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

> > > Not that this has much to do with a.f.d-q, but it does merit a response.  A
> > > Congresscritter, Boxer was pretty much just an incumbent dirtbag.  Voting f
> > > her could be viewed not so much as support of the 'Year of the Woman' as an
> > > endorsement of a check-bouncer.

> > I guess you have a lot of room to talk. I know when I think of progressive,
> > tolerant states with corruption-free political systems, Louisiana springs
> > instantly to mind. How about doing something about your own dirtbag
> > politicians? By the way, being an incumbent congresswoman doesn't give
> > someone much advantage in a senate race in California - we have 52 members
> > of Congress.

> Eric, I *do* have a lot of room to talk.  I've never in my life had an
> overdraft at the House Bank.  :-)

I see the smiley, but I just want to say that I think the check-bouncing
thing is a straw dog. The House bank was set up to allow overdrafts,
which would be repaid out of subsequent paychecks. That was the way
the system was set up, and it may have been a bad system, but I don't
fault any Congressperson for taking advantage of it. Most people would.
Those records were also intended to be kept secret but they were leaked
by people for political gain. 

> Just FYI, I would have voted for Boxer were I a CA voter.  Herschenson <sp?> is
> not my cup of tea.  On issues, Boxer was by far the better choice.  On morals,
> however, I don't know if I can make the same claim.  But, no matter.  I'm a
> democrat in the style of a now-famous Louisianian, James Carville.

Well, to be honest, Boxer's political views are to the left of the average
California voter's. However, Herschensohn is *way* to the right, and
he ran one of the most negative, dirtiest, and most dishonest ever seen
around here. I say thank god Boxer pulled through, with the help of
Clinton and Feinstein.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle?
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 08:03:42 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


xmodem@Blue.Kludge.COM (Xmodem) writes:

> Anybody have any news about what he's doing now that he's no longer gonna 
> be Vice President.  Can't really imagina he'd win race as a senator or 
> anything.  I'm depressed.  Or maybe not.

Unfortunately he's still the vice president. And the news about him
in this morning's paper is that he's trying to overturn legislation
that prevents wetlands development. We have to put up with this crap
for two more months.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: What? Bill Clinton plays golf?
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:54:20 GMT

coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.002049.1743@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
[stuff you already read deleted...]

>Nobody attacked Quayle just for playing golf. He was (roundly and 
>justly!) attacked for playing it regularly at a country club that 
>excludes persons of African descent. The correlation between the 
>membership of such clubs and the set of white male Republicans is 
>far too monotonic to be mere coincidence. 

This is where I throw the flag on this one!  WHOA partner...you are
confusing your newstories (although given the slant in the media
I don't blame you exclusively, just 95% or so).

It is BILL CLINTON that got into trouble (primaries..) for playing at
an all WASP country club, not DQ.  DQ got into trouble for using
perks of the office for recreation, like AF2 rides and Scuba lessons
that WE paid for (although I side with DQ on the scuba thing, that's
a crock of a newstory...read an old paper).

>(This golftalk later drifted into commentary on his generally silly
>patrician attitude towards and obsession with the sport, but that's
>far less important than the other.)

>I have no idea at what country club Clinton played golf, but if it
>was one of the above sort, I'd land on him as hard as I possibly could
>for doing so. On the other hand, given Clinton's public record with 
>respect to minorities, I'd be shocked shitless if the club were
>exclusionary in any way. 

Go change you pants....

The one he played in the other day probably (most likely) isn't all-white
because he has already taken that heat, he isn't stupid (dishonest maybe..).

>If you really thought we (OK, they :^) were criticizing golf itself, 
>you weren't reading carefully enough. And if you didn't, why go for 
>indefensible cheap shots?

I don't care who plays golf, I was only commenting on misrepresented
history (nothing new, especially this year).  

>(Ah! I just noticed the return email address; it's not your usual
>one. Maddi, have you been having a bit of fun with us? :^)

>- Don Coolidge

>(BTW, coming to the party? Whoever you are...:^)

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: V.P. Marilyn Quayle 1996
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:45:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.130244.1@woods.ulowell.edu> enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>You heard it here first on January 20 1997 Quayle will again be Vice President.
>Marylin that is.  Because Kemp Quayle is going to win by a huge LANDSLIDE a
>real one not ths paltry 42% victory that Comrade Clinton received.
>
>Kemp -Quayle '96.

Quayle, Veep for Life.  Gotta love it.

Kemp-Quayle would look like a kind man taking his stupid brother out
for a trip through the country.  "Dan, can I get you some cookies?"



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:6279 alt.politics.bush:13134 alt.politics.clinton:15766
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: at the risk of sounding repetitive...
Date: 5 Nov 1992 14:44:20 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov5.060351.24196@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.050329.7475@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> twillis@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas E Willis) writes:
>
>>it can only be a government of the people if the people participate.
>
>Unfortunately, Billy Boy & Gorey Al  won the election even though the people 
>did select President Bush and VP Quayle via the popular vote.  What a sad
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>time in history for America and the world this is.  Worse yet, Hillary will
>also inhabit the White House (soon to become the Red House) and give Slick
>Willie orders as to how he should run the nation.
>

Ummmm...perhaps you can back this statement up with a few facts? lets
do a reality check here...Bush/Quayle got 38% of the popular vote. Clinton/Gore
received 43% of the popular vote. Perot/Stockdale received 19% of the popular
vote...according to *normal* mathematics, 43% is greater than 38%, which is
greater than 19%...could you explain how your figures agree with reality?

>>may the best candidate win...
>
>He did, but he still lost. :-(  
>
>America: prepare to impeach Hillwilly & Al before it's too late!
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Robert D. Davis            |  VAX/VMS is a text-only adventure game.  If       
>rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu  !  you win, you get to use UNIX.  If you fail, 
>uunet!mystica!rdd          |  you get to use an IBM-PC running MeSsy-DOS
>Telephone: 1-410-744-7964  !  with MeSsy-Windows or an Apple Macintosh.  


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: pat@sphinx.phys.Virginia.EDU (pat walsh)
Subject: Re. Integrity
Organization: University of Virginia Physics Department
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:50:58 GMT

Herbert Rutledge writes:

(a well-crafted rebuttal to the following, with references to the press-
 created President Humphrey, President McGovern, President Mondale, etc.)

>In article <carlson.721539119@cwis>, carlson@cwis.unomaha.edu
>(Brian D. Carlson) writes:

>|> 	I guess I just wonder when the biased press is going to hold the
>|> same standards up against the people they set up in office.

I'd like to add a word or two, if I may.  Our friend rdavis claimed several
posts ago that Republicans "are not cry-babies like Slick Willie is".  Would
these be the same Republicans who've been whining for so long about the
"biased liberal media" and its manipulation of the electoral process? (Note
I'm not referring to Republicans in general here, only those types for whom
the shoe fits.)

In any case, I think these folks are missing the point.  The press usually
is indeed biased to a degree.  Not against Republicans, or Democrats, or
Druids, but against incumbents in general -- especially incumbent Presidents.
This is a large part of the press's job (checks and balances, you know).  The
press made life just as miserable for Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson as it
has in more recent times for Ronald Reagan (who actually received a free ride
from the press, in large part -- they should have done better) and George
Bush.  Sure, some reporters and their bosses are weasels and dirtbags.  So
are some of the members of any profession.  So what?  Sometimes the press
exceeds its bounds.  Tolerating this inconvenience is one of the costs of a
free society ("costs of a free society"?  Almost a Quayleism, there!  }8-)).
Without it, we'd never have known any of the truth about Vietnam, Watergate,
Iran/Contra, etc.

- Patrick Walsh
  University of Virginia Department of Physics
  pw@virginia.bitnet, pw@virginia.edu, pat@gomez.phys.virginia.edu
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Actual Dan Quayle Interview
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:58:02 GMT
 <92314.104948BFANTLE@auvm.american.edu> <1992Nov9.194519.21570@netcom.com>

In article <1992Nov9.194519.21570@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi
Hausmann) says:

>> I was very annoyed with all the stupid comments that were in the <>.  You
>>entitled to your opinion obviously, but put it at the end or at least not in h
>>e middle of the paragraphs.  Maybe if you were funnier I wouldn't mind.

>You must be new here.  We really are not fans of the Vice-President in
>the way that alt.fan.dave-barry readers enjoy the writings of the Davester.

Maybe -you're- new here, you act like it.  Many people here ARE fans of
Dan Quayle.  You obviously are not, but it's not relevant.  The point is,
the comments were more hateful and annoying than they were funny.

>No, we are here to enjoy every misstep, misstatement, gaffe, goof, and
>proof of Dan's supreme incompetence.

Jumping down Dan's throat for every little nitpick you can find got old in
1989.

>As to your comment "Maybe if you were funnier I wouldn't mind," well,
>that only goes to show your ignorance of what is funny, doesn't it?

Or yours.  Depends on who you ask.  I'm sure you find yourself hilarious.

>Methinks you are disturbed by my indication that Danoe is an unqualified
>boob.

I've seen a lot of Quayle-jokes which I thought were hilarious.  And I def-
initely am a fan of his.  I just have yet to see anything funny from you.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: 50 Years From Now...
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:14:26 EST

In article <92310.184307KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.013106.3738@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi
> Hausmann) says:
> 
>>So, should Mr. Switzer's prognostications be (ha!) accurate,
>>what scenario do you think would ensure this?  Consider...
> 
>>President Clinton struggles with the economy.
>>It stays broken.
>>He tries more and more fixes.
>                         ^^^^^   You misspelled "taxes." Otherwise, correct.
>>It stays broken.
>>.....
> 
>>Jack Kemp enters the race for '96.
>>He's leading.
>>The Republicans are unified and happy.
> 
> ....and Kemp wins in '96 like Clinton in '92 (except with >50% of the vote).
> 
> I think this will play out pretty well (with the appropriate deletions &
> corrections, which I've taken care of).
> 
> ------------
> Kurt Ludwick
> ------------

Actually, I am willing to bet that United We Stand gets more vote than the
now defunkt Republiclone party in '96. If the 'clones do survive until then
don't expect a plurality unless Clinton pulls off an economic miracle (which
I am bettin on :)

-Garrett



Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: Re: Crazy polls, nutty pollsters
Keywords: Statistics, reliability of
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:31:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.151629.3779@gvl.unisys.com> train@gvls2.gvl.unisys.com (Herbert Rutledge) writes:
>
>
>   Well, George, it's over, and it's time to look at how *you* did as
>   compared to those crazy polls by those nutty pollsters.
>
>   The New York Times average of all of the polls on November 3rd showed
>   Clinton with a 6% lead (margin o' error of 3 points).  Here's the
>   popular vote tally (with 99.2 of the vote counted):
>
>            George Bush:  38%
>            Bill Clinton: 43%
>
>   As for the GOP Personal Best, here's how it stacks up:
>
>            Herbert Hoover, 1932:  41%
>            Barry Goldwater, 1964: 38%
>            George Bush, 1992:     38%

    You forgot the atypical third candidate apportionment; Perot
    got roughly 20%.  Exit polls suggested that this vote would
    have been split about evenly had Perot not been running giving
    a correction to your misleading quote above:

	     Bush       48%
	     Clinton    53%
    
    (Yes I know it totals 101%.  So what?)

>
>   As has been pointed out earlier, the one poll that showed spectacular
>   error was also the only poll that showed Bush with a lead over Clinton:
>   the My Weekly Reader poll.  All I can say is that this demonstrates that 
>   the use of psychedelic drugs by elementary school children has gotten
>   entirely out of hand.
>
      The last twelve nightmare years notwithstanding (or maybe
      because of them?)

      Wayne
From: sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: What? Bill Clinton plays golf?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:14:57 EST
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:

[stuff deleted]

> Nobody attacked Quayle just for playing golf. He was (roundly and 
> justly!) attacked for playing it regularly at a country club that 
> excludes persons of African descent. The correlation between the 
> membership of such clubs and the set of white male Republicans is 
> far too monotonic to be mere coincidence. 

[stuff deleted]

> I have no idea at what country club Clinton played golf, but if it
> was one of the above sort, I'd land on him as hard as I possibly could
> for doing so. On the other hand, given Clinton's public record with 
> respect to minorities, I'd be shocked shitless if the club were
> exclusionary in any way. 

If you'll cast your mind back to the primaries, you'll remember that
Clinton actually did play golf at an Arkansas club that excluded
non-white members.

Sunil Gupta
Monsoon Software, Inc.
sg@monsoon.com
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Complete this sentence
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 08:49:09 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> Naw, we need someone with EXPERIENCE... Nixon/Quayle in '96!!!
> The stand-up comedian dream ticket!  :)

Sorry to disappoint you; Nixon's been elected twice so he's ineligible.
But Ford/Quayle, now there's a ticket with some real quotes file
possibilities!

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:6326 alt.politics.bush:13272 alt.politics.clinton:15974
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: at the risk of sounding repetitive...
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:23:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

In article <1992Nov5.060351.24196@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:
> Unfortunately, Billy Boy & Gorey Al  won the election even though the
> people did select President Bush and VP Quayle via the popular vote.
> ...

Check the facts.  Another reader posted the following national tally
from the Seattle Times (97% of precincts reporting).

	Bill Clinton -- Democrat          43,713,885
	George Bush -- Republican         38,150,812
	Ross Perot -- Independent         19,228,530

Looks like GHWB is about 5.5 million votes short.  Maybe that "new" math
has you confused. :-)

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
From: eds@gvlf5-q.gvl.unisys.com (Ed Skladany)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Liberals Ripped My Flesh!
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:31:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Paramx Systems Corporation, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa

In article <1992Nov9.192921.60582@cc.usu.edu> slgsn@cc.usu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.220537.7774@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, myrab@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (myra.bronstein) writes:
>> 
>> Letterman--Top 10 Reasons Bush Lost the Election--
>>>>#1 reason<<:
>> 
>> 1) Quayle is no Stockdale
>> 
>> Myra
>>
>#2-Too many fucking liberals wanting a shit-load of hand-outs from Slick-Willy.
>   Dave-Utah State

Utah.  Need I say more?  Give me a fucking break, asshole.

-- 
  Ed Skladany                       | Internet: eds@gvl.unisys.com  
  Paramax Systems, A Unisys Company |     UUCP: ...!gvls1!eds
  Valley Forge Laboratories         |
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Actual Dan Quayle Interview
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:45:19 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things

<BFANTLE@auvm.american.edu> writes: >

>I want to thank you for posting the Quayle Interview.  I found it interesting.
> I was very annoyed with all the stupid comments that were in the <>.  You are
>entitled to your opinion obviously, but put it at the end or at least not in th
>e middle of the paragraphs.  Maybe if you were funnier I wouldn't mind.

You must be new here.  We really are not fans of the Vice-President in
the way that alt.fan.dave-barry readers enjoy the writings of the Davester.
No, we are here to enjoy every misstep, misstatement, gaffe, goof, and
proof of Dan's supreme incompetence.

The purpose of my posting the interview was twofold.  First, it had the
potential to make Dan look like the idiot he is.  Second, it served as
a critique on the right wing of the Republican Party, as Cal Thomas is
not known in journalistic circles as being much of a realist.  As Eric
said, in a follow-up to my interview, Dan would rather talk to sympathetic
journalists who serve up easy pitches so he can hit them.

As to your comment "Maybe if you were funnier I wouldn't mind," well,
that only goes to show your ignorance of what is funny, doesn't it?
Methinks you are disturbed by my indication that Danoe is an unqualified
boob.

Oh yeah, and plenty of other people on the net have acknowledged that
I am funny.  Guess you lose that argument.



-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: alizard@Blue.Kludge.COM (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Party in Baghdad
Keywords: Dip, California; hats, party; Brie, wheel of
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:15:29 GMT
Organization: 'Lectrick Blue!, Moraga CA

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

> 
> 
>   George Bush warned a crowd of supporters that, if Bill Clinton is
>   elected, 500,000 people will take part in a massive celebration of
>   Bush's defeat in Baghdad.
> 
> 
>   How can he be so certain?  Did his administration also sell Iraq the
>   party favors?

Yes.

A.Lizard

--------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
[path]!pacbell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@seer.mystic.com (backup)   alizard@Blue.Kludge.com (backup)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton