HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jc@optimla.aimla.com (John VanHoozer)
Subject: Re: Integrity
Organization: OptImage Interactive Services Co., L.P.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:47:03 GMT

In article <carlson.721539119@cwis>, carlson@cwis.unomaha.edu (Brian D. Carlson) writes:
|> 	Charles Dickens spelled potato with an 'e' on the end.
|> 
|> 	I guess people aren't ready for a man with integrity in public
|> office. Dan Quayle will go down in history as a man who didn't sell out his
|> convictions for special interest. It seems that people aren't ready for that,
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He should be convicted for his special interests - take a look at what
the "Competiveness Council" did to get around enviromental and other
legislation.

|> hence the election of Bill Clinton.
|> 
|> 	When you think of all Dan has endured for the last four years, I
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	When I think of all the stupid, lame-brained, idiotic things
	this fool has said and done...  I laugh, I cry, and I want to puke.

|> don't know of many men (or women) who could have taken the useless abuse
|> that Quayle has taken. When you think of Gore and Clinton being about the
|> same age as Quayle, and I haven't heard pokes at them for not being over 
|> fifty and in the Oval office.
|> 
|> 	When Clinton spelled Capital in an official government memo, where
|> were the English teacher journalists to pounce on him for it?

Source please.

|> 
|> 	Gore thinks the internal combustion engine is public enemy number
|> one (yet he rode the campain bus) and nobody barbs at him for his lunacy.

	Read what he says not what people tell you.  You'll be better prepared
	to argue about his ecological stances.
|> 
|> 	Clinton made a lot of promises about what he'd do for us in the first
|> hundred days of office, and now he's saying 'let's not get our hopes up,
|> I can't perform miracles'

	So did Bush/Quayle :  see Time magazines article on the
	no new taxes snafu (issue with the "ice man" on the cover).

|> 
|> 	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.
|> 
|> brian d carlson

		Get a Life - or better yet,  inhale.  You seem to 
		be suffering from hypoxia.
							jc



-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
John C. VanHoozer			     |
OptImage Interactive Services Company, L.P.  |  uunet!{optimage,aimla}!jc
11040 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite #300	     |  Fax:  (310)445-5720
Los Angeles, Ca. 90025			     |  Phone:(310) 445-5721
___________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer:
   Opinions,  yew doone neeed my steenkeeng Opinions.

My fiance is going back to school to study icthyphrenology...  what
ever that is.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:6585 talk.bizarre:37605
From: mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu ("[*] The One True Cross")
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Actual Dan Quayle Interview
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:35:44 GMT
	<1992Nov9.194519.21570@netcom.com>
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Organization: Eaters of Wisdom
In-reply-to: madhaus@netcom.com's message of 9 Nov 92 19:45:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.194519.21570@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>   Oh yeah, and plenty of other people on the net have acknowledged that
>   I am funny.  Guess you lose that argument.

    Or, on the other hand, maybe all those other people are just a bunch
of idiots.





--

                And for to se, and eek for to be seye
Mark-Jason Dominus 	  			    mjd@central.cis.upenn.edu 

                                                       i wonder which it
                                                       could be?
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Bobby Davis rantings
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 04:14:07 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

Heh heh! Booby, you certainly sound bitter.  Too bad.  Clinton's goona be 
here for 8 long, long years.  So you might as well settle down and learn 
to love him.  Or immigrate to Paraguay where you will be, much, much 
happier.
  I can just see little Bobbie eyes red from crying, face screwed up with 
hate, hunching over his greasy little keyboard, tapping out his venomous 
little tirades.  Poor baby!  Your boys got their bums kicked 'eh?
  Taxaholics  (gaag!)
Oh you mean Bush.  Who tried to raise taxes by $5.1 billion january 30th, 
1989,  $20.1 Billion in January 30th 1990.  And of couse got on TV in 
June 1990 and told us we could not stop the deficits without taxes.
And tried to raise taxes on gasoline $ .25 in 1990.  ANd then lied and 
tried to blame the Dems for his tax proposals.  That taxaholic.
Bush who in January 1992 proposed a Budget of $1.52 trillion that would 
have given us a $399 billion dollar deficit.  
Spend, spend, spend, spend.  The taxes come later.
Idiot.  I'll bet you never even noticed either!  Go to you Universitie's 
library, look up Bush's budget proposed January 29, 1992 and look at the 
official estimate from Darman of a $399 billion dollar deficit!
And tell me asshole, who was gpoing to pay this giant deficit back?
Us!  With taxes!  Asshole!  Go check this out and for once in your 
miserable little life actually engage your brain!
$399 billion Dollars in deficits in one year.  That would have been the 
biggest deficit in all of Human Civilization!  Check out the micrfiches 
of major newspapers on Bush's January 29th, 1992 deficit!  I DARE YOU!
You won't of course.  

You would rather snivel, whine and slander than think.  You'd rather be 
worked up into a frenzy of hatred by Wretch Lumpbrain than think or 
analyse.  You'd rather believe the wildest slanders than check the facts 
out and think about them!  

Heh, heh!  You are thusamazingly ineffectual and of little consequences 
to any real thinking person, such as the regulars on A.F.D.Q..

Poor baby. And you are wrong about everything else you babble about.
And your naked raw Racism is ugly.  Jesse Jackson may be a bit of a jerk, 
but your post is 10000 times worse than the charges you throw wrongly at 
him.  Racist lttle bigot!

Booby, you are an ugly little man. And a fool.  It's gonna be a ruff 8 
years on you and you deserve all the crap that comes your way.

Face it, you are a loser, just like Bush!

Pope Charles   Subgenius Pope Of Houston   Kill a skinhead for Jesus.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Bush eats it!
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:22:57 GMT
 <BxKLGu.Hqn@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

In article <BxKLGu.Hqn@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (REAL
LIFE?!?! HA!!) says:

>>Here are two entirely contradictory statements:
>>>Now America has a fighting chance.
>>>Tax the churches.

>Surely you're not suggesting that churches are integral to the operation of
>the U.S. government or the well-being of the people.  If I remember correctly,

That's exactly what I'm saying.

>a document was published about  this roughly 200 years ago called the "Bill of
>Rights."  At least, I've heard rumors to that effect.  In it, there is a
>guarantee, I've been told, that the government will not deny the people the
>right to worship whomever they choose, and another guarantee not to force
>people to worship anybody or anything.

Absolutely right.  Irrelevant to the topic, but correct.

>May I just add here that the Church deserves to be taxed as much as any other
>business?  It is one of the most successfully self-contained businesses the
>world has ever known.  You see, first the Church gives out its only manu-
>factured good at no charge to you, as much as you care to take.  The

Churches are not businesses, by any sane definition.  Your tirade against
religion is just opinion, and most people know better.  Mark my words, any
candidate who announces an intention to tax churches will lose, big time.

>manufactured good?  It goes under the trade name "Guilt (TM)".  Then, the
>Church, after knowingly giving you the moral equivalent of toxic waste, serves
>as a giant waste-disposal service, pretending to put the Guilt (TM) someplace
>safe where it won't hurt anybody.

Yeah, whatever.   Again, most people know better.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:6397 alt.politics.bush:13382 alt.politics.clinton:16143
From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: at the risk of sounding repetitive...
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:26:19 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
Distribution: usa
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:

> I'm a realist who's ancestors were amongst this nation's founding
> fathers.

Gee, I guess that makes you special; sort of above all us other immigrants,
huh? Kind of gives you a clearer vision, does it?

> I guess that this, coupled with the fact that I'm a WASP means
> that I'm automatically wrong and marked for extinction by the liberal
> leftist extremist democrats.

Not automatically wrong. But you are wrong, if you think Democrats are
leftist extremists. This was the year that the Democrats became the
party of moderates; the Republicans are once again the party of extremists
like Buchanan and Robertson.

> At least the Republicans do not cheat to
> win elections and are not cry-babies like Slick Willie is!  

Uh huh. Right. Remember Willie Horton, flag burning, the pledge of allegiance,
and the hypothetical rape and murder of Kitty Dukakis, the "issues"
of the 1988 campaign? How about family values, draft dodging, vacations
to Moscow, which the American people were too smart to be hoodwinked
about this year. Face it, the Republicans have wrecked the economy,
the educational system, the environment, promoted bitter race relations,
and taken from the poor to further enrich the upper class, and the American
people finally saw through it. 

> Now, speaking of sore winners: even after they've won, the democrats
> are still bashing President Bush and his administration.

Yeah, that's so much worse than what you're doing: bashing President
Clinton and his administration, before he's even had one.

> One other big difference between Gorey Al and V.P. Dan Quayle: V.P. Quayle
> is an intelligent _gentleman_ whereas Gorey Al is a boorish creep

Well, Al Gore's a published author and Dan Quayle, by his own admission
is someone who "tries" to read Plato's Republic every year.

> with a
> terminal case of rudeness who is conniving and street smart who has a
> disposition as pleasant as a militant feminist afflicted with P.M.S. and
> rabies.

Pretty decent description of George Bush, actually.

> America stay tuned as the Democratic Movie Channel, experimenting with
> virtual reality, presents the sequel to "The Invasion of the Income 
> Snatchers: the Carter Years".  Yes, they proudly now present "The
> Invasion of the Income Snatchers, the Sequel: the Clinton Years".
> Rated "LP" (Liberal Pinko - no one admitted unless they have donated all
> of their money, land, and other privately owned posessions, to the IRS, 
> however, no one will be exempt from admission to this horror flick.) 

I have one thing to say to you: Love It Or Leave It.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Maybe we won't miss Dan so much...
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:01:41 GMT

In article <3RT3TB1w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton) writes:
>
>> In article <6BF2TB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
>> >liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>> >
>> >> are they going to grandma's house or something?
>> >> I hope 30-40 SS agents are enough to take care of the big bad wolf.
>> >
>> >30-40 SS agents are enough to take care of the armies of most small
>> >countries...
>> >
>> >
>> Maybe not take care of small countries, but 30-40 SS agents just MIGHT
>> be enough to handle Tipper's hair products and makeup accessories.  *smirk*
>> (Aww I love ol' Tipper but come on...you know I"m right)
>>
>> Cat
>>
>
>hehehe...yeah, that's a serious head of hair.  However, if Tipper wanted to get
>lost in the woods with *me*, I probably wouldn't complain :-)
>
>Of course, I'd make sure I didn't bring along any Metallica or Guns 'N Roses
>tapes for mood music... :-)
>
there's no need for Metallica or Guns 'N Roses, Tipper is a Deadhead,
she must have Grateful Dead CDs with her in the woods.  

>
>
>|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
>|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells)
Subject: Re: Transition Team Members Wanted
Summary: ignore
Organization: Northeastern University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:47:32 GMT

> (b) the US Constitution is good enough for me, if you don't like it, you're
> free to leave the country

For a "liberal" this person sure sounds like a right-wing 
"Love-It-or-Leave-It" clown to me. Goes to show you that "liberals" 
and "conservatives" think pretty much the same way, they just have
slightly different preferences in their methods of social control, 
expressed most clearly in the ridiculus beauty pageant euphemistically 
called a "presidential election."
From: myrab@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (myra.bronstein)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Transition Team Members Wanted
Summary: Republican math
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:34:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov5.160729.6468@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.055121.23017@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:
> 
> >Too bad that the U.S. political system failed and allowed Slick Willie & Al
> >to become elected, after all, in the the popular vote, not the electoral
[...drivel mercifully deleted]

> This is really rich.  To pick on just one teeny-weeny little point, it
> is reported here that Clinton got 43% of the popular vote, while Bush
> had 37.5%.  Perot had 19%.  That means that
> 
> a) 62% of the electorate voted against Bush/Quayle, and
> 
> b) Clinton/Gore had the highest fraction of the votes cast, 5.5% more
>    than Bush/Quayle.
> 
> Now, according to which arithmetic did Bush and Quayle win?  Or is our
> media just another part of a worldwide liberal-media conspiracy covering
> up Bush's real percentage?
> 
> Get real.
> 
> 
> --  Teemu Leisti  /  U. of Helsinki, Finland  /  leisti@cc.helsinki.fi

Well, Republicans aren't particularly gifted at arithmetic, whether it
be in an academic or a social vein.
Mario Cuomo (sp?) emphasised this at the Democratic Convention
when he said:

"Republicans add by subtracting, and multiply by dividing."

Myra
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:6683 alt.politics.bush:13836
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: 1996 GOP Veep Choice (Was: Re: Complete this sentence)
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:21:22 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <D2150056.ifgfvd@erics.infoserv.com>, erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith) writes:
> 
> cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
> 
> > As a second point, wasn't Powell born in Jamaica?  I could be wrong,
> > but if so this would certainly disqualify him from the Presidency
> > (and therefore the Veep-ship).
> 
> That wouldn't disqualify him unless he wasn't born a U.S. citizen.
> Being born outside the U.S. does not make one ineligible for the
> presidency.

True; I mis-simplified.  But somebody else noted Powell was born
in NYC, so the Republican party still has its savior :-).

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Aren't we forgetting something?
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:25:20 GMT

In article <1d817kINNlcc@agate.berkeley.edu>, mazzarel@spam.berkeley.edu (Ariel
Mazzarelli) says:

>Well tonight sure was sweet.  We even survived an early scare here in
>California,  where in fact Herschensohn has yet to concede defeat.  In just
>about every other respect,  a sweet election night.

Don't you find that odd?  CLINTON wins by a landslide in California, but
Boxer just BARELY beats Herschensohn, a -real- conservative, for Senate?
I'd worry, if I were you.  I think the attitude is more anti-Bush than
pro-liberalism.

>But let's not forget,  there are still ten weeks until Clinton is sworn in.
>Bush didn't look so good tonight,  what with the landslide and the upcoming
>court appearances and all.  Our boy might get his chance just yet.

Landslide?  Ignoring the electoral college for a moment, LESS than HALF
of the country voted for Clinton.  Meaning, MORE than HALF voted against him.

I don't know what you guys are so happy about.  Clinton didn't win the
election; Bush -lost- it.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Paradichlorobenzene, or the fate of alt.fan.dan-quayle
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 03:06:53 GMT
Organization: Wireless Broadcasting Guild, Houston, Texas

wilson@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson) writes:

> In article <1992Nov4.193440.18770@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pat@sphinx.phys.V
> >
> >Well, we'll still have George and Dan to kick around for 11 more weeks.
> >After that, well...Dan has already indicated he's had some thoughts about
> >'94 (or '96, if that's what he really meant).  It might be a bit hasty to
> >do away with a.f.d.-q. altogether.  Is it possible to mothball a newsgroup
> >as one might a battleship?
> >
> >In the meantime, maybe a more general group like alt.fan.politicians.weasels
> >would be in order.  As long as there are politicians, there will be plenty o
> >material.
> 
> How true!  But I think we should continue to honor Dan in our
> own special way by using this group instead of creating a new
> one.  After all, there may be no shortage of blundering politicians, 
> but Dan is the pinnacle to which all others can only aspire.  It
> would be a shame to allow this group to fall into disuse.
> 
> -Dwight

Not too bad an idea.  But if it gets boring, we could just make it 
Alt.flamimg.liberals, which is what it's secondary roll has been.
I think we have seen the last of dan in politics.  If Clinton screws up, 
the rush of republicans to run against him will be fierce.  Dan would be 
trampled to death by Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, and several others who will 
be running.  Many of 'em are hardball players.  If Clinton does good, the 
96 race will be for positioning in 2000, and i doubt Quayle can hang on 
that long. Al that will be remembered is that he was half of a failed 
presidency and he used to say foolish things with alarming regularity.
  The only way i could see him winning is if the Christian Coalition 
picks dan as their candidate, wins the primary, (Barely if at all), and 
then Clinton dies in office at the last minute.  A bit far fetched, I 
think.  I think he'll get to catch up on his golf quite a bit over the 
next year.  And he may be the only high ranking republican official that 
won't have to spend any time in court.
Which is no mean accomplishment during these last 12 years.


Pope Charles   Subgenius Pope Of Houston   We're free!  We're free!

--
popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Wireless Broadcasting Guild, Houston, Texas, (713) 943-2728
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: All I have to say
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 01:56:57 GMT
Organization: Wireless Broadcasting Guild, Houston, Texas

toddwall@rock.concert.net (R. Todd Wall -- Catholic Diocese of Raleigh -- Comput writes:

> All I have to say is I'll be voting for Quayle in '96.  Hopefully, Clinton
> won't destroy the economy to bad until then.
> 
> 
> -- 
> o o ______           _     _____  _  _ o o  "But the fruit of the Spirit is
> ' '   /       /   / ' )   /      // // ' '   love, joy, peace, patience,
>      / ______/ __/   / / / __.  // //        kindness, goodness, faithfulness
>    _/ (_) (_/_(_/_  (_(_/ (_/|_</_</         gentleness and self-control."


Don't worry.  He couldn't do as bad as reagan & Bush even if he tried.
We will spend the next 8 years digging out from under Reaganomics.
$4 trillion dollars in debt. Red ink as far as the eye can see to 
paraphrase David Stockman.  Lost spending power. Lost jobs.  Crumbling 
infrastructure.  Lack of direction, goals, or hope.  12 years down the 
drain.  
  I predict Clinton will start us on our way up.  He won't really be able 
to turn us around, but he will get us going in the right direstion, and 
people will feel a lot better about our country.  The aura of sleaze and 
brutal uncaringness that has exemplified the last 12 years of Bush and 
Reagan will start to fade.  We will be able to finally say "Foreign 
Policy" without having to say"Special Prosecuter".
 If you are looking for Clinton to self destruct. Dream on.
Vote for your lttle Danny in 96.  you'll be wasting your vote.

--
popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Wireless Broadcasting Guild, Houston, Texas, (713) 943-2728
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: 1996 GOP Veep Choice (Was: Re: Complete this sentence)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 07:01:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) says:

>In article <D2150056.ia91fg@erics.infoserv.com> erics@infoserv.com
>writes:
>
>>If we're going to be serious (and, after all, why should we be?), no
>>matter who the Repubs run for the top spot, there's only one obvious
>>choice for Veep: Colin Powell.
>
>If we're going to be serious, shouldn't we admit that Danny boy isn't
>going to be on the top of any ticket ever?

Everbody's talking about Kemp/somebody in 1996, but isn't Kemp a little
flakey?  Smart, yes, but flakey.  Kind of like an intellectual Perot?

I think the 
GOP candidate in 1996 will be Bennett.  Kemp would however, make
a dandy VP candidate!
(But don't rule out our own "beloved" Michigan governor, John Engler, to
be Bennett's running mate.  That thought is enough to make you go out
and buy your traveling luggage now, while the stores still have it.
Bennett - Engler for '96 ... BRRRR!)