HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Republicans are confusing me again...
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:44:34 GMT
Reply-To: snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <BXR8PB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
|>erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
|>
|>>
|>> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
|>>
|>> >As the primaries take away the lustre of the convention in terms of the
|>> >nomination process, we'll see more and more coronations.  Since '76,
|>> >conventions have either been the scenes of coronations or of
fratricide.  Th
|>> >'84 Dem convention is an exception because the candidiates were
such jokes t
|>> >there was little hope that any of them could beat Reagan.  That
meant the De
|>> >could spend more time arguing principles, since they just about
knew they we
|>> >going to lose the big one.
|>>
|>> On the other hand, a convention which holds some suspense can actually
|>> help the eventual nominee if it doesn't become fratricidal because it
|>> will mean more people tuning in plus the opportunity for the winner to
|>> look like a winner. Such was the case with Kennedy in 1960.
|>>
|>
|>You're quite correct.  Unfortunately, '60 was pre-racial tension, and that
|>attributes for the suspense without fratricide on the Deomocrat side.

I believe that the statement that '60 was pre-racial tension is fairly
incorrect. Did'nt Ike send in federal troops to ensure integration in 
Mississippi ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
These thoughts are mine alone and not supported by my company, friends
or relatives. Please consult your parent, guardian, lawyer or local
law enforcement ageny prior to following any advice contained above.
NOTE: I am on a Canadian node and need distribution of NA to see your
pithy replies. E-mail to snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA.
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: AN ANAGRAM!!! WE HAVE ONE!!!
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:45:04 GMT
 <3FiRPB1w164w@monsoon.com> 
 <1992Aug29.192539.17142@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  
 <1992Aug29.225528.9850@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0d56@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Aug29.225528.9850@athena.mit.edu>
dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:

> I think Cavett did make it up.  More recently, he defended Woody Allen,
> arguing that only one thing could make Woody's skin crawl more than
> sexually abusing a child: the thought of French-kissing Patrick Buchanan.

All right, all right; I know it's not a.d.q related and I *beg for
mercy*, but while we're here....

Does anyone know what Cavett is up to these days?  I've only heard him
twice in the last year, and both were interviews where he talked about
his bout with depression.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: chris@tessi.com (Chris Lamb)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:56:58 GMT


LIBERALS!  GIVE ME A BREAK!


The range of political thought in this country reaches all the way from
moderate conservative to really right-wing-wacko ultra-conservative.
Not a whole lot of folks are even a little bit left of center.  There
is no "loyal opposition" in this country - if you don't fit in the
mind-numbingly straight-laced, uptight, God-fearin' good 'ole boy
mentality you're obviously a {commie, faggot, wimp, "liberal"}, etc.
At best you self- proclaimed (or *accused*) "liberals" sound to me
like reasonable folks; at worst you spew the same right-wing drivel as
the rest of the apathetic, worn-down, burnt out zombies in this
society.

a.f.d-q'ers keep it up!  Skewer that idiot veep at every opportunity!
But give me a break with this "liberal" bullshit!  What does it
matter?  We're all just trying to survive in an increasingly evil and
dangerous world.


rave, Rave, RAVE!!


Waiting for the worms to come,

-- chris@tessi.com

"Don't give me that you snotty-nosed heap of parrot droppings. Shut
your festering gob you tit!  Your type really makes me puke, you
vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderant pervert!!" -- Monty Python
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject:  Dan Quayle fantasies
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:56:24 GMT

>But who in the Republican party has a more nationally-known name than ....

> ..... Our man Dan !!!!

>There may be hope for this group yet: imagine, Dan Quayle, the perennial
>losing politician. First, he gets creamed in the 1996 Republican presidential
>primaries. Then he gets picked as a VP, loses again. Runs for Senate in 1998
>or 2000, loses again. We here among the "cultural elite" (I guess that's who
>we must be, since we mock Quayle so much) will watch the increasingly
>publicized failures with increasing jollity, as Dan spirals downwards,
>eventually failing even to get his old job back as an assistant attorney
>general in Indiana and has to settle for some kind of completely non-
>functional position in the Pulliam newspaper chain. Even then, the press
>will still follow his various failed attempts to strike out in new
>directions. His gaffes will adorn the "People" pages of major newspapers
>and the covers of supermarket tabloids even into the second and third decades
>of the 21st century.

YOu are one of the alien dream-snatchers, no doubt.  This is one of my 
fantasy dreams that I dream late at night, in the deepest depths of my
subconscious this is my dream.  (Something must be terribly wrong with me,
or this country, if I'm not fantasizing about Costner or Van Damme!)

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jennyb@triton.unm.edu (Jenny Ballmann)
Subject: Re: "I can even forgive Bush for Dan Quayle, but not for this."
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:32:27 GMT
Organization: UNM Janitorial Staff
Summary: Priorities

In article <JASON.92Aug31124754@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <9208301418.AA16516@MIT.EDU> dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
>->  ATLANTA, GEORGIA, U.S.A., 1992 AUG 28 (NB)
>->   -- by Dana Blankenhorn
[most of article deleted]
>->  It is one thing when suffering in Somalia or Bosnia is ignored
>->  for weeks, and people brutalize one another. One can argue that
>->  is not our government's problem. But to watch what is happening
>->  in South Florida right now, emergency workers begging their
>->  government for supplies on television, while the government frets
>->  it hasn't gotten the proper paperwork, just turns my stomach. Our
>->  citizens have been thousands of points of light in this crisis.
>->  But our government, which could have coordinated that light, and
>->  which should have used all its might to relieve the suffering,
>->  has done too little.
>->  
>->  I can forgive George Bush a lot of things. Maybe the economy is
>->  bad all over the world. Maybe he's never made a mistake in
>->  foreign policy, and can't be blamed for extremism within his own
>->  party. I can even forgive Dan Quayle. But this I can't forgive.
>->  And this I won't forget in November.
>->  
>->  (Dana Blankenhorn/19920828)
>-> 
>
>
>	I don't think you understand the magnitude what happened.  It
>was more than anyone would have expected and the system was just not
>prepared.  It's no ones fault when everyone's doing the best they can.
>A hindsight argument that Bush should have predicted this and prepared
>is ridiculous.  It's not even Bush's job to monitor each state's
>emergency preparedness.  This is just another liberal scam to take
>advantage of people's pain for political gain.

When the hurricane was almost at Bermuda, and the Weather Channel
announced it was a Category IV with expected top wind speeds ~150mph,
I turned to my husband and said "Bush is a fool if he doesn't get the
army down there now".  I'm no expert, but I expect my leaders to assess
potential emergencies at least as competently as I.  His only possible
excuse is that sending in troops with supplies was logistically
impossible, and he's not using it.  

Course, I've been through Homestead and seen the countryside,
giant farms and ranches, and the poor people who work them.  It's 
awful easy to overlook hundreds of thousands of trailers and ill-built
houses if you never get 20 miles from the Florida shore.

The situation's a tragedy, and it's just starting.  With any luck,
criticism of the Bush administration's performance will goad it into
adequately responding to the situation.  

Jenny
-- 
"I have heard of people communicating with rocks. I personally prefer
dogs or trees." -J. Winston
"I hope you don't get as confused as I appear to be." -ibid.
From: DSTEPHEN@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Quayle gets it wrong again
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:07:58 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

>
>I suggest you get a stopwatch and try the following test:
>	1)	Send harrasing E-mail to TDQ. Start timing watch.
>	2)	Check interim time for when your account gets pulled.
Or I get fired.  That's why a prudent psycho wouldn't use his own account.

>	3)	Check final time to see how long those Secret Service guys
>		show up at your door. (bet they have _fast_ planes)
>	4)	Spend the next 5-10 years trying to figure out the correlation.

I think this would depend on the message.  If it contained a threat, I'm sure
you would be entertaining a gentle G-man in short order.  If it were merely
stupid, you might get a warning.  But no doubt some soulless G-man is assigned
to monitor Tucker's mail, electronic or otherwise, and compile a list of
suspicious characters for the fellows with the big butterfly net

>Seriously, they take this sort of stuff with a very straight face. Besides,
>the kid's not responsible for the sins of his father, and there's no need

On the other hand, he's probably getting a lot of advantages out of being the
first nitwit's son, so a little fly in the ointment is good Karma.
My sense is that our boy is probably a pretty good father.  He's certainly not
going to bust Tucker's balls about studying hard or mind him having a few
drinks and an occaisional round of golf.  Still having all those secret service
dudes around must present problems.  How's he going to lay some pipe into that
nice looking girl in his English class with all those spooks hanging around?
Worse yet, what if he's gay?  Viewed in that light, an abusive message from
some asshole in netland is pretty small potatoes.  If he had much trouble
they'd just change his account name; meanwhile, the G-men would track down
the offenders and crucify them.

I want to say that generally I'm pleased with the way the group is evolving.
We need a lot more "serious" political comments, preferably cross-posted to
about fifty other bullshit political groups, and a sustained, acrimonious
abortion thread.  A few more tidbits out of a Junior High Civics class (e. g.
the "be sure and vote" thread) are also a nice addition.  Pretty soon we can
just merge with alt.politics.perot.
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: I'm dragging out the old T-shirt
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:39:05 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <l9g36mINN5o2@girtab.usc.edu>,
rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.193425.13653@news.duc.auburn.edu>,
>horntho@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>>[W]hy would Opus make a better veep than Dannikins?

First, the real answer:

 - Because anyone would.


Now, some others:

 - Because Opus is a bird-brain, at least.
 - Because he's a vertebrate, not to mention warm-blooded.
 - Because he couldn't possibly whine about the cultural elite.
 - Because we would be laughing with him, not at him, if he did.
 - Because we could ignore him if we wanted to.
 - Because he'd drive Pat Buchanan to suicide.


>- Because Opus isn't married to Marilyn Quayle.
>- Because Opus doesn't golf.
>- Because Opus likes herring and peanut butter sandwiches.
>- Because Opus knows how to spell "Milquetoast".
>- Because Opus knows he's a cartoon character.

Heck, if he's *that* good, maybe he should be on the top of the ticket.


>george bush, are you listening?

Is he ever.


Dhanesh

  Besides, "the Opera" sounds much classier than "the Quayls."
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Quayle/Bush Competency?
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:24:01 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <17ji3vINNq0q@agate.berkeley.edu> mazzarel@oreo.berkeley.edu (Ariel Mazzarelli) writes:
>
>"How did you do on your test Ariel?"
>
>"I quayled it."
>
(other quayleism deleted)

Good idea.  How about the obvious, like:
"Sorry, Mom, I quayled the spelling bee."

Or, "I wanted to vacation in Portland, Oregon, but quayled my
way to Portland, Maine, instead".

Or, "She went to college to find a husband but ended
up being quayled".

More submissions requested.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: wolf@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andy Wolfsberg)
Subject: Re: Einstein's brain.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 19:06:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.182731.9386@tcsi.com> jansen@tcs.com (David Jansen) writes:
>
>I hear Einstein brain slices are going for $5000 / milligram.  On the other hand,
>Quayle slice futures are already being offered at $100000 / milligram to the many
>scientists curious about this marvel of nature.
>
>This seems surprising until you figure how many slices of Quayle brain are 
>required to make a milligram.
>

Also, we see him walking, talking and breathing.  This is a marvel as
absence of brain function constitutes legal death.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Bye Bye Dan
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 06:56:14 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:

> In article 18209@news.uiowa.edu, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
> >The election is Clinton's to lose.  The Bush campaign will finally
> >find which button to push in the collective consciousness, and then
> >if Clinton doesn't come up with the proper response, he'll be toast.
>
> Don't you think he's done a fine job of counterpunching so far?
> This prattle regarding his draft status and his uncle is not really
> going to work, is it?

With Dano's draft record?  C'mon, it's been *speculated* that Clinton got help
to duck going to Vietnam, but it's a given fact that Dano ducked service in
Vietnam in the Guard.  And there's no coincidence that this rich little kid
with the good handicap got no outside help in joining the Guard?  Sure.

Besides, all they have to do is dredge that story about Bush having an affair
up again.  The stock response on the Repub side is 'no comment' or 'one of the
principals in that story is dead.'  As soon as they say that, the Democrats
have diffused talk about a long-dead uncle of Clinton's.





|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: saustin@bbn.com (Steve Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Bye Bye Dan
Date: 1 Sep 1992 06:48:40 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown) writes:

->And the best part is that we don't have to deal with the unmitigated
->mediocrity of Clinton 'till January.

I find that part of the US political system baffling.  Why do elected
politicians remain in office after they have lost an election?  Isn't
it obvious that the guy who is on the way out is going to concentrate
on (deliberately) fucking things up for the next guy after they have
lost their mandate?

This isn't limited to one political party.  I remember how Dukakis
was busily appointing his friends to positions in MA after the
Gov'ship passed into Republican hands.

This contrasts to the UK system where losing PM is evicted from
10 Downing Street on the morning after they have lost an election.

	Steve Austin
From: hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Anthony 'the Bard' Hobbs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: I'm dragging out the old T-shirt
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:54:23 GMT
 <l9g36mINN5o2@girtab.usc.edu><1992Aug25.034641.19991@athena.cs.uga.edu>,<MeaXe4i00io=M4wExk@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Organization: Wellington City Council, Wgtn, NZ

In article <MeaXe4i00io=M4wExk@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Joshua M. Sabloff" <jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Fergit Bill 'n' Opus... vote Calvin 'n' Hobbes!

No no no! Reverse the ticket! Hobbes would make a much better president. For
one thing, he'll be almost guaranteed not to throw up on anyone, unlike Calvin,
who'd probably do it just for the hell of it. Secondly, do we really want a
president with at least three secret identities? What will happen if a call
goes out for the mighty powers of Stupendous Man while President Calvin is in
a summit meeting? Thirdly, I wouldn't trust Calvin with any real firepower,
considering what he can do with a baseball bat.

	Come to think of it, I don't even trust Calvin as VP. Secretary of
State, perhaps, but if we want a *real* choice to serve as President-and-First-
Tiger Hobbes' standby, we need to think hard about Susie Derkins. 

ObSlogans: "Vote Hobbes for *free tuna*!!!"
           
anthony                   HOBBES/DERKINS in '92!!!
p.s. the fact that the candidate and I share a last name (almost) is totally
coincidental.
--
Anthony Hobbs             the Bard                hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz    
OverPope, First Holy and Unreformed Church of Frozen Yoghurt - romantic poet - 
synth player extraordinaire - kate bush is goddess - hail Eris - praise "Bob"!
DISCLAIMER: I am not Romanian and was not head of the Securitate for 15 years.
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Marilyn the Q
Keywords: minimal self-esteem, moronic bitch, butt ugly
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:50:53 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>In article <1992Aug20.030810.13510@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>
>>When did Marilyn Q become more attractive to the public at large than
>>Hillary C?  Dear Lord in Heaven, Marilyn is the most humorless, angry,
>>power-hungry, ambitious religious-rightist campaign wife you could come up
>>with.  She makes my skin crawl.  She makes the hair stand up on the back of
>>my head.  She makes me shake things at my television set and shout nasty
>>things at it.  She has the emotional depth of a manequin, and the
>>sensitivity of a cobra.  She is not nice or fun people.
>>

Something about the DanMate puzzles me.  My (admittedly vague) memories
of her from the 1988 election are of a somewhat articulate and
aware person, of a nearly human demeanor and of a totally
superior species to her husband.  Now she sounds like a
transsexual Pat Buchannan.  Has she been cleansed of all 
humanity by the Republican handlers during the past four years,
or were my original observations totally off base?
Does anyone know more about her transfiguration into professional
drivel-monger?


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |   "Winning cures everything."          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |     -- The Fabulous Sports Babe        |
| sieferme@u.washington.edu |                                        |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: pape@miller.cs.uwm.edu
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Originator: pape@miller.cs.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:54:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.115945.2018@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>Let's face it - the term "liberal" is a misnoner.  Some of the 
>most intolerant people I've ever met are liberals (of course, I'm
>sure there are good-hearted, if misled ones, out there).  Anyone
>who has any convictions at all, anyone who stands up for what they
>believe in, is insulted, slandered, etc., etc., etc.

Oh please. Bush and the republofascists are the ones who bash homosexuals,
tell atheists they are not citizens, and claim that one must believe in
god to be president. 

>  Most liberals nowdays don't want the name liberal.  I say we 
>call them what they are - hypocrites (only the ones who are).  I
>put them in the same category I do David Duke - they refuse to come
>out and say what they really believe, that morality is wrong, that 
>if you tell someone they're wrong you're intolerant and bigoted, 
>that if you have any sense of decency at all you're some kind of 
>neo-Nazi.
>  They've got control over Congress and the media; God help us if
>they get the Presidency as well.
>  One more thing - Albert Gore.  The biggest "tax-and-spender" in
>Congress, a man who was raised with the silver spoon of the politic-
>ally connected in his mouth.  The only reason I'd vote for him would
>be to get him out of Tennessee.
>  That's my opinion - it ought to be yours.


Look, Fred, if you are going to make such stupid statements that liberals
are hypocrites, why don't you back it up with some facts instead of taking
the lead from your hero and making empty attacks on them. 

As for claiming that people of your type are neo-nazis, one only need look
at what you say about your opinions.

>
>                                    A Tennessean
>
>
>P.S. - I want to make two things crystal clear before I go.  First,
>like I said before, I don't make this as a blanket statement about
>all liberals (strangely enough, not like many vocal liberals do about
>conservatives).  Second, I hope everyone realizes my concluding line
>is purely facetious and not meant to offend; serious situations often 
>need occasional humor to relieve the pressure.
>  Thanks for reading, whether you agree with me or not.  God gave you
>the ability to chose; use it with care and wisdom.

You god gave me no such abilities. And if this isn't ment to be a blanket
statement about liberals, just what exactly was the purpose of you post?

Patrick Pape
pape@miller.cs.uwm.edu
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Dan's Kid Conceived Before Marriage?
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:42:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu (Hugh Miller) writes:

>In <ZACCONE.92Aug25061201@rigel.cs.bucknell.edu> zaccone@rigel.cs.bucknell.edu (Rick Zaccone) writes:

>>An article about Dan in last week's NYT mention that he and Marilyn
>>got married after dating just 10 weeks in 1974.  It also mentioned

>    Hmmm... Who's Who in America lists their wedding date as 18 November
>1972.

>    If correct, bummer.

Not really such a bummer.  It means that either Dan Quayle, or 
Who's Who, got their facts wrong.  Dan said that he got married in
1974!  The book says November 1972.  

Can't he even remember his own wedding anniversary?

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:3002 talk.politics.misc:42079