HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eric@tantalus.dell.com (Eric Youngdale)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Back to Dan (was  Earl Butz)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:37:58 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory

In article <1992Aug14.161604.19327@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>So, what job does anyone think the Dandroid will perform when
>he is no longer veep?  In an unrelated question, what job is
>he really qualified for?  It would be a shame if he totally
>dropped out of public life, as he is the most entertaining
>public figure since Timothy Leary.

	My guess is that some right wing think tank will take him on.  He could
probably handle a broom or a mop without too much difficulty.

-Eric

--
Eric Youngdale
eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (Matt Simpson)
Subject: Re: JDQe a womanizer?
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 09:44:39 GMT

Apparently Danny likes golf better than sex. Back in 88, Playboy ran a 
story/pictorial on a hooker who had gone on a Florida junket with a bunch
of lobbyists and senators, including an obscure senator from Indiana named
J. Danforth Quayle. After the story was written, but right before press time,
JDQ was selected as Bush's VP candidate. Playboy managed to make a few last
minute changes to take advantage of the fact that this nobody was suddenly
front page news.  But the hooker apparently said JDQ was really into golf, and
in playing her hole
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: A Little Less Noise, Please?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:11:13 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <5wb-tv_@engin.umich.edu>, by Jeffrey L. Needleman <JNeedleman@MCIMail.com>:
> I don't quarrel with anyone who sincerely believes that abortion is
> murder.

This "sincere belief" stuff always gets me.  How is it murder?  Murder
has a legal definition, and abortion doesn't fit that definition.
Even before abortion was legal, it was never defined as murder; it was
a felony in some states, and I think a misdemeanor in some others.
But it never carried anywhere near the penalty for murder.  The
strongest deterrent was the fact that a doctor could lose his license
to practice if he was caught performing abortions.

People who "sincerely believe" that abortion is murder do so on
religous grounds. They hold the belief that we each have a soul that
is imparted upon us at the moment of conception, and that abortion
extinguishes that soul.  Making abortion illegal on the basis of such
belief violates the separation of church and state.

For that matter, even having a position on abortion is a recent event
in religious history; the Catholic Church decided it was a sin some
time in the last century.  And don't forget that the laws against
abortion enacted before 1900 were to protect women from an extremely
risky surgical procedure, not to preserve human life.

There is a traditional standard as to when human life begins -- at the
point of 'quickening,' when the mother can feel the baby move.  This
traditional standard coincides with (according to Stephen Jay Gould) a
rational biological definition of the beginning of life, and a
reasonable judicial standard.

The "sincere believers" are just plain wrong.  Wrong in their
understanding of biology, and wrong to try to force their opinions and
beliefs on the rest of us.  If you carry their "sincere belief" to its
logical conclusion, we should be holding funerals for bloody tampons.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The Republicans are confusing me again...
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:12:56 GMT

In article <+8#nrkl.thomp@netcom.com> thomp@netcom.com (Thom Philabaum) writes:
>> If so, it would seem that Republicans are easier to please than I have
>> come to believe.  Perhaps their standards are lower this year?
>
>Quayle? Bush?  I think you've hit the nail on the head...
>

I think Dan already had someone take a hammer to his head...

--
But this is.
From: darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Explained: Why Bush Won't Eat Broccoli
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:03:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Davis

It's cause he can't tell the difference between broccoli and
Danny Boy - they're both green vegetables after all!!

Richard

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Heil Dan-ster!
Summary: Danny's Hitler salute before his speech
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:32:33 GMT

     Did anyone notice the "Heil Hitler" arm gesture that Dan-no used before 
his speech? It wasn't a wave; it was a stiff arm at a 45-degree angle toward 
the crowd. I guess his dad's membership in the John Birch Society affected Dan 
more than we originally thought.

                                        Steve
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Takes a licking, keeps on ticking ...
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:08:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Aug10.190221.12697@sco.COM>, erics@sco.COM (eric smith)       writes...
> 
>glass@devl.fnal.gov (Michael Glass) writes:
>"win-win" situation. He has no clue that he has a responsibility to the
>entire country. He believes that every situation is one in which
>someone's ass must get kicked. To me, this is attitude is incredible for
>any person over the age of nine, let alone the President of the U.S.
> 

Are you new to this country? Granted it's sad, but hardly suprising.

>Eric Smith     erics@sco.com     erics@infoserv.com     CI$: 70262,3610
> 
>DQ: "... I know who they are, they know who they are,
>     the American People [God Bless 'em!] know who they are."
> 
>Robin McNeil: "Yes, Mr. Vice President, but who are they, exactly?"
> 
>DQ: "Well, they know who they are, and the American People know who they are."
> 
>     - Dan Quayle, on the "cultural elite"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio)
Subject: Re: List of Qayle quotes
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory
	<1992Aug14.143630.21550@ctr.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:30:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.143630.21550@ctr.columbia.edu> goldsman@cc.gatech.edu (Michael G. Goldsman) writes:

>   I have to get my hands on the current Esquire and the book, "The 
>   Unauthorized Biography of Dan Quayle."

I have these, which, together with the Quayle Quarterly, make up the richest
source of material on the Danster.  When I first got them, I had intended to
type in gread gobs of the stuff, but decided that would prove too tedious, so
instead, posted the "Required Reading" message, which included prices and
mailing addresses for those out there unfortunate enough to not live near a
book mecca like Cambridge.  Second, if you've followed my posts, you'll see
that I've been gradually getting little tids from these sources, as well as
"Bushisms" and the lateset "Spy," as sig-like blocks at the ends of the 
messages.  I've tried to use a new one with almost every post, though there
have been a few occasions when I couldn't resist reusing a particularly rich
one.  So anyway, maybe you've already seen a bunch of this stuff.

But really, go out and buy the two little books ("What A Waste It Is To Lose
One's Mind" and "Bushisms") and the mags ("Esquire," "Spy" and "Quayle
Quarterly").  You'll be glad you did.

If you like, I can repost the "Required Reading" FAQ-like message, updated
with some newer valuable material.

Ob. Quote department:

"You don't make money in politics.  Or, I should say -- you shouldn't."
    -- Marilyn Quayle

"I am now cashing in on being vice president for others.  They'll remember me.
I'll remember them."
    -- J. Danforth Quayle

"One thing we're able to do is raise money."
    -- J. Danforth Quayle

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  "Is he on track to be president?  Yes, I think so, and people ought to  |
|  deal with it.  What Nixon figured out is that it makes no difference    |
|  how bad your record is or how many pages of Dubious Achievements you    |
|  come up with:  If you raise enough money, you'll win.  And Quayle will  |
|  raise the money because he's been the defender of the fat cats, and     |
|  they'll fund him.  He's going to walk out there and say 'I'm the new    |
|  Dan Quayle.'  Just like the new Nixon."                                 |
|      -- Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colorado)                                  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Show them you can't be bought this year - vote this administration out! |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Abort danny?  Heaven forfend! 
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:19:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.222431.25848@athena.mit.edu>, dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.131746@IASTATE.EDU>,
>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>   I agree it would be nice to leave this particular issue out of
>>alt.fan.dan-quayle, except possibly when Qauyl himself says something.
> 
> 
> Don't you think it's also acceptable to discuss the question
> of whether the foetal Dannikins *should* have been aborted?
> 
> I mean as a hypothetical, of course.

   Hypothetically I thinks that's his mom's private business, but I would have
regretted the loss of comedy had Dan not been on the scene.  Also, I suspect
the long term effect of Dan's presence will be to move politics in a good
direction, much the way the S&L scandal may in the long term help us force
banking into a more nearly responsible mold.

   Did you see Dan promised to satop making gaffes?  Does this imply the process
is volitional, i.e. he was doing that INTENTIONALLY?!?

> Dhanesh
> Baker-Bush/Quayl in '92:
> One Mind, Three Skulls.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use and
 authority of reason as to administer medication to the dead."
-Thomas Paine, explaining why the whole abortion debate is worthless.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Marilyn's Speech?
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:07:39 GMT

In article <SES.92Aug21074710@cmns-sun.think.com>, ses@cmns-sun.think.com (Simon
Edward Spero) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.044036.1475@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu
(Bradley S. Corsello) writes:
>    Maybe he's referring to Quayl's Vietname adventures.  They made a movie
>    about them, you know:  "Thirty Seconds over Indianapolis".
> 
> No, no, no- you're thinking of "Full dinner jacket".
>

   I thought it was "Buffoon"?
 
Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,soc.women
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle's GPA and Other Tids on His College Daze
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 12:49:08 GMT

In article <PUCCIO.92Aug15225813@media-lab.media.mit.edu>,
puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio) writes (about Dannikins, of course):
>1969, Graduated from DePauw University, B.S. (how appropriate) in Political
>Science.  GPA = 2.16.  Yow!  (Had that been MIT, he'd have had a 2.7.)
>Not one "A" in his entire college career.
>
> [...]
>
>1974, Graduated from Indiana School of Law, J.D.  GPA = 2.74.
>(So at MIT, he'd have worked his way all the way up to a 3.4.  NTG, Dan-O.)


I've already received four questions about this, so I thought I'd just
save time and explain here that we use a five-point scale at MIT.  Jim
was just doing the old "multiply by 1.25 and round off to 2 significant
figures" thing.  Anyway, it's a moot point, because even if Dannikins
had applied and been admitted, he'd never have made it past freshman
year.  Not that he's stupid or anything, you understand: he'd just never
have found a place to park Daddy's Caddy.


Dhanesh
From: rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Following JimDQ
Date: 14 Aug 1992 01:02:20 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.usc.edu

(reposted from clari.news.briefs.  Copyrighted material, all rights reserved)

        IRVINE, Calif. (UPI) -- Vice President Dan Quayle, hounded by 
questions about President Bush's alleged marital infidelity, lashed out 
at reporters by saying their questioning of Bush about the rumored affair
was ``shabby'' journalism.``What is happening in this country today is:
shabby journalism is overtaking responsible journalism,'' Quayle told a
group of some 300 conservative Orange County Republicans at a meeting
Wednesday of the Lincoln Club. Rumors resurfaced this week alleging Bush
had an affair in 1984 with former aide Jennifer Fitzgerald.

5150
i think he learned 'shabby' from Marilyn after their honeymoon night
From: paulk@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Paul E. King)
Subject: Re: List of Qayle quotes
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:25:15 GMT

ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams) writes:

>I would not have married Dan Quayle had I not thought he was an equal to me.
>                -- Marilyn Quayle

I believe that Marilyn Quayle must suffer from a tremendous lack of self
esteem in order to make that remark.


paulk
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: smj@iti.org (Seth Johnson)
Subject: Re: For True Republicans ... Quayle/Ford in '96!
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:22:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.012203.24577@cabezon.uucp> larryh@cabezon.uucp (Larry Huntley) writes:

 [previous postings deleted]

>    That, and the fact that this is the person who was deemed most qualified
>	to run the country in the event of the President's absence or untimely
>	demise.  He's a lawyer; someone you would expect to have a handle on
>	reasonably clear thought and expression [more deleted]
>
>	- Larry Huntley 

Not to defend Danny-Boye, but when was the last time that you read a
legal document which contained even a hint of "clear thought and
expression"!?!?  Lawyers write in the most convoluted and annoying
manner possible so that the millions of lawyers out there will have
jobs for years and years to come.  

BTW:  Remember when the veepster spoke before the ABA, and said that
there were just too darn many lawyers in this country...I think that
Mr. Quayl makes AT LEAST ONE TOO MANY!!!
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:2761 alt.politics.bush:2297 alt.politics.clinton:2372
From: ses@cmns-sun.think.com (Simon Edward Spero)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Dan-ster, looking forward.
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:30:07 GMT
	<1992Aug20.115459.2291@u.washington.edu>
	<luden.47.714342663@lehigh.edu>
Organization: What's your clearance, citizen?
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmns-sun.think.com
In-reply-to: luden@lehigh.edu's message of 20 Aug 92 20:31:03 GMT


Actually- as the princess of Wales, all Danny needs to to is wait for the 
queen to die, then take over and rule by divine right. Mind you, I think
Marilyn is more like a blue whale than a royal one..

Simon
--
-----
Guest account at TMC 	|	Just Another  WAIS Hacker | DOD# 0612
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: A Little Less Noise, Please?
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:42:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <1992Aug13.181113.2474@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:

	[much stuff deleted]

>  And don't forget that the laws against
>abortion enacted before 1900 were to protect women from an extremely
			              ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>risky surgical procedure, not to preserve human life.
				  ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^

Oops!!!!!  I think we have a little faux pas here.  I believe the
laws were enacted to preserve the life of the woman.  Just as
illegalizing abortion will lead to "back-alley" abortions that
will jeopardize the lives of some women.

John D.
From: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Dan in '94!
Keywords: gaffe, life path
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:53:10 GMT
Reply-To: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum)
Organization: Just Some Guy
Originator: swb@mickey.cc.utexas.edu


	I am truly dismal at keeping references, so this is a minor attempt
to answer a couple of pressing quips I've seen here this week.

	Combine:

1) Dan Quayle saying (paraphrased) "Wait until 1994!"
2) A distinct possibility that the Bush/Quayle ticket will be defeated.

	This leaves me with one fairly frightening thought: what if Dan's
statement was not so much a beanheaded gaffe as an indication that he is
indeed preparing for a non-VP future?

	In other words, when is Indiana's next Senate election?

	Mr. Quayle may be doing his MacArthur imitation...

					Steve.
--
Steve Buffum           | "Don't confuse me with facts!  I've got a closed mind!"
swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | -- Earl Landgrebe, former Indiana Senator
From: larry@elvisxlnt.com (Larry Pollack)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Where there's smoke... (was Re: For True Republicans...)
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:30:31 GMT
Reply-To: larry@xlnt.com
Organization: XLNT Designs, Inc.

|> ... he would know DDT isn't AZT. 

Just a clarification, I read in this morning's paper that he was
referring to a drug known as DDC and stated it as DDT. It doesn't
excuse Dan's mistake. I just wanted everyone here to know what he
meant.

-- 
/======================================================================\
| Lawrence J. Pollack                   | Your source for FDDI SMT.    |
| XLNT Designs, Inc.                    | Voice   : 619-487-9320       |
| Internet: larry@xlnt.com              | Fax     : 619-487-9768       |
\======================================================================/
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Marilyn's "Choice"?
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:24:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.094530.1@vthvax.tamu.edu>,
joel@vthvax.tamu.edu writes:
>It's funny you should bring up morals.

I'm glad you're amused.


>Where do you get yours?

Where do I get my morals?  K-Mart, of course.  And I get my
family values at the corner 7-11.  I also noticed a good deal
on the Judaeo-Christian tradition in the latest Sears catalog,
but I think I'll wait till this goddamned recession is over
before I splurge.

So, where do you shop?


Dhanesh

    And do they take coupons?
From: paul@music.sie.arizona.edu (Paul J. Sanchez)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: The Dan-ster, looking forward.
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:29:41 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Tom Warner writes
> ... maybe Dan [...] has been thinking on his feet.

The only way Dan thinks on his feet is when he takes off his shoes to  
count past 10.

--paul
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:2665 talk.abortion:32445
From: sgoldste@usc.edu (Fogbound Child)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.abortion
Subject: Abort Dan Quayle??
Date: 19 Aug 1992 12:37:31 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Ref: <1992Aug18.151026.28686@news.uiowa.edu> <1992Aug18.131746@IASTATE.EDU> <1992Aug18.222431.25848@athena.mit.edu> <1992Aug19.111936@IASTATE.EDU>

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.222431.25848@athena.mit.edu>, dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
>writes:
>>In article <1992Aug18.131746@IASTATE.EDU>,
>>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>>   I agree it would be nice to leave this particular issue out of
>>>alt.fan.dan-quayle, except possibly when Qauyl himself says something.
>> 
>> 
>> Don't you think it's also acceptable to discuss the question
>> of whether the foetal Dannikins *should* have been aborted?
>> 
>> I mean as a hypothetical, of course.

>   Hypothetically I thinks that's his mom's private business, but I would have
>regretted the loss of comedy had Dan not been on the scene.  Also, I suspect

...

(deletions from all the prior posts omitted for the sake of brevity)

Actually, my mother was always of the opinion that human life *really* began
at age 25. Thus, went her reasoning, abortion is a valid option until the end
of the 103rd trimester. Fortunately (from my perspective), I survived the
extended gestation period, and have been able to determine that, in fact, she's
correct and that life *does* begin roughly at 25. Had she aborted me at, say,
the 72nd trimester, she wouldn't really have been committing murder, rather
she would have been preventing the creation of another unwanted College
Freshman. As should be obvious, this improves the quality of Life all around.

In any case, based on Mom's scintillating and perceptive logic, we could
reasonably argue that human life begins at, say, an Competence Coefficient
of 25%. In this case, J. Danforth is still abortable under the outlined
determination.

What effect this would have upon the quality of Life for the general community
is open for discussion.

___Samuel___
-- 
_________Pratice Safe .Signature! Prevent Dangerous Signature Virii!_______
Guildenstern: Our names shouted in a certain dawn ... a message ... a
              summons ... There must have been a moment, at the beginning,
              where we could have said -- no. But somehow we missed it.
From: sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Kill them all, let God sort them out.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 13:49:54 EDT
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

[stuff deleted]

> own two hands.  Take for his example his "we are in a holy war" idea.  Lets
> look at what holy wars do for countries or reigons.  The hundred years war:

[stuff deleted]

> 
> India:
> 
>    Trivia fact: the Seihks (sp?) started as a pascifist movement attempting t
> reconcile the hindu and moslem factions in India.  How things change. 
> ~~~~~~~~~~

While I agree with your general sentiment, your knowledge of Indian
religious history, in this regard, is utterly wrong.

Sunil Gupta
Monsoon Software, Inc.
sg@monsoon.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello)
Subject: Bush's Idea about 10% of our taxes
Reply-To: snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:42:08 GMT

In article <BtCGJA.L3E@scd.hp.com>, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
|>>|> 14)  Bush will give taxpayers a check box to dedicate income tax
|>>|>      to the national debt.
|>>
|>>these check box funds would be in addition to your regular taxes, no?
|>>i'm a mighty generous guy, but i'm not going to chunk in an extra
|>>$15k.  don't know anyone who will.  and this is bush's "new idea"!
|>
|>I think that he said that we could put 10% of the tax dollars that we
|>were paying toward the debt.  If we did so then he would cut that dollar
|>amount from spending.  (A double-your-dollar-deal!)  But if he takes
|>that dollar amount away from social security (which supposedly will be
|>there when I get old, thank you Reagan!), or welfare spending, or
|>college education loans, etc then I will be upset.  If he's going to
|>cut spending on account of my checked box, then I want to be able to
|>tell him where to cut that spening.
|>
                
Now isn't this idea unconstitutional ? I thought only the congress
could allocate spending.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle