HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Jan Sparrendahl)
Subject: To win a cold war. (old joke)
Keywords: 
	From the 2/18/91 N.Y. Times OP/ED pages...
	The New World Order Checklist
	by Garry Trudeau
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:48:48 GMT


	...

				clip 'n' save
             +-----------------------------------------------------+
		I.  BAD INVASIONS, OLD WORLD ORDER
		- Syria invades Lebanon (1976)
		- Vietnam invades Cambodia (1978)
		- USSR invades Afghanistan (1979)
		- Argentina invades Falklands (1982)
		- Libya invades Chad (1983)

		II. GOOD INVASIONS, OLD WORLD ORDER
		- China invades Vietnam (1979)
		- Iraq invades Iran (1980)
		- Israel invades Lebanon (1982)
		- U.S. invades Grenada (1983)

		III.  BAD INVASIONS, NEW WORLD ORDER
		- Iraq invades Kuwait (1990)

		IV.  GOOD INVASIONS, NEW WORLD ORDER
		- U.S. invades Panama (1989)
		- U.S.S.R. invades itself (1991)
		- U.S. et al. invade Kuwait (1991)
		- U.S. et al. invade Iraq (1991, est.)

		V.  BAD HITLERS, OLD WORLD ORDER
		- Muammar el-Qaddifi
		- Mikhail Gorbachev
		- Hafez al-Assad
		- Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
		- Daniel Ortega

		VI.  GOOD HITLERS, OLD WORLD ORDER
		- Ferdinand Marcos
		- Manuel Noriega
		- Saddam Hussein
		- Augusto Pinochet
		- Deng Xiaoping

		VII. BAD HITLERS, NEW WORLD ORDER
		- Ferdinand Marcos
                - Manuel Noriega
                - Saddam Hussein
                - Augusto Pinochet

		VIII.  GOOD HITLERS, NEW WORLD ORDER
                - Mikhail Gorbachev
                - Hafez al-Assad
                - Deng Xiaoping

		IX.  BAD U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS,
		     OLD AND NEW WORLD ORDERS
		- None.*

		X.  GOOD U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS,
		    OLD AND NEW WORLD ORDERS
		- All of them.*

		*Traditionally, the U.S. supports all Good Resolutions
		and vetoes all Bad Resolutions (such as resolutions on
		U.S. invasions of Grenada and Panama).  So none of the
		latter have been passed.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:53:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.152107.27614@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
...
> Role model?  The Cosby Show showed two well-to-do adults
> (who we rarely saw actually working) surrounded by children
> who never got into any serious trouble.  All problems between
> parents and children were solved by serious and meaningful
> discussions.  No problem took longer than thrity minutes
> to fix.  This may have been entertainment, but it is not a
> realistic "role model" any more than Ozzie and Harriet.
> 

The only TV show that could lay claim to 'role model' is IMHO ...

"Hill Street Blues" They didn't even have to thank the veep for their awards. :-)

~Paul

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:37:26 GMT

   The conservative undertones of panic continue.  They seem to interfere
with higher brain function.  

In article <1992Sep30.150828.8468@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
writes:

[My thoughts about why Quaylee has more spare money than Gore deleted]
[My thoughts on why the Qeueaeyeles have more spare time 
                                         than the Clintons deleted]

>What do these have to do with anything? I really doubt, by the way, that Gore
>a member of the Senate is pulling down less perks than the VP, 

   Yeah.  The _Senators_ airplanes are called Airforce 3 through Airforce 102

(Snicker)

>except perhaps
>in Secret Service protection. And what does "family support" have to do with
>charitable contributions?

   If you spend less money on stuff your familly does for you you have more to
give away.  I'm sorry this is such a difficult point for you.
 
> And to see that "busy men" don't have time to 
>make charitable deductions

   Slip of the tounge?  _I_ make charitable CONTRIBUTIONS.

> is absurd - some of the busiest people I know 
>are the most generous, and not all of them are rich.

   And people you know are a statistically valid sample?

> Ditto for your sexist 
>comment about Marilyn Quayle and Ms. Clinton [sic] and their involvement 
>in charities.

   Sexist?  I considered both halves of the marriage because they were both on
the tax return.  How is this sexist?  It was sexist because the women were
mentioned?  Hmmmm...   Interesting rhetorical technique, but it's clearly 
bogus.  Watch out folks, the conservative institute for verbal dirty tricks
has released a new handbook :).

   People with more spare money and time donate more to charity.  Is that 
a simple enough statement for you?
 
> Man, if there is an "undercurrent of panic" among conservatives, then there
is
> stark raving lunacy occurring among liberals. 

   Speaking as a moderate: what are you talking about?  _I_ had an example :).

> John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
>                            | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
> 74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
> jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    You are going to come kill me the day before my 80th birthday?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: What's the deal?
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:13:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.222251.3951@doug.cae.wisc.edu> saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu (Brian E. Saunders) writes:
>Gee, the name of this group is alt.fan.dan-quayle, but all I see are Quayle
>bashes here.  Could somebody direct me to a group where Republican policies
>and characters are discussed in a more friendly manner?
>-- 

I would suggest alt.politics.family-values, alt.religion.money-worship
or talk.racism.  Or you could issue a CFD to create alt.fan.pat-buchanan.


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

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: The War Against Murphy Brown: (Warning: Satire on Murphy Brown)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:50:46 GMT

In article <1adeacINNpil@network.ucsd.edu> spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.005859.27850@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>And in its place was the replay of Friday's Rush Limbaugh Show...
>>hosted by none other than the King of Talk Radio, ...
>
>You mean Larry King?

Ho ho hardy har har, buddy. 

Rush Limbaugh is the King of Talk Radio. 
If you can prove to us that Larry King has more readers than Rush, then
you can say Larry King is the King of Talk Radio. 

Otherwise, Rush is King. Of talk radio, that is.


=============================================================================
! "He's very smart and he does his homework. And you ignore him at your
peril." - Ted Koppel, on Rush Limbaugh. 

! "I'm still trying to sort out what I'm permitted to laugh at and
what is not politically acceptable for me to laugh at" - Feminist
Lawyer Gloria Allred, on Rush Limbaugh. 
 
				- Vanity Fair, May 1992 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: chesnutt@adobe.com (Stan Chesnutt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Marilyn's Indiscretions (and Teddy's comment)
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:01:13 GMT
Organization: Tuesday Weld Fan Club

In article <1992Oct1.135615.1731@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> afc@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Q: Why did Teddy Kennedy say that DQ is not as dumb as it appears?  They
>served together in the Senate, so Teddy can hardly be mistaken about Dano's
>intellectual gifts, and given the difference in philosophy he is unlikely
>to be lying to help out a ally.
>A: Maybe he was talking about something else.  Teddy is not all that
>concerned about intellect most of the time.
>

I prefer to think that Dan-o is indeed quite a bit more capable than most
people believe.  Many people who know Quayle have stated this, but the idea
is not given much credence due to Quayle's constant stream of gaffes.

I remember an editorial by Malcolm Forbes Jr (appearing guess where ...
"Forbes") that stated that Dan was really a sharp political mind in the
"back-room" way: making deals, knowing how to apply pressure, etc.

Malcolm Jr was generally ridiculed for making that statement, but I have
a nagging suspicion that DQ did not get to where he is now by a combination
of accident and his good looks ...

I also remember, though, sitting in a New York restaurant several years ago
and hearing Dan Rather in the next booth saying "But he is really, I mean
REALLY dumb!" to his lunch companions...

"Only Marilyn Knows For Sure"

Stan

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Stan Chesnutt,  Adobe Systems			      chesnutt@mv.us.adobe.com
From: bssbb3rjc2@dct.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Dan for President
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:12:58 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology

Dan Quayle for president ....



why not ? ... he can't do much worse than Bush .... and with all his ramblings
we might even understand republican policy, other than tax cuts.


mind you with Dan's spelling we could be in for some misinterpuritations of
policy



Rick Cotter
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dks@MIT.EDU (dks)
Subject: Re: A New Quote!
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 15:30:06 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA28785; Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:53:22 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA09706; Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:53:20 -0700
X-Received: from TMS-E40-PORT-7.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTPid AA01876; Tue, 6 Oct 92 15:53:11 EDT
X-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle.usenet
X-Command: Send_AEvt(doAutoForward)


shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
> > [...] the focus will be more on the economy,
> > which is one of GHWB's strong points.
> 
> If the economy is one of Georgie's strong points,
> I'd hate to see his weak points.

He doesn't have any.  So, NOW do you see why you
just HAVE to vote for him?


Dhanesh

  Bush in '92:  A thousand weak points of light!
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Our Boy and the Draft...
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 12:51:07 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

For all of Clinton's posturing on the draft, he *did* eventually submit 
himself to the draft.  He got lucky and drew a high number.  I seriously 
doubt that anyone will charge that he influenced the lottery in some way. 
So, whatever he did before that point, he rolled the dice just like 
everyone else eligible that year.  What he would have done had he drawn a 
low number is speculation, of course, however, my bet is that he would 
have gone, given his future political ambitions.

Our Boy, however, is clearly a draft dodger.  He never submitted his name 
to the draft.  He was never eligible for the draft.  He avoided any 
possibility of his being drafted. 

Of course, had he simply been lucky about getting into the Guard, then he 
would be in the same class as Clinton--lucky.  However, Our Boy and his 
family pulled some mighty strong strings to get him into a National Guard 
unit that was the equivalent of an exclusive prep school.  

No, Our Boy is the type I never want to see elected to the Presidency, in 
terms of his military record.  It's one thing to have someone like GHWB, 
who actually saw the horrors of war, or someone like BC who at least 
agonized over the moral implications of war.  Our Boy is one of those who 
doesn't have problems with going to war, so long as *he's* not the one 
being shot at.  He has neither the brains nor the morals to make a 
decision regarding whether or not people will get killed.


>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Mr. Casual Sex
Keywords: Saturday Night Live
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:55:58 GMT

No one has commented on this weekend's _Saturday Night Live_
comment on Murphy Brown and Our Boye, so here's a brief description.

Commentator explains that Dan Quayle had attacked their character
"Mr. Casual Sex" in a speech, and that this episode was his response.

Episode starts with very fifties theme song (similar to Top Cat or
the Flintstones) about Mr Casual Sex: "He'll look you up!   He'll
call you up!  He'll take you out, and he'll knock you up!  Look Out!
It's Mr. Casual Sex!"  complete with still photos showing Mr. CS
and date undressing and redressing.

Action is at a party where Mr. CS hits on a woman, who refuses:  "Last
time I went home with you, I ended up with a baby!"  Mr. CS makes a
pointed remark about Dan Quayle and how he can't spell potato.  Other
party guests join in the conversation, each one making similar flat-footed
remarks about DQ and potatoes.  This leads the woman to agree to go home
with Mr. CS.

But before they leave, he walks away from the party set and to a group
of men, all "fathers of illegitimate children, all families."  This
group is very PC (includes blacks, asians and one man in a wheelchair).
Mr. CS's comments here are deliberately diatribe (remember, he is
parodying Murphy Brown).  End show with cutesy song and still photos
again.

While the episode claimed to be an attack on DQ, it was so flat-footed
it seemed more an attack on Murphy Brown, and I'm sure this was
deliberate.  Of course, Murphy handled her DQ disagreement with some
semblance of humor.  Maybe Mr. CS was really a comment on DQ's supporters!

Back to the bumper stickers: earlier I mentioned having seen only one
Bush/Quayle sticker in the Bay Area.  The interesting thing about the
BQ design is that "Bush" is in white, on deep blue, but "92" and "Quayle"
are in deep red, and very difficult to read against the blue.

Coincedence?



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

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Marilyn's Indiscretions
Keywords: Marilyn, screw
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 15:27:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.140453.9141@gvl.unisys.com> train@gvls2.gvl.unisys.com (Herbert Rutledge) writes:
>
> I put it to you, a.f.d-q'ers everywhere.  Wuddya think?  Is Marilyn getting 
> some action on the side?  And, if so, with whom?  
>
> (It ain't me, babe.  Just the thought of my goodies thrust into THAT mouth 
> with THOSE teeth is enough to cause a major case of castration anxiety that 
> you don't need Freud to explain.) 
>      
>

How...  vivid.


Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:4839 alt.politics.bush:7466 alt.politics.elections:14900
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The debate is on?????
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:14:57 EDT


In article <1992Oct1.114420.8722@keps.kodak.com>, Susan Klimowicz writes:
> How interesting.  Bush will debate Clinton but only on certain days, three of
> which the World Series already lay claim to and the fourth is oh so close to
> election day.  I wonder which day it will be?  I wonder what Bush has up his
> sleeve. He is so convinced that he will win the election I have to wonder....
> Is he really that stupid or does he have a "bomb dropping" planned? 


Bush wants to debate Clinton during the World Series because he knows that
most people will be watching the games. He is a sleazebag and has no respect
for the American people.

-Garrett
From: hillman@carina.unm.edu (Dan Hillman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: MacUser Harshes on Our Boy
Keywords: Lorem ipsum
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:37:59 GMT
Organization: The Quayle's

In the November issue of MacUser (p. 13) some guy writes in to ask
what "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" means in software ads. The response:

[...]
Meaningless [Latin] text is used, presumably, so you won't be distracted
by any actual content in the layout; we understand that software ads in
the Vatican (and other Latin-speaking countries) use text from the 
speeches of Dan Quayle instead.

-- 
We've replaced the fine baby Jesus we normally use with Folgers crystals.
Let's see if they notice the difference.
From: afc@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Marilyn's Indiscretions (and Teddy's comment)
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:56:15 -0500

In article <NiRXRB5w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> train@gvls2.gvl.unisys.com (Herbert Rutledge) writes:
> 
> [quite interesting support for the hypothesis below deleted]
>>
>>  I put it to you, a.f.d-q'ers everywhere.  Wuddya think?  Is Marilyn getting
>>  some action on the side?  And, if so, with whom?
>>
>>  (It ain't me, babe.  Just the thought of my goodies thrust into THAT mouth
>>  with THOSE teeth is enough to cause a major case of castration anxiety that
>>  you don't need Freud to explain.)
>
> Well, your explanation of your personal feelings on the subject pretty sum it
> up for most of us straight males.  Given that fact, maybe what she's getting on
> the side (if anything) isn't from a man???

Some random musings on this and other recent threads:

Q: If Marilyn has that effect on most straight males (judging from today's
posts, she does) where did the Quayl progeny come from?
A: Obviously a straight (or bi) male whose judgement is completely overridden 
by his hormones.

Q: Why did Teddy Kennedy say that DQ is not as dumb as it appears?  They
served together in the Senate, so Teddy can hardly be mistaken about Dano's
intellectual gifts, and given the difference in philosophy he is unlikely
to be lying to help out a ally.
A: Maybe he was talking about something else.  Teddy is not all that
concerned about intellect most of the time.

Q: For instance?
A: Both Teddy and Dano majored in booze and broads in college.  Teddy could
have been referring to Dano's soiled reputation as a party boy.

Q: How is it soiled?  I thought Dano spent most of his time playing golf.
A: The ultimate in horror to a collegiate wastrel would be to be married
to a sexless, nagging bitch, and to be in a position that precluded 
getting laid on the side.

Q: Sounds like Dano screwed up bigtime.  I guess he *really* is dumb.
So why did Teddy say that he wasn't?
A: Obvously Teddy knows something we don't.  Maybe Marilyn is a white hot,
world class, five star lay.  Maybe Dano wasn't so dumb after all.

Q: How would Teddy know such a thing?
A: See answer #1.

It's all starting to make sense now...

A.F. Cockburn
From: paul@music.sie.arizona.edu (Paul J. Sanchez)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: The debate is on?????
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:19:24 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes
> 
> Bush wants to debate Clinton during the World Series because he knows  
that
> most people will be watching the games. He is a sleazebag and has no  
respect
> for the American people.
> 
> -Garrett

I agree completely with what you're saying, but perhaps the American  
people don't deserve much respect if they'd pay more attention to a  
sporting event than to their own futures...

Don't interpret this as being in any way a support for Bush.  However,  
IMHO we wouldn't be in our current mess if people had paid a little bit  
more attention to reality during the last 12 years.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: wilson@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson)
Subject: Re: A New Quote!
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University CS Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:40:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.135837.34060@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>
>    Later, he "clarified" this remark to mean that if Perot re-enters the
>race, the focus will be more on the economy, which is one of GHWB's strong
>points.
>

As is clearly evidenced by his eagerness to debate Clinton on this
subject.

-Dwight
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: pat@sphinx.phys.Virginia.EDU (pat walsh)
Subject: Re: Marilyn's Indiscretions (and Teddy's comment)
Organization: University of Virginia Physics Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:09:07 GMT

Eric S. Smith writes:

>afc@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>> Q: Why did Teddy Kennedy say that DQ is not as dumb as it appears?

>I imagine it's just an abstract comment, relating to the fact that NOTHING,
>animal, mineral, or vegetable, could be as dumb as DQ appears.

Actually, several prominent persons whose opinions I generally find well worth
listening to (Bob Woodward and John Chancellor come immediately to mind) have
also made the comment that Dan's smarter than most people think.  But in this
case, I can't help thinking of the old saying "if it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck...."

Also, all kidding aside on the debates...I am worried about the expectation
game, i.e., if Dan can simply remember his own name, he may be seen as having
won because he did "better than expected".

Oh, well...I'll try to get back to good old-fashioned Quayle-bashing with my
next post!

- Patrick Walsh
  University of Virginia Department of Physics
  pw@virginia.bitnet, pw@virginia.edu, pat@gomez.phys.virginia.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:4838 alt.politics.bush:7465
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:51:55 EDT
Distribution: usa

In article <2W8QB61B@cc.swarthmore.edu>, mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
> Mike Best:
> 
> Have you actually READ Bush's "America 2000" proposal?  
> 
> If so, please show me where the policy does ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to keep
> inner-city schools from sinking, as you claim.  
> 
> If you haven't read it, then perhaps you should before you act as its
> advocate on the net.  
> 
> I would be happy to post an outline of Bush's proposal if anyone is
> interested.

Please do!

> 
> Melanie
> Wertz

-Garrett


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Marilyn's Indiscretions
Keywords: Marilyn, screw, GHWB
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:27:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.192833.15918@u.washington.edu>,
sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

|>Regarding Marilyn's indiscretions:  This is the answer to the
|>question, "why did George Humbert Walker Bush choose Our Boy
|>for VP, again?"  Y'see, GHWB wasn't really chosing Our Boy ...
|>
|>Hope this clears things up :)

Come come now. George and Danny both have a leather fetish and spend quiet
evenings slowly branding animals and small children with a red hot poker. In
fact what Maralyn said was "Sex, Dan would rather have a brand of Rolph [their
current sex slave] any day." only that accent makes her words a little
indistinct.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: Susan Klimowicz
Subject: The debate is on?????
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:44:20 GMT

How interesting.  Bush will debate Clinton but only on certain days, three of
which the World Series already lay claim to and the fourth is oh so close to
election day.  I wonder which day it will be?  I wonder what Bush has up his
sleeve. He is so convinced that he will win the election I have to wonder....
Is he really that stupid or does he have a "bomb dropping" planned? 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle