HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: saustin@bbn.com (Steve Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: The Republicans are confusing me again...
Date: 14 Aug 1992 17:12:14 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:

->[It seems churlish to bring this up, but I originated this thread
-> in the now-forlorn hope that some charitable Republican-type would
-> explain to me the convolutions and contortions one needs master in
-> order to understand the increasingly surreal "pro-life" positions
-> of James and George and Dannikins and Barbara and Marilyn and ...]

You are misrepresenting Barbara Bush's position.  She is firmly
pro-choice and has recently opined that sexual orientation and
abortion are personal choices that should be kept out of politics.

Of course, this straight talking from the First Lady could just
be a ruse to confuse you.

	Steve Austin
From: njblock@athena.mit.edu (Ned Block)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Confirmation of Bush Quotation
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:25:17 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hi.  I just read in somebody's sig. a Bush quotation which seemed extremely
outrageous to me, even for a person as rediculous as *him* to have said.  I
was just wondering if anybody knew anything about it, such as where and when
he said it, or even if he *did* say it, or if the whole thing is just made up.
Here's the quote:
  "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be
considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
			-President George Bush

  For one thing, coudn't he get himself into a lot of trouble over a remark
like that what with the separation of church and state?  And besides, it
doesn't sound like his speaking style.  Much too clear, concise and to the
point.  No mumbling or changing the subject halfway through, even! :-)

		-Eliza Block (eliza@psyche.mit.edu)
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Pro-golf, anti-intelligence, and indifferent to everything else
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 23:38:18 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:

> In article <12643@hans> hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
> >Quayle, of course, has no idea what an abortion is. I would describe
> >him as Pro-golf with a strong tendency to anti-intelligence.
>
>
>         "Show me a man who plays a good game of golf, and
>            I'll show you a man who is neglecting something."
>
>                                      -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
>
>
>         "Anyone who knows Dan Quayle knows that, given a choice
>            between golf and sex, he'll choose golf every time."
>
>                                      -- Mrs. Marilyn Quayle
>
>
>
> Dhanesh
>
> PS: Guess what I think Dannikins is neglecting...

Ever taken a real close look at Marilyn?  I'd take up golf too.



|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|
From: mitchell@oac3.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Philip Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Where there's smoke... (was Re: For True Republicans...)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 16:35:02 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston


In article <1992Aug13.232658.29783@ima.isc.com>
 karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:

> Now, in some more interesting quotes, he's demonstrated some ignorance about
> Dubcek, Buzz Lukens, DDT, Florida crops, Mars, medical procedures, and
> spelling (and probably others that I didn't catch while skimming the Quayle
> Quotes File just now).  This in itself is not a serious flaw -- I wouldn't
> have been able to get half of that right myself -- but I like to think that,
> if I were in his shoes, I would know enough to either pay somebody to do some
> research for me, or else keep quiet.
>

And you aren't Vice-President either.  It's your own problem if you are
foolish, uninformed, insensitive, pig-headed, or whatever, on your own time.
(Go ahead...knock yourself out :-))  It's OUR problem if you are a member of 
the Executive Branch of the government. :-O  That's what scares me about 
Danny-Boy.  The same fuzzy thinking that seems to trip up his tongue is 
apparently in effect on the subjects he is SUPPOSED to know about.  If he 
knew the basics of either environmental or AIDS issues, he would know DDT 
isn't AZT.  If he knew either the history of or science involved in the space 
program (his baby), he wouldn't be talking about Buzz Lukens or the canals of
Mars.

Darling Dan seems to cruise along with the idea that if you have a "feel" for
how the "people" think about any given issue, that's pretty much the same
as solving it.  Which is probably why he rates _People_ as a strategic
political resource.

>
> I think I prefer "fool".  Who said, "it is better to keep quiet and be thought
>a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"?

A fair assessment.  Mark Twain said/wrote it.  Dan proves it.

-- 

   Phil Mitchell                                 Office of Academic Computing
   UT Health Science Center          6431 Fannin MSB 4.022, Houston, TX 77030
   voice: (713) 794-1189              internet: mitchell@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu
From: rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Confirmation of Bush Quotation
Date: 15 Aug 1992 23:44:06 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug15.202517.4217@athena.mit.edu> njblock@athena.mit.edu (Ned Block) writes:
>Hi.  I just read in somebody's sig. a Bush quotation which seemed extremely
>outrageous to me, even for a person as rediculous as *him* to have said.  I
>was just wondering if anybody knew anything about it, such as where and when
>he said it, or even if he *did* say it, or if the whole thing is just made up.
>Here's the quote:
> "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be
>considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
>			-President George Bush

He shore did say this.  Let me scrounge up the file from my archives...

     President Bush made the comments during a campaign stop on August 27,
     1988 at O'Hare airport.  He spoke with Robert Sherman, chief spokesman
     for American Atheists:

     RS: "Mr. President, what will you do to win the votes of Americans
          who are Atheists?"

     GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.  Faith in
          God is pretty important to me."

     RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
          Americans who are atheists?"

     GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
          nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under
          God."

     UPI reported on May 8, 1989 that various atheist organizations were still
     angry over the remarks.

     The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday Feb 27,
     1989.

It's also in the alt.atheism FAQ file if you want to look it up there.

>  For one thing, coudn't he get himself into a lot of trouble over a remark
>like that what with the separation of church and state?  And besides, it
>doesn't sound like his speaking style.  Much too clear, concise and to the
>point.  No mumbling or changing the subject halfway through, even! :-)

Free speech.  Besides, there's not much you can do with an idiot who's
hallucinating on depressants, even if he IS president.

5150

Ps: the sig said Eliza and not Ned, and had a different email address so if
	i emailed this to the wrong person, beg pardon
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Danny Goes to Mars
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:13:49 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology

For those interested, the October 92 issue of ISAAC ASIMOV'S SCIENCE
FICTION MAGAZINE has Pamela Sargent "Danny Goes to Mars".  The story
takes place a few years from now, with Bush/Quayle re-elected, after
a new fusion rocket is perfected, and Danny is on the first manned
mission to Mars (3 weeks each way), partly to win the moron vote in
'96.  Due to various mishaps, he ends up marooned on Mars alone for
about a year.  The story does a wonderful job of capturing the mush
that passes for Quayle thought.

To pass the time, our hero watches one movie more than any other:
FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF.  Can someone clue me in?  I assume it's
some Mayberry RFD clone, but I don't know, and I wonder if this is
some actual Quayle favorite.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu) "[George Bush] is a man
 who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." --Jim Hightower
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: tomg@stud.cs.uit.no (Tom Grydeland)
Subject: ANOTHER Spelling flame (Was: Re: "This will not stand!")
Organization: University of Tromsoe
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:49:02 GMT

	[Lots of unrelated stuff deleted...]

|> This will NOT solve any problems if they are not very lucky and cause a
|> revolution in Belgrad. The terrain is such that air power isn't as 
|> desicive as in a dessert. To passify the region would requier substantial
                    ^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^                  ^^^^^^^
|> effort. That wouldn't solve the problem either. In the war in Croatia it
|> was obvious that it was the rest-Yugoslavian superiority that fueled the
|> conflict. That isn't the case in Bosnia-Hertzegovina. Therefor I do NOT
|> believe that bombing could solve the problem. If the world had acted in
|> Croatia, the Yougoslavia might have limited their efforts. 
|> Now it's too late.

*I* never used air power in *my* dessert. I usually find a spoon sufficient ;)

To decode the other ones is left as an exercise to the reader.


(Look, ma! No speling errors! :-)

|> Arthur

-- 
//Tom Grydeland(tomg@stud.cs.uit.no)._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
|A._| . . ._| | |_._._. . ._|_._._._._. ._|_. ._ _._. ._| | . ._|_. | . ._._. |
| ._|_| |_. | | | | ._._|_. |_._. . |_. | | | ._._| |_._._._| | ._. ._| . . |_|
|_._._._._|_._._._._._._|_._._._._|_._._._._._._._._._._._._|_._._|_|_._|_|_.B|
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Apology and Reagan quotes
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:05:03 GMT
Distribution: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Organization: Chevron


   Ok I have to apologize for putting my abortion reply on a.f.dq.  I
should know better. 

    On the other hand, I think the following does belong on the alt.fan.
republican-gaffes (which is what this group seems to really be).  
    All the stuff that Reagan said that was "so eloquently stated by
Abraham Lincoln" was written 40 years after his death by a minister from
Erie PA...kind of a 'this is what Abe would have said if he were as
smart as me!' type of thing.  (See definition of fanatic wandering
around the network).  The interesting thing is that he left out two of
the supposed Lincoln quotes:  "You cannot keep out of trouble by
spending more than your income" and "You cannot establish sound security
on borrowed money."  I guess he didn't really understand those two :-).
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: leisti@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Oh, Danny Boy (the 60's)
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:39:04 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug16.010753.3042@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, mb2p@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Marco  Bertamini) writes:

>> Well certainly he isn't from this century.. For more evidence look at his
>>wifes hair.. its still back in the 60's....

> Actually, the years 1960-1869 were in this century. :-)
                      ......^.. ????????

> sorry, I couldn't resist.

Me neither.

--  Teemu Leisti  /  U. of Helsinki, Finland  /  leisti@cc.helsinki.fi

"`This purgatory of the spirit, this animal thirst for self-preservation,
  these humiliating moments of the human soul, are awful, and sometimes
  arouse horror and compassion for the criminal even in a lawyer....'"
                              -- F. Dostoyevsky, _The Brothers Karamazov_
From: tak@tazboy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tom Kreitzberg)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Family Values?
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:13:27 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

Cat Stanton writes:

> I really have a problem with THIS farcical theme being first and foremost
> at the Republican National Convention. First off, didn't Tanya Tucker,
> unwed mother of two, sing on the opening night?

Yes, she sang "The Star Spangled Banner." According to _Entertainment
Tonight_, that elite media Hollywood toadie, she wanted to use her 
position to try to change the Danster's mind about single mothers. A
Qualye aide told _ET_ that the Vice President would be happy to have
the chance to try to talk Tanya into getting married for the sake of
her children.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford)
Subject: Marilyn's Speech?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:43:17 GMT

A couple of you asked in email for a synopsis, so here's my take on Mrs. 
Danny's speech.  I have to admit I didn't *see* the speech on television, 
as I was tooling my way up I-280 on my way home from work at the time.  
But I was listening to the CBS affiliate, so I'm pretty sure their coverage
would be as accurate as any.  The announcer mentioned the "young people" in
front of the podium several times.  Seems Marilyn brought her own 
cheerleaders along (no sh*t, folks -- the announcer mentioned that several 
times during her speech, these "cheerleaders" led a series of chants which interrupted her otherwise lackluster speech).

Most newspapers probably have a summary of her key points, so I won't repeat
all of them here.  A few worthy of note, however:

"Not everyone ... took drugs, dodged the draft ..." She then stated that, unlike
other baby-boomers, she and Dan believe in fidelity.  (As Jay Leno said,
"well, two outta three ain't bad.") :-)

Early in her comments, Marilyn said that she is "infuriated" whenever she
hears anyone say that the Republican Party wants to turn back the clock.
Later in the speech, she said "It's time to GO BACK!  to GO BACK to the
future!  To GO BACK to the ideals and morals and ethics of our parents."
Gee, she's almost as good as Danny at this stuff.

"... most women do not want to be liberated from their essential natures
as women ..." going on to say that these "essential natures" consist of
being "mothers and wives."  (As a single female, who made a conscious
decision NOT to have children, I particularly resent this -- I'm not
entirely sure what she means by "essential nature," but my dictionary
defines essential as "indispensable; necessary; fundamental; principal,"
so I *assume* she means that being a wife and mother is what defines a 
"woman" as a "woman."  I was a wife for 15 yrs, and that role didn't fit,
and I'm childless.  I suppose that makes me a man????  Boy, are the guys
I date gonna be surprised!!  ;->)
-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|    /)                      | Lana Mountford    
|   / /  __    ___    __     | Silicon Graphics  
|__(_/__(__)\__/  )__(__)\__ | Mountain View, CA 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: "This will not stand!"
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:37:29 GMT


d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Jan Sparrendahl) writes:

>In article <czwm2bj.raj@netcom.com>, raj@netcom.com (Roger Lee) writes:

>|> The shameful thing is that I have the feeling that he WON'T get off his fat
>|> ass to do anything. Remeber, there is no oil in Bosnia.......

>There is oil in Croatia close to Slavonia. That didn't help. I gess 
>you mean oil that the US needs.

The U.S. didn't need the oil in Kuwait either. (Western Europe and Japan did,
however, and badly). The reason Bush saw it as necessary to fight in Kuwait
was that Kuwait is a repressive regime that closely allies itself to the
U.S. and has supported the U.S. global strategy. If he had let them go
under it would have caused all the other repressive regimes allied to the
U.S. to think twice about their loyalty. It was for a reason that Bush
declared "this will not be another Vietnam".

-----
Eric Smith	    | "My friends, no matter how rough the road may be,
erics@sco.com	    |	we can and we will, never, never surrender
erics@infoserv.com  |	to what is right."
CI$: 70262,3610	    |		- J. Danforth Quayle
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: pat@sphinx.phys.Virginia.EDU (pat walsh)
Subject: Re: Earl Butz (was Re: Quayle for President)
Organization: University of Virginia Physics Department
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:35:58 GMT

Couple of interesting followups to my own boner, in which I mistakenly
identified Earl Butz (it was Wilbur Mills) as the man who took the plunge
with Fanne Foxe:

Eric Youngdale writes:

>	Butz made one really priceless comment about the Pope's (and thus
>the Catholic Church's position on birth control).  He said "He who no playeth
>the game, no maketh the rules."

Was that Earl?  I remember the comment.  Personally, I think the subject
matter is fair game.  But as I recall, whoever made the comment asked for
trouble by saying it in an insulting fake-Italian accent, like "He no
play-a da game, he no make-a da rules" (Paul VI, the pope in question,
was Italian, like most of his predecessors for centuries before).  But
I never actually heard the comment, only read about it.

Eber Lambert writes:

>John Dean was long gone when the Butz incident occurred. A reporter 
>overheard Butz tell the ethnic joke (an old one actually) while
>on a flight back to DC. It was supposedly off-the-record but the
>young reporter want a scoop. At the time it raised the whole ethics
>issue surrounding "off the record" remarks.

I think Dean did some reporting work for Rolling Stone after serving time
for his Watergate convictions and may have reported the incident in this
capacity.  But someone else posted that the reporter was Hunter S. Thompson.
Anybody got a definitive answer?

Joe Francis writes:

>> Nope, Butz was Carter's AgSec.  [Mark Eckenwiler]

>Actually, both Pat Walsh and I are correct, and you are wrong.  Earl L.
>Butz was Secretary of Agriculture from 1971 to 1976.  Hence, he was
>Secretary of Agriculture for both Nixon and Ford, but not Carter. 

Now this I'm willing to believe.  Butz seems like the type of guy Nixon
would come up with.

Anyway, thanks to all of you who corrected me.  The followups have been
quite fascinating.  Also, thanks to the rest of you Quayle-watchers for
bearing with us.

- Patrick Walsh
  University of Virginia Department of Physics
  pw@virginia.bitnet, pw@virginia.edu, pat@gomez.phys.virginia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: JDQe a womanizer?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:33:06 GMT

In article <ZPHDPB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>Was wondering if there is any evidence of our boy Danny being a womanizer.  
>After all, if I was married to Marilyn, I'd go looking for something decent 
>looking myself.  Since country clubbing is the best item on Quayl's resume, 
>I figure there must be a 'bimbo eruption' or two in the offing...
>
>

Dan has been having a long time affair with Barbara bush. To make matters even
stranger, he is also having an affair with GEORGE Bush. But I dont think hes
told either of them about the other. This  is NO BULLSHIT.

-rob


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Deficits
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:37:24 GMT

In article <oTqoPB1w165w@korova.uucp> popec@korova.uucp (Mr. Charlie) writes:
> I have read several arguements in this long thread dealing with deficits 
> and who is responsible for them.  Not exactly Dan Quayle related, except 
> casually, but.... 
> Houston Post, January 30 1992
> Bush hopes $1.52 trillion budget will ease gloom.
>   Plan would hike deficit to $400 billion dollars.
>  Prezident Bush Unveiled a $1.52 trillion budgeton Wednesday.......
>  The federal deficit would rise to about $400 billion, half again as 
> large as last years record $268 Billion.  Bush urged Congress "to lay 
> aside partinsanship" and speedily enact his spending plan in order to get 
> "the economy moving again."
> .........................................................................
> This Plan it should be noted was put together by Bush and his advisors 
> without the input of the Congress at Large, the Democrats, the liberals 
> or Clinton.  The $399 billion deficit estimated for 1993 is about $6000
> for every man, women, and child in the U.S.  The $131 billion rise in 
> defict spending from $268 billion to $399 billion is abot $524 for each 
> man, women , and child.  Then of course 3 months later Bush got on the 
> balanced budget bandwagon.  I have seen a few TV ads lately where Bush 
> calls himself the man who can balance the budget. Spend, Spend, Spend, 
> Spend.  I guess our fairy godmothers will take care of the tax part.
> ........................................................................
> All stout Republicans out there may flame me at will.  I just want to 
> know.  What makes a Republican think Bush is competent after he has done 
> something like this? 

	I'm not a stout republican, and I don't think Bush is competent...at  
least, not in the area of balancing the budget.  The only politician I would  
trust on this issue is one who would set a figure that is somewhat below the  
average amount the IRS pulls in every year (does anyone know what that is?) and  
say "If Congress passes a budget that adds up to a figure greater than this  
amount, I will veto it immediately."  On the other hand, I sure haven't heard  
anything from the democrats about how they will reduce spending either.  Yet  
again, we have the choice between two evils.  Sigh.
							Erik Powers
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Convention Speeches
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:11:17 GMT

In article <2A93BD5B.1022@orion.oac.uci.edu>,
jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.230902.27204@athena.mit.edu>,
>dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug18.161923.181@usho93.hou281.chevron.com>,
>>hwcco@chevron.com (Bill Corea) writes:
>>>I am looking, specifically for the text of the speech by
>>>Condoleezza Rice, of Stanford.
>>
>>If you find it, please post: it's one of the few "solid" exceptions
>>in the sea of verbal diarrhea pouring out of Houston.
>
>Yes, Condoleeza Rice is extremely well-spoken.

Well, that's not *exactly* what I meant, but I'd have to agree.
I think she wastes far too much time on ideology, but at least
she's coherent.


>>PS: Buchanan told 19 lies and half-truths in his speech.  Find them.
>		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>That's all????

Those were just the ones I could document within two hours of the speech.
Someone else counted 41, but I haven't bothered checking.  By the way,
we only examined the pseudo-factual statements, not the throbbing bigotry.


Dhanesh