From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: For True Republicans ... Quayle/Ford in '96!
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:37:01 GMT
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

In article <1992Aug13.232658.29783@ima.isc.com>,
karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.225355.6868@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>>Careful, everyone, it's a Quayle apologist.
>
>I guess I am, in the sense that when someone tells a Quayle joke and claims
>that the author was actually Quayle, rather than Dave Barry, I'll attempt to
>correct them.  This should not be construed as any sort of support for having
>JDQ in high office.

Fair enough.


>In article <1992Aug10.231401.15420@athena.mit.edu>,
>dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>>>1. I know stuttering, and Dannikins does not stutter.  He blathers, but
>>>   that's not the same as stuttering.
>
>"I will never have another Jimmy Carter grain embargo, Jimmy, Jimmy Carter,
>Jimmy Carter grain embargo, Jimmy Carter grain embargo."  --JDQ
>
>I dunno, it sure sounds like a stutter to me :-)

This I cannot concede.  You know as well as I do -- if not better -- that
the Republican Party, once again reaching deep into its bowel-bag of
Voodoo(TM) Hexes, Curses, and Economic Policies, has come up with our
thirty-ninth president's name as a handy substitute for anything resembling
domestic policy agenda for its next four years.  As Dannikins is let loose
with his little allotment of venom, lines will be blurred once again between
fact and fantasy, between tactics and trash, between strategy and ideology.

Add all the smileys you want, Karl.  As long as he continues to chew on
the late Lee Atwater's cud, or regurgitate Milton Friedman's pap, or to
spit up anything at all that he's swallowed in his short and gullible life,
Dannikins remains a blathering, drooling, and pathetic idiot to me.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


>Anyway, my point was that in the quote in question ("past to the back"), the
>words that came out of his mouth obviously weren't what he intended to say.
>I stand by my statement that this does not imply mental incompetence.

Is it lonely standing out there by your statement?  Probably not, if you
get to clone your statement every time Dannikins discovers Hawaii or
goes past to the back.


>Another of his common mistakes is to say "country" when he means "world", or
>vice versa.  Again, I don't find this particularly interesting; I doubt that
>anybody in this newsgroup seriously believes that Dan doesn't realize that
>there are countries other than the USA, or that he really thinks he didn't
>live in this century.

Play a little game with me.  Let's assume that someone in the group *does*
seriously believe that Dannikins is as stupid as his words indicate.  Let's
call this person [d], just for convenience.  Now, tell me: is [d] more or
less qualified than Dannikins to be your Vice President?

To put it more simply, if any idiot will do, just give me a lobotomy and
elect me Veep, why doncha?


>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.

Not a serious flaw?  Answer me this: is there *anything* Dannikins could
say to convince you that he *is* seriously flawed?  If so, please tell me
what it is because my imagination is not up to the task of conceiving
it for myself.  If not, please read (and/or re-read) the Constitution of
the United States, because you are beginning to sound more like a devotee
than a citizen.  How long, Karl, till you suggest that we simply scrap
the election and wait for the cardinals of the Republican Party to send
their white smoke floating up the chimneys at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?


>>>The man's an idiot because he does not and will not learn when to keep
>>>food-hole shut. [...]
>>
>>I agree, but the term idiot is too harsh.  He's more of an imbecile.
>
>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"?

Yes!  And we'll be right back for Double Jeopardy after these messages.
Meanwhile, you might do well do re-read this thread.


Dhanesh

PS: Are lobotomies covered in President Baker's health care reform plan?