HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Weekly Reader Survey: Bush/Quayle preferred by kids!
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:26:58 MST
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Oct9.033622.3739@tamsun.tamu.edu>, achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin) writes:
> The "Weekly Reader," a periodical for elementary-school-age readers
> (they claim a readership of K-10th grade, but any reader older than
> 9 has a serious learning disability) has announced its mock poll
> results:  56% Bush, 44% Clinton.  They further noted that Bush's
> support was especially strong among the younger students (K-4).
> 
> The mentality level of Bush-Quayle's appeal has turned out to
> be just as I expected.

Let me defend Dan.  Just this once.

Usually the opinions of kids are good barometers for the election in
general.  (It won't be this year, but it has been in the past.)

Maybe the kids didn't see the Rep. Convention and think of Bush as a
kindly grandfather type, whereas Clinton is simply "the other kid's
dad," without any emotional pull.  Perot is likely the crusty old
grandfather (Mr. Wilson-type) without a bit of charity in his body.

Of course Quayle is the friendly Golden Retriever whom every kid
wants to play with and take to Show and Tell.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub Won.
Date: 15 Oct 1992 03:40:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:

>BTW, I wouldn't sweat the election.  Even His Rushness conceded today.  


OOoh!  Tell me more!					--  Michal
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Danny boy with marijuana?
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:23:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: what.. me.. organized?



Whats this I am hearing.. some dude in jail says that DQ bought 
marijuana from him in the early 70s. 

He [the jailed guy] also says that there was a press conf. arranged
for him before the 1988 election where he was going to say that, and
outside 'pressure' was used to cancel it, and that he was then 
put in solitary confinement 'for his own good'.

The guy's credibility may be zero, but I would believe him before
anything Bush and his cohorts say [this coming on the heels of the Atlanta
bank case 'pressure'].

_______________________________________________________
| Prashanth                    |                      |
| U. of California @ San Diego | prash@raman.ucsd.edu |
#######################################################
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Dan attacked by angry mob!
Summary: Differing opinions
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:18:23 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Oct13.024426.2016@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, cldavies@nyx.cs.du.edu (cindy davies)                     writes...
>In article <D2150056.fj7gh9@erics.infoserv.com> erics@infoserv.com writes:
>>
>>I would never judge the whole state of Iowa by one tourist couple. Actually
>>I think it's more indicative of the state of mind of S.F. tourists (sorry;
>>juuuust kidding ...). But since you are from Iowa, maybe you can shed
>>some light on the state of mind voiced by those people.

>I can't speak for Iowa, but, here in South Dakota, you might speak your mind,
>but we don't go for those "long haired hippie freaks"(tm) making a spectacale
>of themselves.

Coming from a small, backwards town myself, I think that just having long
hair is enough of a spectacle to annoy most of the people you are talking
about. 

  You might go to see JDQ or GHWB speak, and you might tell
>your friends that those boys don't have a McGoverns chance in H*** of getting
>elected, but you would listen quietly, and clap briefly.
> 
Why?

>I don't know for sure what the tourists meant, but, my guess is these rude 
>people would have been taught better manners then that.
> 
Let me give you a little background on recent trips to the Bay Area
by our two favorite people. When Bush came to SF in '88 he was met by a 
noisy, but peaceful demonstration. The SF cops still beat people. One of
them, Delores Huerta, was beaten so bad that she had to have her spleen
removed. 
	When Dannikins visited SF after the earthquake, he only 
visited areas that voted Republican in '88. He also failed to meet
any local leaders (just a photo op visit).
	So tell me, why should we be nice?

>The campus where I work takes pride in the fact that all through the anti-
>everything sixties, there were NO demonstrations of any kind on campus.
> 
The town I'm in takes pride in the fact that we had the longest student
strike anywhere. I guess it depends on your outlook.

>;-) ;-) ;-)
> 
>I am not convinced that being nice is really the way to go, but thats the
>way we are.  Its time to raise less corn, and more hell. 
>:-)
> 
Amen.

>cldavies@silver.sdsmt.edu        cldavies@nyx.cs.du.edu

=-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: wilson@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson)
Subject: Re: more bashing
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University CS Department
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:50:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.011912.20986@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>
>This is what comes of having gotten thru college by reading Cliff Notes and
>the fly-leafs of books.  Does anyone doubt that Dan-o got himself into this
>by responding to what he hasn't read?
>

Certainly not.  To claim that Dan-o read this book, you first 
have to prove that Dan has read A book.  One with multisyllabic
words and no pictures.

-Dwight
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: more bashing
Summary: Knee-slapper
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:42:14 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Oct7.054237.15655@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, huang@mwilliams.eche.ualberta.ca ()                  writes...
>Can those Quayle bashers find some place else to masturbate?  This
>place is santified for the genuine fan of The Honourable J. Danforth
>Quayle.  Please return to the original intent.  Thanks.  

Notice how he said "THE" genuine fan. Who is this one person?
And how come it took so long for this person to speak up?

-Garrett
From: lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Dan attacked by angry mob!
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:41:34 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.152145.17146@news.uiowa.edu>, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
|> Iowa went for Dukakis
|> in 88; it will go for Clinton in '92.  California went to the Republicans
      ^^                             ^^
|> both times.
   ^^^^^^^^^^

hmmmmm ... you got a crystal ball or something?  :-)  KCBS reported 
this morning that our *Republican* Governor Pete Wilson had pretty 
much given up hope for a Bush/Quayle win here (Clinton leads by 20%), 
but now says that Perot might pull enough votes from Clinton to allow 
for a Bush win (wishful thinking on his part, IMHO).  Also, Clinton's 
support among CA Republicans is at an all-time high -- 19% (up from
9% just a month ago).

Oh -- and Quayle's comments to a KCBS reporter on the scene, while
demonstrators were shouting "4 more months! 4 more months!" included
such gems as: Quayle: "See? We've got a *lot* of support here among the
business owners."  Reporter: "Yes, but what about all the negative 
demonstrations?"  Quayle: "Well, we've certainly got a lot of support 
here!" 

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|    /)                      | Lana Mountford    
|   / /  __    ___    __     | Silicon Graphics  
|__(_/__(__)\__/  )__(__)\__ | Mountain View, CA 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: more bashing
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:13:32 GMT
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

In article <1992Oct7.054237.15655@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
   huang@mwilliams.eche.ualberta.ca () writes:
>Can those Quayle bashers find some place else to masturbate?  This
>place is santified for the genuine fan of The Honourable J. Danforth
>Quayle.  Please return to the original intent.  Thanks.  

An unattended logged on terminal is a terrible thing to waste.  Or not
to have an unattended logged on terminal at all.  How true that is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
From: leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Debate Results, my opinion.
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:58:41 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Oct14.150828.28174@news.columbia.edu>
 egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>In article <Ja1msB1w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:

>> I seem to remember a token meeting between The Shrub and Gorby in '88 in New
>> York for the General Assembly opening, but I could be wrong.  In any case, I
>> wouldn't characterize such a casual contact as 'knowing' each other...

> In the Biblical sense? :-)

Now you've blown it!  The most closely kept secret of the Cold War!

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

             Zippy the Pinhead Clown for President!
                     "Am I elected yet?"
From: leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: The Last Word on "Potatoe".
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:35:12 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett) writes:

> leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti) writes:

> >What the hell are you talking about?  Next you'll be telling us that
> >RepubloFascists never use "aggressive adjectives" nor "belittling
> >phrases", right?

> Nope.  I am telling you that if you strip those things away, you can see
> what's underneath.

Well, what is there left when you strip away the aggressive adjectives,
belittling phrases, rampant phobias and delusions and brazen lies from,
say, the speech given by Mr. Buchanan in the Republican National
Convention?  (Posted in this newsgroup recently.)  Or from the whining
of Mr. Bush?  Not much.

> If the entire force of an argument is carried in its
> invectives and its adjectives, the argument is meaningless.  All too
> often, unfortunately, it holds sway.

To be sure.

> Read, for example, the paragraph I quoted above.

Oh dear.  There's only a "hell" and a misspelling of "Republicans" to
strip away.  In my opinion, they're more like spice on top of the argument,
not the argument itself.  However, if they prevent you from seeing the
point, I'll say "pardon me", and try again:

'What in the world are you talking about?  Next you'll be telling us
that Republicans never use "aggressive adjectives" nor "belittling
phrases", right?'

Care to answer the question now?


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

             Zippy the Pinhead Clown for President!
                     "Am I elected yet?"
-- 
--  Teemu Leisti  /  U. of Helsinki, Finland  /  leisti@cc.helsinki.fi

             Zippy the Pinhead Clown for President!
                     "Am I elected yet?"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:5487 alt.politics.clinton:10824
From: tak@tazboy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tom Kreitzberg)
Subject: Re: bumperstickers
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
	<1992Oct8.155622.7159@u.washington.edu>
	<1992Oct8.220300.805@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:41:03 GMT

Maddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) writes:

> [Some goober] also referred to the "Honourable J. Danforth Quayle."
> Shouldn't that be "Honoerable"?

Or maybe, to link him to yet another fictional T.V. character, the
Homerable J. Danforth Quayle. Mmmm... golf.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: jwd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Joseph W. Deitrick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Stockdale
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:17:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


no, but he did remind me of the zealous reverend from the Porky's
movies.

				Hrothgar
-- 
jwd5@po.CWRU.EDU(Hrothgar)
From: sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: What's the deal??
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 11:32:05 EDT
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

ballard@panther.adelphi.edu (Terry Ballard) writes:

> 
>    A co-worker told me that there was a segment on this morning's Today show 
> concerning a drug supplier who brought pot to Quayle.  It seems that he was 
> suspiciously silenced in 1988 until after the election.  Does anybody know 
> anything about this??

Brett Kimberlin is alleged to have sold pot to Quayle during Our Boy's
college days. This issue received some minor coverage during the early
part of the '88 campaign but was largely ignored after Kimberlin was
placed in solitary and denied access from reporters. That is has again
risen as an issue is due mostly to Garry Trudeau (Doonesbury).

The really good news is that I heard on NPR this morning there will be a
federal investigation into Kimberlin's allegations. I suspect it will
proceed along the following lines:

    1) There will be a smear campaign by administration officials to
       characterize Kimberlin as a drug-crazed, pathological liar.
       Curiously enough, Our Hero will have very little to say.

    2) The Justice Department investigation will open with little fanfare
       and thus get little media coverage. Curiously enough, Our Hero
       will have very little to say.

    3) It will be wrapped up after the election with a finding of
       insufficient evidence. Our Boy will declare himself exonerated
       and state he will entertain no further questions on the matter
       since he has cooperated with the "complete and through"
       investigation. He will then call upon President Clinton to come
       clean about his draft record.

Sunil Gupta
Monsoon Software, Inc.
sg@monsoon.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub Won.
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:35:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.010619.14014@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>Yup, I think Our Man Dan actually won.  He came out there shooting,
>was aggressive with the occassional little fact, and didn't make an
>obvious gaffe.

Opinions vary: I didn't see it as a victory for anyone.  I thought they
all looked pretty bad.  Stockdale looked irrelevant; Quayle stammered
and tried to throw darts; Gore seemed bored and robotic.  Neither
Quayle nor Gore were able to stick to a topic.

I thought Quayle looked worse than Gore, though.  Partly because of his
function: his only chance is to come out and be mean and negative and
attack Clinton.  Gore did not need to do that, even though he did some.
In fact, Quayle left himself open for a number of blows that Gore
refrained from making.  But Quayle mostly looked bad because he rambled,
he avoided questions, he chuckled and chortled and spouted even when Gore
was speaking.  Gore, though not nearly as bad, simply looked like he didn't
care that much, and had his whole night rehearsed.

Also, Hal Bruno was pretty random: he'd first let Quayle go on and on
and not let Gore get in a word in answer, then later he'd do it the
other way 'round.  I think they need to work on that.

My favorite bit: Gore pointing out that the Republican party has
fallen apart because it has been taken over by an extremist faction.
Least favorite bit was also Gore's: demanding that Quayle say he
supported a woman's right to chose.  He was demanding that Quayle
express his view in the opposition's "spin": it would have been like
asking Gore to say he supported a woman's right to murder.  (And don't
read *my* position into that, please.)

-mm-
-- 
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM  ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle, AI
Summary: Lost in space
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:05:39 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <7077@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)                       writes...
>I wrote (quoting a 10/7/92 NY Times article):
>>A Quayle aide explained Dan's problem as follows:
>>	"That's the problem with being Dan Quayle.  Sometimes
>>	there's a data download as he's shifting gears."  
>>If anyone can explain this explanation to me, I would be grateful.
> 
>And it just struck me.  "Data download?"  "Shifting gears?" 
>Dan Quayle is a robot, a miracle of Artificial Intelligence.
> 
>Now it all makes sense.  What do AI programs such as Eliza do when
>they don't understand a question?  They change the subject.  They
>make vague, general statements.  

I think you're on to something. Ever since the '88 debates 
I've thought, "There is something familiar about Danster."
And now you have hit on it. Remember "Lost in Space"?
Remember the robot in Lost in Space, the one that looked like
a juke-box? Danster holds himself just like it!
	This would also explain the Family Values thing.
Danster has been in storage since the show was cancelled at
the beginning of color TV. 
	The question is, "Why bring him out of storage now?"
Could there be an alien presence involved? Perhaps the same one
that recently backed Perot for president (as reported in the 
Weekly World News)? Enquiring minds want to know.

>Perhaps during the Gore-Quayle debate Danny Boy will open a panel 
>in his head and reveal the truth.  (A note to Gore:  chances are
>all the chips were made in Japan.  Maybe you can get some mileage
>out of this.)
> 
Not a chance. We are talking vacuum tubes here.

>David
>(If Dan Quayle were a robot, the most impressive thing about it
>would be how well it plays golf.)

The real trick would be getting him to say "Danger!Danger!Danger!"

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: Debate Results, my opinion.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:04:32 GMT

>In article <1992Oct13.214649.3951@ms.uky.edu>, miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>> Well I saw it, and it wasn't pretty.
>> Gore delivered the knock-out punch in my opinion.
>> I kinda felt sorry for the Perot candidate. Although he did get in a couple
>> of classic lines. "I think the Nation can see why we're in dead-lock." :)
>> Quayle was the big loser.

First, I have to admit that I didn't see the entire debate - only saw the last
half.

I agree that Quayle didn't win, and that the admiral didn't win.  [Best line
was when the admiral said, "I feel like the line judge at a ping pong match!"]
Dan's laughing was obnoxious, and his interruptions were worse.  He wouldn't
let go of it, like one of those little obnoxious dogs that attach themselves
to something until it breaks.  Even the moderator had trouble shutting him up
part of the time.

Dan came off, to me, like a petulant child, and arrogant SOB, a rude rich boy,
a snob, as though he were too good to have to stoop to Gore's level.

Al came off, to me, as tired of having to deal w/ Dan.  I've been in
conversations in which my voice simply wasn't loud or strong enough to be
heard over the din of someone like DQ.  That appeared to be the expression
on Al's face - a bit of reserved frustration.  I hope that he didn't counter-
attack (while i was watching) because he knew it would appear childish, and
hopefully because he could simply be rational and appeal to those of us who
saw DQ as the ... well ..., jerk, that he is.
From: darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Debate Props
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:16:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Davis

Here's a little tidbit from today's San Francisco Chronicle:

Negotiators have determined that the vice presidential debate between
Dan Quayle and Al Gore, in Atlanta on Tuesday, will be a closed-book
test.

According to the New York Times, Quayle's handlers had suggested that the
candidates be allowed to use props.  The vice president might like to
read, they said, from a copy of Gore's book on the environment,
"Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit".

Fine, said Gore's handlers.  And the Tennessee senator would then be
free to hold up a potato.

Both sides agreed to ban props.
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Monday, 12 Oct 1992 12:28:37 PST
From: <DURRETT@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: New Responsibilities for D.Q.

There was an excellent suggestion for Dan's future in _Isaac Asimov's
Science Fiction Magazine_ just a few months ago. The scenario is that
Bush is re-elected, and as the end of his term nears, he convinces DQ
that the thing he needs most is a big role, one that will make
everyone want to vote for him. I forget what machinations go on, but
eventually it is decided that DQ will go to Mars on the first Mars
mission. Dan trains and trains, and learns and learns and the trip is
planned so that he will return to Earth just after the convention,
having been nominated in abstentia while on the trip, though he
addresses the convention via satellite. blah, blah, blah.

In the end, though, Dan is stuck on Mars due to a dead crew and
problems with a rescue team's backup. Marilyn is nominated in his
absence... YIKES!

Just get real worried if DQ is sent to Mars. Hell, get real worried
if Bush is re-elected.

Roo-Dog Rip

Roo-Dog Rip is:                  <>SLAC, Stanford, the DOE and the
Derrell Durrett                  <>University of Colorado neither claim
D_DURRETT@COLOPHYS.BITNET        <>responsibility nor accept liability
D_DURRETT%KAOS@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU <>for my opinions. Gee- what a surprise.