HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: comics, Marayln, etc.
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:40:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.104030@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
>   Wait a minute.  I'm objecting to extremist hate-mongering ON the funny pages
>because it's not funny.
>
>   Repeating the conservative propaganda verbatim on the funny pages is not the
>work of an artist.  An artist should use his technique to bring out the
>strengths and flaws in an idea.  An artist should show new sides of an idea or
>object.  Being a phone answering machine for the conservative agenda is NOT
>artistic.  In contrast the liberal strips (e.g. Doonesbury) have their own
>wierd, original slant on things.  Recall that I am a Republican and a moderate
>conservative.  It's just that the GOP has gone nuts lately.  The Iowa party has
>a creationist plank and no school funding plank.  In IOWA!?!  (Iowa is
>staunchly pro-education, not having an education plank is political suicide
>here).
>
>   However repeating creationist misrepresentations (lies) verbatim is not
>appropriate or funny; it is disgusting.  That strip wasn't even attempting to
>be funny.  It was a slam unredeemed by humor or satire.  This isn't a PC issue;
>it's a lets-tell-the-truth issue.  Also, this being a.f.d-q you should have
>addressed the "Making jokes about Dan Quayle is a sign of insanity" strip.
>Where's the humor?  It another verbatim repeat of a lie (Dan Quayle is
>competent) thinly disguised.
> 
>Dan (Still in my asbestos tent)
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Thanks for targetting the real complaint about B.C. - lack of humor.
There are frequent examples of heavyhanded tedious "humor" directed
at the "right" in some marxist publications, but most people
rarely read anything from the radical left (despite the mythical
liberal media!).

Maybe the common denominator is that people who are convinced
they are correct, who have lost the ability for self-examination,
who feel commanded to convert people to their way of belief,
who have a large set of beliefs which are held to be beyond
question:  maybe these people just can't make jokes.

Although, they are WONDERFUL sources for humor for us!
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: A Simple Question
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:58:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.132740.19009@news.uiowa.edu>, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:

|> Hoover had the bad luck to preside over the beginning of the great
|> depression.  He was definitely out of his depth there.  But he was a
|> good man. George Bush is a completely unprincipled, cynical,
|> unimaginative boob in the grand tradition of J Edgar Hoover and
|> Richard Nixon.

	Urp. Well, excuse me for suggesting it. I sincerly apologize. Really.

	I think your wrong about Nixon, though. He had lots of imagination.
All of it twisted.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
From: sstover@sumax.seattleu.edu (Maven o'Mirth)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 13 Sep 92 13:35:15 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

In article <1992Sep14.121218.19645@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
>
>I don't actually know why I'm responding to a posting from New Zealand...
>As if people there actually KNOW anything about American politics, or,
>for that matter, should be sticking their noses into our countries
>political scene...
>
>As if you would really have the credentials to judge who should and shouldn't
>be in US political office. Leave that to people who know.
>
>
>MD

You arrogant, closed-minded, pencil-necked asshole.  I can't believe I
just read that.  But then, you were also defending Quayle in the rest of
that post, weren't you?  What a surprise.  To the "offending" New
Zealander: this is the sort of bullshit which, shamefully, goes on in this
country that makes it possible for someone like Dan Quayle to end up in
office.  Do you happen to have a guest room?

--
Sheryl Stover				|  How passing fair is youth,
*>sstover@sumax.seattleu.edu<*		|  Forever fleeting away;
and Hemingway, feline philosopher	|  Who happy would be, let him be;
Watch this .sig for news of the		|  Of tomorrow, who can say?
upcoming album from Seattle's 		|	-Lorenzo de'Medici
premier band, the Medici!		|
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:43:23 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
 <1992Sep11.131800.26507@news.uiowa.edu> <mjenkins.716220983@cunews>

In article <mjenkins.716220983@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael
Jenkinson) says:
>
>In <1992Sep11.131800.26507@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent
>Williams) writes:
>
>
>>   On a good day, Dan Quayle is a complete dunderhead.  On a bad day,
>>   someone should get him a CAT scan and look for brain lesions.  Why
>>   are conservatives so attracted to him.
>
>If he's such an idiot, then why do you waste your breath condemning
>the man? Get on with life and do something useful.
>
>Michael

Well, first of all he's the VP so what he does affects me as a U.S.
citizen.  Maybe that will change in Januray.  Secondly, this *is*
Alt.F.D.Q - we're here to revel in his dunderheadedness.

Jeff "Doing Something as Useful as Michael" Luck
CES Systems Office                    *Usual Disclaimers*
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                  -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: jpinteri@gdansk.qualcomm.com (Jaye Pinterics)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:43:43 GMT

In article <mjenkins.716220983@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>
> STUFF DELETED...
>
>Ditto. Give it a rest with the Quayle-bashing. No man or woman
>deserves the hell he's gone through for the past four years. 

YEA, THIS NEWSGRUPE IS A LIBRIALE PLOTE TO DEVERTE THE NATIONALE
DISCUSSE FROM THE FAMILEY VALUES ISSUE. 

-- QUAYEL RULS


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: crail@nevada.edu (DONNA CRAIL-RUGOTZKE)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:51:14 GMT

In article <92247.201626KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <122000001@hpfcmdd.fc.hp.com>, sandya@hpfcmdd.fc.hp.com (Sandy A)
>says:
>
>>Bush/Quayle oppose abortion, but would support their family members who
>>had one.
>
>>This seems so bizarre to me.  Bush and Quayle seem to be saying "I don't
>>believe in it personally, but I would let others make their own decision."
>
>No. They are saying, "Even if my daughter were to do such a wrong and terrible
>thing, I would not disown her or condemn her because I love her."
>
>This makes a lot of sense to me.
>
>They did NOT say (and they do not believe) that abortion should be legal for
>their family, only.  That would not only be wrong, but it would be (much
>less importantly) political suicide.
>
>>But, hey, if my daughter/granddaughter wanted one, I'd support her! (BTW,
>>what does support mean?  I won't disown her?  Won't try to talk her out of
>>it?  Won't offer to take the baby?  Won't do a damn thing to stop what is
>>supposedly the *murder* of their own flesh and blood?)
>
>Well, you did kind of have it.  The way Bush answered the question (and I
>think Quayle, also) was as if their daughter had already gone and HAD the
>abortion, and what would they do?  Their answers made perfect sense.
>
>>They are trying to have it both ways.  "Look, pro-lifers, it says right
>>here in the platform we're against this evil thing!  But (wink-wink) we
>>support "our" women if they decide to do it!
>
>They will love those in their own families, unconditionally, no matter what.
>To push a cliche, this is a "family value."
>
>------------
>Kurt Ludwick
>------------


When it comes to abortion, Bush may have screwed up more than Quayle.  In the 
interview I saw with Bush, the reporter asked how he would feel if one of his
granddaughters had an abortion (sorry for the paraphrase).  He said that he 
would support her.  The reporter than asked "It would be her choice then?"
Bush answered "Well, whose choice would it be?"  I suspect that Bush does not
feel as strongly about abortion as some of his supporters.  Considering that
Bush use to be the Environmental President and the Educational President,
prolifers would do well to be skeptical of the "Pro-life President".


Donna
crail@nevada.edu
  






Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser)
Subject: Re: "I can even forgive Bush for Dan Quayle, but not for this."
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 23:24:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

>
>But really now, you can't be serious that the MEDIA should get the `gold
>medal'!  What the hell do they do?  Stick cameras in the faces of despondent
>people and TALK about what OTHER PEOPLE are doing.  Sure helps their
>ratings, but it doesn't do a bit of good for the people there.
>Also, note that this is written by someone in the media -- how subtle!
>

George Carlin did a good bit about this in one of his HBO specials
a few years ago... had something to do with the camera crews and
reports who go out and cover starving masses in Africa, and 
a comment along the lines of "why can't the camera man just hand
the starving kid a fucking sandwich!".  Which makes me wonder if
the reporters or camera crews ever actually DO hand a starving kid
a sandwich? Or do they do their filming and hop in the RangeRover
and head back to their hotel for brunch?

Harv
From: alexo+@cs.cmu.edu (Alex Orenshteyn)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: A Simple Question
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:52:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep8.135545.26002@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>If George Bush is the next Harry Truman, what is Dan-O?
>
>Chopped liver?
>
>-rob
>
>
Curious that Mr. Bush could not find a single republican president he wants
to emulate.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: a.f.d.q is a H-wood*lawyer-media-cultural elite front!
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:43:10 GMT

In article <cortez.716067654@milton>,
cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.200313.19410@u.washington.edu>,
>>cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>>>Hmmmmm. Still don't think I'll watch.
>>Whassamatta?  Game shows not good enough for ya?  Goddam cultural elitist.
>
>Card-carrying cultural elitist, thank you. Subscription to Harper's, even.
>I also write for a decidedly liberal student newspaper ... not quite a
>media "elite", but I'm working on it.

Ah, but would you burn a flag?  Better yet, would you burn a flag
in which Dannikins had wrapped himself?  *THAT* is the question.


>This Friday, of course, I'm meeting with the trial lawyers, where we will
>be discussing how best to coordinate our corruption of upstanding family
>values, under the direction of our leaders in Hollywood.

If you were a True Cultural Elitist, you'd know that the real leaders,
the ones who *really* scare Our Boy, are the radical enviro-feminazi
terrorists lurking in kindergartens all over America.


>Of course, most of the bilge-culture tripe we cultural elitists spend so
>much time groaning about is the product of these very same people from
>Hollywood. It's purely a marriage of necessity.

Marriage?  MARRIAGE?  You just gave yourself away again,
you cultural elite wanna-be.


Dhanesh

  Thanks for stopping by, old chap.  Jeeves will see you to the door.
  And don't pinch the silver on your way out, either.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: sstover@sumax.seattleu.edu (Maven o'Mirth)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:10:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

I tried.  I tried to stay out of the handguns debate.  I really did.  I
still deleted the crossposting (my .newsrc doesn't even contain half of
those newsgroups).  But I have to open my mouth.

Handguns, *yes*, exist for the specific purpose of harming other people. 
Let me voice my opinion as to why I think they *need* to be legal
specifically for that reason.

This is not a plea for pity.  I have come to terms with the situation. 
That said:

For a while now I have been harassed (sexually and psychologically) by a
person I knew as an acquaintance.  It got to the point where I checked up
on my legal rights with regards to being harassed.  I found out that I
can't do anything to him or about him until he does something substantial
(read: physical harm) to me.  I have to *catch* him in the act in order to
have a case against him.

I live in a state where stalking is illegal (I do not necessarily consider
my situation one of being stalked, but this is a point that needs to be
made).  What that means is not that I can call the police and say "there
is a man asking to be let into my apartment building who is stalking me,
will you come and arrest him?"  What it instead means is, once he has done
something to me, he can be charged with a different crime, perhaps in
addition to whatever else he has done, called "stalking," and then
punished for it.

Great.  Swell.  This does not make me feel any safer when I come around
the corner of my apartment building knowing I am gamboling with the chance
he will be waiting for me on the steps.  I would never own a gun with the
intention of killing.  I would most likely not use a gun I owned to hurt
anyone.  I would most likely not even load it.  But a handgun is a useful
deterrent to someone who does not take any other form of "no" as an answer.

I do not, for the record, own a handgun.  I'm not legally able to.  I
could own a shotgun if I wanted, but I would probably get in some
considerable trouble for carrying it everywhere I went.  My point is this:

When the legal system in this country makes it safe for a person, male or
female, to live their life in normal society without their only
consolation being that whoever hurts them will be punished, I will agree
that handguns are unnecessary.

I understand that if we apply this same standard to the owning of
handguns, the logic that we wait until it is misused to punish the owner
is in direct conflict with the logic above.  Note that the *logic*, and
not the situations, are comparable.  Consider the difference before you
reply.  I'm done.

--
Sheryl Stover				|  How passing fair is youth,
*>sstover@sumax.seattleu.edu<*		|  Forever fleeting away;
and Hemingway, feline philosopher	|  Who happy would be, let him be;
Watch this .sig for news of the		|  Of tomorrow, who can say?
upcoming album from Seattle's 		|	-Lorenzo de'Medici
premier band, the Medici!		|

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: "I can even forgive Bush for Dan Quayle, but not for this."
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:18:41 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <20234@plains.NoDak.edu>, by green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green):
> In article <1992Sep4.233306.14026@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>No it isn't...   it's "Air Force/Navy/Marine/Army Twoe".
> 
> Today CNN reported Clinton was speaking about Patriot missiles flying down
> chimmneys and through doors.  It was pointed out afterwards that this was
> the cruise missile and not the Patriot.  Are we going to hear for the next
> 57 days how a man who wants to be commander in chief can't even remember which
> of his weapons does what?  Probably not.
> 

Dan Quayle was on Headline News this morning pointing out Clinton's confusing
Cruise Missiles and Patriot missiles.  He made a joke about Clinton's
knowledge of defense being as bad as his knowledge of spelling.

I couldn't sleep the other night and watched a tape of Quayle giving a speech
to the KC Chamber of Commerce on CSPAN.  What seems to mark all of his
speeches, even when he isn't saying manifestly boneheaded things, is the
fact that he can't hold an idea in his head for two sentences in a row.
Over and over again, he would deliver one sentence, and then following it
with another sentence that had references to parts of the first that didn't
make sense.  It was like watching TV with a hyperactive kid running
the remote control.

Oh, and the speech was about 'Family Values.'  He was raving about
'Hollywood' lying and distorting what he said; claiming that he was
against single mothers.  He kept talking about 'that one sentence' in
the speech.  I would tell him (if I could) that a lot of us got the
impression that he was against single mothers, after seeing clips of
his speech.  Nobody is lying about him; he's just so monumentally
inarticulate that no one knows what the fuck he's saying, and we have
to draw our own conclusions.  His speeches are just about as bad as
Jason's recent post.

It appears that Dan Quayle is running against Norman Lear this year,
and President Bush is running against Congress.  No wonder Clinton and
Gore are doing so well in the polls.

--
Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
"I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Quayle Season
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:04:06 GMT

Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:

>How is it possible to discuss any aspect of J.
>Danforth Quayle (save perhaps for his shoe size) without invoking some
>element of ridicule? 

Just what is his shoe size, anyway???
							--  M.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Calvin for President (was Re: I'm dragging out the old T-shirt)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:41:37 GMT

In <1992Sep8.022452.18993@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:

>In article <1992Sep7.022409.22481@athena.mit.edu>
>yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh) writes:

>> Nah.  Kirk/Spock '92!

>Unconstitutional for Spock: he wasn't born in the U.S.A.

Same for Kirk...William Shatner is Canadian.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:11:37 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing! (was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)

In article <1992Sep4.145554.12338@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
pat@sphinx.phys.Virginia.EDU (pat walsh) says:

>Somebody already pointed it out a week or two ago, but it bears repeating.
>The key phrase in GHHB's answer was "well, who else's choice would it be?".
>This is the very definition of the pro-choice position.

No.  The pro-choice position states that we should accept whatever decision
a person makes, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.  I would hope that
the distinction is an obvious one.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: dks@MIT.EDU (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: You think *Dannikins* has a cross to bear?
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:40:52 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA23951; Sat, 12 Sep 92 10:06:35 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA26099; Sat, 12 Sep 92 10:06:33 -0700
X-Received: from TMS-E40-PORT-7.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTPid AA23295; Sat, 12 Sep 92 13:06:24 EDT
X-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle.usenet
X-Command: Send_AEvt(doAutoForward)


In article <1992Sep11.184656.1776@u.washington.edu>,
sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu refutes the asinine
notion that Dannikins has any right to complain, but
ends with:
>
> To be fair, hell MAY BE:
> * married to Marilyn.
>
> So, I guess, everyone has a cross to bear.


  To be fair, Hell may also be:
  * married to Dannikins.


So, I guess, everyone has a cross(-eyed moron) to bear.



Dhanesh
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: dinneen@sequent.com (Jay Dinneen)
Subject: Re: Small thoughts and complaints
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:21:45 GMT

I agree with most of what you said.  But I think that royalty is so
twisted that Prince Charles and Lady Di do not deal in the real world.
Yes Charles is a big environmentalist but he privately looks cold like
our witch MQ.
From: wagner@ike.ucdavis.edu (John Wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Who IS this Jason guy, anyway?
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:23:57 GMT
Reply-To: wagner@ike.ucdavis.edu
Organization: University of California, Davis

In article 465@eng.ufl.edu, jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>The ridicule of Dan Quale has gone far enough!  It's gotten so bad that
>the jokes are preceived as fact.  People actually believe that Quale
>is a stupid moron.  Didn't someone call him a functioning illiterate on
>this net?  He is human.  He makes mistakes just like you and me.  
>
>The ongoing jokes about Dan have become as bothersome as those jokes
>about that lady who fell and couldn't get up.

Oh, is that YOU again, Jason?  I thought you had gone back to alt.morons.
Don't you have to go help someone rebuild their house or something?

---
John Wagner
Institute of Theoretical Dynamics
University of California, Davis

Bush/Quayle 1992: Saddam has a job, do you?

My opinions aren't even mine, much less those of anyone else...
+------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| jmwagner@ucdavis.edu               | Wenn Du meinen Quelltext   |
| jmwagner@ucdavis                   | verstehen kannst, bist Du  |
| {ucbvax, lll-crg}!ucdavis!jmwagner | mir einen Schritt voraus!  |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------+
From: wagner@ike.ucdavis.edu (John Wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Quayle/Bush Competency?
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:31:46 GMT
Reply-To: wagner@ike.ucdavis.edu
Organization: University of California, Davis

In article 3444@ra.nrl.navy.mil, eric@tantalus.dell.com (Eric Youngdale) writes:

>	BTW: Last night on the news they said that a Newsweek poll showed
>Clinton with 51% and Bush with 35%.  Looks like our man may be flipping burgers
>sooner than we think.
Yes, but not soon enough.

---
John Wagner
Institute of Theoretical Dynamics
University of California, Davis

My opinions aren't even mine, much less those of anyone else...
+------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| jmwagner@ucdavis.edu               | Wenn Du meinen Quelltext   |
| jmwagner@ucdavis                   | verstehen kannst, bist Du  |
| {ucbvax, lll-crg}!ucdavis!jmwagner | mir einen Schritt voraus!  |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton