HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Aren't we forgetting something?
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 11:45:29 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith) writes:

>
> > That the whole thing was exposed for political gain, I can't disagree.
> > However, the power structure in the House deserved to have the whistle blow
> > them.  Foley is a class-A boob, in no uncertain terms.  Besides, 'taking
> > advantage' of a system is one thing, but the extent to which Boxer and othe
> > 'took advantage' of the system indicates behavior bordering on deliberate
> > intent to defraud.
>
> I disagree that it was intent to defraud, but even if it were, compared
> to the way that Republican administrations have been defrauding the country
> for the last twelve years it was pretty damn minor.
>

Well, I'll agree about it being minor.  Was watching one of CNN's election
follow-up programs last night, and they showed an interview with Our Boy
talking about Perot's penchant for investigating people.  Danoe's comment was
something to the effect of 'can you imagine what this man would be like if he
had the FBI and CIA doing investigations for him?'  My first thought was,
'Yeah, he'd be just like Richard Nixon!'



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
From: rh@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Roberto Hexsel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Transition Team Members Wanted
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:55:40 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

In article <1992Nov5.055121.230>, rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:
> nation!  He's already written a book about the environment that is full of
> lies and liberal-environmentalist propaganda.

At least, you should give him credit for being able to write.  I'm not so
sure this can be said of the couple of inarticulates he and Clinton
are going to replace.

> [drivel deleted] I guess that they'll soon be painting the White House red to
> represent the true political, communist/socialist, leanings of Hillwilly
> and Gorey Al.                 *******************

It always amazes me the way you americans were so efficiently brainwashed by
Joe McCarthy & cie.   The word "socialist" is now a swearword.  A few days
ago someone here meant to be very offensive by calling someone else a
"socialist"...

> Robert D. Davis            |  VAX/VMS is a text-only adventure game.  If       

Roberto Hexsel             rh@dcs.ed.ac.uk      vox ++44 (0)31 650 5168  
Dept of Computer Science                     "Speedups of less than 1 are
Univ of Edinburgh                              achieved with relative ease"
                                                              Mike Delves
From: michael@albert.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Complete this sentence
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:16:59 GMT
	<MICHAEL.92Nov6221759@albert.bu.edu> <mjenkins.721108480@cunews>
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca's message of 7 Nov 92 03:54:40 GMT

In article <mjenkins.721108480@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
  =In <MICHAEL.92Nov6221759@albert.bu.edu> michael@albert.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin) writes:
  =>The U.S. Constitution prevents anyone from serving as V.P. who isn't
  =>constitutionally elegible to serve as President to begin with,
  =>so Nixon therefore couldn't. He could, though, serve as an executive
  =>advisor, or cabinet secretary, or somesuch. 

  =OK, good. I've gotten this far...now....keeping with this
  =scenario...if Nixon were to serve in the cabinet, is there not still
  =the chance that he could become president through the succession order
  =(if enough people got bumped off)?

  =Sorry, I'm not up on my US president succession stuff tonight. But I
  =seem to recall vaguely that after the Pres, VP, Pres-pro-tem-senate,
  =it goes to Sec. of State and then through the cabinet. 

  =Would that also then qualify as "constitutionally eligible to serve as
  =President" in a sense?
  =Michael

Well, now that I check my handy dandy1992 Information Please Almanac,
here's how it stacks up:

1) The Vice President
2) Speaker of the House
3) President pro-tempore of the Senate
These are what most U.S. citizens are already familiar with, but
imagine my surprise when I saw:

4) Secretary of State
5) Secretary of the Treasury
6) Secretary of Defense
7) Attorney General
8) Secretary of the Interior
9) Secretary of Agriculture
10) Secretary of Commerce
11) Secretary of Labor
12) Secretary of Health and Human Services
13) Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
14) Secretary of Transportation
15) Secretary of Energy
16) Secretary of Education

Now, the first three, if I'm not mistaken, are provided for in the
Constitution, while the others were set up through some sort of bill
or act. Of course, this doesn't mean that if the President dies that
they all move up the ladder by one rung- the V.P. as acting President
then nominates a new V.P. The question that comes immediately to MY
mind is: if Nixon, Agnew, the Speaker (Albert or McCormack?), and the
Pres-pro-tem were all shot, would Kissinger have been made the
acting-pres, or would they have skipped over him? I would think the
latter, and would also think they'd just skip over Nixon, if he'd
somehow end up in such a situation.

Chaplin.
--
=========================================================================
Michael A. Chaplin           If you want *their* opinions, ask *them*.
michael@albert.bu.edu ....The Einstein Papers Project, Boston, Mass., USA
chaplin@husc.harvard.edu ....Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., USA
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Actual Dan Quayle Interview
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:12:08 GMT
 <92317.005150KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <BxLGut.7Kv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

In article <BxLGut.7Kv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cka52397@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(Slartibartfast) says:

>>When Bush ended 'Reaganomics', the economy went south.  No surprise.

>        Qualify this.  The current problem w/ the economy is NOT a recession.
>It is a ****DEPRESSION***.  The main difference is not severity, of course,

You must be kidding.  This is by no means a depression.  The debt hurts,
of course, but it's been higher in the past (*as a percentage of GNP*).

>Supply-side economics, like Communism, interestingly enough, holds faith in
>the premise that man is good, and inherently selfless.  Voodoo economics says
>that as the rich get richer, the poor will benefit from teh things that the
>rich do, since the rich will give them a share of the pie.  The rich didn't in

That's not at -all- what supply-side is about.  The 'rich' don't _give_ the
poor (or the middle class) anything.  The lower taxes and easier creidt were
to allow them to more easily expand the size of their busniesses, which would
mean that they would -hire- more people.  In that way, sure, -everyone- would
get a slice of the pie, but not because the 'rich' suddenly decided to give
away money.  Nobody expects that, and it's not what happened.  The truth is,
people in -all- income brackets, as a whole, did better in the 80s because
of supply-side economics.  the 1990 tax increase, the second largest in
history, which -everyone- seems to bash Bush for, was a departure from what
had worked so well in the 1980s.  Higher taxes, right before a cyclical
recession, didn't work very well at all, as we've seen.

>the '80's and so the poor got poorer.  Supply-side economics isn't fiscal

Census bureau data shows this to be untrue.  I'm sure some individual
poor people got poorer, but as a whole they did not.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Complete this sentence
Summary: Don't forget Ford
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:52:45 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <92310.183349KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>                        writes...
>In article <mjenkins.720894877@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael
>Jenkinson) says:
> 
>>>Besides, that's what Nixon said in '60, right?
>>You're right. I didn't realize how close my statement was to what
>>Nixon said.
>>Does this mean Dan is coming back in 1996?
>>President Quayle. I like it!
> 
>Naw, we need someone with EXPERIENCE... Nixon/Quayle in '96!!!
>The stand-up comedian dream ticket!  :)
> 
How soon we forget. Remeber the original Dan Quayle of politics?
President Ford! FORD/QUAYLE in '96! or even QUAYLE/FORD!!

>Kurt Ludwick
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: myrab@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (myra.bronstein)
Subject: Re: Complete this sentence
Summary: ageless
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:51:15 GMT

In article <D2150056.ht6pk1@erics.infoserv.com>, erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith) writes:
> 
> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> 
> > marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) writes:
> 
> > >mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> 
> > >   >If Bush is a "lame duck", then Quayl is a _____ ______.
> 
> > >   ...overly picked on soon-to-be-ex-Vice-President who you won't have
> > >   to kick around anymore.
> 
> > >Besides, that's what Nixon said in '60, right?
> 
> > You're right. I didn't realize how close my statement was to what
> > Nixon said.
> 
> Not quite. That's what Nixon said in 1962, when he confronted a roomful
> of reporters after he lost the race for governor of California ("Gentlemen,
> this is my last press conference. You won't have Dick Nixon to kick
> around anymore.").
> 
> If Nixon knew how much he was going to be kicked around after that,
> maybe he would have stuck to his pledge. I think we will have Quayle
> to kick around for a while more. Remember, he's only 45, so we may have
> to put up with him for a long time to come.
> 
> -----
> Eric Smith
> erics@infoserv.com
> CI$: 70262,3610

And in *some* ways, he's *eternally* youthful.

Myra
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cka52397@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Slartibartfast)
Subject: Re: 50 Years From Now...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:32:09 GMT

In article <92317.012833KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>In article <D2150056.hvquqf@erics.infoserv.com>, erics@infoserv.com (Eric S.
>Smith) says:
>
>>Keep dreaming, Kurt. You think Kemp's going to be able to mount an effective
>>campaign when he has to somehow defend trickle-down economics plus fight off
>>the Buchanan/Robertson wing of the GOP?
>
>Since trickle-down economics worked, until Bush screwed it up, that won't be
>a problem.  Especially with his enterprise zones, which most people believe
>in.  (Maybe even Clinton; we'll see what he does.)
>
>>And if Clinton doesn't show progress on the economy, it's not the Republicans
>>he'll have to worry about, it'll be Perot and his fanatic followers. Then
>>the country will *really* be in trouble.
>
>Perot will not be a viable candidate by '96.  I think people are going to
>be sick of him, and his silly metaphors, and his info-mercials, and his
>Perot-noia.  If Clinton doesn't improve the economy, Kemp will smash him
>like a bug.  (In a nice way, of course.  Kemp's a nice guy.)
>
>
>------------
>Kurt Ludwick
>------------

	Worked?  REAL GNP decreased 24% between 1980 -1990.  I am sure that
it didn't decrease that much in two years of a Bush Adm. since his tax raise
was in late 1990 or 1991.  BTW, figures are from Office of Management and 
Budget.  
-- 
***RUSH***YES***FLOYD***PEARLJAM***METALLICA***STING***PAULSIMON***REM***U2***
*  "We are going to have the best educated American people in the World!" ;-)*
*   Vice President Dan Quayle  September 21, 1988 ;-)  Clinton 1996! ;-) ;-) *
*******(c-amin1@uiuc.edu)***Chintan Amin***UniversityofIllinois***GoIllini****
From: kannan@ardor.enet.dec.com (Nari Kannan)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Breaks my heart....
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: kannan@ardor.enet.dec.com (Nari Kannan)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


   ...thinking about all the Dane Quayl  quotes I'll miss for the next four
years.  I don't 
  know about you, but this guy was a fun topic of conversation for me.

  Nari
From: sahul@loading-zone.Stanford.EDU (Zakir H. Sahul)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Complete this sentence
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:25:43 GMT
Distribution: su
Organization: Stanford University

|> In article <22939@duke.cs.duke.edu>, ingram@cs.duke.edu writes...
|> >If Bush is a "lame duck", then Quayl is a _____ ______.
|> 
|> 

lame ducke?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: toddwall@rock.concert.net (R. Todd Wall -- Catholic Diocese of Raleigh -- Computer Services)
Subject: Re: All I have to say
Organization: CONCERT-CONNECT -- Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:52:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.150207.6560@unislc.uucp> jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske) writes:
>
etc.etc.etc
>p.s. Seek some counseling
>

I think the name of this group should be changed from alt.fan.dan-quayle to 
			ALT.BASH.DAN-QUAYLE 

This title seems more appropriate.



-- 
o o ______           _     _____  _  _ o o  "But the fruit of the Spirit is
' '   /       /   / ' )   /      // // ' '   love, joy, peace, patience,
     / ______/ __/   / / / __.  // //        kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
   _/ (_) (_/_(_/_  (_(_/ (_/|_</_</         gentleness and self-control."
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:29:49 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Bush eats it!

In article <JuaPTB3w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP>, popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C.
Barwell) says:

Here are two entirely contradictory statements:

>Now America has a fighting chance.
>Tax the churches.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: millerje@CS.ColoState.EDU (Jeff Miller)
Subject: Re: Complete this sentence
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 22:18:27 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <22939@duke.cs.duke.edu> ingram@cs.duke.edu writes:
>If Bush is a "lame duck", then Quayl is a _____ ______.
>

dame luck  ... or at least that's how Quayl(e) would spell "Damn Lucky"


-- 
 _____________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                             |
| "Nuke the unborn gay whales!" |  millerje@cs.colostate.edu  |  Jeff Miller  |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
From: leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Transition Team Members Wanted
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:04:46 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <Bx9B8t.8J1@dcs.ed.ac.uk> rh@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Roberto Hexsel) writes:

>It always amazes me the way you americans were so efficiently brainwashed by
>Joe McCarthy & cie.   The word "socialist" is now a swearword.  A few days
>ago someone here meant to be very offensive by calling someone else a
>"socialist"...

Even more amazing is that for a large number of Americans, "liberal"
seems to have become a swearword.  Especially given that in America,
"liberal" means "conservative" and "conservative" means "reactionary".


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

"I was shot down, and I was floating around in a little yellow raft,
 setting a record for paddling.  I thought of my family, my mom and dad,
 and the strength I got from them.  I thought of my faith, the separation
 of church and state."
   -- George Bush, in a speech relating his experiences as a World War II
      fighter pilot, 5 December 1987.
From: leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Transition Team Members Wanted
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:07:29 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Nov5.055121.23017@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:

>Lets hope that something does :-) ...before he can do any more damage to this
>nation!  He's already written a book about the environment that is full of
>lies and liberal-environmentalist propaganda.  There is one good use for his
>book, however, which was proven on the Rush Limbaugh TV show: use the pages
>in it to paper-train puppies.  Dogs are smart, they instinctively know what
>to do with Al Gore's book.  Other dogs like to rip it to shreds.  
>
>Too bad that the U.S. political system failed and allowed Slick Willie & Al
>to become elected, after all, in the the popular vote, not the electoral
>vote, President Bush and VP Quayle WON this election!  However, the
>liberal media is trying their best to downplay this fact, just as they did
>their best to keep the truth about Billy Boy from being told to the American
>public.  I guess that they'll soon be painting the White House red to
>represent the true political, communist/socialist, leanings of Hillwilly
>and Gorey Al.

This is really rich.  To pick on just one teeny-weeny little point, it
is reported here that Clinton got 43% of the popular vote, while Bush
had 37.5%.  Perot had 19%.  That means that

a) 62% of the electorate voted against Bush/Quayle, and

b) Clinton/Gore had the highest fraction of the votes cast, 5.5% more
   than Bush/Quayle.

Now, according to which arithmetic did Bush and Quayle win?  Or is our
media just another part of a worldwide liberal-media conspiracy covering
up Bush's real percentage?

Get real.


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

"I was shot down, and I was floating around in a little yellow raft,
 setting a record for paddling.  I thought of my family, my mom and dad,
 and the strength I got from them.  I thought of my faith, the separation
 of church and state."
   -- George Bush, in a speech relating his experiences as a World War II
      fighter pilot, 5 December 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: at the risk of sounding repetitive...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:49:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.060351.24196@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:
>
>Unfortunately, Billy Boy & Gorey Al  won the election even though the people 
>did select President Bush and VP Quayle via the popular vote. 

LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES

In case anyone believes the crap this fool is spewing, here's a few numbers:
(from the AP)

 Bill Clinton, Dem 43,688,671 - 43 percent
 George Bush, GOP (i) 38,109,410 - 37 percent
 Ross Perot, Ind 19,089,432 - 19 percent

Crawl back under your rock, Robert Davis.  Lying about a Bush victory won't
bring him back.
-- 
"The day you see me vote for George Bush, you take me out behind the
barn and put a bullet through my brainpan."
                   --Ross Perot (well, almost) Saturday Night Live
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu             _V_a_l_h_a_l_l_a BBS, 217-352-3682, WWIV4.21, 14.4k
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: A Classy Exit
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:56:13 MST
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <MJS.92Nov4125505@behemoth.genetics.wisc.edu>, mjs@behemoth.genetics.wisc.edu (Mike Schmelzer) writes:
> I thought both Bush's and Quayle's concession speeches
> were excellent. Especially Quayle giving Clinton credit
> for running a "good, tough campaign" and saying that if
> Clinton ran the country like he did his campaign, America
> would "be all right."
> 
> I was surprised, and could not help but be touched.

One should realize that Bush and Quayle are modal candidates.  They are
limited to a select few responses depending on the situation.

If running for re-election, they enter campaign mode and call Bill Clinton
a bozo and run ludicrous Holocaust imagery ads.  If they're not, they say
Bill Clinton is a great American and wish him well.  If they're in a
"governing-the-country" mode, Bush provides aid and comfort to Saddam
Hussein and DQ is busy misspelling beacon and potato.

Very few of us afd-q regulars are surprised or confused by what you
mentioned above.  The campaign is over, so they switched out of campaign
mode, and any previous statements by them are rendered inoperative.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin                  (quote removed out
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu                of deference to Our Boy)

"[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
Xref: sparky alt.fan.dan-quayle:6587 talk.bizarre:37607
From: mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu ("[*] The One True Cross")
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Actual Dan Quayle Interview
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:39:45 GMT
	<1992Nov9.194519.21570@netcom.com>
Followup-To: misc.misc
Organization: Eaters of Wisdom
In-reply-to: madhaus@netcom.com's message of 9 Nov 92 19:45:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.194519.21570@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>   Oh yeah, and plenty of other people on the net have acknowledged that
>   I am funny.  Guess you lose that argument.

HAW HAW HAW!  I GET IT!!! 

THAT WAS THE BEST YET MADDI!!!







--

                And for to se, and eek for to be seye
Mark-Jason Dominus 	  			    mjd@central.cis.upenn.edu 

                                                       DOZENS.
From: michael@albert.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Transition Team Members Wanted
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:56:53 GMT
	<wall-051192165430@elvis.swarthmore.edu>
	<1992Nov6.154732.8056@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu's message of 6 Nov 92 15:47:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.154732.8056@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:
  => (b) the US Constitution is good enough for me, if you don't like it, you're
  => free to leave the country

  =For a "liberal" this person sure sounds like a right-wing 
  ="Love-It-or-Leave-It" clown to me. Goes to show you that "liberals" 
  =and "conservatives" think pretty much the same way, they just have
  =slightly different preferences in their methods of social control, 
  =expressed most clearly in the ridiculus beauty pageant euphemistically 
  =called a "presidential election." 

No, it just shows that liberals are less likely to identify loving
one's country with a fanatical devotion to both the president and the
flag- they are much more likely to honor the true head of state- the
Constitution (with the possible exception of anti-gun liberals.)

What people like Robert Davis don't understand is that one can be for
certain things that others are against, and still love one's country.
The president is not the country. The flag is not the country. Any
particular police action (war, to us plain speakin' folks) is not the
country. People can differ on these issues and still love the country.
I would think that those who don't love their country have already
indeed left it- why waste one's life living where one hates to be?

Chaplin.
--
=========================================================================
Michael A. Chaplin           If you want *their* opinions, ask *them*.
michael@albert.bu.edu ....The Einstein Papers Project, Boston, Mass., USA
chaplin@husc.harvard.edu ....Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., USA