Culture,usa ??

4 views
Skip to first unread message

John Costello

unread,
Oct 14, 1991, 8:04:10 PM10/14/91
to
In article <1991Oct14.204919*ci...@solan.unit.no> ci...@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>Nobody's even mentioned chocolate chip cookies yet. *snf*

Thanks, Cindy. You made me think of several other things, especially since
you post to alt.fan.dan-quayle so much, which brings me to.....

J. Danforth Quayle!
Has there been a source of such political humour from any other country,
at least in this century?

And, along that thread, who could have passed up Jim Hensen's Muppets?
(It is rumoured on alt.fan.dan-quayle that Dan is actually an escaped
muppet which Jim never perfected.) The Muppets have brought humor, warmth
and gentle teaching to millions of youths and adults (including me!).

>....
>And if you have to be nasty to another country, do you have to bring out the
>same old cliches?

No, we should think of new ones! :-)
>
>-Cindy Kandolf
> ci...@solan.unit.no
> Trondheim, Norway
> (transplanted Pennsylvanian)

Cos
(escapee from Idaho)

Bob Cano

unread,
Oct 15, 1991, 8:10:18 AM10/15/91
to

In article <1991Oct15....@lclark.edu>, c...@lclark.edu (John

Costello) writes:
|>
|> J. Danforth Quayle!
|> Has there been a source of such political humour from any other country,
|> at least in this century?
|>
How about Canada's Bill Vander Zalm, a laugh a minute, except if you
lived in BC and had to put up with him.

Bob Cano Bell-Northern Research | When all else fails,
rcano@.bnr.ca P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C | read the instructions.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |
(613)763 4086 K1Y 4H7 |

Victor Eijkhout

unread,
Oct 15, 1991, 1:11:41 PM10/15/91
to
c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes:

>J. Danforth Quayle!
>Has there been a source of such political humour from any other country,
>at least in this century?

One of the most silly episodes of Dutch parliamentary history
was the rise and fall of Boer Koekoek (Farmer Cuckoo).
He was the leader of the farmer's party, which gained a
glorious one seat in the (150 seat) parliament.

The guy was an idiot (with rather ultra-right wing sympathies, but
fortunately not the intelligence to do something with them), and
his performances were always a source of amusement. What he said
was never relevant and always silly. I remember one time where
the chairman of the session cut off his more than usual irrelevant ramblings,
and Farmer Cuckoo walked back from the microphone, complaining
`Ooh, I never get to say anything here'.

Victor.

Harri Haanp{{

unread,
Oct 17, 1991, 10:47:41 AM10/17/91
to
In article <1991Oct15....@lclark.edu> c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes:
J. Danforth Quayle!
Has there been a source of such political humour from any other country,
at least in this century?

In Finland we used to tell jokes about Ahti Karjalainen and his bad English.
Then again, when 5 million Finns tell jokes about him and 200 million
Americans tell jokes about Quayle.. and Ahti Karjalainen wasn't actually
the _source_ of the humor.

Is it true that the _other_ political party in the US of A (the one Bush and
Quayle do _not_ represent) has been thinking of selecting Bush to be their
candidate too in the next presidential elections, but with another (_anyone_
else than Quayle) vice-presidential candidate? Since Bush is going to win
anyway unless he screws up REAL BAD?

Harri

Greg Nudd

unread,
Oct 17, 1991, 12:05:54 PM10/17/91
to
For those of you who may have missed the Letterman show last night,
I will paraphrase Molly Ivins opinion of our esteemed VP:

"The press has been accused of attacking Dan Qyayle unfairly. Well
I travelled with him in '88 and I found him dumber than advertised.

If you put that man's brain in a bumblebee - the bee would fly backwards."

Drevik, Steve

unread,
Oct 17, 1991, 1:25:00 PM10/17/91
to
In article <F40661B.91...@saha.hut.fi>, f40...@saha.hut.fi (Harri Haanp{{) writes...>
>Is it true that the _other_ political party in the US of A (the one Bush and
>Quayle do _not_ represent) has been thinking of selecting Bush to be their
>candidate too in the next presidential elections, but with another (_anyone_
>else than Quayle) vice-presidential candidate? Since Bush is going to win
>anyway unless he screws up REAL BAD?
>
>Harri

No, sorry to say. Those comments represent a sarcastic joke by Republicans
(Bush's party), poking fun by saying that this is the only way the Democrats
(the other party) could hope to win an election.

And Bush has, by the way, screwed up real bad...domestically at least. He
kept denying that a recession was taking place, refusing to take necessary
steps until they were absolutely necessary. You see, if people are convinced
the economy is bad, even if it isn't, the economy will become bad. Bush
also believes the converse to be true: that if people believe the
economy is good, even if it is bad, the economy will get better. That might
work for a very short, shallow recession. But with the huge deficit
we have, I can't see how any resonable person would say this past recession
would have been shallow or short.

It all depends how much the media plays up the economic problems. Bush
will wrap himself in the flag and his victories overseas, while the
democrats will note how we have 1-2 million more Americans out of work
than before he took office. It's really hard to say what will happen
in a country whose voter turnout can swing between 10% and 40%... if
people mobilize a vote, it can swing things.
-s

saun...@luther.che.wisc.edu

unread,
Oct 17, 1991, 2:45:47 PM10/17/91
to

Not much Quayle talk in this response. I suggest all the people who are
flaming Bush or the Republican Party to start alt.gbush.sucks or
alt.fuckoff.republicans. If the point of this newsgroup is Quayle jokes
and sarcasm, let's please stay away from serious political talk (which
obviously could never be linked with Dan Quayle).
--

Brian E. Saunders saun...@luther.che.wisc.edu

Dennis Rivard

unread,
Oct 17, 1991, 7:14:31 PM10/17/91
to
In article <F40661B.91...@saha.hut.fi> f40...@saha.hut.fi (Harri Haanp{{) writes:
>In article <1991Oct15....@lclark.edu> c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes:

>Is it true that the _other_ political party in the US of A (the one Bush and
>Quayle do _not_ represent) has been thinking of selecting Bush to be their

Which other political party do you mean? There are hundreds.... oh,
you mean the Democrats...... ;-)

--
School:dri...@cs.ulowell.edu | Those who know/What's best for us/|
Work: riv...@claude.ma30.bull.com | Must rise and save us from |
My opinions are my own. | ourselves. - "Witch Hunt" Rush |

Lynne D. Powell

unread,
Oct 18, 1991, 2:09:23 AM10/18/91
to

Flame on:

Hey there. I thought to myself, "self, why is this topic on
alt.tv.muppets?" Then I thought, "I'll bet that this topic had to do
with muppets in some vague way and now it has totally changed" Please
people, edit the sbject line. It doesn't take too much effort. Thanks.

Flame off

-Lynne


--
O body swayed to music, O brightening glance/ How can we know the dancer
from the dance?...W.B.Y.
--
phlyrt

Walter Alden Tackett

unread,
Oct 17, 1991, 9:25:20 PM10/17/91
to
In article <17OCT199...@utkvx3.utk.edu> dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
<stuff about democrats running bush w/o dan as their candidate>

>No, sorry to say. Those comments represent a sarcastic joke by Republicans
>(Bush's party), poking fun by saying that this is the only way the Democrats
>(the other party) could hope to win an election.
And like many of the best jokes, largely true. In america, we have the freedom
of choosing between fascism and impotence, and seem to prefer fascism.

>And Bush has, by the way, screwed up real bad...domestically at least. He

...he likes to call himself the "environmental president." i submit that his
choice of running mate makes him the "humor president."

> ...denying that a recession was taking place...
> ...the economy is bad...
>... I can't see how any resonable person would say this past recession


>would have been shallow or short.

Although i agree with most of your points, i'm not sure that you are making a
good case that the recession is *over*, as king George would have us believe
and as you seem to imply. On the other hand, my viewpoint may be biased since
i'm in california, which has been hit hard by the loss of the Communist Threat
(as well as by the evil spectre of home audio taping ;-) .

>It all depends how much the media plays up the economic problems.

... I doubt they would or will. We suffer from a collective jingoistic denial
that this Great Land of Ours could be subject to any form of weakness. To admit
economic failure on the part of our government as well as private-sector
mismanagement and unjustified greed on the part of our workforce is as
unAmerican as hondas, peace treaties, and clean air.

>Bush will wrap himself in the flag...
I think Bush signed a law against wrapping oneself in the flag, if memory
serves.
>....and his victories overseas, while the
You give me $500 million a day to spend using highly skilled troops and
advanced equipment against a bunch of ignorant fourth-world peasants manning
cast-iron russian surplus and I'll give you a stunning example of gunboat
diplomacy just like Bush did.
>democrats will note how we have 1-2 million more Americans out of work...
e.g., Dukakis :-)


>than before he took office. It's really hard to say what will happen
>in a country whose voter turnout can swing between 10% and 40%... if
>people mobilize a vote, it can swing things.

Well, i certainly hope so, but i tend to think that there is something wrong
with us as a people, and that George Bush/ Dan Quayle are merely symptoms of
that sickness. I tend to think that we are a nation in decline, much like
the UK, with the loss of our empire. Perhaps a new Depression, or some
equivalent "economic Pearl Harbor" can shock us into recovery, but whatever
it is, it's not going to be pretty.
>-s
-wt

With naturally curly hair...

unread,
Oct 18, 1991, 1:20:20 AM10/18/91
to
[article deleted]

You can stop posting this boring stuff to alt.tv.muppets now...

--Liz

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Liz Stewart ; "I want to give myself to you." ; Today's Mood:
l...@wpi.wpi.edu ; "Sorry, I don't accept cheap gifts." ; grin and
Venus on IRC ; ("Smart Comebacks", by Sol Gordon, PhD) ; bare it
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

James Davis Nicoll

unread,
Oct 18, 1991, 2:08:03 PM10/18/91
to
In article <19...@hacgate.UUCP> tac...@ipld01.hac.com (Walter Alden Tackett) writes:
>In article <17OCT199...@utkvx3.utk.edu> dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
><stuff about democrats running bush w/o dan as their candidate>
>>No, sorry to say. Those comments represent a sarcastic joke by Republicans
>>(Bush's party), poking fun by saying that this is the only way the Democrats
>>(the other party) could hope to win an election.
>And like many of the best jokes, largely true. In america, we have the freedom
>of choosing between fascism and impotence, and seem to prefer fascism.

Not that I admire Bush, but you're using 'fascist' in such a way
as to render it useless for anything other than another word for 'bad'.

>>And Bush has, by the way, screwed up real bad...domestically at least. He
>...he likes to call himself the "environmental president." i submit that his
>choice of running mate makes him the "humor president."

It's an old tradition to have a running mate who appears so terrible
(Agnew) or incompetant (Taft) that possible assassins are deterred from wacking
the president.

No, I have no idea how Taft got elected President. Sunspots, maybe.
Anyway, he wasn't as bad as Exorcist II.


Lots of stuff deleted

>Well, i certainly hope so, but i tend to think that there is something wrong
>with us as a people, and that George Bush/ Dan Quayle are merely symptoms of
>that sickness. I tend to think that we are a nation in decline, much like
>the UK, with the loss of our empire. Perhaps a new Depression, or some
>equivalent "economic Pearl Harbor" can shock us into recovery, but whatever
>it is, it's not going to be pretty.

You folks down south *do* realise that the US produced something like
60% of the World Product in the 40s? Given how poorly industrialised many
nations were in the 40s, and how many have since industrialised, isn't
it reasonable to expect the US's *relative* economic position to have declined?

James Nicoll

Drevik, Steve

unread,
Oct 18, 1991, 8:28:00 AM10/18/91
to
In article <19...@hacgate.UUCP>, tac...@ipld01.hac.com (Walter Alden Tackett) writes...

>In article <17OCT199...@utkvx3.utk.edu> dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
><stuff about democrats running bush w/o dan as their candidate>
>>No, sorry to say. Those comments represent a sarcastic joke by Republicans
>>(Bush's party), poking fun by saying that this is the only way the Democrats
>>(the other party) could hope to win an election.
>And like many of the best jokes, largely true. In america, we have the freedom
>of choosing between fascism and impotence, and seem to prefer fascism.
>
>>And Bush has, by the way, screwed up real bad...domestically at least. He
>....he likes to call himself the "environmental president." i submit that his

>choice of running mate makes him the "humor president."
>
>> ...denying that a recession was taking place...
>> ...the economy is bad...
>>... I can't see how any resonable person would say this past recession
>>would have been shallow or short.
>Although i agree with most of your points, i'm not sure that you are making a
>good case that the recession is *over*, as king George would have us believe
>and as you seem to imply. On the other hand, my viewpoint may be biased since
>i'm in california, which has been hit hard by the loss of the Communist Threat
>(as well as by the evil spectre of home audio taping ;-) .

Sorry, the LAST thing I wanted to imply is that the recession is over!

>>It all depends how much the media plays up the economic problems.

>.... I doubt they would or will. We suffer from a collective jingoistic denial


>that this Great Land of Ours could be subject to any form of weakness. To admit
>economic failure on the part of our government as well as private-sector
>mismanagement and unjustified greed on the part of our workforce is as
>unAmerican as hondas, peace treaties, and clean air.
>

Agreed.

>>Bush will wrap himself in the flag...
>I think Bush signed a law against wrapping oneself in the flag, if memory
>serves.

Not that I recall. The flag-burning amendment died. Anybody else remember?

>>....and his victories overseas, while the
>You give me $500 million a day to spend using highly skilled troops and
>advanced equipment against a bunch of ignorant fourth-world peasants manning
>cast-iron russian surplus and I'll give you a stunning example of gunboat
>diplomacy just like Bush did.

Their equipment was not all that bad. It was not top-of-the-line, but
we have the give the Iraqis proper credit for poorly employing what little
they had. Had a decent strategist been in charge, the US would have lost
several thousand lives. We were quite lucky, thanks to the GU.

>>democrats will note how we have 1-2 million more Americans out of work...
>e.g., Dukakis :-)

Nahh, only about 20,000 in MA.

>>than before he took office. It's really hard to say what will happen
>>in a country whose voter turnout can swing between 10% and 40%... if
>>people mobilize a vote, it can swing things.
>Well, i certainly hope so, but i tend to think that there is something wrong
>with us as a people, and that George Bush/ Dan Quayle are merely symptoms of
>that sickness. I tend to think that we are a nation in decline, much like
>the UK, with the loss of our empire. Perhaps a new Depression, or some
>equivalent "economic Pearl Harbor" can shock us into recovery, but whatever
>it is, it's not going to be pretty.

I agree. I hope whatever cataclysm it is , it comes (to us George's
words from the war), "sooner rather than later."
-s

Eric Smith

unread,
Oct 19, 1991, 6:05:54 PM10/19/91
to

dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:

>It all depends how much the media plays up the economic problems. Bush
>will wrap himself in the flag and his victories overseas, while the
>democrats will note how we have 1-2 million more Americans out of work
>than before he took office. It's really hard to say what will happen
>in a country whose voter turnout can swing between 10% and 40%... if
>people mobilize a vote, it can swing things.

Personally I hope Bush wins in '92. I fully expect that in the following
four years, no matter who is President, the economy will suffer a serious
collapse due to the economic policies of the Reagan/Bush administrations.
The strains of inequitable tax burden, supporting a voracious military
establishment, horrendous national debt, bailouts of S&Ls plus more and
more banks, and nonending recession cannot be overcome without major
changes to the economic policies of the country. Both parties are too
fossilized to attempt it before a disaster strikes, but at least if a
Republican is in office when it happens they won't be able to blame the
Democrats for it. Of the two, the Democrats are at least better equipped
to bring us out of it if they are given a clear mandate in 1996.

-----
Eric Smith |
er...@sco.com | Rosemary started drinking hard
er...@infoserv.com | and seeing her reflection in the knife
CI$: 70262,3610 | - Bob Dylan

Scott Horne

unread,
Oct 20, 1991, 6:48:16 AM10/20/91
to
(I'm dropping `alt.tv.muppets' from the distribution of this article and
encourage others to do the same.)

In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:
<
<Both parties are too

<fossilized to attempt it before a disaster strikes....

Both parties? Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party--
with two right wings.

--Scott

--
Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
ho...@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 436-1848 Residence: Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT
"Jing1pi4 ye3 shi4 pi4." --Anonymous

John Costello

unread,
Oct 20, 1991, 11:26:48 PM10/20/91
to
In article <1991Oct20.1...@cs.yale.edu> horne...@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:
>(I'm dropping `alt.tv.muppets' from the distribution of this article and
>encourage others to do the same.)
>
>In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:
><
><Both parties are too
><fossilized to attempt it before a disaster strikes....
>
>Both parties? Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party--
>with two right wings.

Someone related a quote by one of the Presidential candidates (I believe
he's a Demo, although I'm not sure), which is similar to Scott's comment:

"The Democrats just want to be Republicans, and the Republicans are *pure*
evil!"

Got quite a kick out of that one.

> --Scott
>
>--
>Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
>ho...@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520

(Slipping into my asbestos, elephant-proof jammies......)

Cos

Marc VanHeyningen

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 1:01:08 AM10/21/91
to
In article <1991Oct21....@lclark.edu> c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes:
>Someone related a quote by one of the Presidential candidates (I believe
>he's a Demo, although I'm not sure), which is similar to Scott's comment:

>"The Democrats just want to be Republicans, and the Republicans are *pure*
>evil!"

>Got quite a kick out of that one.

>(Slipping into my asbestos, elephant-proof jammies......)

>Cos

I somehow find it unlikely that a Democrat would say such a thing;
indeed, I find it unlikely that anyone serious considering running for
office would say such a thing. I seem vaguely to recall having heard
that the statement was made by Frank Zappa, though I don't have a source
or anything.

ObJoke: A Real Dan Quayle Fan Club
--
Marc VanHeyningen | mvan...@indiana.edu | Life is like a sewer.
Computer Science | BITNET: mvanheyn@iubacs | What you get out of it
Cognitive Science | The dead fish | depends on what you
Indiana University | goes with the flow. | put into it. -T. Lehrer

John Costello

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 2:25:05 AM10/21/91
to
In article <1991Oct21.0...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> mvan...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Marc VanHeyningen) writes:
>In article <1991Oct21....@lclark.edu> c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes:
>>Someone related a quote by one of the Presidential candidates (I believe
>>he's a Demo, although I'm not sure), which is similar to Scott's comment:
>
>>"The Democrats just want to be Republicans, and the Republicans are *pure*
>>evil!"
>
>>Got quite a kick out of that one.
>
>>(Slipping into my asbestos, elephant-proof jammies......)
>
>>Cos
>
>
>I somehow find it unlikely that a Democrat would say such a thing;
>indeed, I find it unlikely that anyone serious considering running for
>office would say such a thing. I seem vaguely to recall having heard
>that the statement was made by Frank Zappa, though I don't have a source
>or anything.

Yeh, I guess I put too much faith in my sources. As I said, I think it was
a Demo, but it could have been some unknown, Mid-West Independent. Then again,
the person who told me could have a brain made of swiss chees (*cheap* swiss
cheese, as several of his ex.'s would attest to :-) and may have misquoted.

Gosh. Guess I pulled a Dan Quayle! :-)

>ObJoke: A Real Dan Quayle Fan Club

>Marc VanHeyningen | mvan...@indiana.edu | Life is like a sewer.
>Computer Science | BITNET: mvanheyn@iubacs | What you get out of it
>Cognitive Science | The dead fish | depends on what you
>Indiana University | goes with the flow. | put into it. -T. Lehrer

Cos

Teemu Leisti

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 8:49:24 AM10/21/91
to
In article <1991Oct20.1...@cs.yale.edu>, horne...@cs.yale.edu
(Scott Horne) writes:

> Both parties? Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party--
> with two right wings.

An American friend of mine wrote that in America, conservatives are
called 'liberals' and reactionaries are called 'conservatives'. The
opinion of another American friend of mine is that the Democrats are
totally useless since they are trying so hard to prove to the electorate
that they are just as conservative as the Republicans.

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

Kurt Fuchs

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 6:11:37 AM10/21/91
to

James Nicoll wrote:

> Not that I admire Bush, but you're using 'fascist' in such a way
> as to render it useless for anything other than another word for
> 'bad'.

Unless one makes a complete treatise about 'fascist - fascism' it has
to be used as another word for 'bad' (its even worse).

You didn't tell your opinion about it, James.

Kurt

--
--

Kurt Fuchs voice: +43 (1) 39 16 21 / 177
Alcatel Austria-ELIN Research Center fax: +43 (1) 39 14 52
Ruthnergasse 1-7 Internet: fs_f...@rcvie.at
A-1210 Wien UUCP: ...mcsun!tuvie!rcvie!fs_fuchs
Austria/Europe

--
--

Kurt Fuchs voice: +43 (1) 39 16 21 / 177
Alcatel Austria-ELIN Research Center fax: +43 (1) 39 14 52
Ruthnergasse 1-7 Internet: fs_f...@rcvie.at
A-1210 Wien UUCP: ...mcsun!tuvie!rcvie!fs_fuchs

Eric Smith

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 5:33:11 PM10/21/91
to

horne...@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:

>(I'm dropping `alt.tv.muppets' from the distribution of this article and
>encourage others to do the same.)

Thanks; I hadn't noticed that a muppets group was in the distribution (?!).
I've been getting hate mail from muppets fans, if you can believe such a
thing.

>In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:
><
><Both parties are too
><fossilized to attempt it before a disaster strikes....

>Both parties? Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party--
>with two right wings.

Yes, how clever of our politicians. At the same time that they can sneer
at other countries for their one-party systems, they can offer U.S.
voters the illusion of choice that really isn't one.

-----
Eric Smith |
er...@sco.com | No fun to be the one that love is practised on.
er...@infoserv.com | - Chris Isaac
CI$: 70262,3610 |

Eric Smith

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 6:10:33 PM10/21/91
to

(I've removed alt.tv.muppets from the distribution list for this article.
I've learned my lesson; getting flamed by muppet fans is no fun. Although
since Bush and Quayle really ARE muppets, I think it's totally appropriate
anyway).


jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

> It's an old tradition to have a running mate who appears so terrible
>(Agnew) or incompetant (Taft) that possible assassins are deterred from wacking
>the president.

> No, I have no idea how Taft got elected President. Sunspots, maybe.
>Anyway, he wasn't as bad as Exorcist II.

Say what? Taft was never the Veep, nor anyone's running mate. He got elected
President because he was Teddy Roosevelt's hand-picked successor. Then he
followed such an independent course after election that Teddy returned and
ran against him four years later (remember the Bull Moose Party, one of the
great names in American political history?), thereby splitting the Republican
vote and allowing Wilson to be elected.

Say, maybe THAT'S how the Democrats could win an elction in 2000. :-)

> You folks down south *do* realise that the US produced something like
>60% of the World Product in the 40s? Given how poorly industrialised many
>nations were in the 40s, and how many have since industrialised, isn't
>it reasonable to expect the US's *relative* economic position to have declined?

Really, it's unfair to choose the '40s as an example, since the U.S. was
just about the only major industrialized country that didn't have its
large cities bombed out and its economic infrastructure totally disrupted
by world war.

The fact is that for a period after World War II, the U.S. was pre-eminent
in the world, politically, industrially and militarily (given the Atomic
Bomb). Since that time the U.S. has been on a long course of believing
that it has a right to that position, without having to do any of the
hard work or make any of the hard decisions. This trend reached its peak
under Reagan, who assured the voters that they can have anything they
want, and if there's no money to pay for it then we can just borrow it.
The economic extravagances of the '80s will not be paid for for many years,
if ever, and will guarantee the gradual decline of the U.S. into a second-
rate economic power, *unless* hard choices are made to commit to new
economic strategies involving the redistribution of wealth. But that's
extremely unlikely to happen because the idea that the riches of the
world belong to the U.S. by right is too ingrained in the segments of
the society that would have to vote for such new economic policies. As a
result, expect to see lots more actions like Operation Desert Storm
whenever the economic resources of the U.S. are threatened by countries
that can be easily militarily defeated. It's called the New World Order ...

peter lavallee

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 7:19:34 PM10/21/91
to

What's wrong with you people? There are more appropriate newsgroups
for political diatribes. Where's the Quayle humor/bashing/admiration?

pjl
--
Peter J. Lavallee : "Wake up and smell the collective
lw2...@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu : coffee, if you know what I'm saying."

Scott Horne

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 9:03:26 PM10/21/91
to
In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:
<horne...@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:
<
<>(I'm dropping `alt.tv.muppets' from the distribution of this article and
<>encourage others to do the same.)
<
<Thanks; I hadn't noticed that a muppets group was in the distribution (?!).

Some fool put it there to stir up flames. As my kindergarten teacher used to
say:

Attention, attention, attention I crave:
And if I don't get it, I'll misbehave!

<I've been getting hate mail from muppets fans, if you can believe such a
<thing.

Anyone who'd call himself a Muppets fan can be safely ignored. :-)

<>Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party--
<>with two right wings.
<
<Yes, how clever of our politicians. At the same time that they can sneer
<at other countries for their one-party systems, they can offer U.S.
<voters the illusion of choice that really isn't one.

Educators call it controlling the options. It's a good way to get what one
wants while leaving others with the satisfaction that they made the decision.

Scott Horne

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 9:06:56 PM10/21/91
to
In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:
<
<Say what? Taft was never the Veep, nor anyone's running mate. He got elected
<President because he was Teddy Roosevelt's hand-picked successor. Then he
<followed such an independent course after election that Teddy returned and
<ran against him four years later (remember the Bull Moose Party, one of the
<great names in American political history?), thereby splitting the Republican
<vote and allowing Wilson to be elected.
<
<Say, maybe THAT'S how the Democrats could win an elction in 2000. :-)

Good idea. We need to create an offshoot of the Democratic Party.
`Bull Moose' has a nice ring to it, but it's already taken. How about
`Bull Donkey'? Or just `Jackass'?

saun...@luther.che.wisc.edu

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 7:56:18 PM10/21/91
to
In article <95...@cs.tulane.edu> lw2...@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (peter lavallee) writes:
>
>What's wrong with you people? There are more appropriate newsgroups
>for political diatribes. Where's the Quayle humor/bashing/admiration?

Now Pete, I've asking this question many times, but it seems to have no
effect (the question doesn't even get flamed). Unfortunately, this group
has attracted people from the "serious" newsgroups, and I'm afraid it will
eventually die from boring posts. Plus, I doubt if we see a lot of Quayle
until Bush is re-elected next year. That way a lot of ammunition will be
kept under control :-)

Ron Dippold

unread,
Oct 21, 1991, 2:13:16 PM10/21/91
to
lei...@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:
>In article <1991Oct20.1...@cs.yale.edu>, horne...@cs.yale.edu
> (Scott Horne) writes:

>> Both parties? Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party--
>> with two right wings.

>An American friend of mine wrote that in America, conservatives are
>called 'liberals' and reactionaries are called 'conservatives'. The
>opinion of another American friend of mine is that the Democrats are
>totally useless since they are trying so hard to prove to the electorate
>that they are just as conservative as the Republicans.

They aren't even good at that. They'll never get anywhere until they convince
the public that they aren't owned by every special interest group
between here and Washington, DC.


--
----------------------------------------------------------- Ron Dippold ----
It ain't loafing unless they can prove it. -- Dick Brown

John Costello

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 4:29:38 AM10/22/91
to
In article <1991Oct22.0...@cs.yale.edu> horne...@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:
>In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:
><horne...@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:
><
><>(I'm dropping `alt.tv.muppets' from the distribution of this article and
><>encourage others to do the same.)
><
><Thanks; I hadn't noticed that a muppets group was in the distribution (?!).
>
>Some fool put it there to stir up flames.

No, this fool put it there while comparing Danny-boy to a muppet, as well as
declaring (on soc.culture.usa) that one of the contributions of US culture is
Jim Henson's Muppets.
The other fools neglected to take it out of the header.

><I've been getting hate mail from muppets fans, if you can believe such a
><thing.
>
>Anyone who'd call himself a Muppets fan can be safely ignored. :-)

May you be haunted by Fozzi Bear's humor!!! :-)

><>Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party--
><>with two right wings.
><
><Yes, how clever of our politicians. At the same time that they can sneer
><at other countries for their one-party systems, they can offer U.S.
><voters the illusion of choice that really isn't one.
>
>Educators call it controlling the options. It's a good way to get what one
>wants while leaving others with the satisfaction that they made the decision.

Sounds like some religions, but I should keep that to the alt.* and soc.* groups
which deal with religion.

> --Scott
>
>--
>Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
>ho...@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520

Cos

How to tell if you need to change your lifestyle:
1. The jars of jelly at the supermarket start talking to you.
2. Your teeth itch.
3. You spend all your waking hours in front of a computer terminal, not even
taking a few minutes to go outside and enjoy the weather. (last one applies
to me.)

Kent Williams

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 8:00:44 AM10/22/91
to
From article <rdippold.688068796@cancun>, by rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold):
>>> Both parties? Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party--
>>> with two right wings.
>

Well people, I think you may see that this isn't the case. I live in
Iowa, and just saw Tom Harkin speak. I don't know if he's got a chance
at being President, but he will sure as hell make George Bush feel sorry
he ever baited liberals.

>
> They aren't even good at that. They'll never get anywhere until they
> convince the public that they aren't owned by every special interest group
> between here and Washington, DC.
>

Ah, Conservative Pigshit Myth #238 -- a fine vintage, a little strong in
the nose. The democrats should be proud to be owned by the special interests
that they serve:

1. Unions. The height of Republican language twisting. How in God's name
have they been able to make unions, TO WHICH WORKING PEOPLE BELONG, a
bugaboo? Unions represent people.

2. Women's Rights Groups. Half the population potentially here! To
say that they "don't represent the views of most women" doesn't make
it so. On any significant issue, (abortion, equal rights amendment,
prenatal care, increased medical research in women, etc. etc.) polls
will show that they DO represent the values of most american women.

3. Minorities. The democrats have fought a losing rear-guard action to
preserve the gains made by minorities in the 60's and 70's, whereas
the republicans have been systematically chipping away at them. Sure,
there are conservative black, hispanic and asian people, but if they
really thought about how voting republican affects the life chances of
their people, they'd be nuts to do so.

So we have women, working people, and minorities. Who's left?
SUPRISE: The people who own and run American business. The people
who give the republican party all the money they use to warp people's
perceptions by the cynical, calculated abuse of language.

Republican Pigshit myth #239: An august vintage, perhaps a little past
its prime: Democrats are anti-business. Democrats aren't
anti-business, they want a strong economy as much as the republicans.
The difference is that they aren't willing to run the country as a
private franchise for rich people. How is it that people will give
any credence to the idea that we can't have a government that cares
about the people who live here, and promotes economic development at
the same time? They are really two sides of the same coing.

I realize that I haven't mentioned Dan Quayle here once. He was in
West Branch yesterday, and said that 'Iowa wasn't hit as hard by this
recession as the last one.' Just as though a) he had any inkling what
was going on here, and b) the state of Iowa had anything left to
'recess' after the farm crisis of the 80's. What a moroon!
--
Kent Williams --- will...@cs.uiowa.edu
"Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it" - P.K. Dick

James Davis Nicoll

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 11:34:43 AM10/22/91
to
In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM> er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:
>
>jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>
>> It's an old tradition to have a running mate who appears so terrible
>>(Agnew) or incompetant (Taft) that possible assassins are deterred from wacking
>>the president.
>
>> No, I have no idea how Taft got elected President. Sunspots, maybe.
>>Anyway, he wasn't as bad as Exorcist II.
>
>Say what? Taft was never the Veep, nor anyone's running mate. He got elected
>President because he was Teddy Roosevelt's hand-picked successor. Then he
>followed such an independent course after election that Teddy returned and
>ran against him four years later (remember the Bull Moose Party, one of the
>great names in American political history?), thereby splitting the Republican
>vote and allowing Wilson to be elected.
>
>Say, maybe THAT'S how the Democrats could win an elction in 2000. :-)

No idea *why* I thought Taft was Roosevelt's veep, but it was
Charles Fairbanks, about whom I know nothing.

James Nicoll

Ron Dippold

unread,
Oct 22, 1991, 2:47:29 PM10/22/91
to
fs_f...@rcsw43.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:
>James Nicoll wrote:

>> Not that I admire Bush, but you're using 'fascist' in such a way
>> as to render it useless for anything other than another word for
>> 'bad'.

>Unless one makes a complete treatise about 'fascist - fascism' it has
>to be used as another word for 'bad' (its even worse).

I imagine most people agree that fascism -> bad. You seem to be
implying that bad -> fascism by your usage.
--
In Germany the fascists goose-stepped. In America they jog.

Andrew T. Robinson

unread,
Oct 24, 1991, 7:03:23 AM10/24/91
to
George Bush is not a facist, and claiming that he is only trivializes
the term (a point that was previously raised). If you want to talk
about a presidency which more closely approximated (but still did NOT
achieve) facism, study LBJ.

Andy

Bertil Jonell

unread,
Oct 24, 1991, 9:21:30 AM10/24/91
to
In article <1991Oct18.1...@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>In article <19...@hacgate.UUCP> tac...@ipld01.hac.com (Walter Alden Tackett) writes:
>>And like many of the best jokes, largely true. In america, we have the freedom
>>of choosing between fascism and impotence, and seem to prefer fascism.
>
> Not that I admire Bush, but you're using 'fascist' in such a way
>as to render it useless for anything other than another word for 'bad'.

I think J D Nicoll have put his finger on something that applies to a lot of
Americans (US-ians).

That is the belief that anything in the US is 'amplified' in every way
compared to non-US things. I know that 'amplified' isn't the correct word, I
actually doubt that a correct word exists so I'll provide examples.

General:
If something is bad in the US, it must be the worst in the world.

If something is good in the US, it must be the best in the world.

Presidents:
If a president is bad, he is either a worse commie than Stalin or a worse
fascist than Hitler. Realworld examples would be the rightwing hostility to
Kennedy and the belief voiced from the leftwing during Desert Storm that
George Bush was the worst mass-murderer of all time, Genghis Khan, Hitler and
Stalin included.

If a president is good, he should be canonized at the spot. Realworld examples
would be the theories that if Kennedy hadn't been shot, everything would be
perfect in the world today, and the rightwing view that Ronald Reagan
singlehandedly saved the nation.

Democracy:
If the democracy in the US isn't perfect then the US is the worst opressive
government of all time, and the SU during Stalins purges is a paragon of
liberty in comparision.

If the democracy in the US is seen as perfect on the other hand, that is
interpreted as meaning that the US is the *only* truly free and democratic on
Earth and that all other countries are various shades of dictatorships.

War:
If the US is involved in one doubtful war, the US is the most agressive
nation ever. It is seen as singly responsible, directly or through covert
actions, for every war in the world, and if it stopped there would be peace
on Earth.

If the US is involved in one 'rightful' war, it has ssinglehandedly saved
the world and every other nation should be eternally grateful that the US
deigns to venture outside the western hemisphere.


Does anyone have any idea why this is so? Isn't there any americans out there
who for example look at the CIA as something other than either the bulwark
against communism and the holy defenders of the free world or as a criminal
gang of drug-smugglers who's only interest is toppling democratically
elected governments all over the world to pave the way for US corporations to
suck the countries dry?

-bertil-
--
'Det a"r oo"versa"ttbart...'

Richard Griffiths

unread,
Oct 23, 1991, 11:19:59 AM10/23/91
to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While chanting "Read my hips!"

--
Richard A. Griffiths ...uunet!ingr!b11!xanth!richard (UUCP)
Intergraph Corp. ric...@b11.ingr.com (Internet)
"Cynical optimism - a philosophical palindrome".

Mark Diamond

unread,
Oct 23, 1991, 2:56:28 PM10/23/91
to
In article <95...@cs.tulane.edu> lw2...@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (peter lavallee)
writes:
>
>What's wrong with you people? There are more appropriate newsgroups
>for political diatribes. Where's the Quayle humor/bashing/admiration?
>
>pjl
>--
>Peter J. Lavallee : "Wake up and smell the collective
>lw2...@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu : coffee, if you know what I'm saying."

OK, here's something I posted elsewhere that closer fits the charter of this
NG...

)I rented the Doors movie last night. I had to laugh when I saw the
)ad where a girl dives off the diving board into an empty pool while
)the narrator says something like "you don't know what you're diving into
)with drugs". Pretty good ad placement, eh?
)
)How about use the same ad, but replace "drugs" with "Bush" and then show
)a history of the WoD and choose one of the following endings...
)
)1) Drug war ends when druggies storm white house and inject Pres with
) 100mg LSD 25 and open his doors of perception leading the Pres to
) declare a truce, rescind all ass-backward legislation on civil
) rights and legalize all drugs.
) (that's right, milligrams - tough to break through CIA programming ;-)
)
)2) Bush and Noriega secretly patch things up and decide to go into business
) together upon completion of term while George pushes legislation
) through senate legalizing all drugs.
)
)3) Try your own ;-)
)
)I'll post any good endings and accept votes for the best one.


Here's an ending I received via email...

)>How about use the same ad, but replace "drugs" with "Bush" and then show
)>a history of the WoD and choose one of the following endings...
)
)...Barbra's Bush has a yeast infection and is covered with white
)slimey pus, and George has to take mind altering drugs to convince
)himself that he wants his tongue down there.

)CARASSO

Hagame uno mas! Esos son muy cool!

unread,
Oct 25, 1991, 6:47:39 PM10/25/91
to

In article <59...@chalmers.se> d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:

[some attributes and prefatory info deleted]

> I think J D Nicoll have put his finger on something that applies to a lot of
>Americans (US-ians).

> That is the belief that anything in the US is 'amplified' in every way
>compared to non-US things. I know that 'amplified' isn't the correct word, I
>actually doubt that a correct word exists so I'll provide examples.

And it goes on . . .

Its not that your points aren't valid, but this has nothing to do with
Quayle. You don't think George Bush is a Fascist. Someone else does.
But everyone agrees that Dan Quayle is a buffoon. So please quit sending
this drivel to alt.fan.dan-quayle.

--
// ---<--@ -Echo
\X/ The Potato-Salad-Eatin' Fool.
INTERNET: ec...@cats.ucsc.edu AT&T: (408) 427-9814 home
or try: ri...@metaware.com (408) 429-6382 x3086 work

"Why do I try to kill you?"
"'Cause you're a big, black, furry creature from Mars . . ."

Phantom

unread,
Oct 27, 1991, 1:25:16 AM10/27/91
to
I hope you're all readin' Doonsebury.

NU12...@ndsuvm1.bitnet

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 12:18:01 PM10/29/91
to
I believe that the term for what you describe is "nationalism," under the
influence of which I could confidently proclaim, "Dan Quayle's an American,
so he's the best vice-president in the world!" And the government says that
drugs are dangerous?
Steve Petersen
NU126863@NDSUVM1
**************************
* I hate ALL extremists. *
**************************

eric smith

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 2:47:12 PM10/29/91
to

horne...@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:

>In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:

><[Taft] followed such an independent course after election that Teddy returned


><and ran against him four years later (remember the Bull Moose Party, one of
><the great names in American political history?), thereby splitting the
><Republican vote and allowing Wilson to be elected.
><
><Say, maybe THAT'S how the Democrats could win an elction in 2000. :-)

>Good idea. We need to create an offshoot of the Democratic Party.
>`Bull Moose' has a nice ring to it, but it's already taken. How about
>`Bull Donkey'? Or just `Jackass'?

No, I was thinking of an offshoot for the *Republican* party, to split
the Republican vote for the Democrats. I vote for the "Long Dong Party",
but if Quayle is the nominee they could resurrect the Know-Nothing Party.

Huggy Bear

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 7:00:56 PM10/30/91
to
In article <1991Oct22.0...@cs.yale.edu> horne...@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes:

>In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:
><
><Say what? Taft was never the Veep, nor anyone's running mate. He got elected
><President because he was Teddy Roosevelt's hand-picked successor. Then he

Taft was Roosevelt's VP.

Huggy Bear

unread,
Nov 2, 1991, 10:59:53 PM11/2/91
to

ref: bertil jones "everything about the USA is 'amplified'."

It's not only americans who amplify what happens in the usa.
EVERYBODY does it.

Bertil Jonell

unread,
Nov 5, 1991, 3:33:07 AM11/5/91
to
In article <91302.1118...@NDSUVM1.BITNET> NU12...@NDSUVM1.BITNET writes:
>I believe that the term for what you describe is "nationalism,"

While I can agree that a inflated positive view of the own country can be
described as nationalism, the same doesn't hold for an inflated negative view.

(However, I do think that both cases comes from an inflated view of the
own countrys importance. The think it is so important that everything, good or
bad, that happens in the world must be because of US actions or inactions).

I expect that many of the holders of those negative views would be either
amused or insulted of somebody called them "nationalists".

> Steve Petersen

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."

Mary Lu Wason

unread,
Nov 5, 1991, 11:16:41 AM11/5/91
to

Future posters to this thread, please omit
alt.fan.dan-quayle group!

(You guys are too boring.)

--

Mary Lu Wason
m...@elvislu.soac.bellcore.com

DAVID GENE HUMPHREY

unread,
Nov 5, 1991, 9:42:57 PM11/5/91
to
Will you guys take this crap somewhere else?!

Thanx

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages