From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:52:47 GMT

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>I am sick to death of the Republicans using the non-issue of "family values"
>to distract the voters from the real issues.

>I am sick to death of the lies distortions and half-truths being spewed from
>Bush and his lap-dogs. Even when they are caught red-handed, they continue
>to use them (Phyllis Schlafly on nightline is a great example).

And I am sick to death of people only seeing what they want to see and
tuning all else out.  I can agree with you that campaign rhetoric is 
exagerated, libelous, and unfair.  I wouldn't even attempt to defend
some of the statements coming from the Republican campaign.  What really
galls me, though, is the "selective indignation" (just learned that...)
from the Democrats.  They complain about lies from the Republicans and 
go on lying themselves.  

>Examples:

>Bill Clinton's 128 tax increases. Distortion. Refuted numerous places.

   The Republican party is only interested in the rich.  Does this sound like 
a true statement, or just campaign rhetoric?   
   Bush is incompetent on foriegn policy because he followed UN mandates, 
and Arab wishes, and did not invade Iraq.  Can liberals get any more 
two-faced on this issue?  They would just as soon be criticizing Bush right 
now for having gone against the UN, being a "cowboy" by invading Iraq.  

>Hilary Clinton believes children should be able to sue their parents for
>limiting their nintendo playing (and other absurd things). Distortion, read
>her paper.

   The Republicans don't *really* believe in family values because they
voted against the bill to allow paid maternity and emergency leave.
   The Republicans are against single parent families.  
   The Republicans want to round up all gays and throw them in jail.  
   Am I getting through to you?  All of this is a tremendous simplification 
of a complex problem, an exageration, or an outright lie.  And I would 
not even be bringing it up if not for the Democrats' constant blathering 
that the Republicans are the only ones playing nasty.

   And you forgot one:  The Democrats don't believe in "family values".


Now on to health care:

>Why not choose a state and try NHC out, fine tune it over a few years, expand
>it to a whole region, fine tune it again, get the Canadians to consult.
>Let's start it up and see why it don't run.

This is a very good idea.  I've never heard it before, but it is
reasonable.  Why not leave it in the hands of the states?  Most of them
*have* to balance their budgets and therefor the health care could not
be deficit funded, as it will be if it is a federal program.

>What
>are the republicans so afraid of? It certainly is not the only government-
>run industry in the country (police, fire, roads, defense, etc). Some things are just
>not amenable to free-market design. Do we really want police protection to
>be free-market? If this happened, rich areas would be heavily policed and poor
>areas would become war zones.

I'll tell you exactly what *I'm* afraid of.  I'm afraid of a program
like FDR's Social Security.  You mentioned that he tried some new
things, not knowing how they'd work out.  Well look at it.  It is the
monster that will not die.  It just keeps getting bigger and bigger and
no politician will touch it with a ten foot pole.  It is the entitlement
that will bring down our economy if nothing is done about it--and nobody
can do anything about it.  I'm afraid that if Clinton gets in, we'll
have NHC and *never* be able to get rid of it if it doesn't work.  It
will be an albatrose around our necks.  You can't just try something
like this--if you start it, it will never die.  It will be one more
thing that people will grow to depend on from their government.  One
more thing that people cannot do for themselves.  One more thing to foil
ever balancing our budget.

>The fact of the matter is that we the voters need not depend on anyone's
>rhetoric to make our decision (not even mine :-) ). Clinton and Bush have
>records to be examined. Voting is more than watching a few sound bites,
>listening to a few speeches, listening to a few media analyses and pulling
>a lever. Responsible voting requires us to check the records of these men
>and to demand detailed statements of their plans before making our decision.
>Don't be a sheep or a random number generator, do some research and vote
>responsibly.

Amen.
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3795 alt.politics.bush:3828