From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:45:26 GMT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

>pcc@s1.gov (Philip C. Cox) write:

[Regarding my comments on Clinton and Quayle's "draft dodging":]
>
>A gret record for commander & cheif, or does calling out the national
>guard 2 times suffice as experience to you?

First of all, let's let Clinton BE commander-in-cheif before you analyze
his record as commander-in-cheif. As far as any past experiance for the
position of "commander-in-cheif", I don't see how Clinton is any less
qualified than any other past president who had similar past experiances
as Clinton.

And as much as you conservatives try to be-little it, being commander of
a state's National Guard for 12 years (yes, during which time he had to
call it out at least twice) is no small experiance which means nothing.

[regarding my comments about Clinton's balanced state budgets and so-called
"128 raised taxes":]
>He has already told us he would raise taxes, where have you been?

Umm, I've been right here. I never denied the fact that Clinton's proposed
economic plan did NOT call for raised taxes, but the conservatives like to
generalize the issue by simple calling it "raise taxes" and not saying WHICH
taxes. And then, when the conservatives DO mention some specific middle class
tax increases, they are blowing steam since their comments are mere speculation
and are not based on hard facts or other comments in Clinton's plan. The
truth is that the ONLY PERSONAL tax increase proposed by Clinton is an increase
in income tax for those person's making more than $200,000 a year. And one
could consider this not an increase but a rollback to where they used to be
before Reagan lowered them and raised them on the lower and middle class.

[regarding my ignoring what Gennifer Flowers had to say:]
>Then I suppose you supported Clarence Thomas also? Or does proof only
>apply to the libewral side of the house?

No, not really. I thought Anita Hill was telling the truth and she also
had witnesses. Flowers had no witnesses, only an audio tape that revealed
nothing especially incriminating and was shown to have been tampered with
anyway. But one must consider, there was no PROOF in either case, it is all
a matter of belief.

>|> On the contrary, every vote for Clinton is an intelligent choice.
>
>How true, an Intelligent choice for class envy, higher taxes,
>socialism,
>lower quality healthcare, and larger government. 

Huh? Either you haven't been listening or you are beleiving the lies and
innuendo of the RNC. Clinton is not for higher taxes across the board, only
for tax equity by the super rich, he is not for socialism, where in the
heck did you come up with that? He is not for lower quality health care,
he is for guarenteed health care for all who need it, and the term "larger
government" can also be equated to many of Bush's ideals.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion