From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:37:42 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Jan25.173837.26527@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.185610.21631@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>> Yep.  Wanna make a list of which ones he has said that about?

>How about his promise to introduce certain legislation on his first day as
>president?  That promise is already broken.

Yes, if you really want to reach, you can claim that as a 'broken
promise', although I would expect anyone with any sense to take the
original statements as rhetorical excess used to indicate priorities.
However, in the strictest sense, you can indeed call those 'lies'.
Would you care to list them, so we can see if they are a) things we
want anyway, and b) broken, or merely late?

>> Yes, and it helps that the Bush Administration 'discovered' tens of
>> billions of dollars that they somehow managed to 'miss' mentioning
>> before, too.

>tens of billions turns out to be a small percentage of what the "known"
>numbers were.

You should, as I did with a prior statement like this, follow this
with a parenthetical remark starting with "Actually, ", since your
statement is not exactly correct with normal usage of "small
percentage". 

>> >He is already talking about middle-class tax increases.  
>> 
>> He is, or other people are?

>His cabinet is.  If they are so inclined to change his promises, he either
>showed bad judgement in picking them or he directed them to say these
>things so he wouldn't have to.  The "Captain" is responsible for the
>actions of his subordinates.

Can you say "trial balloon"?  No, I didn't think so.  When one of
those subordinates ENACTS tax increases, why, you get back to me. 

>> You know, I keep looking at all these examples various conservatives
>> hunt up about Bill Clinton's 'lies' and 'waffling', and you know what
>> I find?  I find that they either weren't listening the first time
>> around or are misinterpreting now.

>Actually, I think the term "Slick Willie" comes from his ability to talk
>without actually making promises, though they sound like promises, and
>later do what the people thought he said he wouldn't do.  He technically
>hasn't broken a promise, because he never promised.  Yet people elect him
>on these "promises."  Either he should be held accountable for these
>"promises" or the people should not be so stupid as to take them as
>promises.

I think you should look into the origin of the name 'Slick Willy',
which was coined by someone who has opposed him politically since he
first entered politics.  Just the sort of 'unbiased' source that
someone like you would no doubt prefer to use.

>> >> Because I prefer to wait until they DO it before I claim they've done
>> >> it, Jim.  It's called 'reality', as opposed to seeing things based on
>> >> rhetoric the way you do.
>> >
>> >	Hey Fred, you voted for him based on "rhetoric", and now the same
>> >rhetoric (that Clinton himself provides) isn't good enough?
>> 
>> No, I voted for him based on RECORD.  I will judge his performance
>> using that same criterion.

>And I voted against him based on his record of making what the people take
>as promises, and doing what he says he won't do, or not doing what he said
>he will do because "He never actually promised it."  For example, the last
>election in Arkansas, the newcasters interviewed him asking why the people
>should vote for him when he lies.  He responded with "I never actually
>promised those things."  When they asked if he would promise NOT to ever
>run for president if they re-elected him, he said something to the effect:
>"I do not want to run for President.  All I have ever wanted to do is serve
>the people of Arkansas."  Less than one year after being re-elected for
>Governor of Arkansas, he announced his bid for President.  He lies!!!  Now
>he will claim that he didn't actually promise not to run for president, but
>he effectively did promise not to.

This is the first DECENT point you've made, Michael.  Pity you're so
thick that it took you this long to do it.  Of course, Perot didn't
want to be President, either.  He said so.  Sure spent a lot of money
on something he didn't want, didn't he?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics