From: williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Barry Goldwater
Date: 23 Aug 92 02:17:16 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore County

In a previous article, lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) wrote:
>In article <1992Aug10.084205.10505@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Aug8.131224.22830@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>>> i'm glad that it is (too late). i think the choice issue is the
>>> sigle-most important factor which will swing the election to the
>>> democrats.
>>
>>I think the most important factor in the election is Bush's (mis)handling
>>of the economy.  In the last 3 years, real GDP has grown only .8%, the slowst
> 
>	Very few of Pres. Bush's economic programmes got past a Democratic
>congress, contrary to what the media believes and reports.  It is
>unconstitutional for the president to emposs any domestic programme without
>the consent of Congress.

   Bush's economic programs???  What economic programs?  The *only* economic
   policy that Bush has promoted is a capital gains tax reduction.  He has had
   a capital gains tax break included twice in packages:  this year by Senator
   Bentsen in the Senate finance bill which was vetoed for political reasons
   (because it included provisions Bush didn't want) and two years ago when 
   his good buddy, golfing pal and likewise leech, Dan Rostenkowski, tried to 
   pass one again w/ provisions that he wouldn't accept.  If the president
   can't get a bill passed w/ bipartisan support because he is unable to line
   up enough support for it then it is a pretty good assumption that he can't
   convince the country that it is good policy.  
>>
>>The real key to the abortion debate (at least on the national level) is that
>>the side ("pro-choice" or "pro-life") that is associated with the party that
>>can best handle the economy is the side that will control the abprtion debate.
>>Most of Reagan's support was because of economic issues, not the abortion 
>>issue.  Likewise, most of Clinton's support comes from economic concerns (or
>>concerns over Bush's economic bumbling), not his pro-choice stand.
>			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	Again you are incorrect.  A demo congress and pres WILL spell the
>end of America.  We will become a state of government controls on
>everything.  Boy, sounds a lot like communism (pure Marxism, not the Soviet
>crap).
> 
>	Personally, I do not feel that abortion will be outlawed.  The
>issue is not choice, because even if abortion were illegal, women would
>still have a choice!  We all have choice.  Even in dictatorships, there is
>a degree of choice that everyone has.  We are just more free to make more
>choices.  If we chose to do something illegal, it is still our choice.  The
>"titles" for the two sides of the abortion issue should be any of the
>following:
> 
>	Pro-Abortion/Pro-Life
>	Pro-Abortion/Anti-Abortion
>	Anti-Life/Pro-Life
>	Anti-Life/Anti-Abortion
> 
>	And any other combinations I have forgotten.  But not pro-choice,
>not pro-/anti-abortion rights.  We will always have choice, and it is not
>our right.
> 
>>
>>Of course the media will portray Clinton's victory as a great ideological
>				  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>	He will not win.  He wants to raise taxes way too much.  His record
>sucks.  Gore's environmental record is so bad, that Tennessee is the third
>worst state for water and air pollution.
> 
>Bryon Lape
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Is your laundry phosphate free?  Help stop global pollution.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------