From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:53:17 GMT
 <1992Aug14.154234.25597@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug14.154234.25597@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:

> In article <Ee2vr*3P0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > > Such as . . .?
> > 
> > 1.  The VP has to pass a litmus test on abortion.  He MUST support abortions in
> >     all cases.  That is why Gore was chosen instead of Hamilton (Willie's first
> >     choice.)  Hamilton said publicly that the Pennsylvania law was reasonable.
> >     So, he was out.
>  
> How is that any different than the Repubs?  Any Republican VP essentially
> has to be pro-life.

I have never heard the President say that.

> > 
> > 2.  He wants to raise taxes on the "rich" (actually the middle class.)
> > 
>  
> What is your evidence for that?

He said so many times.

> > 3.  He favors DC statehood.  (i.e. 2 more liberal Senators.)
>  
> Whether or not the people of DC deserve to have representation in Congress
> should be decided apart from the political tendencies of those citizens.
> Don't you think it's a little sleazy to figure out how a group is going
> to vote, and then decide whether or not you want to franchise them with
> basic rights that all Americans should have?

That is what the Democrats have done.  They want the votes.  DC was never
intended to be equivalent to a state.

> > 6.  He says he is going to "build infrastructure."  Translation:  tax more and
> >     spend much more than is taxed.
> > 
>  
> Again, how is that any different from Bush?  Don't you feel a little
> silly complaining about how Clinton might spend when Bush has increased
> domestic spending faster than any president since Johnson.

Not Bush, CONGRESS!  ALL spending bills must originate in the House.


> > 7.  He wants to rape the national defense in order to pay for more social programs.
> > 
>  
> In case you haven't noticed, the world has changed.  Do you really think
> we need to continue our massive welfare-for-defense contractor program,
> given that our primary enemy has fallen apart.

There are other enemies (and potential enemies) out there.  Also, if Jesse and
friends get their way, we may need the military to put down riots here.

> > 8.  He thinks the solution to the LA riots is to buy off the rioters with more
> >     of our tax dollars.
>  
> President Bush proposed the same thing!  

He was wrong.  However, Clinton wants to do much more of it.

> > 12.  He was against Desert Storm (at least until the public overwhelmingly
> >      supported it.)
> > 
>  
> So was Buchannan.  Does that make Buchannan a bleeding liberal?  Better

Buchanan was an exception.  Most of the liberal Democrats were adamantly against
Desert Storm.

> be careful on this on by the way.  It's becoming more and more clear
> that we didn't accomplish much.  Iraq is building up again and has 

Kuwait is free again.  I think that is a great accomplishment.

> just recently stated that they still own Kuwait and it's just a matter of
> time before they re-take it.  How many times are we going to go around

Saddam has said many things that are wrong.  I don't think he will be allowed
to do it again.

> the world to re-establish the Kuwaiti monarchy? 

Yeah, right.  You think that we should have let Hussein grab all the mideast
oil for himself (and enslave the peoples there), while we sit here self-
righteously spouting nonsense about how we can't police the world.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics