From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:31:08 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Sep12.004244.8946@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.145259.11010@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>Take, for example, Gore's book EITB. 
>>
>>o  He believes population growth for others while he simultaneously 
>>   extolls the virtues his own large family (page 307).

I guess I win this point.

>>o  He admits that he is a Washington insider who has been trained to
>>   customize his views to what he believes the people want to hear
>>   (page 9, 13, 15)
>
>	Please excuse the cynicism, but how else do you expect a politician
>to get elected nowadays?  I was heavily involved in a city council ...

Sorry about what happened to your Mom not getting elected.  I agree with
you about the state of politics.  Perhaps this is the historical norm
but I hope that there are a few statesmen, such as our Founders, left
out there.  The problem is getting them elected.
>
>>o  He equates the Holocaust with the failure to recycle aluminum.
>>   (page 177-178, 275).
>
>	Pardon me, but have you ever heard of an _analogy_?  He isn't
>saying "If you don't recycle Al. all the Jews will die".  Good grief
>I think you're taking the man a bit to literally.  What he may well be
>saying, though, is that if we don't recycle at all we ALL will die.
>(and don't give me any of this "we all die eventually" crap, I know
>that) I'm talking about the extinction of all higher life forms from
>this planet.

It is a poor analogy (IMO).  If he really finds this to be a good analogy
then I tend to believe him to be more extreme than I originally thought.

Besides, I am not convinced that recycling pollutes less than obtaining the
raw material in the first place.
>>
>>o  He is a Luddite, he believes that technology is evil and that 
>>   we should get rid of automobiles (page 206, 318)
>
>	In the ideal sense, yes he believes that getting rid of cars
>would help cure out trashing of the environment.  However, I'm sure he
>is fully aware of the fact that this is not feasible in the 20th
>century.  Be realistic here people.

Is he really?  I am being realistic, I even mentioned realistic page 
numbers that can be referenced :)
>
>>The list goes on.  If Quayle had stated these things we would certainly
>>be exposed to more gratuitous bashing that has left most of us numb
>>to the intended effects (to hate Quayle).
>
>	ANYONE who made the comments as your did would "be exposed to
>more gratuitous bashing", I have no doubt.  However, Gore said these
>things in the context of the BEST way to help repair what we've done
>to the Earth.  I'm sure that even you "BIG BUSINESS ALL THE WAY"
>conservatives will agree that the BEST (not most realistic or more
>possible) way to clean up the environment is to stop using poluting
>machines.  See above.

Wrong, the best way to clean up the environment is to wipeout mankind.

Seriously, no reasonable is for pollution but there is a difference 
between the conservative and liberal approaches and neither approach
is faultless.  I'm simply suspicious that Gore has sided with what
I consider to be an extreme viewpoint.  This viewpoint has decided,
often without valid scientific backing, that we are on the verge
of killing the planet.  Their goal is to restructure society in the
form which they have been unable to achieve through honorable means,
such as elections. 

The removal of private property is the ultimate goal by making the
purchasing/use of real estate troublesome, outlawing the American
lifestyle (cars, etc), and the transfer of wealth (green taxes).

If there was conclusive evidence then Gore would have a leg to stand on.
>
>> [John Locke stuff deleted]
>>of the Enlightenment's greatest thinkers.  His philosophies of individual
>>rights etc. are one of the primary foundations of our government and
>>are nearly totally in contrast to the concept of big government and 
>>group rights (Dems).
>
>	Hold on a second.  Who is it that wants to limit a woman's
>right to her own body?

Problematical because the humanity versus "unviable tissue mass" debate 
over the unborn will never be solved.

>Who is it that put a clamp on the mouths of clinic employees?

That has nothing to do with individual rights, it is simply a limit on
the federal power which _is_ in line with the Founders.

>Who is it that wants so badly to stop people from using
>drugs that they declared "war" on drugs?  Most drug use is a
>victimless, harmless activity.

I have _very_ conservative friends who believe as you do.  I happen to 
think that you have a good point but that drugs should be illegal because
they do have a detrimental effect on society. 

Is it really victimless when my money is used to capture/jail/rehabilitate 
the abusers?  My property, in the form of money, is used for this purpose
and thus I am injured.

>If someone wants to get high in his
>house - FINE!  Just don't get on the road and drive.  Do what you
>want to yourself, just don't hurt anyone else.

And when their hooked on crack and are totally useless then don't come
crawling to me, RIGHTS ENTAIL DUTIES sir.

PS. What about getting high in front of their kids?

>>I'll try to get over it.
>
>	You've got a long way to go.

That was directed at John Locke, not you.

Mike Best