From: h2n5451@sigma.tamu.edu (NOBOA, HOMERO L.)
Subject: Re: Latin Americans for Clinton?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:47:00 GMT

In article <16199@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez007856@hamlet.ucdavis.edu writes...
>In <1992Aug18.161727.13162@afit.af.mil> David L Sonnier writes:
>[stuff deleted]
> 
>>>1.-Continue with the embargo against the Cuban dictatorship and assure that
>>>communism really comes to an end in the world.
> 
>>Is this a joke?  After all the Democrats have done in the last 30 years
>>to insure the survival of communist tyranny?  This is the same party
>>that sat on the sidelines and jeered at those of us who dared to
>>confront communist expansion in the world, particularly in Latin
>>America.  So now you're going to reward them.
> 
>Now, lets be reasonable. Not al Democrats are "liberals", take for instance 
>the current policy towards Cuba.  It was concieved and put in place by non 
>other than our good old President Kennedy after showing his ambivalence (really 
>not his fault but the CIA's) with the Bay of Pigs invasion.
> 
>>>2.-Grant hatians a right to assylum and restore democracy in Haiti with the
>>>help of the 7th fleet (to be used later in Cuba).
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>>Just because Field Marshall Wilhelm von Clinton deployed the Arkansas
>>national guard doesn't mean he is in the least bit qualified to be the
>>mmander in chief.  (What was that for, anyway?  To quell an uprising
>>in Little Rock?)  His comments to date about the application of military
>>force reveal him to be dangerously incompentent in this regard.  Of
>>course, what would y expect from a draft-dodger, who has never had to
>>consider the personal price paid for foolish decisions by an incompetent
>>commander in chief.
> 
>Again lets, be reasonable.  Mr. Quayle, another draft dodger is a step away 
>fromthe presidency and Mr. Bush feels perfectly happy with his choice.  
>Furthermore Field Marshall Ronald Reagan had no military experience other than 
>leading the National Guard in sunny California.  Perhaps thats why he got us 
>into Lebanon.  In any event, no republican think Reagan did a bad job in 
>foreign policy. Furthermore, Mr. Bush seems to be weak in military matters.  
>For example he let the Serbian gestapo initiate a new holocaust instead of 
>acting agressively from the begining, simply becasue we have no strategic 
>intersts in Bosnia (a la Tibet) as we did in Kuwait. Result: the destablization 
>of the Balkans, what got us precisely into the "great" war. 
> 
>>
>>You left one out.
> 
>>5.  Increase government spending so that by 1996 the federal debt is
>>$25,000,000,000,000.00 instead of just $4,000,000,000,000.00.
> 
>>Congress (Check bouncers, middle-of-the-night-pay-raises, etc.) spends
>>money, not the president.  Congress opposed President Bush's balanced
>>budget amendment, as well as every other attempt to reduce federal
>>spending.  And congress is controlled by Democrats.  They can't wait
>>to get their hands on a president who will go along with their tax-and-
>>spend philosophy of solving problems with "programs" instead of through
>>encouraging free enterprise.
> 
>Your 100% right about the crooks (of both parties) in Congress, but Mr. Bushes 
>own budget proposals have never been balanced.  And his agencies are the #1 
>spenders in the nation.  And I wonder, which administrations are the ones who 
>got us into debt anyway: Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Roosevelt?  So perhaps 
>instead of having a cold war military wich wants billions for building first 
>strike strategic bombers but can't fight anything on the ground (i.e., Bosnia) 
>we should streamline defense and put the money where its needed: deficit 
>reduction. 
> 
>Edelmiro Salas
I think you should move to talk.politics or other group like that, 
since this crossposting is evident.

Homero