From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:32:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <84843@bcsaic.boeing.com>, lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes...
>In article <10OCT199216483909@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes...

>: Bill-Clinton is being offered up as a leader. Where is the evidence?

>: He didn't lead on the battlefield, and now I'm being told he didn't lead
>: in the peace-movement. So where is the evidence to back up Brave-Bill's
>: dedication to the cause he supposedly felt strongly about? 
> 
>His leadership credentials are no different than those of
>Ronald Reagan, who spent WW2 making movies.  Where's your
>outrage where he's concerned?

History will condemn Reagan as a fool. 
Sounds like Clinton is no better.

>: >>While others such as Sam Johnson and Jim Stockdale were rotting in POW
>: >>camps -- BRAVE BILL CLINTON was (at least) on a merry Christmas tour in 
                                      ^^^^^^^^ 
>: >>the heart of communism. At most, BRAVE BILL was planning out his presi-
                             ^^^^^^^
>: >>dential career 20 years later as a fellow-traveler in the communist 
>: >>enlightenment, and the ultimate mole.

>You cannot call someone a "fellow traveler in the communist world"
>with absolutely no evidence and be innocent of slander.

I didn't. Even if I assume the "least" case (ie. the most innocuous
explanation offered of his actions are true) -- they offer nothing 
which commends him. 

>: Moreover, there is nothing in all this that presents Brave-Bill Clinton 
>: as a leader. He avoided the draft then -- played a minor roll in the
>: protest (if his supporters are to be believed) -- and is avoiding the
>: question of foreign influence now. He also is avoiding dealing with the 
>: Federal Debt.
> 
>He has stated his position on the debt quite clearly: he has a
>plan which conceivably (but not very likely) would reduce the
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>deficit substantially, but he freely admits that he is less
>concerned about that than about jobs and economic growth.  

You said it. 

Putting off dealing with the *Debt*, makes interest into an automatic
tax increase. Bad enough that the social security surplus is being used
to buy government bonds to fund more borrowing, but avoiding debt
reduction is like paying taxes plus interest-on-taxes which are doubling
i n just 6-10 years. 

Every delay digs the edge of the crevice closer, and hastens the death 
of our nation. 

>But if you want to challenge him for his policy positions, that's
>much more legitimate than this "Brave-Bill" crap.

Not that I condone the Republicans, but will you also criticize
the "Chicken-George" label as nonsense? If not, then I don't think 
it's wrong to rub shit back in the face of those who sling it.

{I'll give you this Larry -- at least you called me on it.}

Now let me tell you what I really want to say. As a partisan, 
Democrat or Republican, what you do with goverment spending is 
like a reptile eating it's young. 

I can think of more colorful rhetoric, but you'll notice I've
criticized an activity, but not "who" someone is (regarding the
reptile comment). 

>: There is a clear pattern of avoidance in Brave-Bill Clinton's character.
>: 
>There is a clear pattern of meanness in George Bush's
>character (remember his "I kicked her ass" comment after
>debating Ferraro).  And he clearly has been lying about Iran
>and Iraq.

Bush and Republican ilk can fend for themselves.

By supporting spending like the $1.5 Trillion Federal Budget (FY'93)
with $326 Billion dollars in borrowing which was passed by congress
***LAST WEEK*** --- Democrats and Republicans have given evidence once 
again that they Happily destroying the country.

Why should I believe anything either party promises -- given the cold
heartless fact of deficit spending?

Bill Clinton is the puppet-head of the Democratic Party. 

George Bush is the puppet-head of the Republican Party.

Both *PARTIES* TOGETHER are destroying the country -- the evidence
is the new Federal Budget and $4 Trillion dollars of Federal Debt.

Clearly Larry, defending Clinton is defending the Democratic Party's
Abuse of the rest of Americans -- who aren't in the least represented
by either the GOP or the DEM excesses.

The shame is that they've offered up another hollow bureaucrat.

So do you really want to defend the Party's Spending Practices??
The promises and the rhetoric mean nothing.

>Larry Baum
>(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       


-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-13-92