From: fmr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Francis M Rotella)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Followup-To: alt.president.clinton, alt.politics.elections, and alt.politics.clinton
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 02:00:59 GMT

note: notice the follow-up groups ----> sorry to take up space in rec.humor!! 

In article <1992Nov4.094830.14055@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> crwilson@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
>It has finally happened.  The uneducated finally voted.  I can't think of
>anything funnier than what happened on Nov. 3, 1992.  I heard this on the news,
>honest, Mr. Bill "Why no, I didn't inhales, why do you ask?" Clinton received
>more than 50% of the votes from people who did not graduate highschool.
>

Clinton led in all demographic areas except for those who make more than
$70,000 a year. they did not vote for Clinton for the obvious reason. he
said he would raise taxes of the rich!!!!

>Sorry, but that does not make me feel comfortable.
>

first, i'm a phd student in EE at on of the top ranked school in the USA,
Stanford.  i voted for Clinton and a poll of students here had 70% voting for
Clinton!!!  we are definitely not un-ededucated!!!!

second, should the US prevent people without a high school education
from voting?  obviously not . . . !!!!!!  let's look at it from a different
perspective.  those with less education will tend to be poorer.  Bush's
philosophy is make the rich richer and in the process the poor will
get a few table scraps.  Perot's philosophy is we have this debt, we
have to pay it, therefore, more taxes --- less spending.  the rich are not
hurt by this, but the poor are.  Clinton's philosophy is we are all in this
together,  let's help each other and grow together.  of course the rich
aren't going to like this idea, because of a very bad american trait
"what i got is mine and you can't have any . . . if you want to be
rich you have to work for it"  of course, this ignores the concept of
equal opportunities, for all!!!!  i came from a poor family, i had to
work to get through school . . . i know students whose parents are rich.
they could devote more time to pursueing more knowledge (or partying more)
because they did not have to worry about "where's my next meal coming from"
anyhow, i digress . . . but my point is made!!!!


>I find it very difficult to believe that someone would vote for a person who
>committed adultery, and lied, about the same thing, three times!  This is
>living proof that christian, or even pseudo-christian, morals have no place in
>America.

who someone sleeps with is no concern of mine!!!!  it is their personal
life. the only reason that adultery is a problem with Clinton is that
it is believable (i.e. Clinton is seen a desirable man).  when rumors of Bush
having an affair in Europe hit the press. . . no one cared,  i can't imagine
some woman wanting to sleep with him . . can you????? as a result, it
did not become a political issue.

the second debate showed how much people really cared about the character
issue and negative attacks.

>
>Cudos to those for the funniest laugh I have ever had.
>

i can't substatiate this . . . it may be a joke, but

      i heard that the comedian association came out in support of
      George Bush . . . primarily because Dan Qualye has provided an
      many many opportunities for jokes. 

      i can't wait for him to run in `96 ---->  if he doesn't change 
      it will be hilarious!!!! :-)


>At least George "Read my lips" Bush did not lie.  Congress did what is called
>piggy-backing on the bill he signed hat raised my parents taxes.  We knew every

Bush signed the bill, period!!!!! in not raising taxes and increasing spending
he created a monster national debt.   so now instead of paying a little
extra in taxes or doing without (i.e a 50 billion dollar plane sitting in
hanger ---> (Stealth Bomber) )  we have a larger debt which must be
paid back with interest. the american people now have to pay more than
what they would have if they payed higher taxes.  on top of that, the
ones who benefited from no new taxes were the rich (the rich got richer) the
poor got little or no benefits but will have to pay the debt. in addition,
the rich did not help the economy by getting richer.  they only helped their
own pockets.  instead of investigating in productivity to make
a profit ----> there was a massive number of take over's and buy outs.  this
does nothing to improve productivity.

for example (  Company A is not in good financial shape.  Company B sees
a takeover and buys it out.  the owners of Company A may make a profit from
the sale.  Company B now has to make what was Company A profitable.  to
do this requires layoffs and cutbacks . . . therefore, the end result is
company A owners get rich, Company A workers loose jobs and have salary/
benefits cut.  Company B owners get rich because tax cuts made it financially
feasible to buy out Company A  ----> who pays for this . . .  the American
people through the national debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  in addition look at the
savings and loan scandal!!!!!!!  who pays for it --> the american people.
who gets the benefits --> the rich.


>thing Bush did, he couldn't lie, and he didn't.  If you even think about the
>Iran-Contra affair, don't.  That had to do with getting our men & women back
>who had been held hostage, I totally supported that.
>

are you supporting a monarch form of presidency. the president can do
as he wishes by ignoring whatever laws exist.  a pretty dangerous
policy to support. yeah, it could be used for good, but could you
trust a single ruler with absolute power!!!! as far as lieing, didn't
Reagan say that there would be no arms for hostages or "NO DEALS" and
even afterwards still maintains that as factual.  who's lieing in this case.
who's risking the US reputation, integrity, and honor?????

>IBID: Cudos to those for the funniest laugh I have ever had.
>
>Bill "Why no, I didn't committ adultery, ok, I did, but I didn't inhales"
>Clinton is a joke, he fooled the country's inferior into believing his views of
>a better tommorrow.  He said the same things Bush said, but changed the words
>around.  Same message, different person.
>

BUSH HAD NO SUBSTATIAL PLAN. he wanted to continue helping the rich get
richer and hope the poor can grab some table scraps while they continue
to get poorer.   Clinton offered a clear cut change . . . he wanted to
stop focusing on the rich only and develop projects to help ALL in 
the nation!!! notice at the second debate . . . Clinton said what he
was going to do and why he was going to do it in a straightforward 
organized manner!!!!


>My congratulations to H. Ross Perot on a marvolous attempt for and independent
>candidate.
>

i admire his attempt . . . but his ideas would not be good for American.
getting the national debt down is a goal, but doing it such that it hurts
most americans and instigating a depression for over 4 years is not the
way to do it.  i personally believe it will take about 20-30 years
before the debt can be payed in full.  i'll be happy with Clinton if
he can stop the growth by the end of his 1st term and start reducing it 
a little in his second term.


>This may be the wrong group for this posting, but I don't really care what you
>think, because if you are anyway offended by this post, you must have voted for
>Clinton, and in that case, I could care less for you.  It may be your right to
>think and do as you please, but so do I, and I choose to ignore you.
>

this is definitely the wrong group!!!! i have posted this response in
alt.president.clinton, alt.politics.elections, and alt.politics.clinton.
anyone reading this please follow-up to those groups only . . .
preferably alt.president.clinton since it is small group (right now
anyhow) and i will be able to keep up with this thread.  if you have any
constructive comments you can email me directly or send me a copy of
your posts.  flames and such sent to /dev/null. 

you have the right to believe as you wish as well as i. however, if someone
is totally close minded as you confess to be -----> i have a hard time
believing that you actually thought out everything clearly. people
who vote totally close minded scare me more than the uneducated voters.

							francis

>
>*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
>                                           
>*-------*  What Rolls down stairs,              
>|     S |  Alone or in pairs,             
>| R   T |  Rolls over your neighbors dog? 
>| E & I | 
>| N   M |  What fits on your back and is great for a snack?
>|     P |
>|     Y |  It's log, log, log!
>*-------*                                         Chad "Ren" Wilson
>
>*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
>


Newsgroups: rec.humor