From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<DSTEINBE.92Nov10075437@emmy.nmsu.edu> <BxIruH.4Mo@news.udel.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:28:25 GMT

In article <BxIruH.4Mo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

   In article <DSTEINBE.92Nov10075437@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
   >To: In article <BxGq5z.LLo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott
   >W Roby) writes: 
   NOTE: >   > = adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)

   >   >He didn't take action when
   >   >people thought he should.  Many Republicans hated him.  I voted against him
   >   >because he didn't deserve reelection.  Nor did I vote for Clinton.
   >
   >   So you voted against trickle-down economics, since Bush was the ONLY one 
   >   still supporting this tired idea. 
   >
   >What about Andre Marrou.  No chance of winning, but a good protest
   >vote. 

   Are you saying Marrou supports trickle-down economics?

I would hope so.  Lowered taxes and little spending is a cornerstone
of the Libertarian Party...

       [deletia]
   >   I never said the mandate was in FAVOR of Clinton's economic plans.  I said 
   >   the mandate was to GET RID of trickle-down economics.  I still think so.

   >I think it was to get rid of someone who would decide his posistion by
   >checking the polls...

   So you think people were voting on character and leadership, rather than 
   on their wallets/pocketbooks.  I disagree.

I think the reason why their pocketbooks were empty is because Bush
waved with the wind.  Congress wants a tax increase, find give them
one.  Consevatives want a tax reduction, fine, say you'll do one.  I
(IMHO) feel that if Bush had stuck to his pledge, we wouldn't be in
the mess that we are in now...

   >            (more stuff deleted)          
   >   I think the 80's Republican rhetoric simply fails without the charisma 
   >   of Reagan to back it up.  Examples:

   [NOTE: at this point I decided to list *any* examples of Republican 
   rhetoric that I felt the public was no longer buying...  The list 
   simply grew and grew... :-)  
                     (examples deleted)

   >What do any of the things I have marked with stars have to do with
   >economics.  How is trickle-down economics invalidated as a theory
   >because of the arms for hostages deal?  It's completely unrelated.

   The points marked with stars don't deal with economics, and I don't 
   think those issues had much impact on the election, which was about 
   the economy.  However, they are still examples of Republican rhetoric 
   that once worked (with Reagan's charisma) that no longer seem to work 
   -- thank goodness.

o.k., fair enough.  Although it does seem that you want it both ways
here.
   >I also particularly like your method of argument.  Proof by saying
   >"(yeah, right)".  I wonder if me real analysis prof. will let me get
   >away with that...

   Well, I stated each position in a such way that the average reader 
   would see why they are pretty silly positions.  I find most of 
   these positions as indefensible to start with, and therefore not in 
   need of serious refutation.  A simple, sarcastic "yeah, right." is all they 
   are worthy of.  

No, you stated the positions in ways that the average person who
didn't agree with them would feel was stupid.  Being a somewhat
critical reader, I translated back from what you said that they said,
to what they actually did say. I do not feel that the two statements
are equivalent, anymore than being pro-choice is equivalent to wanting
to kill babies.  So a mocking "yeah right" does not convince me, or
anyone who doesn't already agree with you.  (A good example of the
yeah right phenominom (sp!) is that both The Progressive (from the
left) and American Spectator (from the right) print statements that
the other side has said, with no comment after them. The idea is that
these posistions are so ridiculous, that no argument is needed to
refute them.  Since you seem to be left leaning, read the last page of
the American Spectator and tell me what you think of this method.  I
doubt you'll be convinced by it...)


Have fun, etc.
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************