From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Conservatives favor limited government?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 01:39:39 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov5.175256.8430@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.161252.10440@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>>> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>>Conservatives believe in limited government
>>then how come Bush and Reagan, so called 'conservatives', have run up the
>>largest government debts IN HISTORY?
>Ah yes, the Tyrant-President theory...
>There are several causes which almost entirely refute your weak premise:
>....argument deleted for space....

ASSUMING the prez was elected on the basis of debt reduction by x%age
can he not go before the population as say (in effect)
I was sent here with a mandate of debt reduction.  And neg. in 
good faith with congress has not provided a bill that I can sign that
fufills the mandate.  Would YOU the people wish:
1) I fufill the mandate (and pos. shut down the gonv.)
2) Neg. the best bill I can, reguardless of outcome.

>1.  Congress submits ONE Omnibus spending bill to the Executive thus
>    blackmailing the Exec into signing it or shutting down the big G.
>    This changes the veto to be an onerous tool which the Executive
>    is then less likely to want to use against bad legislation.
According to some litature I saw today Bill C WANTS line item veto
power, thus (one hopes) makes this a non-issue.

>3.  Congress has the power of the purse.
And we tell congress to give us all perks.  Like subsidided roads,
subsizied farming, house payment deductions, and the like.  Can
anyone out there say they don't benifit from a lobbying group?
**WE** have placed this political structure in power....and
only if enough of **US** work to change it will **WE** all
benifit.  But as long as we all get our chunk of the pie,
we'll all act fat and dumb and sit on out hands.

>>THIS IS A LAFF! How come conservatives favor the criminalization of
>>hemp, even if it is to be used for rope and not drugs? How come the

Consider arguing the use of hemp in paper making rather than rope.
Synethics work better than hemp in most cases.  And consider asking
this question "We ban hemp becasue of the 'social costs'.  Why
don't we also ban booze, for it is a drug and has a social cost? Or
ban smoking, for it also has a social cost?"

Consider this too:  We tried banning booze.  And that didn't work.  yet
ask the makers of hard liquor what their projections for demand are.
And ask RJR (makers of smoking products) what their projections are.
Why not make hemp legal?  Can anyone argue why hemp will not suffer 
the same fate as booze or smoking usage?

>As for abortion, some people observe that the DNA of a fetus has the
>proper number of chromosomes to be classified as human and thus conclude
>that it ill behooves us to ignore the rights of one class of humans 
>simply to make life convenient for someone who, generally, has not the
>guts to take responsibility for their actions.

Others of us think if the fetus is not wanted, such a lack of emotional
dedication to child will also do no good to society in the long run.
And some question why the gonv. (or insurance) would spend $7 million
to keep a premature baby alive?  

By your def of chromosomes how do you address down's syndrome and the
XYY chromo people?  

>>George Bush likes to say he supports small government, but he does not.
>>Bush's idea of limited government sure as hell is expensive?
>
>I thought we were talking about conservatism (classic liberalism) not about
>George Bush.  The two are most often mutually exclusive.

However, George Bush is the man whom the Republican party
ran for the top office.  To represent the party, the way I understand 
these things.  And the last time I checked, the Republican party
is supposed to be the 'conservative' party in the land.  Now, I 
have yet to have seen anyone who 'espouses the conserative choice' 
for prez say (example)  "Vote Conservatve.  Vote (bob Dole, Dan
Quayle, some other choice)"  Actions speak louder than the
'platform'.  George Bush was the Republican Party Pick(tm) and
his actions were that of spending and expanding gonv.  Now, either
1) George is not a conservative.  (in which case why was he the choice
assuming the rebublican party is consertive?)
2) The Republican party does not repersent conservativism, and some other
party should.  If this is the case, then who DOES represent conservativism?

>Mike Best


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13324 alt.politics.clinton:16038