From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:08:26 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <Oct.9.11.48.12.1992.13067@gandalf.rutgers.edu > shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
 [oops -- deleted attribution for >> -- sorry!]
 >
 >>Quite frankly, a lot of people (not just crazed right wing Republicans) 
 >>don't think that the economy is really all that bad in every way.  Low
 >>interest rates make home buying more affordable, low inflation softens
 >
 >More affordable for who?  Have the low interest rates spark a surge of
 >home buying?  No.  Why?  Because people aren't making enough money
 >to buy houses.  

Those who have enough money are finding it easier to buy houses.
The lowering of interest rates lowers the level of income required
to purchase a home.  This is a seperate event from changes in wages.

The economy works on people spending money.  Lower interest rates
increase the amount of money people spend.  This improves the
economy.  (I know, this is simplified a lot.  I just hate when
people ignore the obvious to harp on points that are unrelated)

 >Typical Clinton/Bush exchange:
 >
 >Bush:  Clinton's plan will result in this, that, and the other thing.
 >
 >Clinton:  Bush has read things into my program that are not there
 >          and therefore misinterpreted it.

  Clinton:  Bush doesn't have a plan.  (after Bush has just told us
            exactly what he would like to do)
 
 >Clinton:  Bush's plan will result in this, that, and the other thing.
 >
 >Bush:  Clinton is a liar, a fornicator, and a communist.

  Would  you like to provide references please?
      
 >Sure, Bush never actually *said* out loud that Bush is a liar, a
 >fornicator, and a communist.

  Of course Bush would never call himself a communist :-)
 
 
 >Wrong again.  There is no problem addressing Clinton's qualifications to 
 >be commander in chief.  However, discussing what he did on a trip 23
 >years ago has nothing to do with determining those qualifications.
 
  The president's qualifications to be commander-in-chief depend on
expectation that the military would follow his orders.  Some young
men and women might have trouble following the orders of a draft
dodger.  Some might have trouble telling the truth with a lier as
a role-model.  (Not to say that either candidate is necessarily
a lier). 

 >>if we now live in a warm fuzzy world with no enemies to prepare for.  
 >>Remember--if Clinton had been president when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it
 >>would be the 18th state of Iraq today.
 >
 >No, because Iraq wouldn't have gotten the military support from us to
 >invade Kuwait in the first place.  He wouldn't have poured all our
 >money into beefing up Iraqi forces and he wouldn't have led them
 >to belief that we would support their attack just so he could 
 >slam them later and show the US how well he can flex his muscles.

Support given by the United States (approved by Congress) was the
result of policy stating that we preferred Iraq to Iran, and Hussein
to Khomeni (sp??).  If you didn't notice, *most* of the weapons used
by Iraq in the Gulf War were *Soviet*.  Go ahead and try to show
a logical argument that our support for Iraq had any effect whatsoever
on Saddam's decision to invade Kuwait. 

On the other hand, Clinton has been on both sides of the Persian Gulf
War debate.  He said he supported Bush in one sentence, and said he
would have voted against the war (if Arkansas was stupid enough to
elect him to the House or Senate) in the next.
 
 
 >>demonstrations overseas.  I'd find it hard to distinguish such events from
 >>"anti-American demonstrations."
 >
 >Well, then that's your shortcoming isn't it?

Well, a lot of Americans must feel that way or draft-dodger bashing
wouldn't be such a big sport.

 >We are outraged because the Republicans insist that we keep addressing
 >issues that they decide are important, but see no reason to address
 >issues that are important to the Democrats.  We'll discuss anything
 >you want, as long as Georgie tolerates the same microscopic investigation
 >of everything he's ever done also - which he won't

To each his/her own.  I believe that this is one of the most important
issues in this campaign.  The other big issue for me is spending.
Bush says he'll lower spending.  Clinton says he'll raise spending.

 >Just get over it.  Georgie is history.  If you want to help him, why
 >don't you help him get his resume together.

Gee, I hope Bush isn't history -- it would be the biggest mistake
we could make as a nation.  If Clinton wins, I might have to go
on welfare -- that could end up being the only way to make enough
money to live (after taxes).  I don't relish the thoughts of having
the government control all doctors and hospitals either.

David Shackelford
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8796 alt.rush-limbaugh:7194 talk.politics.misc:51228 alt.politics.clinton:9953 alt.politics.elections:16339 alt.news-media:1484