From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:21:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep28.180106.14664@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.122344.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.143859.1771@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>>> In article <1992Sep27.202721.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep27.214729.550@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>>>>> I've been very concerned about Bush's failing health.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you compare pictures of him from the last 12 years in 4 year
>>>>> increments (I looked though old Time magazines at the library) after
>>>>> each election he's really looking a lot worse.  The rate is
>>>>> accellerating.
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>>     Oh please -- not any more unsubstantiated rumors!  But, since
>>>>rumor and inaccurate data seems to be the fuel for the alt.politics.*
>>>>fires, let me break my own rule and throw in a rumor I heard about
>>>>Clinton.  I heard on the Bob Grant radio show on WABC - New York
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>> (Oh Bob Grant, that institution of ethical reporting and integrity!)
>>
>>     I agree -- that is why I do not take it seriously.
>> 
>>> You changed the subject.  You're as bad a GHWB himself!  The issue is
>>                                            ^^^^
>>> that Bush is NOT as healthy as people think he is.  Has anyone else
>>> ACTUALLY LOOKED at pictures of him?  He's really not looking good.
>>
>>     On a macroscopic scale, I did not change the subject -- the
>>main topic dealt with a *rumor* about the *health* of Bush, not the
>>*appearance* of Bush.  If you would like to discuss Bush's
>>appearance, I would be glad to!  Sure, he looks much older than
>>he did 12 years ago.  He was 56 years old then, and is 68 years old
>>now.  Do you know of many people who look the same at ages 56 and 68?
>>Bush is no spring chicken anymore (note that I used the word "chicken"
>>as in "Chicken George" as a peace-offering to the fine people
>>who, today, have called me "confused" and now a "GHWB").  If you
>>are interested in appearance, obviously Clinton/Gore is your ticket
>>(so long as you disregard the "cosmetically challenged" Hillary).
>>
>>     C. Perttunen
> 
>  
>     Yes, you changed the subject is a big way from the start.  Don't you
> realize that we should not have been talking about the Jennifers or 
> Gennifers that Clinton or Bush might have slept with, we ought be talking 
> people's living standards, our country's future, educations for the kids,
> etc...  Or is that the republican campaigne stragedy to focus on womanizing,
> draft and family values ?  

     Look, the gentleman who wrote the original post said I had changed
the subject.  I then responded to the subject he claimed (Bush's
aging process).  And now, you say I changed the subject again?
Just to correct you, my first reply talked about "Bobbie Anns"
not "Gennifers," and secondly it had nothing to do with the
Republican Campaigne [sic] Stragedy [sic] since the Republicans
are not making this claim -- some DJ in New York is.

     C. Perttunen 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7261 alt.politics.clinton:7896