From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:25:55 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21527@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.140355.6981@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>Please, don't argue logic if you don't understand it.  The concept of
>>>"proving a negative" is Logic 101.
>>
>>If you'd follow your own advice, many of your posts would be a lot
>>more readable.  I predict that you won't, though.  People like you
>>always put different rules on everyone else than you want for
>>yourselves.  Just look at the difference in your evaluations of Carter
>>and Bush, for example.

>Another interesting change of subject.  Can't prove the assertion about
>the flame war, so now we run off to Jimmy Carter versus George Bush.  You
>couldn't prove the assertion about human brainwaves or inner city
>economics either.  I've noticed that you've stopped claiming to know
>anything about the latter subject ...

I consider the brainwave thing to be 'proven', insofar as the parts of
the brain responsible for part of them don't even exist at 40 days.

I gave you a book to go read -- _Urban Economics and Public Policy_,
by James Heilbrun -- about the inner city stuff.  Get back to me when
you know enough to discuss things.  Of course, if you actually study
the subject, you won't NEED to get back to me.

>My analysis of Carter and Bush was extremely fair.  George Bush deserves
>both credit and blame where due - just as Carter does.  The problem is
>that the war which Carter might try to use to explain away his economic
>failures ended years before his term.  And the destruction he did to
>this country's military and civilian industries would only be excusable
>if we got SOMETHING out of it.  For example, much of the military
>industry is now on the skids in this country.  In exchange, we've ended
>a protracted war with the ex-Soviet Union.  We had the same slowdown
>after Vietnam.  But with Carter we got NOTHING positive in exchange.

No, you skipped just a few external price shocks screwing up the
economy when you got to Carter.  Of course, this probably IS your idea
of 'fair'.

>Consider as an example something which you admit was long overdue.
>Reagan decided that inflation just had to go.  As a result of Carter's
>policies, inflation made it into the double-digits.  Interest rates
>climbed into the upper teens, unemployment hovered about 10%.  We got
>nothing for our efforts - the country's exports fell, poverty soared.

Yep, but so what?  You are ignoring all outside influences when it
comes to Carter while you make excuses for Bush.  

>Now, Bush comes along and after $1T in defense build-up, the Soviet
>Union finally collapses, Democracy spreads thoughout western Europe
>and the Americas.  

Sorry, but Bush gets no credit for any of that, as far as I'm
concerned.  If you want to give REAGAN primary credit for that as an
accomplishment, I'll buy it.  But BUSH?  Not hardly.  He just happened
to be in the right place at the right time.

>Will we suffer economically?  Yes.  But once the
>suffering is over - and by most measures we are in recovery - we won't
>have to spend that $1T again.  We won't have to become the #1 exporter,
>we won't have to make American products and workers second to none.

It is the softest recovery in modern history.  George Bush has the
second worst economic record for a 4 year administration since the end
of WWII by almost any sensible measure you care to use.  Worse than
JFK.  Worse than LBJ.  Worse than Nixon.  Worse than Carter.  Worse
than Reagan.  And what have we gotten for it?  NOT A DAMNED THING.

>In a way, even Johnson was better than Carter - and you know how much
>I hate Johnson.  Johnson started the government involvement in civil
>rights enforcement.  For all of the trillions of dollars wasted on
>"equality of outcome" and reverse discrimination, at least we now have
>laws on the books which make discrimination illegal and people are
>actually able to bring action against discriminatory individuals.  For
>all of the money that was wasted, SOMETHING POSITIVE came out.

So what positive has George Bush gotten us?  Don't credit him with
Reagans' accomplishments.  We're talking about Bush now.

>All Carter did was let the anti-Republican sentiment that came out of
>Watergate ruin our political establishments, let the anti-war feelings
>from Vietname ruin our military, and let the 60's anti-establishment
>mood ruin our families and businesses.  Carter, with his PhD in Physics,
>was in a unique position to bring science and technology to this
>country for real.  He squandered every natural gift God ever gave him.

I would be inclined to say the same thing about George Bush, only
moreso.  George Bush SHOULD know what he's doing.  He's been in
government long enough.  The only time Bush can apparently make a
decision and present himself decently is if Jim Baker does it for him.
Kinda leaves one wondering whether the right man is in the White House
or not, doesn't it?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.