From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:30:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Jan25.172302.25504@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.170909.15482@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan20.220315.11946@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com writes:
>> >In article <1993Jan19.142931.16131@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> >>> 
>> >>>      Sorry, Jim, but I plan on continuing to judge people on what they
>> >>> DO and DON'T DO; you, no doubt, will continue to judge them based on
>> >>> some sort of ideological labelling system, using a method of reasoning
>> >>> (to use the word in its loosest sense) that is comprehensible only to
>> >>> you. 
>> >
>> >So, Fred, If I say I am going to come to your house sometime this year and
>> >kill your dog, rape you wife/daughter/sister/mother and cut of your cojones
>> >and stuff them down your throat, you wouldn't call the police?  If I lived
>> >in the same town with you and called you everyday threatening the same
>> >thing, you would not take it seriously until I actually did these things?
>> 
>> No, because in that case your speech itself constitutes a violation of
>> law, and hence is 'doing something'.  However, I certainly wouldn't
>> claim you had DONE those things if you were talking about them, which
>> is apparently the standard that Jim (and you) want to hold Clinton to. 

>A president is elected on what he says he will do.  

Or on what the other folks in the race are like.  Frankly, after Bush's
performance, I would have voted for Perot before I voted for Bush, and
I find some of the things Perot says just a little bit frightening if
he were to ever have real power.

>He started backing-off
>from what he said he would do, as soon as he was elected.  

Still waiting for a CREDIBLE list of those things.

>You elected him
>for what he said he would do.  

Only in part.

>Now that he says he won't, or can't, you still
>take him at his original word?  

There is a difference between 'backing off from' and outright saying
"can't, or won't".  You really need to decide which of these you want
to be claiming and go with it instead of flip-flopping back and forth
like this. 

>There is reason now, as if there wasn't
>before, to dis-believe anything he says.  

There is?  What is that reason you think there is?

>He has proven that he will say
>what it takes to get elected.  

Gee, now THERE is a flaw in a politician!  Of course, I think we mean
slightly different things by that phrase.  And of course, at least he
wasn't a George Bush, who told us all these wonderful things he would
do if he was reelected, and then when asked how he would pay for it
said, "Well, it's a surprise.  I'll tell you in February."

>This crap about the figures being worse
>that anticipated is just that.  The figures have changed little,
>percentage-wise, so that his plan, if really sound, would require only
>minor alteration.  

Can you say "statement contrary to fact"?  Well, even if you can't you
are certainly able to say statements contrary to the facts, which your
preceding is.  You know, it's really quite funny.  If you were AT ALL
informed, you would know that there is a MUCH better approach than the
stupid and ill-informed one you are trying to follow above.  Here, let
me help you.  

The question to ask is why, since the figures were actually known back
in November, Clinton didn't revise his plan and his message then.
However, if you think the difference amounts to pocket change, then
you're a fool.  And if you think adjusting for changes of that
magnituded would need only "minor alteration" to a workable plan, then
you are an even bigger fool and it's obvious that you've never done
anything that had any kind of scale to it.  

>He, and his staff say, that it must be tossed,
>wholesale.  President Clinton told the people what he would do, and he and
>his staff now say it can't be done, for whatever reason.  Why do you think
>previous presidents haven't done these things if they wuold be so great for
>the country and easy to accomplish.  President Clinton's staff, an
>extension of himself, are "Threatening" me right now by talking about a
>middle-class tax hike.  Can I consider that an action as you have my words
>above?

Well, you seem to hear what you want to hear, and that sort of
invalidates what you have to say.  I don't suppose you'd like to post
actual sources for things that have been said.  Not your
INTERPRETATION of what was said, which I wouldn't trust any further
than I can throw my car, but what was actually said?

And no, you can't consider what you claim you're hearing as "action",
in part because threats of physical violence are in a special category
and in part because I seriously doubt you can hear straight anything
that is said by someone who isn't on your little list of 'acceptable
ideologically'. 

>> >
>> >>> Because I prefer to wait until they DO it before I claim they've done
>> >>> it, Jim.
>> >
>> >So if someone claims they are going to kill a government official, you
>> >wouldn't tell anyone or do anything about it until they actually did it?
>> >How callous!
>> 
>> Once again, in this case claiming this is an action in itself.  I
>> would not claim they had actually killed someone until they did it,
>> however.  Can you say "stupid an inappropropriate analogy"?  Yeah, I
>> thought you could.

>Claiming he would not raise taxes for the middle-class.  

That's not what he said.  And anyway, have they changed the tax laws?
I sure wasn't aware of that.  Lots of things are under discussion.
You want to take the worst case and claim that that's 'happened'.
I'll wait and see which way they run.  I expect that we'll see some
kind of energy tax, but even that will be hard to do.  We'll see what
they pass and what else they put in the package to see just who it is
that gets hit.

>Claiming that he
>would reduce the deficit 50% by 1997.  

Gee, did I sleep until 1997?  Kind of hard to say that this one is
broken until then.  I did note Stephanopolis trying to backpedal just
a bit, and use the amount computed as 50% of the deficit before the
'discovery' by Bush of all that extra red ink and say that that was
what would be cut (which would half the deficit if the deficit had
been what was being published), but I consider that to be just a bit
of weasel wording.  I guess we'll have to see where things are in
1997. 

>Claiming that he could fund all
>these neat programs.  

Once again, not in exact 1:1 correspondence with the truth.

>You do not think this is an action?  

Well, since most of those things didn't even happen, yes, I would have
to say that even if you equate saying something with doing it, that I
wouldn't qualify any of your preceding as 'action', except the action
of distorting the truth on your part.

>It is as much an
>action as someone claiming they will do bodily harm do another.  

No, it isn't.  Check out the relevant laws.  Look under "Assault".

>The fact
>that he said he would do these things, and now claims they can't be done is
>proof that he is either, an incompetant moron who doesn't know what he is
>talking about (either now or before or both), or a liar who never intended
>to do these things.  

So far, the only thing you've proven to me is that you either can't
hear or are a deliberate liar (or both).

>And you and others like you, who wanted change, will
>find that the only change is the leanings of the Executive branch.  The
>deficit will rise, taxes will rise!

Pathetic.  The election is over.  You should give it a rest and try
commenting on reality for a while.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics