From: ellingrw@infonode.ingr.com (Bob Ellington)
Subject: Re: Reagen?  Lousy actor or lousy president.
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:06:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.160231.14195@infonode.ingr.com>, wilsonk@infonode.ingr.com (Keith Wilson) writes:
> 
>   DO YOU WANT SOMEONE WHO HAS ENOUGH POLITICAL/MONETARY INFLUENCE TO WEASLE
>   THEIR WAY OUT OF DUTY/RESPONSIBILITY RUNNING THE COUNTRY?  DO YOU THINK
>   THIS SAME INDIVIDUAL WOULD USURP/CIRCUMVENT THE CHECKS AND BALANCES OF THE
>   SYSTEM FOR PERSONAL GAIN (AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LIFE OF OTHERS)?

My entire point about the Vietnam thing was, if America was so against 
the war when it happened, then why is everyone so upset to find someone 
running for office who was against/avoided entering/bought his way 
out/whatever the war?  We have here one man who tried to get out that is 
no different than anyone else who didn't want to go, except he was able 
to get away with it.  Give him one mark for ingenuity. (No, I'm still 
not voting for Clinton)

> > If serving in a war is the 
> > only thing that makes a good President then we better plan on killing 
> > and having our own killed in wars about every ten years.  
> 
>   No thanks, it costs EVERYONE (even social security recipients) TOO MUCH.
> 
Agreed!

> 
>   YOU WOULD HOPE THAT THE LEADER OF YOUR COUNTRY MIGHT HAVE THE CHARACTER AND
>   DISCIPLINE TO FACE RESPONSIBILITY/DUTY/OR_WHATEVER_ADJECTIVE_FITS_HERE.

Sounds good.  And if that DUTY is believed morally wrong?  Whether 
morally wrong to the majority, or morally wrong on a personal level, 
doesn't he have the right to stand up (or run away:) for what he 
believes?

> 
> > 
> >     Perhaps a President with a strong business sense is what we really 
> 
>                                ^^^^^^^^
> 			you mean any/some/an incling of???

I did not imply that I believe that any of our current candidates meets 
this criteria.  I only stated what I thought would be a good 
characteristic to base a voting decision on.  Whether he was able to
survive a war or not does not seem to be a good basis for deciding who 
should be President.

> 
> > need.  Deficit this and deficit that, the President is to blame, no the 
> 
>   ^^^^
> deserve
  ^^^^^^^
Agreed.
> 
> > Congress is to blame.  NO, I think we the people are to blame!
> 
> 	What's to blame?  We should be proud of our accomplishments.
> 	This country has done much in 200 years.  However, a change in
> 	fiscal policy and those people who establish/regulate same is
> 	necessary.  Obviously, that won't happen in 1992. 
I am very proud.  So proud it makes me sick to see the news each night 
about this group wanting this and that group wanting that.  I think that
America is destroying itself from the inside.  And we blame it all 
either on the President or Congress.  We The People need to look at 
ourselves and realize the true blame for the bad economy(all other major
issues included) belongs to US.  I will quickly admit that I don't think
a change in who is elected will change anything until the public changes
its full attitude toward how to run this country.  These changes will 
not come overnight with a vote for President.  It will take time.  But 
if we let everything go much longer it will be too late.  America, the 
next fallen empire?
  America (politically) has become 50+ little bity counties all fighting
to get more for themselves instead of 1 United country doing what is 
best for the whole.  This _IS_ We The People's fault for voting 
with a "What can they do for me" attitude.  What can they do for US is a
better vote.  

Bob (Just frustrated election year opinions) Ellington


Newsgroups: hsv.general