From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:48:03 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Sep12.040043.3796@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.152200.11549@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>
>No, that's no what I'm saying. Right after he signed the increase, he
>made a statement concerning the need for more revenue, etc, etc.
>There was a detailed posting of exact quotes to this effect on another
>group. Now he's saying the democrats forced him into it, etc, etc.
>Both cannot be true statements. The same thing happened in 1988 when
>he denied calling Reagan's policies "voodoo economics", until someone
>pulled up a video of him saying it. But beyond even this stuff,

I was mad as hell when I heard that tax increase bill was signed, did
he lie?  Perhaps in the broad sense.  I believe that a President should
never say never.  Is Bush wishy-washy?  Quite often.  Does he regret 
signing that bill?  I do believe so.

It's funny, the conservatives are mad at him for raising taxes (and breaking
that promise) and the liberals are harping on the tax increase but for
reasons that escape me.  Obviously this is what they want so why aren't 
they pointing out what a good thing it was for the country?

>I have a REAL problem with this. Does anyone believe that when Bush
>was head of the CIA he didn't know about Norreiga's drug dealings?
>Considering the damage done by drugs, "national security" can never
>be used as excuse to deal with or ignore stuff like this.

This is a supposition and not a fact.  I am not aware of what the CIA
nor of what Bush knew of Norriega's activities.  Neither you nor I
could ever hope to understand the broader issues influencing decisions
made at that time either.  You are debating in a vacuum.

>Yea, Olie is a big hero, right? I'm sure the folks down in
>Nicaragua would love to have him come down so they can say
>thanks for everything.

A good question, are they in general better off to be free of
totalitarianism or would you prefer them to live the life that
demonstratably has failed in most parts of the world (socialism).
Freedom is preferable to squalid equality.

>As for you logic on calling Hill a liar, it is simply not there.
>In my office we had a sexual harrasment case in which the person
>being harrassed was too scared to say anything about the person
>doing it because he was her boss and ran right over people. However,
>he got caught red-handed by someone who saw him come up and
>fondle her when he didn't know they were watching. The girl was
>lucky she had a witness or she would be gone and not him.

I couldn't care less about your example.  It has _absolutely_ nothing
to do with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas.  This is the point, you
are applying the behavior of others in your judgement against Thomas.
What you have said is that because you have knowledge that sexual
harrassment happens therefore Thomas is more than likely guilty.

Can someone make an unsubstantiated statement to harm someone else
in this society?  This is what you are defending, not wether sexual
harassment happens - that's a no brainer.  Smear tactics are not 
worthy nor honorable, and what goes around comes around.

Show me proof to back Hills accusation.  There certainly exists proof
that she was "inaccurate" regarding the facts such as when the incident
occurred versus when she met Thomas for the first time.

Liberals have oft used the phrase "the appearance of inpropriety".
Well, I ask you, Anita said she wasn't doing this to advance herself
yet she has certainly profited by her accusation hasn't she?  Does this
look strange to you?


Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh