From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 9 Apr 1992 23:40:09 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:

>Six reasons why You should vote for Bush:
>1) Presuming Perot can't win, you really should only bote Republican or 
>Democrat

Oh really?  Why is this.  First, let me say that I disagree that we
should "PRESUME" that Perot can't win.  He already won a mock election
here at Kansas State University (a traditionally conservative college
in a traditionally conservative (and REPUBLICAN) state).  Second, why
should people ONLY vote either Republican or Democratic?  By saying
this, you assume 1) that the Republicans and Democrats stand for
opposote (or at least different) ideologies; and 2) that there are only
two sides to all the issues.  Neither of these is true.  Today the
parties are split by assotiation rather than ideology... and, as we
have seen from this network, there are at least 270,000,000 ways that
Americans look at the issues facing us.  At the very least, you should
give credit to the Libertarians, the Green party, the Socialist party,
and to the independent candidates.  They are all what this country
stands for... not the asses and the elephants.

>2)  Bush at least pays lip service to "no new taxes".

So?  In effect, you are saying "at least we KNOW that our president 
is a liar".   This argument is ignorant.  We KNOW that all politicians
are crooks.  Why suggest that someone vote for one just because he
does a poor job of hiding it?

>I suspect that any Democratic presidency would result in higher taxes

I wish you knew something about our economy.  There is no possible way
that we can overcome a n x $100,000,000 deficit, a $4,000,000,000,000
debt (over half of which turns over in five years), a failing health
care system, the collapse of our inner cities, etc. etc. etc. without
getting more REVENUE.  

Your argument is invalid because you say "Let's vote for someone who
lied to us because the other ones will do what this one told us he
wouldn't do so he'd get elected and do it anyway."

>Bush's friends, the Republicans, are much less likely to raise taxes

Bull shit.  BULLLLLL SHHHHHHIIIIIIIIT.  Go back and read the NY Times
from about March to December 1990.  For much of that time, Iraq is on
page one... dig back to page 3 or 8 or however far back it is.  You
will see that the Republicans and Democrats actually *AGREED* on what
to do with this economy.  After all, they're the same people.  Scum.
Borrow (which includes taxation) and spend, Borrow and SPEND.  That's
all our government has done for over a decade.  They only argued on
petty issues to get space in the headlines.

Your argument is invalid because you have already forgotten American
History.

>3)  Bush is as good on foreign policy as we are likely to see. (Except for 
>China :-) ).

Again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  If George
Bush is so good with foreign policy, then why did he decide to ILLEGALY
invade Panama?  Just to rally up public support for his War on Some
Drugs?  Bullshit.  Bush is so bad, he couldn't even get what he wanted
from the Iraqi's...  a country about the size of Texas.  You think
George Bush is good at foreign policy because he breaks international
law and goes to war just to keep the price of gas down?  How many arabs
do you think George will kill in his NEXT term?  How many of our
brothers and sons will he kill in his THIRD war?

And what about China?  What did George do to damage the Status Quo
that you find so appealing?  Nothing.  He did nothing, gained nothing,
and produced nothing.  That's what George's policies with China have
amounted to.  Except that he helped to prolong an inhuman regeme...
I guess you can say he looks after his own.

>4)  Bush is for NAFTA, and free trade in general.

NAFTA is a vehicle through which we can lose more jobs to overseas
competitors.  The idea behind NAFTA is good, but the execution of
it is actually damaging us.  

>I don't believe he learned
>his lesson or even understands why that was so stupid, but at least
>he is for free trade. 

Congratulations, you have a "good point" that I haven't been able to
completely turn around.  Although I doubt that you, or George Bush
for that matter, have a single foggy clue what Free Trade is, I will
agree with you that it is important.

>5)  Bush doesn't want to reduce our military to nothing.

Of course not.  He couldn't perpetuate violence and hate throughout
the world without a military.

Of course "nothing" is a very loaded term.  I suppose you are saying
that another candidate would reduce our military to "nothing"... 
It is interesting that I don't see that word on ANYONE'S platform
sheet.  "I promise to reduce our military to nothing."  You're full
of shit if you think this is a campaign issue.

> We should maintain
>a strong military presence.

Why?  What's the reason?  WHY should we perpetuate hate and violence?
Could it be that your next sentence gives us your answer?

>  Other countries are likely to start building
>up stronger militaries, we shouldn't cut ours too low.

That's STUPID.  You think that every other country in the world is our
"enemy" and we should keep a strong military just to fight them off?
The future of this world is not about WAR.  The future is about TRADE.
You can't trade guns for butter.  But you'd better decide which is more
important to you.  Other countries are NOT our "enemy"... they are
competitors.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

>6)  According to Quayle,

Wait!  Stop.  Wait a minute.  You are going to tell me that I should
vote for George Bush because DAN QUAYLE told you something about him?
Have you been away from the media since the LAST Presidential
election?  Do I have to MAIL my copy of the "Dan Quayle Quotes" file to
you to get you to realize that Quayle is nothing but an ignorant tool?
A puppet government WITHIN our government?  The "poster boy" for
retroactive abortion?

> Bush actually can itemize the major problems
>facing our country and economy

This is complete, utter, ludicris and absolute bullshit.  I don't want
a president that can ITEMIZE the major problems of this country, I want
a president that will *** ACT *** on the problems of this country.

> (Health Care, Our Legal system, the
>Budget deficit, education, investment, etc.)

Those aren't real problems.  Those are campaign issues.  Sure, it's
easy for Bush to say "Health Care is a problem." But what do you want
to do about it, George?  Subsidize hospitals?  "Our Legal System is a
problem."  But what are you going to DO, George?  Take away more of our
constitutional rights so that we go to jail that much quicker?  "The
Budget Deficit is a Problem."  So what are you going to do about THAT,
George?  Maybe raise taxes again?  "Education is a problem." So what do
you propose we do to fix THAT, King George?  Pick a different running
mate?  Maybe shoot the slow kids?  Maybe just close down all the public
schools because they don't work anyway?

> This at least tells me he
>knows what the problems are.

He'd be IMPEACHED if he didn't KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE!!!  I mean, 
these problems are trumpeted through the media every DAY.  If George
didn't know what the problems WERE, he'd have to be brain dead!

>  I don't
>know if he'll actually do anything on any of these.

Sure.  That makes sense.  Try to convince us to vote against someone
who WILL make a change and vote for someone who MIGHT make a change,
even though all his actions to date indicate that he won't.  Real
brilliant.  Real smart.

>  Considering his
>chief health care advisor is a registered lobbiest for the Health Care
>Industry, I tend to doubt that issue will be satisfactorily resolved.

The baby boomers are aging.  We can't afford to wait ANOTHER four or
eight years on this one.

>  Basically my opinion sums up to

[drum roll please... after all, this guy has to be a fascist]

> Bush is good at international affairs

I believe I have disproven this point very clearly.

> and
>at least pays lip service to the right things domestically.

And I think that paying "lip service" is just a new and politically
correct way of saying that George won't do SHIT but he talks about it
anyway.

[Party Politics Bullshit deleted... Who needs parties anyway?]

Let me sum it up this way.  If you don't vote for Perot, the world will
end.  You may not like his stance on gun control.  You may not like
that he's pro choice.  You may not like that he wants to perpetuate the
War on Some Drugs, but he's the ONLY Presidential hopeful who 1) is not
Jerry Brown, and 2) INTENDS TO CARRY OUT HIS PROMISE TO MAKE POSITIVE
CHANGE.

Stratocaster
-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
   *** What shall we use to fill the empty places where we used to talk? ***
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections