From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:42:06 GMT

In article <1682E7DFF.PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu writes:
>
>Sorry, but I don't see any distinction between voting "for Bush in reaction to"
>his detractors and voting for him as a signal of support in the event of
>renewed hostilities.  

Then I would have to say you don't show a lot of ability to recognize
distinctions, period.

>Anyway, let's use your own terms:  I think it's
>ludicrous to cast a vote for four more years of presidential inaction
>simply "in reaction to" foreign or domestic zealots who think Bush or the U.S.
>is the Great Satan.  There, does that sound better?  

Well, it at least sounds more accurate.  Don't you think you can judge
people by who their 'enemies' are?  You undoubtedly think it is
ludicrous for anyone to simply vote against whichever side runs the
MOST NEGATIVE campaign, too, but I think we all ought to do it.  It's
the only way we're going to get them to quit doing it; show that it
doesn't work for them anymore.  This sort of stupid accusation is in
the same ballpark.

>Not to mention the
>idiocy of such a p.o.v., given that any renewed conflict with Iraq would
>necessarily be brief.  Are you willing to put up with another full term of
>inaction on the budget and economy -- you yourself seem ambivalent about Bush's
>effectiveness in this area -- just to have the honor of casting a vote for
>our beloved Commander in Chief in a time of Middle East pseudo-crisis?

There's your lack of ability to make distinctions again.  No, but I'm
willing to put up with another full term of inaction on the budget
(which probably can't be fixed or much more seriously broken in four
years) and the economy (which will eventually fix itself, if people
quit screwing with it) -- just to have the satisfaction of NOT being
on the same side as the kind of idiots who think George Bush would
start a war and get people killed merely to shore up his domestic
popularity.

>
>Now allow me a clarification of my own.  I by no means think it's "normal"
>for a president to use the military to manipulate public opinion.  That's
>the whole point of my earlier post;  it's not normal, it's _sick_.  And this
>wouldn't be the first time it's happened.  Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin?

Yes, I have, and there's that lack of ability to make distinctions of
yours again.  Would you like to tell me what the 'purpose' of what
happened in the Gulf of Tonkin was?  If your answer is "shore up the
President's popularity for the election" rather than "provide
justification for further involvement in a war that we wanted to be in
for other reasons and purposes", then you not only have a problem
making distinctions, you have a total inability to make them.

I've also heard of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, since I was
there when Iran took our embassy and the Iran/Iraq war started; so
where the hell were you?  Do you know anything about that part of the
world other than what you've been told in classrooms?

>
>>Feh!
>
>Feh yourself!

Go feh yourself!

-- 
"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: alt.politics.elections