From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: My View Of Clinton
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:36:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.020059.18890@leland.Stanford.EDU> fmr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Francis M Rotella) writes:
>note: notice the follow-up groups ----> sorry to take up space in rec.humor!! 

Not at all.  For one thing, your post was hilarious.  Also, we do not
use "and" in "Newsgroups" lines.

>first, i'm a phd student in EE at on of the top ranked school in the USA,
>Stanford.  i voted for Clinton and a poll of students here had 70% voting for
>Clinton!!!  we are definitely not un-ededucated!!!!

Stanford!  One of the great centers of conservative thinking, to be sure.
I imagine if you polled the University of Michigan and the city of
Washington, D.C., you would obtain similar results.

>second, should the US prevent people without a high school education
>from voting?  obviously not . . . !!!!!!

Probably right, but then you ask non-graduates why they voted for Clinton,
and they tell you, and you wonder sometimes...

>of course the rich
>aren't going to like this idea, because of a very bad american trait
>"what i got is mine and you can't have any . . . if you want to be
>rich you have to work for it"  of course, this ignores the concept of
>equal opportunities, for all!!!!

There is a difference, you realize, between equal opportunities and
equality.  Should a man who makes less of his opportunity than
another be rewarded with an equalizer, in other words, giving him
extra opportunity that the one who did better is not entitled to?

"The concept of equal opportunities", indeed.

>anyhow, i digress . . . but my point is made!!!!

And if you were actually talking this way, you would be hoarser than
your candidate... but I digress as well.

>>I find it very difficult to believe that someone would vote for a person who
>>committed adultery, and lied, about the same thing, three times!  This is
>>living proof that christian, or even pseudo-christian, morals have no place in
>>America.
>
>who someone sleeps with is no concern of mine!!!!

Who Joe Q. Anonymous sleeps with is no concern of anyone.  Who the
President of the United States sleeps with... well, I think it might
be of concern to any parent whose child wants to be President someday.
Does the term "role model" mean anything anymore?  I guess not.

>the second debate showed how much people really cared about the character
>issue and negative attacks.

It also showed how good "people" are at posing coherent questions.
I missed that debate personally, but I know of at least one talk
show host with very liberal tendencies who was not at all impressed
by that debate's format.

>      i heard that the comedian association came out in support of
>      George Bush . . . primarily because Dan Qualye has provided an
>      many many opportunities for jokes. 
>
>      i can't wait for him to run in `96 ---->  if he doesn't change 
>      it will be hilarious!!!! :-)

I will admit this... if (somehow) it does come down to Quayle, Clinton
and Perot in '96, we may have to start getting used to the phrase
"President Perot" (ick!)

>Bush signed the bill, period!!!!! in not raising taxes and increasing spending
>he created a monster national debt.

Which way do you want it?  You accuse Bush of signing "the bill" (which,
in case you have already forgotten, raised taxes), then, without even
stopping to take an electronic breath, accuse him of not raising taxes.
No wonder Clinton was the ideal candidate for you.

>for example (  Company A is not in good financial shape.  Company B sees
>a takeover and buys it out.  the owners of Company A may make a profit from
>the sale.  Company B now has to make what was Company A profitable.  to
>do this requires layoffs and cutbacks . . . therefore, the end result is
>company A owners get rich, Company A workers loose jobs and have salary/
>benefits cut.  Company B owners get rich because tax cuts made it financially
>feasible to buy out Company A  ----> who pays for this . . .  the American
>people through the national debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  in addition look at the
>savings and loan scandal!!!!!!!  who pays for it --> the american people.
>who gets the benefits --> the rich.

Impressive use of punctuation.

But you're right.  Let's raise taxes so that financially weak companies
can't be bought out by stronger competitors, because no one is strong
enough to buy them out.  So eventually Company A goes Chapter 11, the
creditors come and take everything, and all of their employees lose
their jobs.  Much better, don't you think?

>>My congratulations to H. Ross Perot on a marvolous attempt for and independent
>>candidate.
>
>i admire his attempt . . . but his ideas would not be good for American.
>getting the national debt down is a goal, but doing it such that it hurts
>most americans and instigating a depression for over 4 years is not the
>way to do it.  i personally believe it will take about 20-30 years
>before the debt can be payed in full.  i'll be happy with Clinton if
>he can stop the growth by the end of his 1st term and start reducing it 
>a little in his second term.

I don't believe it.  We actually agree on something.  Except that bit
about a "second term"....

>people who vote totally close minded scare me more than the uneducated voters.

Another statement with which I must agree.  Perhaps we're not so
far apart after all.

Hopefully constructive comment: From one EE major to another, consider
taking a writing class.  I knew beforehand that being a EE doesn't
require a serious grasp of English, but if you don't want to end up
sounding stupid on the net, some semblance of grammar is really a must.

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik        | The Internet:  The only place where people
Vaporware Engineer 2nd cl. | routinely spend hundreds if not thousands of 
E-mail: hampton@ais.org    | dollars in order to get in their $.02 worth.
CompuServe: 71460,3602     |
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton