From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Sep7.161830.6653@news.columbia.edu>
	<1992Sep7.052412.508@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Sep8.153026.29448@umbc3.umbc.edu>
	<1992Sep9.022339.13295@afit.af.mil>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:03:12 GMT


   I wish for one minute that you would apply the same litmus tests to your
   own rhetoric as you do to the conservatives'.  What you are saying is
   that there is no real difference between these two scenarios:

   1.)  Clinton comes up with an economic plan, which is then endorsed by
   some Nobel winning economists--and Clinton touts the endorsement.

   2.)  Some Nobel winning economists devise an economic plan which sounds
   good to Clinton and is subsequently adopted by him--and Clinton touts
   the endorsement of *his* plan by six Nobel winning economists.  

   Do you honestly see no difference here?  If Bush did something like
   this, you would be on it like stink on shit.  Face it.  You have a
   double standard.

On the other hand, Chip has continously exemplified a completely unbiased,
level viewpoint, free from political influences in all his posts! Bullshit.

Who is so stupid as to think that a politician has to author all his
proposals? They seldom even write their own speeches, let alone policies. 
And how extremely foolish NOT to enlist whatever means are available to 
come up with some new ideas!

I'd certainly hate to think that Dan Quayle would ever have to author any
proposal of any consequence to this country.

What's the problem? A plan is no good or cannot be considered, unless it
comes solely from the candidate itself? Or, are we hung up on some great
act of immorality, perceived by the new Whinin' Right, as to Bill Clinton
somehow representing something solely as "his" policy? Who cares?

I've never seen some many infantile arguments for conservative policies in
my life. The New Right mentality seems to be about as shallow as it can
get. I wonder what ever happened to the thoughtful, well-versed 
presentations of conservate ideas by people like William F. Buckley? 
WFB and hundreds of other thinking Repubs must be gritting their teeth 
at the idea of having such people on "their side"!

Want to argue a slightly different point about morality (even Family
Values) in our government? 

How is it that our mighty nation, with all its power and resources,
supposedly presided over by a man of high moral standards and conscience,
can stand idly by with its finger in its nose while thousands of Somalies
die of famine? We, with 14 cargo planes, who cannot decide to deliver
human aid [this week] to these starving innocents, as we fiddle and fart 
with our bureacratic procedures and decide to delay flights because 
shipments are being stolen by rebels. We, who certainly can find the 
mandate and might to come to the aid of Kuwait, in spades. But cannot 
find a method to deliver food and medicine to the third world. So where's
our mighty armed forces now? 

Could it be that our wonderful poly-faced President doesn't give a damn
about any of it? Preach to me some more about the Family Values that the
Repubs have all locked up. Tell me about the values of human life, 
children, mothers and fathers, so dear to our self-righteous Right.

And whatever you do, don't look at the little naked children with their
tiny boney arms and swollen stomachs, who won't live another week, the
direct recipients of the results of our pissy, cowardly national policies.

Where's our national conscience, anyway?

Excuse me for ranting, but I have HAD IT with our Mr. Bush.

L.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections