From: jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner)
Subject: Re: Casey 1996! (Was Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:12:11 GMT


>Frankly, Bush's cabinet and other top administration posts are populated
>with women and minorities (and both in the same person).

	Oh puuleeeeezzee!  I like the way you said 'person'.  Meaning
one.  I agree.  He has one black female in his cabinet and thinks
that's enough.  Now, I am firmly against hiring someone for his/her
gender or race, that's as bad as not hiring them, but there are PLENTY
of qualified women and minorities out there that Bush has overlooked.
As evidence I present Clarence Thomas.  You can't tell me that he is
the most qualified to fill the seat he's in.  He was picked because
he's black.  

[stuff deleted]

>> BTW, why do you dislike Clinton?
>>
>
>I really agree with his nickname "slick" for starters...  Why?  Not because
>a lot of people call him slick willie, but because of certain actions he
>has taken along the way to becoming the Democratic nominee.  In particular,
>he was roasted during one of the Democratic primary debates for a failed
>educational plan in Arkansas.  The next day he went back to Arkansas and
>got an education bill passed.  Not because he cared (he should have had that
>bill passed anytime in the last 11 years), but because he saw it as a flaw
>in his record that would make him lose.  I call that slick.

	Come on now.  You can't get legislature passed in 1 day!
Anyone who knows anything about the goverment knows that is takes
weeks, even months to get anything through.

>I see way too much of Clinton on TV and all he does is cry foul when
>the republicans say ANYTHING about his record, and he simply makes
>totally bogus claims like "they won't discuss the issues."  I hear

	Oh really?  And what did Clinton do when the issue of marital
infidelity came up?  When the media was all over Bush Clinton had the
dignity to say that he felt sorry for the man and would NOT do what
the republicans did when he was in the same situation.

>Bush talk about the issues everytime he speaks.  And I am pretty amazed

	And what planet are you on here?  I hear him talk about
'family vaules'.  Yeah, that's really an issue that's inportant in
this election!  Name for me more than 2 times that he's talked about
the economy - the single most important issue in most people's minds
this year.  Has he mentioned education?  No.  What has he said about
his 'war on drugs'?  Nothing.

>that the republicans are not doing any personal attacks at all against
>Clinton, given their reputation.  I also hear very little substance in
>anything Clinton is saying.  He is constantly attacking Bush, yet he

	You have to turn the _volume_ up to actually HEAR what he's 
saying, then you'll hear plenty of substance.  For example:  he has
an economic plan.  I don't care whether you like it or not, you can't
deny he has one.

>crys foul when put on the defensive.  FWIW, when Bush was on Rush's
>show, he openly gave Clinton some awesome advice.  He told Bill that
>he should just come clean on the draft issue and tell the whole truth.
>It would actually improve Clinton's image and chances to do so.  Bush
>clearly believes in the "kinder, gentler" nation principles he ran on
>in 1988, it seems.

	Excuse me?  Kinder and Gentler?  Look what happened in LA 
recently.  Look at the statistics on crime during his presidency.  Yep,
this country SURE seems kinder and gentler than 4 yeras ago.  Try telling
that to the Iraqi citizens who are being stomped on my their government.
Try telling that to the Kuati citizens who are living under one of the most
oppressive governments on the planet.

>I do not at all agree with his plan to "invest" in America.  I've read
>about 40 different position papers and statements he's made and he clearly
>plans to tax and spend (invest is another word for spend, IMO).  It is my
>opinion that spending is way too high already - about 6% of GNP too high.
>And to top it off, he claims he can generate significant new revenues (but
>not enough to cover his investments) by taxing a targeted class (top 2%).
>I do not belong to that top 2%, but believe that top 2% is doing a lot of
>good - as much as they can given the 60% of gross tax revenues they are
>already coughing up.  Particularly in the area of charitible donations.
>And lest we forget that the beloved H. Ross Perot is one of those
>top 2% who has done significant good, whether you like the man or not.
>
>I want to see taxes go down, not up.  Not particularly for the rich, but
>for everyone.  With Clinton's economic plan, we will have an additional
>$70 Billion defecit and that money really does have to come from somewhere.
>I submit that it can only come from the middle and lower classes after the
>tax on the rich doesn't raise enough.  I am a firm believer that social
>programs administered at the state level will be much better at solving
>our woes.
>
>Clinton's record in his home state is abysmal.  Compared to the US as
>a whole, his state did worse than any other state.  It ranks consistently
>in the bottom 5 in most fundamental economic and social catagories, according
>to my Universal Almanac.  His state is the only one without a civil rights
>bill of any kind.  The median income of a person in Arkansas is $5K below
>the poverty line.

	Would you like to quote some actual statistics here or are you 
just going to spout our opinions as fact.  Here's some fact for you:  
Arkansas has the 2nd lowest tax burden on its citizens in the country.  
The high school graduation rate in Arkansas went from bottom 10 12 years
ago to top 10 last year.  

>Now, it may sound like I'm a Bush supporter, but as I said, I am not.
>But I see so many ridiculous claims about him and his presidency, that
>I feel forced to defend him.  In 1988, people were flaming Reagan's
>economic policy, and Bush had called it voodoo economics, himself.  Because

	Actually, that was in 1980 that he called Reaganomics 'Voodoo 
economics'.  Incidentally that was the same year that he suddenly "saw 
the light" and went from pro-choice to pro-life literally overnight.  Funny
coincidence that it was the same night he was nominated for the VP slot.

>of this, my closest friends who are liberals were saying at the time that
>it didn't matter who (Bush or Dukakis) got elected, that the economy was
>going to be in the crapper.  Well, surprise!  It is.  Yet, I would have
>expected FAR worse than what we really have at this point.
>
>Actually, in many ways, things are indeed better, economically, than
>any time in the last 50 years (refuting Clinton's claim that Bush has
>had the worst presidency).  Interest rates are ridiculously low, inflation

	Interest rates are so low because we're in a big recession and
that's the only thing the government has done to bring us out.  And 
inflation is lower than it should be.  Anyone who knows anything about 
economics will tell you that a little inflation is a good thing, it 
implies that the economy is growing.

>is low enough to not be hurting people on fixed incomes (or generally
>robbing us all of our money's value), the Dow Jones is at/near all time
>highs, the GNP is growing, there's still 18 million more people working

	The Dow Jones is almost _always_ rising, so from any point to
almost any other point 4 years later the DJ will be higher.  Come on,
I'm sure even you realize that.

>(i.e. real jobs) now than in 1980, and the auto industry is experiencing
>significant gains in market penetration in the US.  Things did not look
>nearly as good in 1980.

	The reason that the auto industry is 'experiencing significant
gains" is that Americans got fed up with their putting out garbage and 
calling it cars.  Towards the end of the 80s Ford, GM and Chrysler made 
huge gains on the Japanese in the quality department.  For example:
My family owns 2 Fords and 3 Buicks from 85-91 and we have had no problems
with any of them.  You can't give credit for this to anyone but the 
companies themselves.

>When we actually had a recession, 9 quarters ago, Bush said we weren't.
>Was he lying?  Yes and no.  He absolutely proposed economic growth bills
>to congress that never made it out of committee.  To be specific, 117
>specific proposals.  Without getting any action from congress, what power
>did he have at all to influence the economy?  Instilling confidence.  Even
>if he had to lie to do it.  Damn it, if he just went on TV, he'd have
>really made a difference.

[bullshit about Bush deleted (Bushit?)]

>So WHO would I like to be voting for for president?  Believe it or not,
>I'd rather vote for Quayle as president than Bush or Clinton.  I'd rather

	I believe it, not.  So what were you on when you wrote this?

>vote for Bush than Clinton, too.  But I'd much rather have the chance to


>Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
>Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
>Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
>1124 Fremont Ave.
>Los Altos, CA 94024
>

	I'm sorry this was so long and not to much about Danny, but I'm
posting it because this guy _actually_ thinks Quayl would make a good 
president!!!

-Jason

-- 
"Down here on the planet Earth 
They steal your back and leave the shirt.
Pay you a penny and call it a dime and then   -Jason and
Give you a watch when you run out of time."   -the Scorchers 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle