From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Only a week until four dark years
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:16:09 GMT

In article <C17w2q.4CA@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Brendan B. Boerner (bboerner@novell.com) wrote:
>: >: >Reasons to elect Bush:
>: >: >1)      Representative from Texas
>: In other words, he hasn't been useful to Texas, thus even if you do buy
>: into nationalism at the state level, that's not a reason to elect him.
>: But even if he was, this MIGHT be a reason for Texans to vote for him
>: but would be a reason for voters from other states to vote against
>: him.
>: 
>
>You babble.

Huh?  Here, I'll try to put it into bite size pieces.  You think being
from Texas was a reason to vote for him.  Chris thought nationalism at
a state level was a bad thing.  You then replied that actually he
hasn't been that beneficial to Texas.  So a) he wasn't useful to Texas,
so even if nationalism at the state level is alive and well, that's no
reason to vote for him, or b) even if he was good for Texas, there are
citizens of 49 other states who aren't living in Texas who couldn't
care less, so that's no reason for them to vote for Bush.


>: >: >3)      Ambassador to China
>: >: 
>: >: Is that why he keeps tolerating flagrant human rights abuses in that country?
>: >
>: >Could it just be that since he was Ambassador to China, he understands what the
>: >right policy is more than you or I?  I pick him over YOU.  I pick him over
>: >anyone.
>: 
>: If he does understand what the right policy is, he should have
>: articulated it for those of us who aren't so enlightened.  I've
>: actually heard an explanation which does make a lot of sense,
>: unfortunately, it didn't come from Bush so I'm not sure that was the
>: reason he acted as he did.
>
>Bush has said numerous times theat MFN status helps the Chinese who are
>against communism.  Removal of MFN status would HURT the people we claim
>to want to help.

Bzzzt!  Sorry, next contestant please.  That's not the argument I find
compelling.  If that's what Bush has been spouting, then I do critisize
him for tolerating flagrant human rights abuses in China.

>: >You allege he is corrupt.  I say he's not.  
>: 
>: No, Chris was dubious that ANY high placed member of a political party
>: could be squeaky clean (this includes Clinton).
>: 
>
>Well, Woodward and Bernstein, special prosecutor, and senate investigators
>found nothing wrong with Bush's activities.  Until you can prove otherwise,
>clam up.

Likewise with you and Clinton.


>: >: >6)      Dukakis (Clinton, too) was a walking disaster
>: >: 
>: But he still got votes.  If he was such a walking disaster, why did
>: people vote for him instead of the party of God, Bush/Quayle?  In other
>: words, there were still a lot of people who didn't want Bush/Quayle
>: even if it meant Dukakis/Mondale.  Similarly, more people in 1992
>: decided that they'd rather have Clinton/Gore (an unknown evil as it
>: were) vs. Bush/Quayle (a known evil as it were).
>
>Your unknown evil lied and lied and lied and promised and promised and
>promised his way into office.  We'll see how the voters like him after

I hate to break it to you Mike, but ALL politician lie and lie and lie
and promise and promise to get their way into office (and stay there).


>: >Did you see Adam Smith's Money World or Nova this last week?  Both shows
>: >documented how close Iraq is to developing nuclear capability.  And Bush
>: >did not use the CIA in this case, he used the UN and public and diplomatic
>: >means.  
>: 
>: True, but when the magical hour 100 came up, he called it quits.  If
>: Iraq is so dangerous (and I actually do agree with you on this one) why
>: didn't we actually do something about it?  Why are we 2 years later
>: making bombing runs into Iraq?  Shouldn't we have done this 2 years
>: ago?
>: 
>
>No.  Sadaam has 20,000 nuclear engineers who are twiddling their thumbs
>because of the UN sanctions and investigations.  We bombed the major
>political centers of Iraq during the gulf war, and did not get sadaam.
>We tried to get him with collateral damage...  We have a fragile alliance
>of arab states suporting the resolutions.  Recent actions by Russia and
>arab states makes it clear that to a degree we are being to harsh on
>Sadaam as it is (in their eyes).
>
>If we want to get rid of Sadaam, it must be muslims that do the deed.
>I can see no other way.

Nope, I read that troops lead by Gen. Fred Frank were on their way east
to cut off and offer terms of surrender to the Republican Guards or
bomb them to hell and back when Bush called off the war.  Leaving the
Republican Guards in place helped Saddam stay in power immensely.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14875 alt.politics.clinton:20980 alt.politics.bush:16274 alt.politics.homosexuality:10073