From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:37:03 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>
>>lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>>
>>>Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
>>>they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.
>>
>>Right.  Reagan and Bush have overseen one of the largest increases
>>in the size of government in the history of the country, and
>>80% of the new jobs created by Bush have been in *government*.
>>
>>For Christ's sake, think for yourself, man!
>>
>>Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
>>lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
>>and *you* talk about big spender liberals?
>
>What is Clinton going to do differently?
>
>>
>>Gimme a break.
>>
>>Clinton/Gore in '92.
>>-- 
>>   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
>>                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu
>>                              DoD # 0698
>
>William Crosmun
>crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

What is Clinton going to do differently?  I don't know.  What I hope
for, and what he claims, is that he is going to work a lot harder
on domestic policy thatn Bush has done.

I think Clinton will do more to heal the various social rifts in
this country, especially the racial tensions, which are largely
economic in origin.  I don't think the party of David Duke has been good
for this country.

I hope that Clinton will have an easier time getting his program 
past Congress than Bush has had.  One could make the point that
part of Bush's problem is that Congress hasn't worked for his
plan.  This is true, and Congress should take some of the blame for
this.  Yet, it's the President's job to work with Congress, and Bush
has shown himself unable to do this.

And after all of the Congress bashing Bush has been undertaking lately,
there's no way he'll be able to work with them after the election, either.

Also, Clinton has a more coherent plan for providing health care for the
37 million U.S. citizens that aren't covered by health insurance now.  
I like that.

Also, Clinton plans to cut U.S. forces in Europe faster than Bush does
and I approve of that, too.

In general, I think Clinton has a chance of getting a domestic program
through Congres, and I don't think Bush does.

Also, Clinton is, IMHO, more likely to be more helpful with
industry's efforts to convert from a military clientele to a
civilian one.

I could go on for days, but what it comes down to is I think
George Bush has been a total disaster on domestic policy.  He's
been out of touch with the American people, and he has refused to
accept *any* blame for the problems.  Bush has only taken credit
for doing two things (winning the cold war, and defeating Saddam
Hussein), and one of those was actually accomplished by the
Congress he despises.

Dump Bush.

Clinton/Gore in '92.







-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698