From: PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:05:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.154206.7079@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>Sorry, but I don't see any distinction between voting "for Bush in reaction to
>>his detractors and voting for him as a signal of support in the event of
>>renewed hostilities.
>
>Then I would have to say you don't show a lot of ability to recognize
>distinctions, period.
>

We're still waiting . . .  Or must we just take your word that there's a
difference, despite the absence of proof?

>>Anyway, let's use your own terms:  I think it's
>>ludicrous to cast a vote for four more years of presidential inaction
>>simply "in reaction to" foreign or domestic zealots who think Bush or the U.S.
>>is the Great Satan.  There, does that sound better?
>
>Well, it at least sounds more accurate.  Don't you think you can judge
>people by who their 'enemies' are?  You undoubtedly think it is
>ludicrous for anyone to simply vote against whichever side runs the
>MOST NEGATIVE campaign, too, but I think we all ought to do it.  It's
>the only way we're going to get them to quit doing it; show that it

Hey, look, for someone who's so irritable himself, you sure have an unpleasant
tendency to put words in other people's mouths.  I defy you to find a single
mention of negative campaigning in any of my posts, yet somehow you have
decided what I "undoubtedly" think about it.  Nice feat, that.  Since you
seem intent on getting me to discuss negative campaigning, however, riddle
me this:  Why are you threatening to vote for Bush if you've got such a
hard-on over negativism?

>doesn't work for them anymore.  This sort of stupid accusation is in
>the same ballpark.
>
>>Not to mention the
>>idiocy of such a p.o.v., given that any renewed conflict with Iraq would
>>necessarily be brief.  Are you willing to put up with another full term of
>>inaction on the budget and economy -- you yourself seem ambivalent about Bush'
>>effectiveness in this area -- just to have the honor of casting a vote for
>>our beloved Commander in Chief in a time of Middle East pseudo-crisis?
>
>There's your lack of ability to make distinctions again.  No, but I'm
>willing to put up with another full term of inaction on the budget
>(which probably can't be fixed or much more seriously broken in four
>years) and the economy (which will eventually fix itself, if people
>quit screwing with it) -- just to have the satisfaction of NOT being
>on the same side as the kind of idiots who think George Bush would
>start a war and get people killed merely to shore up his domestic
>popularity.

Glad to hear you think we can stand another four years of escalating federal
deficits.  I hope you have a nice pension fund of your own and won't be
needing Social Security somewhere down the road.  Cancel that -- I hope
you have a few million bucks stashed in your mattress.  Get the distinction?

>>Now allow me a clarification of my own.  I by no means think it's "normal"
>>for a president to use the military to manipulate public opinion.  That's
>>the whole point of my earlier post;  it's not normal, it's _sick_.  And this
>>wouldn't be the first time it's happened.  Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin?
>
>Yes, I have, and there's that lack of ability to make distinctions of
>yours again.  Would you like to tell me what the 'purpose' of what
>happened in the Gulf of Tonkin was?  If your answer is "shore up the
>President's popularity for the election" rather than "provide
>justification for further involvement in a war that we wanted to be in
>for other reasons and purposes", then you not only have a problem
>making distinctions, you have a total inability to make them.
>

This is choice stuff!  You claim that you now expect me to say a certain thing
(i.e., that Tonkin was an election year gambit) that my earlier post
carefully avoided saying, then you condemn me in advance for saying it.  Or
for being _about_ to say it?  Huh?  "If you are about to say that up is down,
you have a real problem."  What a high level of discourse.

>I've also heard of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, since I was
>there when Iran took our embassy and the Iran/Iraq war started; so
>where the hell were you?  Do you know anything about that part of the
>world other than what you've been told in classrooms?
>

Again, for someone who seems so self-satisfied about his worldliness and
perceptiveness, you have an odd tendency to latch onto _my_
rhetorical devices and then run them into the ground rather than turning
a phrase or two of your own.  By the way, what in hell do your whereabouts
at any given moment in the past have to do with this discussion?  Hey, I've
driven a Cadillac, I guess that makes me CEO of General Motors!

>>>Feh!
>>
>>Feh yourself!
>
>Go feh yourself!
>

Nice!  To prove what an idiot you think I am, you steal my pun.  Wit, thy
name is McCall.  Judging by the fact that you are misconstruing and flaming
several other people on this thread alone, I'll try not to take too personally
your devastating rhetorical thrusts and parries.  Instead, I'll just pray
that even the clueless are correct from time to time, in spite of themselves.

>--
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections