🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct14.015119.3177@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct13.014957.25667@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted to save space]
>
>>Here it is again, lack of an argument and therefore name calling.  Firstly,
>>we don'T KNOW that The President is corrupt.  In fact many of us don't even
>>suspect that he is.  Secondly there is no evidence to suggest that former
>>President Reagan is senile.  What really burns you folks is that Ronald
>>Reagan was likely the most popular president this century and that he would
>>likely still be president if not for the 22nd ammendment.  Remember the last
>>Democratic president was Jimmy Carter and before that LBJ.  Neither of these
>>two gentlemen were extremely popular.  I keep repeating it but it gets
>>misconstrued, if liberal ideas and policies are so great, why does Governor
>>Clinton want to be thought of as a moderate?
>>
>>miscontrued>
>
>	Show me two people who DON'T think that Bush is totally full
>of shit and I'll show you 20 who do.  Allow me to refresh your memory:
>The Iran/Contra affair which we are STILL hearing about in the news;
>selling arms to Hussein when we KNEW he was using them on his own people;
>"Read my lips...."; Trickle-down theories that are the major cause of
>our current recession; need I go on?
>	Personally, I think that Bush and Reagan both belong in the
>big house, not the white house.  Reagan not senile?  You show me 1
>person who thinks he isn't and I'll show you 100 who know he is.
>Granted, state dinners are probably boring as hell.  But that's part
>of what we're paying the President $250,000 a year to sit through.
>There is NO excuse for falling asleep at the events.  I might even
>forgive his falling asleep once, but he dozed off at almost every
>single one!  Either he was senile or didn't give a damn:  Two
>qualities I sure as hell don't want in my President.
>	More examples:  Reagan would give a speach about, say, arms
>reduction.  Then the reporters would aks him questions about that VERY
>SAME TOPIC and he'd say such Reaganisms as "I can't recall", "I just
>don't know" and so forth.  And I'm not just talking about issues of
>national security that he couldn't answer for obvious reasons.
>	And how do you explain his severe lack of memory about the
>Iran/Contra scandal?  Good answer - senility.
>	Lastly, you don't seem to be reading much NEW news, do you?
>Every time I hear about Reagan in the news people are talking about
>how much he mortgaged this country's future for a few years of
>prosperity (ie: MASSIVE debt) or how his administration was the most
>corrupt ever, or about how history would not be as kind to him as the
>current American public has been.  Ok, he was popular in his term, but
>now that people have taken a good look back at it they see it for what
>it was:  a distaster.
>	Why do Democrats try to portray themselves as moderates?
>Because 12 years of Reagan/Bush/Quayl have brainwashed the American
>people (some of 'em, at least) into thinking that 'Liberal' equals
>'Communist'.  This business of labeling people and ideals is pure
>bullshit and merely serves to detract from the republicon's lack of
>qualifications.  Like the recently heralded 'family values' spiel.
Let me get this straight everybody was brainwashed except you?  Another
thing, I read three dailies each and every day so that touch of insult
was not appropriate.  If everybody believes something does that make it
true?  I don't think so.  By the way liberal dosen't = communist...
it = socialist there is some difference.  One last point speaking of
labeling, aren't you doing just that when you call someone that has the
temerity to disagree with you as believing in "pure bullshit"?