rfs@loral.UUCP () (10/25/84)
Well you pointy headed liberals really confuse me. Mondale is really FLIP-FLOPPING. If I would have closed my eyes watching the Oct 21 debate I would have sworn Mondale was a Republican. Then I opened my eyes to see it was just "good ol TAX RAISING Fritz". After all these years Fritz finally wants a strong defense. This can't be the man that voted down funds for every defense system he ever saw. This can't be the same old Fritz that wanted to cut our troop strength both in W. Germany and Korea. This CAN'T be the same old Fritz that one always wondered WHOS SIDE IS HE REALLY ON! All of a sudden (this year) Fritz is a fiscal conservative. He is worried about the deficit. We all know how he is going to reduce the deficit. HE WILL RAISE OUR TAXES AND IF THAT DOES'NT WORK HE'LL RAISE THEM AGAIN. Fritz never did like Ronnie's tax cut. Even though he received a 25% tax reduction from it. He ought to thank Ronnie for cutting his taxes. Why should Fritz care if we all take home less money in our pay checks after he raises our taxes. He'll be taken care of by Tip (fat cat) O'Neal, UAW, AFLCIO and all the other SELFISH INTREST GROUPS. I can't believe you POINTY headed liberals actually picked Fritz as your choice to head the Democratic ticket. There is a lot better people in that party that should have been run instead (not Teddy). Some of them I would even consider voting for. Maybe there is methode to your madness. If Mondale loses this election we'll never have to worry about him again in public politics.
nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) (10/31/84)
I don't know if this is prophetic but the following quote appeared, from a
random quote generator, when I started to post this message.
"If you can't convince them, confuse them."
Harry Truman
There is an annoying tendency, of lower life (i.e. intelligence) forms to
retort arguments with name-calling and rehashed rhetoric. This is evident by
the recent postings of one rfs@loral, all though there are many others. Now
this might be of interest to a certain animal behaviorist friend of mine who
is trying to teach hamsters and gerbils how to use a type-writer. Will
rfs@loral please contact him and explain how you have managed to learn this
trick yourself.
rfs@loral >
> Well you pointy headed liberals really confuse me.
Your problem is obvious (see above)
> This can't be the man that voted down funds for every defense system he
> ever saw.
After many long years in the senate (14 I think) he has vetoed the F-1, B-1
and the MX. The MX we don't need (except to pad the pockets of those
building it) and the B-1 will be outdated by the time it is in production
(and the cost will be at least three times the original price-tag).
Has most intelligent people know, you can not examine a candidates position
by looking at his voting record on congressional bills. Riders (i.e. things
that have nothing to do with the main intent of the bill) are often added to
a bill right before passage. This is a sleazy tactic practiced by both
republicans and democrats.
Mondale has always been in favor of a strong military, but not a strong-arm
military policy. He wants to increase or military strength in conventional,
proven resources and means, not some esoteric, off the wall, multi-billion
dollar space-weapons program. Every noted military strategist (outside of
ronnie's buddies on their own million dollar welfare program and of course
that internationally acclaimed exert on everything, Milo Median) has stated
that the technological difficulties presented by this weapons system are at
least ten to twenty years away, yet the counter-measures are cheap and exist
today.
> Fritz never did like Ronnie's tax cut. Even though he received a
> 25% tax reduction from it.
The reason why he may not have liked ronnies tax cut(sic), is that he sees
who benefits from it (the rich) and who pays for it (the middle-income to
poor).
> He ought to thank Ronnie for cutting his taxes.
He would rather offer his compassion for those who have suffered under the
Reagan tax cuts(sic).
> Some of them (democrats) I would even consider voting for.
What? And become a pointy headed, fuzzy liberal? No thanks, I would rather
have you vote for someone who thinks like you do.
"How should I know where they are going to be place." RR
"Well Mr. President (just like in the movies), if they are called
space-weapons I suppose they will be in space." WM
"I'm not a scientist" RR
"not much of a president either" me
Bruce Golub/John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc./Everett WAsemreb@ih4ep.UUCP (Waz Nardbill) (10/31/84)
Steve,
Do you mean Ronnie Raygun hasn't told you yet? Jimmy Carter
DID cause AIDs.
MONDALE '84simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/03/84)
In article <435@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) writes: >Mondale has always been in favor of a strong military, but not a strong-arm >military policy. He wants to increase or military strength in conventional, >proven resources and means, not some esoteric, off the wall, multi-billion >dollar space-weapons program. 1. Mondale has blamed excess military spending for materially increasing the deficit. This means that he thinks reducing that budget to a level that suits him will have a significant impact on a $170+ billion figure. 2. About 7% of the total military budget goes for nuclear devices. 3. Therefore, if you unilaterally eliminate ALL nuclear devices, you can save about $16-17 billion, tops. 4. Mondale has not (yet) promised total unilateral nuclear disarmament. 5. From the above: to satisfy his claims in (1.) above, he would have to virtually gut conventional forces. >The reason why (Mondale) may not have liked ... tax cut is that he sees >who benefits from it (the rich) and who pays for it (the middle-income to >poor). Whoa!! The popular conception expressed above is proof of the advertiser's maxim: if you repeat anything frequently enough, it will be believed. If you're rich, you got a 25% cut. If you're poor, you got a 25% cut. If you're ANYBODY who paid taxes at all, you got a 25% cut. How does that "favor the rich"? RIGHT NOW, even AFTER the tax cuts, the highest brackets are paying marginal rates of 50%. That is confiscatory, and absolutely unsupportable. If paying from the proceeds of your labor and talents, an amount to the government equal to the total you are allowed to keep for yourself is being "coddled", what is worse? No tax structure "favors" the rich until it becomes regressive, i.e., marginal rates actually DECLINE as income levels rise. Reagan is not even close to suggesting that, and it has never been so. > > "How should I know where they are going to be place." RR > > "Well Mr. President (just like in the movies), if they are called > space-weapons I suppose they will be in space." WM > > "I'm not a scientist" RR > No doubt he should have the celestial position of every proposed weapon in the proposal at his fingertips. Sheesh! Pre-signature: "I can disagree with you and still call you friend. I hope you choose to do the same with me!" -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard