tac@cholula.UUCP (08/23/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) >> -- >> >> Ron also promised to cut inflation and to bring down interest rates. >> >> Two out of three ain't too bad. Which one hurts you the most, inflation, >> >> interest rates, or the deficit? Now if Congress will see the light, even >> >> >> the deficit will dry up. >> >> T. C Wheeler >> >> What is this Pavlovian conditioning? Reagan in office, economy gets >> better, ergo Reagan improved the economy. Just like rats in a Skinner >> box, we get our reward, so we keep pushing the lever. Clever us. >> >> Reagan has shown he knows nothing about how the economy works (indeed, >> few presidents ever have). The Democrats may tax & tax, spend & spend, >> but that contains the implicit realization that it has to come from >> somewhere. Reagan simply spends & spends. >> >> If you must vote for the man, vote for him for what he *IS* responsible >> for: policies on foreign affairs in general, Central America in >> particular, nuclear arms, the environment, abortion, school prayer, >> state's rights, women's rights. Because those issues are what he *CAN >> AND WILL* do something about. As for the economy, "Dat ol' man river, >> he jus' keep rollin' along." >> >> For the record, I have about equal contempt for both the Republican >> and Democratic parties and policies. In fact, I have never in my >> almost 36 years voted for a major party candidate. But God help me, >> I'm about to. >> -- >> *** *** >> JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** >> ****** ****** 21 Aug 84 [4 Fructidor An CXCII] >> ken perlow ***** ***** >> (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** >> ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** *** It does sound like Pavlovian conditioning, now that you mention it. I am not sure what sort of blindness allows you to consider that the alternatives would not spend even more though. Lord help us all if we elect Mondale and he treats the soviets as he is currently behaving towards Reagan! This ludicrous round of "You're going to do this!" "I am not!" is childish in the least, and aggravating to all who have to listen. If, however, Mondale got elected and talked like that to Chernenco (sp?) we would be at war tomorrow! All those who think a Soviet leader can afford to let an American President call him a liar in the world press, mail $20,000,000,000.00 to the address below. If you want to vote for the man for what he is responsible for, THINK about that. I do not support all (or even nearly all) of the current administration's foreign policy decisions, but the dealings between the US and the Soviets, at present, is definitely supportable. The Soviets want us to agree to talk only about an area of technology and warfare where we are head and shoulders ahead of them. If we don't agree to limit the talks to this area, they will not come to the bargaining table. To do other than what RR has done would be to enter a no-win situation which could conceivably cost us allies. We could gain nothing from any agreement that the USSR could make at such talks, and if we fail to agree to something, the entire world sees us as the "bad guys" who wouldn't bargain. They would never agree to treaty talks limited to SS-20 missiles, why should we agree to talks limited to weapons only we are capable of? Negotiation is a give and take situation. If we are the only ones who can give and they are the only ones who can take, why should we bother? As to spending, Ken, I am amazed at you! A marcher from the sixties who doesn't believe that we can change the world with a little trying? If we all write our congress-persons and tell them that they will have to find a more efficient way of doing things (i.e. cut both taxes and spending) or they will have to find a new job, then we may get somewhere on this issue. We have become a "gi'me" society. We don't want to get rid of our senior senators and representatives (deliberately UN-capitolized [sp]) because they can get more goodies of the federal budget for us! THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH! You (yes, you Mr. & Mrs. America) pay for each and every thing you get from the government. You pay MORE because of the extra layer of overhead in having the Feds filter the money first. If you kept that money closer to home you would have more controls and less siphons on it! WAKE UP, AMERICA, QUIT SPENDING IN CONGRESS! From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay. There haven't been near enough of us of late. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not my employers! PS I appologize for the length, but I felt that it needed to be said.
mark@teltone.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (08/24/84)
<> [Tom Condon:] > Lord help us all if we elect Mondale and he treats the soviets as he is > currently behaving towards Reagan! This ludicrous round of "You're going > to do this!" "I am not!" is childish in the least, and aggravating to > all who have to listen. If, however, Mondale got elected and talked like > that to Chernenco (sp?) we would be at war tomorrow! All those who think > a Soviet leader can afford to let an American President call him a liar > in the world press, mail $20,000,000,000.00 to the address below. If you > want to vote for the man for what he is responsible for, THINK about that. Come now; Reagan's already called them far worse! An "evil empire", if I recall. In fact, in one of his first speeches as president, Reagan said the Soviets would "tell any lie" or cheat or steal or whatever they needed to do to have their way. Reagan is an idiot; I think Mondale is a little smarter, but the way he's run his campaign so far I wonder. I'm tempted to write in Bill the Cat. I suppose Reagan will be reelected, but I doubt that he'll find his second term nearly so satisfying as the first. I just hope we live through it. -- ---------------- ....uw-beaver!teltone!tikal!mark
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (08/24/84)
> Lord help us all if we elect Mondale and he treats the soviets as he is > currently behaving towards Reagan! This ludicrous round of "You're going > to do this!" "I am not!" is childish in the least, and aggravating to > all who have to listen. If, however, Mondale got elected and talked like > that to Chernenco (sp?) we would be at war tomorrow! All those who think > a Soviet leader can afford to let an American President call him a liar > in the world press, mail $20,000,000,000.00 to the address below. If you > want to vote for the man for what he is responsible for, THINK about that. > [Tom Condon] If this claim were true, you wouldn't be around to make it, and I wouldn't be around to read it, as RR has done more than his share of name-calling. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (08/26/84)
>All those who think >a Soviet leader can afford to let an American President call him a liar >in the world press, mail $20,000,000,000.00 to the address below. Tom Condon says this with the implication that Mondale would call the Soviet leadership liars while Reagan has not. Actually Ronald Reagan and his Administration HAVE been accusing the Soviets of being liars without giving any actual evidence to back up their statements. For some months Reagan has been publicly accusing the Soviets of violating past nuclear arms treaties--yet: 1)Reagan has refused to bring a single charge of Soviet violations to the Standing Consultative Committee--Nixon, Ford and Carter ALL brought charges before this Committee and had such alleged violations resolved by having the Soviets cease activities that were thought to be in violation of arms treaties OR by deciding that such activities were not actually violations, OR by deciding that the supposed activities had not actually occurred. 2)Reagan, while publicly shouting such accusations to the world at large has labelled his evidence for such supposed violations "classified" and refused to release the information which serves as the basis for such dangerous charges. (dangerous because Reagan and rearmament advocates then use these charges as excuses for their own plans to break SALT II in 1985 and continue rearming without any hindrance from treaties) This is the worst possible sort of smear against an opponent: to make public charges without ever bringing it before the legal authorities who are supposed to judge such charges, and then not even to give any evidence with which to substantiate such charges. But this is just part of the Reagan Administration's generalized contempt for the law which has been evidenced in many spheres of activity. If the mining of Nicaraguan harbors is about to be condemned by the World Court--simply pull out of the World Court. If possible Soviet arms violations might be resolved by the Standing Consultative Committee and thus lend support to efforts at arms control which threatens the $1.65 trillion militarization of America--simply bring no charges before the Standing Consultative Committee and accuse the Soviets of violating treaties anyway. If the laws require toxic waste sites to be cleaned up incurring costs on corporations--simply appoint Anne Burford to insure such laws are really not enforced. If she is finally forced to resign for her failure to enforce the law, then further show contempt for the protection of the Environment by appointing her to a key Environmental Commission. If Congress passes restrictions on spending to overturn the Nicaraguan government, then simply bypass the law by taking such funds from allocations for other activities. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb Bell Labs, Whippany
rcd@opus.UUCP (08/30/84)
>Lord help us all if we elect Mondale and he treats the soviets as he is >currently behaving towards Reagan! This ludicrous round of "You're going >to do this!" "I am not!" is childish in the least, and aggravating to >all who have to listen... That's one way to look at it. You can also look at it in the light that Mondale (along with anyone else with an ability for arithmetic >= third grade) can figure out that you can't simultaneously increase expenditures, service the debt, limit the debt, and keep taxes constant. Mondale simply picked one of the inconsistent variables and started harping on it. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.
tac@cholula.UUCP (08/30/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) >> >me >>he >> > Lord help us all if we elect Mondale and he treats the soviets as he is >> > currently behaving towards Reagan! This ludicrous round of "You're going >> > to do this!" "I am not!" is childish in the least, and aggravating to >> > all who have to listen. If, however, Mondale got elected and talked like >> > that to Chernenco (sp?) we would be at war tomorrow! All those who think >> > a Soviet leader can afford to let an American President call him a liar >> > in the world press, mail $20,000,000,000.00 to the address below. If you >> > want to vote for the man for what he is responsible for, THINK about that. >> >> Come now; Reagan's already called them far worse! An "evil empire", if >> I recall. In fact, in one of his first speeches as president, Reagan >> said the Soviets would "tell any lie" or cheat or steal or whatever they >> needed to do to have their way. Perhaps it is my memory that is bad, Mark, but as I recall, he has always said those things about the "USSR", the "Soviets" or some other general political group. I repeat, calling the man a liar will cause a war. If you disagree, I will expect to see your check in the mail tomorrow. Hey, how is this for a novel political solution? We meet between the buildings here at *HIGH NOON* and settle this debate with our fists? [For those not in the know, Mark and I have never met--we just work for the same company.] >> >> Reagan is an idiot; I think Mondale is a little smarter, but the way he's >> run his campaign so far I wonder. I'm tempted to write in Bill the Cat. >> I suppose Reagan will be reelected, but I doubt that he'll find his second >> term nearly so satisfying as the first. I just hope we live through it. >> >> ....uw-beaver!teltone!tikal!mark Meadow party forever!!! Seriously, though, if Reagan is all that dangerous, why have we lived through his first term? I seem to recall these same critisisms before the last election. If he truely wanted war we would have had it by now. Now, consider the GOP hierarchy. They would *NEVER* allow a crazy man to be elected, it would be bad for the party image. Deity, I wish Anderson was running again! And now, for something completely different: A badge seen at Dragonflight [a local gaming convention]: Darth Vader for President, when you are tired of voting for the LESSER of two evils! From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not my employers! You guys and gals are not doing your share towards keeping the government small, they just came to take my term.....
faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/01/84)
Tom Condon says, "Calling a man a liar will start a war". Give me an example in recent history when it has started a war. Personally, if I were a head of state, I would much rather be called a liar than the ruler of an "evil empire". And how often is Reagan called a liar and worse things in the Soviet press? Wayne
faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (09/01/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houti.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Message-ID: <1771@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Sat, 1-Sep-84 12:21:22 EDT olula.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 8 Tom Condon says, "Calling a man a liar will start a war". Give me an example in recent history when it has started a war. Personally, if I were a head of state, I would much rather be called a liar than the ruler of an "evil empire". And how often is Reagan called a liar and worse things in the Soviet press? Wayne
garry@bolton.UUCP (Garry Baer) (09/05/84)
This message is empty.