Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Kelley Miller

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 10:52:20 AM9/1/92
to

In a previous article, jswi...@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) says:

>ses...@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>
>>bak...@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes:
>>No, Clinton did not dodge the draft as nothing he did could remotely be
>>considered as deceit or trickery. "Uncivic"? Give me a break! He opposed
>>the war in Vietnam. How does that make him any less of an American? How
>>does than make him any less patriotic? The whole draft dodging issue is
>>merely another smokescreen invoked because the re-election campaign has
>>no positive issues of any accomplishements by Bush that they can run on.
>>That is why they attack Clinton's "war record".
>
>>If you want a real example of deceit and trickery, you needn't look any
>>further than Danny Boy, who is but one heartbeat from the Commander in
>>Cheif job. How did he avoid the draft? There are certain types of National
>>Guard Units, by their very nature, which are virtually guarenteed to never
>>have to serve overseas. The unit Quayle wanted to enlist was one such unit,
>>but the young men of Indiana aren't all stupid, the waiting list in that
>>particular unit was so long, that if Quayle waited it out, he would have
>>been drafted first. What did he do? He had his family assert pressure at
>>the right places and voila! His name went to the front of the list!!
>
>I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
>record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the Democrats
>have on these two. It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to
>avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?
>

The point here is that the Republican Party has repeatedly slammed Clinton
for "dodging" the draft, yet have not acknoweledged that Quayle did exactly
the same thing.

>It is also interesting to note that four years ago this was a hot topic
>for a very long time and the Republicans were the ones accused of
>negative campaigning. This year the subject was quickly talked about
>in the media and dismissed as not an issue.
>

Have you concidered that the media has realized that negative campaigning
is a foregone conclusion, and has decided to ignore it as such?
Remember, the republican do not have a record to run on this year, nor can
they look at the record of Clinton and belittle him on it. The only
recourse they have, then, is characture assassination, and the "mistakes"
of youth are fair game, reguardless of the fact that Clinton has grown
beyond those "mistakes" and become an effective and respected chief
executive.
The only chance the republicans have to win is by negative assertions,
hoping they will convince the electorate that they are right by repeating
little things enough times in enough different ways that people will
accept them as fact. (rather like some folks here do...)
And even when presented with facts (the recent assertion, for example, of
Clinton's tax record, and 128 tax raises in 12 years, the enormous per
capita tax burdon on Arkansawers (49th in the country), still asserted
even after the GAO reports showing that the assertion is patently untrue),
they continue...

>Break out of your campaign fog for a minute and look at the facts. Do
>you think this is right?
>--

Are you sure _you're_ looking at the facts?

>
>Chip Switzer "A witty saying proves nothing."
>jswi...@afit.af.mil -- Voltaire
>
--
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!! I can see *
* the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!" *
* ae...@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross *
****************Know God...No peace. No God...Know peace.****************

Brendan B. Boerner

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 2:09:00 PM9/1/92
to
In article <1992Sep1.1...@afit.af.mil> jswi...@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
>record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the Democrats
>have on these two. It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to
>avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?

Well, I don't know if having family connections applying pressure is
all that legal. But suppose it is - here's how I look at it - would I,
or most other young men without the benefit of wealth and pull be able
to pull off what he did? If not, is that right?

Brendan
--
Brendan B. Boerner Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboe...@novell.com MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.

D

unread,
Sep 2, 1992, 9:12:52 PM9/2/92
to

Linda Jensen writes
>
>
>
> [discussion of Quayle and Clinton draft hijinks omitted]

>
> > I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
> > record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the
Democrats
> > have on these two. It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to
> > avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?
>
> > Chip Switzer "A witty saying proves
nothing."
> > jswi...@afit.af.mil -- Voltaire
>
>
> Clinton is on record as opposing the Vietnam war. True,
> it was probably 10% 'I oppose the Vietnam Policy' and 90%
> 'I don't want to die'.
>
> Whereas Quayle was always been a pro-military hawk. Have
> you ever heard the phase "Having the courage of your
> convictions" ??
>
> Guess it's o.k. to 'fight the good fight' as long as others
> do the dirty work. And please don't try to equate the
> Indiana National Guard with the jungles of Vietnam.
>
All right, so Dan didn't go to Vietnam. So Slick Willie didn't go either.
SO WHAT?!?!? I'm getting sick and tired of this debate.

When Vietnam happened, both those guys were under 25, I know (under 21, I
think). Haven't you done stupid stuff in your youth? Stuff you regret?
Stuff that, if you ran for public office, would be embarrassing to you?
I know I have.

The question is, where do these guys stand now? Do they actually have a
stand? I submit to you that Dan Quayle's beliefs and convictions, much as
one may agree or disagree with them, are out there for all to see
nonetheless. Example: Dan Quayle has been a champion of the free market
ever since he was elected and went to great pains to get the Council on
Competiveness formed by the end of his second (first?) year in office. He
did a bit of lobbying for the Council during his acceptance speech a
couple of weeks back. There can be no reasonable question raised about
what he stands for. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has been on both
sides of almost every issue that has come up. Example: the North
American Free Trade Pact. I watched Bill Clinton on NBC Nightside last
month say that the NAFTP was a good thing and would probably get more
blue-collar jobs into the American Economy. Now he's saying the exact
opposite every chance he can get.

In fairness, George Bush has flip-flopped on a number of things, too.

Now yielding the soapbox...

clueless chuck
Pear...@NeXTWork.Rose-Hulman.Edu

Linda Jensen

unread,
Sep 2, 1992, 1:04:20 PM9/2/92
to


[discussion of Quayle and Clinton draft hijinks omitted]

> I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
> record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the Democrats
> have on these two. It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to
> avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?

> Chip Switzer "A witty saying proves nothing."
> jswi...@afit.af.mil -- Voltaire


Clinton is on record as opposing the Vietnam war. True,
it was probably 10% 'I oppose the Vietnam Policy' and 90%
'I don't want to die'.

Whereas Quayle was always been a pro-military hawk. Have
you ever heard the phase "Having the courage of your
convictions" ??

Guess it's o.k. to 'fight the good fight' as long as others
do the dirty work. And please don't try to equate the
Indiana National Guard with the jungles of Vietnam.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com

unread,
Sep 3, 1992, 8:13:13 AM9/3/92
to
In article <1992Sep3.0...@cs.rose-hulman.edu>

pear...@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:
>When Vietnam happened, both those guys were under 25, I know (under 21, I
>think). Haven't you done stupid stuff in your youth? Stuff you regret?
>Stuff that, if you ran for public office, would be embarrassing to you?
>I know I have.
>The question is, where do these guys stand now? Do they actually have a

No it most certainly is NOT the question. Dan Quayle has come clean about
what he did and Bob Woodward (hardly a conservative) has confirmed it.
Bill Clinton has repeatedly lied and told half truths until cornered
after which he admits some of the independently confirmed facts. The
latest episode, in which his uncle's interference with the draft board
(which is also independently confirmed by representatives of the Navy
and others) was shown has found Bill Clinton stonewalling ("I never knew
anything about the Navy thing"). Do you really believe that his uncle would
go to such extremes to keep Clinton out of the draft and NOT tell him that
his efforts had worked?

The question is one of honesty. Whereas Bush's "No New Taxes" pledge was
broken in the future and after much dispute with the hostile Democratic
Congress, Clinton's stories seem to intentionally misrepresent the past
to conceal potentially damaging facts. Clinton is a baldfaced liar.
And I do not want the man who controls the CIA, the Armed Forces, etc.
to be so intent on lying that he will place his self interest above the
welfare of my country.

JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com

unread,
Sep 3, 1992, 8:23:50 AM9/3/92
to
In article <1992Sep2.1...@tellab5.tellabs.com>

li...@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
> do the dirty work. And please don't try to equate the
> Indiana National Guard with the jungles of Vietnam.

Why not? Clinton, when asked on Good Morning America about his qualifications
to be commander-in-chief, said "As Commander-in-chief of the Arkansas
National Guard, I had to respond to extreme emergencies on several occasions.
There was a time when the Cuban detainees rioted and I had to restore order.
. . . I don't think I'd be unprepared as a Commander in Chief."

Linda, I'd love to see you write that Clinton shouldn't "try to equate the
Arkansas (snicker snicker) National Guard with the jungles of VietNam.
Incidentally, Dan did serve his country - perhaps in a way that you'd like
to demean, but he DID serve. Clinton, as has been shown recently, had his
Uncle postpone the selective service from taking him until he was safe.
Then he consistently lied about the whole thing. I'd say it is a pretty sad
nominee for president who can be made to look like a lying wimp by the likes
of Dan Quayle.

Fred Seals 5-2298

unread,
Sep 3, 1992, 9:34:27 AM9/3/92
to


I don't know how many Viet Nam era people are out there but let me inform those of you who
aren't how draft boards worked during this time. Draft Boards were local. They were made
up of "community leaders" who were put on the boards as political favors. If your family
had connections you could use it to get into the National Guard or Coast Guard or get other
favors. Right or Wrong you could do it. There were numerous legal ways you could avoid
service, there were numerous legal ways you could avoid Viet Nam, there were numerous legal
ways you could avoid fighting if you were sent to Viet Nam.

Many people used many different ways to avoid serving in the war, however, only one is running
for president. Only one is asking Americans to give him the ability to send people to war.
Only one is asking to be trusted with control over the largest war making enterprise in the
world. Only one is asking to be allowed to order my son to be drafted. It is only his actions
that should be judged. It is only his words that should be considered.

Let us look at the difference between Dan Quayle and Bill Clinton:

Dan Quale:

1) Did he avoid going to Viet Nam? Yes
2) Did he lie to his draft board? No
3) Did he lie to get into ROTC? No
4) Did he say he "loathed" the military? No
5) Did he base his actions on how it would impact
his future "political viability"? No
6) Did he dodge service to his country? Yes


Bill Clinton:

1) Did he avoid going to Viet Nam? Yes
2) Did he lie to his draft board? Yes
3) Did he lie to get into ROTC? Yes
4) Did he say he "loathed" the military? Yes
5) Did he base his actions on how it would impact
his future "political viability"? Yes
6) Did he dodge service to his country? Yes


These two people are different. There service to America is different. There
motivations are different.

Do you really want someone who "loathed" the military and who makes decisions based
on "political viability" as Commander in Chief?

##############################################################################

He did inhale. He lied about the draft. He did sleep with Flowers.
He did cheat on his wife. He will raise taxes. He will put people out of
work. He is LIBERAL.

You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.

Bush/Quale 92

Fred Seals

##############################################################################



alex

unread,
Sep 3, 1992, 10:57:46 AM9/3/92
to

|> All right, so Dan didn't go to Vietnam. So Slick Willie didn't go either.
|> SO WHAT?!?!? I'm getting sick and tired of this debate.

Then write to dan quayle, and tell him to talk about something else.
He's one of hte ones who keeps bringing it up as an issue.

--
Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992

Eric Titmas

unread,
Sep 3, 1992, 12:41:43 PM9/3/92
to

This is the standard liberal justification for their double standard regarding Quayle
and Clinton service records.

It's never made sense to me. To be in favor of an action does *NOT* mean that you have
to do it. For example, I want all murderers put in prison but I don't want to be a policeman.

--
Eric Titmas Motorola ASIC tit...@chdasic.sps.mot.com

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend. - Thomas Sowell

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 3, 1992, 6:11:38 PM9/3/92
to
In article 28...@cs.rose-hulman.edu, pear...@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:
>> Guess it's o.k. to 'fight the good fight' as long as others
>> do the dirty work. And please don't try to equate the
>> Indiana National Guard with the jungles of Vietnam.
>All right, so Dan didn't go to Vietnam. So Slick Willie didn't go either.
>SO WHAT?!?!? I'm getting sick and tired of this debate.
>When Vietnam happened, both those guys were under 25, I know (under 21, I
>think). Haven't you done stupid stuff in your youth? Stuff you regret?
>Stuff that, if you ran for public office, would be embarrassing to you?
>I know I have.

The who issue is silly and stupid, however they are going to continue with
it because that's all they have. Yesterday, the chief chickenhawk himself,
Danikins started blasting Clinton as a draft-dodger. Calling the kettle
black is more befitting of this ridiculous accusation.


---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako LSI Computing Systems Office 408-433-4187
internet: ms...@lsil.com FAX 408-433-8796
uucp: lsil!msako
RIME: ->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
my management or my mother

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 3, 1992, 6:09:01 PM9/3/92
to
In article 90...@tellab5.tellabs.com, li...@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
>> I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
>> record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the Democrats
>> have on these two. It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to
>> avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?
> Clinton is on record as opposing the Vietnam war. True,
> it was probably 10% 'I oppose the Vietnam Policy' and 90%
> 'I don't want to die'.
> Whereas Quayle was always been a pro-military hawk. Have
> you ever heard the phase "Having the courage of your
> convictions" ??
> Guess it's o.k. to 'fight the good fight' as long as others
> do the dirty work. And please don't try to equate the
> Indiana National Guard with the jungles of Vietnam.

Comparing an intellectual with antiwar sentiment to a rich kid
chickenhawk is both insulting and unfair to Clinton.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 3, 1992, 6:22:36 PM9/3/92
to
In article JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com, JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com () writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.1...@tellab5.tellabs.com>
>li...@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
>> do the dirty work. And please don't try to equate the
>> Indiana National Guard with the jungles of Vietnam.
>Why not? Clinton, when asked on Good Morning America about his qualifications
>to be commander-in-chief, said "As Commander-in-chief of the Arkansas
>National Guard, I had to respond to extreme emergencies on several occasions.
>There was a time when the Cuban detainees rioted and I had to restore order.
> . . . I don't think I'd be unprepared as a Commander in Chief."

What does military service, including the NG have to do with the ability to
serve as commander-in-chief, anyway? I fail to see this. It's certainly
a phoney issue, a false choice, and not really related to the ability to
run the country.

If one's draft status is a necessary qualification to be president then
what all those who think so are doing is excluding 50+% of the population,
that is, all women, since women are not eligible for the draft.

Robert F. Alexander

unread,
Sep 4, 1992, 1:32:06 AM9/4/92
to
{buncha stuff remov }

>The who issue is silly and stupid, however they are going to continue with
>it because that's all they have. Yesterday, the chief chickenhawk himself,
>Danikins started blasting Clinton as a draft-dodger. Calling the kettle

^^^^^^^^>


black is more befitting of this ridiculous accusation.

>===============================================================================

>Mitch Sako LSI Computing Systems Office 408-433-418

Hey MITCHIKINS, Haven't you learned that name calling
brands you as a liberal, who has no real facts to argue.
Sir, your credibility just went in the shitcan.. AGAIN.
--
r...@turing.ORG ( KD4QBD ) / BROADCAST ENGINEER
(804) 296-7697 Hm / WCHV WWWVV
(804) 977-5566 Wk / Oldies AlbumRock

Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way

unread,
Sep 4, 1992, 10:48:47 AM9/4/92
to
In article <1992Sep3.1...@tamsun.tamu.edu> fr...@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
[ ... some arguments that Rush hisself would be proud of ... ]

##############################################################################

He did inhale. He lied about the draft. He did sleep with Flowers.
He did cheat on his wife. He will raise taxes. He will put people out of
work. He is LIBERAL.

You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.

Bush/Quale 92
~~~~~
Fred Seals

##############################################################################

Gawrsh, Fred, who's this "Quale" feller?!

(..)
~~
L.
"Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
O Fair New Mexico! Landfill of Enchantment. And home of THEM (Atomic Ants)..

JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com

unread,
Sep 4, 1992, 1:23:24 PM9/4/92
to
In article <1992Sep3.2...@lsil.com>

mi...@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>What does military service, including the NG have to do with the ability to
>serve as commander-in-chief, anyway? I fail to see this. It's certainly

The attribute of military service is relevant to one's ability to understand
how the armed forces should be controlled, of course, but that is not
the point. One more time, Mitch.

Mr. Clinton lied repeatedly about the events surrounding his eventual
avoidance of the draft. When caught, he fessed up. Sort of. Until
more facts came out. Then he said "The people are all dead and I am
not going to say anything more." The man is a self serving liar.
That is the point. Many people found honorable ways to mesh their
anatgonism toward the Vietnam War and their own beliefs. Clinton,
on the other hand, had his uncle pull strings. Later, he lied about it.
How much clearer do you need this message, Mitch. Clinton is, to use
your words, a "chickenhawk". He avoids military service, lies about it
then says alot of testosteronic stuff like "well the first thing ah'd
do is an airstrike". Mr. Bravery. Audie Murphy almost. Your choice.
Corporal Billie Bob Clinton. Now. Is that clear, Mitchie?

Steve Tyree

unread,
Sep 4, 1992, 5:26:05 PM9/4/92
to

>Comparing an intellectual with antiwar sentiment to a rich kid
>chickenhawk is both insulting and unfair to Clinton.

You shouldnt compare a person who has financed his entire life through
taxing the common people with a man who has worked hard his entire life
in the private sector. He received no inheritance from his grandfather
and only has stock from his mother.

Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

Mike Schwartz

unread,
Sep 4, 1992, 6:22:34 PM9/4/92
to
In article <1992Sep3.1...@tamsun.tamu.edu> fr...@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
> Let us look at the difference between Dan Quayle and Bill Clinton:
>
> Dan Quale:
>
> 1) Did he avoid going to Viet Nam? Yes
> 2) Did he lie to his draft board? No
> 3) Did he lie to get into ROTC? No
> 4) Did he say he "loathed" the military? No
> 5) Did he base his actions on how it would impact
> his future "political viability"? No
> 6) Did he dodge service to his country? Yes
>

Yes and no. He served in the national guard.


--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or my...@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

da...@uncle.cmhnet.org

unread,
Sep 7, 1992, 3:11:17 PM9/7/92
to

...all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.

Mike Schwartz

unread,
Sep 5, 1992, 7:29:56 PM9/5/92
to
In article <18...@celia.UUCP> st...@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.2...@lsil.com> mi...@lsil.com writes:
>
> >Comparing an intellectual with antiwar sentiment to a rich kid
> >chickenhawk is both insulting and unfair to Clinton.
>

Comparing a chickenhawk who did serve with a chicken shit who would be
bold enough to be president better be insulting to Clinton. As insulting
as he and the democratic party are to the people. Unfair? HAHAHA. Cry
foul when relevent issues are brought up.

> You shouldnt compare a person who has financed his entire life through
> taxing the common people with a man who has worked hard his entire life
> in the private sector. He received no inheritance from his grandfather
> and only has stock from his mother.
>

You have to compare the two to decide who to vote for. Period.

> Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

--

alex

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 11:10:42 AM9/8/92
to
In article <18...@celia.UUCP> st...@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> You shouldnt compare a person who has financed his entire life through
> taxing the common people with a man who has worked hard his entire life
> in the private sector. He received no inheritance from his grandfather
> and only has stock from his mother.

Is this supposed to refer to Dan Quayle, a three term congressman,
one term senator and 4 year VP? Lessee: If he was in college until he was
25, and he's 45 now, and he spent the last 20 years in public service, then
he didn't have much time to "work hard his entire ligfe in hte private
sector". Has Quayle Ever worked a non political job?

Tom Perigrin

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 3:34:00 PM9/8/92
to

Hey, Robbie...

If calling people by names, diminuatives, silly labels, and demeaning terms
brands someone as a liberal, who has no real facts to argue, then you must
think that Rush Limbaugh is a liberal, who has no real facts to argue?

Rush: "Fort Worthless Jim Wright", "The (funny voice) Reverand Jackson",
"The Squeaker of the House", feminazis, environmentalist whackos, etc.

But then again, you are half right about Rush.

Tom Perigrin

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 3:25:10 PM9/8/92
to
In article <1992Sep3.1...@tamsun.tamu.edu> fr...@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:

Freddie says;

>He did inhale. He lied about the draft. He did sleep with Flowers.
>He did cheat on his wife.

At this point I thought Freddie was Bill Clinton in disguise. After all,
the only person who knows these things in 100% confidence is Bill Clinton.
And Freddie sure seems to know these things with 100% confidence... no
doubt in his mind. But then Freddie goes on:

> He will raise taxes. He will put people out of
>work.

The only entity in the Universe who knows the past with 100% certainty, and
knows the FUTURE with 100% certainty is God. Fred Seals knows the past
and future with 100% certainty. Therefore, Fred Seals must be God. QED.

>Fred Seals

Also Known as God. How can you doubt Him? Proof that the republican
party is the Party of God.

Tom Perigrin

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 3:44:48 PM9/8/92
to
In article <18...@celia.UUCP> celia!st...@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:

> You shouldnt compare a person who has financed his entire life through
>taxing the common people with a man who has worked hard his entire life
>in the private sector. He received no inheritance from his grandfather
>and only has stock from his mother.

1) Entire life in the private sector? The US Senate is the private sector?
The Veep is the private sector? Or are you saying he wasn't alive during
those years? Well, I guess I could agree with that.

2) grandfather -gives stock-> mom -gives stock-> Danno

Eric Titmas

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 8:44:24 PM9/8/92
to
In article <1992Sep8.1...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, t...@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

|> In article <1992Sep3.1...@newsgate.sps.mot.com> tit...@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|>
|> >This is the standard liberal justification for their double standard
|> >regarding Quayle and Clinton service records.
|> >
|> >It's never made sense to me. To be in favor of an action does *NOT* mean
|> >that you have to do it. For example, I want all murderers put in prison
|> >but I don't want to be a policeman.
|>
|> Do you know the difference between Dan Quayle and Jane Fonda?
|>
|> Jane Fonda had the courage of her convictions to go to Viet Nam.

And sit in an anti-arcraft turret (or whatever the correct terminology is)
and point it at American planes.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 2:04:57 PM9/8/92
to
>In article <1992Sep3.2...@lsil.com>
>mi...@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>>What does military service, including the NG have to do with the ability to
>>serve as commander-in-chief, anyway? I fail to see this. It's certainly
>The attribute of military service is relevant to one's ability to understand
>how the armed forces should be controlled, of course, but that is not
>the point. One more time, Mitch.

Thank you.


>
>Mr. Clinton lied repeatedly about the events surrounding his eventual
>avoidance of the draft. When caught, he fessed up. Sort of. Until
>more facts came out. Then he said "The people are all dead and I am
>not going to say anything more." The man is a self serving liar.
>That is the point. Many people found honorable ways to mesh their
>anatgonism toward the Vietnam War and their own beliefs. Clinton,
>on the other hand, had his uncle pull strings. Later, he lied about it.
>How much clearer do you need this message, Mitch. Clinton is, to use
>your words, a "chickenhawk". He avoids military service, lies about it
>then says alot of testosteronic stuff like "well the first thing ah'd
>do is an airstrike". Mr. Bravery. Audie Murphy almost. Your choice.
>Corporal Billie Bob Clinton. Now. Is that clear, Mitchie?

All of what you state are lies, fabrications, distortions, and misstatements.
His story has been consistent and has not deviated from his original statements.
He has not lied about it.

Do you really think that this stuff means much to the average voter?
I doubt it. It's all the bushman has so I guess he's going to use it.


---
===============================================================================

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 2:14:30 PM9/8/92
to
In article 18...@celia.UUCP, st...@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.2...@lsil.com> mi...@lsil.com writes:
>>Comparing an intellectual with antiwar sentiment to a rich kid
>>chickenhawk is both insulting and unfair to Clinton.
> You shouldnt compare a person who has financed his entire life through
>taxing the common people with a man who has worked hard his entire life
>in the private sector. He received no inheritance from his grandfather
>and only has stock from his mother.

Quayl was born with a silver foot in his mouth. He stands to inherit
a few hundred million worth of that stock. The Pollians are not poor
people. As for his private sector career, he didn't do anything of note.
I believe that Marilyn did more than Danno.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 2:23:48 PM9/8/92
to
In article 13...@uncle.cmhnet.org, da...@uncle.cmhnet.org () writes:
>
>
>....all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.


Thank you.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 2:24:24 PM9/8/92
to
In article 27...@umbc3.umbc.edu, al...@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <18...@celia.UUCP> st...@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>> You shouldnt compare a person who has financed his entire life through
>> taxing the common people with a man who has worked hard his entire life
>> in the private sector. He received no inheritance from his grandfather
>> and only has stock from his mother.
> Is this supposed to refer to Dan Quayle, a three term congressman,
>one term senator and 4 year VP? Lessee: If he was in college until he was
>25, and he's 45 now, and he spent the last 20 years in public service, then
>he didn't have much time to "work hard his entire ligfe in hte private
>sector". Has Quayle Ever worked a non political job?

Actually he did work for a few years in the private sector as an attorney,
I believe a partner with his wife. The work he did was less than extraordinary.

Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way

unread,
Sep 9, 1992, 12:13:30 PM9/9/92
to
The mention of Hanoi Jane reminds me of a bumper sticker we saw:

Nuclear power plants are built better than Jane Fonda.

Slapped on the same bumper, right below it, was another:

But which would you rather spend the night with?

Actually, the real difference between Jane Fonda and Dan Quayle is about
100 IQ points.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..

Yo! Bottoms up! US motto. Boy!

David S. Lipscomb

unread,
Sep 9, 1992, 12:12:29 PM9/9/92
to
In article <LARRY.92S...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> la...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>The mention of Hanoi Jane reminds me of a bumper sticker we saw:
>
> Nuclear power plants are built better than Jane Fonda.

HOW ABOUT THIS ONE::

I am not Fonda Hanoi Jane.

Thomas Arneberg

unread,
Sep 9, 1992, 12:23:53 PM9/9/92
to
In article <LARRY.92S...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> la...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>
>Actually, the real difference between Jane Fonda and Dan Quayle is about
>100 IQ points.

Aw, c'mon... Jane may be a flaming liberal, but she's not THAT stupid...

hulsey

unread,
Sep 9, 1992, 3:29:21 PM9/9/92
to
In article <LARRY.92S...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
la...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>The mention of Hanoi Jane reminds me of a bumper sticker we saw:
>
> Nuclear power plants are built better than Jane Fonda.
>
>Slapped on the same bumper, right below it, was another:
>
> But which would you rather spend the night with?
>
>Actually, the real difference between Jane Fonda and Dan Quayle is about
>100 IQ points.

But who's IQ is higher?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun...@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey) TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say! Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal Respectable, presentable vegetable
-- Supertramp "The Logical Song"

Tom Perigrin

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 3:37:48 PM9/8/92
to

>This is the standard liberal justification for their double standard
>regarding Quayle and Clinton service records.
>
>It's never made sense to me. To be in favor of an action does *NOT* mean
>that you have to do it. For example, I want all murderers put in prison
>but I don't want to be a policeman.

Do you know the difference between Dan Quayle and Jane Fonda?

Russ Anderson

unread,
Sep 9, 1992, 5:21:55 PM9/9/92
to

In article <LARRY.92S...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>, la...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
> The mention of Hanoi Jane reminds me of a bumper sticker we saw:
>
> Nuclear power plants are built better than Jane Fonda.
>
> Slapped on the same bumper, right below it, was another:
>
> But which would you rather spend the night with?

In the Metrodome during last years World Series:

See Ted.
See Jane.
See Ted and Jane.
Lose.

--
Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Al Thompson

unread,
Sep 9, 1992, 2:43:48 PM9/9/92
to
In article <1992Sep8.1...@lsil.com> mi...@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:

[...]

Thank you.
>
>Mr. Clinton lied repeatedly about the events surrounding his eventual
>avoidance of the draft. When caught, he fessed up. Sort of. Until
>more facts came out. Then he said "The people are all dead and I am
>not going to say anything more." The man is a self serving liar.
>That is the point. Many people found honorable ways to mesh their
>anatgonism toward the Vietnam War and their own beliefs. Clinton,
>on the other hand, had his uncle pull strings. Later, he lied about it.
>How much clearer do you need this message, Mitch. Clinton is, to use
>your words, a "chickenhawk". He avoids military service, lies about it
>then says alot of testosteronic stuff like "well the first thing ah'd
>do is an airstrike". Mr. Bravery. Audie Murphy almost. Your choice.
>Corporal Billie Bob Clinton. Now. Is that clear, Mitchie?

All of what you state are lies, fabrications, distortions, and misstatements.
His story has been consistent and has not deviated from his original statements.
He has not lied about it.

Oh yes he has lied, right through his teeth. There is a long article in
Sunday's Boston Globe detailing the untruths. The great bastion of
liberal thought, the Globe no less. It seems they turned up a friend of
his uncle's, a retired judge. The good judge, his name is Hill, said he
and the uncle and a lot of other people were pulling strings all over the
place to keep Slick out of harm's way.

BTW his story has not been consistent. When confronted with the news
that his uncle had helped he replied he didn't think it relevant.

Al Thompson

unread,
Sep 9, 1992, 2:45:45 PM9/9/92
to
In article <1992Sep8....@lsil.com> mi...@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:

In article 27...@umbc3.umbc.edu, al...@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <18...@celia.UUCP> st...@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>> You shouldnt compare a person who has financed his entire life through
>> taxing the common people with a man who has worked hard his entire life
>> in the private sector. He received no inheritance from his grandfather
>> and only has stock from his mother.
> Is this supposed to refer to Dan Quayle, a three term congressman,
>one term senator and 4 year VP? Lessee: If he was in college until he was
>25, and he's 45 now, and he spent the last 20 years in public service, then
>he didn't have much time to "work hard his entire ligfe in hte private
>sector". Has Quayle Ever worked a non political job?

Actually he did work for a few years in the private sector as an attorney,
I believe a partner with his wife. The work he did was less than extraordinary.

You are able to judge the quality of his legal work? Or are you just
blowing more gas? Get a reference to his work.

Stephenson Daniel A

unread,
Sep 10, 1992, 3:03:50 AM9/10/92
to
In article <1992Sep7.1...@uncle.cmhnet.org> da...@uncle.cmhnet.org writes:
>
>
>...all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.

Like being Commander in Chief?

--
Dan Stephenson das...@usl.edu
" BERLIN WALL FALLS. 3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS. CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
-George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech

Nathan Engle

unread,
Sep 10, 1992, 9:48:32 AM9/10/92
to

Regardless of the quality of Quayle's legal work, Al, would you say
that Mitch has addressed Steve Tyree's original statement that Quayle has
"worked hard his entire life in the private sector"? As Alex pointed out,
between Dan's college career and his terms in Congress and the White House,
It's unclear just when he could have managed to fit in an "entire life" of
hard work in the private sector (unless he was moonlighting, of course).

I can sit by and watch the Quayle vs Clinton debate most of the time,
but when people try to claim that Dan Quayle has extensive experience in
the private sector it's time for me to step in. I'm only 31 and I bet I
have more "private sector" work experience than Dan Quayle.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to say that Clinton has any better
private sector experience than Quayle. I just think it's a little
disingenuous to try to paint Quayle as a Washington outsider when he's
been living and working in Washington for the past 20 years.

--
Nathan Engle Software Juggler
Psychology Department Indiana University
na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

Norman St. John Polevaulter

unread,
Sep 10, 1992, 11:53:53 AM9/10/92
to
In article <1992Sep10.0...@usl.edu>, das...@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel

A) says:
>In article <1992Sep7.1...@uncle.cmhnet.org> da...@uncle.cmhnet.org
>writes:
>>
>>...all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.

>Like being Commander in Chief?

Yup. Exactly. You catch on quick.

Ronald Reagan, for example, got out of the WWII draft, spending the war making
movies in Hollywood. I presume you don't think that made HIM unfit to be
Commander in Chief, do you?

[Your blood pressure just went up.] Mark Sachs IS: mbs...@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"

Al Thompson

unread,
Sep 10, 1992, 2:01:22 PM9/10/92
to

a...@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>mi...@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:

[...]


> Actually he did work for a few years in the private sector as an attorney,
> I believe a partner with his wife. The work he did was less than extraordinary.

>You are able to judge the quality of his legal work? Or are you just
>blowing more gas? Get a reference to his work.

Regardless of the quality of Quayle's legal work, Al, would you say
that Mitch has addressed Steve Tyree's original statement that Quayle has
"worked hard his entire life in the private sector"?

I was not addressing the issue of Quayle's time in the private sector.
The original poster stated unequivocally that Quayle's legal work was
less than extraordinary. Another sure statement of incompetence without
a shred of supporting evidence. Just state it and it'll become true.

I don't know if Quayle was a good lawyer or a bad one, but if you listen
to Ted Kennedy you'll come off with the idea that he was a pretty damned
good Senator. Kennedy actually said that.

Steve Tyree

unread,
Sep 10, 1992, 2:32:35 PM9/10/92
to
-> Regardless of the quality of Quayle's legal work, Al, would you say
->that Mitch has addressed Steve Tyree's original statement that Quayle has
->"worked hard his entire life in the private sector"? As Alex pointed out,
->between Dan's college career and his terms in Congress and the White House,
->It's unclear just when he could have managed to fit in an "entire life" of
->hard work in the private sector (unless he was moonlighting, of course).

I am sorry that one liner slipped through the editor. Actually I was hoping
that the liberals would realise that they were caught up in a debate that
compared Dan Quayle to Bill Clinton. According to most media analyst, the
comparison should not even be close. :>

Nathan Engle

unread,
Sep 10, 1992, 5:50:19 PM9/10/92
to
a...@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>I don't know if Quayle was a good lawyer or a bad one, but if you listen
>to Ted Kennedy you'll come off with the idea that he was a pretty damned
>good Senator. Kennedy actually said that.

I guess it takes one to know one, eh? I don't wish to detract from your
point, but I can't say that I would consider Ted Kennedy to be the best
judge of what makes someone a good legislator. Maybe he just admires the
way Dan holds his liquor.

alex

unread,
Sep 10, 1992, 8:59:21 PM9/10/92
to
In article <1992Sep10.0...@usl.edu> das...@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:

>>...all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.
>
>Like being Commander in Chief?

I doubt seriously whether the CEO of ford can tell the difference
between a milling machine and a lathe. I'm not a weapons expert, but I do
think that there is a difference between a laser guided bomb and a cruise
missle. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't really matter, it's not a big deal
anyway. Clinton thinks that patriots can fly through doorways, bush things
that pearl harbor day is on SEPT. 7, Quayle thinks that DDT is an aids
drug, and none of these are particularly relevent to being president.

By all means, make hay of the gaffe if you don't like Clinton, but
don't pretend that it's anything more then an oral typo, it makes you look
like a knee jerk fool. Then again, this *is* alt.rush-limbaugh, so this is
probably asking a lot.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 10, 1992, 4:56:40 PM9/10/92
to
In article 10...@dbsun.uucp, hul...@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>In article <LARRY.92S...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
> la...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>The mention of Hanoi Jane reminds me of a bumper sticker we saw:
>> Nuclear power plants are built better than Jane Fonda.
>>Slapped on the same bumper, right below it, was another:
>> But which would you rather spend the night with?
>>Actually, the real difference between Jane Fonda and Dan Quayle is about
>>100 IQ points.
>But who's IQ is higher?

In terms of absolute values, that's a tough one. I'm not sure what the
absolute value of Quayl's negative IQ would be at this point.

Al Thompson

unread,
Sep 11, 1992, 5:21:53 AM9/11/92
to

a...@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>I don't know if Quayle was a good lawyer or a bad one, but if you listen
>to Ted Kennedy you'll come off with the idea that he was a pretty damned
>good Senator. Kennedy actually said that.

I guess it takes one to know one, eh? I don't wish to detract from your
point, but I can't say that I would consider Ted Kennedy to be the best
judge of what makes someone a good legislator. Maybe he just admires the
way Dan holds his liquor.

Well, you've almost got a point there. The fact is I despise the Senator
from Chappaquidick, but I also have to admit he works hard (for all the
wrong things, yes, but hard he works). And in that sense he is a "good"
senator. He and Quayle worked on several things together when Quayle
was a senator, and Teddy has had nothing but good to say about him.

Al Thompson

unread,
Sep 11, 1992, 5:24:35 AM9/11/92
to
In article <92254.115...@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:

In article <1992Sep10.0...@usl.edu>, das...@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel
A) says:
>In article <1992Sep7.1...@uncle.cmhnet.org> da...@uncle.cmhnet.org
>writes:
>>
>>...all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.

>Like being Commander in Chief?

Yup. Exactly. You catch on quick.

Ronald Reagan, for example, got out of the WWII draft, spending the war making
movies in Hollywood. I presume you don't think that made HIM unfit to be
Commander in Chief, do you?

Not true at all. Reagan was in the service as were most of the rest of
the men in country. He was assigned to make those films. If you have a
problem I suggest you take it up with his CO.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 11, 1992, 1:42:10 PM9/11/92
to
In article 92Sep1...@world.std.com, a...@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <nate...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> a...@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> >mi...@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>[...]
> > Actually he did work for a few years in the private sector as an attorney,
> > I believe a partner with his wife. The work he did was less than extraordinary.
> >You are able to judge the quality of his legal work? Or are you just
> >blowing more gas? Get a reference to his work.
> Regardless of the quality of Quayle's legal work, Al, would you say
> that Mitch has addressed Steve Tyree's original statement that Quayle has
> "worked hard his entire life in the private sector"?
>I was not addressing the issue of Quayle's time in the private sector.
>The original poster stated unequivocally that Quayle's legal work was
>less than extraordinary. Another sure statement of incompetence without
>a shred of supporting evidence. Just state it and it'll become true.

Quayle's time in the private sector was indeed unextraordinary. He was
an attorney in partner with his wife. They didn't do this for very long
either. I never stated that he was an incompetent lawyer. I said he never
achieved anything of note during the extremely short time he was practicing.
For you to be so defensive leads me to believe that maybe there is a skeleton
in his closet regarding his short time in the private sector. Do you know
something that the rest of us don't?


>
>I don't know if Quayle was a good lawyer or a bad one, but if you listen
>to Ted Kennedy you'll come off with the idea that he was a pretty damned
>good Senator. Kennedy actually said that.

Senators are constantly praising each other and they are rather disingenuous
about it. Did you watch any of the Anita/Clarence hearings? "I yield to
the distinguished senator from xxx" This type of praise gets passed back
and forth constantly. I even heard Al Simpson attempt to say that he LIKES
a certain Democratic senator for which he holds utter disdain. Do you believe
everything a senator says, particularly a Democratic senator like Ted Kennedy?

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 11, 1992, 1:42:51 PM9/11/92
to
In article 92Sep1...@world.std.com, a...@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

Have you ever heard any senator come out and say anything but disingenuous
praise for a fellow senator? It is a rare time that any sitting politician
will attack another sitting politician.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Sep 11, 1992, 1:41:39 PM9/11/92
to
In article 115353...@psuvm.psu.edu, MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.0...@usl.edu>, das...@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel
>A) says:
>>In article <1992Sep7.1...@uncle.cmhnet.org> da...@uncle.cmhnet.org
>>writes:
>>>...all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.
>>Like being Commander in Chief?
>Yup. Exactly. You catch on quick.
>Ronald Reagan, for example, got out of the WWII draft, spending the war making
>movies in Hollywood. I presume you don't think that made HIM unfit to be
>Commander in Chief, do you?

RR had as much foreign policy experience as Bill Clinton does too.

William Crosmun

unread,
Sep 11, 1992, 2:47:26 PM9/11/92
to
In article <1992Sep1.1...@novell.com> bboe...@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.1...@afit.af.mil> jswi...@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
>>record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the Democrats
>>have on these two. It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to
>>avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?
>
>Well, I don't know if having family connections applying pressure is
>all that legal. But suppose it is - here's how I look at it - would I,
>or most other young men without the benefit of wealth and pull be able
>to pull off what he did? If not, is that right?

A better question might be: if you could, would you? And if you would, then is
what he did right?

>
>Brendan
>--
>Brendan B. Boerner Phone: 512/346-8380
>Internet: bboe...@novell.com MHS: bboerner@novell
>Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.


===============================================================================

William Crosmun
cro...@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================

"Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful thinking on the
part of the left is going change that in our lifetimes....The words Economic
Democracy are an adequate and effective replacement."

Derek Shearer - Advisor to Bill Clinton

===============================================================================

Mike Schwartz

unread,
Sep 11, 1992, 3:49:33 AM9/11/92
to

And George Bush went to Saudi Arabia at the height of the Desert Shield operation
to spend Thanksgiving with the troops.

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or my...@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Stephenson Daniel A

unread,
Sep 14, 1992, 1:59:52 AM9/14/92
to
In article <1992Sep11....@lsil.com> mi...@lsil.com writes:
>In article 115353...@psuvm.psu.edu, MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.0...@usl.edu>, das...@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel
>>A) says:
>>>In article <1992Sep7.1...@uncle.cmhnet.org> da...@uncle.cmhnet.org
>>>writes:
>>>>...all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.
>>>Like being Commander in Chief?
>>Yup. Exactly. You catch on quick.
>>Ronald Reagan, for example, got out of the WWII draft, spending the war making
>>movies in Hollywood. I presume you don't think that made HIM unfit to be
>>Commander in Chief, do you?
>
>RR had as much foreign policy experience as Bill Clinton does too.

At the VERY least, don't you think the country would be better led
by a Commander in Chief who _did_ actively want to servein the Army,etc.?

Besides, Reagan got to fight Peace Protestors. :-)

>Mitch Sako LSI Computing Systems Office 408-433-4187
>internet: ms...@lsil.com FAX 408-433-8796
>uucp: lsil!msako
>RIME: ->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
> reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
> my management or my mother

Tom Perigrin

unread,
Sep 14, 1992, 1:28:34 AM9/14/92
to
> Actually he did work for a few years in the private sector as an attorney,
> He was a partner with his wife.

When Danno was an attorney he regularly screwed his partner!
Now he's a public servant so ...

Stephenson Daniel A

unread,
Sep 14, 1992, 2:11:48 AM9/14/92
to
Maybe some of out there could expand on this:

I heard that Al Gore actually came out and said that he was against
ALL NEW offshore oil exploration/drilling. Is this true?

Does Clinton/Gore, like, WANT to win Texas and Louisiana??

Note that I live in Lousiana, and oil is BIG in the south of it.

Tom Perigrin

unread,
Sep 14, 1992, 1:39:19 AM9/14/92
to
In article <mykes...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> my...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

> [stuff leading up to my question deleted]

>> Do you know the difference between Dan Quayle and Jane Fonda?
>>
>> Jane Fonda had the courage of her convictions to go to Viet Nam.
>

>And George Bush went to Saudi Arabia at the height of Desert Shield


>to spend Thanksgiving with the troops.


You're right. I hadn't even considered this! In the 70's Danno figured
out how to stay home while the government sent young men to die in his place.

In the 90's Danno stayed home and somehow got them to send the PRESIDENT OF
THE USA in his place!


And they call Clinton "slick" ????

Stephen A Chaney

unread,
Sep 16, 1992, 9:12:09 PM9/16/92
to
In article <LARRY.92S...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> la...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>
>Actually, the real difference between Jane Fonda and Dan Quayle is about
>100 IQ points.

When you consider that big negative sign next to Jane's IQ, you come
to realize it's more like 1000 IQ points.


-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.

William Crosmun

unread,
Sep 18, 1992, 12:17:20 PM9/18/92
to
In article <1992Sep14....@usl.edu> das...@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>Maybe some of out there could expand on this:
>
>I heard that Al Gore actually came out and said that he was against
>ALL NEW offshore oil exploration/drilling. Is this true?

During a radio interview in California, Al did say that he was opposed to ALL
offshore drilling. He later "clarified" his position to NEW offshore drilling
in economically sensitive areas, and pointed out that most drilling in such
areas is already banned.
-- As reported in the Wall Street Journal.

>
>Does Clinton/Gore, like, WANT to win Texas and Louisiana??
>
>Note that I live in Lousiana, and oil is BIG in the south of it.
>--
>Dan Stephenson das...@usl.edu
>" BERLIN WALL FALLS. 3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS. CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
> -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech

===============================================================================
William Crosmun
cro...@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking we were at when we created them."

Albert Einstein
===============================================================================
"As to guaranteeing bank deposits, the minute the government starts to do that
... the government runs into a probable loss. We do not wish to make the
United States Government liable for the mistakes and errors of individual
banks, and put a premium on sound banking in the future."
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
===============================================================================

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages