Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site zehntel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!steve
From: steve@zinfandel.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Ronald Reagan/Bombing USSR - (nf)
Message-ID: <1575@zehntel.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 04:19:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: zehntel.1575
Posted: Thu Aug 16 04:19:43 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Aug-84 02:19:46 EDT
Sender: root@zehntel.UUCP
Organization: Zehntel Inc., Walnut Creek, CA
Lines: 53

#N:zinfandel:14500058:000:2722
zinfandel!steve    Aug 14 15:56:00 1984


I would like to compare President Reagan's off-the-air on-the-tape remark
about bombing Russia with another offhand remark made earlier this
year, that of Jesse Jackson in referring to Hymies and Hymietown.
Jackson's remark insulted a segment of our population and offended
the sensibilities of most everyone else.  He was hounded about this
remark for the rest of his campaign; some made it the major issue
with Jackson.

What Jackson said was not nice, but it was of minor significance
compared to Reagan's statement.  By making a "joking" offhand remark
about starting a war which could mean destruction of the world,
especially given the fact that HE REALLY HAS THE POWER TO DO SO...
Reagan insults and offends everybody on this planet.

People have argued about whether deep-down Reagan's statement reflects
his true desire to bomb Russia, about whether he consciously or subconsciously
used his statement as a warning.  I see it foremost as dumb and as a grossly
insensitive act.  Reagan is dumb enough to believe that most Americans
would think that such a statement was funny and that yeah, we too, would
like to bomb Russia, but, darn it, we just can't, but wouldn't it be
fun if we could, ha ha, cause we're the good guys and they are the
bad guys, and they deserve to be bombed, so since we can't let's
say something funny about bombing them, since that's what we'd all like to do.

Reagan is grossly insensitive to the fact that most Americans do not
see this as a laughing matter.  Many people the world over are dedicating
their lives to the cause of peace and disarmament, and are scared to death
that this simpleton has his finger on the Button, and if this were
a video game or a movie or a frp or a survival game or a confused senile
delusion, that Reagan would want to bomb the bad guys.  But because, for
now, this is reality, and darn it, he just can't do that.

Yet millions of glassy-eyed zombots will vote for Reagan again!
Why Ronald Reagan?  Why not Arthur Godfrey or George Fenneman or Harry
Von Zell?  If you want some old fogey, dead or alive, who can sit
at the head of a conservative administration, why not any of those
equally qualified gentlemen?  If it is conservative policies you
want, why not elect a statesman rather than an actor, a humanitarian
rather than a puppet?  Or would they really be electable on the strength
of their policies alone... perhaps those policies which do not benefit the
voting masses can only be elected by having them sold to the masses
by such a slick salesman as Reagan?

I would like to see this latest remark, along with the whole body
of similar offenses, used to hound Reagan at every step for the
remainder of this campaign.

zinfandel!steve nelson