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