Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxn!res From: res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Character attacks on Ronald Reagan Message-ID: <801@ihuxn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 12:22:08 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxn.801 Posted: Mon Aug 20 12:22:08 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Aug-84 00:18:23 EDT References: <1575@zehntel.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 126 Re: the following net posting: | 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. And rightly so. What Jackson said was said in a deprecating way and gave evidence of a degree of intollerance not acceptable in a public official. | 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. Bullroar. It is a common practice among broadcasting people to warm up a bit before a microphone before going on the air by saying things that are outragous to get a reaction from the others involved in the broadcast (such as the technicians setting things up). This serves two real purposes -- it gives the technicians a sound level to tune to, and it breaks up some of the tension and butterflys that any speaker feels before giving a talk. Normally such remarks and horsing around are recognized by the press as such and are not reported (imagine the furor if the President told an off-color joke during a warm-up!!), but this time someone (looking for a way to embarass Reagan?) made these very private statements public. Hey, people, the President is a human being and will stumble occasionally over things that were quite all right in his previous roles as sportscaster, actor, or governor. Unfortunately, he has political enemies who will contort these molehills into mountains. | 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. Double bullroar. Reagan is so dumb that he suceeded in getting elected to the highest executive office in this country. He is so dumb that he planned on this private warm-up being made public to entertain some of the populace of this country and to avoid getting elected to another term in the toughest job in the world. Nonsense. | Reagan is grossly insensitive to the fact that most Americans do not | see this as a laughing matter. This is too rediculous an assertion to dignify with a response. | Many people the world over are dedicating | their lives to the cause of peace and disarmament, A counter point of view is that such people are dedicated to stripping the US of its military capabilities, forgetting that freedom is purchased at the cost of being willing to fight for it. | 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. Arguement by character assassination highlighted above ... too despicable to respond to. | Yet millions of glassy-eyed zombots will vote for Reagan again! I am not a "zombot." I have looked at Reagan's opponent and do not like what I see there from the standpoint of policies and porposals. I am of the opinion that the government (you and me as taxpayers) are paying too much to maintain a self perpetuating welfare system and not enough to protect us from those who have vowed to bury us. I think that the HUD, OSHA, DOT, and other bureaucracies have gotten out of control and need to be pruned back. I presently expect to vote for Reagan, though I am willing to listen to rational arguements to change my mind before November. | 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? The other people may or may not be equally capable. However, Reagan has demonstrated that he has the ability to lead and to get a job done as he promises to do. But now we see in the comments above the real problem that the previous poster has with Reagan: he is "old" and he is "conservative". I would state those two attributes as "mature" and "realistic". No, not infallable or omniscient, but a person who has seen a good deal of life and is willing to work for what he thinks is right. I happen to agree (usually) with his expressed thoughts on these policies. If you disagree with his policies and with what he has accomplished during his first term, express your opinion at the ballot box in November. If you don't like elder men with idealism tempered by reality, then you probably need to continue to grow up and acquire some experience of your own. | 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 had not realized that actors, ipso facto, could not be statesmen and/or humanitarians. Also, I had not realized that Reagan was a slick salesman selling policies which do not benefit the "voting masses" to an electorate too stupid to see through his act. As one of the "voting masses" (or do I not qualify for that appellation because I am not a student and not on welfare?) I have carefully examined the policies of the present administration and those of his opposition. I do NOT agree with all of them (eg: I am disappointed in the lack of support for ERA) but, in the main, I find that I agree more with him than I do with his opposition. | 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. Spoken like a true Democrat!!! Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res