-=> On 04-06-98  19:46, Robert Plett did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Mark Fornoff concerning Dufus' Waterloo? <=-
 
 MF> Now what do you have against the Bush family?  :-)
 RP> Well, lessee... Bush Sr. virtually destroyed Reagan's
 RP> legacy by the end of his first term. It was Bush who
 RP> pushed the idea of a Republican "big tent", the fruits of
 RP> which we see still ripening. Both Bush Sr. & Bush Jr.
 RP> pushed for continuing party support of pro-PBA candidates,
 RP> as did Dole, BTW. Near as I can tell, Bush Jr. is just
 RP> like his Dad. 
::sigh:: There is a considerable difference between
"supporting" someone and refusing to ban them. Let's not
confuse the two. Just because I don't agree to the
deportation of Jesse Jackson hardly means that I support
his platform. It just means that I believe he's entitled to
the same due process as someone with whom I do agree.
 RP> IMO, we have people like the Bush family to thank for the
 RP> Republican party's retreat from conservatism and its turn
 RP> to embracing ideas long fought against. 
Hyperbole and histrionics. Were the Bush's crowned? Did
they rule by fiat? Not at all - they governed by majority
rule - the majority of the Republican Party. Which in the
end simply means that your disagreement places you in the
minority wing of the party. If anything, I would fault
George Bush with attributing too much honor and courtesy to
his opponents. 
 MF> I'll take them over Clinton & Clinton.
 RP> Why? Clinton promised lower taxes but did the opposite - so
 RP> did Bush. 
Which Republican Congress promised Clinton to reduce
spending $x for every $y of tax increase and then broke
that promise in the same manner as the Democrats promised
George Bush? 
Hardly comparable positions.
 RP> Clinton jumps on the anti-gun bandwagon at every
 RP> opportunity - so did Bush. 
Nonsense. Yes, Bush shouldn't have objected to the
"jack-booted thugs" comment without further research of
it's origins, but to equate that with the Dufus' determined
attempt to disarm the American citizen is simply more
hyperbole and histrionics.
 RP> Clinton vetoed the PBA ban, but both Bushs support
 RP> Christine Todd Whitman who vetoed New Jersey's PBA ban. 
What dictionary are you using that shows "failure to
oppose" to be synonymous with "active support"? Sounds much
like the Fascist dictat "Those who are not with us are
against us!" By your erroneous interpretation of the terms,
all of us who "tolerate" homosexuals are likewise guilty of
providing active support. 
 RP> Clinton gave us NAFTA and GATT with Republican help, and
 RP> Bush supported both. 
And nothing to date has proven it the disaster which
opponents prophesied.
 RP> Clinton likes the idea of turning things over to the UN -
 RP> so did Bush. 
More histrionics and hyperbole on your part. It'll be a
great surprise to Schwartzkopf to find out he's a UN tool
rather than an Amercan officer. George Bush used the UN as
a tool and recovered all costs of the Gulf War. The Dufus
has virtually given control of the US military to the UN
and granted them near unlimited funding from our pocket. 
 RP> Clinton cozied up to China - so did Bush. 
This is the sort of disinformation I expect from a DNC
mouthpiece. George Bush, in case you've forgotten, served
as Ambassador to China and indeed had more expertise in the
field than any president other than Nixon. Clinton sold
MFN status in return for illegal campaign contributions. To
suggest that Bush acted with similar moral imperatives is
hogwash on a par with the accusation that Bush flew to
Paris in an SR-71 to negotiated with Iran. Sheesh! 
 RP> Clinton favored Israel's Perez over Netanyahu - so did
 RP> Bush. 
George Bush specifically stated, when asked, that he would
not comment upon Israeli elections prior to their
completion. 
 RP> Clinton seeks to expand federal involvement with education
 RP> - so did Bush. 
ROTFLMAO!!! Bush's Goals 2000 were optional goals and had
no associated funding strings. The Dufus' version is
mandatory and failure to comply results in funding cuts. 
 RP> Clinton gave us Waco - Bush gave us Ruby Ridge ... 
This really verges on the offensive. The Waco decisions were
made by Reno and Clinton. Multiple investigations of Ruby
Ridge have shown that decisions never reached the level of
the FBI director, Louis Freeh.
To suggest that Bush and Clinton carry equal responsibility
requires a complete disregard for the facts.
 RP> Need I go on?
No, you've made it quite clear that your rationality
concerning the Bush's borders on that of Perot. You've
settled into the practice of demonizing your opponents in
exactly the same manner as the tobacco fascists and other
proponents of the nanny state. You might want to reflect
upon the validity of your position given the fellow
travellers, such as Schumer and Wacman, with whom you
associate. To attempt to stigmatize the law-abiding reeks
of the nanny state which they advocate. 
 RP> The only real difference between a Clinton and a Bush is
 RP> the absence of sleaze and known criminality in the case of
 RP> the Bush. 
The "only difference"? ROTFLMAO. When did you join the
LaRouchites, Robert? I keep expecting to see a post from
you about Queen Elizabeth importing heroin into the USA via
diplomatic pouch. 
... If he didn't inhale, how did he get brain damage?
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------