Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: reelecting Reagan matters most Message-ID: <861@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 14:40:30 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxe.861 Posted: Mon Sep 24 14:40:30 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 06:00:13 EDT Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 94The point being made is that despite that fact that Mondale is a sad candidate by any standards, it is still worthwhile to vote for him, when he is compared to Reagan. The reasons are: - Nuclear war. Mondale does not joke about bombing the USSR(at least, not where the public can hear...), he does not talk about winning nuclear wars. Reagan and Bush do. **Well, if I hear them talking about winning nuclear wars, I too would become **concerned. But they talk about Russia having the capability to win a nuclear **at this time. That is what has got me concerned. And the democrats are so **naive as to believe that the Russians would never be so inhumane. Sorry, but **from what I've seen over the last few years, I would not put a preemptive **strike past Russia if they feel sufficiently provoked. They also have the **advantage of not having to answer to their people(not to mention the rest **of the world). - Invasion of Central America. Reagan's attitude toward Central America is quite well defined -- "If we don't like the government there, we'll put in our own." Mondale has promised to end the war in Nicaragua within 100 days of taking office, which at least provides a basis for action in that direction, even if he does not mean it. **Oh, I suppose Mondale will send in our troops to take control. No thanks. **Reminds me of some recent disasters we've gotten involved with. Reminds **me of Russia and Afghanistan. By the way, just because we support one side **or the other does not imply wrongdoing. We also support Isreal with **advanced weaponry. - ERA. Mondale supports it, Reagan does not. **I will for the second time request a copy of the ERA. The first time was **met with no response. I find it amazing that with all the fanatic **supporters out there, none know what they are backing other than by name **only. Sorry, But I too find it impossible to support ERA until I see **what it stands for. Also, I would like to see some examples where it would **be aplicable. Once again the ERA supporters have failed to convince me **of their cause because all examples they give are already covered by **existing laws. It is hard to believe in something when the campaign **stands soley on name alone and insists on how you cannot support such a **concept. I am serious here. Please respond. I don't like being uninformed. - Environmental issues. Reagan's attitude toward the environment is demonstrated by his appointments of James Watt and Anne Burford. Mondale is not an overwhelming environmentalist, but he at least will not try to destroy all the gains that have been made in the past few decades. **I do not blame a boss for the people working under him. Anyway, he **properly asked for Watts resignation. As for Anne, I've never heard of **her. And I certainly would have remembered if she had instigated some **policy detrimental to the environment because I am a great outdoors lover. **By the way, other appointees that fell from favor never became an issue(ie **Carter and Lance). - Nuclear freeze. Mondale supports it. Reagan supports building many more weapons that will just inspire the Soviets to do the same (or go to a "launch on warning" policy -- hardly conducive to US security). It is interesting to note that Reagan is the only president since the 50's who has not negotiated an arms control agreement with the Soviets. **Terrific. Once again the public only looks at the name, not the contents. **They say, good job when they get the Russians to sign an agreement. **If the time was spent analyzing the contents, the consensus would be bad **job. Each succeeding agreement gives us a shorter stick. Now we are clearly **in an inferior position where once we were dominant. Each president gives **more and more away for the sake of meeting public approval for achieving **an agreement. That is what is intolerable. I cannot take blame with Reagan **for taking a tough stand to make up for all the past wimps who let **special interest groups control them. Speaking of special interest groups, **Mondale has all but sold his soul to them in return for support. It would **be a disaster if Mondale won and had to pay up on his promises. - Economics. At least Mondale is honest about his plans to raise taxes. Reagan's "who, me?" attitude is bothersome to me...I fail to see how he could possibly continue in his current path without tax hikes. **The democrats also failed to see how his present path would solve the **economic problems of the past. But they did. Now when he says he won't raise **personal taxes, you call him a liar??? On what grounds? There is no basis **to assume anything but what is said. Why do you take it upon yourself to **predict what someone else will do? Anyway, raising taxes is the worst thing **anyone can do for the economy because it has the effect of curtailing **spending. And it won't do anything to solve the deficit problem. But it **will create the more of the same problems we just recovered from. **Personally, I think the deficit should be handled by streamlining **the government and stopping wasteful spending. There is an awful lot of it **going on if you listen to editorials. Taxing the public is not the proper **way to pay off the government debt. Doesn't it bother you that you have **to pay for someone else's careless spending. I wish I could spend beyond my **means and have someone else pick up the tab. But life is not so easy. I **have to modify my spending to meet my budget. So too must the government. Robert