Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull From: jhull@spp2.UUCP Newsgroups: net.motss,net.misc,net.politics Subject: Re: Ronald Reagan's Homophobic Career: VIII Message-ID: <287@spp2.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 20:09:32 EST Article-I.D.: spp2.287 Posted: Fri Nov 30 20:09:32 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 06:06:16 EST References: <1108@bbncca.ARPA> <266@uf-csg.UUCP> <255@spp2.UUCP> <172@harvard.ARPA> Reply-To: jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 69 Xref: sdcsvax net.motss:1344 net.misc:6369 net.politics:5716 Summary: >> me (Jeff Hull) > <172@harvard.ARPA> marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) The following is a typical reply to my earlier posting. Apparently, I didn't make the point I wanted to make. >> If you truly believe >> the crap (excuse me, very negative ideas) you state above, perhaps you >> should be living in some other country. > >Why do people always say this? Everyone has the freedom to think what >they want. I agree. >I, too, think this is at least one of the best (if not the >best) countries in the world to live in. One of the things I don't >think is so great about it is the fact that Ronald Reagan is president. >I am not a 'political animal' and admittedly not very good at defending >my beliefs (mainly because I don't like to argue with people). Then, thank you very much for replying here. I want to foster discussion without arguing or hurt feelings. >But this >doesn't mean I'm wrong, and it also doesn't mean I have no right to live >in this country. I didn't even say Ron has no right to live here. What I did say was, if he is not willing to make constructive suggestions, maybe he would do better somewhere else, somewhere he is willing to build instead of destroy. >I don't think it's right of you to deny another >citizen the right to complain. I completely agree with you here. >After all, if nobody ever complained, >nothing would ever change, and we would still be toggling programs into >our computers. I completely agree with you here, too. I believe that responsible disagreement is the source of all progress. I also believe that people who can, do, and people who can't try to tear down those who can. What I was trying to oppose was the gratuitious criticism in the absence of constructive alternatives. I even support criticism of the "I think something is wrong here, but I'm not sure what to do about it." variety. But it doesn't seem to me that Ron's comments fall into either category. And when, after the election, he posted that sour grapes article, I felt moved to reply. For those of you who might like to know, I think: - given the alternatives, US voters made the superior chioce. - neither party has a viable foreign policy, but I'm not sure exactly how I want it changed - the most pressing problem facing the US right now is government mismanagement of fiscal affairs - elimination of nuclear weapons is mandatory, the focus should be on getting both the US & the USSR to agree to ANY necessary technique for verifying compliance, treaties should include specific numbers of specific weapons and prohibition against ANY upgrade or enhancement or deployment of ANY new offensive weapon or system, defensive technology should be public knowledge; NOW WHO HAS ANY IDEAS ON HOW TO GET THE USSR TO AGREE? -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250