Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsla.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west
From: west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re. Reagan's response
Message-ID: <914@sdcsla.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 02:55:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcsla.914
Posted: Tue Jun 25 02:55:58 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 06:30:44 EDT
References: <2828@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West)
Organization: UC San Diego: Institute for Cognitive Science
Lines: 97
Summary: Is this guy for real?

Ah, Ken Arndt again...

A brief digression (pregression?): Grammatical, spelling, and
semantic errors are basically accepted fare on the net, so I'm
not going to criticize Ken for that.   We all make those little
slips, though not all to such an extent.   It is a sign of
lack of both care and consideration for one's readers, but
those are not high on everyone's agenda.   And name-calling gets
its own reward: people who read the message at all lower their
opinions of the author and the author's argument.   The latter
may not be fair, but such is life.

So, on to the more substantive, and fun parts: pulling apart
an argument.   Or what passes for an argument.    Or what looks
more like argumentation for the sake of argumentation...

In article <2828@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@limp.WRIST writes:->
 > How interesting to see the nitwits come out of the woodwork with their
 > statements against the tack the President is currently taking with the 
 > terrorist situation in Beirut.  Everyone agrees that there is no one
 > to shoot at and that even if one chose someone many innocent people would
 > be killed as well.  THEIR BLAMING HIM FOR NOT SHOOTING FROM THE HIP!!!

Ah, but you misunderstand.   No one is criticizing Ronnie for avoiding
Large-Scale-Death (his favorite drug).   It is a mere case of Ronnie's
words coming back to haunt him.   He talks big, and waves a big stick.
But he finds his hands are tied, just as Jimmy Carter's were.   And so
some of Ronnie's more flagrant boastings about "America now standing
tall thanks to me" are being shoved down his throat.

{  By the way, did you read the excerpt from Reagan's news conference	}
{  (which I posted several days ago, so it probably has reached you by	}
{  now)?   The man is not coherent.   And that was a setting of his	}
{  own choosing, with only established press allowed in (i.e.,		}
{  people whose jobs depend on some amount of good will at the White	}
{  House -- Dan Rather [with Dick Nixon] was the last to buck that,	}
{  and he had troubles).						}
 > 
 > Of course if he did act like a 'cowboy' they'ed fall all over themselves
 > crying about THAT.  

You bet.   Some of us are wondering what military action Ronnie's gonna
pull to salvage some political ego.   Nicaragua?   The country he declared
an imminent danger to our safety?   (What better way to shame the U.S.?)

 > The distinction that has been made between today in Beirut and yesterday
 > in Iran is quite clear.  There WAS a government policy involved and an
 > identified group of officials, persons and property - an entire nation! -
 > to address with 'force'.  There is nothing like that today in Beirut.  
 > The latest word is that even the terrorists holding the hostages are falling
 > out among themselves over what to do next.

You must be too young to remember the Iranian kidnappings clearly.   Yes,
it is true that those in government cooperated with the so-called
"students" holding the American diplomats.   But official government
policy was very cleverly worded.   And they claimed to be unable to
influence the "students".   And anyway, what would you have had Carter
do?   Bomb an oil field and get the captives killed?

 > But no matter the nitwits are only a very small number of loudmouth techie
 > twerps (on the net) and in the nation at large only a few members of the
 > quickly melting Democratic party.

This only detracts from your "argument".   One wonders why you would
think a viewpoint valid if held only by a large number of people.   Surely
you must hold some opinions which are not currently popular [if not, I
can loan you some:-].

 > If Reagan walked on water, (why not, he walks on sleeze) they'ed still
 > have something to say against him.  Jerks suffering from being rejected
 > by their fellow countrymen with nothing new to say.

Look, I've walked on water thousands of times, and I don't expect
special treatment.   Why should a politician get better?

{  And the "fellow countrymen with nothing new to say" who form		}
{  Ronnie's support are not really at issue here.   They'll get		}
{  theirs when the national debt (the selling of the U.S. to foreign	}
{  capital) comes home to roost.   (What, you mean you're already	}
{  tired of 13% of the Federal budget going to pay off the interest	}
{  on the debt?)							}

 > Rave on.

I'm sure you will.

 > Regards,
 > 
 > Ken Arndt


-- 

Larry West			Institute for Cognitive Science
(USA+619-)452-6220		UC San Diego (mailcode C-015) [x6220]
ARPA: 		La Jolla, CA  92093  U.S.A.
UUCP: {ucbvax,sdcrdcf,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west OR ulysses!sdcsla!west