NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/9851

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!rat!koko.csustan.edu!nic.csu.net!eis.CalState.EDU!kmitche
From: [e-mail] (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Whops
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:05:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services
Lines: 71

[e-mail] (Keith Chiles) writes:
> Dear Netland,
>   I don't wish to cause a flame war, but yesterday
> Mr. Clinton announced that two of his priorities will
> be to create a bunch of jobs through an investment
> tax credit, and to allow gays into the military.
> I am not saying his ideas are bad, but wonder
> about the following two issues.
>
> 1. Isn't an investment tax credit a significant
> component of trickle-down economics?  Isn't
> this a form of reducing the tax burden on the
> rich that Clinton campaigned against?  Rush
> is gonna have fun with this one.
>

Investment tax credits are PURE, UNADULTERATED, 200 PROOF "Trickle-down"
economics which, like all the OTHER aspects of Supply-Side economics,
happen to work. That Clinton proposes one pleases, amazes, and worries me.
Pleases, because "supply-side" is the ONLY economic theory that works.
Surprises, because Slick Willie campaigned heavily AGAINST just such a
policiy. Worries, because if he lied about this, what other things did he
lie about?



> 2. Condoning homosexuality in the military will
> be another slap in the military face by America's
> most famous avoider of military service.  Has
> any president in the history of this country been
> successful after alianiating the military?
>

As a military "lifer", retired after 21 years, I can honestly say that the
military doesn't give a damn who the President is. it's like  being in the
Secret Service; they'll protect Clinton even if they think he's an
asshole. Military folks will obey "President" Clinton even though he's a
draft dodger.

But the military depends, more than any non-military person realizes, on
the continuity and dedication of a minority of the people. In every unit,
on every ship, there are one or two men who are the "soul" of the unit;
without them, it doesn't function right. Fortunately, there are enough
that someone else with that ability either transfers in, or develops in
place. But the kicker is that these are EXACTLT the people who will choose
to retire now rather than later, because they can't stand a leader.

In 1977, Carter's Secretary of the Navy, while addressing an informal
gathering of sailors, answered a question by telling a Navy man that if he
didn't like it, he could "vote with his feet"; i.e., get out of the
military. The comment was widely published, and a lot of people DID "vote
with their feet", and not just in the Navy. By 1979, the military was a
hollow shell, because many of the best people had become fed up and left
the service.

It can happen again. If Clinton forces the military to accept gays, it
WILL happen again. With Clinton's defense cut proposals and this too, by
1996 we could be a third-rate power.

Now, I have nothing against gays; I work with several, and they're all
great guys. They have just as much right as I do to follow their sexual
preferences in private. But in the military, NOBODY has a right to
privacy. And rightly or wrongly, many men will feel uncomfortable sharing
cramped quarters, with 18 men in a berthing area and shared showers and
toilets, with homosexuals.

And sexual fraternization between military folks is ALREADY a problem;
let's not make it worse!

Ken Mitchell
[e-mail]