Life under President Perot
Al Date
Gordon Black, a professional and savvy pollster, has quietly declared
that Perot will win by a landslide, an opinion that I myself have held.
Mr. Black gives me something that I can quote, however!
He bases his assertion on the use of his successful technique of
weighing negative ratings in past elections. It is not the positive
ratings which ultimately elect someone pres, it is the lack of
negative ratings. On this score, Bush and Clinton both have
high negative ratings (approx 50%), whereas Perot has a very low one
(11%--the sum total of devout liberals and libertarians (8-) ) .
About a month before the election, one of the three candidates will
be perceived as the odd person out (presumably Hillary's huzzy).
At this point, Democrats will decide to swing their votes to either
Bush or Perot, and they will do so based on their negative feelings
toward the other guy.
Now, I ask you, which candidate is more despised by Democrats, Bush
or Perot? Very good, class! So, rather than waste our time arguing
endlessly about whom to vote for, we have to figure out what we will
do with Ross Perot as President of the United States.
And that is why today's lecture is entitled "Life Under President Perot."
(8-)
There is a lot of fear among us L's (liberals and libertarians)
that Perot will be a strong-man dictator
and damage the balance of powers in the Constitution. That is always
a danger with any president. Is there any reason to believe
that Mr. Perot would be worse than others who have preceded him?
There is this little matter of getting Congress to go along with him without
benefit of party affiliation and ties. Most pundits give Mr. Perot a year of
honeymoon with Congress, to be followed by guerilla warfare.
The question comes down to: How much damage can he do in a year?
I am not too worried about it. He has set his top priority as
deficit reduction, and he has indicated a propensity for cutting
federal spending as opposed to raising taxes. I think this job
will require all of his energies, and he wont have either the
time nor the strength to impose national service for teenagers.
I doubt that such a plan would survive one court test anyway.
If he gets the line-item veto, this will redound to our benefit
forever.
Might he suspend the Constitution to raid people's houses in
an attempt to fight the Drug War? Possibly. But Bush is equally
likely to do this, and he is already president.
Would Perot throw the military weight of the US around internationally?
Very unlikely. He was vocally opposed to the Gulf War, and seems
to have been deeply effected by the Vietnam experience.
Bush has shown his stripes with respect to deficit reduction, and
Mr. Clinton is also coming across as a standard tax-and-spend kind of
guy. A Perot presidency may be the only way to shock the govt into
controlling its spending ways. Perot is shock therapy for an
institution which has lost all self-control.
If Perot (as a phenomenon) were to accomplish a significant cut in federal
spending, this would be highly beneficial to the longterm economic outlook.
Interest rates would plummet, and the economy would flourish
due to all the glorious stimulative effects of lower interest
rates. Trickle down would become a flood, as the rich found that
they no longer had govt-guaranteed high incomes from their capital
and had to put their money to work down on Main Street or in
Silicon Valley (generic). The question is whether this stimulation
would offset the decline in income from govt handouts. There is
no way to know this in advance, but I am certainly optimistic about
it. I prefer to see money invested in productive enterprise by private
parties than taxed away and given to special interests which may or may
not be productive in any sense. It may be time to buy bonds with both fists.
Libertarians and liberals may find that they are saddened that one
of their ilk (Brown or Marrou) cannot be elected president. Perhaps we should
realize that this is to be expected. Due to the balance of powers,
the President must be very strong in order to compete with Congress.
People want someone in there who can put the house in order (so to speak);
they dont want an ideologue of any stripe. They want a manager.
It is our role to try to keep the govt honest--from the outside. We
may never have a libertarian or liberal president, but we must constantly
remind the people of the meaning and value of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, and of the virtues of tolerance.
A libertarian or liberal national leader may, in fact, be a contradiction
in terms. Due to the coercive nature of public leadership, it is a
corrupting influence on anyone who wears the hat. Even Thomas Jefferson,
the most influential libertarian figure in our history, was corrupted
and tormented by the office of the presidency (which he won by virtue
of a vote of the House of Representatives-- heh heh).
Perhaps we must content ourselves with our moral role of corralling and
beating back the stampeding govt when it strays too much from the
Constitution. Perhaps it is our place to be the moral watchdogs,
always apart from and outnumbered by the herd, but holding true to our
ethical principles, for the ultimate good of all.
Rather than becoming a part of this nasty business of governance, we
are more suited to shining the
light of truth into the mire and exposing it for what it inevitably
becomes, however unpopular this may be in the short term.
It was ever so. Despair not.
--Al Date
Ted Frank
>
>Gordon Black, a professional and savvy pollster, has quietly declared
>that Perot will win by a landslide, an opinion that I myself have held.
>Mr. Black gives me something that I can quote, however!
>
>He bases his assertion on the use of his successful technique of
>weighing negative ratings in past elections. It is not the positive
>ratings which ultimately elect someone pres, it is the lack of
>negative ratings. On this score, Bush and Clinton both have
>high negative ratings (approx 50%), whereas Perot has a very low one
>(11%--the sum total of devout liberals and libertarians (8-) ) .
If Gordon Black were to poll the electorate now (a la Mayor Quimby),
I'd have low negative ratings. Dukakis had a seventeen-point lead
going into late June/early July, and people were saying Bush was
unelectable. Wait'll Labor Day. Perot's campaign reminds me a lot
of Clayton Williams's in Texas. We'll see how long it lasts once he
actually has to start taking positions.
--
....................................
ted frank | th...@midway.uchicago.edu
the university of chicago law school
down from your tree-house condominum
Gordon Fitch
| .... Wait'll Labor Day. Perot's campaign reminds me a lot
| of Clayton Williams's in Texas. We'll see how long it lasts once he
| actually has to start taking positions.
I don't think Perot has to take positions; positions are
for politicians. Perot does not have to mean, but be. And
that's why we keep hearing he's going to fade away, and he
doesn't. Millions of people identify with him, and when his
opponents attack his "positions" they'll just rally 'round.
They might not agree with him, but he's one of theirs.
Of course, _I_ don't believe this, but if Perot were
popular with someone like me, he'd be unelectable.
I predict Perot will come in first, but not by a landslide.
Subsequently there will be interesting times in the House
of Representatives, which is probably why Clinton and
Cuomo are busy cosying up to Congress.
--
Gordon Fitch | g...@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf
* 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274 *
John Locke
> If Gordon Black were to poll the electorate now (a la Mayor Quimby),
> I'd have low negative ratings. Dukakis had a seventeen-point lead
> going into late June/early July, and people were saying Bush was
> unelectable.
You take an accountant's view of politics, looking only at the numbers.
There are substantive differences between the appeal of Perot and the
appeal of Dukakis. Likewise, there are substantive differences between
the appeal of the 1988 Bush and the 1992 Bush. If you expect 1992 to
model 1988, you are in for a big surprise.
John
Christopher Rob Robe
I must disagree. I believe once Perot is on the ballot he is going to
get grilled to death by the media on his positions which he obviously
doesn't yet have. It was troubling when I read in Time Magazine about a
month ago Perot was asked about foreign policy and he replied, "He did
not have enough information on it to comment."
The main attraction with Perot is that he is a not-yet-but-soon-to-be
candidate that is mostly concerned with (and here's the key) Domestic
policy. People are worried about the recession and the most recently
L.A. riots. These are the immediate worries of the people and by Perot
not taking positions and having excelent business experience one can
only assume he will be very beneficial to our nation's economy.
Besides all this, as soon as he is one the ballot the media will
concentrate mostly on him and his positons. Since Bush, Clinton, Brown,
etc. have been under constant observation whereas Perot eludes it. In
other words, either (1) You're in the pulic eye for a long time and get
"grilled" ocassionally, or (2) you spring up all of a sudden and get
"fryed" in a mass amount. ie. Perot.
I like to think that the American people would be intelligent enough to
realize that Perot does not have the political experience nor views to
hold office properly. Once the people see this when he gets on the
ballot and the media lets him have it, he is done for.
My prediction: Perot doesn't become President, and I think, very
unfortunately, that Bush will get the seat again followed very closely
by Clinton.
Chris Robe'
Scott Garee
>I don't think Perot has to take positions; positions are
>for politicians. Perot does not have to mean, but be. And
>that's why we keep hearing he's going to fade away, and he
>doesn't. Millions of people identify with him, and when his
>opponents attack his "positions" they'll just rally 'round.
>They might not agree with him, but he's one of theirs.
So, you're saying you'll vote for someone to be the President
of your country without having any idea of what he will do
once he reaches office? You will also "rally 'round" him
even if you don't agree with him? I certainly hope that
there are not many people like you who will exercise their
right to vote in this manner. Why exactly is it that you
want him to be president? What makes him "one of yours?"
Even were positions to be for politicians only, which is an
absurd statement, Perot is now a politician, it kind of goes
with the territory.
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Goozin' Garee = ga...@bnr.ca |
|My opinions are my own and are not supported by|
|Bell Northern Research (Even though I AM right)|
Greg Lee
}He bases his assertion on the use of his successful technique of
}weighing negative ratings in past elections. It is not the positive
}ratings which ultimately elect someone pres, it is the lack of
Further, Black said in the press conference on CSPAN, once a
candidate gets high "negatives", he rarely recovers from
bad poll results. Because even if, later, good things come out,
people have stopped listening.
}... Most pundits give Mr. Perot a year of
}honeymoon with Congress, to be followed by guerilla warfare.
}
}The question comes down to: How much damage can he do in a year?
4 - 1 = 3.
--
Greg Lee <l...@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Don Wells
a...@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes: "... Gordon Black, a
professional and savvy pollster, has quietly declared that Perot will
with Ross Perot as President of the United States.. There is this
little matter of getting Congress to go along with him without benefit
of party affiliation and ties. Most pundits give Mr. Perot a year of
Gordon Black ultimately based his conclusion about Perot being most
likely to win the Presidency on his statistical results about the mood
of the electorate. In particular, Black says that there is now an
identifiable set of politically mainstream Americans who are disgusted
with both of the traditional parties, and who hold a fairly consistent
set of opinions and attitudes which could be the basis for forming a
new political party. Because the new party would occupy the middle of
the political spectrum it would leave the other two parties as
minorities as soon as it mobilized. Black thinks that the political
opportunity is so obvious that it is sure to be exploited during the
next two years. New-Party candidates will surely appear for the 1994
election, and many of them may be able to fund campaigns themselves,
using the Perot model. Furthermore, I suggest that any attempt by the
House to oppose Perot's policies during the 93/94 sessions is likely
to result in a Perot campaign against the House incumbents in 1994.
--
Donald C. Wells Associate Scientist dwe...@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory +1-804-296-0277
520 Edgemont Road Fax= +1-804-296-0278
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA 78:31.1W, 38:02.2N
Jeffrey Turner
Isn't trying to fit a "new party" on the political spectrum
between the Democrats and the Republicans kind of like trying to
walk under the abdomen of an ant? It just doesn't seem to me like
there's much room to maneuver.
Perot's appeal seems more based on the fact that he has
NO position on the political spectrum, he is what his supporters
wish him to be. Sort of like the three blind men and the elephant.
--Jeff Turner
Dave Sill
>NO position on the political spectrum, he is what his supporters
>wish him to be. Sort of like the three blind men and the elephant.
This is flat wrong. He's made his position on many topics known through
various speeches and interviews he's given particularly in the past few months.
See the positions article posted periodically by Doug Fierro or visit the Perot
archive at cobalt.caltech.edu:/pub/bjmccall/Perot.
P.S: Anyone know about the effort to get Perot on Tennessee's ballot? The list
of state contacts doen't show anything for Tenn.
--
Dave Sill (d...@ornl.gov) I can't wait to sink my teeth into
Martin Marietta Energy Systems a nice, ripe, genetically engineered,
Workstation Support irradiated tomato. Yum, yum.
Jenny Ballmann
--quoted article begins--
Date: 10 Jun 92 11:32:10
From: hun...@work.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Hunter)
Subject: Perot computers cracked
Richmond, June 9 (AP) -- An intruder erased information on about 17,000
supporters of Ross Perot from a computer file at the undeclared Presidential
Candidate's Virgina headquarters, campaign officials said. They added,
however, that they have copies of the files destroyed in the weekend incident.
The data included the names, addresses, telephone numbers and notes on about
17,000 Perot supporters in Virginia. "It's not a political act as far as I'm
concerned," said Mark Adams, the state petition coordinator for Virginians for
Perot. "I don't feel threatened by anything of that nature." [From the NY
Times, 10Jun 1992, p. A20]
I understand that the spokesperson for the campaign would want to downplay
the importance of the incident, and say that he didn't feel threatened, but
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a politically motivated dirty
trick. The Virginia election petition filing deadline is less than 3 weeks
away.
With a hotly contested and unusually complicated Presidential election upon
us, I would hope that electoral computer risks will be receiving heightened
attention from the community of computer professionals.
Lawrence Hunter, PhD., National Library of Medicine, Bldg. 38A, MS-54,
Bethesda. MD 20894 (301) 496-9300 hun...@nlm.nih.gov (internet)
--quoted article ends--
Jenny
--
Someone should knock some sense into people who put up with
this sort of abuse. -M. L. Carlock
Gordon Fitch
| >I don't think Perot has to take positions; positions are
| >for politicians. Perot does not have to mean, but be. And
| >that's why we keep hearing he's going to fade away, and he
| >doesn't. Millions of people identify with him, and when his
| >opponents attack his "positions" they'll just rally 'round.
| >They might not agree with him, but he's one of theirs.
|
| So, you're saying you'll vote for someone to be the President
| of your country without having any idea of what he will do
| once he reaches office? You will also "rally 'round" him
| even if you don't agree with him? I certainly hope that
| there are not many people like you who will exercise their
| right to vote in this manner. Why exactly is it that you
| want him to be president? What makes him "one of yours?"
That's the opposite of what I said. I think I'm going
to have to do an analysis of peoples' reading skills and
its effect on politics. I'll blame it on television.
However, back to the point: Reagan demonstrated that a
politician need have no believable positions and very
little evidence of sentience to be elected. In fact, he
was elected twice, and could probably be elected again.
So why should it be an different with Perot? On top
of which, he _does_ appear to be sentient, and possibly
even clever.
Paul A.S. Ward
>So, you're saying you'll vote for someone to be the President
>of your country without having any idea of what he will do
>once he reaches office?
Makes about as much sense as voting for someone when you "know" exactly
what he is going to do.
Eg, say, Bush, "Read my Lips..."
Or to put it another way, "What difference does it make what the person
_says_ they will do, when there is, in fact, zero requirement for that
person to follow through on said promises?"
It would seem that what a democracy needs is a system of accountability
for the promises made under which a person was elected.
Paul
Ted Frank
>> Perot's appeal seems more based on the fact that he has
>>NO position on the political spectrum, he is what his supporters
>>wish him to be. Sort of like the three blind men and the elephant.
>
>This is flat wrong. He's made his position on many topics known through
>various speeches and interviews he's given particularly in the past few months.
he doesn't take more than a couple of positions, and everything else is
vague homilies out of a Robert Fulghum book.
I think the John Judis interview is a perfect example of this.
--
....................................
ted frank | th...@midway.uchicago.edu
the university of chicago law school
karl marx's children married wealthy
Ted Frank
>Or to put it another way, "What difference does it make what the person
>_says_ they will do, when there is, in fact, zero requirement for that
>person to follow through on said promises?"
>
>It would seem that what a democracy needs is a system of accountability
>for the promises made under which a person was elected.
There is. It's called re-election. (Which is why term limitations are
bad ideas.)
Steve Davis
>No, it's flat right. If you look at Doug Fierro's postings of his quotes,
>he doesn't take more than a couple of positions, and everything else is
>vague homilies out of a Robert Fulghum book.
Where you see a Fulghum book, most people see issues. This is your
problem, not mine.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
********** Have you hugged your Amiga today? **********
Doug Fierro
>of state contacts doen't show anything for Tenn.
The state contacts are numbers submitted by subscribers on the net; you
can call the general 1-800-685-7777 number for more info about your state.
Tennessee was I believe the very first state to put Perot on the ballot.
The last update I have is as follows:
Al 5,000 *finished Aug 31
Ak 2,035 *finished Aug 24
De (reg.) 144 *finished Jul 15
Ia 1,000 *finished Aug 14
Ky 5,000 *finished Aug 27
Ma .10,000 *finished Jul 28
Mi 25,646 *finished Jul 16
Ms 1,000 *finished Sep 4
NJ 800 *finished Jul 27
ND 4,000 *finished Sep 4
Oh 5,000 *finished Aug 20
Tn 25 already on Aug 20
Tx 38,900 *finished May 11
Ut 300 *finished Sep 1
Vt 1,000 *finished Sep 17
Va 13,920 *finished Aug 21
Reported in the news last night, California is getting ready to turn in
their Perot petitions two months early. The required number of signatures
needed to get Perot on the ballot in California is 135,000, and the rumors
are he will have 1,000,000+ signatures. I think there are only something
like 15 or 20 million registered voters in the whole state, so that is a
pretty significant number. Santa Clara County (the county I'm volunteering
in) is supposed to have 100,000 signatures alone.
Doug
--
Doug Fierro
|\ UTS System Software
O __________|_\______ CASE tools development
\_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */ fie...@uts.amdahl.com
__\____ |=================/ (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ted Frank
>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>No, it's flat right. If you look at Doug Fierro's postings of his quotes,
>>he doesn't take more than a couple of positions, and everything else is
>>vague homilies out of a Robert Fulghum book.
>
>Where you see a Fulghum book, most people see issues. This is your
>problem, not mine.
Baloney. "We need to get this economy moving" and "Education is
important" are not positions, much less policies.
Robert B. Whitehurst
>g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >I don't think Perot has to take positions; positions are
>| >for politicians. Perot does not have to mean, but be. And
>| >that's why we keep hearing he's going to fade away, and he
>| >doesn't. Millions of people identify with him, and when his
>| >opponents attack his "positions" they'll just rally 'round.
>| >They might not agree with him, but he's one of theirs.
>|
>ga...@bnr.ca (Scott Garee) writes:
>| So, you're saying you'll vote for someone to be the President
>| of your country without having any idea of what he will do
>| once he reaches office? You will also "rally 'round" him
>| even if you don't agree with him? I certainly hope that
>| there are not many people like you who will exercise their
>| right to vote in this manner. Why exactly is it that you
>| want him to be president? What makes him "one of yours?"
>
>That's the opposite of what I said. I think I'm going
>to have to do an analysis of peoples' reading skills and
>its effect on politics. I'll blame it on television.
And what are you going to blame your ignorance on? [See below]
>
>However, back to the point: Reagan demonstrated that a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>politician need have no believable positions and very
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>little evidence of sentience to be elected. In fact, he
>was elected twice, and could probably be elected again.
>So why should it be an different with Perot? On top
>of which, he _does_ appear to be sentient, and possibly
>even clever.
>
>Gordon Fitch | g...@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf
Quite to the contrary, Reagan held several beliefs (positions)
quite strongly. Personally, I think most of them, particularly re:
taxation and trickle-down, were wrong-headed, but at least we knew
where he stood.
--
Brad Whitehurst | Aerospace Research Lab
rb...@Virginia.EDU | We like it hot...and fast.
Steve Davis
>Baloney. "We need to get this economy moving" and "Education is
>important" are not positions, much less policies.
BS. Unless you are prepared to act on statements then you might as
well not have made them. Clinton and Bush have shown through their
record that they don't act on what they say. Nothing in Perot's
record indicates that he wouldn't. So, do you want somebody you
know doesn't believe what he says (bush/clinton), or someone who
you know says what he believes, even if you disagree on some
issues?
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
A schmuck by any other name is still Nate - Chad Buehler (my roomate)
Ted Frank
>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>Baloney. "We need to get this economy moving" and "Education is
>>important" are not positions, much less policies.
>
>BS. Unless you are prepared to act on statements then you might as
>well not have made them.
Perot hasn't given any indication he *knows* how to act on these statements.
Anybody can make these statements. They're not controversial. I
don't know any serious politician who *hasn't* made these statements.
Your deletion of the context in which I made these remarks (like you did
with my Duke analogy) is not only poor Usenetiquette, but a concession
that Perot has yet to take a real position.
John Locke
> ... Perot has yet to take a real position.
*Snore*
Perot says he's taking two months to develop his platform. In the meantime,
we spend every day of that two months complaining that he won't commit
himself. Ted, you should take a car trip with a child sometime, so you can
discover what the litany of "Are we there yet?" really sounds like.
John
Steve Davis
>Your deletion of the context in which I made these remarks (like you did
>with my Duke analogy) is not only poor Usenetiquette, but a concession
>that Perot has yet to take a real position.
Gee, Ted. You brought up Duke again. Are you sure you disagree
with his message? You sure bring up often enough.
However, that is beside the point. Please explain to USENET the
rationalization you went through to equate my policy of not quoting
an entire message just to respond to one sentence (a practice which
EVERYONE needs to learn and adopt), and Perot's allegid lack of
positions.
Remember, Ted. You're the one waiting for aliens to come from
space and shine a "ray" on the president. Not me.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
** The most important freedom of democracy, is the freedom of CHOICE. **
Patrick J. McGuinness
>In article <l3egl1...@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> d...@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>> Perot's appeal seems more based on the fact that he has
>>>NO position on the political spectrum, he is what his supporters
>>>wish him to be. Sort of like the three blind men and the elephant.
>>
>>This is flat wrong. He's made his position on many topics known through
>>various speeches and interviews he's given particularly in the past few months.
>No, it's flat right. If you look at Doug Fierro's postings of his quotes,
>he doesn't take more than a couple of positions, and everything else is
>vague homilies out of a Robert Fulghum book.
>
>I think the John Judis interview is a perfect example of this.
This is the "Vanna White" phenomenon that Ted Koppel spoke of
months ago. He thought it interesting that Vanna White, a person
we know nothing about really, was viewed favorably by most Americans.
Sort of like when the majority of Americans said Walter Cronkite would
make a good President, a man who merely read the scripted Nightly
News.
When you have a media personality that issues forth
the common platitudes of the age, with all its contradictions,
it is not surprising that many people will project *onto* him
their own beliefs. You can see that in this very group.
I can see it in my own reactions to him. On one of the talk shows, he
said the tax system was like an inner tube with a whole bunch of patches
(damn straight!) and "day one" he would "sit down with Congress" and
fix it. (damn straight!) Immediately, I began to imagine how *I* would
have the tax system changed. But he didn't give any indication of what he
would actually do, except "fix" it. I projected my *own* solution onto
his platitudes. (damn straight! he's for a flat tax, eliminating the
home mortgage and state deductions, and he'll eliminate the double
tax on dividends! right, Ross? right?)
What a leader. " And that's the way it is."
> ted frank | th...@midway.uchicago.edu
Allen Smith
> In article <Bpopp...@sun3.vlsi.waterloo.edu> wa...@sun1.vlsi.waterloo.edu (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>>It would seem that what a democracy needs is a system of accountability
>>for the promises made under which a person was elected.
>
> There is. It's called re-election. (Which is why term limitations are
> bad ideas.)
Not neccessarily. What about a system in which, instead of someone
being unelectable to a position after x many years in that position, they
are harder (plurality to simple majority to 2/3 majority to 3/4 majority
to...) to elect each y years in that position? It still allows for
re-election of someone who does a good job while helping to overcome some
of the portions of the system that cause incumbents to be likely to be
re-elected.
I might point out that, in the US (and similarly-set-up systems),
the House of Representatives was supposed to have a high turnover rate,
with the Senate having a lower one. I would advocate significantly less
(possibly no) term limits for the Senate than for the House. And time in
the House should not be counted for purposes of term limits in the Senate.
-Allen
Ted Frank
>Gee, Ted. You brought up Duke again. Are you sure you disagree
>with his message? You sure bring up often enough.
You just brought up me. Are you sure you disagree with me? You
sure talk about me often enough.
>Remember, Ted. You're the one waiting for aliens to come from
>space and shine a "ray" on the president. Not me.
I see reading comprehension is on the decline again in this country.
Greg Lindahl
>I see reading comprehension is on the decline again in this country.
I see your posting frequency is still increasing. Trying to be #1 next
week? Are you ever going to post anything interesting?
Doug Fierro
I think Ted Frank is the net anti-christ.
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
(Steve Davis) writes:
|>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|>
|>>Your deletion of the context in which I made these remarks (like you did
|>>with my Duke analogy) is not only poor Usenetiquette, but a concession
|>>that Perot has yet to take a real position.
|>
|>Gee, Ted. You brought up Duke again. Are you sure you disagree
|>with his message? You sure bring up often enough.
[repeat of original bogus allegation noted]
|>However, that is beside the point. Please explain to USENET the
|>rationalization you went through to equate my policy of not quoting
|>an entire message just to respond to one sentence (a practice which
|>EVERYONE needs to learn and adopt), and Perot's allegid lack of
|>positions.
1) Your policy is to use quotations taken out of context to lie about
what people said, not to `save bandwidth'. You also took a quote from me
entirely out of context.
I think that this is a deliberate plot by the Perotistas, if they get
enough people to accuse *THEM* of misquoting then people may believe
their allegations of misquoting. It's an old trick, basicaly it's just
creating so much dirt that people think `oh they are all the same'. It
was used to great effect by Gobbels.
2) Using lies about what people have said to answer their arguments is
an admission that you cannot answer their arguments.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
(John Locke) writes:
Hardly forward planning eh?
What happens if he's in office and something unexpected comes up? Is he
just going to say to the EC (say) `sorry I can't decide what to do
about the animal growth hormone import ban, would you mind waiting for
six months while I work out what my view is?'
There is not enough time to keep a your platform up to date during an
election, let alone invent it from scratch. It takes years to get
anything like the insight required to understand even small areas such
as agricultural policy and that is a minor matter compared to Macro
Ecconomic policy or Foreign policy.
H. Ross Perot's lak of a platform NOW is an issue because there is no
way he could work one out before his term of office had expired. There
simply is no time.
A H. Ross Perot Presidency could only be either :-
1) Complete inability to make any decision about anything causing
complete atrophy
or
2) Crisis management with frequent policy changes
Probably (1) followed by (2) when he reaised his time was up.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
gl...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
Harsh but fair!
Phill Hallam-Baker
Wayne A. Christopher
>|> Perot says he's taking two months to develop his platform.
> just going to say to the EC (say) `sorry I can't decide what to do
> about the animal growth hormone import ban, would you mind waiting for
> six months while I work out what my view is?'
Do you think Bush or Clinton are experts on animal growth hormone?
No -- they have advisors who are, and they trust their judgement.
Perot is in the process of putting together a team of advisors right
now, it sounds like.
> A H. Ross Perot Presidency could only be either :-
> 1) Complete inability to make any decision about anything causing
> complete atrophy
You mean like Bush? Somehow this doesn't sound like Perot's style.
> 2) Crisis management with frequent policy changes
This isn't the way to succeed in business, so I don't think this is
his style either.
Wayne
Andrew Berman
>
> I think Ted Frank is the net anti-christ.
>
>
> Doug
Actually, his postings tend to be highly intelligent, very informed,
and in general worthwhile. Unlike certain posters and candidates, Ted
has always provided documentation when requested to back up his
statements.
You just don't like him because he doesn't follow your Christ, who's
from Texas, has 3 billion dollars, and a very short haircut.
> Doug Fierro
> \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */ fie...@uts.amdahl.com
--
Andrew P. Berman | "It's no exaggeration to say the undecideds
Dept. of Computer Science | could go one way or the other."
University of Washington | -George Bush 10/21/88
abe...@cs.washington.edu |
Brad Pierce
>You just don't like him because he doesn't follow your Christ, who's
>from Texas, has 3 billion dollars, and a very short haircut.
Perotistas are fanatics. Personality cults lead to tragedy.
-- Brad Pierce --
Elizabeth G. Levy
He also said that he'd keep out of the media spotlight while formulating
these positions. If he keeps appearing on, say, the Today show, we
should be asking him questions.
Steve Davis
>What happens if he's in office and something unexpected comes up? Is he
>just going to say to the EC (say) `sorry I can't decide what to do
>about the animal growth hormone import ban, would you mind waiting for
>six months while I work out what my view is?'
Let's take George Bush's record with the EC so far into
consideration here. In the Yugoslavia crisis, Bush said 'sorry, I
can't get involved right now because the polls tell me I have to
spend time thinking about domestic matters.' Then, after months of
bloodshed and carnage, he says 'sorry, I would have come in sooner
but my campaign staff tell me I have to make a strong stand on an
issue to regain public support.' Really. It's your choice. Do
you want a President who makes decisions based on mandates from the
far right or not? If you do, then Bush is your man.
>H. Ross Perot's lak of a platform NOW is an issue because there is no
>way he could work one out before his term of office had expired. There
>simply is no time.
Number 1: Platforms are gimmicks. Number 2: Platforms do not
come from the candidate. They come from the people supporting him.
Number 3: Substantiate the 'there simply is no time' statement.
Number 4: Explain why anyone should care.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
Drug Violence exists not because of drugs, but because they are illegal!
Steve Davis
>1) Your policy is to use quotations taken out of context to lie about
>what people said, not to `save bandwidth'. You also took a quote from me
>entirely out of context.
Your policy is to make up quotations from Ross Perot, and lie about
their application to his beliefs and the reasons why people support
him. You do this as part of an orchestrated 'smear campaign'. You
also take legitimate quotes from Ross entirely out of context and
use them to paint a picture along with terms like 'Herr Perot' and
others. Don't you give me your moral superiority bull shit.
>I think that this is a deliberate plot by the Perotistas,
The only people who are against Ross Perot are 1) Left-Wing
ultra-liberals, 2) Right-Wing ultra-conservatives, 3) Libertarians,
and 4) people who have bought their (your) line of thinking. Are
you claiming to be part of a deliberate plot by Perot supporters?
>2) Using lies about what people have said to answer their arguments is
>an admission that you cannot answer their arguments.
Fine. Ted Frank said that Perot put a Chicago professor on his
Veep list. This turned out to be a lie. Ted Frank has used the
'cordoning off the neighborhood' quote over and over. This turned
out to be a lie. Using lies about what people have said in
response to their arguments is an admission that you HAVE NO TRUE
ARGUMENT AGAINST THEM.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
Steve Davis
>He also said that he'd keep out of the media spotlight while formulating
>these positions. If he keeps appearing on, say, the Today show, we
>should be asking him questions.
Well, I think people did ask him questions while he was on the
Today show. Surprise. Furthermore, it is my understanding that
Perot never said he would 'keep out of the media spotlight'. I
suppose you can come up with documentation to substantiate this
claim.
Steve Davis
>Actually, his postings tend to be highly intelligent, very informed,
>and in general worthwhile. Unlike certain posters and candidates, Ted
>has always provided documentation when requested to back up his
>statements.
Bull SHIT. Ted Frank has yet to substantiate the allegation that
Ross Perot said anything about 'cordoning off the neighborhoods'.
>You just don't like him because he doesn't follow your Christ, who's
>from Texas, has 3 billion dollars, and a very short haircut.
I see you are bigoted against people with short haircuts.
mp...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
> what people said, not to `save bandwidth'. You also took a quote from me
> entirely out of context.
>
> I think that this is a deliberate plot by the Perotistas, if they get
> enough people to accuse *THEM* of misquoting then people may believe
> their allegations of misquoting. It's an old trick, basicaly it's just
> creating so much dirt that people think `oh they are all the same'. It
> was used to great effect by Gobbels.
>
> 2) Using lies about what people have said to answer their arguments is
> an admission that you cannot answer their arguments.
Oh, you can clear up this "plot" you think exists real quick. People
accuse you of misquoting and lying, because you DO. Why don't you simply
stop and try to argue based on what Perot HAS said??? Why don't you do
this? You answer it yourself above - you don't know how. Or, since you
don't know how to argue, why not just plain up and say "I don't like
Perot - don't know why, it's just a gut feeling"? Just quit behaving
like sniviling cowards.
---
Michael Pye
email: mp...@csupomona.edu
Brad Pierce
>The only people who are against Ross Perot are 1) Left-Wing
>ultra-liberals, 2) Right-Wing ultra-conservatives, 3) Libertarians,
>and 4) people who have bought their (your) line of thinking.
Perotistas seem to be getting more fanatical and out of touch with
reality every day.
-- Brad Pierce --
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
fau...@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A.
|>hal...@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>>|> Perot says he's taking two months to develop his platform.
|>> What happens if he's in office and something unexpected comes up? Is
|>he
|>> just going to say to the EC (say) `sorry I can't decide what to do
|>> about the animal growth hormone import ban, would you mind waiting
|>for
|>> six months while I work out what my view is?'
|>
|>Do you think Bush or Clinton are experts on animal growth hormone?
|>No -- they have advisors who are, and they trust their judgement.
|>Perot is in the process of putting together a team of advisors right
|>now, it sounds like.
Both Bush and Clinton know people who are experts, they have been
talking to farmers, industrialists and consumer organisations about the
subject for years. What is more important they understand the reasons
why the `experts' take the positions they do.
As Machiavelli said, a Prince must depend on advisers, but he must be
expert enough to understand them.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
(Steve Davis) writes:
|>hal...@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>>What happens if he's in office and something unexpected comes up? Is
|>he
|>>just going to say to the EC (say) `sorry I can't decide what to do
|>>about the animal growth hormone import ban, would you mind waiting
|>for
|>>six months while I work out what my view is?'
|>
|>Let's take George Bush's record with the EC so far into
Wille Cayotee would make a better President. I'm not a fan of any of the
candidates, however if you want a choice between Bush and Perot, I'll
take Bush. Personaly I would go for Clinton.
|>consideration here. In the Yugoslavia crisis, Bush said 'sorry, I
|>can't get involved right now
Which is what the EC wanted him to say. Europe does not particularly
want Washington interfering in our back yard.
|>because the polls tell me I have to
|>spend time thinking about domestic matters.' Then, after months of
|>bloodshed and carnage, he says 'sorry, I would have come in sooner
|>but my campaign staff tell me I have to make a strong stand on an
|>issue to regain public support.' Really. It's your choice. Do
|>you want a President who makes decisions based on mandates from the
|>far right or not? If you do, then Bush is your man.
But Perot was against intervention in Kewait, is he for or against
intervention in Yuogslavia?
You are praising Perot who has taken no stance yet flaming Bush for
deciding to wait on the sidelines before interfering.
|>>H. Ross Perot's lak of a platform NOW is an issue because there is no
|>>way he could work one out before his term of office had expired. There
|>>simply is no time.
|>
|>Number 1: Platforms are gimmicks.
Absolutely untre.
|> Number 2: Platforms do not come from the candidate.
|>They come from the people supporting him.
The people support him because of his platform and his capabilities.
While the detail of the platform will be heavily influenced by aides the
broad outline is determined by the candidate.
|>Number 3: Substantiate the 'there simply is no time' statement.
If you think that the complexity of the decisions to be made by the
President is trivial then say so. I happen to beleive that it is an
immensely complex task requireing imense in depth knowlege to do it
well. Of course this is probably just ignorant speculation, hell lets
put Danny boy in there, the job is so easy even he could do it!
|>Number 4: Explain why anyone should care.
Because without a credible politician in the Whitehouse there will be no
hope of getting the GATT agreement through. Perot would be unable to
make any concessions, despite the fact that the current US negotiating
stance is unacceptable to the other parties. Congress and the Senate
would leap upon any concession to prove how weak Perot is. Since there
is no hope of getting agreement without major concessions on agriculture
and intellectual property on the part of the US, the election of Perot
would prevent agreement and tip the world into a major trade war.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Vignes Gerard M
>
>Perotistas seem to be getting more fanatical and out of touch with
>reality every day.
Yes, but were they ever in touch to begin with?
--
Gerard Vignes pss...@ucs.usl.edu
USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette, LA 70504
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
Davis) writes:
|>hal...@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>>1) Your policy is to use quotations taken out of context to lie about
|>>what people said, not to `save bandwidth'. You also took a quote from me
|>>entirely out of context.
|>
|>Your policy is to make up quotations from Ross Perot,
I have not posted a single quote from Perot, nor have I claimed to have done so
|> You do this as part of an orchestrated 'smear campaign'.
I am currently in contact with no members of any political campaign in
the US. Nor I have never discussed any form of tactics with any other
poster. I never discuss any of my posts with anyone before making them,
nor do I have any intention to do so.
|! You
|>also take legitimate quotes from Ross entirely out of context
I do not make H. Ross Perot quotes because I have never met the man, nor
have I read primary sources for such. I constrain myself entirely to
commenting upon his actions and his lack of a platform. I have pointed
out that various quotes atributed to him do not amount to a platform,
that is not however what you are accusing me of.
|> and
|>use them to paint a picture along with terms like 'Herr Perot' and
|>others. Don't you give me your moral superiority bull shit.
I have never reffered to Herr Perot. Since he is not German. If you
think that I would use such a statement as a term of abuse I suggest
that you read the header of this article. Hint: .de is the first two
letters of DEUTSCHELAND. Are you implying that I would insult my hosts
in such a manner by using `Herr' as a form of abuse?
Perhaps you could supply the post where you claim that I said it?
|>>I think that this is a deliberate plot by the Perotistas,
[note that the substance of my quote was deleted, this suggested that
the deliberate misrepresentation of various posts by Stratters was
intended to makes his claim of Perot being misrepresented seem
credible.]
|>The only people who are against Ross Perot are 1) Left-Wing
|>ultra-liberals, 2) Right-Wing ultra-conservatives, 3) Libertarians,
|>and 4) people who have bought their (your) line of thinking. Are
|>you claiming to be part of a deliberate plot by Perot supporters?
5) People with more than half a brain who can spot a fraud.
You realy are making youself look stupid here. Everyone who is against
Perot is an `Ultra' something, apart from the loyal band of
Hallam-istas! I would spend longer refuting this drivel but my adoring
minons want to comune with their guru.
Phill Hallam-Baker
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people who want a better form of government are joining the
Hallam-istas. To find
out more contact hal...@zeus02.desy.de.
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
mp...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
|>hal...@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>> 1) Your policy is to use quotations taken out of context to lie
|>about
|>> what people said, not to `save bandwidth'. You also took a quote
|>from me
|>> entirely out of context.
|>>
|>> I think that this is a deliberate plot by the Perotistas, if they
|>get
|>> enough people to accuse *THEM* of misquoting then people may
|>believe
|>> their allegations of misquoting. It's an old trick, basicaly it's
|>just
|>> creating so much dirt that people think `oh they are all the same'.
|>It
|>> was used to great effect by Gobbels.
|>>
|>> 2) Using lies about what people have said to answer their arguments
|>is
|>> an admission that you cannot answer their arguments.
|>
|>Oh, you can clear up this "plot" you think exists real quick. People
|>|>accuse you of misquoting and lying, because you DO.
Substantiate your claim. Provide a reference. You are quite happy to
call those who do not liars, so where is YOUR quote SFB?
|> Why don't you simply
|>stop and try to argue based on what Perot HAS said???
I am doing that, my argument is that he is not a credible cabdidate
because has said nothing of substance so far. The details of his
non-statements do not interest me, I note that Perot has has a large
amount of air time but has failed to use it to say anything of
substance.
I have posted no quote by Perot, nor have I claimed to have done so.
Perhaps you could substantiate your allegation by showing where you
claim I have?
I can supply plenty of pieces where you accuse others of deliberately
misreprenting Perot. I can cite articles where `Stratocaster' -
deliberately misrepresents myself and Ted Frank.
<118jf0...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
Compare <1992Jun12....@dscomsf.desy.de> :-
|>Gee Dowzycki, I guess you are blind and stupid.
Gee Stratocaster I guess you are an out of tune teapot.
|> I am an American.
[Applase and cheering]
|>I support Ross Perot.
[Strains of the star spangled band-aid]
|> I have known about him since the 1980's. I
|>know what he stands for from transcripts of interviews.
And from regular seances with Mme Gypsi Lee.
|> And I know
|>what he promotes from the vast public record that he has left in
|>his wake. The Perot FTP site is ftp.cco.caltech.edu and the
|>directory is /pub/bjmccall/Perot/. Get the facts before you make
|>another statement like this.
Ring 0-800-3647-3644 and order your ABDOMINZER TODAY!
And if lines are engaged, please call back, but DOOOO CAALLLL
|> I am only a little right of Jello Biafra.
What in between the Jello and the cheesy pretzels? Personaly I would
make straight for the little sausages on sticks.
|> I still
|>support Perot because this country is getting stuck in a rut and it
|>needs someone to shake it up.
VOTE SADAM HUSSEIN !!
>|> His views are at-worst moderate
>|>compared to the bastard in office now.
>VOTE SADAM HUSSEIN !!!!
This article was pruned back in <11an18...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> by steve davis
hal...@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>VOTE SADAM HUSSEIN !!
>|> His views are at-worst moderate
>|>compared to the bastard in office now.
>VOTE SADAM HUSSEIN !!!!
Since it is indisputably the case that Saddam Hussein would shake the
country up, I consider the first deletion to be deliberate
misrepresentation since in the absence of the context the sarcasm is not
apparent.
I have demonstrated where Steve Davis lied about me. Since you claim
that those who cannot back up their claims are liars I now await the
articles in which you claim I misrepresented Perot.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Steve Davis
>|>Do you think Bush or Clinton are experts on animal growth hormone?
>|>No -- they have advisors who are, and they trust their judgement.
>|>Perot is in the process of putting together a team of advisors right
>|>now, it sounds like.
>Both Bush and Clinton know people who are experts, they have been
>talking to farmers, industrialists and consumer organisations about the
>subject for years.
Then I take it you are willing to tell me exactly what Clinton's
views on animal growth hormones are right now? Show me a speech
from President Bush that indicates that he knows ANYTHING about the
nitty-gritty of agriculture.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
******* ACLU Mission Statement: "Defend the Bill of Rights" *******
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
(Steve Davis) writes:
|>hal...@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>>|>Do you think Bush or Clinton are experts on animal growth hormone?
|>>|>No -- they have advisors who are, and they trust their judgement.
|>>|>Perot is in the process of putting together a team of advisors right
|>>|>now, it sounds like.
|>
|>>Both Bush and Clinton know people who are experts, they have been
|>>talking to farmers, industrialists and consumer organisations about the
|>>subject for years.
|>
|>Then I take it you are willing to tell me exactly what Clinton's
|>views on animal growth hormones are right now? Show me a speech
|>from President Bush that indicates that he knows ANYTHING about the
|>nitty-gritty of agriculture.
First Mr Davies you have failed to respond to my challenge for you to
substantiate this allegation :-
|>Your policy is to make up quotations from Ross Perot,
My repsonse:
I have not posted a single quote from Perot, nor have I claimed to have done so
I did in fact respond to one yesterday, and reposted parts of a
quotation from the Perot archive (pompous name for a ftp site eh?).
However this was after your allegation, and the post was in response to
a posting of the original quote by a Perotista.
Given your inability to justify your own statements I do not feel a
particular need to respond to any challenges from liars such as you.
I can't give you Clinton's position yet, but I can give you Bush's. He
is quite in favour of it, very much so in fact - so long as it's us in
Europe who have to eat the beef. This is one of the central issues in
the GATT round - and in various disputes between the US and the EC. The
EC is threatening to (by now probably has) ban beef which be produced
using growth hormones illegal in the community.
The crux of the issue is whether a comonality agreement between the US
and the EC can be drawn up, logicaly the best solution is to have common
safety standards. This however has a lot of soverignty implications,
although these will become apparent in the near future anyway as the
North America trading Zone gets started.
Although I don't know Clintons position on the issue I do know the
position of many of the prominent members of his party. There is a
possibility of setting up a formal liason between the monitoring teams
`in the interests of better public safety'.
However the real reason for the ban is not so much the health issue but
the difficulties that the French have dealing with 1 million peasant
farmers who have a habit of going on the rampage every so often. These
are a crucial voting block and the need of the French Govt for their
support is what keeps the CAP in place. The rest of the EC (except
Germany) rwally want to see the end of the CAP - in fact everyone does
really only the French and Germans arn't allowed to say it. In other
words this is good old protectionism.
In order to get their way on the issue, the USA is going to need a
slightly more subtle negotiating stance than beginning with the Perotist
demand for $100 billion a year protection money.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Steve Davis
First, Mr. Hallam-Baker complained that Perot had not specific
views on animal growth hormones. I replied:
>|>Then I take it you are willing to tell me exactly what Clinton's
>|>views on animal growth hormones are right now? Show me a speech
>|>from President Bush that indicates that he knows ANYTHING about the
>|>nitty-gritty of agriculture.
Then, after many accusations and much spluttering, Phillip finally
replied:
>I can't give you Clinton's position yet, but I can give you Bush's. He
>is quite in favour of it, very much so in fact - so long as it's us in
>Europe who have to eat the beef.
So in other words. You can not tell me what Clinton's exact views
on animal growth hormones are. And you can not show me a speech
from President Bush that indicates that he knows ANYTHING about the
nitty-gritty of agriculture. All you can give is your own biased
political perspective. In short, you can not make a case against
Perot for not knowing anything about Agriculture because BOTH of
the other viable candidates know as little or even LESS than he
does.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
All men attribute to themselves freedom of will. -- Immanuel Kant
Paul A.S. Ward
>In article <Bpopp...@sun3.vlsi.waterloo.edu> wa...@sun1.vlsi.waterloo.edu (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>>_says_ they will do, when there is, in fact, zero requirement for that
>>person to follow through on said promises?"
>>
>>It would seem that what a democracy needs is a system of accountability
>>for the promises made under which a person was elected.
>
>There is. It's called re-election.
Except this is insufficient. Some examples (all hypothetical):
Bush says that America will not attack Yugoslavia (what's left) to force
peace in the area. Bush gets re-elected, and then turns around and
attacks Yugoslavia. He has directly violated a promise made in the election,
and even though there will be another election in 4 years, the effect cannot
be undone.
Person X promises to cut taxes. Person X is elected, and then raises taxes.
Now, for 4 years you are stuck with someone raising taxes when _you_explicitly_
voted_for_cuts_in_taxes. After the 4 years are up, what makes you think your
money will be around to be returned by the next guy you elect.
Person X is booted out of Office for raising taxes and Person Y is voted in
(because she claimed she would cut taxes!). She raises the taxes. Another
4 years of getting a government which does not represent the wishes of the
people that elected it.
A less hypothetical example:
In the 1980 election, one of the issues was the size of the deficit (an enormous
$53 billion then - wow), and the republicans under Reagan promised to get it
under control. Guess what's happened in the last 12 years!!
>(Which is why term limitations are bad ideas.)
Assuming that the guy in power wants to run for the next term. If he doesn't,
and he doesn't have a party (can we say Perot), then he do do pretty much as
he pleases for 4 years IN SPITE OF ANY PROMISES MADE IN A CAMPAIGN UNDER
WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
I have no desire to pick on any party or variation of democracy. I am merely
pointing out that there is no accountability for politicians to follow through
on their promises under which they were elected.
Yes, you can vote them out of office, but it may be a bit late then. And
remember, they are explicitly doing what you elected them NOT to do! Is it
that difficult to compile a list of promises made by candidates, and then
have them accountable when they fail to follow through? Is it too much to
ask that when a politician says X, and then does the opposite, (s)he should
go to the people to get a mandate for that action, because it is the opposite
of what they claimed they would do?
Paul.
Philip Moore
To judge the relative position of a political advocate the viewer must
acknowledge his point of origin. The recurring theme of Perot supporters
as out of touch or not rational indicates that the there is some assumption
about what constitutes rational political thought.
It is my suspicion that this perception has its roots in the conventional
one dimensional left-right political spectrum. This has been vigorously
examined many times in t.p.theory, but I'll recap. There are at least
two dimensions to the political spectrum when you consider the fiscal
and social considerations that the intrusive federal bureaucracy has
thrust upon us. Thus the Democrats would generally fall in the fiscally
intrusive quadrant and the socially unintrusive, whereas the Republicans
would be fiscally more unintrusive yet socially more intrusive.
The Communists would be fically and socially intrusive, the Libertarians
would be fiscally and socially unintrusive.
The problem with insisting on a one dimensional spectrum then arbitrarily
defining the left end of that spectrum as Democratic and the right end as
Republican is that you end up alienating most of the population. Fewer
people vote or even register to vote because the political discourse
between these "ends" of a political spectrum offer no candidates that
these voters identify with. The really scary thing is that even the
politicians believe this left-right myth and try and jockey for position
closer to the middle thinking they will capture a greater proportion of
the popular support. This is the very reason Clinton founded the DLC, to
move the party further to the "right" to "recapture" the Reagan Democrats.
What they fail to understand is that these Reagan Democrats might just
have voted for Reagan for the same reasons they are polling for Perot.
They do not identify with the left-right myth and are tired of the
politicos trying to impose it upon them, instead they want action.
Perhaps it is not the most thoughtful and critical decision but most
people get very pissed off when they think they have been conned. If
I am going to pay someone 15% of my income to do something then I want
something done!
--
They did not call it the career politician office, they did not call it the
public relations office, they did not call it the wealthy elite office;
no, when the drafters of our Constitution set down in words the foundations of
our great country they spoke to the voters of the 1992 Presidential election.
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
(Steve Davis) writes:
|>hal...@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>First, Mr. Hallam-Baker complained that Perot had not specific
|>views on animal growth hormones. I replied:
|>
|>>|>Then I take it you are willing to tell me exactly what Clinton's
|>>|>views on animal growth hormones are right now? Show me a speech
|>>|>from President Bush that indicates that he knows ANYTHING about the
|>>|>nitty-gritty of agriculture.
|>
|>Then, after many accusations and much spluttering, Phillip finally
|>replied:
Accusations that Mr `Stratocaster' has yet to reply to. Specificaly to
prove his claim that I made any falsified Perot Quotes. Or indeed quoted
Perot at all.
The point I was making is simply that since Perot has no idea what his
opinion is on the simple issues he has no chance of forming an informed
opinion on the complex issues.
A Perot presidency would be in the hands of federal machine. There is no
way he could possibly control it.
Let us imagine that Perot meets Mr big Civil Service Mandarin on day1:
Perot My policy is to to X
Mandarin Perhaps it would be a good idea to consider Y Z first
Now at this point Perot has a choice, he can either have three years of
procrastination in which X does not happen or insist:-
Perot Do X and don't argue! (Only he would of course say it in his
bestest, nicest friendliest EDS manner)
Mandarin OK, if thats what you want.
Problem is that Perot has of course been set up, policy X will be a
disaster because of problems that the civil service deliberately failed
to tell him:-
Perot Why did you not tell me that X would be a disaster?
Mandarin We did, you told us not to argue
The only way to achieve results is to understand the issues. Perot
simply does not.
The basis of the exercis of power is not simply possesion of office, it
is knowlege.
Perot must know this, if he was serious about being President he would
have run for a lesser office first. Govenor Perot would be more credible
than Mr mystery man. Then he could be judged by his record, not his
ability to complain about the record of others.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Steve Davis
First, Mr. Hallem-Baker complained that Perot had not specific
views on animal growth hormones. I replied:
|>|>>|>Then I take it you are willing to tell me exactly what Clinton's
|>|>>|>views on animal growth hormones are right now? Show me a speech
|>|>>|>from President Bush that indicates that he knows ANYTHING about the
|>|>>|>nitty-gritty of agriculture.
To this, Phillip replied with much spluttering and accusations. In
fact, when I said:
|>|>Then, after many accusations and much spluttering, Phillip finally
|>|>replied:
Phillip responded with this:
|>Accusations that Mr `Stratocaster' has yet to reply to. Specificaly to
|>prove his claim that I made any falsified Perot Quotes. Or indeed quoted
|>Perot at all.
To which I reply: TRY QUOTING ANYONE AT ALL. If your entire point
is that Perot has no specific growth hormone agenda, then it is YOU
who has to come up with quotes to support this. And, if you want
to make it an election issue, it is YOU who has to show that the
other two candidates know who they are talking about.
|>The point I was making is simply that since Perot has no idea what his
|>opinion is on the simple issues he has no chance of forming an informed
|>opinion on the complex issues.
And my point is: This makes him exactly like the other two
candidates.
|>A Perot presidency would be in the hands of federal machine. There is no
|>way he could possibly control it.
The job of the President is to be in charge of the Executive
branch. As the head of this branch, the President is granted power
over his underlings.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
***** Drugs are bad. BAD. Like frying eggs. - Mike Peercy *****
Dav Amann
>hal...@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
[Editorial comments and straw-man tactics deleted]
>
>To which I reply: TRY QUOTING ANYONE AT ALL. If your entire point
>is that Perot has no specific growth hormone agenda, then it is YOU
>who has to come up with quotes to support this. And, if you want
>to make it an election issue, it is YOU who has to show that the
>other two candidates know who they are talking about.
This is obviously not true. For one, trying to prove the absence of
something is almost impossible. I guess you'd have to find a quote
from Perot that says "I have no growth hormone policy." Fat chance.
However, if Phillip is saying that to this point Perot has not stated
any specific growth hormone agenda, and you disagree with him, then
the burden of proof is upon you. You must prove that Perot indeed
stated somewhere some articulable agenda on "growth hormone." Given
that Perot has not really articulated an agenda on anything, I would
find that point hard to prove, and, thus, I would have to agree with
Phillip in saying Perot has not stated any articulable agenda on
growth hormones or much else.
>
>|>The point I was making is simply that since Perot has no idea what his
>|>opinion is on the simple issues he has no chance of forming an informed
>|>opinion on the complex issues.
>
>And my point is: This makes him exactly like the other two
>candidates.
For someone who complains so much on the ignorance of others on Perot,
you sure no little on the other two candidates. For one, Clinton has
proposed countless agendas on education, health care reform, defense
cuts, retraining, tax reform, etc etc etc. Bush, also, has
articulated several agendas on these points in the form of proposed
legislation (known as "The Rose Garden Strategy.") Of the three
candidates, Perot's articulated positions are the most unknown and the
most vague.
>
>|>A Perot presidency would be in the hands of federal machine. There is no
>|>way he could possibly control it.
>
>The job of the President is to be in charge of the Executive
>branch. As the head of this branch, the President is granted power
>over his underlings.
>
The job of the President is to effectively lead the country with the
means accorded to him by the Constitution. One way of effectively
leading the country is dealing with Congress. I don't have any
evidence proving that Perot could do that effectively. As for
managing the Executive Branch, in general, the executive arm of the
government is so huge that no one person can manage it well. One
president in recent history tried, and Jimmy Carter aged 20 years
during a 4 year period, and proved to be a fairly ineffectual
president, I'm sorry to say.
>Stratocaster
>--
> Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
> | Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
> | FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
> ***** Drugs are bad. BAD. Like frying eggs. - Mike Peercy *****
dav
Wayne A. Christopher
> ultra-liberals, 2) Right-Wing ultra-conservatives, 3) Libertarians,
> and 4) people who have bought their (your) line of thinking.
I was just talking to somebody who worked for a company that was
involved in design automation in the early 80's, around the time that
GM bought out EDS. This company would have competed with EDS to sell
computer systems to GM for automobile design if it hadn't been for the
buyout -- during this time GM was way behind and needed to modernize
as fast as possible. According to him, Perot worked things so he
would have as much leverage as possible over GM -- for example, he
remained the chairman of EDS and controlled the prices that EDS
charged GM for computer services. Since he basically had a monopoly,
he raised the prices and provided GM with such poor service that they
were forced to buy him out for the $700M in order to stay afloat.
This sounds like a pretty extreme form of extortion to me. The person
who told me this said, "If he were the President, he would do the same
thing again, until Congress bought him off, perhaps with Alaska."
Maybe somebody who is more familiar with the EDS/GM situation can
comment on this. My source was admittedly biased, being a competitor
of Perot's. In any case, it reflects very badly on Perot's character,
if true -- I have heard other stories about his business practices
that suggest that he is quite ruthless, although legal.
Wayne
Dwight Joe
>...
>This sounds like a pretty extreme form of extortion to me. The person
>who told me this said, "If he were the President, he would do the same
>thing again, until Congress bought him off, perhaps with Alaska."
My English professor in college once told me an old American
saying: "No one ever lost money in underestimating the
intelligence of the American people."
Was anyone shocked by Mr. Perot's anti-gay positions?
Here in California, which is supposed to be one of the most
tolerant places in the USA, people didn't seem phased. In fact,
one poll shocked very strong support for Mr. Perot.
Further, does anyone even know the SPECIFIC details of Mr. Perot's
campaign platform?
Given Mr. Perot's background, I strongly suspect that his positions
share the most in common with conservative Democrats or moderate
Republicans (but maybe a bit more conservative than just moderate
Republican). I assure you that if Mr. Perot becomes president,
he will cut all social programs to the bone. Further, he will
also cut defense spending and eliminate almost all subsidies
(i.e. agricultural subsidies). He will create the kind of gov't
where state's rights prevail.
Note that I express no opinion about him whatsoever.
If you would like to see those policies implemented, then vote
for him, by all means. But remember, you heard this from me first--
before his official campaign platform appears.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi ha nan desu ka. \| |` | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka. | -+- | especially, don't buy
/| / \ | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992. | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Hartman
>Given Mr. Perot's background, I strongly suspect that his positions
>share the most in common with conservative Democrats or moderate
>Republicans (but maybe a bit more conservative than just moderate
>Republican). I assure you that if Mr. Perot becomes president,
>he will cut all social programs to the bone. Further, he will
>also cut defense spending and eliminate almost all subsidies
>(i.e. agricultural subsidies). He will create the kind of gov't
>where state's rights prevail.
>
>Note that I express no opinion about him whatsoever.
Really? Then what was that previous paragraph? I haven't seen
any documentation, and based on what I've seen of his background,
I couldn't agree with you less.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
Suppose that you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of congress.
But I repeat myself.
Mark Interrante
>Given Mr. Perot's background, I strongly suspect that his positions
>share the most in common with conservative Democrats or moderate
>Republicans (but maybe a bit more conservative than just moderate
>Republican). I assure you that if Mr. Perot becomes president,
>he will cut all social programs to the bone. Further, he will
>also cut defense spending and eliminate almost all subsidies
>(i.e. agricultural subsidies). He will create the kind of gov't
>where state's rights prevail.
>Note that I express no opinion about him whatsoever.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Of course you don't :)
>If you would like to see those policies implemented, then vote
>for him, by all means. But remember, you heard this from me first--
>before his official campaign platform appears.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Seikatsu no imi ha na desu ka. \| |` | Don't buy from Toyota;
>Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka. | -+- | especially, don't buy
> /| / \ | from Capitol Toyota in
>Copyright 1992. | San Jose, California.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Interrante
m...@ponder.csci.unt.edu
JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com
fau...@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>I was just talking to somebody who worked for a company that was
>involved in design automation in the early 80's, around the time that
>GM bought out EDS. This company would have competed with EDS to sell
>computer systems to GM for automobile design if it hadn't been for the
>buyout -- during this time GM was way behind and needed to modernize
>as fast as possible. According to him, Perot worked things so he
>would have as much leverage as possible over GM -- for example, he
>remained the chairman of EDS and controlled the prices that EDS
>charged GM for computer services. Since he basically had a monopoly,
>he raised the prices and provided GM with such poor service that they
>were forced to buy him out for the $700M in order to stay afloat.
>This sounds like a pretty extreme form of extortion to me. The person
>who told me this said, "If he were the President, he would do the same
>thing again, until Congress bought him off, perhaps with Alaska."
>
>Maybe somebody who is more familiar with the EDS/GM situation can
>comment on this.
I would be glad to. The facts you present are in total agreement
with my experiences with EDS and Perot. I think many of the
employees at GM at first thought of Perot as the knight in
shining armor (hmm. . sound familiar?)
He came in with guns blazing, attacking the GM bureaucracy, which
all of us saw as a good sign. But he had no solutions, just as with
the run for the Presidency. So he alienated the GM power structure,
while not offering any solutions. Smart, eh? And EDS was the
worst thing to happen to GM in a long time. We (GM) cannot buy any
computer equipment unless we go through EDS. So we pay some times
twice the going retail rate, it takes months to get it, and the
computer support is abyssmal. One example: I went to pick up some
output and the printer was down, so I asked the EDS guy what was
wrong. He got really flustered and ran around for awhile. In the
meantime, I looked up the error message in the manual and corrected
the problem. He didn't even know what an error message was. It
turned out that Rawss and his boys focus on an employee's character
so much they don't care about computer training. Perhaps that's why
they brag about their training so much and charge a departing employee
for it.
The bottom line I learned from seeing Perot and his style at GM.
He only works well when he has total control. He cannot compromise.
He is never wrong in his own mind. He is great at attacking "on
behalf of the little man". He is weak at actually doing
anything about it. And he has a hair trigger. Anyone who votes
for him should realize that we at GM felt just as good about
him until we saw him ACT as oppose to TALK. He is a loose cannon.
If you think things couldn't get any worse, you are a fool.
****These are my thoughts and do not represent those of GM perhaps***
Steve Davis
I have seen more patently absurd logic, but not in the last few
years. What Mr. Christopher just wrote here is that Congress will
give Alaska to Perot in order to buy out his "monopoly" of power.
>I was just talking to somebody who worked for a company that was
>involved in design automation in the early 80's, around the time that
>GM bought out EDS.
This person sounds like an expert. I have taken the liberty of
deleting his sob story, though I'll recount it this way: A person
working for a company in competition with EDS was upset that GM
chose to incorporate EDS instead and has has shown sour grapes
since then. BFD. It happens all the time.
>Since he basically had a monopoly,
>he raised the prices and provided GM with such poor service that they
>were forced to buy him out for the $700M in order to stay afloat.
I see. So now, Perot is single-handedly responsible for almost
causing GM to sink under its own weight. *SIGH* Isn't it amazing
to you non-partial USENET readers out there how people can just
write whatever they like without a shred of evidence or a single
piece of documentation... without any kind of LOGIC whatsoever?
It's all the result of this thing we have called the 1st Amendment.
But I have heard so many stories about Perot V. GM that I'm not
about to accept this one that is OBVIOUSLY manufactured by an
individual with a deep personal bias against Perot and is totally
EMPTY of any kind of factual evidence.
>This sounds like a pretty extreme form of extortion to me.
Well, you made up the story yourself. I guess you can make it
sound any way you like to yourself. Makes sense. I was thinking,
the first time I read through this post, that perhaps something
like this REALLY DID TAKE PLACE and you were honestly laying out
the facts as you saw them. But this next sentence really blew it:
>The person
>who told me this said, "If he were the President, he would do the same
>thing again, until Congress bought him off, perhaps with Alaska."
First, you expect us to believe that Perot had it in his power to
cause GM to go out of business. Then you label the EDS buy-out as
extortion, without any kind of evidence or substantiation to your
claim. And finally, you sum it all up with this ... this ...
STUPIDITY.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
Don't believe what the Moral Majority says. Remember that they are neither.
Steve Davis
>Was anyone shocked by Mr. Perot's anti-gay positions?
Friend: I have video tapes or written transcripts of about every
national appearance by Ross Perot since the early eighties and I
have yet to find anti-gay positions. It is very difficult to be
shocked by something that does not exist.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com
unde...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>Republican). I assure you that if Mr. Perot becomes president,
>he will cut all social programs to the bone. Further, he will
>also cut defense spending and eliminate almost all subsidies
>(i.e. agricultural subsidies). He will create the kind of gov't
>where state's rights prevail.
Oh bullshit. He cannot do any of those things unless the Democratic
Congress agrees to it. He will have pissed them off so much by
election time that he won't be effective at all. Our government
is not designed to let one man impose his own moral or philosophical
designs.
Pete Hartman
>unde...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>>Was anyone shocked by Mr. Perot's anti-gay positions?
>Friend: I have video tapes or written transcripts of about every
>national appearance by Ross Perot since the early eighties and I
>have yet to find anti-gay positions. It is very difficult to be
>shocked by something that does not exist.
I guess saying that he would under no circumstances appoint a gay person
to a position of power like his cabinet etc. doesn't count as anti-gay?
You can defend his comments on "controversy" till you want, but if he
were really the can-do kind of guy he claims to be, he'd appoint the
best person for the job, and to hell with any personal preferences.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
and it seems your eternal reward is to hang out in heaven eternally bored
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
(Steve Davis) writes:
|>hal...@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>First, Mr. Hallem-Baker complained that Perot had not specific
|>views on animal growth hormones. I replied:
|>
|>|>|>>|>Then I take it you are willing to tell me exactly what Clinton's
|>|>|>>|>views on animal growth hormones are right now? Show me a speech
|>|>|>>|>from President Bush that indicates that he knows ANYTHING about the
|>|>|>>|>nitty-gritty of agriculture.
|>
|>To this, Phillip replied with much spluttering and accusations. In
|>fact, when I said:
|>
|>|>|>Then, after many accusations and much spluttering, Phillip finally
|>|>|>replied:
|>
|>Phillip responded with this:
|>|>Accusations that Mr `Stratocaster' has yet to reply to. Specificaly to
|>|>prove his claim that I made any falsified Perot Quotes. Or indeed quoted
|>|>Perot at all.
|>
|>To which I reply: TRY QUOTING ANYONE AT ALL. If your entire point
|>is that Perot has no specific growth hormone agenda, then it is YOU
|>who has to come up with quotes to support this.
This is not a retraction of the allegation.
Will he either prove or withdraw the allegation he made that I have
posted doctored Perots Quotes when the truth of the matter is that I
have posted no quotes at all?
I think the rest of the net can see who is spluttering.
Let us not forget the term that Steve Davis himself defines for those
who make allegations they cannot prove, it is `Liar'
You are a liar Steve Davis, by your own definition.
As for the deabte on Perots agricultural expertise, it is not for me to
prove that Perot is not an expert, I am not seeking office. It is
entirely for Perot to demonstrate his expertise.
The Perotistas have come up with a novel startegy, instead of proving
that their candidate is the best, they demand that we consider him
competent until proven incompetent. On every subject that Perot is
silent he is to be assumed to hold whatever views are most favoured.
They demand that his non record be judged superior to the other
candiates life long records.
They say that Perot is starting a new party, to be inbetween the
democrats and republicans, as if that area of the political spectrum was
not overfilled already. The truth is of course that a Perot candidacy is
having the desired effect, Perot has managed to be seen as the main
challenger to George Bush, Bush the main chance of not getting Perot,
Perotmaina if it continues will see George Bush in the Whitehouse for
another term.
To judge from his supporters, Perot is not starting a new party, he is
starting a new religion. The indignation comming from Messrs Davis and
Pye is merley the indignation of the self apointed apostles at those who
dare blaspheme.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Steve Davis
>In <11n76a...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> st...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>unde...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>>>Was anyone shocked by Mr. Perot's anti-gay positions?
>>Friend: I have video tapes or written transcripts of about every
>>national appearance by Ross Perot since the early eighties and I
>>have yet to find anti-gay positions. It is very difficult to be
>>shocked by something that does not exist.
>I guess saying that he would under no circumstances appoint a gay person
>to a position of power like his cabinet etc. doesn't count as
>anti-gay?
If you can find a quote from Perot that says that he would, under
no circumstances, appoint a gay person to a position of power, I
would consider that an anti-gay statement. He has said no such
thing.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
********** Have you hugged your Amiga today? **********
Steve Davis
>Let us not forget the term that Steve Davis himself defines for those
>who make allegations they cannot prove, it is `Liar'
Listen you damn fool. We've gone back and forth three times now
and you have failed to convince any single person here that Perot's
lack of information concerning animal growth hormones is an
election issue. It is YOU who insinuated that it was important for
a candidate to know everything there was to know about animal
growth hormones. it was YOU who suggested that Clinton and Bush
knew more about animal growth hormones than Perot. And it is YOU
who has failed to document either of these assertions. NOBODY
GIVES A DAMN IF YOU HAVE TO MAKE UP QUOTES ALONG THE WAY.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
Michael A. Thomas
> If you can find a quote from Perot that says that he would, under
> no circumstances, appoint a gay person to a position of power, I
> would consider that an anti-gay statement. He has said no such
> thing.
Is it to early to nominate Mr Davis for Perot's new Department of Denial?
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@gordian.com)
"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."
-- Hobbes to Calvin
USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca, 92707-5637
PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Chris Struble
>In article <1992Jun10.2...@bnr.ca> ga...@bnr.ca (Scott Garee) writes:
>
>>So, you're saying you'll vote for someone to be the President
>>of your country without having any idea of what he will do
>>once he reaches office?
>
>Makes about as much sense as voting for someone when you "know" exactly
>what he is going to do.
>
>Eg, say, Bush, "Read my Lips..."
>
>Or to put it another way, "What difference does it make what the person
>_says_ they will do, when there is, in fact, zero requirement for that
>person to follow through on said promises?"
>
How can there be, if the promises are ridiculous in the first place?
If a presidential candidate promises to do away with all the nation's
problems at zero cost (the budget will just magically balance itself,
etc.), WHAT DO YOU EXPECT??? Remember, we are talking about human
beings here, NOT demigods. If we ask them to do the impossible, should
we be surprised when they fail???
>It would seem that what a democracy needs is a system of accountability
>for the promises made under which a person was elected.
>
>Paul
Excuse me, but a "system of accountability" is what "democracy" is supposed
to be in the first place. It is OUR job, as voters, to determine what our
politicians are reasonably expected to do. WE are supposed to hold them
accountable for what they do. As a voter, it is YOUR job to investigate
whether they keep the promises which were important to you. Not the media's
job, not the candidates' job. YOUR job. And mine, as a voter, as well.
If Bush's raising of taxes is unacceptable to you, seek out a different
candidate and investigate his record. If neither Clinton nor Perot looks
like they can be trusted, it is YOUR job as a citizen to investigate
alternative party candidates, even those the media doesn't talk about.
There are several - the Libertarian Party (Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord
are their candidates - they are already on the ballot in 33 states and
will soon be in all 50+DC), New Alliance Party, American Independent Party,
Green Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and others. Or write in a candidate,
if that is allowed in your state. Or work to get a turkey ballot in your
state (that means if 'none of the above' wins, none of the candidates can
run that year). Or figure out your positions on the various issues and
start your won party or candidacy.
There can be no substitute for the vigilance of the average voter. If
we continue to shirk this responsibility, we will get even worse
candidates in the future. "We have met the enemy, and they are us".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Struble | The true civilization is where every |
| Mechanical Engineering | man gives to every other every right |
| University of Houston | that he claims for himself |
| mec...@jetson.uh.edu | -- Robert Ingersoll |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Struble
There already is a mechanism to deal with this in many states. Its called
a recall election. Get the bum out DURING his term. A referendum can
also get around a politician who breaks his promises, be putting a measure
on the ballot for a special election to repeal whatever he just did that's
got you steamed. These need to be extended to the federal level and made
easier to put on the ballot. But even then, the people would have to
keep track of promises made and broken, which many of them don't even
bother ot do anymore. Maybe this would change if people had this power.
Stephen Tice
hal...@zeus02.desy.de writes...
...
>H. Ross Perot's lack of a platform NOW is an issue because there is no
>way he could work one out before his term of office had expired. There
>simply is no time.
Perot, Boston Globe (04-24-92) "I'll probably issue position papers
because I've got a good sense of humor."
>Phill Hallam-Baker
/ \
( Stephen D. Tice | The only thing wrong with America, )
> -- S -- <
( Arlington Texas | "no user serviceable parts" )
\ /
Melinda Shore
> Perot, Boston Globe (04-24-92) "I'll probably issue position papers
> because I've got a good sense of humor."
Well, golly. That sure makes *me* feel better about the
prospect of Perot becoming President, yessirree. How nice
to know that the man takes political issues so seriously.
The best thing you could do, Tice, to improve Perot's
chances of being elected would be to stop posting. This
kind of stuff is more reminiscent of Pat Paulsen than of
a serious presidential candidate.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Michael Polen
|> >>>_says_ they will do, when there is, in fact, zero requirement for that
|> >>>person to follow through on said promises?"
|> >>>
|> >>>It would seem that what a democracy needs is a system of accountability
|> >>>for the promises made under which a person was elected.
|> >>
|> >>There is. It's called re-election.
|> >
|> >remember, they are explicitly doing what you elected them NOT to do! Is it
|> >that difficult to compile a list of promises made by candidates, and then
|> >have them accountable when they fail to follow through? Is it too much to
|> >ask that when a politician says X, and then does the opposite, (s)he should
|> >go to the people to get a mandate for that action, because it is the opposite
|> >of what they claimed they would do?
|> >
|> >Paul.
|>
the blame when you don't follow through on your promises. Since most of
your supporters already believe the worst about the "other guys," placing
this blame absolves one of responsibility.
I'm not sure it is any better in England where the majority party in
parliment (congress) selects the prime minister (president?). I'm also
not sure what the parallels are between the british civil service system
and the US executive branch. Is there anyone who is familiar enough with the
British parlimentary system that could identify parallels and differences?
Stephen Tice
>eg...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes...
>
>In article <52...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>
>>jx...@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>>
>>th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>
>>> ... Perot has yet to take a real position.
>>
>>*Snore*
>>
>>Perot says he's taking two months to develop his platform. In the meantime,
>>we spend every day of that two months complaining that he won't commit
>>himself. Ted, you should take a car trip with a child sometime, so you can
>>discover what the litany of "Are we there yet?" really sounds like.
>>
>>John
>
>He also said that he'd keep out of the media spotlight while formulating
>these positions. If he keeps appearing on, say, the Today show, we
>should be asking him questions.
Perot, PBS-American Interests (09-16-89) "Right after the election, I
said publicly that as far as I was concerned, the candidates weren't
dwarfs and wimps, the American people were -- because *we* never forced
them to face the issues during the campaign. We got flag factory tours,
tank trips -- the most silly things in the world."
Stephen Tice
>I think that this is a deliberate plot by the Perotistas, if they get
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is it cocaine that causes paranoia? In this case the malady has
progressed from Perot-anoia to a generalized persecution complex.
Of course, the simpler explanation is that we have Yet Another
Conspiracy Nut (YACN).
>enough people to accuse *THEM* of misquoting then people may believe
>their allegations of misquoting. It's an old trick, basicaly it's just
>creating so much dirt that people think `oh they are all the same'. It
>was used to great effect by Gobbels.
^^^^^^^
Now you're talkin' turkey. ;^)
Sounds like the media's tactics to me. Old to be sure (yellow journalism
and muckracking considered).
Perot, Newsweek (12-15-91) "Gorilla dust. When gorillas fight, they
throw dust in the air to confuse each other."
Yes indeed, a very old tactic.
</ \> | </ We may tend to mistake data for wisdom, \>
() Stephen D. Tice () -- S -- () just as there has been a tendency to ()
() Arlington Texas () | () confuse logic with values and intelli- ()
<\ /> | <\ gence with insight. = R. Perot '83 = />
Publius Caesar Hamilton
>abe...@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes...
>
>In article <baY.03k...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
>fie...@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>
>> I think Ted Frank is the net anti-christ.
>>
>>
>> Doug
>
>Actually, his postings tend to be highly intelligent, very informed,
>and in general worthwhile. Unlike certain posters and candidates, Ted
>has always provided documentation when requested to back up his
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>statements.
I'm sure there are many, many of us who Ted Frank hasn't bothered to
respond to when it gets down to facts. For instance:
Myself (ST):
|(from 2 June, Re: Stephen Tice and Ted Frank on Politics.)
|
|>>3. What is the most important issue for the US?
|>> ST: The expansion of the Public Debt.
|>> TF: Education system. The debt is only important to the extent
|> that it's being wasted rather than invested.
|
|Odd to me, since you profess some grasp of economics. I'd certainly
|like to see your explanation of how to reinvest the debt?? (Literally
|taken, quite a curious concept too. ;^)
|>>8. What is your positition on taxes?
|>> ST: As simple a system as possible -- not to exceed 30% of income,
|>> but levied on spending. 10% municipal, 10% regional(or state),
|>> 10% federal. This is a much more than I consider desirable.
|>> TF: Taxation as necessary with minimal distorting effects on the
|> economy, using Ramsey second-best pricing theory. Would tax
|> health benefits. Support progressive income tax. For social
|> security reform.
|
|Since "taxation as necessary" doesn't say what it's necessary for,
|would you please continue the point. I am woefully ignorant of "Ramsey
|second-best pricing theory," but as a Taxpayer I'd like to know some-
|thing about -- especially before I get stuck with it?
I'd certainly welcome a response from TF on these matters.
>Andrew P. Berman | "It's no exaggeration to say the undecideds
>Dept. of Computer Science | could go one way or the other."
>University of Washington | -George Bush 10/21/88
>abe...@cs.washington.edu |
Stephen Tice
>In article <1992Jun13.0...@beaver.cs.washington.edu> abe...@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:
>
>>You just don't like him because he doesn't follow your Christ, who's
>>from Texas, has 3 billion dollars, and a very short haircut.
>
>Perotistas are fanatics. Personality cults lead to tragedy.
Perot, ABC-Issues and Answers (01-11-70) "...anybody who knows what he
wants and is working hard to get it within our system, them I am 100
percent for. I don't necessarily have to agree with them. They don't
have to agree with me."
>-- Brad Pierce --
/ No servant can serve two masters: for \
( Stephen D. Tice | either he will hate the one, and love )
> -- J -- the other; or else he will hold to the <
( Arlington Texas | one, and despise the other. Ye cannot )
\ | serve God and mammon. =Jesus Christ= /
Brad Pierce
single human failing? These Perotista fanatics *worship* their
infallible Papa Perot.
-- Brad Pierce --
Steve Davis
You can go back and look at my previous posts. I have mentioned
the fact that Perot is "only human" on numerous occasions. Since I
believe others have said the same thing. I'll just chalk you up as
YACN.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
| Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
| FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
A schmuck by any other name is still Nate - Chad Buehler (my roomate)
Pete Hartman
>In article <1992Jun13....@cs.ucla.edu>, pie...@cs.ucla.edu writes...
>>In article <1992Jun13.0...@beaver.cs.washington.edu> abe...@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:
>>>You just don't like him because he doesn't follow your Christ, who's
>>>from Texas, has 3 billion dollars, and a very short haircut.
>>Perotistas are fanatics. Personality cults lead to tragedy.
>Perot, ABC-Issues and Answers (01-11-70) "...anybody who knows what he
>wants and is working hard to get it within our system, them I am 100
>percent for. I don't necessarily have to agree with them. They don't
>have to agree with me."
See, they're already quoting him as if he were Christ Risen. Anything
you can say, he has a relevant quote.
Though I was quite amused by the one aout Gorilla Dust.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
Insofar as the laws of mathematics are certain, they do not refer to reality,
and insofar as they refer to reality, they are not certain.
Brad Pierce
>You can go back and look at my previous posts. I have mentioned
>the fact that Perot is "only human" on numerous occasions. Since I
>believe others have said the same thing. I'll just chalk you up as
>YACN.
YACN = yet another conspiracy nut?
I know you're perotnoid, but now you're getting ridiculous. I simply
accused you and other Perotistas of being fanatics, not of
participating in a conspiracy. A group of like-minded simpletons
wishing for a Leader does not a conspiracy make.
Today, Perotistas label anyone who refuses to worship Papa Perot as a
"nut". If Perotistas rise to power in November, they'll soon start to
label dissenters from their cult of personality as *disloyal*.
Note well: I am not a Perot basher, but a *Perotista* basher. If it
weren't for my USENET exposure to Papa Perot's revolutionary vanguard,
I probably would have voted for him in November.
-- Brad Pierce --
Stephen Tice
>hal...@zeus02.desy.de writes...
>Both Bush and Clinton know people who are experts, they have been
>talking to farmers, industrialists and consumer organisations about the
>subject for years. What is more important they understand the reasons
>why the `experts' take the positions they do.
>
>As Machiavelli said, a Prince must depend on advisers, but he must be
>expert enough to understand them.
Ever wonder what a leader would do?
Perot, New York Daily News (03-14-70) "I'm extremely successful in
attracting people who are better than I am. And then I leave them
alone to succeed or fail. There's no motivation like leaving a man
alone to do the job."
>Phill Hallam-Baker
JHAR...@cmsa.gmr.com
b64...@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>
>Perot, PBS-American Interests (09-16-89) "Right after the election, I
>said publicly that as far as I was concerned, the candidates weren't
>dwarfs and wimps, the American people were -- because *we* never forced
>them to face the issues during the campaign. We got flag factory tours,
>tank trips -- the most silly things in the world."
>
nothing for the last few months but EVADE the issues, saying such
brilliant things as "the public - they don't want to know. It's
only the press that wants to hound me about my positions."
I guess you must be one of those wimps and dwarfs (sic) that just
dagnabit don't care about what Herr Perot will do in office.
Why aren't YOU forcing him to confront issues and make public
his actions should he (snicker snicker) become President.
N. Richard Caldwell
> Today, Perotistas label anyone who refuses to worship Papa Perot as a
> "nut". If Perotistas rise to power in November, they'll soon start to
> label dissenters from their cult of personality as *disloyal*.
I think you're being unfair to most Perot supporters when you make
such broad generalizations. There are left and right wing fanatics on
the net, too. Are you assuming that all of the supporters of Bush and
Clinton will behave like their most radical supporters should those
candidates rise to power?
> Note well: I am not a Perot basher, but a *Perotista* basher. If it
> weren't for my USENET exposure to Papa Perot's revolutionary vanguard,
> I probably would have voted for him in November.
Contrary to your paronoia, everything Perot has said suggests that
he will seek participation from rational dissenters. I doubt that
he would consider the mindless repetition of a distorted quote to be
rational. The fact is that the so-called "no gays" quote has been
widely distorted. Barbra Walters made that clear the night of the
broadcast. Refering to the "absolutely no gays" characterization of
the quote she said, "That's not what he said." That does not mean
that the real quote shouldn't give gays and their supporters some
cause for concern but it shouldn't be necessary for them to distort
the quote in order to express that concern.
Is it really such a bad thing to insist that if people want to call
him a bigot that they should do it based on what he really said?
If you really think that you should withhold support from a candidate
who you think would be the best choice because of what a few of their
supporters believe, you're going to have a hard time picking a candidate.
Good luck.
"Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell
AT&T Network Systems
att!cbnews!nrc
n...@cbnews.att.com
Brad Pierce
>From article <1992Jun18.0...@cs.ucla.edu>, by pie...@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce):
>
>
>> Today, Perotistas label anyone who refuses to worship Papa Perot as a
>> "nut". If Perotistas rise to power in November, they'll soon start to
>> label dissenters from their cult of personality as *disloyal*.
>
>I think you're being unfair to most Perot supporters when you make
>such broad generalizations.
So far I have seen no exceptions to that generalization on the net.
Perotistas (on the net) simply do not criticize Papa Perot, ever, about
anything. And now they're starting to quote his down-home platitudes
like Mao's little red book.
>If you really think that you should withhold support from a candidate
>who you think would be the best choice because of what a few of their
>supporters believe, you're going to have a hard time picking a candidate.
Then why don't you prove me wrong and describe some flaws in Papa Perot
or his views? Do you even know what his views are? Or are you just one
of those teledroids that would have voted for Uncle Walter because you
trusted the image he projected?
-- Brad Pierce --
John Locke
I do see a counterweight to the relentless fault-finding of the Perot
bashers. No doubt the truth lies somewhere inbetween.
The irony is that the folks who say Perot stands for nothing seem,
themselves, to stand for nothing more than harsh criticism. When are
these loathsome cynics going to tell us who or what they stand for? Or
is the bashing the only thing that means anything to them?
John
Pete Hartman
>In article <11og0a...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> st...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>You can go back and look at my previous posts. I have mentioned
>>the fact that Perot is "only human" on numerous occasions. Since I
>>believe others have said the same thing. I'll just chalk you up as
>>YACN.
>YACN = yet another conspiracy nut?
>I know you're perotnoid, but now you're getting ridiculous. I simply
>accused you and other Perotistas of being fanatics, not of
>participating in a conspiracy. A group of like-minded simpletons
>wishing for a Leader does not a conspiracy make.
>
>Today, Perotistas label anyone who refuses to worship Papa Perot as a
>"nut". If Perotistas rise to power in November, they'll soon start to
>label dissenters from their cult of personality as *disloyal*.
What's rather amusing about this one is that, according to some
sources, Perot himself is a bit hung up on Conspiracies.... hmmmm...
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
Youth culture killed my dog
John D. Piscitello
In article <53...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jx...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
|>
|> The irony is that the folks who say Perot stands for nothing seem,
|> themselves, to stand for nothing more than harsh criticism. When are
|> these loathsome cynics going to tell us who or what they stand for? Or
|> is the bashing the only thing that means anything to them?
|>
I stand for cutting social entitlements (medicare and social security)
for the rich. I favor a one-year freeze in the CLA of social security for
all receipients.
Perot says he favors "voluntary" cuts in social security for the rich.
Is he kidding? Any politician saying that is participating in farce.
Either he is completely unrealistic and naive, or he is being dishonest
about his intentions.
Perot is getting bashed because he deserves it. He is politically naive.
"Taking the guns out of the hands of criminals" is Willie-Horton style code
language - more law-and-order rhetoric, while pandering to the NRA.
I favor banning handguns and semi-automatic weapons. I would fight the
NRA tooth and nail on this.
He says he will not appoint gays to his Cabinet. "Too controversial"
he says. Controversial to a homophobe, but not to anyone else. I am against
discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Every time he opens his mouth, it's either "I'll get back to you on
that" or he inserts his foot. Just give him a chance. The more people get
to know him, the more they will see he is *NOT* the answer.
--
-Johnny P.
MIT_LCS
--
-Johnny P.
MIT_LCS
N. Richard Caldwell
> In article <1992Jun18.1...@cbnews.cb.att.com> n...@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>>From article <1992Jun18.0...@cs.ucla.edu>, by pie...@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce):
>>
>>> Today, Perotistas label anyone who refuses to worship Papa Perot as a
>>> "nut". If Perotistas rise to power in November, they'll soon start to
>>> label dissenters from their cult of personality as *disloyal*.
>>
>>I think you're being unfair to most Perot supporters when you make
>>such broad generalizations.
>
> So far I have seen no exceptions to that generalization on the net.
> Perotistas (on the net) simply do not criticize Papa Perot, ever, about
> anything.
You have not been looking very carefully.
>>If you really think that you should withhold support from a candidate
>>who you think would be the best choice because of what a few of their
>>supporters believe, you're going to have a hard time picking a candidate.
>
> Then why don't you prove me wrong and describe some flaws in Papa Perot
> or his views?
I already have:
o I have said that I think that Perot over estimates the
amount of controversy that would result from appointing an
openly gay person to a cabinet position. I said that gays
(and for that matter all Perot supporters) should communicate
with the Perot camp to attempt to educate them on this point.
o I have said that Perot needs to be more specific on his
positions. I like what he has said so far about his
positions and the principles guiding his positions but he
needs to be as specific as possible while allowing room for
the flexibility that he has talked about as part of the
problem solving process. I can allow a bit more time for
this platform to be finalized but not forever.
o I have said that he needs to show more candor in discussing
questions about EDS dress codes and specifically the "beard
thing". He only validates it as an issue by dodging the
question.
To that I will add (off the top of my head):
o I disagree with is ideas on the April Galispie (sp?) affair
and his ideas on how the Gulf War could have been handled
without putting so many troops at risk. (Although I agree
completely with his point that we never should have
supported Hussien to begin with).
o I agree that some of the numbers he has used in his
comments on budget cutting are not accurate. I believe that
the position that there is plenty to be cut in the budget is
sound but he needs to get his numbers right.
o I disagree with his idea of manditory civil service for young
people. I do believe that a strong "workfare" program aimed
at cleaning up our environment and revitalizing our state
and national parks could serve much the same purpose.
> Do you even know what his views are? Or are you just one
> of those teledroids that would have voted for Uncle Walter because you
> trusted the image he projected?
I have watched every interview that I can and read transcripts of most
that I missed. I have read every newspaper and magazine article I can
find. I am on the waiting list at the public library for three
different books about Perot. I have also watched and read enough about
Clinton to know that he is not placing a priority on the issues that
concern me most. I also followed Tsongas closely enough to believe
that if the democrats really wanted someone to address the problems of
the country rather than just a slick packaged candidate they would
have nominated him.
I'm not just blindly gathering the wisdom of Chairman Perot, either.
I'm actively considering whether any of his positions that I disagree
with will prevent me from supporting him.
If you were really reading the threads about Perot you would have
already seen that I do not consider Perot a flawless messiah. It
sounds like you have really just been looking for "Perotistas" to
bash rather than looking for a substantive discussion.
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
(Steve Davis) writes:
|>hal...@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>>Let us not forget the term that Steve Davis himself defines for those
|>>who make allegations they cannot prove, it is `Liar'
|>
|>Listen you damn fool. We've gone back and forth three times now
|>and you have failed to convince any single person here that Perot's
|>lack of information concerning animal growth hormones is an
|>election issue. It is YOU who insinuated that it was important for
|>a candidate to know everything there was to know about animal
|>growth hormones. it was YOU who suggested that Clinton and Bush
|>knew more about animal growth hormones than Perot. And it is YOU
|>who has failed to document either of these assertions. NOBODY
|>GIVES A DAMN IF YOU HAVE TO MAKE UP QUOTES ALONG THE WAY.
I was hoping to leave the futile discussion. However Mr Davis has just
repeated his original unsubstantiated allegation.
I have not posted Perot Quotes of any shape or form, made up or
otherwise. Mr Davies has accused me of distorting quotes, instead of
backing up his allegation he has chosen to misrepresent my original
point which was simply that a man who has not worked out the
generalities before taking office cannot hope to grasp the specifics
once in office.
---
(c) 1992 P. Hallam-Baker Reproduction prohibited except in entire and
original form
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
This is the old `Law of the included middle falacy'.
Just because there are two sides to an argument does not mean that the
truth lies in between. Issues such as abolition of slavery and votes for
women demonstrate this.
I do not exclude the possibility that Perot might not be a good
President. However his record and his inability to define what he stands
for (except in terms that could also cover Bush, Clinton, Buchannan or
almost anyone else) cause me to conclude that he has not proven that he
is up to the task.
Note that since you have just admitted that Perot may not be superman
the Perotistas are going to flame you :-)
Phill Hallam-Baker
Brad Pierce
n...@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) convinced me that
I was wrong and that not all Perot supporters are uncritical fanatics.
Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.
-- Brad Pierce --
John Locke
> In article <53...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jx...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
> (John Locke) writes:
> |>I do see a counterweight to the relentless fault-finding of the Perot
> |>bashers. No doubt the truth lies somewhere inbetween.
> This is the old `Law of the included middle falacy'.
> Just because there are two sides to an argument does not mean that the
> truth lies in between. Issues such as abolition of slavery and votes for
> women demonstrate this.
I wasn't presenting the opinion as a law. I've no doubt that Perot's
character lies between the extremes of faultless and evil incarnate. My
own perception, thus far, is that he is talented and fundamentally decent.
I reject completely the notion that he leans toward fascism. In fact, he
seems well-balanced between taking responsibility and sharing it.
> I do not exclude the possibility that Perot might not be a good
> President. However his record and his inability to define what he stands
> for (except in terms that could also cover Bush, Clinton, Buchannan or
> almost anyone else) cause me to conclude that he has not proven that he
> is up to the task.
What you describe as an inability can also, with all fairness at this time,
be described as a successful strategy for building support. If you first
establish rapport with someone, you have a much better chance of coming to
an agreement with them. Perot is currently ending the process of establishing
rapport. He will soon enter a stage in which he seeks agreement on the
methods for solving specific problems. It's the salesman in him at work.
That is my perception of what is happening. Of course, if he hits November
without having laid some cards on the table, I reserve the right to take it
all back. :-)
> Note that since you have just admitted that Perot may not be superman
> the Perotistas are going to flame you :-)
It wouldn't be the first barbecue I've crashed.
John
Ted Frank
>abe...@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:
>
>>Actually, his postings tend to be highly intelligent, very informed,
>>and in general worthwhile. Unlike certain posters and candidates, Ted
>>has always provided documentation when requested to back up his
>
>Bull SHIT. Ted Frank has yet to substantiate the allegation that
>Ross Perot said anything about 'cordoning off the neighborhoods'.
>
>>You just don't like him because he doesn't follow your Christ, who's
>>from Texas, has 3 billion dollars, and a very short haircut.
>
>
>Stratocaster
>
>--
> Steve Davis | Contact me at ... | The Boarding House BBS!
> | Internet: st...@cis.ksu.edu | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
> | FidoNet: Steve @ 1:295/3 | America: 913-827-0744
I have yet to say that Perot wanted to cordon off neighborhoods.
Anything else you wish to misattribute to me?
--
....................................
ted frank | th...@midway.uchicago.edu
the university of chicago law school
now officially a second-year student
Emmett Kilgariff
>
>What's rather amusing about this one is that, according to some
>sources, Perot himself is a bit hung up on Conspiracies.... hmmmm...
Emmett Kilgariff
>In article <1992Jun18.1...@cbnews.cb.att.com> n...@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>>From article <1992Jun18.0...@cs.ucla.edu>, by pie...@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce):
>>
>>
>>> Today, Perotistas label anyone who refuses to worship Papa Perot as a
>>> "nut". If Perotistas rise to power in November, they'll soon start to
>>> label dissenters from their cult of personality as *disloyal*.
>>
>>I think you're being unfair to most Perot supporters when you make
>>such broad generalizations.
>
>So far I have seen no exceptions to that generalization on the net.
>Perotistas (on the net) simply do not criticize Papa Perot, ever, about
>anything. And now they're starting to quote his down-home platitudes
>like Mao's little red book.
>
of his waffle-intensive showing on the Today show last week. Other people
have supported Perot and shown concern over his WOD policy or his manditory
service position. Mr. Caldwell is right about your generalizing.
Don Wells
Kilgariff) writes:
In article <1992Jun18....@bradley.bradley.edu>
p...@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>What's rather amusing about this one is that, according to some
>sources, Perot himself is a bit hung up on Conspiracies.... hmmmm...
Conspiracies? You mean like Watergate or Iran/Contra?
What about "October Surprise"?
Recently I re-read large portions of Gary Sick's book about this
conspiracy theory. Sick and others are asserting that the Republican
party leadership engaged in a *conspiracy* during the 1980 campaign to
prevent Carter from achieving an "October Surprise" (return of the
hostages just before the election). He cites a lot of information
that suggests that not only did the Republicans negotiate a deal with
the Iranians during July-October 1980, but that George Bush was
involved in some way. Specifically, Sick states flatly that Casey
(Reagan's campaign manager for 1980) had dinner with Bush (Reagan's VP
candidate) at a private club immediately after he returned from a trip
to Madrid to negotiate with the Iranians. Remember that Casey was in
the OSS in WW-II and later became DCI under Reagan, and that Bush had
been DCI earlier in the 70s, so we are talking about individuals who
are certainly familiar with the notion of conspiracy.
I watched Bush's recent press conference. At one point a reporter
asked about October-Surprise. Bush reacted with an intensity of
*anger* and *hostility* that I rarely see him display. It is clear
that this accusation that he was involved in a conspiracy is something
that really bugs him. Could it be that he has something to hide?
As we know, Perot was deeply involved in getting his own hostages out
of Iran during that period, so he may have been aware of some of
Casey's activities. In addition, he is said to have paid investigators
to research the details subsequently. It is always possible that he
has a bombshell to drop onto Bush late in the campaign...
--
Donald C. Wells Associate Scientist dwe...@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory +1-804-296-0277
520 Edgemont Road Fax= +1-804-296-0278
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA 78:31.1W, 38:02.2N
N. Richard Caldwell
Thanks, I'll try not to let you down. :-)
Ken Arromdee
>See, they're already quoting him as if he were Christ Risen. Anything
>you can say, he has a relevant quote.
I'm curious. Would you praise Perot supporters for inability to produce
quotes? Or is this a case od damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't?
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!
Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Pete Hartman
>In article <1992Jun18....@bradley.bradley.edu> p...@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>>What's rather amusing about this one is that, according to some
>>sources, Perot himself is a bit hung up on Conspiracies.... hmmmm...
> Conspiracies? You mean like Watergate or Iran/Contra?
No, more like:
(shuffles through some old U.S. News & World Reports...)
Ok. Guess I've either misplaced or misremembered my source, but
I recall reading about his attitudes about various conspiracies
revolving around Viet Nam, and a few other things that seemed
perhaps not ridiculous, but at least a bit far fetched...
Since I'm already too much of a packrat, I haven't saved every scrap
I've read about Perot, but it was not net.rumor, or something someone
told me--I read it in some mainstream newspaper or magazine (since
I don't read many that aren't).
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
I fear we have not gotten rid of "God" because we still have faith in grammar
Pete Hartman
>In article <1992Jun17....@bradley.bradley.edu> p...@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>>See, they're already quoting him as if he were Christ Risen. Anything
>>you can say, he has a relevant quote.
>I'm curious. Would you praise Perot supporters for inability to produce
>quotes? Or is this a case od damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't?
My point was that it was ridiculous the way the one poster was
quoting in a style very reminiscent of biblical quotation, and
it seemed to me that the quotes were also as vague as many
biblical passages, such that, devoid of context, they were really
pretty meaningless.
Certainly, quote him if it really is something substantial, and in
general I like to see that, but the particular poster was being
extremely silly or something.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
They might be fake, they might be lies, They might be big, big, fake, fake lies