From: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Subject: Re: the debates
Reply-To: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:02:20 GMT

bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
   Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes:
   | The big winner was Perot.  He was fantastic.  I don't think he's going to be
   | able to win the election, but you can't feel guilty about voting for Perot
   | after tonight.  Whether the Bush-man or the blow-dried JFK-wannabie win, the
   | next four years are going to be nasty.  A Perot voter will have the
   | satisfaction of knowing it isn't his fault.
   
     Perot, in contrast, was a breath of fresh air.  He stuck to the issues,
     and talked straight, and more importantly, he talked sense.
   
I'll start with an obligatory inflamatory remark ;-):

They said similar things about Hitler didn't they? "Outside the political
system" "a breath of fresh air" "no quarter to the enemies of the people"
(in this case, instead of Jews, the enemies selected are drug-users and
those who simply do not care to participate in the system by not being
productive).  

"Just elect me and follow me and I'll make everything all better, you bet."
Perot talked sense as long as he said things you want to hear, but listening
between the sound bites, I say he's as scary a son-of-a-bitch as I've ever
seen; even worse than Rea-bush. The man's on a par with Nixon and McCarthy.

Perot didn't stick to anything but slogans. The only action I can recall
that he will take is a gas tax. Right or wrong, the gas tax is *not* going
to save our country. Investing in the infrastructure is going to take a
lot more than $.10 a gallon per year that will probably be sucked up by
something, anything, other than actual road-building or education. At
least Clinton says he will create jobs thru infrastructure investment
rather than create jobs thru defense plants or boot-camps/prisons.

Does anyone recall the Nixon era when government and big business worked
hand-in-hand to destroy this country's ecology, civil-rights and
individualism? How about similar dealings under Reagan? How about Quayle
and his undermining of the safeguards that were in place to prevent us
from being poisoned by the consumer-driven businesses? Can you say Exxon?
Texaco? Love-canal (I heard this morning they are trying to sell the
houses there to first-time home buyers) Three-mile island. Hanford?
How many more disasters will happen as big-businesses gain more
and more control over our private lives? Wanna find out? Vote for Perot.

Does the disabling of our rights really help crack-babies? How about the
profits of the drug-pushers? Why are they still allowed to make insane
profits off the lower-class and continue financing their war-on-people?
Take the profits out of the game and the black-market collapses. Why won't
they do that? Do you really think the reactionary Bush cares about
crack-babies in Watts? He doesn't care about anything but protecting the
status-quo. Neither will Perot. He *is* the status quo with his billions
of $$$. Is he going to save the US the same way he saved General Motors, by
quitting and taking his guaranteed bonus with him? Gee, he's never quit
before has he?

The next president will be able to choose three Supreme Court Justices. Do
we want a court packed to the hilt by Reabush? And Perot's no better, he
seems to have the compassion of a pit-bull. Do we really want a country
that doesn't care? Voting for Clinton would at least let the pendulum
swing back the other way and provide the breathing room our country needs
to get out from under the totalitarian regime that is now in power. Who
needs a healthy economy if everyone is in jail? Can you say 1984?
-- 
-Kevin L. Gross          klg@statsci.com           Disclaim THIS: 
 This message is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
 of the United States of America. I'm protected under the 4th, 5th, 9th
 and 14th Amendments among others, or at least I used to be.