From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:26:39 GMT

In article <BvI0x1.C4u@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>,
dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:

|>In article <1992Oct1.230436.2195@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes:
|>>In article <38800@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
|>>
|>
|>Phill, have you considered working for the Bush campaign.  Your
|>talents at distortion and outright lies would be most welcome there!

This is the standard sort of language we have come to expect from the church of
the risen Perot. Last time the tactics included editing peoples posts to turn a
condemnation of racism into what appeared to be a racist post. What more do they
have in store?

|>>Ross *claims that he hates Bush. There is no evidence to sugest that 
|>>this is the
|>>case. Both are right wing populists who would promise anything to get
|>elected.
|>
|>I fact, Perot had not claimed anything (as far I had heard) one way or
|>the other, until yesterday.  He _did_ say he didn't like the _record_ of
|>the Bush administration.


"Perot has not claimed XYZ". Well yes he may not be on the record as having made
a categorical statement to that effect. In fact were he to have done so it would
contradict my theory rather than support it. No Perot as ever has made no
statement, he has merely "allowed it to be known". This is the same sort of
trick that Bush likes to pull, Bush makes a strenuous statement that he does not
want to cane Clinton ofver "Genyfer" then Barbara comes out saying "Well he
didn't deny it did he". thus the statement is both made and not made.

|>>Perot makes a big thing about "making hard choices" etc etc. Yet what is his
|>>plan to balance the budget? He wants to extort $200 billion per annum from
|>>Europe and Asia to cover the deficit. Does that sound remotely like a hard
|>>decision?
|>
|>Here is this same old, tired lie again.  You only look stupid to anyone 
|>who has read the book, and there are MILLIONS of them, although it
|>certainly seems that the majority of Perot detractors on USENET would
|>prefer to remain ignorant of what UWSA is all about.

In fact the record proves otherwise. Perot was putting forward that proposal six
months ago. I know that in his book he has reduced the figures to make them look
vaguely credible (ie make them less than the amount the US actualy spends on
maintaining forces abroad). 


|>Perhaps Phill, being a lifetime beneficiary of our protection, merely
|>wishes the status quo to continue.  I know he has claimed otherwise,
|>but why does he continue to perpetrate this lie?

No as a Quaker I am entirely against the stationing of US (or any other) forces
in the UK.

If you care to review the record I have in any case made my position on the US
military establishment clear on many occasions. I consider them to be wasteful,
inefficient and barely competent. 


|>> [Reagan policy statement deleted]
|>>start. Where are the on the record statements from Perot condeming these
|>>policies five years ago?
|>
|>Relevance?  Perot was NOT RUNNING five years ago!  Why all the 
|>chimeras, Phill?

In order to proove that you are fit for office you must have a track record. It
needn't be in party politics, Buchanan was entirely qualified in this regard as
a political comentator. You have to stick your neck out and make a prediction,
then if the prediciton actualy comes true then people know that you are likely
to be the sort of person who can predict the likely outcomes of your own
policies.


|>>I can give dates and times for speaches that I gave five years ago in which
|>I
|>>accurately predicted the effect of the "new right" grab what you can "greed
|>is
|>>good" ecconomics, can Perot?
|>
|>Once again, relevance?  Any imbecile can make predictions, no doubt you 
|>see them in the tabloids every day.

Yes but do they turn out to be correct?

I spent a very interesting evening talking to an ecconomist about 9 months ago.
He told me that devaluation of sterling was just about the only way of
restarting the British ecconomy and the markets knew it. Thus from that it was
easy to deduce that the pound would eventualy have to be devalued within the
ERM. I made rather a lot out of that tip. Point is that my opinion of said
ecconomist is now rather high.

Where is the *proof* that Perot is worth considering?

Where is the *proof* that what Perot *says* he beleives is what he really
beleives and not what the public opinion polls said would look good?

|>What counts are solutions.  
|>
|>Perot's are not perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than 
|>Bush or Clinton offer.
|>
|>Why don't you read "United We Stand"? 

Why don't you read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital?

|> Maybe then you'll understand
|>what the "Perot movement" is about; and to be fair to you, it's not 
|>always what Ross says!  He's fallible, just as you or I.

I understand rather better than you do what the Perot movement is all about. I
know what it is like to stand before a crowd and manipulate them into giving
those rousing cheers that do so much for one's ego. I can tell you how to do it
to, take a sentence, make it simple, understandable and as cloase to content
free as possible, it must be the sort of sentence that nobody is likely to
disagree with. You deliver it using rule of three, rising cadences on three
lyrical subphrases and you are *guaranteed* five seconds of applause. Only
remmember that for it to work you must have no respect for your audience
whatsoever. It's called demagogery.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton