From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:45:56 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <1992Oct3.002639.12512@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>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:
>
>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?

You're referring to me?  I am unaware of any such action I've taken.
In fact, the only reference I made in any way to race was whether or
not you are an American.  You may consider this a racist remark, I
certainly do not.

> [deleted]
>|>
>|>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). 

In other words, Phill, everyone should assume that what anyone had said
in the past is what should be forevermore believed?  That regardless of 
whether someone says his mind has been changed, or has revised figures
or projections based on input from people in the know, we should believe 
the first statement on a subject?

Since regardless of what I might say in the future, you will only 
believe what I said in the past, why do you bother to respond?

>|>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 ?
[about the alleged "extortion" of $200 billion from Europe/Asia]
>
>No as a Quaker I am entirely against the stationing of US (or any other) forces
>in the UK.

Yet the UK accepts payment to station the British Army of the Rhine
in Germany.  Perhaps you should work to get your own house in order
before you complain too much about ours.

Nevertheless, YOU HAVE benefitted from the military stability on the
European continent due in some part to the presence of American troops.
Your personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the argument.

>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. 

That's fine, Phill.  Bring our troops home, and let you handle it.  I
think we've agreed on this is a prior article.  Just don't call for my
children to come bail you out, as did my grandfather, if you yet
again become embroiled in warfare.

>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?

Perot says he does not pay attention to polls.  I believe him; it 
certainly seems unlikely that he would have reentered the race if
he did.

>|>Why don't you read "United We Stand"? 
>
>Why don't you read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital?

Now, who's accusing whom of hysteria?  This obvious attempt to link
Perot with Hitler is characteristic of the Church of the Born-Again
Perot Haters.

I've read Mein Kampf, by the way.  I have not read Das Kapital.

>I understand rather better than you do what the Perot movement is all about.

A particularly arrogant statement, and difficult to defend, at best.

>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.
> [methodology deleted]
>Only
>remmember that for it to work you must have no respect for your audience
>whatsoever. It's called demagogery.

Evidently, you consider yourself an expert at it.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc