From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Why Ross is dangerous. Was: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Summary: My last response.
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:53:46 GMT

Everyone on the net should be aware of whom they're dealing
with when corresponding with Phill.

In article <1992Oct6.000635.4951@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>Hang on a sec when I brought up the BAOR it was in a private email. 

My apologies; I remembered incorrectly the source of that statement.

>|>I merely claimed you benefitted from the presence of troops which 
>|>were in Europe at our expense.
>The US is not the only country with troops posted overseas. If the US wants to
>withdraw from NATO, fine. Fact is that the US was never asked to wind up its
>military commitments to such a ludicrous level and many people on this side of
>the pond were rather irritated that it did.

Once again, you resort to a point irrelevent to the argument.  I conclude
this is a concession.

>|>In 1918, there were over two million American troops fighting in
>|>France...
>
>1918 was a bit of a disaster all round. If you want to open that can of worms
>though you would have to settle the matter of reparations for the breakup of
>China under Teddy Roosevelt's infamous "open door policy" and quite a few other
>bits of US colonialism of those times.

How is the actions of the Teddy Roosevelt administration ()
in CHINA relevent to whether or not American troops contributed to
victory, and possibly avoidance of defeat, in Flanders/France in
1918???

Concluding that I would "have to settle" anything of the sort
is patently absurd.  Can you say "non sequitor"?

Another *desperate* change of subject.  Another concession by Phill?

>Besides the US already got paid once for that epsiode. That is where it got the
>current contents of Fort Knox, that is in the main the gold that the British got
>out of South Africa and Rhodesia under the Empire.

This is interesting.  Lots of gold was mined in Africa, to be sure,
much of it under no doubt appalling conditions for the miners.

Does your statement mean that the British actually officially PAID
for anything?  Can you provide a reference to the payments?

(I honestly am curious about this; were these transfers of wealth 
 confiscated from Germany under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles?  
 Was this a good faith effort of the British government to compensate
 America for expenses we incurred during the Great War?)

>|>Here, Phill omits just what core philosophy he refers to.  In 
>|> [etc]
>
>The core philosophy of both groups was power at all costs. There is a
>conversation recorded with the leader of the British Fascists, Oswald Mosely in
>which he stated "the party needs a hate plank, why not the Jews?" Hitler was a
>different matter of course. Perot is an opportunist, not an idealist.

Now we have a definition.  Care to explain how Perot's book
demonstrates this core philosophy?  

>|>In his prior article, Phill admitted his knowledge and use
>|>of manipulative oratory techniques which he referred to as 
>|>"demogoguery". [etc]
>
>Yes I write speaches for politicians. I use the net to see what the likely
>objections are to various approaches, what are the difficulties of being
>missunderstood etc, etc. However I do not in the process misrepresent my own
>position (although one must inevitably have to express someone elses opinion
>when writting them a speech since it is their speech not mine).
>
>As you correctly discern I consider Perot to be a dangerous demagogue who is
>unscrupulous and manipulative in the persuit of power. I am unscrupulous and
>manipulative in the persuit of a set of political ideals such as decent housing
>health care and education for all, equally and the creation of a society where
>birth does not determine the place one is allowed to take in society.
>
>I however am quite open in admitting my ideals and methodology. I aim to change
>the mechanism of politics by demonstrating how it works in the same way that
>Gore Vidal does. Since we both have similar backgrounds we are both qualified to
>give an opinion in this respect.

I do question why you would use such methods in a forum concerning
American domestic politics.  You constantly attack America both
past and present, even to the point of dragging entirely irrelevent
attacks into threads (c.f. Teddy Roosevelt comments above).

I conclude that you wish to somehow harm American interests.  Others
on the net have noticed your pathological hated of America.

Obviously, you are afraid of Perot because he represents the BEST 
CHANCE TO MAKE AMERICA STRONG AGAIN.  This is, of course, anathema 
to you.

Interestingly, we've come full circle.  The virulent attacks of the
American-haters on Perot are amongst the stoutest timbers supporting
Perot's views and policies.

> [complaint of mine about invoking the spectre of Hitler]
>
>My original interest was merely to see if there was a posibility of running a
>similar campaign in the UK. I have already formed the opinion that it is not
>possible in either the UK or the US though.

I wonder if ANY of Phill's responses are made for reasons other than
precisely what he states here.  He demonstrates for all to see his
utter contempt for the views of others.

Phillip Hallam-Baker is the epitome of everything that people hate
in politicians.

Be aware that he is one.

   Dave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc