From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:11:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Bw4EqH.7M4@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes...
>In article <Bw48Ht.5p@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>In article <Bw44Fq.IKv@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>In article <Bw3FoC.67t@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>>>Perot, while striving to avoid attacks on individual's character, 
>>>>has emphasized the notion that people who hold office in this 
>>>>country should consider themselves SERVANTS of the people -- 
>>>
>>>  But what does it MEAN?
>>
>>It means, quite simply, that you consider the desires of the
>>people who elected you when making decisions, not how you may
>>personally gain from it.
> 
>  You're still evading the question.  If what the people want isn't
>  what the politician wants then what is the politician to do?  A
>  true "servant of the people" would have no opinions or beliefs
>  of his own!

From the Christian Gospel of Luke (22:25-27), Jesus speaks saying:

	The Kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over
	them; and they that exercise authority upon them
	are called benefactors. But you shall not be so:
	but he that is greatest among you, let him be
	as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that
	does serve. For whether is greater, he that sits
	at meat, or he that serves? is not he that sits
	at meat? but I am among you as he that serves.

Those familiar with the Word recognize the reference. Whoever would
be great should serve. 

I reckon I could have cited Sam Walton instead.

>  Moreover, you haven't provided any actual evidence that Bush or
>  Clinton do not believe in the positions they are taking.

Interesting Peter, are you now defending the character of Bush and 
Clinton?

>  Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the voters WANT the huge
>  deficits they've been running, based on their willingness to elect 
>  Congressmen based on their ability to "bring home the bacon" while
>  opposing new taxes to pay for all these goodies.   So if Perot were
>  truly a servant of the people he'd be advocating bigger deficits
>  since this is obviously what people want.

Congressional election turn-out is 10-20% of the voting eligible 
populace, let's assume half split between GOPS and DEMS (ie 5-10% 
of either party). "The people" are not "the voters." And the evidence
of ballot access restriction, registration laws, gerrymandering, workday 
elections, and electoral college all show clearly that the people are 
largely excluded from the political process.

>  And still furthermore, there is not A SHRED of evidence to suggest
>  that Perot's decision to stand down last summer was based on the 
>  will of his supporters.  So Perot's claims of reflecting the will
>  of his supporters is a lie.

No. The evidence is that Perot tested to see how deeply penetrated
the organization was by party opportunists. The issue at the time
was whether or not electors would vote for the parties in secret.

Stockdale quoted Epictetus, "No life is worth living that goes 
untested".

When Perot stepped back, most partisans went back to their home
parties -- but the people who actually are concerned about this
country remained. Perot is not essential to the United We Stand
movement. We will be there to pick up the pieces when the politics
of division fails.  

And Peter you sound more like a GOP Partisan all the time. I've long
suspected being a Party Libertarian is no better.

>> Is it better to be ruled by a mob, or by a single parasite looking
>> out only for himself?
> 
>  I'd take the parasite because I can predict his actions better.

>---peter

It is better that the polity be of-the-people -- precisely because 
those who rule can not control the actions of widely diverse elements 
of society acting in the interest of their separate groups. Instead
society must be made as uniform as possible, as is an army, to be
subject to overcontrol, propaganda, and manipulation. And one of the
methods, is to try to convice others that there are only 2 choices, 
such as "mob" or "parasite." 

Peter -- you are a hypocrite if you assert the benefit of individual
liberty while promoting the propaganda of the party-line. 

I wonder how many professed Libertarians are going to vote Republican?
We have a local talk show host who tries to straddle that chasm all
the time -- namely David Gold -- on KLIF out of Dallas. Strange this
notion that "change is more of the same." Distinctly Orwellian.

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-14-92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc