🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <327E515F.167E@mail.utexas.edu>,
Christopher D. White <chris_white@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Artie_Turner wrote:
>
>> I guess that's why my gut reaction is
>> to vote for Perot, a guy with an admirable business resume.  However,
>> business acumen by itself is not all that's required to be a successful
>> CEO.  If we could somehow replace Perot's whiney East Texas accent
>> and barnyard histrionics with Clinton's calm demeanor and smooth
>> delivery, (and throw in a little of Bob Dole's avuncular war-veteran
>> solidity) we'd have the ideal candidate.
>> 
>> And if a frog had wings....
>
>Yeah, right.  Perot got rich selling data processing to Federal and
>state programs (yup, like Welfare).  Many of these deals were hatched in
>the backroom, using the same sort of contributions he is now supposedly
>so shocked by.  His prosperity is a direct reflection of his ability
>manipulate government contracting practices and overcharge us for
>services rendered. 

Horseshit.  He provided that service at 1/3 the cost of the existing service
at that time.  The existing service also was arcane and allowed for massive
government waste due to the inability for departments to talk with each other.
His system was computer based and hence had no political problems talking with
the next department.



> And he was such a diplomat and reasonable fellow to
>work with that GM had to run him off.  

I see you've never had to deal with people who didn't like you for unjust
reasons.  I'm not saying that GM didn't have just reasons.  I'm claiming
you have no way of knowing if they were just or not.  I'm claiming you don't
have the necessary knowledge to make this call.  I have never really been
all that impressed with the concept of 'designed obsolescence" anyway.  They
sounded pretty crooked to me.



>Besides being aptly described as
>a nut (come on, look at his paranoid shenanigans last year), there is no
>evidence that Perot knows anything about building a consensus or working
>with anyone.  Just look how that "party" is run.
>

It's run like a dictatorship.  Once upon a time, I heard that the perfect
government was a benevolent dictatorship.  Name one president in the last
1000 years who didn't have a few screws loose.



>I'd vote for Dole first, and I ain't voting for Dole.  At least Dole has
>shown himself to be reasonable, intelligent and competent.  Even if he
>is too antiprogressive for me.
>

And I'm sure you can trust someone who has been stealing your money for the
last 30 years through congress.



>I had the opportunity to chat with a former commanding officer of his
>from the Navy days.  That retired USN captain voted for Clinton.

So?


America votes through ignorance.  Nobody knows anything about any of these
candidates except what you read in a totally biased press.  My number one
reason for voting for Perot is that nobody in congress likes him and I don't 
like anyone in congress.  He would be a king size headache for those bastards
and they are so deserving.  Perot is an avid American and would honestly
do what he thought was right for America (whether it be right or wrong -- hey,
benevolent dictator).  He couldn't do near as much damage as the idiots of the
past 50 years who were only in it to get rich.  Perot is already a billionaire.
Who could buy him?

Rick - get revenge on congress, vote for Perot.



-- 
Disclaimer: Not only are these NOT necessarily the opinions of the great company
I work for - AMD, they may not even be the opinions of this author.  If you are 
smart, you will take this post as the scribblings of a madman and ignore it.
                      "I know NUSSING, absolutely nussing."  Sgt. Schultz