

- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Perot was scary because he ran on a platform of claiming to make “government” more efficient and less wasteful and, since he’d successfully run large business & proved he could do it, he might have managed it somehow. What we definitely DON’T need is our oppressive, coercive theft-based “government” becoming more efficient. Government waste is a good thing. If the bureaucrats didn’t waste 80% of the property they steal from us, they’d be using it against us to confiscate even more of our freedom, health & property.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/en...
+1 = 6.
Climate change- The biggest scam of our era.
faking data, massive government spending, incessant howls of the do-gooder self-righteous classes, using the rings from one tree (not one type of tree) to recast history, using statistical techniques chosen to get a result rather than produce dispassionate analysis, claiming their propaganda is supported by 'Science' when it is science fantasy, sacking of dissenters in universities, threats of violence against journalists for asking questions, massive money supporting threats of legal action against those who describe the cheating, and etc.
'the problem'- there is no climate change problem unless the earth is entering a cooling phase which is possible. A cooler earth would be detrimental to humans. There is no evidence from history or science that carbon dioxide can increase temperature,.
Perot went bat shit crazy even before this, and suspected his closest advisors to be 'moles', and demanded signed loyalty oaths from his staff." This is pretty much how I remembered it, too.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/26/us/199...
Thanks for the video RMP.
Perot went bat shit crazy even before this, and suspected his closest advisors to be 'moles', and demanded signed loyalty oaths from his staff.
And guess what...I still voted for this fruitcake.
Thanks for the insight!
He should have responded to those terrorists like he did when his employees were threatened.
But what father would have? Placing liberty above the life of your child?
Makes me glad I don't have a child to be threatened.
That was the last time I voted.
I'm not without my own sins. I voted for Ross Perot in '92. He actually had a chance, although it proved not to be a very good one, getting about 19% of the popular vote. As it turned out, not even Clinton could ruin the economy, and Gingrich and the Repub congress helped to keep the most egregious excesses in check. I'm not sure that a second Bush term would have resulted in all that much difference. The Senate was still Dem controlled, so even with a R pres and House, they would have had to deal with Mitchell.
He rightly points out that costs of a massive urbanization program would be staggering. He could point out that this would only put a dent in the problem and would be a political nightmare because there's a huge cultural difference between urban and exurban/rural people. Instead he spends the rest of the article denying reality.