|
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:53:57 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: every vote was inspected by hand Nope. Enron's planes were VERY busy flying the shrubbies lawyers & goons about. The recount was blocked. There were a total of SIX recounts using successively different criteria as set down by the dems....and they lost all six. Only number seven was blocked....and that one would have discounted ALL non-democrat votes. ral Someone was very scared of one it seems ..... -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:53:57 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Fact is that the ballot was designed by a democrat who headed a democrat heavy committee. They then blamed the faulty machines that didn't register democrat votes.. Cites? Or just more endless winger lies? Cites for what? To prove that it was a democrat who designed the ballot? Do a search on "Theresa LePore". LePore had only worked in appointed office and for the democratic machine for over thirty years. After being blamed by the democrats for the ballot, she switched to independent. Those claims I made have only been carried by every news service in the US oh, about a million times. If you think you can *disprove* one of them, feel free to do so....until then, you crying like a baby and denying history is nothing new. ral -- Cliff |
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:18:34 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:53:57 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Fact is that the ballot was designed by a democrat who headed a democrat heavy committee. They then blamed the faulty machines that didn't register democrat votes.. Cites? Or just more endless winger lies? Cites for what? To prove that it was a democrat who designed the ballot? Do a search on "Theresa LePore". LePore had only worked in appointed office and for the democratic machine for over thirty years. After being blamed by the democrats for the ballot, she switched to independent. Those claims I made have only been carried by every news service in the US oh, about a million times. If you think you can *disprove* one of them, feel free to do so....until then, you crying like a baby and denying history is nothing new. ral -- Cliff Actually, I wondered what it had to do with anything G. BTW, You need to learn how to post. You look like a winger. -- Cliff |
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:51:35 GMT, Lady Chatterly
wrote: In article Cliff wrote: On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:09:31 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:53:57 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: every vote was inspected by hand Nope. Enron's planes were VERY busy flying the shrubbies lawyers & goons about. The recount was blocked. There were a total of SIX recounts using successively different criteria as set down by the dems....and they lost all six. Only number seven was blocked....and that one would have discounted ALL non-democrat votes. Then why was the shrubbie so scared? Better check your *total* facts ...... Was that a brain fart? Or did you have something to say? He's trying to blame te "Dems" for the Republicans in power (Florida Secretary of State IIRC) not maintaining their voting equipment (or sending suspect equipment certain places). That's my guess, anyway G. -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
Then why was the shrubbie so scared? Scared of what? Another recount using entirely different criteria than the first six? Better check your *total* facts ...... Facts about what? That there were six recounts that the dems lost every one of? ral -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
He's trying to blame te "Dems" for the Republicans in power No, you're trying to blame everything except the simple fact that more people wanted Bush in power than gore. That one simple fact still trumps all the whining and crying the dems have been doing. And you're replying to a bot there, Cliff. ral |
Cliff wrote:
Actually, I wondered what it had to do with anything G. If you had no point, why did you waste my time, idiot? BTW, You need to learn how to post. You look like a winger. You look like a crying democrap. So? ral -- Cliff |
|
|
|
Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:34:40 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: He's trying to blame te "Dems" for the Republicans in power No, you're trying to blame everything except the simple fact that more people wanted Bush in power than gore. Any idea who won the popular vote? Any idea on why the electoral college system exists? That one simple fact still trumps all the whining and crying the dems have been doing. Half the populatinon has an IQ below 100. Those the ones that voted for the shrubbie? Felt right at home? They do not....and since you made that mistaken statement, I'll assume that you didn't vote for Bush, right? BTW, You need to learn to post properly. Define "post properly". ral -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
You think you can correct simple sums by counting them often enough? So you're admitting that there was no need for six recounts and that a seventh was equally as idiotic? Nuff said. BTW, You need to learn how to post. Really? Seems my posts show up just fine. What would you have me change? ral -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
It was your post VBG. What was my post? BTW, You need to learn how to post. You look like a winger. You're beginning to look like an idiot. What's your point? ral -- Cliff |
"Richard Lewis" wrote in message ink.net... Cliff wrote: Snip BTW, You need to learn how to post. You look like a winger. You're beginning to look like an idiot. What's your point? Richard, A proper sig line : -- SVL " Education, n.: That which discloses the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding......." --Ambrose Bierce |
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:48:04 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:34:40 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: He's trying to blame te "Dems" for the Republicans in power No, you're trying to blame everything except the simple fact that more people wanted Bush in power than gore. Any idea who won the popular vote? Any idea on why the electoral college system exists? Ummm .. what does that have to do with your claim that Herr shrubbie won the popular vote against Gore? Evasion or confusion? That one simple fact still trumps all the whining and crying the dems have been doing. Half the populatinon has an IQ below 100. Those the ones that voted for the shrubbie? Felt right at home? They do not.... Which half are you "thinking" of? and since you made that mistaken statement, I'll assume that you didn't vote for Bush, right? BTW, You need to learn to post properly. Define "post properly". ral -- Cliff See the sigs & search for "cutlined usenet posts" I suppose. HTH -- Cliff |
|
|
Cliff wrote:
Ummm .. what does that have to do with your claim that Herr shrubbie won the popular vote against Gore? Now you resort to lies, dude? You were the one who raised the "popular vote" issue. I said in the six recounts, Bush won all of them. Feel free to disprove that any time you feel like it. Evasion or confusion? That one simple fact still trumps all the whining and crying the dems have been doing. Half the populatinon has an IQ below 100. Those the ones that voted for the shrubbie? Felt right at home? They do not.... Which half are you "thinking" of? The one named "Bell". You should get to know him before making such bull**** statements. Stops you from looking like an idiot. ral |
Cliff wrote:
You need to review the facts. The fact that there were six recounts and that Bush won all of them? Only fact that matters....it totally disproves you. ral -- Cliff |
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote:
Richard, A proper sig line : -- SVL Ahhhhhh I get it. Thanks, PMT! I've never used sigs....been posting the same way since 92/93. It was "proper" then and it's still "proper" enough for me. ral |
"Richard Lewis" wrote in message nk.net... "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote: Richard, A proper sig line : Ahhhhhh I get it. Thanks, PMT! I've never used sigs....been posting the same way since 92/93. It was "proper" then and it's still "proper" enough for me. No prob as far as IM concerned, but I have heard it messes up most usenet statistics tracking software as well as perhaps causing problems with certain newsreader clients. -- SVL |
Richard Lewis wrote:
Any idea on why the electoral college system exists? It was part of a deal up by Madison et al to allow the slave owning states to retain an influence in the Fedral government based on 3/5 of the slave population whilst at the same time discounting that same population when it came to apportioning taxes. Is that your point? |
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:41:33 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: Ummm .. what does that have to do with your claim that Herr shrubbie won the popular vote against Gore? Now you resort to lies, dude? You were the one who raised the "popular vote" issue. I said in the six recounts, Bush won all of them. You posted "No, you're trying to blame everything except the simple fact that more people wanted Bush in power than gore." which would be the popular vote, right? To which I responded: "Any idea who won the popular vote?" Bush got a total of 50,456,002 (47.87%) and Gore got a total of 50,999,897 (48.38%). To my way of thinking 50,999,897 is a larger number than 50,456,002 and 48.38% is larger than 47.87%. This clearly demonstrates that YOUR statement "the simple fact that more people wanted Bush in power than gore." is in fact a lie. Do you winger always lie? Feel free to disprove that any time you feel like it. See how very simple it is to catch wingers in lies? Then they lie about telling the lies ...... no actual facts needed in *their* stupid claims, just "Prove it's not so." The National Bird of wingers: http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscart...es/jcan15l.jpg Evasion or confusion? That one simple fact still trumps all the whining and crying the dems have been doing. Half the populatinon has an IQ below 100. Those the ones that voted for the shrubbie? Felt right at home? They do not.... Which half are you "thinking" of? The one named "Bell". You should get to know him before making such bull**** statements. Stops you from looking like an idiot. ral I already know well which half you are in. And that you know nothing of the subject or the function Y=e((-X)**2). -- Cliff |
|
|
Cliff wrote:
You posted "No, you're trying to blame everything except the simple fact that more people wanted Bush in power than gore." which would be the popular vote, right? To which I responded: "Any idea who won the popular vote?" Bush got a total of 50,456,002 (47.87%) and Gore got a total of 50,999,897 (48.38%). So you have to take a thread ON THE SIX FLORIDA RECOUNTS, and reinterpret it to mean "national popular vote"? Typical democrap bull****. Oh, I know, you made a mistake. You weren't really*trying* to bull**** anyone. This clearly demonstrates that YOUR statement "the simple fact that more people wanted Bush in power than gore." is in fact a lie. So you're still saying that gore won the six recounts? Like I said, idiot, feel free to disprove that anytime you want. Do you winger always lie? Do you democraps always bull****? I already know well which half you are in. And that you know nothing of the subject or the function Y=e((-X)**2). Function? Doesn't take any function to understand that "half the populatinon has an IQ below 100" is only possibly true if there are none that are 100....and since the national average *is* 100 and Mr. Bell called you an idiot, too..... ral -- Cliff |
Guido wrote:
It was part of a deal up by Madison et al to allow the slave owning states to retain an influence in the Fedral government based on 3/5 of the slave population whilst at the same time discounting that same population when it came to apportioning taxes. Is that your point? Nopers, but good post none the less. My point was that dems seem to embrace the electoral college system everytime except when it goes against *them* and then they can't curse it long or loud enough. ral |
Cliff wrote:
You need to review the facts. So you're saying Bush *DIDN'T* win all six recounts? Cites? ral HTH -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
You should be able to set it in your defaults, somewhere, Or not. I like the not part better. ral |
|
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:07:42 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: You need to review the facts. So you're saying Bush *DIDN'T* win all six recounts? Damn, I didn't know that Bush lost the 2000 election. No wonder he and his minions think that having actually won this one he has a popular mandate to abort the Constitution. Huh? He DID lose the 2000 election, by hundreds of thousands of votes. Where were you at the time? g What he won was the vote of the Electoral College. And, as James Carville said, "Back in 2000 a Republican friend warned me that if I voted for Al Gore and he won, the stock market would tank, we'd lose millions of jobs, and our military would be totally overstretched. You know what? I did vote for Gore, he did win, and I'll be damned if all those things didn't come true!" Thanks, that explains a lot. You ain't seen nothin' yet. Ed Huntress |
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:01:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Thanks, that explains a lot. You ain't seen nothin' yet. What do you expect next, Ed? Or at least see hints of? -- Cliff |
|
|
|
Cliff wrote:
The thread seems to be titled "OT - "Cites" for Gunner". Bu tyou didn't reply to *that* thread. The thread *you* replied to started off with "In 2000, the whiners and the babies (read that as democrats) blamed the loss of florida on the great republican plot with the butterfly ballot." and you began to question the facts ON FLORIDA. YOU said "more people wanted Bush in power than gore", not I VBG. In the Florida recounts that are/were the topic, idiot. Don't the votes count? Don't you? Typical democrap bull****. Too bad that you don't like how the popular vote came out or democracy. The national popular vote means nothing....you said you understood the electoral college. The popular vote in Florida, which is the topic, you lost. Go whine somewhere else. IF you think that the numbers are in error take it up with those that counted the votes. Or the shrubbie's lawyers that got the feared recounts stopped so many times. There were six recounts.....you lost every one, idiot. This clearly demonstrates that YOUR statement "the simple fact that more people wanted Bush in power than gore." is in fact a lie. So you're still saying that gore won the six recounts? 50,999,897 50,456,002 One hundred million people voted in Florida then? Like I said, idiot, feel free to disprove that anytime you want. 50,999,897 50,456,002 Do you winger always lie? Do you democraps always bull****? 50,999,897 50,456,002 I already know well which half you are in. And that you know nothing of the subject or the function Y=e((-X)**2). Function? Doesn't take any function to understand that "half the populatinon has an IQ below 100" is only possibly true if there are none that are 100....and since the national average *is* 100 and Mr. Bell called you an idiot, too..... Can you count to 100? Do you know what decimals are? IQ's aren't registered in decimals, idiot. For your statement to be true, that half the pop has an IQ of less than 100, there can be NONE that are 100 even. Your statement is bull**** and proven so. ral -- Cliff You need to learn how to post. You need to learn more than that one trick, pony. It's getting old. ral -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
Were the recounts ever finished? Six of them, with progressively looser criteria for counting, were....and you democrap idiots lost them all. Number seven was stopped. Or are you thinking of all those lawyers on Enron's planes or the Supreme Court? How many precincts were actually fully recounted? All of them? You democrap idiots didn't want ALL of them recounted. You only wanted to recount the ones that might give the democrap candidate more votes....which they didn't. ALL the precincts that the democraps asked for a recount in were recounted multiple times. ral -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
See "Statistics for alt.machines.cnc, 20 Dec 2004" [ - All text after the last cut line (/^-- $/) in the body is considered to be the author's signature. So? Besides more useless bull****, what's your point? ral ..... ..... ] -- Cliff |
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:16:45 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: The thread seems to be titled "OT - "Cites" for Gunner". Bu tyou didn't reply to *that* thread. OK....who changed the "subject" line back to "OT - Cites for Gunner" then? Don't let little things like reality creep in on you ral... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter