Bud Frawley wrote:
I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
G-E!thank's for proveing you do'nt know you learn science in college!

Lemme guess--you had the same spelling teacher as Dan Quayle.

he proved global warming from people driveing suvs guess where? in
the good old U S of A! I hope you like liveing under water because
that's where you're gonna be a a few year's if the republiCON loon's
get there way!

Maybe he is, I'm looking forward to having waterfront property in a few
years.

global warming garbage snipped

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

The real cause of global warming is the hot air Al Gore is belching and
farting.

wrote:

FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
'support' the global warming hypothesis either.

On Mar 23, 11:36 am, Bud Frawley replied:
I guess younever heard of al gore?

You are correct.

I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
named Al Gore.

--

FF

On Mar 8, 12:49 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
to primary sources.

This may come as a shock to you but the journals
support themselves by selling subscriptions and
reprints. Some do carry advertisements, but their
circulation is too small for advertising revenues
to be a major income stream.

That may be a good thing, as it allows the
journals to maintain editorial independence.
Imagine, if you will, the chilling effect on academic
publication if the journals had to rely on grants
from government, industry and philanthropists.

Consider how Reader's Digest quit carrying
anti-smoking articles and the New York Times
quite carrying advertisements for programs
to help people stop smoking after RJ Reynolds
bought up some of their major advertisers like
del Monte and Nabisco.

I thought this was not the case, but
was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.


I do agree that scientific publication is an
area in which collectivism has its merits.
Fortunately that collectivist spirit s manifest
in the United States in institutions called libraries.
While I am fortunate to have access to an
excellent science library within waling distance
of my home, most readers have ready access
to one or more major University Libraries.

I have never found a University Library that was not
open to the public.

--

FF

In article om,
says...
wrote:

FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
'support' the global warming hypothesis either.

On Mar 23, 11:36 am, Bud Frawley replied:
I guess younever heard of al gore?

You are correct.

I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
named Al Gore.

what a moron which never even heard of the only one which was elected
POTUS by the will of the people in 2k! thank's for proveing what a
real moron look's like! you think al gore's not a scientist? I guess
they like to have people which are'nt even real scientist's testifing
before congress! NOT!let me give you a clue dumass!you have to have
science background or your just spinning your wheel's! they do'nt
even want to hear what you have to say! I guess you did'nt even read
my post from I said he studied science in college! thank's for
proveing you were home schooled!

Bud Frawley wrote:
[snip]
I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
named Al Gore.

what a moron which never even heard of the only one which was elected
POTUS by the will of the people in 2k! thank's for proveing what a
real moron look's like! you think al gore's not a scientist? I guess
they like to have people which are'nt even real scientist's testifing
before congress! NOT!let me give you a clue dumass!you have to have
science background or your just spinning your wheel's! they do'nt
even want to hear what you have to say! I guess you did'nt even read
my post from I said he studied science in college! thank's for
proveing you were home schooled!

Not to mention that Al Gore invented the internet. Remember that? That
was his claim. He is truly brilliant.

Say What? wrote:
Bud Frawley wrote:
[snip]
I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
named Al Gore.

what a moron which never even heard of the only one which was elected
POTUS by the will of the people in 2k! thank's for proveing what a
real moron look's like! you think al gore's not a scientist? I guess
they like to have people which are'nt even real scientist's testifing
before congress! NOT!let me give you a clue dumass!you have to have
science background or your just spinning your wheel's! they do'nt
even want to hear what you have to say! I guess you did'nt even read
my post from I said he studied science in college! thank's for
proveing you were home schooled!

Not to mention that Al Gore invented the internet. Remember that?
That was his claim. He is truly brilliant.

There's no cure for global warming. Right now it's from all the hot air
coming out of politicians, but if we kill 'em all then they'll rot and
the methane coming out of them will still cause it.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Say What? wrote:
Bud Frawley wrote:
[snip]
[snip again]
Not to mention that Al Gore invented the internet. Remember that?
That was his claim. He is truly brilliant.

There's no cure for global warming. Right now it's from all the hot air
coming out of politicians, but if we kill 'em all then they'll rot and
the methane coming out of them will still cause it.


Well, then couldn't we at least give it a try? Who knows, maybe the
methane wouldn't be quite as bad... g

In article ,
says...
J. Clarke wrote:
Say What? wrote:
Bud Frawley wrote:
[snip]
[snip again]
Not to mention that Al Gore invented the internet. Remember that?
That was his claim. He is truly brilliant.

There's no cure for global warming. Right now it's from all the hot air
coming out of politicians, but if we kill 'em all then they'll rot and
the methane coming out of them will still cause it.


Well, then couldn't we at least give it a try? Who knows, maybe the
methane wouldn't be quite as bad... g

ya right! thank's for proveing murder's the tipicle republiCON"S
solution for everything! I bet you do'nt even go to jail from when
your fat cat daddy bribes the judge!maybe you'll get country club
prison with your fat cat friend's! ya that's really paying for your
crime!give me a break!

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:36:01 -0500, Bud Frawley
wrote:

I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
G-E!

World of difference between going *to* college and attending college. Al
did the former, for a while. Flunked out of both law school and divinity
school. His grades as an undergrad weren't all that great either. Somehow,
I don't think he spent a lot of time in science classes.




thank's for proveing you do'nt know you learn science in college!


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:13:54 -0500, Bud Frawley
wrote:

In article ,
says...
J. Clarke wrote:
Say What? wrote:
Bud Frawley wrote:
[snip]
[snip again]
Not to mention that Al Gore invented the internet. Remember that?
That was his claim. He is truly brilliant.

There's no cure for global warming. Right now it's from all the hot air
coming out of politicians, but if we kill 'em all then they'll rot and
the methane coming out of them will still cause it.


Well, then couldn't we at least give it a try? Who knows, maybe the
methane wouldn't be quite as bad... g

ya right! thank's for proveing murder's the tipicle republiCON"S
solution for everything! I bet you do'nt even go to jail from when
your fat cat daddy bribes the judge!maybe you'll get country club
prison with your fat cat friend's! ya that's really paying for your
crime!give me a break!

Well, look's like Stinky's back.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:36:01 -0500, Bud Frawley
wrote:

I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
G-E!

World of difference between going *to* college and attending college. Al
did the former, for a while. Flunked out of both law school and divinity
school. His grades as an undergrad weren't all that great either. Somehow,
I don't think he spent a lot of time in science classes.

You know, I've heard this repeatedly (and would love some proof by
citation), but ... it makes absolutely no difference even if entirely
true. The electorate hasn't the attention span to dissect even a mildly
complex issue, nor does it have even the basic science skills to spot
exaggeration on Gore's scale. The simple fact is that the media twits
have won the battle for the voting "mind". Substance is essentially
irrelevant and "presence" is all one needs. Coupled with the feverish
moaning of the Hollyweirdos, Western politics is steadily going the same
direction of the "news": It is becoming "Reality" TV, which is neither
real nor true.

It is instructive that what people "believe" about GW (as if belief
mattered at all) divides itself almost exactly along left-right
political lines. Facts, analysis, peer review, and reason itself are now
the red-headed step children of politics - the ultimate form of
"entertainment" fiction.

Meanwhile in China, India, and the former Eastern Bloc nations, children
are learning math, science, and engineering. Their counterparts here in the
West are largely learning to drink excessively, complain about how
little they have, and demand that government do "more" for them in
response to their plight. The politicians respond in one of two ways:
The political Right remains mostly stupid and the political Left is
flatly dangerous. Do the math (those of you who still can) and guess
where this takes us in just a few decades.

The West was built upon the pillars of reason, individual liberty, and
personal responsibility. That took a good 1000 years or so. Sadly, the West is
being destroyed in just a generation or two by the very beneficiaries of
those ideas. We have seen the enemy and he is us.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Well Said Tim


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:36:01 -0500, Bud Frawley
wrote:

I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
G-E!

World of difference between going *to* college and attending college.
Al
did the former, for a while. Flunked out of both law school and
divinity
school. His grades as an undergrad weren't all that great either.
Somehow,
I don't think he spent a lot of time in science classes.

You know, I've heard this repeatedly (and would love some proof by
citation), but ... it makes absolutely no difference even if entirely
true. The electorate hasn't the attention span to dissect even a mildly
complex issue, nor does it have even the basic science skills to spot
exaggeration on Gore's scale. The simple fact is that the media twits
have won the battle for the voting "mind". Substance is essentially
irrelevant and "presence" is all one needs. Coupled with the feverish
moaning of the Hollyweirdos, Western politics is steadily going the same
direction of the "news": It is becoming "Reality" TV, which is neither
real nor true.

It is instructive that what people "believe" about GW (as if belief
mattered at all) divides itself almost exactly along left-right
political lines. Facts, analysis, peer review, and reason itself are now
the red-headed step children of politics - the ultimate form of
"entertainment" fiction.

Meanwhile in China, India, and the former Eastern Bloc nations, children
are learning math, science, and engineering. Their counterparts here in
the
West are largely learning to drink excessively, complain about how
little they have, and demand that government do "more" for them in
response to their plight. The politicians respond in one of two ways:
The political Right remains mostly stupid and the political Left is
flatly dangerous. Do the math (those of you who still can) and guess
where this takes us in just a few decades.

The West was built upon the pillars of reason, individual liberty, and
personal responsibility. That took a good 1000 years or so. Sadly, the
West is
being destroyed in just a generation or two by the very beneficiaries of
those ideas. We have seen the enemy and he is us.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Bud Frawley, wrote the following at or about 3/23/2007 8:33 PM:
In article om,
says...
wrote:

FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
'support' the global warming hypothesis either.

On Mar 23, 11:36 am, Bud Frawley replied:
I guess younever heard of al gore?
You are correct.

I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
named Al Gore.

what a moron which never even heard of the only one which was elected
POTUS by the will of the people in 2k! thank's for proveing what a
real moron look's like! you think al gore's not a scientist? I guess
they like to have people which are'nt even real scientist's testifing
before congress! NOT!let me give you a clue dumass!you have to have
science background or your just spinning your wheel's! they do'nt
even want to hear what you have to say! I guess you did'nt even read
my post from I said he studied science in college! thank's for
proveing you were home schooled!

Whatever else he is, I guess Al Gore's a hypocrite, no?

The Story of Two Houses

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING

TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH

BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add
on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by
gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's
in the South.


HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system
uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of
the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.
Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon
underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes
into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers
and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding
rural landscape.


HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and
filmmaker) Al Gore.


HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas.
Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of
the President of the United States, George W. Bush.


So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you
WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York
Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an
inconvenient truth."

BTW, if you find this incredible, just DAGS using the obvious search
terms and you'll find it all too true.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:35:16 -0400, "Ken Johnsen"
wrote:

Well Said Tim


BTW, Tim, you might find the following of interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c





"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:36:01 -0500, Bud Frawley
wrote:

I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
G-E!

World of difference between going *to* college and attending college.
Al
did the former, for a while. Flunked out of both law school and
divinity
school. His grades as an undergrad weren't all that great either.
Somehow,
I don't think he spent a lot of time in science classes.

You know, I've heard this repeatedly (and would love some proof by
citation), but ... it makes absolutely no difference even if entirely
true. The electorate hasn't the attention span to dissect even a mildly
complex issue, nor does it have even the basic science skills to spot
exaggeration on Gore's scale. The simple fact is that the media twits
have won the battle for the voting "mind". Substance is essentially
irrelevant and "presence" is all one needs. Coupled with the feverish
moaning of the Hollyweirdos, Western politics is steadily going the same
direction of the "news": It is becoming "Reality" TV, which is neither
real nor true.



Here are some references to Gore's academic record:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dcfe0d392e.htm
http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm




.... snip


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:11:42 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

You can not reason with liberals. Liberalism is a mental illness.

On Mar 27, 4:39 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:35:16 -0400, "Ken Johnsen"

wrote:
Well Said Tim

BTW, Tim, you might find the following of interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c





"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:36:01 -0500, Bud Frawley
wrote:

I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
G-E!

World of difference between going *to* college and attending college.
Al
did the former, for a while. Flunked out of both law school and
divinity
school. His grades as an undergrad weren't all that great either.
Somehow,
I don't think he spent a lot of time in science classes.

You know, I've heard this repeatedly (and would love some proof by
citation), but ... it makes absolutely no difference even if entirely
true. The electorate hasn't the attention span to dissect even a mildly
complex issue, nor does it have even the basic science skills to spot
exaggeration on Gore's scale. The simple fact is that the media twits
have won the battle for the voting "mind". Substance is essentially
irrelevant and "presence" is all one needs. Coupled with the feverish
moaning of the Hollyweirdos, Western politics is steadily going the same
direction of the "news": It is becoming "Reality" TV, which is neither
real nor true.

Here are some references to Gore's academic record:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dcfe0d392e.htm
http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm
...

I encourage you to ignore Al Gore and get your
information from scientists instead.

Politicians care about the persuassivness of what
they say, not the validity. Just stop and consider
politician's statements about Iraqi nuclear weapons,
the cost of prisoner lawsuits, Terri Shiavo's medical
condition, etc. Do you REALLY expect Al Gore
to be any different?

--

FF

In article .com,
says...
On Mar 27, 4:39 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:35:16 -0400, "Ken Johnsen"

wrote:
Well Said Tim

BTW, Tim, you might find the following of interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c





"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:36:01 -0500, Bud Frawley
wrote:

I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
G-E!

World of difference between going *to* college and attending college.
Al
did the former, for a while. Flunked out of both law school and
divinity
school. His grades as an undergrad weren't all that great either.
Somehow,
I don't think he spent a lot of time in science classes.

You know, I've heard this repeatedly (and would love some proof by
citation), but ... it makes absolutely no difference even if entirely
true. The electorate hasn't the attention span to dissect even a mildly
complex issue, nor does it have even the basic science skills to spot
exaggeration on Gore's scale. The simple fact is that the media twits
have won the battle for the voting "mind". Substance is essentially
irrelevant and "presence" is all one needs. Coupled with the feverish
moaning of the Hollyweirdos, Western politics is steadily going the same
direction of the "news": It is becoming "Reality" TV, which is neither
real nor true.

Here are some references to Gore's academic record:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dcfe0d392e.htm
http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm
...

I encourage you to ignore Al Gore and get your
information from scientists instead.
ya right! like the scienstis which are on the payroll of big oil are
gonne tell the truth about gore's academic record! do'nt make me
laugh!

Politicians care about the persuassivness of what
they say, not the validity. Just stop and consider
politician's statements about Iraqi nuclear weapons,
the cost of prisoner lawsuits, Terri Shiavo's medical
condition, etc. Do you REALLY expect Al Gore
to be any different?
gore act's for the good of his country! even when he conceited the
election to the supreme court's choice oil boy the voter's said keep
going! and he said no it's for the good of the country! If that's not
a patriet I do'nt know what is! patriet's do'nt lie dumass! I guess
you think global warming is for the good of the country!what a moron!

--

FF

In article , Bud Frawley wrote:

gore act's for the good of his country! even when he conceited the
election to the supreme court's choice oil boy the voter's said keep
going! and he said no it's for the good of the country!

Gore did no such thing. He never conceded anything; quite the opposite, in
fact: he kept on pushing the issue until the Supreme Court finally told him,
in effect, to sit down and shut up. Gore never claimed he was acting for the
good of the country, either.

The Supreme Court didn't "pick" Bush, either. The voters of the United States
did, in accordance with the Constitution. (2000 wasn't the first time someone
was elected President with a minority of the popular vote but a majority of
the electoral vote. It happened in 1992, also, for example.)

What the Supreme Court *did* do is direct the Florida Supreme Court to follow
the law, when the Florida court was attempting to rewrite Florida election law
to suit itself.

You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election showed
Gore lost?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:26 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

-snip-

You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election showed
Gore lost?

Really!?! Maybe you should read
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
among others.

Renata

In article , Renata wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:26 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

-snip-

You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election showed
Gore lost?

Really!?! Maybe you should read
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

Maybe *you* should read it. Lots of stuff there about "potential votes" and
"potential recounts".

Now go find something about the *actual* recounts.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Renata wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:26 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

-snip-

You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election
showed Gore lost?

Really!?! Maybe you should read
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
among others.

Maybe you should. It says that in every recount Bush won. The ones
they mention in which Bush didn't win were imaginary recounts based on a
bunch of assumptions that they made up.

Sorry, Renata, but imaginary recounts by "opinion research" orgnizations
don't count.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:26 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

-snip-
You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election
showed Gore lost?
Really!?! Maybe you should read
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
among others.

Maybe you should. It says that in every recount Bush won. The ones
they mention in which Bush didn't win were imaginary recounts based on a
bunch of assumptions that they made up.

Sorry, Renata, but imaginary recounts by "opinion research" orgnizations
don't count.


But it *is* the only way the imploding Left can cling to any real political
traction. What horrifies the Left here is not just that they lost, but that
their only remaining recourse is to try and prostitute rules of order,
parliamentary procedure and so forth to have any hope of ever getting back
to a majority. The Right is dumb, the Left is dangerous. Take your pick.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:26 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

-snip-
You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election
showed Gore lost?
Really!?! Maybe you should read
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
among others.

Maybe you should. It says that in every recount Bush won. The ones
they mention in which Bush didn't win were imaginary recounts based
on a bunch of assumptions that they made up.

Sorry, Renata, but imaginary recounts by "opinion research"
orgnizations don't count.


But it *is* the only way the imploding Left can cling to any real
political traction. What horrifies the Left here is not just that
they lost, but that their only remaining recourse is to try and
prostitute rules of order, parliamentary procedure and so forth to
have any hope of ever getting back to a majority.

Uh, the Left _does_ have a majority. On what planet are you living that
you are unaware of this?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:26 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

-snip-
You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election
showed Gore lost?
Really!?! Maybe you should read
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
among others.
Maybe you should. It says that in every recount Bush won. The ones
they mention in which Bush didn't win were imaginary recounts based
on a bunch of assumptions that they made up.

Sorry, Renata, but imaginary recounts by "opinion research"
orgnizations don't count.

But it *is* the only way the imploding Left can cling to any real
political traction. What horrifies the Left here is not just that
they lost, but that their only remaining recourse is to try and
prostitute rules of order, parliamentary procedure and so forth to
have any hope of ever getting back to a majority.

Uh, the Left _does_ have a majority. On what planet are you living that
you are unaware of this?


They have an impotent "majority". Their "48 hour plan" or whatever it was
called was laughable. They have *no* traction. Their constant whining
and anti-Western rhetoric has finally taken root and been noticed by the
much more moderate voting public. The Left is a farce - a dangerous one,
but a farce nonetheless. Their "majority", even if they win the
US Whitehouse will simply serve to illuminate their foolishness, callow
lust for power, and generally vile ideas.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

-snip-
You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken
post-election showed Gore lost?
Really!?! Maybe you should read
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
among others.
Maybe you should. It says that in every recount Bush won. The
ones they mention in which Bush didn't win were imaginary recounts
based on a bunch of assumptions that they made up.

Sorry, Renata, but imaginary recounts by "opinion research"
orgnizations don't count.

But it *is* the only way the imploding Left can cling to any real
political traction. What horrifies the Left here is not just that
they lost, but that their only remaining recourse is to try and
prostitute rules of order, parliamentary procedure and so forth to
have any hope of ever getting back to a majority.

Uh, the Left _does_ have a majority. On what planet are you living
that you are unaware of this?


They have an impotent "majority". Their "48 hour plan" or whatever
it was called was laughable. They have *no* traction. Their
constant whining and anti-Western rhetoric has finally taken root and
been noticed by the much more moderate voting public. The Left is a
farce - a dangerous one, but a farce nonetheless. Their "majority",
even if they win the
US Whitehouse will simply serve to illuminate their foolishness,
callow lust for power, and generally vile ideas.

Look, if you want to believe that the Democrats do not control both
houses of Congress be my guest, but don't blame me when you get
blindsided.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

-snip-
You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken
post-election showed Gore lost?
Really!?! Maybe you should read
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
among others.
Maybe you should. It says that in every recount Bush won. The
ones they mention in which Bush didn't win were imaginary recounts
based on a bunch of assumptions that they made up.

Sorry, Renata, but imaginary recounts by "opinion research"
orgnizations don't count.

But it *is* the only way the imploding Left can cling to any real
political traction. What horrifies the Left here is not just that
they lost, but that their only remaining recourse is to try and
prostitute rules of order, parliamentary procedure and so forth to
have any hope of ever getting back to a majority.
Uh, the Left _does_ have a majority. On what planet are you living
that you are unaware of this?

They have an impotent "majority". Their "48 hour plan" or whatever
it was called was laughable. They have *no* traction. Their
constant whining and anti-Western rhetoric has finally taken root and
been noticed by the much more moderate voting public. The Left is a
farce - a dangerous one, but a farce nonetheless. Their "majority",
even if they win the
US Whitehouse will simply serve to illuminate their foolishness,
callow lust for power, and generally vile ideas.

Look, if you want to believe that the Democrats do not control both
houses of Congress be my guest, but don't blame me when you get
blindsided.


Let me help you with an elementary explanation of how the US
legislative branch works. Ordinarily this is something you learn
in in, say, 7th Grade Civics class, but then again, ever since
the Lefty Loons took over the 'education' process, very little
of substance gets taught in this area.

The Democrats have the majority in both houses. This does not
remotely equate to them "controlling" anything for two important
reasons:

1) They do not have the supermajority needed to actually force
certain critical kinds of legislation into law. They can
sit there with their token woman Speaker Of The House (isn't
that precious), but the cannot, for instance, override
a presidential veto.

2) A good many Democrats are actually sane people and not rabid
Lefties. The so-called "Blue Dog" Dems leap to mind as does
Joe Lieberman, for example (he is an "independent" for purposes
of electoral mechanics only). It is entirely possible to be
a Democrat and not buy into the ridiculous and malodorous ideas
of what passes for the Left these days. Sadly, an increasing
proportion of the Democratic party has been hijacked by the
likes of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, so I will concede that
the trend is increasingly that Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag.
However, as I said, there are still a few people with brains
remaining in the Democratic party who are slowing down this freight train.

The gasps of indignation about the Supremes doing their job properly in
the whole Bush v. Gore thing were not largely coming from mainstream Dems.
They were moreso coming from the rectal warts that inhabit the radical
ideological left who - as I said - have finally had their ideas rejected
by normal human beings and thereby hastened the implosion of the Left.
Good riddance, I say, to a foul and moronic worldview that requires
utter moral compromise to be embraced even slightly.

So this "majority" the Dems have is tenuous at best, certainly temporal,
not monolithically Left, and will require centrist compromises for any
real power to be wielded. And that, Grasshopper, is more-or-less why
your ideas in the matter are off the mark...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mar 29, 10:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Sadly, an increasing
proportion of the Democratic party has been hijacked by the
likes of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, so I will concede that
the trend is increasingly that Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag.
However, as I said, there are still a few people with brains
remaining in the Democratic party who are slowing down this freight train.

Ward Churchill is a Republican.

Iarnrod wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Sadly, an increasing
proportion of the Democratic party has been hijacked by the
likes of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, so I will concede that
the trend is increasingly that Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag.
However, as I said, there are still a few people with brains
remaining in the Democratic party who are slowing down this freight train.

Ward Churchill is a Republican.


If true, this would only be because absurd disconnections for reality
and puerile provocation for its own sake are the stock-in-trade of
the radical Left...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mar 30, 3:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrod wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Sadly, an increasing
proportion of the Democratic party has been hijacked by the
likes of Noam Chomsky andWardChurchill, so I will concede that
the trend is increasingly that Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag.
However, as I said, there are still a few people with brains
remaining in the Democratic party who are slowing down this freight train.

WardChurchillis a Republican.

If true...

'tis true.

... this would only be because absurd disconnections for reality
and puerile provocation for its own sake are the stock-in-trade of
the radical Left...

Or maybe he's more in tune with GOP values. He sure hates Dems, and I
don't know of many Dems who actually support him, your assertion
notwithstanding and lacking in evidence.

On Mar 29, 11:14 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bud Frawley wrote:

gore act's for the good of his country! even when he conceited the
election to the supreme court's choice oil boy the voter's said keep
going! and he said no it's for the good of the country!

Gore did no such thing. He never conceded anything; quite the opposite, in
fact: he kept on pushing the issue until the Supreme Court finally told him,
in effect, to sit down and shut up. Gore never claimed he was acting for the
good of the country, either.

The Supreme Court didn't "pick" Bush, either. The voters of the United States
did, in accordance with the Constitution. (2000 wasn't the first time someone
was elected President with a minority of the popular vote but a majority of
the electoral vote. It happened in 1992, also, for example.)

What the Supreme Court *did* do is direct the Florida Supreme Court to follow
the law, when the Florida court was attempting to rewrite Florida election law
to suit itself.

The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida law to conform
to the 14th amendment. The USSC concurred 7 - 2
that the Florida election as it then stood did not meet
the equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

The difference wa that the USSC also issued an injunction
5 - 4, prohibiting remedy.


You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election showed
Gore lost?


You are aware, aren't you, that the circumstances
met the requirements in Florida law that permitted
recounts under both the contest and the protest
yet Bush successfully sued to stop them so that
the only recounts that were conpleted were completed
after the inauguration?

And you are correct, those showed that Gore lost
the popular vote in Florida.

The biggest eye-opener for me was that some
of the counties that reported recounts, did not,
in fact, conduct recounts at all. They simply
retallied and rereported the totals from the
individual machines.

--

FF

On 30 Mar 2007 16:16:36 -0700, "Iarnrod" wrote:

On Mar 30, 3:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrod wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Sadly, an increasing
proportion of the Democratic party has been hijacked by the
likes of Noam Chomsky andWardChurchill, so I will concede that
the trend is increasingly that Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag.
However, as I said, there are still a few people with brains
remaining in the Democratic party who are slowing down this freight train.

WardChurchillis a Republican.

If true...

'tis true.

... this would only be because absurd disconnections for reality
and puerile provocation for its own sake are the stock-in-trade of
the radical Left...

Or maybe he's more in tune with GOP values. He sure hates Dems, and I
don't know of many Dems who actually support him, your assertion
notwithstanding and lacking in evidence.

Umm, yeah.

Most members of the GOP equate the tenants of the World Trade
Center with "little Eichmans"

Most GOP members think Bush started an illegal war with Iraq and
support the terrorists

Most GOP members thought of the hijackers as "freedom fighters"
attacking the Nazis in the twin towers.

Most GOP members support the continuous tearing down of traditional
US values.

Youbetcha. Now, go away troll


Promoting evil, failed, and wrong -- just another typical moonbat
liberal posting.

Modern Liberalism defined and explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mar 30, 10:20 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 30 Mar 2007 16:16:36 -0700, "Iarnrod" wrote:
On Mar 30, 3:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:
On Mar 29, 10:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Sadly, an increasing
proportion of the Democratic party has been hijacked by the
likes of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, so I will concede that
the trend is increasingly that Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag.
However, as I said, there are still a few people with brains
remaining in the Democratic party who are slowing down this freight train.

Ward Churchill is a Republican.

If true...

'tis true.

... this would only be because absurd disconnections for reality
and puerile provocation for its own sake are the stock-in-trade of
the radical Left...

Or maybe he's more in tune with GOP values. He sure hates Dems, and I
don't know of many Dems who actually support him, your assertion
notwithstanding and lacking in evidence.

Umm, yeah.

Yeah.

Most members of the GOP equate the tenants of the World Trade
Center with "little Eichmans"

Democrats didn't either, contrary to what the OP implied. But Ward
does believe in the righteousness of blowback even if the targets of
the retribution have little or tenuous ties to the actual origin of
the injustice. The parallel between that and many GOP members'
unflagging support of Bush's failed Iraq policy - some of them still
inexplicably believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 terrorism -
cannot be missed.

Most GOP members think Bush started an illegal war with Iraq and
support the terrorists

Democrats don't support "the terrorists." They support solutions that
actually work and don't create a larger next generation of terrorists.
Remember, the Iraq invasion was never about "fighting terrorism;" it
was about enforcing UN resolutions regarding Saddam's conduct and
weaponry, which had nothing to do with the people who attacked us on
9/11. It was only after Bush invaded Iraq that the insurgency against
the US occupation gained steam and drew terrorists there.

Most GOP members thought of the hijackers as "freedom fighters"
attacking the Nazis in the twin towers.

Democrats don't see them that way either, incidentally. The "values"
that are in parallel are in the justification for attacking people who
were not involved in the perceived injustice.

Most GOP members support the continuous tearing down of traditional
US values.

Well, that's certainly true. Seen the Bill of Rights around lately?

Youbetcha. Now, go away troll

Hey, I'm just advocating an actual realistic view of where Churchill
actually fits in, and it ain't with the main of the Democratic Party.
The OP didn't know what he was talking about. That was the trolling
remark.

Promoting evil, failed, and wrong.

Sounds like Bush's bungled Iraq policy.

-- just another typical moonbat liberal posting.

Keep your head in the sand then.

Iarnrod wrote:

Hey, I'm just advocating an actual realistic view of where Churchill
actually fits in,

No, you are advocating the defense of Churhill's expressed ideas that are
overtly racist, cruel, stupid on their face, cowardly in their own right,
and at odds with any reasonable understanding of the facts of the matter
in question. In other words - in true radical Left fashion - you
are defending evil. What a shock.

and it ain't with the main of the Democratic Party.

The debate here was about the Left, not the Democratic Party. At
the moment, your statement - as I have already stipulated - is
(barely) true. But the Dems have been systematically been dragged
into the far-Left sewer, and the Chomskys and Churchills will soon
enough be speaking for the Democrat majority - well, at least their
politicians, but not necessarily their voters (yet).

The OP didn't know what he was talking about. That was the trolling
remark.

Sadly, I know all too well what I am talking about. Collectivism never
really dies and people that defend its evils never are eliminated.
The radical Left is so morally and intellectually degenerate that no
amount of reason or even recent history will impede it from its
vigorous defense of doing what is "good for the people/group/tribe" and
thereby justify all manner of horrors. Moreover, Churchill et all are such
personal scumbags that they cannot distinguish between the overt horrors
of an Eichman and non-combatant civilians conducting commerce under rule
of law.

I'm a loathe to defend the Right - they are ridiculous much of the time.
But the most Right leaning politician looks positively geniuslike by
comparison to the noise emanating from the far Left. If you hate the
Right as much as you appear to, thank yourself and those like you - you
legitimized them...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article . com, wrote:

The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida law to conform
to the 14th amendment. The USSC concurred 7 - 2
that the Florida election as it then stood did not meet
the equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

That's absolute nonsense; in fact, it's the exact *opposite* of what happened.

The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida election law to conform to its own
preconceived ideas of how the election "should" turn out, including (among
other things) the assertion that when the Florida legislature enacted a law
mandating certification of election results in seven days, it really "meant"
sevenTEEN.

The 7-2 vote by the USSC held that the recounts as being conducted violated
the law.

The difference wa that the USSC also issued an injunction
5 - 4, prohibiting remedy.

Wrong again. The 5-4 vote forced the recounts -- previously held illegal by a
7-2 vote -- to be stopped. Justices Souter and Breyer voted with the majority
that the recounts were being conducted in violation of the law; then, later
the same day, voted to allow them to continue anyway.


You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election showed
Gore lost?


You are aware, aren't you, that the circumstances
met the requirements in Florida law that permitted
recounts under both the contest and the protest
yet Bush successfully sued to stop them so that
the only recounts that were conpleted were completed
after the inauguration?

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that those recounts were being
conducted illegally.

And you are correct, those showed that Gore lost
the popular vote in Florida.

Yep.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 31, 1:45 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida law to conform
to the 14th amendment. The USSC concurred 7 - 2
that the Florida election as it then stood did not meet
the equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

That's absolute nonsense; in fact, it's the exact *opposite* of what happened.

Nonsense.


The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida election law to conform to its own
preconceived ideas of how the election "should" turn out, including (among
other things) the assertion that when the Florida legislature enacted a law
mandating certification of election results in seven days, it really "meant"
sevenTEEN.

Here you are confusing two different USSC decisions. Florida
law allowed for both a protest and a contest. I don't remember
which of these was first, but the first one was limited to 7 days.
Bush sued repeatedly to stop the counting so that it could
not be completed in the requisite 7 days.

The USSC upheld the decision to end the protest (or contest,
whichever was first) after 7 days, even though the counting
had been stopped several times during that period. The
argument for extending the deadline was based in part on the
several injunctions that had stopped the counting during the
seven day period. An analogy would be that a defendant doesn't
get to argue that he didn't receive a speedy trial if HE requested
a continuance. The argument for not extending the deadline
was that another remedy existed in Florida law--the contest.

That was the first Florida election case to reach the
USSC in 2000.

The 5-4 decision that ultimately decided the election in favor
of Bush relied (for the first time ever) on the Constitutionally
mandated voting date (so called 'safe harbor' date) of the
electoral college as its basis for enjoining further counting,
NOT any Florida law.

During both the protest and the contest the Bush team
employed the same tactic, repeatedly obtaining injunctions
to stop the counting until some deadline was reached.
'Counting' not 'recounting' because one county had a large
number of ballots that were not machine readable and were
never even examined until after the inauguration.

I say for the first time ever because the Consitution also
mandates that the newly elected Congress decides which
Electoral votes are 'regularly given'. The Congress has
twice, in 1877 and in 1961 accepted Electoral Votes
cast after the day on which the Electoral College was
supposed to meet and vote. Indeed, in 1877 the Congress
rejected votes cast ON that day.

Thus relying on the 'safe harbor' date was specious as
the Constitution allows the Congress to ignore it anyways.


The 7-2 vote by the USSC held that the recounts
as being conducted violated the law.

Yes.

In so doing they affirmed the FLSC decision
which also found that the recounts were being
conducted in violation of the law.

Specifically the equal protections clause of the
14th Amendment was being violated by only
recounting some votes in some counties
and by the use of different methods in
some counties, though some of the justices
may not have concurred on every point.




The difference wa that the USSC also issued an injunction
5 - 4, prohibiting remedy.

Wrong again. The 5-4 vote forced the recounts -- previously held illegal by a
7-2 vote -- to be stopped. Justices Souter and Breyer voted with the majority
that the recounts were being conducted in violation of the law; then, later
the same day, voted to allow them to continue anyway.

False.

Recounting votes per se did not violate the equal protection
clause. It was the manner in which the recounting (or for that
matter the first counting) was done that violated the equal
protection clause. For example, some counties used paper
ballots that were marked with a black marker and optically
scanned. Some of those 'prescanned' the ballots for the
voters to check for errors and offered the voter a second chance
if the ballot was unreadable or had other errors (e.g. over or
under votes) detected. Thus some voters had a better
chance of having their vote counted than others, violating
the equal protection clause.


You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election showed
Gore lost?

You are aware, aren't you, that the circumstances
met the requirements in Florida law that permitted
recounts under both the contest and the protest
yet Bush successfully sued to stop them so that
the only recounts that were completed were completed
after the inauguration?

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that those
recounts were being conducted illegally.


Yes, for the reasons I stated.

The 5-4 ruling prohibited any attempt to count them
in accordance with the law, by stopping them from
being counted at all.

Aside from confabulating the two cases your attempt
to spin the decision into a declaration that it was
illegal to recount ballots in a disputed election
would be remarkable had I not already become a
ccustomed to such nonsense from you.



And you are correct, those showed that Gore lost
the popular vote in Florida.

Yep.


I also have little doubt that had the situation been reversed
we would have seen essentially the same cases with
the same arguments but with Gore as plaintiff and Bush
as defendant. I am less confident, however, that the decisions
would have been the same in any of the courts.

It would have been tragic if the votes had been miscounted
so as to change the result in favor of Gore, just as it would
be for any election to be miscounted producing an incorrect
result regardless of the comparative qualities of the candidates.

The tragedy we actually endured instead was a direct result
of the will of the electorate. Consider that as VP Gore chaired
a commission on airline security that, among other things,
recommended that airliner cockpit doors be closed and locked
at takeoff and remain that way during flight other than when
authorized persons were entering an leaving cockpit. How likely
do you suppose it would have been for Gore, as President, to
have tabled a rule he himself had recommended a year before?

How likely do you think it would have been for a Gore
administration to remove bin Laden's name from the State
Department's list of international terrorists or to abandon
the attempts to kill or capture him and disband the
program to track him. Some people, of course, will say
they are 100% confident he would have done those things
or worse. Such people are the real reason he was not
elected President.

--

FF

On Mar 31, 1:28 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:
Hey, I'm just advocating an actual realistic view of where Churchill
actually fits in,

No, you are advocating the defense of Churhill's expressed ideas that are
overtly racist, cruel, stupid on their face, cowardly in their own right,
and at odds with any reasonable understanding of the facts of the matter
in question.

I am doing nothing of the sort. I don't defend him at all. I am
opposing the notion that he represents, as the poster wrongly claimed,
an increasing proportion of the Democratic Party. He does not. For you
to miss the point here tells me you're not reading for comprehension
but for defensiveness.

In other words - in true radical Left fashion - you
are defending evil. What a shock.

I did nothing of the sort. I and all Democrats I know abhor evil.

and it ain't with the main of the Democratic Party.

The debate here was about the Left, not the Democratic Party.

You are wrong. You're not reading the poster to whom I responded then.
Clearly it was about the Democratic Party and his absurd claim,
helpfully reproduced he "Sadly, an increasing proportion of the
Democratic party has been hijacked by the likes of Noam Chomsky and
Ward Churchill, so I will concede that the trend is increasingly that
Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag." That's utter nonsense.

At
the moment, your statement - as I have already stipulated - is
(barely) true.

No, it is wholly true.

But the Dems have been systematically been dragged
into the far-Left sewer, and the Chomskys and Churchills will soon
enough be speaking for the Democrat majority - well, at least their
politicians, but not necessarily their voters (yet).

Utter nonsense.

The OP didn't know what he was talking about. That was the trolling
remark.

Sadly, I know all too well what I am talking about.

That is not apparent to me given your misreading of the above.

I'm a loathe to defend the Right - they are ridiculous much of the time.
But the most Right leaning politician looks positively geniuslike by
comparison to the noise emanating from the far Left.

An indefensible position. Perhaps you just say that because you're
more inclined to sympathize with much of what the Right says aside
from the few things you might find objectionable, that you are with
the Left.

If you hate the
Right as much as you appear to, thank yourself and those like you - you
legitimized them...

No I didn't.

In article .com, wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:45 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida law to conform
to the 14th amendment. The USSC concurred 7 - 2
that the Florida election as it then stood did not meet
the equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

That's absolute nonsense; in fact, it's the exact *opposite* of what
happened.

Nonsense.

Perhaps you ought to trouble yourself to actually *read* the SCOTUS decisions;
it's clear that you have not.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote in message
snip
The tragedy we actually endured instead was a direct result
of the will of the electorate. Consider that as VP Gore chaired
a commission on airline security that, among other things,
recommended that airliner cockpit doors be closed and locked
at takeoff and remain that way during flight other than when
authorized persons were entering an leaving cockpit. How likely
do you suppose it would have been for Gore, as President, to
have tabled a rule he himself had recommended a year before?

I love discussions like this about Gore. People talk like he was some
outsider with all these great ideas. HE WAS THE FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT FOR
8 YEARS! If it was such a great idea, why didn't he get it implemented
himself?

On Mar 31, 6:32 pm, "todd" wrote:
wrote in message

snip

The tragedy we actually endured instead was a direct result
of the will of the electorate. Consider that as VP Gore chaired
a commission on airline security that, among other things,
recommended that airliner cockpit doors be closed and locked
at takeoff and remain that way during flight other than when
authorized persons were entering an leaving cockpit. How likely
do you suppose it would have been for Gore, as President, to
have tabled a rule he himself had recommended a year before?

I love discussions like this about Gore. People talk like he was some
outsider with all these great ideas. HE WAS
THE FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT FOR
8 YEARS! If it was such a great idea, why
didn't he get it implemented
himself?

As you may note upon review the commission
met late in Clinton's second term, not before
he took office, so your claim that Gore had
8 years to implement it is wrong. I may be
mistaken but I expect that the commission
was created at least partly in response to
al Queda's mass hijacking plot thwarted a bit
earlier in the Clinton Presidency and not
merely to rectify the preceding twelve
years of disregard for the issues.

Secondly, the FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT
has no authority beyond his duties as president
of the Senate. He has no authority to implement
anything.

But of course, George W Bush was THE FREAKING
PRESIDENT when the regulation was tabled, when
bin Laden's name was removed from the State
Department's list of terrorists, when the people
tasked with tracking, bin Laden and al Queda
were reassigned and when the DOJ redirected
its focus from national Security to anti-porn.

Also, thank you for confirming what I wrote earlier,
"Some people, of course, will say they are 100%
confident he would have done those things or worse.
Such people are the real reason he (Gore) was not
elected President. "

--

FF