"GregP" wrote in message
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:03:16 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

What do you think of Tedddy boy calling for a firm pullout date, even
knowing that the terroist would benefit immensely from that knowledge?
While
it is no more than political posturing in his case, it shows a reckless
disregard for those in harm's way, IMO.


Sending all those boys and girls into harm's way without
adequate personal armor, adequate vehicle armor, adequate
numbers, and adequate planning killed and maimed a hell
of a lot more of them than anything "Teddy boy" might say,

Well, in Teddy boys case it would have be "say" ... we know for a fact that
he won't _do_ anything but save himself and let someone else drown.

but fascist wannabes like you can't do anything more than
suck up to this administration.

LOL ... "fascist wannabe"? Your ability to put forth a reasonably
intelligent reply seems to have reached its upper limit, eh. GregP?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

GregP wrote in
:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:03:16 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

What do you think of Tedddy boy calling for a firm pullout date, even
knowing that the terroist would benefit immensely from that knowledge?
While it is no more than political posturing in his case, it shows a
reckless disregard for those in harm's way, IMO.


Sending all those boys and girls into harm's way without
adequate personal armor, adequate vehicle armor, adequate
numbers, and adequate planning killed and maimed a hell
of a lot more of them than anything "Teddy boy" might say,
but fascist wannabes like you can't do anything more than
suck up to this administration.


I've been having an interesting discussion with Swingman on this topic and
did not consider his viewpoint to be that of a "fascist wannabe."

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

....
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.

Define "American ideals", please. Those of our forefathers or those
of the current regime, or those of the American public? They're VASTLY
different, and I have no doubt that the former are spinning wildly in
their graves at the moment from the current regime's antics. We're
in a ****LOAD of trouble if you guys don't realize that.

Founding fathers IMHO. Others may differ. I agree they are probably
spinning.

....
I agree that the press is not doing as good a job as it ought to. It's
not asking the critical questions, it's sloppy, it's partisan. It
accepts dodges and nonanswers from our politicians. It's even being
bribed by our politicians. But for all its many faults, it's still part
of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks and
balances.

Is that any reason NOT to fix any of the broken systems in the
country? Our justice system is horribly broken, allowing stupid
lawsuits to ruin it in the name of money. Politicians are bribed,
media folks are bribed, prison guards are bribed, murders are let
out early while rec drug users rot in prison. Martha goes to prison
while O.J. stays out?
....

No reason not to fix them. I think America's a great country. We can
afford to recognize our faults as well as our virtues, and always try to do
better.

"Swingman" wrote in
:

....
The net effect is two "extreme" viewpoints, as we now see on talk
radio and much of the print media, and very little of the moderate
discussion that followed in the wake of multiple sources of news in a
region (ie. the three newspapers in a town, versus one). This state of
affairs is even more obvious if you can remember the relatively more
moderate political atmosphere between WWII, Korea and the Vietnam War.


I think the media are finding that they can get ratings by catering to and
cultivating the extremes. For the most part, I think their actions can be
explained by simple greed for ratings. They basically slant the news so as
to tell their viewers what the viewers want to hear.

It's interesting to watch the news as presented on the BBC World News or on
SCOLA. Frequently a different take than our media.

I am too young to remember WWII or Korea (I was born three months after
Kennedy was assasinated). But I am pretty sure that in today's polarized
environment a really good moderate president (say Eisenhower IMHO) could
never be elected.

Swingman wrote:

"Kevin" wrote in message

Swingman wrote:


wrote in message



Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.


.... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.


.... and anybody who doesn't is in denial.


Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial" of
what?

As I understand the OP, he believes the gov't/military decided it is
cheaper to replace personnel than purchase proper equipment.

As I understand your reply, you believe this is the product of a warped
mind, and you do not believe our gov't/military could or would make such
a decision.

Somewhere in this thread was mentioned the augmentation seen on Shermans
in WWII, almost as justification for the inadequately prepared Humvees.
That augmentation was needed because then, as now, the higher ups
refused to prepare for the inevitable and sent woefully under-armed and
under-armored tanks against the fearsome 88mm gun and thick armor the
Germans deployed. The Brits called the Sherman the "Tommy-toaster".

The Sherman only prevailed by virtue of quantity, not quality. In other
words: our side could afford to fill more body than their side.

Have you never heard the infantry referred to as "Mk I, Mod I Bullet
Catchers"?

Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.

Swingman wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message


Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.


The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ... quit your
whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

Actually, in terms of total eligible voters, only about a third of the
people voted for Bush II. Guess Fox didn't carry that tidbit.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:34:03 -0500, Robatoy wrote:

.... snip

How about that hockey strike, eh?


So, has anybody missed hockey this season?

Hockey?

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:55:22 GMT, Kevin wrote:

Swingman wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message


Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.


The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ... quit your
whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

Actually, in terms of total eligible voters, only about a third of the
people voted for Bush II. Guess Fox didn't carry that tidbit.

... and in terms of eligible voters, those who did not vote also made a
decision -- to let the rest of the voters make the choice for them, thus,
the OP's comment is still correct, the American people made a decision, the
election is over. get over it.




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

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

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

Ya know, last I looked the 57 million who voted against Bush were
Americans too.

One tally shows him winning by 3 milliion votes.
Outta 120 million.

And he has the disctinction of having the highest percentage of votes
cast against a sitting President in history. Not to mention a war
pres.

And on, and on.

Seems like you mandate folks outta go look up the definition of said
word.

Renata

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:36:08 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.

The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ... quit your
whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

"Kevin" wrote in message
om...
Swingman wrote:

"Kevin" wrote in message

Swingman wrote:


wrote in message



Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.


.... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.


.... and anybody who doesn't is in denial.


Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial"
of
what?

As I understand the OP, he believes the gov't/military decided it is
cheaper to replace personnel than purchase proper equipment.

As I understand your reply, you believe this is the product of a warped
mind, and you do not believe our gov't/military could or would make such
a decision.

Somewhere in this thread was mentioned the augmentation seen on Shermans
in WWII, almost as justification for the inadequately prepared Humvees.
That augmentation was needed because then, as now, the higher ups
refused to prepare for the inevitable and sent woefully under-armed and
under-armored tanks against the fearsome 88mm gun and thick armor the
Germans deployed. The Brits called the Sherman the "Tommy-toaster".

The Sherman only prevailed by virtue of quantity, not quality. In other
words: our side could afford to fill more body than their side.

Have you never heard the infantry referred to as "Mk I, Mod I Bullet
Catchers"?

Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.



How do we know what's "best," so we can buy it, and not waste time and money
on intermediate products?

How do we fight the next war when we only know the last?

More to the point, how can we plan or purchase anything military without the
press and Senator Lenin telling us we don't need it at all?

BTW, it wasn't just the Sherman which was vulnerable. One of my old Soviet
tactics instructors fought at Kursk in the T34, and had nothing but respect
for what an 88 could do to _any_ tank.

"Kevin" wrote in message

Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.

snip of mixed metaphors and faulty logic

Ergo? ... more like "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:18:30 -0500, Renata wrote:

Ya know, last I looked the 57 million who voted against Bush were
Americans too.

Yet a few of them don't act like it as they are unable to accept the
results of the election process.

One tally shows him winning by 3 milliion votes. Outta 120 million.

Closer to 4 million.


And he has the disctinction of having the highest percentage of votes
cast against a sitting President in history. Not to mention a war pres.

Making false statements won't justify your inability to accept the
outcome. Unlike his predecessor who had over 50% of the voters vote
against him in both of his victories, at least Bush had less than 50% vote
against him in his re-election.


And on, and on.

What? More inaccuries?


Seems like you mandate folks outta go look up the definition of said
word.

mandate: A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to
its representative.

Yup, that's what any elected president gets.

Since the previous president claimed a mandate with less than 50% of
the vote, wouldn't you think that more than 50% of the vote is even more
of a mandate?

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:09:46 -0700, the inscrutable Mark & Juanita
spake:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:55:22 GMT, Kevin wrote:

Swingman wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message


Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.


The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ... quit your
whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

Actually, in terms of total eligible voters, only about a third of the
people voted for Bush II. Guess Fox didn't carry that tidbit.

... and in terms of eligible voters, those who did not vote also made a
decision -- to let the rest of the voters make the choice for them, thus,
the OP's comment is still correct, the American people made a decision,

The fate of the entire world has been determined by non-voters and
gullibles. Ironic, isn't it? I should have said "tragic."


the election is over. get over it.

I'll get over it when the global threats he has caused are gone, Mark,
and not before. The world (including America) has become a less-safe
place since GWB has been in office. Many Americans, myself included,
are not too happy about that. I used to _believe_in_ the President of
the United States. I love my country and will not sit quietly by while
it gets trashed by an avaricious mob in D.C.

Oh, I changed the topic to OT while I was replying.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Never put off 'til tomorrow | http://www.diversify.com
what you can avoid altogether. | Dynamic Website Applications
---------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin wrote:

Swingman wrote:

"Kevin" wrote in message

Swingman wrote:


wrote in message



Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.


.... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.


.... and anybody who doesn't is in denial.


Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial"
of what?

As I understand the OP, he believes the gov't/military decided it is
cheaper to replace personnel than purchase proper equipment.

Well, he can believe that, but I suspect that the real story is that the
Humvee is the replacement for the Jeep and nobody expected them to need to
be armored anymore than the Jeep was armored. Now it turns out that
they're enough more capable than the Jeep that they're being used in ways
that the designers never expected and it turns out that they _do_ need
armor, but actually getting it in place is not going to be something that
is going overnight.

As I understand your reply, you believe this is the product of a warped
mind, and you do not believe our gov't/military could or would make such
a decision.

While it is conceivable they could or would, it seems unlikely that that is
the case in this instance. "Armor the Humvees" will be a lesson for the
next round of procurement, meanwhile retrofitting armor in any systematic
way is going to take time. First somebody has to decide just how good the
armor should be, then issue RFPs, somebody has to produce a prototype, they
have to test it (and they'll find out either that it's not good enough to
provide adequate protection or that it's too heavy for the running gear and
causes breakdowns or that when they have real soldiers try to field install
it too many problems arise or something else major will be wrong with it)
and so there will be another round or two while they fix the design, then
the manufacturer has to tool up for production then it gets delivered. And
all of this has to be approved by Congress first, which usually means a
year or so of lead time during the budget negotiations. I've been inside
this process (and totally frustrated by the delays over which I had no
control) and it sucks but it's the way it is and so far nobody has been
able to come up with a way to shortcut it that doesn't result in even more
massive waste than the current system.

Somewhere in this thread was mentioned the augmentation seen on Shermans
in WWII, almost as justification for the inadequately prepared Humvees.
That augmentation was needed because then, as now, the higher ups
refused to prepare for the inevitable and sent woefully under-armed and
under-armored tanks against the fearsome 88mm gun and thick armor the
Germans deployed. The Brits called the Sherman the "Tommy-toaster".

Uh, were the "higher ups" _aware_ that the 88mm antiaircraft gun could be
used in a dual role? Did it even _exist_ when the contract for the Sherman
was let? Bear in mind that the Sherman was a _vastly_ better tank than
anything that the Germans took into Poland or France--for that matter the
French Char-B was better than the German tanks during the invasion of
France. Are you suggesting that when it was determined the hard way that
the Sherman was inadequate that production should have been halted while
they waited for a new design? So that instead of fighting the Germans with
crappy tanks our guys would have been fighting them with _no_ tanks? If
not, what _do_ you think should have been done but was not that was
technologically feasible without a ground up redesign? And could that
change have been gotten from concept to field delivery in less time that a
new tank design?

Note by the way, that the US was not the only outfit that found that their
tanks needed more armor--look at some of the German field
expedients--concrete poured over the steel for example.

The Sherman only prevailed by virtue of quantity, not quality. In other
words: our side could afford to fill more body than their side.

Uh, as far as body count goes, consider that unlike the US, the Russians had
the best bloody tank in the whole bloody _world_, and look at _their_
losses. There is more to success on the battlefield than quantity or
superiority of hardware. If that were not the case the Germans would have
hit the Maginot Line and bounced.

Have you never heard the infantry referred to as "Mk I, Mod I Bullet
Catchers"?

Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.

I maintain that you are ignorant of the realities of engineering design,
production leadtimes, and military procurement.

Note that the Sherman lesson _was_ learned--I've seen no complaints about
the adequacy of the armor on the Abrams. And the Humvee lesson will be
learned too.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Renata wrote:
: Ya know, last I looked the 57 million who voted against Bush were
: Americans too.


No they weren't! They were colluders with the enemy, however
GWB and Cheney define that!

: One tally shows him winning by 3 milliion votes.
: Outta 120 million.


An absolute MANDATE!


: And he has the disctinction of having the highest percentage of votes
: cast against a sitting President in history.


He is MUCH better than that! He had the largest number of votes cast
against him of any elected president in US history! Go, W! Yay! You are
indeed DUH MAN!!!!


Right, Doug and Mark?



-- Andy Barss

Doug Winterburn wrote:

: Making false statements won't justify your inability to accept the
: outcome. Unlike his predecessor who had over 50% of the voters vote
: against him in both of his victories, at least Bush had less than 50% vote
: against him in his re-election.

Out of everyone who cared to vote, Clinton won.

Out of everyone who cared to vote, Bush II won by the slimmest margin in
recent history.

Yeah, he has a mandate all right.

One to pay attention to everyone, not just the *very* slim majority that
elected him, and/or the Protestant religious fanatics.

-- Andy Barss

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:25:19 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:09:46 -0700, the inscrutable Mark & Juanita
spake:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:55:22 GMT, Kevin wrote:

Swingman wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message


Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.


The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ... quit your
whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

Actually, in terms of total eligible voters, only about a third of the
people voted for Bush II. Guess Fox didn't carry that tidbit.

... and in terms of eligible voters, those who did not vote also made a
decision -- to let the rest of the voters make the choice for them, thus,
the OP's comment is still correct, the American people made a decision,

The fate of the entire world has been determined by non-voters and
gullibles. Ironic, isn't it? I should have said "tragic."



So, since the vote didn't agree with your viewpoint, those who didn't
agree couldn't have reached the conclusion they did through logical or
rational thought, could they? It isn't possible that through reasonable
deduction, they decided that "peace through strength" might be a reasonable
route to sending a message to future would-be attackers. Nope, they had to
have been gullible and deluded.


the election is over. get over it.

I'll get over it when the global threats he has caused are gone, Mark,
and not before. The world (including America) has become a less-safe
place since GWB has been in office. Many Americans, myself included,
are not too happy about that. I used to _believe_in_ the President of
the United States. I love my country and will not sit quietly by while
it gets trashed by an avaricious mob in D.C.


The global threats *he* caused? He'd barely been in office 9 months when
the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor was launched against us.
The training camps in Afghanistan had been in operation for years before he
took office. Homicide bombers were launching attacks on Israel long before
Bush was in office. Enron and the MCI debacle were hatching well before
the election of 2000, so the accusation of "avaricious mob" hardly seems to
carry much weight when applied to the present administration. The first
attack on the WTC happened during the previous administration, the debacle
in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole -- appeasement and ignoring the
situation sure wasn't working and wasn't making the world any safer.



Oh, I changed the topic to OT while I was replying.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Never put off 'til tomorrow | http://www.diversify.com
what you can avoid altogether. | Dynamic Website Applications
---------------------------------------------------------------



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

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

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

Out of everyone who cared to vote, Clinton won.


57% of the people who cared to vote in 92 voted against Clinton. 52% voted
against hiim in 96.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:31:47 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote:

: Making false statements won't justify your inability to accept the
: outcome. Unlike his predecessor who had over 50% of the voters vote
: against him in both of his victories, at least Bush had less than 50%
: vote against him in his re-election.

Out of everyone who cared to vote, Clinton won.

Out of everyone who cared to vote, Bush II won by the slimmest margin in
recent history.

Yeah, he has a mandate all right.

Andy, Andy, Andy! And we pay _you_ to "educate" out children? What a
waste of our taxpayers dollars :-(


One to pay attention to everyone, not just the *very* slim majority that
elected him, and/or the Protestant religious fanatics.

-- Andy Barss

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

Doug Winterburn wrote:


And he has the disctinction of having the highest percentage of votes
cast against a sitting President in history. Not to mention a war pres.


Making false statements won't justify your inability to accept the
outcome. Unlike his predecessor who had over 50% of the voters vote
against him in both of his victories, at least Bush had less than 50% vote
against him in his re-election.

To give the benefit of the doubt, he used the wrong term. Bush II
obviously did not have the largest "percentage" cast against him. What
he DID have was the largest actual number of votes cast against a
sitting Pres.

Another fact not likely to have appeared on Fox.

Doug Winterburn wrote:

mandate: A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to
its representative.

Yup, that's what any elected president gets.

Correct strictly as dictionary definition. In the political arena
however, a mandate refers to a sizable margin of victory. Although of
late mouthpieces of both parties have been using the term regardless
despite slim victories.

"Kevin" wrote in message
.. .
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Making false statements won't justify your inability to accept the
outcome. Unlike his predecessor who had over 50% of the voters vote
against him in both of his victories, at least Bush had less than 50%
vote
against him in his re-election.

To give the benefit of the doubt, he used the wrong term. Bush II
obviously did not have the largest "percentage" cast against him. What
he DID have was the largest actual number of votes cast against a
sitting Pres.

Another fact not likely to have appeared on Fox.

Nor the other damned lie (statistic) on the other networks.

In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian - nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.

Hope for greater understanding no longer lies in schools, as evidenced by
recent events, because they're more concerned with orthodoxy than education.

In article , "George" george@least wrote:

"Kevin" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Making false statements won't justify your inability to accept the
outcome. Unlike his predecessor who had over 50% of the voters vote
against him in both of his victories, at least Bush had less than 50%
vote
against him in his re-election.

To give the benefit of the doubt, he used the wrong term. Bush II
obviously did not have the largest "percentage" cast against him. What
he DID have was the largest actual number of votes cast against a
sitting Pres.

Another fact not likely to have appeared on Fox.

He also had the largest actual number of votes cast *for* a sitting President,
or for any other candidate. [With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan in
1984; I'm not sure of the exact numbers.]

Neither fact should come as much of a surprise to any thinking individual,
given that this election had a higher number of voters than any previous
Presidential election.

Nor should *that* surprise anyone, as the U.S. population is higher now than
at any previous time.

Nor the other damned lie (statistic) on the other networks.

In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian - nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.

Hope for greater understanding no longer lies in schools, as evidenced by
recent events, because they're more concerned with orthodoxy than education.

Sad but true. Of course, there are always private schools.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:35:26 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:18:30 -0500, Renata wrote:

Ya know, last I looked the 57 million who voted against Bush were
Americans too.

Yet a few of them don't act like it as they are unable to accept the
results of the election process.

One tally shows him winning by 3 milliion votes. Outta 120 million.

Closer to 4 million.


My heavens! Now he's up from 1/4 of 1% to 1/3 of 1% !
An overwhelming amount of support if I ever did see one! Yupper!
Gotta grasp those straws where one can.

-snip-

- Doug

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:25:19 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:09:46 -0700, the inscrutable Mark & Juanita
spake:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:55:22 GMT, Kevin wrote:

Swingman wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message


Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.


The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ... quit your
whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

Actually, in terms of total eligible voters, only about a third of the
people voted for Bush II. Guess Fox didn't carry that tidbit.

... and in terms of eligible voters, those who did not vote also made a
decision -- to let the rest of the voters make the choice for them, thus,
the OP's comment is still correct, the American people made a decision,

The fate of the entire world has been determined by non-voters and
gullibles. Ironic, isn't it? I should have said "tragic."


the election is over. get over it.

I'll get over it when the global threats he has caused are gone, Mark,
and not before. The world (including America) has become a less-safe
place since GWB has been in office. Many Americans, myself included,
are not too happy about that. I used to _believe_in_ the President of
the United States. I love my country and will not sit quietly by while
it gets trashed by an avaricious mob in D.C.

Oh, I changed the topic to OT while I was replying.



get it down to basics... the guy you wanted lost.... some other guy
won...
maybe it was your fault for not being active enough in getting votes
for your guy, maybe it's just karma..

you now have 3 years to gear up for getting your choice in, go for
it...
but also admit that however it happened and whoever won, he's the
President... and you can either work toward being positive and
lobbying for what you want done, or be an anchor... YMMV


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

In article , Renata wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:35:26 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:18:30 -0500, Renata wrote:
Ya know, last I looked the 57 million who voted against Bush were
Americans too.

Yet a few of them don't act like it as they are unable to accept the
results of the election process.

One tally shows him winning by 3 milliion votes. Outta 120 million.

Closer to 4 million.

My heavens! Now he's up from 1/4 of 1% to 1/3 of 1% !
An overwhelming amount of support if I ever did see one! Yupper!
Gotta grasp those straws where one can.

Let me guess: math wasn't your best subject in school, was it?

Hint: one percent of 120 is one-point-two.

For the record, here are the actual figures:
Bush 60,608,582 (51.231%)
Kerry 57,288,974 (48.425%)
Nader 406,924 (0.344%)
[Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...lts/president/ ]

The difference is 3,319,608 votes out of 118,204,480 cast, or 2.806%.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Kevin wrote in
:

Doug Winterburn wrote:

mandate: A command or an authorization given by a political
electorate to its representative.

Yup, that's what any elected president gets.

Correct strictly as dictionary definition. In the political arena
however, a mandate refers to a sizable margin of victory. Although of
late mouthpieces of both parties have been using the term regardless
despite slim victories.


Number of votes or percentages be damned. The fact is W is sitting in the
oval office. It doesn't matter now if you or I voted for him, against him
or didn't vote at all. He is THE president. He is MY president. Flame at
will Oh ye of small minds.......

Coth

mac davis wrote in
:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:25:19 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:09:46 -0700, the inscrutable Mark & Juanita
spake:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:55:22 GMT, Kevin
wrote:

Swingman wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message


Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.


The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ...
quit your whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

Actually, in terms of total eligible voters, only about a third of
the people voted for Bush II. Guess Fox didn't carry that tidbit.

... and in terms of eligible voters, those who did not vote also
made a
decision -- to let the rest of the voters make the choice for them,
thus, the OP's comment is still correct, the American people made a
decision,

The fate of the entire world has been determined by non-voters and
gullibles. Ironic, isn't it? I should have said "tragic."


the election is over. get over it.

I'll get over it when the global threats he has caused are gone, Mark,
and not before. The world (including America) has become a less-safe
place since GWB has been in office. Many Americans, myself included,
are not too happy about that. I used to _believe_in_ the President of
the United States. I love my country and will not sit quietly by while
it gets trashed by an avaricious mob in D.C.

Oh, I changed the topic to OT while I was replying.



get it down to basics... the guy you wanted lost.... some other guy
won...
maybe it was your fault for not being active enough in getting votes
for your guy, maybe it's just karma..

you now have 3 years to gear up for getting your choice in, go for
it...
but also admit that however it happened and whoever won, he's the
President... and you can either work toward being positive and
lobbying for what you want done, or be an anchor... YMMV


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing


Amen, Brother Davis

Cothian writes:

Correct strictly as dictionary definition. In the political arena
however, a mandate refers to a sizable margin of victory. Although of
late mouthpieces of both parties have been using the term regardless
despite slim victories.


Number of votes or percentages be damned. The fact is W is sitting in the
oval office. It doesn't matter now if you or I voted for him, against him
or didn't vote at all. He is THE president. He is MY president. Flame at
will Oh ye of small minds......

Well, sure. He is. That is somewhat similar to my ingrown toenail. I didn't
want that, either.

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

In article ,
says...
So, since the vote didn't agree with your viewpoint, those who didn't
agree couldn't have reached the conclusion they did through logical or
rational thought, could they?


I don't think there were many rational voters on either side :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:24:38 -0800, the inscrutable mac davis
spake:

get it down to basics... the guy you wanted lost.... some other guy
won...

I didn't want either top contender. I voted Libertarian.


maybe it was your fault for not being active enough in getting votes
for your guy, maybe it's just karma..

Yabbut this crazy f*ck is going to get all of us killed.


you now have 3 years to gear up for getting your choice in, go for
it...

We may not -have- that long.


but also admit that however it happened and whoever won, he's the
President... and you can either work toward being positive and
lobbying for what you want done, or be an anchor... YMMV

You bet your ass I'm working for a positive change.


--
The clear and present danger of top-posting explored at:
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html
------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Premium Website Development

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:54:22 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:35:26 -0700, Doug Winterburn
-snip-
One tally shows him winning by 3 milliion votes. Outta 120 million.

Closer to 4 million.

My heavens! Now he's up from 1/4 of 1% to 1/3 of 1% !
An overwhelming amount of support if I ever did see one! Yupper!
Gotta grasp those straws where one can.

Let me guess: math wasn't your best subject in school, was it?

Hint: one percent of 120 is one-point-two.

For the record, here are the actual figures:
Bush 60,608,582 (51.231%)
Kerry 57,288,974 (48.425%)
Nader 406,924 (0.344%)
[Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...lts/president/ ]


The problem here is that the prez and the rest of y'all have decided
that you'll just ignore the nearly equal number of Americans who voted
against the guy. And, that a lot of folks voted for him because they
were scairt.

The difference is 3,319,608 votes out of 118,204,480 cast, or 2.806%.

Yes, I threw in an extra zero.

But this seems to be the SOP. 3% margin dictates a mandate; a couple
ancient shells indicates massive stockpiles of WMD; well, you get the
idea.

Renata

In article , Renata wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:54:22 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:35:26 -0700, Doug Winterburn
-snip-
One tally shows him winning by 3 milliion votes. Outta 120 million.

Closer to 4 million.

My heavens! Now he's up from 1/4 of 1% to 1/3 of 1% !
An overwhelming amount of support if I ever did see one! Yupper!
Gotta grasp those straws where one can.

Let me guess: math wasn't your best subject in school, was it?

Hint: one percent of 120 is one-point-two.

For the record, here are the actual figures:
Bush 60,608,582 (51.231%)
Kerry 57,288,974 (48.425%)
Nader 406,924 (0.344%)
[Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...lts/president/ ]


The problem here is that the prez and the rest of y'all have decided
that you'll just ignore the nearly equal number of Americans who voted
against the guy. And, that a lot of folks voted for him because they
were scairt.

I like the way you just gloss right over the figures in your snide remark
being off by _an_order_of_magnitude_.

No, Renata, the real problem here is that some people just can't get over the
fact that their guy _lost_. Are you one of the folks I read about in the paper
who's seeking therapy for Post Election Stress Trauma or whatever?

The difference is 3,319,608 votes out of 118,204,480 cast, or 2.806%.

Yes, I threw in an extra zero.

No, you left one out.

But this seems to be the SOP. 3% margin dictates a mandate; a couple
ancient shells indicates massive stockpiles of WMD; well, you get the
idea.

You didn't have any problem with Clinton winning two elections in a row with
less than a majority of the popular vote, did you?

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Doug Miller notes:


You didn't have any problem with Clinton winning two elections in a row with
less than a majority of the popular vote, did you?


Nope. And I don't have a problem with Shrub winning twice in a row, but that
doesn't change my opinion about him. He's a duplicitous twerp who is going to
do major damage to the economic structure of this country, beyond what he has
already done.

The fact that 51% of the voting public disagrees with me still doesn't change
my opinion, so you neocons will need to get over that.

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

. He's a duplicitous twerp who is going to
do major damage to the economic structure of this country, beyond what he
has
already done.


Without intending, note that you've just basically described every sitting
member of congress. Bush, or Clinton for that matter, couldn't succeed in
"duplicity" without the _complicity_ of the power hungry and greedy
*******s, of both parties, supposedly representing the people.

Lawmaker lawyers and lobbyist - a pox on good government, and cancers on the
body politic.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Swingman responds:


"Charlie Self" wrote in message

. He's a duplicitous twerp who is going to
do major damage to the economic structure of this country, beyond what he
has
already done.


Without intending, note that you've just basically described every sitting
member of congress. Bush, or Clinton for that matter, couldn't succeed in
"duplicity" without the _complicity_ of the power hungry and greedy
*******s, of both parties, supposedly representing the people.

Lawmaker lawyers and lobbyist - a pox on good government, and cancers on the
body politic.

Not unintentional. I just believe Bush is slightly more of a twerp than most of
the others.

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

Charlie Self wrote:

Doug Miller notes:


You didn't have any problem with Clinton winning two elections in a row
with less than a majority of the popular vote, did you?


Nope. And I don't have a problem with Shrub winning twice in a row, but
that doesn't change my opinion about him. He's a duplicitous twerp who is
going to do major damage to the economic structure of this country, beyond
what he has already done.

The fact that 51% of the voting public disagrees with me still doesn't
change my opinion, so you neocons will need to get over that.

Charlie, I'm a lifelong Republican and I agree with you about Bush. The
trouble is that Kerry looked to be different from Bush only in the line of
bull**** he was spouting, so I decided to stick with the devil I knew
rather than the one that I didn't.

I never thought I'd see anybody manage to make Clinton look good but Shrub
is getting there.

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Charlie Self wrote:

Cothian writes:

Correct strictly as dictionary definition. In the political arena
however, a mandate refers to a sizable margin of victory. Although of
late mouthpieces of both parties have been using the term regardless
despite slim victories.


Number of votes or percentages be damned. The fact is W is sitting in the
oval office. It doesn't matter now if you or I voted for him, against him
or didn't vote at all. He is THE president. He is MY president. Flame at
will Oh ye of small minds......

Well, sure. He is. That is somewhat similar to my ingrown toenail. I
didn't want that, either.

Personally right now I'd feel a lot better if FDR was sitting in that chair
instead of Shrub. But I suspect that Shrub, if you asked him when he had
enough liquor in him to give an honest answer, probably would say the same
thing.

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 04 Feb 2005 13:24:12 GMT, the inscrutable
otforme (Charlie Self) spake:

Doug Miller notes:


You didn't have any problem with Clinton winning two elections in a row with
less than a majority of the popular vote, did you?


Nope. And I don't have a problem with Shrub winning twice in a row,

Nope our bone to pick is with the American Sheeple who voted that way.
Not that Kerry of Taxachusetts would have been much better, but his
bad ways surely would have been less detrimental to the health of the
US citizenry than what the Shrub looks to pull in the immediate
future.


but that
doesn't change my opinion about him. He's a duplicitous twerp who is going to
do major damage to the economic structure of this country, beyond what he has
already done.

Not to mention that if he goes into yet another Muslim country, he
will surely create the critical mass that will spark their global
(and unified) PHYSICAL rebellion against us. It's all just hatred now.
Wait until a large percentage of their 1.3 BILLION take up arms
against us. I, for one, don't ever want to see that happen.


The fact that 51% of the voting public disagrees with me still doesn't change
my opinion, so you neocons will need to get over that.

A non-religious AMEN to that, Charlie.


--
The clear and present danger of top-posting explored at:
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html
------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Premium Website Development

J. Clarke writes:


Personally right now I'd feel a lot better if FDR was sitting in that chair
instead of Shrub. But I suspect that Shrub, if you asked him when he had
enough liquor in him to give an honest answer, probably would say the same
thing.

You're making an assumption that may be unwarranted: that Shrub has enough
self-knowledge to admit someone else might do a better job than he can do.

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush