"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Schmall"
> > Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
>
>
> I did it four times this morning already. I'm gettin' the
> hang of it!
>
>
Voting machines in Philadelphia were found to have had over 2000 votes recorded BEFORE the polls opened. It was spotted by poll
workers. No word are to who was leading in the pre-election vote count.
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > No word are to who was leading in the pre-election vote count.
>
> You think someone will be elected this time around?
>
>
Why not? It happens every 4 years. (Are you implying that you still haven't gotten over Gore's defeat?)
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
I did. 40 or so people ahead of me when normally there are two or
three. Dingy local lady voted right before I did. I enjoyed zeroing
out her vote when it was my turn. Since Mom voted, I figure we are up
by one. :)
Let us hope no State is close to dead even. I want Kerry to win big
or Bush to win big in each State they take so we don't have the
Florida thing again. When we have a clear cut election the other side
takes stock of their message and actions and formulates a better
(hopefully) plan for the next time. When it is too close, people just
get mad and that doesn't get us anywhere.
At this point the current administration looks like it gets an
additional 4 years. The onus is on them, they have to show results or
the other side will get a shot. That is the beauty of our system.
Democracy in action.
Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
"James T. Kirby"
> Leon wrote:
> > "mac davis"
> >
> >>
> >>I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
> >
> >
> > You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now lay
> > in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
> >
> >
> I'm happy with my vote. It's the other 51%(or whatever it was) I'm not happy
> with. Just what were they thinking?
They were thinking you're out of touch. Imagine
what the percentage would have been if the
media hadn't been hammering Bush for so hard
and long.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:44:50 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:09:07 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> True. I just wish our fearful leader believed that and stopped POKING
>>> the millions of Muslims out there. They're going to be stopping by here
>>> shortly and laying far too many of our people to rest, ALL because our
>>> "leaders" wouldn't listen. I've been reading "Imperial Hubris" and the
>>> author studied bin Laden, stating that the man keeps his word. bL says
>>> "Don't mess with us and we won't mess with you." but Shrub still goes
>>> after the Islamic territories. They won't be bombing other places any
>>> longer. Shrub is bringing it home to us, darnit. I, for one, can't
>>> forgive that kind of arrogance and stupidity. But I've never voted for
>>> him, either. Ready for the impeachment? <grumble>
>>
>>Since you're so willing to take UBL at his word, I'm sure you're aware
>>that when asked what it'd take to get him to stop attacking us, he replied
>>"when you are all dead or converted to Islam". So, if he's to be
>
> Cite the source document, please. Only the Saudi interpretation of
> Islam is incompatible with "infidels". The rest are mellow folks.
> (Like most Christians aren't rabid Jesus freak fundies.)
Earth to Larry, Osama Bin Laden _is_ Saudi, and his interpretation of Islam
is loony even by their standards, which is one of the reasons that his
family long since disowned him.
>>believed, us running home and cowering with our tail between our legs
>>won't deter him. He doesn't hate us for what we've done - he wants to
>>murder us because of who we are - infidels. I'd be a little more
>>concerned about UBL forcing his beliefs on you rather thn GWB.
>
> No, Doug. That's mythology. Most Muslims, including UBM,
Who is "UBM"?
> don't hate
> us for who we are or what we think.
This is true. Most of them don't hate us at all. Most of them just want to
be left the Hell alone, just like the rest of us.
> They hate us for what we are
> -doing- in their world to their religion and their people.
No, they don't hate us at all. Osama Bin Laden and company are not "most
Muslims" and do not speak for "most Muslims". And they don't hate the US
either. They just want to spread their particular loony-tune
interpretation of Islam across the world and they don't care who gets hurt
while they do it.
> Note the
> difference. They get along fine with non-Muslim countries who aren't
> setting their oil prices and invading their countries to put military
> bases there. Pick up a copy of "Imperial Hubris". It's truly an
> eye-opener.
So be kind enough to explain why Al Qaeda is blowing up Buddhist temples and
killing other Muslims. What did the Buddhists do to them?
Larry, don't take this the wrong way, but you don't have a clue what you're
talking about. "If you don't bother them they won't bother you" doesn't
work with bullies, and that is exactly what Osama and company are.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:32:26 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>
> >>Since you're so willing to take UBL at his word, I'm sure you're aware
> >>that when asked what it'd take to get him to stop attacking us, he
> >>replied "when you are all dead or converted to Islam". So, if he's to be
> >
> > Cite the source document, please. Only the Saudi interpretation of Islam
> > is incompatible with "infidels". The rest are mellow folks. (Like most
> > Christians aren't rabid Jesus freak fundies.)
>
> This one states it pretty well:
>
> <http://www.stonebriarchurch.org/jihad_-_a_holy_war.htm>
> ...
> <http://www.culteducation.com/binladen.html>
><http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html>
The quote "when you are all dead or converted to Islam" does not
appear on any of those webpages, nor do I see anything that could
reasonable be considered a paraphrasal of that.
Care to try again?
--
FF
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:44:50 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:09:07 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> True. I just wish our fearful leader believed that and stopped POKING the
>> millions of Muslims out there. They're going to be stopping by here
>> shortly and laying far too many of our people to rest, ALL because our
>> "leaders" wouldn't listen. I've been reading "Imperial Hubris" and the
>> author studied bin Laden, stating that the man keeps his word. bL says
>> "Don't mess with us and we won't mess with you." but Shrub still goes
>> after the Islamic territories. They won't be bombing other places any
>> longer. Shrub is bringing it home to us, darnit. I, for one, can't forgive
>> that kind of arrogance and stupidity. But I've never voted for him,
>> either. Ready for the impeachment? <grumble>
>
>Since you're so willing to take UBL at his word, I'm sure you're aware
>that when asked what it'd take to get him to stop attacking us, he replied
>"when you are all dead or converted to Islam". So, if he's to be
Cite the source document, please. Only the Saudi interpretation of
Islam is incompatible with "infidels". The rest are mellow folks.
(Like most Christians aren't rabid Jesus freak fundies.)
>believed, us running home and cowering with our tail between our legs
>won't deter him. He doesn't hate us for what we've done - he wants to
>murder us because of who we are - infidels. I'd be a little more
>concerned about UBL forcing his beliefs on you rather thn GWB.
No, Doug. That's mythology. Most Muslims, including UBM, don't hate
us for who we are or what we think. They hate us for what we are
-doing- in their world to their religion and their people. Note the
difference. They get along fine with non-Muslim countries who aren't
setting their oil prices and invading their countries to put military
bases there. Pick up a copy of "Imperial Hubris". It's truly an
eye-opener.
--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:32:26 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>Since you're so willing to take UBL at his word, I'm sure you're aware
>>that when asked what it'd take to get him to stop attacking us, he
>>replied "when you are all dead or converted to Islam". So, if he's to be
>
> Cite the source document, please. Only the Saudi interpretation of Islam
> is incompatible with "infidels". The rest are mellow folks. (Like most
> Christians aren't rabid Jesus freak fundies.)
This one states it pretty well:
<http://www.stonebriarchurch.org/jihad_-_a_holy_war.htm>
And since you're into blogs as valid sources:
<http://www.culteducation.com/binladen.html>
<http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html>
By mellow, do you mean those sweet little Palastinian mamas yodelling (or
whatever that yiyiyiyiyiyi.. thing is) in glee at the news of thousands of
American civilians being murdered on 9/11/2001? I don't need a cite for
this as I watched it in disbelief and horror. Will the real mellow
Muslims please stand up? Again, Larry - even if no US citizen ever leaves
American shores again, the Islamic terrorists will come here to murder us
into conversion to Islam. And again, it isn't because of anything we have
done - it's because of who we are - infidels.
-Doug
"Prometheus"
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
>
> >
> >"James T. Kirby"
> >> Leon wrote:
> >> > "mac davis"
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now lay
> >> > in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I'm happy with my vote. It's the other 51%(or whatever it was) I'm not happy
> >> with. Just what were they thinking?
> >
> >
> >They were thinking you're out of touch. Imagine
> >what the percentage would have been if the
> >media hadn't been hammering Bush for so hard
> >and long.
>
> 49% of the population is "out-of-touch"? With what, asshole?
Assholebreath, he is only one person, not 49% of the population.
Go back to your usual activity please.
rschmall writes:
>Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
Already did, about 45 minutes ago.
Evidently, a lot of people around here heard you! At 8:45 a.m., we were told
that 75 of the usual number of voters had already voted. Those in line behind
us will bring it right close to 100%, so there is sure to be some gain, which
is way on the good side, no matter who wins.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:55:05 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:28:58 -0800, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:21:44 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> calmly
>>ranted:
>>
>>>
>>>> 49% of the population is "out-of-touch"? With what, asshole?
>>>
>>>Nice. I voted for Badnarik. I tell you what I tell my liberal friends.
>>>Just because you make the most noise, doesn't mean you're suddenly a
>>>majority. Better luck next time.
>>
>>For us, too. We need to get Libertarians in every office, starting
>>at the bottom. 600 there need to move up into Senate and House seats
>>to get anything real done in this society. <sigh>
>
> As a libertarian, don't you really want them *not* to do things?
>
> That certainly is my preference for those in government.
Au contraire, mon ami. We need them to FIX the gov't by UNDOING
many of the laws they passed and unnecessary regulation, etc.
We can save BILLIONS in the fake "war on drugs" alone. That means
fewer taxes they rob from us. Repeat lebenty seben times.
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:25:01 -0500, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Leon wrote:
>> "mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>>I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
>>
>>
>> You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now lay
>> in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
>>
>>
>I'm happy with my vote. It's the other 51%(or whatever it was) I'm not happy
>with. Just what were they thinking?
Here's my guess:
"We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way."
(Too many country fans where I work- I hate the stuff, but it's always
on.)
I did.
Dave
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
>
James T. Kirby wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> "James T. Kirby" wrote in message
>>
>>>Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now
>>
>> lay
>>
>>>>in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm happy with my vote. It's the other 51%(or whatever it was) I'm not
>>
>> happy
>>
>>>with. Just what were they thinking?
>>
>>
>> Get over it. Particularly your imagined superiority. Your boy Kerry got
>> it right when he said that there were no losers, as we all woke up this
>> morning as Americans ... try to be as gracious as he was .. and if you
>> don't like the way this form of government works, don't let the door knob
>> hit you in the ass on the way to somewhere else.
>>
>
> Just like Republicans woke up and supported Clinton as president for 8
> years? Ferget it!
> This is bullshit piled so deep and high you'd need a periscope attached to
> the the international space station to see over it.
> I know where my beliefs and priorities are, and I know where I do not
> think the country should be going.
>
> So just go take a flying leap, will ya?
>
>
>
you see James this is what's Great about being a democracy, you have every
right to feel the way you do, no if's and's or buts, according to the
electorate your wrong, but you have every right to feel the way you do.
this is what is great about our country, we have as much right to succeed as
fail. we are guaranteed the right to be wrong, we have the right to be
politically incorrect! thats a right! and in the last election we decided
that John Kerry was wrong, and you as well by your support of him.
so please by all means feel bitter and spiteful, it's your right! enjoy it
to the fullest
Matter of fact, with the lack of academic scholarships, and the plethora of
"diversity-building" free rides, it seems there's a reversal in process.
Oh yes, if whatshisname was a true liberal, he'd be preaching the injustice
of a culturally-biased test ....
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Educational level does not correlate with IQ well enough to serve as a
> substitute for it.
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:54:33 GMT, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:
>Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
Yeah, how someone could vote for Shrub or Kerry. WTF,O?
--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
-- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003
DONE!
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
>
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:57:19 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No word are to who was leading in the pre-election vote count.
>
>You think someone will be elected this time around?
>
Doesn't look like it.
The consensus among the talking heads is that if a state doesn't have
a 4 percent or so margin of victory for one or the other candidate,
the 'loser' is almost certain to challenge on some ground or other.
Since this one looks to be so close, many of the 10 or so battleground
states won't have that much difference between the candidates. Which
means Florida 2000 several times over.
The good news is that people *are* voting in record numbers.
--RC
"You Know Things Are Weird When Arnold Schwartznegger
Is Governor of California, Ronald Reagan Is One Of Our
Most Beloved Ex-Presidents, And John Kerry Is Running
For President On His Vietnam War Record"
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> > Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
>
> Yuppers. It pretty much goes without saying that any statement or
> claim relating to politics shouldn't be taken too seriously
> without verification (which I, of course, can't provide.)
>
> Nevertheless, I did find it interesting - and think it would be
> /very/ much more interesting if it could be verified.
>
> Even if totally true, however, I'd still not be overwhelmingly
> convinced that it's meaningful (strong correlations frequently
> aren't.)
It has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You can find it on a web search.
dwhite
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote in message
>>
>> "mac davis" wrote in message
>> > I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
>>
>> You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now
> lay
>> in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
>
> LOL ... tell that to the sheep, in democracy made up of a sheep and two
> wolves, when they vote on what's for dinner. ;>)
LOL
"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now lay
in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:09:07 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> >
> > True. I just wish our fearful leader believed that and stopped POKING the
> > millions of Muslims out there. They're going to be stopping by here
> > shortly and laying far too many of our people to rest, ALL because our
> > "leaders" wouldn't listen. I've been reading "Imperial Hubris" and the
> > author studied bin Laden, stating that the man keeps his word. bL says
> > "Don't mess with us and we won't mess with you." but Shrub still goes
> > after the Islamic territories. They won't be bombing other places any
> > longer. Shrub is bringing it home to us, darnit. I, for one, can't forgive
> > that kind of arrogance and stupidity. But I've never voted for him,
> > either. Ready for the impeachment? <grumble>
>
> Since you're so willing to take UBL at his word, I'm sure you're aware
> that when asked what it'd take to get him to stop attacking us, he replied
> "when you are all dead or converted to Islam".
Given the choice, I would accept the former.
> So, if he's to be
> believed, us running home and cowering with our tail between our legs
> won't deter him. He doesn't hate us for what we've done - he wants to
> murder us because of who we are - infidels. I'd be a little more
> concerned about UBL forcing his beliefs on you rather thn GWB.
But OBL doesn't (or at least shouldn't) play a part in U.S.
legislation or appointing U.S. Supreme Court justices. The religious
right is just a softer version of fanatical muslims, i.e. forcing
their version of spirituality/morality on everybody. My response to
that is the same as above, but it will not occur while cowering with
my tail between my legs (i.e. I will not accept supernatural nonsense
just because people short on reason think it's best for me).
Cheers,
Mike
btw: The far left are equally complicit in forcing their ideologies
upon the masses, they just don't seem to have attracted as large of a
following as the right.
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:09:07 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> >
> > True. I just wish our fearful leader believed that and stopped POKING the
> > millions of Muslims out there. They're going to be stopping by here
> > shortly and laying far too many of our people to rest, ALL because our
> > "leaders" wouldn't listen. I've been reading "Imperial Hubris" and the
> > author studied bin Laden, stating that the man keeps his word. bL says
> > "Don't mess with us and we won't mess with you." but Shrub still goes
> > after the Islamic territories. They won't be bombing other places any
> > longer. Shrub is bringing it home to us, darnit. I, for one, can't forgive
> > that kind of arrogance and stupidity. But I've never voted for him,
> > either. Ready for the impeachment? <grumble>
>
> Since you're so willing to take UBL at his word, I'm sure you're aware
> that when asked what it'd take to get him to stop attacking us, he replied
> "when you are all dead or converted to Islam".
I'm interested in when and where you got that.
> ...
> I'd be a little more
> concerned about UBL forcing his beliefs on you rather thn GWB.
>
Here we differ.
Even if someone shares all of my beliefs but one, I oppose forcing them
on me or anyone else. There is little pratical difference and no moral
difference betweenpeople who seek to force their beliefs on others.
--
FF
[email protected] (Mike) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> The religious
> right is just a softer version of fanatical muslims, i.e. forcing
> their version of spirituality/morality on everybody.
> ...
Only because we exercise better control over them.
--
FF
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:09:07 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> True. I just wish our fearful leader believed that and stopped POKING the
> millions of Muslims out there. They're going to be stopping by here
> shortly and laying far too many of our people to rest, ALL because our
> "leaders" wouldn't listen. I've been reading "Imperial Hubris" and the
> author studied bin Laden, stating that the man keeps his word. bL says
> "Don't mess with us and we won't mess with you." but Shrub still goes
> after the Islamic territories. They won't be bombing other places any
> longer. Shrub is bringing it home to us, darnit. I, for one, can't forgive
> that kind of arrogance and stupidity. But I've never voted for him,
> either. Ready for the impeachment? <grumble>
Since you're so willing to take UBL at his word, I'm sure you're aware
that when asked what it'd take to get him to stop attacking us, he replied
"when you are all dead or converted to Islam". So, if he's to be
believed, us running home and cowering with our tail between our legs
won't deter him. He doesn't hate us for what we've done - he wants to
murder us because of who we are - infidels. I'd be a little more
concerned about UBL forcing his beliefs on you rather thn GWB.
-Doug
Doug Winterburn writes:
> I'd be a little more
>concerned about UBL forcing his beliefs on you rather thn GWB.
True. But why not solve it the old-fashioned way: give each of them a straight
razor and put them in a dark room, no larger than 12' x 12'. Lock the door and
come back a week later.
Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:57:11 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
> Doug Winterburn writes:
>
>> I'd be a little more
>>concerned about UBL forcing his beliefs on you rather thn GWB.
>
> True. But why not solve it the old-fashioned way: give each of them a
> straight razor and put them in a dark room, no larger than 12' x 12'. Lock
> the door and come back a week later.
Unfair advantage UBL - he's used to living in dark caves.
-Doug
Doug Winterburn responds:
>>
>> True. But why not solve it the old-fashioned way: give each of them a
>> straight razor and put them in a dark room, no larger than 12' x 12'. Lock
>> the door and come back a week later.
>
>Unfair advantage UBL - he's used to living in dark caves.
Well, I'm not sure that would be an advantage overall. He's also used to desert
living, so he should be easy to find by smell.
Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 04:09:39 GMT, patriarch
<<patriarch>[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>What's the old joke? Call me what you want, just not late for dinner?
>(BTW, it's Glenn, but there are/were several so named already here, some of
>whom held/expressed opinions with which I did not wish to be associated...)
I figured it was either Glen or Gary, but not Glenn. ;)
>So I actually thought the whole thing through, and voted for this Badarik
>fellow. Seemed like a fairly harmless means of expressing distaste for the
>two major party candidates, without simply not voting. Not voting was
>never an option. Neither was voting for Ralph or one of the nutcases.
I'm amazed that he got as few votes as he did. The two parties
have The People wrapped up in their corrupt little fingers, wot?
<mega sigh>
>It's Saturday, and many of the election signs are down now, with only a few
>stragglers. The radio is full of whiners, and folks threatening to
>emigrate to Canada or New Zealand in protest, as if those two fine
>countries deserved them. California is a beautiful place, with diverse
>attitudes and cultures and industries and values. But folks here sometimes
>forget that people elsewhere are welcome to their opinions and religions,
>and they don't always have to bend their thinking to match what the
>coasters think they ought to believe.
Yeah, most of the signs are down here, too. I think it's safe to take
the neighbor's Kerry sign down. She moved out before the election.
Tuesday is trash day and it'll be in there, where it belongs.
>It's still a republic, one blessed with wealth, power, responsibilities and
>great, deep problems, in a world of neighbors entitles to their opinions
True. I just wish our fearful leader believed that and stopped
POKING the millions of Muslims out there. They're going to be
stopping by here shortly and laying far too many of our people to
rest, ALL because our "leaders" wouldn't listen. I've been reading
"Imperial Hubris" and the author studied bin Laden, stating that the
man keeps his word. bL says "Don't mess with us and we won't mess with
you." but Shrub still goes after the Islamic territories. They won't
be bombing other places any longer. Shrub is bringing it home to us,
darnit. I, for one, can't forgive that kind of arrogance and
stupidity. But I've never voted for him, either. Ready for the
impeachment? <grumble>
>and religions. Not likely that we will all be singing Kumbaya any time
>soon....
Thank God/Buddha/Allah/Higher Power for that little blessing.
--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >This guy put together a correlation of state IQ averages and
> >election results. I'm not sure that it means anything; but
> >thought it interesting enough to share:
> >
> >http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
> >
> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
It was definitely setting off the bullshit meter on my computer.
In article <[email protected]>, Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
>
>And did YOU see the part about correlation of voting and income:
>
>http://sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm
BIg deal -- IQ spread is from 94 to 104, hardly something of statistical
significance.
>
>and voting and education:
>
>http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg
Most obvious explanation there is that the more time people spend in the
leftist-dominated world of academia, the more likely they are to vote for
leftists. Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
--
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.
In article <[email protected]>, Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>>http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
>>
>> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
>
>How can *actual information* be a hoax?
It's *purported* to be actual information. The page itself admits that it may
not *really* be actual information.
>
>If you do have a reliable source that contradicts the numbers
>appearing on the table (either the electoral results or the
>reported IQ average for each state), I would be happy to hear
>it and dismiss the above link as a hoax.
Hellooooo... did you read the page in question?
>
>Carlos
--
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.
I see nothing wrong with us "Caly"fornians having a Governator! :) He
rocks! As far as Kerry goes, I couldn't agree more. Well, actually,
maybe I could...
David
[email protected] wrote:
> --RC
> "You Know Things Are Weird When Arnold Schwartznegger
> Is Governor of California, Ronald Reagan Is One Of Our
> Most Beloved Ex-Presidents, And John Kerry Is Running
> For President On His Vietnam War Record"
Doug Miller wrote:
>>http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
>
> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
How can *actual information* be a hoax?
If you do have a reliable source that contradicts the numbers
appearing on the table (either the electoral results or the
reported IQ average for each state), I would be happy to hear
it and dismiss the above link as a hoax.
Carlos
--
"James T. Kirby" wrote in message
> Leon wrote:
> > "mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>
> >>I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
> >
> >
> > You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now
lay
> > in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
> >
> >
> I'm happy with my vote. It's the other 51%(or whatever it was) I'm not
happy
> with. Just what were they thinking?
Get over it. Particularly your imagined superiority. Your boy Kerry got it
right when he said that there were no losers, as we all woke up this morning
as Americans ... try to be as gracious as he was .. and if you don't like
the way this form of government works, don't let the door knob hit you in
the ass on the way to somewhere else.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
This guy put together a correlation of state IQ averages and
election results. I'm not sure that it means anything; but
thought it interesting enough to share:
http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
There are links to correlations between the state voting results
and income, percentage of population with college degrees, and
divorce rates.
Sadly, I couldn't find any correlation to Normite/Neander
woodworkers...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
> Voting for democrats at the county and state level out of revulsion
> for the republican ideology at the national level is one thing.
>
> Voting for some of them based on personal attributes ... dicey stuff.
>
What about voting for the office seeker that you feel you can trust most
(or more accurately, distrust least)?
I am a registered Republican, in California, for over 30 years. I don't
recall voting for a single Republican on this last ballot. It was very
strange.
Patriarch
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>This guy put together a correlation of state IQ averages and
>>election results. I'm not sure that it means anything; but
>>thought it interesting enough to share:
>>
>>http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
>>
> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
And did YOU see the part about correlation of voting and income:
http://sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm
and voting and education:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg
Scott
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:59:33 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:32:26 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>
>>>Since you're so willing to take UBL at his word, I'm sure you're aware
>>>that when asked what it'd take to get him to stop attacking us, he
>>>replied "when you are all dead or converted to Islam". So, if he's to be
>>
>> Cite the source document, please. Only the Saudi interpretation of Islam
>> is incompatible with "infidels". The rest are mellow folks. (Like most
>> Christians aren't rabid Jesus freak fundies.)
>
>This one states it pretty well:
>
><http://www.stonebriarchurch.org/jihad_-_a_holy_war.htm>
A nice, even-headed, non-judgmental CHRISTIAN source for info
on Islam? Good shew! Remember that many Christian prophets
feel that God's word has to be spread as well. Bummer, dude.
>And since you're into blogs as valid sources:
>
><http://www.culteducation.com/binladen.html>
><http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html>
>
>By mellow, do you mean those sweet little Palastinian mamas yodelling (or
>whatever that yiyiyiyiyiyi.. thing is) in glee at the news of thousands of
>American civilians being murdered on 9/11/2001? I don't need a cite for
>this as I watched it in disbelief and horror.
If you don't recognize that as a sound byte, you're in trouble, Doug.
Read my paragraph below and think about that byte again perhaps with
a new perspective.
>Will the real mellow
>Muslims please stand up? Again, Larry - even if no US citizen ever leaves
>American shores again, the Islamic terrorists will come here to murder us
>into conversion to Islam. And again, it isn't because of anything we have
>done - it's because of who we are - infidels.
Granted, bin Laden IS dangerous, but put yourself in his shoes. Look
at us through his eyes. He sees us invading Muslim lands and killing
Muslims. If you were from the ME, what would you think of us? What I
espouse is limiting our exposure to their countries in an attempt to
defuse the situation and have them call off the fatwa/jihad. Shrub
is totally oblivious to that concept. He thinks he's a prophet, so
God help us!
We obviously disagree on the threat, so I'll end it here, hoping that
you'll find and read those books. Hoping more that our administration
will do so as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------
* * Humorous T-shirts Online
* Norm's Got Strings * Wondrous Website Design
* * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Jaques responds:
>
>Granted, bin Laden IS dangerous, but put yourself in his shoes. Look
>at us through his eyes. He sees us invading Muslim lands and killing
>Muslims. If you were from the ME, what would you think of us? What I
>espouse is limiting our exposure to their countries in an attempt to
>defuse the situation and have them call off the fatwa/jihad. Shrub
>is totally oblivious to that concept. He thinks he's a prophet, so
>God help us!
>
While I agree with your estimation of Bush (check Pat Robertson's words on
him--the pot and the kettle), I think your estimation of bin Laden's motivation
is sort of a "chicken and egg" thing. Actual invasions came AFTER bin Laden's
whackos did a job on us, unless it took him over a decade to prep for
retaliation against Daddy Bush's actions. If OBL is responding to the
introduction of our culture into Moslem society, he's way too late, going back
to the Moors being driven out of Spain centuries ago.
When was the last time you heard of anyone in this sort of situation calling
off their holy war, by the way? All the power freaks come out of the woodwork
and grab a piece of the action.
We should have concentrated on the war on terrorism and let the Iraqis worry
about deposing Saddam Hussein, but that's too late now, too.
I don't know what the ending will be, nor do I have much in the way of a
suggestion for getting us out of Iraq with any of our international reputation
intact at this point, but I am inclined to think simple and easy solutions
aren't going to work.
Charlie Self
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence
clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken
In article <[email protected]>, novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:59:33 -0700, Doug Winterburn
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>>By mellow, do you mean those sweet little Palastinian mamas yodelling (or
>>whatever that yiyiyiyiyiyi.. thing is) in glee at the news of thousands of
>>American civilians being murdered on 9/11/2001? I don't need a cite for
>>this as I watched it in disbelief and horror.
>
>If you don't recognize that as a sound byte, you're in trouble, Doug.
Sound bite or not, it happened.
--
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.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
>
>
What makes you think anyone doesn't understand it?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> This guy put together a correlation of state IQ averages and
>> election results. I'm not sure that it means anything; but
>> thought it interesting enough to share:
>>
>> http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
>
>That one's a hoax.
>
>This one at least looks credible:
>
>http://sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm
>
Plausible, anyway.
Interesting figures from the Nov 15 issue of Newsweek on voting data by
education level:
Did not finish high school: Kerry 50%, Bush 49
High school grads: Bush 51, Kerry 47
College grads: Bush 51, Kerry 48
--
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.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
>
SWMBO & I just got back from voting.
--
Nahmie
The law of intelligent tinkering: save all the parts.
Leon wrote:
> "mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
>
>
> You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now lay
> in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
>
>
I'm happy with my vote. It's the other 51%(or whatever it was) I'm not happy
with. Just what were they thinking?
Swingman wrote:
> "James T. Kirby" wrote in message
>
>>Leon wrote:
>>
>>>"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
>>>
>>>
>>>You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now
>
> lay
>
>>>in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm happy with my vote. It's the other 51%(or whatever it was) I'm not
>
> happy
>
>>with. Just what were they thinking?
>
>
> Get over it. Particularly your imagined superiority. Your boy Kerry got it
> right when he said that there were no losers, as we all woke up this morning
> as Americans ... try to be as gracious as he was .. and if you don't like
> the way this form of government works, don't let the door knob hit you in
> the ass on the way to somewhere else.
>
Just like Republicans woke up and supported Clinton as president for 8 years?
Ferget it!
This is bullshit piled so deep and high you'd need a periscope attached to the
the international space station to see over it.
I know where my beliefs and priorities are, and I know where I do not think the
country should be going.
So just go take a flying leap, will ya?
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
>>
>>
>
>
> you see James this is what's Great about being a democracy, you have every
> right to feel the way you do, no if's and's or buts, according to the
> electorate your wrong, but you have every right to feel the way you do.
I didn't realize that we as the electorate decided what was wrong or right - I
thought we just decided which side of the issue wins.
I'm not implying I don't fully agree with what you are saying about democratic
principles, just that
there is a semantic difference between "right" and "winner". "right" is very
much a personal evaluation
based on the compass of each individual - our system hopefully preserves the
ability for people with
multiple takes on what is "right" to co-exist side by side.
>
> this is what is great about our country, we have as much right to succeed as
> fail. we are guaranteed the right to be wrong, we have the right to be
> politically incorrect! thats a right! and in the last election we decided
> that John Kerry was wrong, and you as well by your support of him.
>
> so please by all means feel bitter and spiteful, it's your right! enjoy it
> to the fullest
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
Prometheus wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:25:01 -0500, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Leon wrote:
>
> Here's my guess:
>
> "We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way."
>
> (Too many country fans where I work- I hate the stuff, but it's always
> on.)
>
Slip some Steve Earle in the rotation.
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:21:44 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> calmly
> ranted:
>
>
>>>49% of the population is "out-of-touch"? With what, asshole?
>>
>>Nice. I voted for Badnarik. I tell you what I tell my liberal friends.
>>Just because you make the most noise, doesn't mean you're suddenly a
>>majority. Better luck next time.
>
>
> For us, too. We need to get Libertarians in every office, starting
> at the bottom. 600 there need to move up into Senate and House seats
> to get anything real done in this society. <sigh>
>
I'm not sure I'd wish what I see in local politics on anyone at the national level.
Voting for democrats at the county and state level out of revulsion for the
republican ideology
at the national level is one thing.
Voting for some of them based on personal attributes ... dicey stuff.
(Of course, there is no party-by-party lock on that either).
JK
"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Bob Schmall"
> > > Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
> >
> >
> > I did it four times this morning already. I'm gettin' the
> > hang of it!
> >
> >
>
> Voting machines in Philadelphia were found to have had over 2000 votes recorded BEFORE the polls opened. It was spotted by poll
> workers. No word are to who was leading in the pre-election vote count.
Latest word is that the report was unfounded.
Whether an honest error or part of someone's 'get out the vote'
campaign I do not know.
--
FF
Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >>http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
> >
> > Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
>
> How can *actual information* be a hoax?
>
> If you do have a reliable source that contradicts the numbers
> appearing on the table (either the electoral results or the
> reported IQ average for each state), I would be happy to hear
> it and dismiss the above link as a hoax.
>
The notion that the average IQ in a State would vary from a high of 113
to a low of 85 is pretty far-fetched. Depending on how they were
standardized that is a spread of two or three standard deviations.
On it's face, it's not credible.
--
FF
Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> This guy put together a correlation of state IQ averages and
> election results. I'm not sure that it means anything; but
> thought it interesting enough to share:
>
> http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
That one's a hoax.
This one at least looks credible:
http://sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm
--
FF
GregP <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 9 Nov 2004 17:12:33 -0800, [email protected] (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >
> >The notion that the average IQ in a State would vary from a high of 113
> >to a low of 85 is pretty far-fetched. Depending on how they were
> >standardized that is a spread of two or three standard deviations.
> >
> >On it's face, it's not credible.
>
>
> A statewide IQ of 85 is not credible either: anything below
> mid-nineties would be suspect.
As would one as high as 113. That is what I meant, but phrased it badly.
s/average IQ in a State/average IQ of the States/
That's better.
--
FF
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:58:19 -0500, WoodMangler
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Charlie Self did say:
>
>> Evidently, a lot of people around here heard you! At 8:45 a.m., we were told
>> that 75 of the usual number of voters had already voted. Those in line behind
>> us will bring it right close to 100%, so there is sure to be some gain, which
>> is way on the good side, no matter who wins.
>
>Lines were an hour long at our little county's polling places. Usually in
>and out of there in under three minutes. Does my heart good to see
>everyone participate.
We had a major problem in our precinct... the computer seems to have
dropped about 20% of the voters from the list, and changed another 10
or 12% to "inactive"...
The place was a zoo... my wife was one of the people that got dropped
from the rolls.. had to vote "provincial", whatever the heck that
is...
I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
mac davis notes:
>We had a major problem in our precinct... the computer seems to have
>dropped about 20% of the voters from the list, and changed another 10
>or 12% to "inactive"...
>The place was a zoo... my wife was one of the people that got dropped
>from the rolls.. had to vote "provincial", whatever the heck that
>is...
>
>
I think that's probably "provisional" which basically means they let you fill
out a ballot and then hope they count it.
>I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe.
Yup.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
On 9 Nov 2004 17:12:33 -0800, [email protected] (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:
>
>The notion that the average IQ in a State would vary from a high of 113
>to a low of 85 is pretty far-fetched. Depending on how they were
>standardized that is a spread of two or three standard deviations.
>
>On it's face, it's not credible.
A statewide IQ of 85 is not credible either: anything below
mid-nineties would be suspect.
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:28:58 -0800, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:21:44 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> calmly
>ranted:
>
>>
>>> 49% of the population is "out-of-touch"? With what, asshole?
>>
>>Nice. I voted for Badnarik. I tell you what I tell my liberal friends.
>>Just because you make the most noise, doesn't mean you're suddenly a
>>majority. Better luck next time.
>
>For us, too. We need to get Libertarians in every office, starting
>at the bottom. 600 there need to move up into Senate and House seats
>to get anything real done in this society. <sigh>
As a libertarian, don't you really want them *not* to do things?
That certainly is my preference for those in government.
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:56:20 -0500, "Al Reid"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> > No word are to who was leading in the pre-election vote count.
>>
>> You think someone will be elected this time around?
>>
>>
>
>Why not? It happens every 4 years. (Are you implying that you still haven't gotten over Gore's defeat?)
>
I think he's implying that last time was a mess. Don't be so quick to
read partisan implications into simple statements. The election is
over in about three hours. It's time stand down.
--RC
"You Know Things Are Weird When Arnold Schwartznegger
Is Governor of California, Ronald Reagan Is One Of Our
Most Beloved Ex-Presidents, And John Kerry Is Running
For President On His Vietnam War Record"
In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>This guy put together a correlation of state IQ averages and
>election results. I'm not sure that it means anything; but
>thought it interesting enough to share:
>
>http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
>
Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
--
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 Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:40:53 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
>
>"James T. Kirby"
>> Leon wrote:
>> > "mac davis"
>> >
>> >>
>> >>I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
>> >
>> >
>> > You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now lay
>> > in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
>> >
>> >
>> I'm happy with my vote. It's the other 51%(or whatever it was) I'm not happy
>> with. Just what were they thinking?
>
>
>They were thinking you're out of touch. Imagine
>what the percentage would have been if the
>media hadn't been hammering Bush for so hard
>and long.
49% of the population is "out-of-touch"? With what, asshole?
In article <[email protected]>, Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>>http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
>>
>> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
>
>Did *you*?
>
>The part about *possibly* being a hoax was about the 2000
>election -- and that same person pointing that out reports
>that he confirmed the 2004 correlation for number of College
>graduates (instead of average IQ).
Educational level does not correlate with IQ well enough to serve as a
substitute for it.
There is *no* source presented for the IQ figures on that page.
In fact, the whole thing looks very much like somebody took the hoax page for
the 2000 election and simply substituted Kerry's name for Gore's, not even
being clever enough to remove the references to 2000.
Until such time as the figures may be shown to be accurate, there's no reason
to take them seriously.
--
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.
Charlie Self did say:
> Evidently, a lot of people around here heard you! At 8:45 a.m., we were told
> that 75 of the usual number of voters had already voted. Those in line behind
> us will bring it right close to 100%, so there is sure to be some gain, which
> is way on the good side, no matter who wins.
Lines were an hour long at our little county's polling places. Usually in
and out of there in under three minutes. Does my heart good to see
everyone participate.
--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>Charlie Self
>"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
>pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
gawd you have some great sig lines!
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
"George" <george@least> wrote:
>You ought to go out and buy a copy of _The Devil's Dictionary_ it's a true
>curmudgeon's dream.
I have it as an ebook, just have not managed to find time to read it.
Thanks for the endorsement,
Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
WoodMangler writes:
>Charlie Self did say:
>
>> Evidently, a lot of people around here heard you! At 8:45 a.m., we were
>told
>> that 75 of the usual number of voters had already voted. Those in line
>behind
>> us will bring it right close to 100%, so there is sure to be some gain,
>which
>> is way on the good side, no matter who wins.
>
>Lines were an hour long at our little county's polling places. Usually in
>and out of there in under three minutes. Does my heart good to see
>everyone participate.
Yes. I was #192 to make that 75% number, but I'm told--youngest daughter got
back from voting about 45 minutes ago--that the total is over 550, way, way
over anything before.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
You ought to go out and buy a copy of _The Devil's Dictionary_ it's a true
curmudgeon's dream.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>
> >Charlie Self
> >"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself
a
> >pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
>
> gawd you have some great sig lines!
> --
> Reply to:
> Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
> Lycos address is a spam trap.
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
>
> All I can say is Atta Boy, G. (WTF is your first name, anyway? I've
> been calling you Pat for short.)
>
What's the old joke? Call me what you want, just not late for dinner?
(BTW, it's Glenn, but there are/were several so named already here, some of
whom held/expressed opinions with which I did not wish to be associated...)
So I actually thought the whole thing through, and voted for this Badarik
fellow. Seemed like a fairly harmless means of expressing distaste for the
two major party candidates, without simply not voting. Not voting was
never an option. Neither was voting for Ralph or one of the nutcases.
It's Saturday, and many of the election signs are down now, with only a few
stragglers. The radio is full of whiners, and folks threatening to
emigrate to Canada or New Zealand in protest, as if those two fine
countries deserved them. California is a beautiful place, with diverse
attitudes and cultures and industries and values. But folks here sometimes
forget that people elsewhere are welcome to their opinions and religions,
and they don't always have to bend their thinking to match what the
coasters think they ought to believe.
It's still a republic, one blessed with wealth, power, responsibilities and
great, deep problems, in a world of neighbors entitles to their opinions
and religions. Not likely that we will all be singing Kumbaya any time
soon....
Patriarch
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:05:17 GMT, patriarch
<<patriarch>[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
><snip>
>> Voting for democrats at the county and state level out of revulsion
>> for the republican ideology at the national level is one thing.
>>
>> Voting for some of them based on personal attributes ... dicey stuff.
>>
>
>What about voting for the office seeker that you feel you can trust most
>(or more accurately, distrust least)?
>
>I am a registered Republican, in California, for over 30 years. I don't
>recall voting for a single Republican on this last ballot. It was very
>strange.
All I can say is Atta Boy, G. (WTF is your first name, anyway? I've
been calling you Pat for short.)
---
In Christianity, neither morality nor religion comes into contact
with reality at any point. --FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
---------------------------------------------------------------
- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development -
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 06:42:26 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
> This guy put together a correlation of state IQ averages and election
> results. I'm not sure that it means anything; but thought it interesting
> enough to share:
>
> http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
>
> There are links to correlations between the state voting results and
> income, percentage of population with college degrees, and divorce rates.
>
> Sadly, I couldn't find any correlation to Normite/Neander woodworkers...
Putting aside all the liberal excuses/explanations, this is a much more to
the point analysis of the 2004 election results:
<http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20041109.shtml>
-Doug
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
Well, I guess it had OT in the subject line at least.
Ah, I can't be too grumpy; y'all have dismal voter turnout and should be
ashamed (as should we canucks be in recent years). Git out and vote!
And please don't whine about it here tomorrow without -- at minimum --
an OT: in the subject like. Kerry or Bush in the subject would be even
better. But not Nader, never got around to needing that filter (didn't
seem to come up too often for some reason).
And anyone who doesn't vote has to shut their mouths completely on all
things political for the next 4 years; you don't get the privilege of
complaining.
PK
Doug Miller wrote:
>>http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm
>
> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
Did *you*?
The part about *possibly* being a hoax was about the 2000
election -- and that same person pointing that out reports
that he confirmed the 2004 correlation for number of College
graduates (instead of average IQ).
Carlos
--
"Leon" wrote in message
>
> "mac davis" wrote in message
> > I always vote.. that way I have a right to bitch and gripe..
>
> You think? What ever happened to the old saying, you made your bed, now
lay
> in it. If you are not happy with your vote, it is your own fault.
LOL ... tell that to the sheep, in democracy made up of a sheep and two
wolves, when they vote on what's for dinner. ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:21:44 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> calmly
ranted:
>
>> 49% of the population is "out-of-touch"? With what, asshole?
>
>Nice. I voted for Badnarik. I tell you what I tell my liberal friends.
>Just because you make the most noise, doesn't mean you're suddenly a
>majority. Better luck next time.
For us, too. We need to get Libertarians in every office, starting
at the bottom. 600 there need to move up into Senate and House seats
to get anything real done in this society. <sigh>
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design
Doug Miller wrote:
> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
Yuppers. It pretty much goes without saying that any statement or
claim relating to politics shouldn't be taken too seriously
without verification (which I, of course, can't provide.)
Nevertheless, I did find it interesting - and think it would be
/very/ much more interesting if it could be verified.
Even if totally true, however, I'd still not be overwhelmingly
convinced that it's meaningful (strong correlations frequently
aren't.)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
Morris Dovey notes:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
>
>Yuppers. It pretty much goes without saying that any statement or
>claim relating to politics shouldn't be taken too seriously
>without verification (which I, of course, can't provide.)
>
>Nevertheless, I did find it interesting - and think it would be
>/very/ much more interesting if it could be verified.
>
>Even if totally true, however, I'd still not be overwhelmingly
>convinced that it's meaningful (strong correlations frequently
>aren't.)
Sort of like, 100% of heroin addicts drink water; water causes heroin
addiction?
Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>Morris Dovey notes:
>>Even if totally true, however, I'd still not be overwhelmingly
>>convinced that it's meaningful (strong correlations frequently
>>aren't.)
>
>Sort of like, 100% of heroin addicts drink water; water causes heroin
>addiction?
Maybe a little realistically, remember the allegation so oft-repeated in the
60s and 70s that marijuana is a "gateway" drug ("deduced" from the fact that
some seriously high percentage of heroin addicts tried marijuana first,
ignoring the fact that most pot smokers did *not* become heroin addicts).
I imagine most of those heroin addicts smoked tobacco cigarettes, too, but
nobody (then) claimed that tobacco was a "gateway" to harder drugs.
--
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 09 Nov 2004 17:22:48 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Morris Dovey notes:
>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Did you see the part about it possibly being a hoax?
>>
>>Yuppers. It pretty much goes without saying that any statement or
>>claim relating to politics shouldn't be taken too seriously
>>without verification (which I, of course, can't provide.)
>>
>>Nevertheless, I did find it interesting - and think it would be
>>/very/ much more interesting if it could be verified.
>>
>>Even if totally true, however, I'd still not be overwhelmingly
>>convinced that it's meaningful (strong correlations frequently
>>aren't.)
>
>Sort of like, 100% of heroin addicts drink water; water causes heroin
>addiction?
>
Yep, from the "small dogs cause cancer" school of statistics. Apparently
sometime a number of years ago, someone did a study and found a high degree
of correlation between people owning small dogs and cancer. No real
cause/effect.
>Charlie Self
>"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
>give him power." Abraham Lincoln
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> I imagine most of those heroin addicts smoked tobacco cigarettes, too, but
> nobody (then) claimed that tobacco was a "gateway" to harder drugs.
I've always claimed it is. Since nmost tobacco abusers start below
the legal age for purchase or posession in their state (Maryland
was an exception when I first moved here) tobacco abuse also establishes
the pattern of crimnality that is associated with drug abuse.
--
FF
In news:[email protected],
Bob Schmall <[email protected]> typed:
> Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
Nope. Understood and done!
"RKG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schmall wrote:
>> Was there something you didn't understand about "VOTE?"
> I can't I'm Canadian so enough already.
>
> Rick
That just means the drive to the polling place is longer. What state do you
want to vote in? Ohio has plenty of openings this year.