"Mike Pearson <see .sig>" <nojunk@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fx9o7f.a20eoi1nmy4xsN%nojunk@no-spam
> alohacyberian <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Good stuff! Thanks, that's a keeper! The history (though I snipped it)
is
> > interesting and informative - a breath of fresh air among completely
> > unfounded charges and invidious invective!
>
> For example, the person who was commander of the 174th at that time has
> stated that they *were* flying F-102's for at least a year after GW was
> finally handed his discharge; they flew them for the entire time that he
> was assigned to that unit, and well beyond. (See the Boston Globe
> article; it's one of the few that was actually published about the
> ghuy's service record, and came out shortly before the press was
>
Like I'd take the word of a reporter from the Boston Globe who's never been
in the military over the words of the men in the military who served with and
supervised George W. Bush. Give it up, I'm going to judge the candidates in
the next election by what they can do to help the country now. And because
I'm not a Democrat, I don't accept their "congenital pessimism" [~"Time"
magazine, May 19, 2003, page 31] and will vote with a different filter. KM
"I am an optimist rather than a pessimist. It is possible that the
pessimists may be proven right in the long run, but we optimists have a
better time on the trip."
~ William Everitt
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BQxLa.27494$0v4.2074385@no-spam
> "Mike Pearson <see .sig>" <nojunk@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1fx9o7f.a20eoi1nmy4xsN%nojunk@no-spam
> > alohacyberian <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > Good stuff! Thanks, that's a keeper! The history (though I snipped
it)
> is
> > > interesting and informative - a breath of fresh air among completely
> > > unfounded charges and invidious invective!
> >
> > For example, the person who was commander of the 174th at that time has
> > stated that they *were* flying F-102's for at least a year after GW was
> > finally handed his discharge; they flew them for the entire time that he
> > was assigned to that unit, and well beyond. (See the Boston Globe
> > article; it's one of the few that was actually published about the
> > ghuy's service record, and came out shortly before the press was
> >
> Like I'd take the word of a reporter from the Boston Globe who's never
been
> in the military over the words of the men in the military who served with
and
> supervised George W. Bush. Give it up, I'm going to judge the candidates
in
> the next election by what they can do to help the country now. And
because
> I'm not a Democrat, I don't accept their "congenital pessimism" [~"Time"
> magazine, May 19, 2003, page 31] and will vote with a different filter.
KM
Good, then you won't have ANY problem with the statements from these
military officers that Bush was not present for duty, never showed up, can't
recall ever seeing him at drill, were flying the F-102's for at least a year
after GW finagled his discharge.
In any event, you talk about "... what they can do to help the country now."
By that standard, you should be calling for the immediate impeachment of
Bush. You know the facts - millions more unemployed, millions of jobs lost,
retirement savings wiped out, health care costs rising through the roof,
degrading infrastructure, declining quality in schools, rising taxes for
most Americans, increasing partisan strife by the GOP, worsening
environment, US citizens getting killed in a stunt designed to boost the
GOPs ratings during a mid-term election and yield massive profits for Bush
and his friends, worsening national security, massive loss of civil
liberties and privacy rights ... Can you honestly name and demonstrate even
one national issue or concern that has ACTUALLY improved under Bush?
In article <1fxdch4.2sz2uyhesc2oN%nojunk@no-spam>,
nojunk@no-spam (Mike Pearson <see .sig>) wrote:
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Thus giving Gore a plurality but NOT a majority.
> >
> > The defenders of our appointed president never tire of carping about this
> > little detail.
> >
> > Which doesn't obviate the fact that dubya was appointed and not
> > elected.
> >
> > Generally, we suppose that appointed presidents are mostly found
> > in Botswanaland and similar African locales which decline to Just
> > Count All The Votes.
> >
> > Not so.
> >
> > Peace and justice,
>
> Ah, yes...thank you. In neglecting to count anything but the Bush/Gore
> votes I fell into his semantic trap.
>
> None of his weasel-wording, however, changes the fact that the person
> who got over 1/2 million more votes lost the election.
The only one who got a majority of votes in 2000 was President Bush.
Get over it.
"Mike Pearson <see .sig>" <nojunk@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fxdch4.2sz2uyhesc2oN%nojunk@no-spam
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> > Generally, we suppose that appointed presidents are mostly found
> > in Botswanaland and similar African locales which decline to Just
> > Count All The Votes.
>
> None of his weasel-wording, however, changes the fact that the person
> who got over 1/2 million more votes lost the election. Even third-world
> republics aren't usually that blatant about it...
>
Too bad you don't understand the laws of the United States, particularly
those regarding the Electoral College. The popular vote counts are
meaningless in the United States and always have been, the Electoral College
picks the winner in presidential elections. Don't blame Bush for the
Electoral College system - it was instituted before he or his father was
born. If you don't like it, stop wasting your energy on Bush-bashing and
start working to eliminate the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton said she'd
help you - and God knows, you need all the help you can get. Yes, Gore got
the most popular votes, but, in the United States, that counts for absolutely
nothing. So quitcher whining - it's meaningless. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nobody-E5F1F7.23244730062003@no-spam
> In article <1fxdch4.2sz2uyhesc2oN%nojunk@no-spam>,
> nojunk@no-spam (Mike Pearson <see .sig>) wrote:
> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
>
> The only one who got a majority of votes in 2000 was President Bush.
> Get over it.
>
Maybe Gore will come back and win the next election. Do you think that will
silence the malcontents? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Yin Duo Lai wrote:
>
> Seeking to learn informations on american government system.
>
> Is colleges that elects available for graduate student to study at ?f
No. The elctoral college isn't a university. It's a group of people.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: mws@no-spam
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nobody-E5F1F7.23244730062003@no-spam
> In article <1fxdch4.2sz2uyhesc2oN%nojunk@no-spam>,
> nojunk@no-spam (Mike Pearson <see .sig>) wrote:
>
> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > Thus giving Gore a plurality but NOT a majority.
> > >
> > > The defenders of our appointed president never tire of carping about
this
> > > little detail.
> > >
> > > Which doesn't obviate the fact that dubya was appointed and not
> > > elected.
> > >
> > > Generally, we suppose that appointed presidents are mostly found
> > > in Botswanaland and similar African locales which decline to Just
> > > Count All The Votes.
> > >
> > > Not so.
> > >
> > > Peace and justice,
> >
> > Ah, yes...thank you. In neglecting to count anything but the Bush/Gore
> > votes I fell into his semantic trap.
> >
> > None of his weasel-wording, however, changes the fact that the person
> > who got over 1/2 million more votes lost the election.
>
>
> The only one who got a majority of votes in 2000 was President Bush.
> Get over it.
But not a majority of the vote of the people nor a majority of the peoples'
duly elected representatives. Have you learned nothing from history?
In article <vg39g4ii5cv418@no-spam>,
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-E5F1F7.23244730062003@no-spam
> > In article <1fxdch4.2sz2uyhesc2oN%nojunk@no-spam>,
> > nojunk@no-spam (Mike Pearson <see .sig>) wrote:
> >
> > > Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thus giving Gore a plurality but NOT a majority.
> > > >
> > > > The defenders of our appointed president never tire of carping about
> this
> > > > little detail.
> > > >
> > > > Which doesn't obviate the fact that dubya was appointed and not
> > > > elected.
> > > >
> > > > Generally, we suppose that appointed presidents are mostly found
> > > > in Botswanaland and similar African locales which decline to Just
> > > > Count All The Votes.
> > > >
> > > > Not so.
> > > >
> > > > Peace and justice,
> > >
> > > Ah, yes...thank you. In neglecting to count anything but the Bush/Gore
> > > votes I fell into his semantic trap.
> > >
> > > None of his weasel-wording, however, changes the fact that the person
> > > who got over 1/2 million more votes lost the election.
> >
> >
> > The only one who got a majority of votes in 2000 was President Bush.
> > Get over it.
>
> But not a majority of the vote of the people nor a majority of the peoples'
> duly elected representatives.
Wrong, in fact 271 to 266 wrong.
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307010107190.18661-100000@no-spam
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, alohacyberian wrote:
>
> > the Electoral College
> > picks the winner in presidential elections.
>
> Previous to 2000, we used to let the actual -voters- make that
> selection.
>
No, you are living in the dreamworld of selective fantasy. The Electoral
College has always selected the president. The United States Supreme Court
merely confirmed the Electoral College selection. Bush got more votes in
Florida than did Gore. Gore conceded defeat. End of story. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
alohacyberian wrote:
> No, you are living in the dreamworld of selective fantasy.
> The Electoral College has always selected the president.
No, the Electoral College merely reports (reflects)
the majority vote in their respective states.
Each candidate has his or her own slate of
electors chosen by their own parties so it's
not like each state has only one set of
electors who might throw their votes in
any direction. When Gore got a majority
in oregon, for example, the seven or so
electors chosen by the state Democratic
Party became THE electors who would report
the vote (or cast if if you wish).
We could easily get rid of the electors
themselves and keep the points each
state is worth.
Bob T
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307021009420.5807@no-spam
> alohacyberian wrote:
>
> > No, you are living in the dreamworld of selective fantasy.
> > The Electoral College has always selected the president.
>
> No, the Electoral College merely reports (reflects)
> the majority vote in their respective states.
> Each candidate has his or her own slate of
> electors chosen by their own parties so it's
> not like each state has only one set of
> electors who might throw their votes in
> any direction. When Gore got a majority
> in oregon, for example, the seven or so
> electors chosen by the state Democratic
> Party became THE electors who would report
> the vote (or cast if if you wish).
>
> We could easily get rid of the electors
> themselves and keep the points each
> state is worth.
> Bob T
>
No, I'm not going to accept the word "report". They cast ballots and in most
states they are not bound by law to support the winner of the popular vote.
Any given Elector can vote for any candidate they want to, though this has
rarely, if ever, been done. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
alohacyberian wrote:
> "Bob Tiernan" wrote:
> > No, the Electoral College merely reports (reflects)
> > the majority vote in their respective states.
> > Each candidate has his or her own slate of
> > electors chosen by their own parties so it's
> > not like each state has only one set of
> > electors who might throw their votes in
> > any direction. When Gore got a majority
> > in oregon, for example, the seven or so
> > electors chosen by the state Democratic
> > Party became THE electors who would report
> > the vote (or cast if if you wish).
> >
> > We could easily get rid of the electors
> > themselves and keep the points each
> > state is worth.
> No, I'm not going to accept the word "report".
Yes you will. You'll sit down and accept it.
> They cast ballots and in most states they are not
> bound by law to support the winner of the popular
> vote.
They are in most states, or nearly all of them
so far as I know. That's why the news headlines
morning after election day say "Clinton Wins"
or something like that depending on what year
you're talking about, because it's a no-brainer
that the Electors will report the obvious.
> Any given Elector can vote for any candidate
> they want to, though this has rarely, if ever,
> been done.
This is not true. Maybe many decades ago.
Not in recent times. Look, the parties
themselves choose their Electors. So when
Gore won the popular vote in Oregon in 2000
there were seven Democrat Party members
already chosen as Electors who were then
THE official Electors (the Electors of
the Republican, Libertarian, Pacific,
Constitution, and other parties now
having to wait another four years for
another chance). Even if they were allowed
to vote for anyone they wanted, why
would they? They're dedicated to the
candidate of their party. That's why
they're chosen.
Bob Tiernan
"NOW is able to overlook wife-beating
and murder in the case of someone who's
a role model for young black men and the
sexual exploitation of subordinates in
the case of someone who can help the
organization politically and financially."
-- Tammy Bruce
Past President
Now (Los Angeles Chapter)
From: "The New Thought Police: Inside
the Left's Assault on Free Speech and
Free Minds"
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Even if they were allowed
> to vote for anyone they wanted, why
> would they?
Because, if the popular vote is won by a certain candidate, then the
will of the people is for that candidate to be President. Therefore, the
ethical vote is for the winner of the popular vote. To vote otherwise
might mean that another candidate, whose Presidency is *not* the will of
the people, might become President. Wait a minute. That's what
happened.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: mws@no-spam
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040344160.28297@no-spam
> alohacyberian wrote:
>
> > No, I'm not going to accept the word "report".
>
> Yes you will. You'll sit down and accept it.
>
Do tell? Guess again. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040344160.28297@no-spam
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "Bob Tiernan" wrote:
> Even if they were allowed
> to vote for anyone they wanted, why
> would they? They're dedicated to the
> candidate of their party. That's why
> they're chosen.
>
You mean like Earl Warren? Or John Connolly? Or Strom Thurmond? Or Ronald
Reagan? Or Henry Kissinger? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/