PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID

[ArtKramr]

The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into higher
education.
They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[OXMORON1]

ART Proclaimed:
>The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
>liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into
>higher
>education.
>They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>

Art
1.As a college student you should know enough to list your sources. I will
agree with you that most of the professors that I had in college were liberals
(not counting of course the ROTC instructors and Engineering instructors).
2. You still haen't defined Neocon as you are using it on this newsgroup.
3. Bush made it to President, more confirmation of the the theory that he world
is run by C students.
4. What else can you do with a BA in History, English or Art besides teach at
the college level?

Rick

[Dave]

How true. It is soooooooooooo much harder to be a professor than it is to
risk your entire net worth to start up and run a successful business that
creates jobs and contributes to the economy. Glenn L. Martin was a perfect
example of just such a buffoon.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
> liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into
higher
> education.
> They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
> liberals. Very few are neocons.
>

Those that can, do; those that can't, teach.


>
> The neocons just can't make the cut into higher education.
> They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>

Perhaps it's that liberals aren't smart enough to advance beyond academia in
most areas.

[Greasy Rider]

wrote:

a bunch of **** blah-blah-blah-blah....

..... and the aviation/military content is totally missing.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>From: "Dave"
>Date: 9/14/2004 12:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>How true. It is soooooooooooo much harder to be a professor than it is to
>risk your entire net worth to start up and run a successful business that
>creates jobs and contributes to the economy. Glenn L. Martin was a perfect
>example of just such a buffoon.


Martin? Isn't that the son of a bitch that built the B-26 Marauder?. That plane
damn near killed all of us before we even got to the ETO. The Baltimore Whore,
The B dash Crash, the flying coffin, the one a day in tampa bay and the
widowmaker.Be glad you never served in one.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 9/14/2004 1:54 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
>liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into
>higher
>education.
>They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Art is a manure salesman with a mouthful of samples.

Please note he refuses to respond as an adult to questions put to him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ragnar]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
> liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into
higher
> education.
> They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.

So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter old
man?

[Catus Lapus]

I took a ride in a Ford TriMotor - so I'm an expert on tomato plants &
corrugated metals.

Apparently, flying in a B-26 doesn't inoculate one from arrogance,
stupidity, historical illiteracy or bad judgment.


(ArtKramr) wrote, amongst other things:
>>How would you know?. I'll bet you have never even seen a B-26 much
less flew
>>in one. Or anything for that matter.

[Bob Coe]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> The vast majority...

Now you sound like Mike Allen at the Washington Post who says:

"...according to the calculations of independent domestic policy
experts."

Whoever the **** that is.

Kramer, you're a ****-up. Your whole racist crew was a ****-up.

[J Haggerty]

ArtKramr wrote:

> Martin? Isn't that the son of a bitch that built the B-26 Marauder?. That plane
> damn near killed all of us before we even got to the ETO. The Baltimore Whore,
> The B dash Crash, the flying coffin, the one a day in tampa bay and the
> widowmaker.Be glad you never served in one.
>
>
And it's also credited with having the safest record of all medium
bombers by the end of the war.

JPH

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>From: J Haggerty
>Date: 9/14/2004 7:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <rFN1d.41188$OZ6.16103@okepread06>
>
>
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> Martin? Isn't that the son of a bitch that built the B-26 Marauder?. That
>plane
>> damn near killed all of us before we even got to the ETO. The Baltimore
>Whore,
>> The B dash Crash, the flying coffin, the one a day in tampa bay and the
>> widowmaker.Be glad you never served in one.
>>
>>
>And it's also credited with having the safest record of all medium
>bombers by the end of the war.
>
>JPH
>


Not exactly. It had the worst record of killing crews in training.So bad that
Truman confronted Martin and threatened to cancel all contracts. It had the
best record of surviving enemy fire, but accidents continued in landings and
take offs of any plane.Well the A-20 was almost as bad. Did you ever fly in
either?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Leadfoot]

"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
> ART Proclaimed:
> >The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
> >liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into
> >higher
> >education.
> >They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
> >
>
> Art
> 1.As a college student you should know enough to list your sources. I will
> agree with you that most of the professors that I had in college were
liberals
> (not counting of course the ROTC instructors and Engineering instructors).
> 2. You still haen't defined Neocon as you are using it on this newsgroup.
> 3. Bush made it to President, more confirmation of the the theory that he
world
> is run by C students.

Name the last President "C" student who wasn't suffering from Dyslexia.


> 4. What else can you do with a BA in

History,

Military arts, Politics

English

Sales, Hollywood, advertising and... Software!!!

or Art

Artist


besides teach at
> the college level?

I've seen boatloads of graduates with these degrees doing all kinds of
different things and being very succesful
>
> Rick

[Leadfoot]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
> > liberals. Very few are neocons.
> >
>
> Those that can, do; those that can't, teach.

Those who can't do either become supervisors

>
>
> >
> > The neocons just can't make the cut into higher education.
> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
> >
>
> Perhaps it's that liberals aren't smart enough to advance beyond academia
in
> most areas.
>
>

[Leadfoot]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into
> higher
> > education.
> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>
> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter old
> man?

Because the supreme court elected him,

Remember the other guy had more people vote for him


>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>And it's also credited with having the safest record of all medium
>>bombers by the end of the war.
>>
>
> Not exactly. It had the worst record of killing crews in training.
>

Which was also the second best record.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:_VN1d.298097$Oi.31484@fed1read04...
>>
>> Those that can, do; those that can't, teach.
>>
>
> Those who can't do either become supervisors
>

Yup. School administrations are full of them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04...
>>
>> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
>> old
>> man?
>>
>
> Because the supreme court elected him,
>
> Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>

In other words, you have no idea how the US president is elected.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04>
>
>
>"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
>> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into
>> higher
>> > education.
>> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>>
>> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter old
>> man?
>
>Because the supreme court elected him,
>
>Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>

That will never be forgotten


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04...
>>
>> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
>> old
>> man?
>>
>
> Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>

That's not a certainty. Some of those votes were "cast" by the dead, some
were multiple votes. If the fraudulent vote could be discarded it would
likely leave a majority for Bush.

[Ken Johnson]

It's a shame you don't know how your government works.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>>From: "Leadfoot"
>>Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04>
>>
>>
>>"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
>>> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
>>> > into
>>> higher
>>> > education.
>>> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>>>
>>> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
>>> old
>>> man?
>>
>>Because the supreme court elected him,
>>
>>Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>>
>
> That will never be forgotten
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[B2431]

>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/14/2004 9:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04>
>
>
>"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
>> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into
>> higher
>> > education.
>> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>>
>> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter old
>> man?
>
>Because the supreme court elected him,
>
>Remember the other guy had more people vote for him

But Bush won the Electoral College.

Have you noticed All the Florida recounts done since 2000 show Bush winning?

If you want to refight the last election go right ahead. I am more interested
in the next.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jack G]

Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.


> >>
> >>Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
> >>
> >
> > That will never be forgotten
> >
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
> > 344th BG 494th BS
> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
>
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 9/14/2004 8:30 PM Pacific

>If you want to refight the last election go right ahead. I am more interested
>in the next.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

All neocons are desperate to forget the last election. It is their shame.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
> >From: (B2431)
> >Date: 9/14/2004 8:30 PM Pacific
>
> >If you want to refight the last election go right ahead. I am more
interested
> >in the next.
> >
> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> All neocons are desperate to forget the last election. It is their shame.

What's a neocon? Why won't you answer that question? A big ol' B-26
bombadier afraid to answer a li'l ol' question about a word he uses ad
nauseum?

Brooks

>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[Jack G]

Since you can't define neocon - I'll assume you mean any one who is not
aligned with your political views - in which case I would ask why, if Bush
won (he is in the White House you know), would they be desperate to forget a
victorious election...

Jack G.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
> >From: (B2431)
> >Date: 9/14/2004 8:30 PM Pacific
>
> >If you want to refight the last election go right ahead. I am more
interested
> >in the next.
> >
> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> All neocons are desperate to forget the last election. It is their shame.
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

ArtKramr wrote:
>

> Martin? Isn't that the son of a bitch that built the B-26 Marauder?. That plane
> damn near killed all of us before we even got to the ETO. The Baltimore Whore,
> The B dash Crash, the flying coffin, the one a day in tampa bay and the
> widowmaker.Be glad you never served in one.

Just FYI, Art: they were still using that "one a day in Tampa
Bay" line in 1969 at MacDill - except the planes were by then
F-4Es of a Replacement Training Unit for the Vietnam war.

There was nothing defective about the aircraft or the maintenance,
either; it was the inexperienced drivers that put 'em there.

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 9/14/2004 10:51 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>>From: (B2431)
>>Date: 9/14/2004 8:30 PM Pacific
>
>>If you want to refight the last election go right ahead. I am more
>interested
>>in the next.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>All neocons are desperate to forget the last election. It is their shame.
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>

I am not "desperate to forget the last election." You seem bound and determined
to refight Viet Nam, WW2 and other past wars. I don't know about you, but I
prefer to focus on the future.

Last week you defined "neocon" as the ones putting out the forged documents.
Since the democrats are the one peddling them I can't be a neocon. I am not a
democrat and I am not peddling forgeries.

Art, you may have been a brave man in WW2 but now you don't behave like a man
and you don't display any courage here. You aren't man enough to back up what
you say. Do you masturbate everytime someone asks you to define what a neocon
is? The only reason I can see that you behave in such a childish manner is that
you derive pleasure making an ass of yourself. Is this pleasure sexual?]]


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ragnar]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
> > > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
into
> > higher
> > > education.
> > > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
> >
> > So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
old
> > man?
>
> Because the supreme court elected him,

Ah, another person who wasn't paying attention to the US and Florida Supreme
Court decisions. Read up on it and come back.

>
> Remember the other guy had more people vote for him

Umm, the President isn't elected by popular vote. Go read the Constitution
and come back.

[Ragnar]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04>
> >
> >
> >"Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
Democratic
> >> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
into
> >> higher
> >> > education.
> >> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
> >>
> >> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
old
> >> man?
> >
> >Because the supreme court elected him,
> >
> >Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
> >
>
> That will never be forgotten

What Art has forgotten is that the President isn't elected by popular vote.
Perhaps he needs to go back and read the Constitution.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's a neocon? Why won't you answer that question?
>

It's because he doesn't know. He is uneducated and unintelligent.

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>From: Dweezil Dwarftosser
>Date: 9/14/2004 10:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>
>> Martin? Isn't that the son of a bitch that built the B-26 Marauder?. That
>plane
>> damn near killed all of us before we even got to the ETO. The Baltimore
>Whore,
>> The B dash Crash, the flying coffin, the one a day in tampa bay and the
>> widowmaker.Be glad you never served in one.
>
>Just FYI, Art: they were still using that "one a day in Tampa
>Bay" line in 1969 at MacDill - except the planes were by then
>F-4Es of a Replacement Training Unit for the Vietnam war.
>
>There was nothing defective about the aircraft or the maintenance,
>either; it was the inexperienced drivers that put 'em there.
>


Is that from the 1,000 houirs you flew the B-26?




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[OXMORON1]

Steve wrote in reply to:
>>> Those that can, do; those that can't, teach.
>>>
>>
>> Those who can't do either become supervisors

The following
>
>Yup. School administrations are full of them.

With apologies to the good ones, in the midwest it seems if a school principal
is male, the odds are that he is an ex coach, usually football who taught
American History.

Rick

[Leadfoot]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
> > >From: "Leadfoot"
> > >Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04>
> > >
> > >
> > >"Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
> Democratic
> > >> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
> into
> > >> higher
> > >> > education.
> > >> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
> > >>
> > >> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a
bitter
> old
> > >> man?
> > >
> > >Because the supreme court elected him,
> > >
> > >Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
> > >
> >
> > That will never be forgotten
>
> What Art has forgotten is that the President isn't elected by popular
vote.
> Perhaps he needs to go back and read the Constitution.

This is the same constitution that as originally written counted a slave as
3/5th of a man and didn't allow women to vote.

We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of 50
states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

The good news is there is an advantage for some of us as we don't get
inundated with crap campaign commercials on TV

>
>

[Leadfoot]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >Date: 9/14/2004 9:39 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04>
> >
> >
> >"Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
Democratic
> >> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
into
> >> higher
> >> > education.
> >> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
> >>
> >> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
old
> >> man?
> >
> >Because the supreme court elected him,
> >
> >Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>
> But Bush won the Electoral College.
>
> Have you noticed All the Florida recounts done since 2000 show Bush
winning?
>
> If you want to refight the last election go right ahead. I am more
interested
> in the next.

So if bush wins the popular vote and loses the electoral you'll be happy???


>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Leadfoot]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
Democratic
> > > > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
> into
> > > higher
> > > > education.
> > > > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
> > >
> > > So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
> old
> > > man?
> >
> > Because the supreme court elected him,
>
> Ah, another person who wasn't paying attention to the US and Florida
Supreme
> Court decisions. Read up on it and come back.

You notice that no supreme court justice has retired during this particular
presidential term? There is a reason for that.


>
> >
> > Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>
> Umm, the President isn't elected by popular vote. Go read the
Constitution
> and come back.
>
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:24:56 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:

>You notice that no supreme court justice has retired during this particular
>presidential term? There is a reason for that.
>

Which is an interesting commentary on the state of the Supreme Court
appointment and confirmation process.

Clearly there are several members of the court who have expressed a
desire to retire or who are demonstrably in declining
health--Rehnquist, O'Conner, Ginsberg for example. Note one
conservative, one swing and one liberal in their judicial temperment.

Bush sought to have them delay retirement until '02 hoping for a
greater majority in the Senate and therefore easier confirmation. That
didn't occur. During the second half of his first term, he was forced
to ask them to hold still longer (at least the conservative/swing
member--the liberal member would delay hoping for a more sympathetic
president/senate to determine her replacement.)

Now, the '04 election will very clearly determine if the floodgates
for a court transition are opened or simply trickle. We might have to
see deaths on the Court rather than retirements.

It isn't uncommon for a presidential term to go by without
appointments to the Court--the average through the history of the
court is about one per term and since there are plenty of examples of
multiple appointments in a term, there are necessarily a lot of
no-appointment presidential terms.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That's not a certainty. Some of those votes were "cast" by the dead,
>> some
>> were multiple votes. If the fraudulent vote could be discarded it would
>> likely leave a majority for Bush.
>>
>
> And in any case, irrelevant.
>

Yup.


>
> Its the Electoral College votes that matter.
>

Yes, but the previous poster was referring to the national popular vote.


>
> You may not like that but its the law.
>

I have no problem with it.

[Greasy Rider]

ArtKramr wrote:

> All neocons are desperate to forget the last election. It is their shame.

Not me (assuming I'm a Neocon. Sounds like I'd like to be one if you
despise them so.)

I enjoyed every chad hanging moment by all those Q-Tips down in Florida.

[Jack G]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
> Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than a
> majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
>
> Jack G.
Presidents elected without a majority of the popular vote:

First number is Percent of Electoral Vote
Second number is Percentage of Popular Vote
1824 John Q. Adams 31.8 29.8
1844 James K. Polk (D) 61.8 49.3
1848 Zachary Taylor (W) 56.2 47.3
1856 James Buchanan (D) 58.7 45.3
1860 Abraham Lincoln (R) 59.4 39.9
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes (R) 50.1 47.9
1880 James A. Garfield (R) 57.9 48.3
1884 Grover Cleveland (D) 54.6 48.8
1888 Benjamin Harrison (R) 58.1 47.8
1892 Grover Cleveland (D) 62.4 46.0
1912 Woodrow Wilson (D) `81.9 41.8
1916 Woodrow Wilson (D) 52.1 49.3
1948 Harry S. Truman (D) 57.1 49.5
1960 John F. Kennedy (D) 56.4 49.7
1968 Richard M. Nixon (R) 56.1 43.4
1992 William J. Clinton (D) 68.8 43.0
1996 William J. Clinton (D) 70.4 49.0
2000 George W. Bush (R) 50.3 47.8

[Leslie Swartz]

No, he didn't.

The (totally irrelevant) "popular vote" had a margin of error greater than
the difference in numbers.

In other words, the most you can say about the (totally irrelevant) "popular
vote" is that "out of those ballots that were actually counted [and many
were not], it was a tie."

Jeeze, this is what, the third time in two months this has been thoroughly
explained and then discussed?

Steve Swartz

(OBTW, just because the "popular media" continues to repeat the lie of "Gore
won the [totally irrelevant] popular vote" doesn't make it any less a lie.
It just means that those in the popular media are stupid. But we know that
already.)


"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic
>> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
>> > into
>> higher
>> > education.
>> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>>
>> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
>> old
>> man?
>
> Because the supreme court elected him,
>
> Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Do your homework.


"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
> Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than a
> majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
>
> Jack G.
>
>
>> >>
>> >>Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>> >>
>> >
>> > That will never be forgotten
>> >
>> >
>> > Arthur Kramer
>> > 344th BG 494th BS
>> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Is that any greater than the -> 0 <- hours you flew them?

Or do you have some stick time you haven't already embellished in this
group?

Reminder: riding around one is not loggable as PIC hours, Art.

Steve Swartz




"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >ubject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>>From: Dweezil Dwarftosser
>>Date: 9/14/2004 10:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Martin? Isn't that the son of a bitch that built the B-26 Marauder?.
>>> That
>>plane
>>> damn near killed all of us before we even got to the ETO. The Baltimore
>>Whore,
>>> The B dash Crash, the flying coffin, the one a day in tampa bay and the
>>> widowmaker.Be glad you never served in one.
>>
>>Just FYI, Art: they were still using that "one a day in Tampa
>>Bay" line in 1969 at MacDill - except the planes were by then
>>F-4Es of a Replacement Training Unit for the Vietnam war.
>>
>>There was nothing defective about the aircraft or the maintenance,
>>either; it was the inexperienced drivers that put 'em there.
>>
>
>
> Is that from the 1,000 houirs you flew the B-26?
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Jack G]

From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> Do your homework.
>
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
> > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than a
> > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
> >
> > Jack G.
> >
> >

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
> From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
>
> Popular Vote:
>
> Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
> Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
>
> Looks like more to me!

Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?

Brooks

>
> Jack G.
>
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Do your homework.
> >
> >
> > "Jack G" > wrote in message
> > news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
> > > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than
a
> > > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
> > >
> > > Jack G.
> > >
> > >
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Jack:

I suspect that you are the same guy who kept ignoring all the explanations
before, and kept posting and reposting that table. If so, then the
following is a waste of bandwidth; if not, you might find the following
addition (your omission) illuminating:

Mechanical Tally Error:
Bush: 47.87 +/- 3.23 % (95% two-tailed confidence interval)
Gore: 48.38 +- 3.23 % (95% two tailed confidence interval)

Ballot Undercount Error, 2% - 7% local 3% estimated average (absentee etc.
ballots "not counted because they have no material effect on outcome")

So conservatively, the 0.51% difference between the two vote count totals
represents about a standard deviation's worth of difference.

So in other words, we are 80% confident that the true vote count could have
gone either way; and only 20% confident that Gore's total was actually
higher than Bush's.

Not counting, of course, fraud and/or uncounted ballots. This is just the
mechanical error of the vote counting machines.

Steve


"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
> From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
>
> Popular Vote:
>
> Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
> Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
>
> Looks like more to me!
>
> Jack G.
>
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Do your homework.
>>
>>
>> "Jack G" > wrote in message
>> news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
>> > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than
>> > a
>> > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
>> >
>> > Jack G.
>> >
>> >
>
>

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >Just FYI, Art: they were still using that "one a day in Tampa
> >Bay" line in 1969 at MacDill - except the planes were by then
> >F-4Es of a Replacement Training Unit for the Vietnam war.
> >
> >There was nothing defective about the aircraft or the maintenance,
> >either; it was the inexperienced drivers that put 'em there.
> >
>
> Is that from the 1,000 houirs you flew the B-26?

No, but it was from the more than 30,000 hours I eventually
amassed working on those F-4s.

How many hours do you have maintaining the B-26?
If the answer is "none", then you're totally unqualified to
comment on the subject.

John T. - 1st, 4th, 15th, 36th, 50th, 56th, 86th, and 388th TFWs.
Thailand, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Morrocco, Iran, Pakistan.

[Jack G]

I never mentioned Electoral votes in my post. The topic of Art's post was
the popular vote.

Jack G.
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
> > From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
> >
> > Popular Vote:
> >
> > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
> > Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
> >
> > Looks like more to me!
>
> Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
> count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Jack G.
> >
> > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Do your homework.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jack G" > wrote in message
> > > news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
> > > > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
than
> a
> > > > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
> > > >
> > > > Jack G.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jack G]

I have no visibility of other posts that included the table I originally
posted - so yes I did ignore what I can not see.

The numbers that count are the official vote counts. The statistical
analysis is an interesting study - but does not change the official count.

Jack


"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> Jack:
>
> I suspect that you are the same guy who kept ignoring all the
explanations
> before, and kept posting and reposting that table. If so, then the
> following is a waste of bandwidth; if not, you might find the following
> addition (your omission) illuminating:
>
> Mechanical Tally Error:
> Bush: 47.87 +/- 3.23 % (95% two-tailed confidence interval)
> Gore: 48.38 +- 3.23 % (95% two tailed confidence interval)
>
> Ballot Undercount Error, 2% - 7% local 3% estimated average (absentee etc.
> ballots "not counted because they have no material effect on outcome")
>
> So conservatively, the 0.51% difference between the two vote count totals
> represents about a standard deviation's worth of difference.
>
> So in other words, we are 80% confident that the true vote count could
have
> gone either way; and only 20% confident that Gore's total was actually
> higher than Bush's.
>
> Not counting, of course, fraud and/or uncounted ballots. This is just the
> mechanical error of the vote counting machines.
>
> Steve
>
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
> > From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
> >
> > Popular Vote:
> >
> > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
> > Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
> >
> > Looks like more to me!
> >
> > Jack G.
> >
> > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Do your homework.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> >> news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
> >> > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
than
> >> > a
> >> > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
> >> >
> >> > Jack G.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:dA02d.6092$MS1.2252@trnddc02...
> I never mentioned Electoral votes in my post. The topic of Art's post was
> the popular vote.

Then you are wasting your breath--the nationwide popular vote does not mean
squat.

Brooks

>
> Jack G.
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jack G" > wrote in message
> > news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
> > > From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
> > >
> > > Popular Vote:
> > >
> > > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
> > > Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
> > >
> > > Looks like more to me!
> >
> > Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
> > count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > Jack G.
> > >
> > > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Do your homework.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Jack G" > wrote in message
> > > > news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
> > > > > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
> than
> > a
> > > > > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jack G.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/15/2004 9:22 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <veY1d.299700$Oi.64408@fed1read04>
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >Date: 9/14/2004 9:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Ragnar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
>Democratic
>> >> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
>into
>> >> higher
>> >> > education.
>> >> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>> >>
>> >> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
>old
>> >> man?
>> >
>> >Because the supreme court elected him,
>> >
>> >Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>>
>> But Bush won the Electoral College.
>>
>> Have you noticed All the Florida recounts done since 2000 show Bush
>winning?
>>
>> If you want to refight the last election go right ahead. I am more
>interested
>> in the next.
>
>So if bush wins the popular vote and loses the electoral you'll be happy???

No, but I won't argue the outcome ad nauseum.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ragnar]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >ubject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
> >From: Dweezil Dwarftosser
> >Date: 9/14/2004 10:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >ArtKramr wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Martin? Isn't that the son of a bitch that built the B-26 Marauder?.
That
> >plane
> >> damn near killed all of us before we even got to the ETO. The Baltimore
> >Whore,
> >> The B dash Crash, the flying coffin, the one a day in tampa bay and the
> >> widowmaker.Be glad you never served in one.
> >
> >Just FYI, Art: they were still using that "one a day in Tampa
> >Bay" line in 1969 at MacDill - except the planes were by then
> >F-4Es of a Replacement Training Unit for the Vietnam war.
> >
> >There was nothing defective about the aircraft or the maintenance,
> >either; it was the inexperienced drivers that put 'em there.
> >
>
>
> Is that from the 1,000 houirs you flew the B-26?

So, Art, how many hours do you have as a B-26 pilot? Whats that? Zero? Oh
yeah, you were just the bombadier, not the pilot.

[Ragnar]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:odY1d.299698$Oi.13601@fed1read04...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
> > > >From: "Leadfoot"
> > > >Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > > >Message-id: <nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>
> > > >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
> > Democratic
> > > >> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the
cut
> > into
> > > >> higher
> > > >> > education.
> > > >> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently
demonstrates.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a
> bitter
> > old
> > > >> man?
> > > >
> > > >Because the supreme court elected him,
> > > >
> > > >Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
> > > >
> > >
> > > That will never be forgotten
> >
> > What Art has forgotten is that the President isn't elected by popular
> vote.
> > Perhaps he needs to go back and read the Constitution.
>
> This is the same constitution that as originally written counted a slave
as
> 3/5th of a man and didn't allow women to vote.

Actually, if you read it, you will find that there is NOTHING in the
Constitution that disallows women the vote. That was based on other laws,
but not the Constitution.

> We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of
50
> states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

Then change it.

[Ragnar]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:RgY1d.299705$Oi.151027@fed1read04...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> > news:nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
> Democratic
> > > > > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the
cut
> > into
> > > > higher
> > > > > education.
> > > > > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
> > > >
> > > > So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a
bitter
> > old
> > > > man?
> > >
> > > Because the supreme court elected him,
> >
> > Ah, another person who wasn't paying attention to the US and Florida
> Supreme
> > Court decisions. Read up on it and come back.
>
> You notice that no supreme court justice has retired during this
particular
> presidential term? There is a reason for that.

And?

> > > Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
> >
> > Umm, the President isn't elected by popular vote. Go read the
> Constitution
> > and come back.

What? Not finished reading it yet?

[Jack G]

Which was exactly the point I tried to make to ART. Believe me, I know how
the President is elected.

Jack G.
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> news:dA02d.6092$MS1.2252@trnddc02...
> > I never mentioned Electoral votes in my post. The topic of Art's post
was
> > the popular vote.
>
> Then you are wasting your breath--the nationwide popular vote does not
mean
> squat.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Jack G.
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jack G" > wrote in message
> > > news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
> > > > From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
> > > >
> > > > Popular Vote:
> > > >
> > > > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
> > > > Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
> > > >
> > > > Looks like more to me!
> > >
> > > Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
> > > count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jack G.
> > > >
> > > > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Do your homework.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jack G" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
> > > > > > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with
less
> > than
> > > a
> > > > > > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jack G.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Pete]

"Leadfoot" > wrote
>
> We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of
50
> states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

A straight popular vote would have the candidates only care about 3
*cities*. NYC, Chicago, and LA
The metro areas of those cities comprise ~40 million people. Equal to the 23
smallest states.

Is THAT a good idea?

Pete

[J Haggerty]

Leadfoot wrote:

> You notice that no supreme court justice has retired during this particular
> presidential term? There is a reason for that.
>
Because they aren't ready to retire?

JPH

[Bob Coe]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Is that from the 1,000 houirs you flew the B-26?

More people have died in a Cessna 172 than a B-26.

Airplanes aren't unsafe, or bad, but the drivers do silly things.

Bob Coe, 12k+ hours in the Tweet, Talon, Bronco
"Two Screws are better than Two Blow Jobs"

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:40:29 GMT, "Jack G"
> wrote:

>1992 William J. Clinton (D) 68.8 43.0
>1996 William J. Clinton (D) 70.4 49.0
>2000 George W. Bush (R) 50.3 47.8

Thanks for the list. You won't hear much about this factoid on the
mainstream media, however, given that the last president to get a
popular majority was Ronald Reagan--twice.

I used to whisper to my wife (you have to whisper about such things
when you live in a university town): "How come Reagan keeps getting
elected if we're the only people voting for him?"


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks for the list. You won't hear much about this factoid on the
> mainstream media, however, given that the last president to get a
> popular majority was Ronald Reagan--twice.
>

Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?

[Raoul]

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Thanks for the list. You won't hear much about this factoid on the
> > mainstream media, however, given that the last president to get a
> > popular majority was Ronald Reagan--twice.
> >
>
> Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?

The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates.
Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote
which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would have
gone to Nixon, too.

>
>

[Lisakbernacchia]

>Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>From: Ian MacLure
>Date: 9/15/2004 9:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:
>
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> What's a neocon? Why won't you answer that question?
>>>
>>
>> It's because he doesn't know. He is uneducated and unintelligent.
>
> You forgot incompetent, insufferable and incontinent.
>
> IBM
>
>

Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as a
bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Raoul" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?
>>
>
> The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates.
> Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote
> which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would have
> gone to Nixon, too.
>

But there was no "third party" candidate in 1988. Bush won 53.4% of the
national popular vote.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
>
> Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as a
> bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you
>

How do you know that?

[Peter Stickney]

In article <odY1d.299698$Oi.13601@fed1read04>,
"Leadfoot" > writes:

> We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of 50
> states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

Yes.

If we went to a strict popularity contest (Popular vote only) we'd have
a system where only 6 or 7 out of 50 States count - (And not even all
ovf those - The areas that would dominate are a few cities and their
suburbs) IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? Hell, no! Especially when one considers
that these urban areas are net resource sinks - they don't produce
enough of anything to survive, and are dependant an the rest of the
Nation. Giving them unconstrained power to do as they will is a Really
Bad Idea. Think of the conditions that led to the downfall of Rome.
It wouldn't be much different at all.

The Electoral College is a very clever scheme to weight things such
that the rest of teh country gets a voice. It's still largely
weighted by population, but the poetion of the Electoral votes that
are tied to a States existance ('bout 19%) provide a damper on the
dangers of Tyrrany of the Majority. The balance is such that the
Electoral Vote follows the Popular Vote in the main - until the race
is too close to reliably call. It then applies just enough feedback
to prevent the possibility of someone seizing power by only influencing
a few Political Machines (As, indeed existed back in the days of the
Articles of Confederation) to swing his way.

> The good news is there is an advantage for some of us as we don't get
> inundated with crap campaign commercials on TV

The even better news is that my vote counts more than yours. That's
not a slap at you, personally. It means that we end up with a nation
of equal Citizens - not denizens of a few over-populated conurbations
milking the productive parts of the Nation.

The Founding Fathers wer clever folks.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Leslie Swartz]

Then stop labeling your table "popular vote" and likewise stop claiming that
Gore received more votes than Bush. Both are misleading and simply not
true.

If you want to claim that our current vote counting system is unable to
determine who actually got more votes, but the FEC system has "certified"
the "counted votes" [not votes cast, many of which are never counted] to be
so and so, fine.

Of course, stating the truth plainly makes your whole point even more
irrelevant.

Steve Swartz

"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:KN02d.6096$MS1.3634@trnddc02...
>I have no visibility of other posts that included the table I originally
> posted - so yes I did ignore what I can not see.
>
> The numbers that count are the official vote counts. The statistical
> analysis is an interesting study - but does not change the official count.
>
> Jack
>
>
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jack:
>>
>> I suspect that you are the same guy who kept ignoring all the
> explanations
>> before, and kept posting and reposting that table. If so, then the
>> following is a waste of bandwidth; if not, you might find the following
>> addition (your omission) illuminating:
>>
>> Mechanical Tally Error:
>> Bush: 47.87 +/- 3.23 % (95% two-tailed confidence interval)
>> Gore: 48.38 +- 3.23 % (95% two tailed confidence interval)
>>
>> Ballot Undercount Error, 2% - 7% local 3% estimated average (absentee
>> etc.
>> ballots "not counted because they have no material effect on outcome")
>>
>> So conservatively, the 0.51% difference between the two vote count totals
>> represents about a standard deviation's worth of difference.
>>
>> So in other words, we are 80% confident that the true vote count could
> have
>> gone either way; and only 20% confident that Gore's total was actually
>> higher than Bush's.
>>
>> Not counting, of course, fraud and/or uncounted ballots. This is just
>> the
>> mechanical error of the vote counting machines.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> "Jack G" > wrote in message
>> news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
>> > From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
>> >
>> > Popular Vote:
>> >
>> > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
>> > Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
>> >
>> > Looks like more to me!
>> >
>> > Jack G.
>> >
>> > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Do your homework.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Jack G" > wrote in message
>> >> news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
>> >> > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
> than
>> >> > a
>> >> > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
>> >> >
>> >> > Jack G.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

And it is recognized as such- the nationwide popular vote is never actually
counted.

Steve Swartz


"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> news:dA02d.6092$MS1.2252@trnddc02...
>> I never mentioned Electoral votes in my post. The topic of Art's post
>> was
>> the popular vote.
>
> Then you are wasting your breath--the nationwide popular vote does not
> mean
> squat.
>
> Brooks
>
>>
>> Jack G.
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Jack G" > wrote in message
>> > news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
>> > > From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
>> > >
>> > > Popular Vote:
>> > >
>> > > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
>> > > Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
>> > >
>> > > Looks like more to me!
>> >
>> > Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
>> > count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?
>> >
>> > Brooks
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Jack G.
>> > >
>> > > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > > Do your homework.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > "Jack G" > wrote in message
>> > > > news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
>> > > > > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
>> than
>> > a
>> > > > > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Jack G.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

HOWEVER

You continue to represent a certain table as "The nationwide Popular Vote"
when the nationwide popular vote isn't even counted.

That's a lie; or at least misrepresenting "X" as "Y."

Steve Swartz


"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:fG22d.10285$iS2.5488@trnddc09...
> Which was exactly the point I tried to make to ART. Believe me, I know
> how
> the President is elected.
>
> Jack G.
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jack G" > wrote in message
>> news:dA02d.6092$MS1.2252@trnddc02...
>> > I never mentioned Electoral votes in my post. The topic of Art's post
> was
>> > the popular vote.
>>
>> Then you are wasting your breath--the nationwide popular vote does not
> mean
>> squat.
>>
>> Brooks
>>
>> >
>> > Jack G.
>> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Jack G" > wrote in message
>> > > news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
>> > > > From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
>> > > >
>> > > > Popular Vote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
>> > > > Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
>> > > >
>> > > > Looks like more to me!
>> > >
>> > > Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
>> > > count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?
>> > >
>> > > Brooks
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Jack G.
>> > > >
>> > > > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > > Do your homework.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Jack G" > wrote in message
>> > > > > news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
>> > > > > > Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with
> less
>> > than
>> > > a
>> > > > > > majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Jack G.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget that
the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never
actually counted.

The FEC doesn't even have standards or a process for counting the "popular
vote."

This is in addition to the margins of errors for balloting. Ballots are not
counted- that's right, thrown away- if the tally from those ballots won't
affect the electoral votes in play.

This undercount (generally assumed to be proportianally representative of
the counted ballots; a major flaw in the theory ref absentee ballots which
are generally the ones tossed) is in addition to the undercount referred to
in the literature as "residual ballots" which are cast, but unscored, votes.

Overall what most people (yourselves included) refer to as the "Popular
Vote" [sic] is only a very rough, and not even representative, estimate of
only those votes actually tallied- which are themselves subject to error.

There is no such thing as the "national popular vote" except in a
theoretical sense.

Being a polisci guy Ed Rasimus knows more about this than I do, but for
starters check out a good summary report National Buerea of Standards report
500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying"
compiled by Roy G. Saltman http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158 and
then track back to the CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC
standards for vote tally accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are
not yet in force) and machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical
error issues involved at http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a
good "Apologia" from the government side.

I found it particularly hilarious to read about how "these results should be
treated carefully lest the public lose confidence in their government!"
Yeah, right.

Steve Swartz


Steve Swartz



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Raoul" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?
>>>
>>
>> The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates.
>> Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote
>> which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would have
>> gone to Nixon, too.
>>
>
> But there was no "third party" candidate in 1988. Bush won 53.4% of the
> national popular vote.
>

[Jack G]

You may consider this a minor point - but general election ballots almost
always have more than just the Presidential issue - and even thought the
Presidential race may have been determined, the other issues require a vote
count to be determined. Machine and computerized voting count all of the
issues on a ballot. The number of uncounted ballots is therefore quite
small in most states.

Jack G.


"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget
that
> the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never
> actually counted.
>
> The FEC doesn't even have standards or a process for counting the "popular
> vote."
>
> This is in addition to the margins of errors for balloting. Ballots are
not
> counted- that's right, thrown away- if the tally from those ballots won't
> affect the electoral votes in play.
>
> This undercount (generally assumed to be proportianally representative of
> the counted ballots; a major flaw in the theory ref absentee ballots which
> are generally the ones tossed) is in addition to the undercount referred
to
> in the literature as "residual ballots" which are cast, but unscored,
votes.
>
> Overall what most people (yourselves included) refer to as the "Popular
> Vote" [sic] is only a very rough, and not even representative, estimate of
> only those votes actually tallied- which are themselves subject to error.
>
> There is no such thing as the "national popular vote" except in a
> theoretical sense.
>
> Being a polisci guy Ed Rasimus knows more about this than I do, but for
> starters check out a good summary report National Buerea of Standards
report
> 500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying"
> compiled by Roy G. Saltman http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158
and
> then track back to the CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC
> standards for vote tally accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are
> not yet in force) and machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical
> error issues involved at http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a
> good "Apologia" from the government side.
>
> I found it particularly hilarious to read about how "these results should
be
> treated carefully lest the public lose confidence in their government!"
> Yeah, right.
>
> Steve Swartz
>
>
> Steve Swartz
>
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Raoul" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>>
> >>> Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates.
> >> Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote
> >> which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would have
> >> gone to Nixon, too.
> >>
> >
> > But there was no "third party" candidate in 1988. Bush won 53.4% of the
> > national popular vote.
> >
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
>
> You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget
> that the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never
> actually counted.
>

Because it's meaningless. But the popular vote by state is counted and all
one has to do is add the individual state counts. The point, for the
purpose of this discussion, is that GHWB did receive a majority of the
national popular vote.

[Leslie Swartz]

Jack:

Do you consider 6%-7% to be "small?" I don't. Read the reports. You get
3%~4% mechanical undercount (residual vote), and an additional 3% tossed
ballots.

This is above and beyond mechanical error; this is above and beyond any
fraud.

Steve Swartz



"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:LAl2d.8436$5t4.5488@trnddc01...
> You may consider this a minor point - but general election ballots almost
> always have more than just the Presidential issue - and even thought the
> Presidential race may have been determined, the other issues require a
> vote
> count to be determined. Machine and computerized voting count all of the
> issues on a ballot. The number of uncounted ballots is therefore quite
> small in most states.
>
> Jack G.
>
>
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget
> that
>> the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never
>> actually counted.
>>
>> The FEC doesn't even have standards or a process for counting the
>> "popular
>> vote."
>>
>> This is in addition to the margins of errors for balloting. Ballots are
> not
>> counted- that's right, thrown away- if the tally from those ballots won't
>> affect the electoral votes in play.
>>
>> This undercount (generally assumed to be proportianally representative of
>> the counted ballots; a major flaw in the theory ref absentee ballots
>> which
>> are generally the ones tossed) is in addition to the undercount referred
> to
>> in the literature as "residual ballots" which are cast, but unscored,
> votes.
>>
>> Overall what most people (yourselves included) refer to as the "Popular
>> Vote" [sic] is only a very rough, and not even representative, estimate
>> of
>> only those votes actually tallied- which are themselves subject to error.
>>
>> There is no such thing as the "national popular vote" except in a
>> theoretical sense.
>>
>> Being a polisci guy Ed Rasimus knows more about this than I do, but for
>> starters check out a good summary report National Buerea of Standards
> report
>> 500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying"
>> compiled by Roy G. Saltman http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158
> and
>> then track back to the CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC
>> standards for vote tally accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are
>> not yet in force) and machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical
>> error issues involved at http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a
>> good "Apologia" from the government side.
>>
>> I found it particularly hilarious to read about how "these results should
> be
>> treated carefully lest the public lose confidence in their government!"
>> Yeah, right.
>>
>> Steve Swartz
>>
>>
>> Steve Swartz
>>
>>
>>
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Raoul" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>>
>> >>> Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates.
>> >> Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote
>> >> which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would
>> >> have
>> >> gone to Nixon, too.
>> >>
>> >
>> > But there was no "third party" candidate in 1988. Bush won 53.4% of
>> > the
>> > national popular vote.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Steve:

Read the reports. There is at least a 3%-4% "residual vote" undercount
(mechanical undercount), and a ~3% purposeful undercount.

This, of course, is above and beyond mechanical scoring error, and above and
beyond any fraud.

See National Bureau of Standards report 500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and
Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying" compiled by Roy G. Saltman
http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158 and then track back to the
CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC standards for vote tally
accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are not yet in force) and
machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical error issues involved at
http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a good "Apologia" from the
government side.

Yeah, "actual studies" have been done. And yeah, we don't try very hard to
to count the "popular vote by state" [sic]- whatever that means. We have a
casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but nothing approaching
any type of recognized official count.

Surprised? Check it out. Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing
behind it. I have provided the cites. if you think I am making it up, get
the reports, read them, and then let's go at it chapter and verse.

The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet all of
a sudden . . .

Steve Swartz


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget
>> that the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never
>> actually counted.
>>
>
> Because it's meaningless. But the popular vote by state is counted and
> all one has to do is add the individual state counts. The point, for the
> purpose of this discussion, is that GHWB did receive a majority of the
> national popular vote.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> Steve:
>
> Read the reports.

For what purpose?


>
>There is at least a 3%-4% "residual vote" undercount (mechanical
>undercount), and a ~3% purposeful undercount.
>

So what's your point?


>
> This, of course, is above and beyond mechanical scoring error, and above
> and beyond any fraud.
>
> See National Bureau of Standards report 500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and
> Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying" compiled by Roy G. Saltman
> http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158 and then track back to the
> CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC standards for vote tally
> accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are not yet in force) and
> machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical error issues involved
> at http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a good "Apologia" from
> the government side.
>

See them for what?


>
> Yeah, "actual studies" have been done. And yeah, we don't try very hard
> to to count the "popular vote by state" [sic]- whatever that means.
>

The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral votes
are cast.


>
> We have a casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but nothing
> approaching any type of recognized official count.
>
> Surprised?
>

No. Should I be?


>
>Check it out.
>

Check what out?


>
> Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing behind it. I have provided
> the cites. if you think I am making it up, get the reports, read them,
> and then let's go at it chapter and verse.
>

What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the presidential
election process you'd like me to explain to you?


>
> The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet all
> of a sudden . . .
>

Took you up on what?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Thanks for the list. You won't hear much about this factoid on the
> > mainstream media, however, given that the last president to get a
> > popular majority was Ronald Reagan--twice.
> >
>
> Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?

Since he isn't on the 'minority president' list I guess he did,
provided the list is accurate.

--

FF

[Lisakbernacchia]

>Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 9/16/2004 5:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as a
>> bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you
>>
>
>How do you know that?


So you are now claiming to be an Air Cadet graduate who went into combat as
aircrew?

[Lisakbernacchia]

>Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/15/2004 7:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <veY1d.299700$Oi.64408@fed1read04>
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >Date: 9/14/2004 9:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Ragnar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
>Democratic
>> >> > liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
>into
>> >> higher
>> >> > education.
>> >> > They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.
>> >>
>> >> So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
>old
>> >> man?
>> >
>> >Because the supreme court elected him,
>> >
>> >Remember the other guy had more people vote for him
>>
>> But Bush won the Electoral College.
>>
>> Have you noticed All the Florida recounts done since 2000 show Bush
>winning?
>>
>> If you want to refight the last election go right ahead. I am more
>interested
>> in the next.
>
>So if bush wins the popular vote and loses the electoral you'll be happy???
>
>
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Did you wear wings

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>Date: 9/16/2004 5:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: t>
>>
>>
>>"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as
>>> a
>>> bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you
>>>
>>
>>How do you know that?
>>
>
> So you are now claiming to be an Air Cadet graduate who went into combat
> as
> aircrew?
>

No. How did you make that leap?

[Lisakbernacchia]

>Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 9/17/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>>Date: 9/16/2004 5:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: t>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as
>>>> a
>>>> bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you
>>>>
>>>
>>>How do you know that?
>>>
>>
>> So you are now claiming to be an Air Cadet graduate who went into combat
>> as
>> aircrew?
>>
>
>No. How did you make that leap?
>

Then is it fair to say you were neither an Air Cadet nor aircrew. Is that
right?.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>Date: 9/17/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: et>
>>
>>
>>"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
>>> >Subject: Re: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
>>>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>>>Date: 9/16/2004 5:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: t>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>> Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew
>>>>> as
>>>>> a
>>>>> bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How do you know that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you are now claiming to be an Air Cadet graduate who went into combat
>>> as
>>> aircrew?
>>>
>>
>>No. How did you make that leap?
>>
>
> Then is it fair to say you were neither an Air Cadet nor aircrew. Is that
> right?.
>

Yup.

[Leslie Swartz]

Steve:

The point is perhaps clarified below in three embedded responses. Please
note that rudeness is being ignored for the purpose of enhancing
comprehension:

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve:
>>
>> Read the reports.
>
> For what purpose?

**** SNIP ****


>
> The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral votes
> are cast.
>

Kind of.

1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
votes should be cast by the electors.
2) Exactly how these votes are counted- and whether or not an attempt is
made to count all of the votes, and if so how this attempt is made- varies
somewhat state by state.
3) Once the individual state has counted enough ballots to determine how to
proceed electorally, the unused/unecessary votes are generally not counted.
4) The electors from that state are then charged to vote a certain way
(generally).
5) The electors vote; according to the laws of their state.
6) When it's all over, various media types sum the ballots counted in each
state (with, on the average, a 5% undercount deemed "Acceptable") to arrive
at what is then reported as the "nationwide popular vote."

Note that in none of this process is there actually an attempt made to
determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide popular vote"
(let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.

O.K.- subtlety aside- note that in none of this process is there actually an
attempt made to determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide
popular vote" (let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.


>
>>
>> We have a casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but nothing
>> approaching any type of recognized official count.
>>
>> Surprised?
>>
>
> No. Should I be?
>
>
>>
>>Check it out.
>>
>
> Check what out?
>
>
>>
>> Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing behind it. I have provided
>> the cites. if you think I am making it up, get the reports, read them,
>> and then let's go at it chapter and verse.
>>
>
> What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
> presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?


Apparently that is not the problem at this time.



>
>
>>
>> The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet all
>> of a sudden . . .
>>
>
> Took you up on what?

The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote' or
'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the comprehension
of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers as representing
the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing does not exist in
reality.

Steve Swartz

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral
>> votes are cast.
>>
>
> Kind of.
>
> 1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
> votes should be cast by the electors.
>

Yeah. I just said that.


>>
>> What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
>> presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?
>>
>
> Apparently that is not the problem at this time.
>

Then what is the problem?


>>
>> Took you up on what?
>>
>
> The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote'
> or 'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the
> comprehension of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers
> as representing the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing
> does not exist in reality.
>

Yeah, but I'm not one of them.

[Jack G]

Steve -

I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on counting
votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the effectiveness
of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I will not
post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed expert
and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
forgone conclusions.

Jack G.


"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> Steve:
>
> The point is perhaps clarified below in three embedded responses.
Please
> note that rudeness is being ignored for the purpose of enhancing
> comprehension:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Steve:
> >>
> >> Read the reports.
> >
> > For what purpose?
>
> **** SNIP ****
>
>
> >
> > The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral
votes
> > are cast.
> >
>
> Kind of.
>
> 1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
> votes should be cast by the electors.
> 2) Exactly how these votes are counted- and whether or not an attempt is
> made to count all of the votes, and if so how this attempt is made- varies
> somewhat state by state.
> 3) Once the individual state has counted enough ballots to determine how
to
> proceed electorally, the unused/unecessary votes are generally not
counted.
> 4) The electors from that state are then charged to vote a certain way
> (generally).
> 5) The electors vote; according to the laws of their state.
> 6) When it's all over, various media types sum the ballots counted in
each
> state (with, on the average, a 5% undercount deemed "Acceptable") to
arrive
> at what is then reported as the "nationwide popular vote."
>
> Note that in none of this process is there actually an attempt made to
> determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide popular vote"
> (let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.
>
> O.K.- subtlety aside- note that in none of this process is there actually
an
> attempt made to determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide
> popular vote" (let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> We have a casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but nothing
> >> approaching any type of recognized official count.
> >>
> >> Surprised?
> >>
> >
> > No. Should I be?
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Check it out.
> >>
> >
> > Check what out?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing behind it. I have provided
> >> the cites. if you think I am making it up, get the reports, read them,
> >> and then let's go at it chapter and verse.
> >>
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
> > presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?
>
>
> Apparently that is not the problem at this time.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet
all
> >> of a sudden . . .
> >>
> >
> > Took you up on what?
>
> The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote'
or
> 'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the
comprehension
> of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers as
representing
> the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing does not exist in
> reality.
>
> Steve Swartz
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:gWK2d.66$C8.9@trnddc05...
>
> Steve -
>
> I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on counting
> votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
> gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the effectiveness
> of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I will
> not
> post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed expert
> and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
> forgone conclusions.
>

My position? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

[Jack G]

Sorry about the confusion - Steve Swartz is the one who's position I
disagree with...

Jack G.
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> news:gWK2d.66$C8.9@trnddc05...
> >
> > Steve -
> >
> > I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on
counting
> > votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
> > gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the
effectiveness
> > of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I will
> > not
> > post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed
expert
> > and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
> > forgone conclusions.
> >
>
> My position? I think you're confusing me with someone else.
>
>

[vincent p. norris]

>I used to whisper to my wife (you have to whisper about such things
>when you live in a university town): "How come Reagan keeps getting
>elected if we're the only people voting for him?"

Come on, Dan, you need to put a couple of smileys after that. I live
in a university town too, as you can tell from my email address, and
most of my friends are conservatives.

vince norris

[Leslie Swartz]

Ahh, the ever popular misleading snippage + ignoring the points made by the
other party!

So-o-o-o-o-o 1980s of you.

Steve Swartz



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral
>>> votes are cast.
>>>
>>
>> Kind of.
>>
>> 1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
>> votes should be cast by the electors.
>>
>
> Yeah. I just said that.
>
>
>>>
>>> What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
>>> presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?
>>>
>>
>> Apparently that is not the problem at this time.
>>
>
> Then what is the problem?
>
>
>>>
>>> Took you up on what?
>>>
>>
>> The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote'
>> or 'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the
>> comprehension of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers
>> as representing the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing
>> does not exist in reality.
>>
>
> Yeah, but I'm not one of them.
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Roy G. Saltman. Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote
Tallying. National Bureau of Standards, NBS Special Publication 500-158:
1988.
http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm

Voting Systems Performance and Test Standards. Federal Election Commission
Final Report, 30 April 2002.
http://www.fec.goc/pages/vssfinal/vss.html

Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability
of Existing Voting Equipment. The CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project
Report, version 2, 30 March 2001.

Bullock, Charles S. IIId and M.V. Hood. One Person- No Vote; One Vote; Two
Votes: Voting Methods, Ballot Types, and Undervote Frequency in the 2000
Presidential Election. Social Science Quarterly, v 83 n 4: December 2002.

Wright, Gerald C. Errors in measuring Vote Choice in the Natioanl Election
Studies, 1952-88. American Journal of Political Science, v 37 n 1, February
1993.

Start with those publications; probably in order. For the second one (the
FEC standards) the applicable sections are the Overview and then Volume II,
Appendix C Qualification Test Design Criteria.

Any open-minded, rational person would be forced to admit the conclusions
that:

1) There are margins of error in our vote counting, including counting
votes for presidential elections;
2) This creates uncertainty around the "true" vote count for either (all)
party(ies);
2) The difference in vote counts between Bush and Gore in the 2000
elections was well within that margin of error;
4) We don't know- and can't know- what the actual vote counts were; HOWEVER
5) We do know that the uncertainty surrounding the recorded vote tallies
makes it impossible to determine who actually recieved the most votes with
any reasonable degree of certainty.

In short, the (totally irrelevant) "Popular Vote" (which isn't even counted)
is- at best- a statistical tie.

Claiming "Al Gore Received More Votes Than Bush" is a lie.

Steve Swartz

"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:gWK2d.66$C8.9@trnddc05...
> Steve -
>
> I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on counting
> votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
> gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the effectiveness
> of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I will
> not
> post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed expert
> and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
> forgone conclusions.
>
> Jack G.
>
>
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve:
>>
>> The point is perhaps clarified below in three embedded responses.
> Please
>> note that rudeness is being ignored for the purpose of enhancing
>> comprehension:
>>
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >
>> > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Steve:
>> >>
>> >> Read the reports.
>> >
>> > For what purpose?
>>
>> **** SNIP ****
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The popular vote in each state determines how that state's electoral
> votes
>> > are cast.
>> >
>>
>> Kind of.
>>
>> 1) "A" popular vote is "counted" in order to determine how the electoral
>> votes should be cast by the electors.
>> 2) Exactly how these votes are counted- and whether or not an attempt is
>> made to count all of the votes, and if so how this attempt is made-
>> varies
>> somewhat state by state.
>> 3) Once the individual state has counted enough ballots to determine how
> to
>> proceed electorally, the unused/unecessary votes are generally not
> counted.
>> 4) The electors from that state are then charged to vote a certain way
>> (generally).
>> 5) The electors vote; according to the laws of their state.
>> 6) When it's all over, various media types sum the ballots counted in
> each
>> state (with, on the average, a 5% undercount deemed "Acceptable") to
> arrive
>> at what is then reported as the "nationwide popular vote."
>>
>> Note that in none of this process is there actually an attempt made to
>> determine, with any type of accuracy, what the "nationwide popular vote"
>> (let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.
>>
>> O.K.- subtlety aside- note that in none of this process is there actually
> an
>> attempt made to determine, with any type of accuracy, what the
>> "nationwide
>> popular vote" (let alone the "statewide popular vote") actually is.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> We have a casual effort by amateurs inte h press of course- but
>> >> nothing
>> >> approaching any type of recognized official count.
>> >>
>> >> Surprised?
>> >>
>> >
>> > No. Should I be?
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Check it out.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Check what out?
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Heah, I'm putting it out there and standing behind it. I have
>> >> provided
>> >> the cites. if you think I am making it up, get the reports, read
>> >> them,
>> >> and then let's go at it chapter and verse.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What the hell are you talking about? Is there some part of the
>> > presidential election process you'd like me to explain to you?
>>
>>
>> Apparently that is not the problem at this time.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The last time I did this nobody took me up on it. it got real quiet
> all
>> >> of a sudden . . .
>> >>
>> >
>> > Took you up on what?
>>
>> The true statement that "We can't claim that 'Gore won the popular vote'
> or
>> 'Gore got more votes'" appears to be wa-a-a-a-a-ay beyond the
> comprehension
>> of many in this group, who continue to post various numbers as
> representing
>> the "nationwide popular vote" when indeed such a thing does not exist in
>> reality.
>>
>> Steve Swartz
>>
>>
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

You can also choose to disagree with the "position" that 2+2=4; or that pi ~
3.14159; that's your "personal choice" I guess . . . just be aware of and
accept exactly what it is you are choosing.

Steve Swartz



"Jack G" > wrote in message
news:d9L2d.67$C8.47@trnddc05...
> Sorry about the confusion - Steve Swartz is the one who's position I
> disagree with...
>
> Jack G.
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Jack G" > wrote in message
>> news:gWK2d.66$C8.9@trnddc05...
>> >
>> > Steve -
>> >
>> > I will make one last comment that I disagree with you position on
> counting
>> > votes and the role of the Federal Electron Commission's role in the
>> > gathering and publishing of voting statistics to analyze the
> effectiveness
>> > of voter registration and voter guarantees in federal elections. I
>> > will
>> > not
>> > post any further points on this issue as you are the self-appointed
> expert
>> > and will continue used statistics in the classic tradition to support
>> > forgone conclusions.
>> >
>>
>> My position? I think you're confusing me with someone else.
>>
>>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
>
>Ahh, the ever popular misleading snippage + ignoring the points made by the
>other party!
>
> So-o-o-o-o-o 1980s of you.
>
> Steve Swartz
>

You're not making any sense. What have I written here that you believe is
incorrect?

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 17 Sep 2004 20:57:52 GMT,
Lisakbernacchia attempted to say .....

>
> Did you wear wings

Lisakbernacchia =ArtKramer


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Lisakbernacchia]

: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID)
>From: Tank Fixer
>Date: 9/18/2004 3:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> on 17 Sep 2004 20:57:52 GMT,
> Lisakbernacchia attempted to say .....
>
>>
>> Did you wear wings
>

Did you?

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 18 Sep 2004 23:45:41 GMT,
Lisakbernacchia attempted to say .....

> : PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID)
> >From: Tank Fixer
> >Date: 9/18/2004 3:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> > on 17 Sep 2004 20:57:52 GMT,
> > Lisakbernacchia attempted to say .....
> >
> >>
> >> Did you wear wings
> >
>
> Did you?

No Art, I don't.

I chose to enter the US Army.

Chose to be an infantryman.

And I don't hide behind a sock.

Which says alot about your courage and integrity.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.