Re: The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

[William Wright]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >The benefits of swept wings were understood by German aeronautical
> >engineers as far back as 1936, but as aircraft speeds were much lower
> >than mach 1 at the time, the issue was somewhat academic.
>
> When Boeing had the XB-47 on the drawing board, the plane had a
> straight wing. A Boeing rep was part of Operation Paperclip, the great
> vacuum cleaner sucking up German technology in 1945-46. He cabled back
> to hold everything; he had some stuff that Boeing ought to look at.
>
> In consequence the B-47 had swept wings and carried its turbojets
> slung under the wings in pods. Unless NACA is regarded as the same
> institution, I suspect this was long in advance of NASA.

From National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 that created NASA:

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Sec. 301. (a) The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, on the
effective
date of this section, shall cease to exist. On such date all functions,
powers, duties, and
obligations, and all real and personal property, personnel (other than
members of the
Committee), funds and records of that organization, shall be transferred to
the
[National Aeronautics and Space] Administration.

So I would say that its work can be claimed by NASA. Also the data uncovered
in Germany by Boeing engineer George Schairer showed that German research
into swept wing designs predated the NACA data (of which Boeing was already
familier). That being said, although the German data showed positive effects
of swept wings at high speeds, the actual 35 degree sweep was develop by
Boeing and Schairer from their own wind tunnel research. The German data
only went out to 29 degrees of sweep. Podded engines were added also from
Boeing wind tunnel research. Apparently the Air Force gave Boeing the
impression that the B-47 without podded engines was too ugly to consider,
something Boeing may have forgotten with their recent frog-mouthed Tac Air
loser.

The real reason that the B-47 had swept wings and podded engines is because
Boeing invested their B-29 profits in their own wind tunnel while their
competitors were still buying wind tunnel time from places like Cal Tech.
This allowed Boeing to try many more designs far more quickly than the
others. That is the important lesson in this story.


>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[George Z. Bush]

Kal Alexander wrote:
> devil wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:18:59 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I think it is obvious. He needs an enemy. Hitler. like many
>>>> Europeans of the time hated Jews,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Many Europeans of today as well.
>>
>> Red herring.
>
>
> Actually, I believe many Europeans are very fond of red herring.

Pickled or in sour cream?

[George Z. Bush]

Stark Raven wrote:
> In article >, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> I think it is obvious. He needs an enemy. Hitler. like many Europeans of
>> the time hated Jews, so they were linked to all sorts of problems and social
>> issues. They were made the scapegoats. The Arabs are Bush's enemy. The
>> economy was faltering. There were repeated revelations of large scale
>> corruption in the stock market, but you were able to beat the hell out of
>> Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither had the means to defend itself, and easy
>> victories there made great headlines. People forgot about the other
>> problems.
>
> Hitler analogy aside, the war is nothing more than a re-election
> strategy which is working very well. Cynical yes but Repuglicans will
> use any means to gain and maintain political power.

What? Are you suggesting that this war was plagiarized from the script of that
well known movie "Wag the Dog"??? Come to think of it, it does sound like it,
doesn't it?

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Stark Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't think LBJ had any re-election campaign.
> >
>
> He actively sought reelection prior to announcing he would not be a
> candidate. I believe he won the New Hampshire primary.
>
>
> >
> > Clinton didn't need one.
> >
>
> Clinton campaigned the entire time he was president.

Isn't it refreshing to know that Bush used Clinton as a role model, since he's
demonstrated his ability to run the war while attending fund raisers from coast
to coast. Imagine that.....Bush copying Clinton! Who'd a thunk it!

[devil]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:36:39 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> >believe that the USSC would deliberately throw a case without legal
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >justification with the whole world watching.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I would recommend that you read the book:
>>
>> Supreme Injustice: How The High Court Hijacked Election 2000
>>
>> by Alan Dershowitz.
>>
>> It might be an eye opener for you.
>>
>
> Dershowitz can hardly be cosidered objective.

So?

Does that mean there was no conflict of interest?

>> Why were no questions being raised by Congress regarding the ethics
>>
>> of Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas, both of whom had family
>>
>> members working on the Bush campaign?
>>
>
> Probably because there were no questions to be raised.

Banana republic?

It's all about winning, and we'll change the rules if it's needed? Just
like the generals in Brazil during the military regime. They were
"elected" too, BTW.

All in the family...

Silly me, I always though this was called corruption. But why it gets you
the results you need, you love it, right?

You call this democracy? Sorry folks, but I'll bring back the bananas.

[Kal Alexander]

wrote:
> In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin > wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
>> election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
>> country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
>> that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
>> desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
>> the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.
>
> So its better to have one state control the election over all the
> other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
> inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm Beach,
> were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be counted
> accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!

I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton, too.

Why are they a problem only now?

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

[George Z. Bush]

Kal Alexander wrote:
> wrote:
>> In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin > wrote:
>>
>>> The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
>>> election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
>>> country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
>>> that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
>>> desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
>>> the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.
>>
>> So its better to have one state control the election over all the
>> other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
>> inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm Beach,
>> were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be counted
>> accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!
>
> I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
> Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
> they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton, too.
>
> Why are they a problem only now?

Who says they are? They'd only be a problem if the obvious weaknesses in the
process remain unrepaired to the point that they would likely reappear in the
next election. I understand that the State has addressed those problems
although there may be some residual questions about the effectiveness of their
efforts. I imagine that time will tell.
>
> --
> Later
> Kal

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
...
>
> I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
> Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
> they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton,
too.
>
> Why are they a problem only now?
>

Because under them Bush was elected president.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
>> Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
>> they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton, too.
>>
>> Why are they a problem only now?
>>
>
> Because under them Bush was elected president.

That happened three+ years ago. Why are they a problem NOW?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> That happened three+ years ago. Why are they a problem NOW?
>

They're not. They weren't even a problem then.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Kal Alexander" > wrote:

> wrote:
> > In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin > wrote:
> >
> >> The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
> >> election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
> >> country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
> >> that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
> >> desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
> >> the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.
> >
> > So its better to have one state control the election over all the
> > other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
> > inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm Beach,
> > were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be counted
> > accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!
>
> I would just like to point out that this system that is being derided, and
> Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine with everybody when
> they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were just fine for Clinton, too.
>
> Why are they a problem only now?
>
> --
> Later
> Kal



Is the concept of actually counting the votes and basing the results on
that so foreign to GOPs?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is the concept of actually counting the votes and basing the results on
> that so foreign to GOPs?
>

Not at all. In fact, that was the GOP's position in 2000.

[Pan Ohco]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:59:27 GMT, john
> wrote:


>>I have met Alan Dershowitz, quite a long time ago,before he was
>>famous. And at that time he was considered a drooling fanatic liberal,
>>by most people in the local courthouse. He hasn't change over the
>>years, except now he no longer spit on you when he talks.
>>Pan Ohco
>
>Get you head out of your ass.
>
>Maybe if you read the book you might learn something. Maybe then, you
>could intelligently tell us where Durshowitz was incorrect.
>
>
>Can't you handle another viewpoint?

Evidently you can't handle another viewpoint of Durshowitz.



Pan Ohco

[George Z. Bush]

"None" > wrote in message
k.net...

> I long for the day when the ballot will include the option to vote for "None
> of the Above" so those who have longed to cast their vote in a presidential
> election, but were totally dissatisfied with the offerings, can do so.

Seems to me that all you have to do is to cast your ballot without voting for
anyone and you've accomplished the same as you would have if you had marked a
ballot for "None of the Above".
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > all they had to do was apply Florida's long held policy of counting
> > ballots whose intention was clear -- and then count the damn votes
> >
>
> That would have been fine, the problem was the Democrats were recasting
> those votes.

And exactly who got to vote twice and how was that accomplished?/
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you know that? Cite, please.
>

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P39A22F37

[john]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:48:59 -0600, Pan Ohco > wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:59:27 GMT, john
> wrote:
>
>
>>>I have met Alan Dershowitz, quite a long time ago,before he was
>>>famous. And at that time he was considered a drooling fanatic liberal,
>>>by most people in the local courthouse. He hasn't change over the
>>>years, except now he no longer spit on you when he talks.
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>Get you head out of your ass.
>>
>>Maybe if you read the book you might learn something. Maybe then, you
>>could intelligently tell us where Durshowitz was incorrect.
>>
>>
>>Can't you handle another viewpoint?
>
>Evidently you can't handle another viewpoint of Durshowitz.

Oh, I can handle another viewpoint. Your viewpoint of Dershowitz is
that he is a "drooling fanatic liberal". In addition, I would gather
from that viewpoint that you are deadly afraid of reading ANYTHING
Dershowitz has written because it may be true and it might give you
food for thought. Good heavens, if you read the book I suggested then
you might come to believe that the Supreme Court did indeed steal
the election for Bush in Florida.
>
>Pan Ohco

I repeat:

"Maybe if you read the book you might learn something. Maybe then, you
could intelligently tell us where Durshowitz was incorrect.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you blindly dismiss any book by Dershowitz because of his
> partisanship.
>

Of course. I'm interested in arguments based on facts and logic.


>
> Can't you handle different viewpoints?
>
> If you read the book then you might have some germane comments to
> make.
>
> Maybe you can then tell us where in the book Dershowitz lied or
> exaggerated or misled the reader.
>

I don't see the leopard changing his spots.


>
> If you read the book you might get an understanding as to how the
> Supreme Court is supposed to work and how it did work in the Florida
> election.
>

Well, since a post-election analysis of the Florida vote shows that Bush
would have won even if Gore had had his way we know the Supreme Court did no
harm in this election, regardless what Dershowitz has to say about it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> So?
>

So his book isn't worth the read.


>
> It's all about winning, and we'll change the rules if it's needed?
>

That's what the Supreme Court prevented.

[None]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> Of course. I'm interested in arguments based on facts and logic.
>
Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
an M.I.T. group!

[None]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > So?
> >
>
> So his book isn't worth the read.
>

We agree. Pardon me while I have a stroke!

[John Gaquin]

"RogerM" > wrote in message
>
> One man, one vote. What's unjust about that?

Nothing. That's what we have now.


>If more people live in
> urban centres, shouldn't the interests of city-dwellers be given
> proportionate influence?

Enhanced emphasis, perhaps, but not to the exclusion of the non-urban
population. The electoral college system gives us exactly that -- a
proportional level of influence -- since it is based to a large degree on
population. Since the system we have does what you want, why would you want
to change it?

[John Gaquin]

"devil" > wrote in message
>
> It's all about winning, and we'll change the rules if it's needed?

Which is precisely what the Gore campaign wanted the FSJC and the USSC to
approve.

[RogerM]

John Gaquin wrote:
>
> "RogerM" > wrote in message
> >
> > One man, one vote. What's unjust about that?
>
> Nothing. That's what we have now.
>
> >If more people live in
> > urban centres, shouldn't the interests of city-dwellers be given
> > proportionate influence?
>
> Enhanced emphasis, perhaps, but not to the exclusion of the non-urban
> population. The electoral college system gives us exactly that -- a
> proportional level of influence -- since it is based to a large degree on
> population.

"based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
undemocratic?

>Since the system we have does what you want, why would you want
> to change it?

Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree' isn't
sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes against
the will of the majority?

In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't constrained
by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more of
a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
garners the highest popular vote.

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who care: it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

[George Z. Bush]

"RogerM" > wrote in message
...
> John Gaquin wrote:
> >
> > "RogerM" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > One man, one vote. What's unjust about that?
> >
> > Nothing. That's what we have now.
> >
> > >If more people live in
> > > urban centres, shouldn't the interests of city-dwellers be given
> > > proportionate influence?
> >
> > Enhanced emphasis, perhaps, but not to the exclusion of the non-urban
> > population. The electoral college system gives us exactly that -- a
> > proportional level of influence -- since it is based to a large degree on
> > population.
>
> "based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
> undemocratic?
>
> >Since the system we have does what you want, why would you want
> > to change it?
>
> Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree' isn't
> sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes against
> the will of the majority?
>
> In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't constrained
> by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more of
> a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
> garners the highest popular vote.
>
> Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

Why not indeed? But it won't happen because the states that presently have more
critters than they have voters will have even less to say about how things are
run than they presently have. Not only are they not apt to go along with a
scheme like that, but they'll gang up into a pack to make sure that it doesn't
happen.

George Z.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
> are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
> and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
> they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
> an M.I.T. group!
>

People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> And exactly who got to vote twice and how was that accomplished?/
>

Not voting twice, recasting votes. I saw it on one of the news networks,
judges were in the process of reviewing the ballots, I believe it was in
Broward County.

One of the judges examined a ballot, noted that except for a clean punch for
Bush it showed a straight Democrat vote. It also, in her opinion, had a
nick on the ballot where a Gore vote would go. She deemed that ballot to be
a vote for Gore.

The next judge had a different opinion. He deemed a clean punch for Bush
and an intact chad for Gore to be a clear vote for Bush.

The third judge agreed with the first.

How many other votes were recast in the same way?

As for voting twice, students interviewed in Madison and Milwaukee stated
they voted locally and also by absentee ballot. Many stated it was very
easy to do and was very widespread. Gore took Wisconsin by a narrow margin.

[RogerM]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
> them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
> fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual conversation.
No one's writing a book, here. If someone says "for a fact" or "I know
for sure", then you've got a point. Otherwise, lighten up.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who care: it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

[Dave Smith]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>
>
> People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
> them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
> fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

Yes, we are entitled to our opinions and we are entitled to express them. Maybe
Bush did not actually lie about WMDs. Maybe he was just plain stupid. There were
lots of other world leaders who were not sucked into the phoney proof. It's
getting close to a year since Bush ordered his troops to invade Iraq because
Saddam's stockpile of WMDs was a threat to the US. I have maintained all along
that if there was enough proof of the existence of those WMDs to justify
invasion, they should have been found long ago.

So is he a liar, or is he a fool who was duped by "intelligence" people who are
still working for him?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"RogerM" > wrote in message
...
>
> They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual conversation.
> No one's writing a book, here. If someone says "for a fact" or "I know
> for sure", then you've got a point. Otherwise, lighten up.
>

Don't want to be challenged? Don't want to support anything you assert?
Then don't express your opinions as if they were facts.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Seems to me that all you have to do is to cast your ballot without
> voting for anyone and you've accomplished the same as you would
> have if you had marked a ballot for "None of the Above".
>

It should be that way. But some panel of judges could later decide you
intended to vote for a candidate in that race.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, we are entitled to our opinions and we are entitled to express them.
Maybe
> Bush did not actually lie about WMDs. Maybe he was just plain stupid.
There were
> lots of other world leaders who were not sucked into the phoney proof.
It's
> getting close to a year since Bush ordered his troops to invade Iraq
because
> Saddam's stockpile of WMDs was a threat to the US. I have maintained all
along
> that if there was enough proof of the existence of those WMDs to justify
> invasion, they should have been found long ago.
>
> So is he a liar, or is he a fool who was duped by "intelligence" people
who are
> still working for him?
>

Are those the only possibilities?

[None]

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...

> So is he a liar,

Most likely.

or is he a fool who was duped by "intelligence" people who are
> still working for him?

.....and most likely still have the same ulterior motives.

[devil]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:32:12 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "None" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
>> Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
>> are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
>> and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
>> they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
>> an M.I.T. group!
>>
>
> People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
> them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
> fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.

Bush just repeated what his minders told him. So, yes, the clown is
innocent. By reason of cluelessness.

[B2431]

>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 1/30/2004 10:51 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"john" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Learn to use Google, mcnicoll. Apparently you don't want to learn
>> anything.
>>
>> Here's a reference for you to read to see how black Florida voters
>> were disenfranchised by Gov. Bush and his cohort, Harris.
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,406541,00.html
>>
>
>Thanks, I was familiar with it. Here's something for you, if you're ready
>to learn:
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?U29C31047
>
Despite many recounts by the media and many attempts by the media to prove
anyone was denied the right to vote absolutely no proof has come forth.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired.

[Turby]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:55:58 GMT, devil > wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:32:12 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "None" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>>> Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
>>> are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
>>> and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
>>> they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
>>> an M.I.T. group!
>>>
>> People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
>> them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
>> fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.
>
>Bush just repeated what his minders told him. So, yes, the clown is
>innocent. By reason of cluelessness.

Not quite. It's a bit more nefarious than that. He gets his info from
the National Security Council. That's comprised of a bunch of people,
including the Directors of the CIA and NSA. There's always been
competition between those two organizations about whose info is more
accurate. They often disagree. Any report that Bush sees has a caveat
about the accuracy of the report. He was told the info about WMDs was
not totally credible. He ignored the warnings because he wanted to,
and relayed the threat to the American people as fact, when he knew it
wasn't.

Turby the Turbosurfer

[Kal Alexander]

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "Kal Alexander" > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
>>>> election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
>>>> country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
>>>> that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
>>>> desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
>>>> the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.
>>>
>>> So its better to have one state control the election over all the
>>> other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
>>> inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm
>>> Beach, were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be
>>> counted accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!
>>
>> I would just like to point out that this system that is being
>> derided, and Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine
>> with everybody when they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were
>> just fine for Clinton, too.
>>
>> Why are they a problem only now?
>>
>> --
>> Later
>> Kal
>
>
>
> Is the concept of actually counting the votes and basing the results
> on
> that so foreign to GOPs?

No. That system was acceptable when Clinton was elected, twice.
That same system was objected to by demo-rats only AFTER Gore
lost.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

[Kal Alexander]

RogerM wrote:
> John Gaquin wrote:
>>
>> "RogerM" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> One man, one vote. What's unjust about that?
>>
>> Nothing. That's what we have now.
>>
>>> If more people live in
>>> urban centres, shouldn't the interests of city-dwellers be given
>>> proportionate influence?
>>
>> Enhanced emphasis, perhaps, but not to the exclusion of the non-urban
>> population. The electoral college system gives us exactly that -- a
>> proportional level of influence -- since it is based to a large
>> degree on population.
>
> "based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
> undemocratic?
>
>> Since the system we have does what you want, why would you want
>> to change it?
>
> Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
> isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
> against the will of the majority?

Why should it? We are not a pure democracy. Our founding fathers
never meant for us to be controlled by something as erratic as the
will of the majority.

> In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't
> constrained
> by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more
> of
> a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
> garners the highest popular vote.
>
> Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

[Kal Alexander]

RogerM wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>>
>> People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to
>> state them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about
>> WMD", that's fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD",
>> expect to be challenged.
>
> They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual
> conversation.

> No one's writing a book, here.

You know this for a fact?


(Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)
--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

[RogerM]

Kal Alexander wrote:
>
> RogerM wrote:
> > Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
> > isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
> > against the will of the majority?
>
> Why should it? We are not a pure democracy. Our founding fathers
> never meant for us to be controlled by something as erratic as the
> will of the majority.
>

The problem with that, is that the alternative is control by the will of
a tiny minority. Do you really think that is better?

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who care: it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

[RogerM]

Kal Alexander wrote:
>
> RogerM wrote:
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >>
> >> People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to
> >> state them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about
> >> WMD", that's fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD",
> >> expect to be challenged.
> >
> > They are opinions, dude. That's the assumption in a casual
> > conversation.
>
> > No one's writing a book, here.
>
> You know this for a fact?
>
> (Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)

Nice one. :)

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who care: it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

[John Gaquin]

RogerM wrote:
>
> ...."based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
> undemocratic?

What? Do you even know how the Electoral College is formulated? Each state
has a number of electors equal to its number of Representatives and
Senators. Since a state's number of Representatives is based on population,
but its number of Senators is not, I used the phrase "based to a large
degree on population". Undemocratic has nothing to do with it.

>
> ....Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
> isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
> against the will of the majority?

[sigh....] see above response.

> ...In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't constrained
> by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more
> of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
> garners the highest popular vote.
>
> Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

The framers of our Constitution looked out over the landscape and saw a
country where a large percentage of the population was semi-literate, huge
numbers of citizens couldn't even sign their own name, and most were rural
dwellers at the end of a four to six month communication line. In short, a
place where the preponderance of the population might easily be subject to
misinformation and manipulation. This was one of the reasons that our
government was formed as a Republic, and not a Democracy, and similarly
justification for the Electoral College. In a Republic, the population
elects regional representatives of [hopefully] knowledgeable, sober, mature
judgment, and said representatives exercise their best judgment in making
decisions of state. There is always an insulating layer of supposedly good
judgment between the population as a whole, and the crucial and oft-times
irrevocable decisions of state. In today's world, literacy , of course, is
drastically improved, and speed of communication is no longer a factor. But
we still have that pesky little problem of misinformation and manipulation.
Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.). The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho, a
good thing.

[John Gaquin]

"None" > wrote in message news:2gzSb.3106
> >
> .... People
> are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
> and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
> they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
> an M.I.T. group!

How unbelievably appropriate for you to have written the above.

[devil]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:17:40 +0000, Turby wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:55:58 GMT, devil > wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:32:12 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "None" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>> >
>>>> Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
>>>> are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
>>>> and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
>>>> they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
>>>> an M.I.T. group!
>>>>
>>> People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
>>> them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
>>> fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.
>>
>>Bush just repeated what his minders told him. So, yes, the clown is
>>innocent. By reason of cluelessness.
>
> Not quite. It's a bit more nefarious than that. He gets his info from
> the National Security Council. That's comprised of a bunch of people,
> including the Directors of the CIA and NSA. There's always been
> competition between those two organizations about whose info is more
> accurate. They often disagree. Any report that Bush sees has a caveat
> about the accuracy of the report. He was told the info about WMDs was
> not totally credible. He ignored the warnings because he wanted to,
> and relayed the threat to the American people as fact, when he knew it
> wasn't.

He may get his info etc. But surely he doesn't really understand? End up
merely repeating what he is being told, I suspect.

And BTW it does sound like the "intelligence" establishment was skeptical
about the whole thing. Ended up delivering the conclusion that they had
been asked for. From the basement in the White House I suppose.

But Bush? Come on?

[RogerM]

John Gaquin wrote:
>
> RogerM wrote:
> >
> > Why not have a system where every voter is equal?
>
> The framers of our Constitution looked out over the landscape and saw a
> country where a large percentage of the population was semi-literate, huge
> numbers of citizens couldn't even sign their own name, and most were rural
> dwellers at the end of a four to six month communication line. In short, a
> place where the preponderance of the population might easily be subject to
> misinformation and manipulation.

Oh how things have changed...NOT!

> This was one of the reasons that our
> government was formed as a Republic, and not a Democracy, and similarly
> justification for the Electoral College. In a Republic, the population
> elects regional representatives of [hopefully] knowledgeable, sober, mature
> judgment, and said representatives exercise their best judgment in making
> decisions of state.

Putting their own corrupt interests above those of the voters. Great
system, there. How are these elite selected?

>There is always an insulating layer of supposedly good
> judgment between the population as a whole, and the crucial and oft-times
> irrevocable decisions of state. In today's world, literacy , of course, is
> drastically improved, and speed of communication is no longer a factor. But
> we still have that pesky little problem of misinformation and manipulation.

Not to mention the corruption of the elite class.

> Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population is
> easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
> worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.).

This part is pure comedy.

> The aforementioned
> "...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
> equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho, a
> good thing.

You are taking so much on faith, it is hard to believe.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who care: it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

[John Gaquin]

"RogerM" > wrote in message
>
> > Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population
is
> > easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
> > worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.).
>
> This part is pure comedy.

Why is that?

> > The aforementioned
> > "...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
> > equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho,
a
> > good thing.
>
> You are taking so much on faith, it is hard to believe.

Why is it hard to believe? This system has served us well these past 225
years and is not, imo, in need of drastic repair. Show me another country
of constitutional representative government that can
match our record of over 200 years of constancy and stability. Explain to
me why we should emulate Italy, which has had the pleasure of somewhere
around 200 changes of government since WWII.








[i]
>
> --
>
> People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed
>
> The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.
>
> For those who care: it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Most likely.
>

How so?

[Turby]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:19:04 GMT, devil > wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:17:40 +0000, Turby wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:55:58 GMT, devil > wrote:
>>>On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:32:12 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>> "None" > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>> >
>>>>> Wow! are you ever in the wrong medium if that's what you're after. People
>>>>> are entitled to their opinions, they shouldn't have to write a novel each
>>>>> and every time they wish to express it, just so someone can feel like
>>>>> they've seen some "facts and logic" You want facts and logic, go argue on
>>>>> an M.I.T. group!
>>>>>
>>>> People are entitled to their opinions, but they aren't entitled to state
>>>> them as facts. If you want to say, "I think Bush lied about WMD", that's
>>>> fine. If you want to say, "Bush lied about WMD", expect to be challenged.
>>>
>>>Bush just repeated what his minders told him. So, yes, the clown is
>>>innocent. By reason of cluelessness.
>>
>> Not quite. It's a bit more nefarious than that. He gets his info from
>> the National Security Council. That's comprised of a bunch of people,
>> including the Directors of the CIA and NSA. There's always been
>> competition between those two organizations about whose info is more
>> accurate. They often disagree. Any report that Bush sees has a caveat
>> about the accuracy of the report. He was told the info about WMDs was
>> not totally credible. He ignored the warnings because he wanted to,
>> and relayed the threat to the American people as fact, when he knew it
>> wasn't.
>
>He may get his info etc. But surely he doesn't really understand? End up
>merely repeating what he is being told, I suspect.
>
>And BTW it does sound like the "intelligence" establishment was skeptical
>about the whole thing. Ended up delivering the conclusion that they had
>been asked for. From the basement in the White House I suppose.

I don't buy it. I doubt very much that the CIA would cook its books to
suit the president. They focus on intel where they are told to focus,
but it defeats their purpose to not call it as they see it. OTOH, the
admin wanted to invade Iraq from day one. As has been reported, 5
hours after 9/11 occurred, Rumsfeld was asking for Iraqi invasion
plans. With that kind of blind determination, it was, "damn the facts,
we're going in." And Bush? He may not be the smartest president, but
he's not a moron. He knew full well the risk. As the saying goes, it's
easier to ask forgiveness than permission. But he needed _some_
support, so he told a few fibs. Nothing like lying about a blowjob
under oath mind you, but enough to get us into a war.

Turby the Turbosurfer

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "None" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> Most likely.
>>
>
> How so?

What a lovely exchange! Can't you guys leave enough of what you're talking
about so that the rest of us can pick up on it instead of having to go through
the archives to connect it with the subject of your discussion?

Seems to me that polite people in the cyberworld do that kind of thing as a
matter of common courtesy. Any reason you're not doing it?