Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?

[Smartace11]

>We all know why
>he couldn't take his flight physical that lead to Bush getting
>grounded...he was taking coke and would have failed the blood
>tests.

I don't know that. Why would I?

[Mike Marron]

>"John A. Weeks III" > wrote:

>We all know why he couldn't take his flight physical that lead to
>Bush getting grounded...he was taking coke and would have failed
>the blood tests.

And we all know that Gore's (hell, the entire froth-mouthed,
fang-bearing Democratic party!) current state of acute agitation
that leads to erratic outbursts in public while attacking Bush is
due to the fact they're all presently addicted to crystal meth.

[WalterM140]

> He like most of his upper-class did not serve...they hid as aids to
>Congressmen and Senators...he was (and still is) a fuc**ing coward
>

Bush has never had to do anything on his own. Someone has run interference for
him at every turn, as when he refused to testify before the 9/11 commission
without VP Cheney present.

He didn't go to officer candidate school, he was baled out of all his failed
business ventures -- and all of his business ventures failed -- he had the 2000
election stolen for him by the Republican Party dirty tricks apparatus, and now
they are gearing up to steal this election also.


Walt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>From: "sanjian"
>Date: 7/11/2004 8:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <kadIc.1407$sj.965@lakeread02>
>
wrote:
>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>> _____________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why did he become a weekend warrior when
>> he could have become a full-time warrior ?
>
>Because the ANG let him fly like he wanted to, and just like his dad did.
>

His dad went to war. He didn't. Do you see any diffference in that?


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

[Mike Marron]

> (ArtKramr) wrote:

>His dad went to war. He didn't. Do you see any diffference in that?

All that truly matters is that the man wants to fight NOW. See the
difference?

[WalterM140]

>> He like most of his upper-class did not serve...they hid as aids to
>> Congressmen and Senators...he was (and still is) a fuc**ing coward
>
>Kinda like Clinton huh?

Clinton's not running. The Bush campaign has belittled Senator Kerry's
service, which is sort of a stretch given their candidate's service record.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>All that truly matters is that the man wants to fight NOW.

-He- dosn't want to fight now. He wants others to do it. And not those he
called his base, either, "the haves, and the have mores". He wants other
people to fight and do something he didn't do -- stay the course.

Further, Bush's leadership in the war has been disastrously ineffective.

The intelligence community is in a shambles, the Military is overstretched, the
invasion of Iraq was a detour in the war on Terror -- we are less safe now than
we were on 9/11. That was a strategic failure -- the worst strategic blunder
in living memory per James Webb. His people have made every wrong operational
decision in the invasion of Iraq -- **** off the international community,
disband the Iraqi army, send the Ba'athists home, not have enough US troops for
an invasion at all -- the list goes on.

George Bush has been a disastrous failure as commander in chief of the armed
forces.

Walt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/11/2004 10:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>All that truly matters is that the man wants to fight NOW.
>
>-He- dosn't want to fight now. He wants others to do it. And not those he
>called his base, either, "the haves, and the have mores". He wants other
>people to fight and do something he didn't do -- stay the course.
>
>Further, Bush's leadership in the war has been disastrously ineffective.
>
>The intelligence community is in a shambles, the Military is overstretched,
>the
>invasion of Iraq was a detour in the war on Terror -- we are less safe now
>than
>we were on 9/11. That was a strategic failure -- the worst strategic
>blunder
>in living memory per James Webb. His people have made every wrong
>operational
>decision in the invasion of Iraq -- **** off the international community,
>disband the Iraqi army, send the Ba'athists home, not have enough US troops
>for
>an invasion at all -- the list goes on.
>
>George Bush has been a disastrous failure as commander in chief of the armed
>forces.
>
>Walt
>


Clearly the worst president in American history.

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

[Ron]

>He didn't go to officer candidate school because the Air National Guard
>doesn't have one. You have been told that repeatedly but keep
>repeating the same old tired lies even when you know they are lies.
>
>Gore lost; get over it.
>
>John

They do have a 6 week school at McGee Tyson I believe


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[N329DF]

I was not going to chime in on this, but:

>>Further, Bush's leadership in the war has been disastrously ineffective.
>>
Lets see how ineffective:
Sadaam is in jail and awaiting trial,
his country now has the right to protest, with out fear of being executed, they
have electricity, running water, hospitals with enough supplies to operate,
schools. There are some fighting still, but read about what happened in Germany
after WWII, there were still some hold outs fights for another 3 yrs AFTER the
war ended.

Bin Ladin used to run a country, now he is on the run and living in a cave,
We have not been attacked since 9/11, as we are hitting them where they live.

at least Bush has used the military for it's intended mission, and not as a
"meal on wheels" as the last one.

Art,
I used to read what you had to say bout your service in WWII and respect what
you did, however, your attacks on Bush, have gone too far. He served, he flew,
The F-102 was not a easy plane to fly. unlike kerry, who admitted he committed
war crimes, aided the enemy, and claimed he was injured in combat, but never
missed a day due to those so called wounds that were treated with band-aids (
reminds me of Frank Burns of M*A*S*H, who applied for a Purple Heart after
getting hit with shell fragments, except it was he forgot to say on the report
it was egg shell fragments) .

Bush acted after the attacks on 9/11, kerry wanted to wait and get the UN
involved. kerry voted against every weapons system that the military needed and
has been using in Iraq. if he was so proud of his service, why did he try and
keep our troops from having the best equipment ? You would think, that anyone
that had been in combat, would know what it is like and want our troops to have
what is needed.


Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[B2431]

>Date: 7/11/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>

He did, the ANG is a component of the USAF.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "John A. Weeks III"

<snip>

We all know why
>he couldn't take his flight physical that lead to Bush getting
>grounded...he was taking coke and would have failed the blood
>tests.
>
>-john-

Prove it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 7/11/2004 9:44 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>"John A. Weeks III" > wrote:
>
>>We all know why he couldn't take his flight physical that lead to
>>Bush getting grounded...he was taking coke and would have failed
>>the blood tests.
>
>And we all know that Gore's (hell, the entire froth-mouthed,
>fang-bearing Democratic party!) current state of acute agitation
>that leads to erratic outbursts in public while attacking Bush is
>due to the fact they're all presently addicted to crystal meth.

Like your temper tantrum in this NG a few months ago when you tried to find out
where I live?

I don't like gore's actions either, but you have no proof he has done meth. Do
you speak from personal experience?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "jack"
>Date: 7/11/2004 10:03 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>
>> Because, like millions of other youth, he didn't want to go to
>> Vietnam and get his ass shot off. A good choice for survival
>> at the time, but a poor choice for someone who wants to be a
>> national leader. It was even worse of a choice to go AWOL
>> and fail to show up for months at a time. We all know why
>> he couldn't take his flight physical that lead to Bush getting
>> grounded...he was taking coke and would have failed the blood
>> tests.
>>
> He like most of his upper-class did not serve...they hid as aids to
>Congressmen and Senators...he was (and still is) a fuc**ing coward

Do a little reasearch before you use such a broad brush.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Rude Dog"


>I'm not certain who is worse. A person who joins the Air National Guard to
>avoid going to Vietnam or a person who goes to Vietnam to obtain political
>status and power.

Go look at the Wall. There's over a thousand names of Guardsmen and reservists
engraved there.

If you want to say joining the Guard would reduce the risk of going this is
true, but so was volunteering and selecting the right MOS. Even being drafted
was no sure ticket to Viet Nam. Some draftees never even left the states, many
went elsewhere.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WalterM140]

>Lets see how ineffective:
>Sadaam is in jail and awaiting trial,

Not worth 7,000 US casulaties, including almost 900 KIA.

>his country now has the right to protest, with out fear of being executed,
>they
>have electricity, running water, hospitals with enough supplies to operate,

Ditto above.

> There are some fighting still, but read about what happened in Germany
>after WWII, there were still some hold outs fights for another 3 yrs AFTER
>the
>war ended.

Not like this. If you can cite 5 US KIA in one day in Germany in 1948 (we had
5 KIA yesterday in Iraq), I'd like to see it. If you can show that Nazi
diehards were able to kill the head of the German government, as the insurgents
did a few weeks ago, throw that in.

>Bin Ladin used to run a country, now he is on the run and living in a cave,

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13

"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13

On 9/11 Bin Laden was operating in a remote area along the Afghan/Paki border.

Right now, Bin Laden was operating in a remote area along the Afghan/Paki
border.


>We have not been attacked since 9/11, as we are hitting them where they live.
>

Former SecNav Lehman, one of the 9/11 commissioners said a couple of weeks ago
that our intel community cannot tell the difference between a bike wreck and a
train wreck.

We're less safe now than we were on 9/11.

>at least Bush has used the military for it's intended mission, and not as a
>"meal on wheels" as the last one.

He's detroying the military. At least, that's what was published recently in
the Naval Preceedings.

>Art,
>I used to read what you had to say bout your service in WWII and respect what
>you did, however, your attacks on Bush, have gone too far. He served, he
>flew,
>The F-102 was not a easy plane to fly. unlike kerry, who admitted he
>committed
>war crimes, aided the enemy, and claimed he was injured in combat, but never
>missed a day due to those so called wounds that were treated with band-aids (
>reminds me of Frank Burns of M*A*S*H, who applied for a Purple Heart after
>getting hit with shell fragments, except it was he forgot to say on the
>report
>it was egg shell fragments) .
>
>Bush acted after the attacks on 9/11, kerry wanted to wait and get the UN
>involved. kerry voted against every weapons system that the military needed
>and
>has been using in Iraq. if he was so proud of his service, why did he try and
>keep our troops from having the best equipment ? You would think, that anyone
>that had been in combat, would know what it is like and want our troops to
>have
>what is needed.
>
>
> Matt Gunsch,
> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> Riding member of the
> 2003 world champion drill team
>Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> GWRRA,NRA,GOA
>

You don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

Walt

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)

>
>
>Clearly the worst president in American history.
>
>Arthur Kramer

I assume you have done detailed research on each and every president to come up
with that?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WalterM140]

> We all know why
>>he couldn't take his flight physical that lead to Bush getting
>>grounded...he was taking coke and would have failed the blood
>>tests.
>>
>>-john-
>
>Prove it.

Would you have skipped a flight physical if you could have helped it?

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>
>
>He did, the ANG is a component of the USAF.

With different criteria for training?


Walt

[Steve Mellenthin]

>George Bush has been a disastrous failure as commander in chief of the armed
>forces.

I'd suggest you ask the military about that instead of just reading the papers.
And don't give me that crap about how demoralized the miltary is because it
ain't true. If you want to believe a few whiney Guard and Reservists go right
ahead. My son is on active duty with AH-64D Apache attack heliocoters and I
sure don't get that sense from him or his commanders of from the families of
others in the military..

[Steve Mellenthin]

>
>Clearly the worst president in American history.

For certain. Just because the economy is improving, jobs are increasing, and
we have had no major attackes in our corders since 9/11, clearly he isn't doing
his job well.

[Steve Mellenthin]

>Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/11/2004 2:58 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Lets see how ineffective:
>>Sadaam is in jail and awaiting trial,
>
>Not worth 7,000 US casulaties, including almost 900 KIA.
>
>>his country now has the right to protest, with out fear of being executed,
>>they
>>have electricity, running water, hospitals with enough supplies to operate,
>
>Ditto above.
>
>> There are some fighting still, but read about what happened in Germany
>>after WWII, there were still some hold outs fights for another 3 yrs AFTER
>>the
>>war ended.
>
>Not like this. If you can cite 5 US KIA in one day in Germany in 1948 (we
>had
>5 KIA yesterday in Iraq), I'd like to see it. If you can show that Nazi
>diehards were able to kill the head of the German government, as the
>insurgents
>did a few weeks ago, throw that in.

Nah, the head of the German government took his own life.


>>
>
>Former SecNav Lehman, one of the 9/11 commissioners said a couple of weeks
>ago
>that our intel community cannot tell the difference between a bike wreck and
>a
>train wreck.

Yeah and who took down the intel community in the last decade and what senator
from Massachusetts voted in favor of those cuts?
>
>We're less safe now than we were on 9/11.

On what measure or basis?



>
>>at least Bush has used the military for it's intended mission, and not as a
>>"meal on wheels" as the last one.
>
>He's detroying the military. At least, that's what was published recently in
>the Naval Preceedings.

Again, sir just ask people in the military instead of reading about it. The
Navy is ****ed because they can't have all the aircraft carriers they want. Go
ahead, ask the grunts and ask them how they feel.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
> wrote:
>
> >Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>
> He did join the US Air Force.

The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.

[sanjian]

George Z. Bush wrote:
> "Ace" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>
>> He did join the US Air Force.
>
> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.

Is that like saying that the SeaBees aren't really part of the navy?

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 7/11/2004 2:57 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>
>> He did join the US Air Force.
>
>The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.

It is a COMPONENT of the Air Force just as the Reserves, Retired Reserves etc
are.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[D. Strang]

> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.

That's the Republic of Texas Air National Guard to you BOY! :-)

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/11/2004 2:02 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> We all know why
>>>he couldn't take his flight physical that lead to Bush getting
>>>grounded...he was taking coke and would have failed the blood
>>>tests.
>>>
>>>-john-
>>
>>Prove it.
>
>Would you have skipped a flight physical if you could have helped it?
>
>Walt

I did. I was scheduled after Thanksgiving and I needed to lose a few pounds.
The rescheduled me for February.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[George Z. Bush]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:cFhIc.1466$sj.854@lakeread02...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
> > "Ace" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
> >>
> >> He did join the US Air Force.
> >
> > The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
>
> Is that like saying that the SeaBees aren't really part of the navy?

The Texas ANG is a state organization until such time as it's activated, and the
only time its members are in the USAF as such is when they've been activated,
either as a unit or as individuals. In Dubya's case, he was only active during
his flight training.....the rest of his service was in a state organization.
The Seabees were different....they were an integral part of the Navy at the
time, as was the submarine service, etc. If you enlisted in the Seabees, you
were in the Navy from day one.

To the best of my knowledge, the Texas ANG was never federalized as a unit
during the VN War, although individual members who may have volunteered would
have been activated and assigned to active USAF units.

See the difference?

George Z.

>
>

[WalterM140]

>>Would you have skipped a flight physical if you could have helped it?
>>
>>Walt
>
>I did. I was scheduled after Thanksgiving and I needed to lose a few pounds.
>The rescheduled me for February.
>

Did you make that physcial?

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

Ace wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:57:20 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ace" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>>
>>> He did join the US Air Force.
>>
>> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
>
> I didn't say it was. President George III *did* join the US Air Force.

I was just responding to whoever said three lines up ">>>He did join the US Air
Force".
He joined the Texas ANG.....the only time he was in the Air Force was during his
flying training. The rest of his service was in the Texas ANG.

The only time any ANG unit is part of the Air Force is when it's been
federalized and activated. That never happened to Dubya. Individual Texas ANG
members may have volunteered for active duty, been accepted and assigned to
regular AF units during the VN War, but that didn't happen to Dubya either.

So, what he joined was the Texas ANG. No need to argue the point any
further.....it won't change anything.

George Z.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:19:56 -0700, "Rude Dog" >
wrote:

>I'm not certain who is worse. A person who joins the Air National Guard to
>avoid going to Vietnam or a person who goes to Vietnam to obtain political
>status and power.
>
>It is well documented that Kerry was assigned to relatively save duty to
>obtain "combat" experience, then used his contacts among high ranking Navy
>officers to manipulate his way out of that duty.

There are a couple of things Bush-gashers are overlooking in their
zeal to bash Bush.

First, military aviation is not a "safe" occupation, in wartime or in
peacetime. Ask anyone who's actually served.

Second, that famous "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the carrier
where Bush landed in the S-3 has been used to ridicule Bush and the
war effort. The "Mission Accomplished" referred to the ship's
deployment.

How many aircraft carrier deployments, in peacetime or in wartime,
have been conducted without loss of life?

The Ship's Company had every right to declare its mission
accomplished, and would have done so had Bush been there or not.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"George Z. Bush" > writes:
>
> "Ace" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>
>> He did join the US Air Force.
>
> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.

They'd better go repaint those airplanes, then.
And change the uniforms.

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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"George Z. Bush" > writes:
>
> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> news:cFhIc.1466$sj.854@lakeread02...
>> George Z. Bush wrote:
>> > "Ace" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>> >>
>> >> He did join the US Air Force.
>> >
>> > The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
>>
>> Is that like saying that the SeaBees aren't really part of the navy?
>
> The Texas ANG is a state organization until such time as it's activated, and the
> only time its members are in the USAF as such is when they've been activated,
> either as a unit or as individuals. In Dubya's case, he was only active during
> his flight training.....the rest of his service was in a state organization.
> The Seabees were different....they were an integral part of the Navy at the
> time, as was the submarine service, etc. If you enlisted in the Seabees, you
> were in the Navy from day one.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the Texas ANG was never federalized as a unit
> during the VN War, although individual members who may have volunteered would
> have been activated and assigned to active USAF units.
>
> See the difference?

G.Z., that just isnt't true. The Militia Act of 1903 specified the
National Guard as the organized militias of the Various States. In
teh 1914 modifications to that act, Guard Officers were appointed by
the President of the States, with teh consent of teh Senate, rather
than by the States themselves. The Army set force distributuions and
training requirements.
The National Defence Act of 1916 established the National Guard as a
Reserve Compnent of the U.S. Army, equal to the Reserve Corps, and the
Volunteer Corps. (Which became the Natioanal Army when conscription
began - the National Army was made up of Draftees.)
In 1918, the distinctions between National Guard, Reserve Corps,
Regular Army, and National Army was abrogated, and all elements were
fused into one organization - the United States Army.

The same relationship has always held for the Air National Guard.

In 1955, Air National Guard Fighter Interceptor Squadrons were
required to maintain at least 2 aircraft on 24 hour alert, 7 days a
week. These aircraft operate under USAF orders, adn NORAD direction.
Certainly no "Activation" is required. ANG Airlifters flew missions
on the MATS/MAC/TAC as appropriate schedule. NH ANG C-97s flying
cargo (Such as ARRS Rescue Helicopters) to Viet Nam weren't doing it
in orders from Concord, for example.

The idea that the National Guard is a State Organization may be
widespread, but it is false. The States supply Armories and training
areas, and can call on the National Guard in times of emergency. The
Guard's force structure, roles and missions are directed by the
relevant parent service.

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

[BUFDRVR]

George Z. Bush wrote:

>the only time he was in the Air Force was during his
>flying training. The rest of his service was in the Texas ANG.

Sooo...when I run into these guys/gals at *Air Force* exercises and
Professional Military Education School (SOS,ISS, etc.) or working three desks
down on the *Air* Staff at the Pentagon I should escort them to the "Air
National Guard" section? What if one doesn't exist? How about the Air Force
Reserve, are they part of the Air Force?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/11/2004 4:57 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>>Would you have skipped a flight physical if you could have helped it?
>>>
>>>Walt
>>
>>I did. I was scheduled after Thanksgiving and I needed to lose a few pounds.
>>The rescheduled me for February.
>>
>
>Did you make that physcial?
>
>Walt
>
Yes, but that's irrelevant since you asked if I would have skipped a physical.
I did.

Now let me as you a question. Did you give Clinton as hard a time as Bush? At
least Bush served.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ian MacLure]

(Smartace11) wrote in
:

>>We all know why
>>he couldn't take his flight physical that lead to Bush getting
>>grounded...he was taking coke and would have failed the blood
>>tests.
>
> I don't know that. Why would I?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are obviously not listening to the
voices numbnuts believes we all have in our heads.
He'll be very disappointed when he realises this.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

R. David Steele wrote:
>> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
>
> God, you anti war types are so uneducated!!
>
> maybe we need mandatory military service just so some NCO can
> bitch slap some sense into you.


The 26 years in the USAF as a troop carrier and air rescue pilot wasn't enough?
Be a little less smearing with your assumptions.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Clinton's not running.
>

Did you support Clinton in 1992 or 1996?


>
> The Bush campaign has belittled Senator Kerry's
> service, which is sort of a stretch given their candidate's service
record.
>

The Bush campaign has done nothing of the sort.

[Ian MacLure]

(ArtKramr) wrote in news:20040711122325.23951.00001686@mb-
m28.aol.com:

[snip]

> His dad went to war. He didn't. Do you see any diffference in that?

Umm, Art, I'm surprised at you. WWII was a war with worldwise scope.
Everybody was at war. Some got shot at, some didn't. My dad was
a week away from navy basic when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.
He was notified his services were not required. Boy was he ****ed.

Vietnam was a war of limited scope. 1/3 or so of those elegible
served ( IIRC ).
There were probably folks who had long military careers who,
through no fault of their own never went near RVN

Bush did serve, in uniform, in a capacity that doesn't, by its
nature suffer fools gladly and came away with his keister in one
piece. Kerry couldn't even manage that. He was a frat boy yachtsman
who thought swift boats would be a relatively safe way to get his
ticket punched. When it proved otherwise, he figured out how to
game the system and got out. When he got back to the world he then
got into the business of ensuring that America lost the war. Some of
us call that TREASON! He admitted to WAR CRIMES!

And you think he and his draft dodging running mate will make the
world safe for democracy?

It is to laugh.
It is to lose control.
It is to fall down, roll on the floor and howl long and loud.
In short, ARE YOU ****TING ME?

Wake up Art!

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[RTO Trainer]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Ace" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
> >
> > He did join the US Air Force.
>
> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.

It most certainly is. So are the Air National Guard units of the
other states as well.

Army Guard is the same.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Clearly the worst president in American history.
>

You're thinking of his predecessor.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not worth 7,000 US casulaties, including almost 900 KIA.
>

You think light casualties are a bad thing? Are you sure you were a marine?
You don't sound like you have any military experience at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
>

So why did their aircraft have "U. S. AIR FORCE" written on their sides?

[Ian MacLure]

(B2431) wrote in news:20040711144320.10891.00001536@mb-
m02.aol.com:


>>Date: 7/11/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>
>
> He did, the ANG is a component of the USAF.

Well, yes, and no.
Until the President activates them they are state
militia units. Same thing with the Army NG.
When they go on active service they become elements of the
regular military but are (IIRC) subject to a 2 year limit for
continuous deployment.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Ian MacLure > wrote:

> (B2431) wrote in news:20040711144320.10891.00001536@mb-
> m02.aol.com:
>
>
> >>Date: 7/11/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>
> >>Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
> >>
> >
> > He did, the ANG is a component of the USAF.
>
> Well, yes, and no.
> Until the President activates them they are state
> militia units. Same thing with the Army NG.

"Perpich vs Department of Defense" has a slightly different take on the
relationship. The NG (ANG, etc.) belong to the federal force structure,
but may be used by their related state if the feds don't otherwise want
to use them.

For starters, look who signs their paychecks.

> When they go on active service they become elements of the
> regular military but are (IIRC) subject to a 2 year limit for
> continuous deployment.
>
> IBM
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ____________________________
> _
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
> http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
> <><><><><><><><>
>

[Fred J. McCall]

Ian MacLure > wrote:

:"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in
:
:>
:> We all know why
:> he couldn't take his flight physical that lead to Bush getting
:> grounded...he was taking coke and would have failed the blood
:> tests.
:
: So you say.
: You still haven't demonstrated any requirement for drug
: testing during the period in question and one poster
: claims it wasn't instituted until a couple of years later.
: Seems to me balls in your court.

And it was NEVER done in conjunction with a physical. Drug screenings
were always separate in order to document and maintain chain of
custody of the sample.

Mr Weeks is a liar.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

[RTO Trainer]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> news:cFhIc.1466$sj.854@lakeread02...
> > George Z. Bush wrote:
> > > "Ace" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
> > >>
> > >> He did join the US Air Force.
> > >
> > > The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
> >
> > Is that like saying that the SeaBees aren't really part of the navy?
>
> The Texas ANG is a state organization until such time as it's activated, and the
> only time its members are in the USAF as such is when they've been activated,
> either as a unit or as individuals. In Dubya's case, he was only active during
> his flight training.....the rest of his service was in a state organization.
> The Seabees were different....they were an integral part of the Navy at the
> time, as was the submarine service, etc. If you enlisted in the Seabees, you
> were in the Navy from day one.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the Texas ANG was never federalized as a unit
> during the VN War, although individual members who may have volunteered would
> have been activated and assigned to active USAF units.
>
> See the difference?


You are incorrect. The National Guard (both Air and Army) are
components of the US Air Force and US Army. When not federalized they
are under control of the states. You got your cart before your horse.
The Fed doesn't take them away, the resume control of them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now let me as you a question. Did you give Clinton as hard a time as Bush?
At
> least Bush served.
>

Come on now. You know he didn't. This isn't a matter of principle to him,
it's partisanship.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>From: (Jack Linthicum)
>Date: 7/12/2004 4:23 AM Pac

> I think you are
>'remembering' Dick Cheney

You mean President Cheney?


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

[George Z. Bush]

R. David Steele wrote:
>>>>>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>>>>
>>>>> He did join the US Air Force.
>>>>
>>>> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
>>>
>>> Is that like saying that the SeaBees aren't really part of the navy?
>>
>> The Texas ANG is a state organization until such time as it's activated, and
>> the only time its members are in the USAF as such is when they've been
>> activated, either as a unit or as individuals. In Dubya's case, he was only
>> active during his flight training.....the rest of his service was in a state
>> organization. The Seabees were different....they were an integral part of
>> the Navy at the time, as was the submarine service, etc. If you enlisted in
>> the Seabees, you were in the Navy from day one.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, the Texas ANG was never federalized as a unit
>> during the VN War, although individual members who may have volunteered would
>> have been activated and assigned to active USAF units.
>>
>> See the difference?
>>
> We have the concept of one service. Thus the Air Guard wears US
> Air Force on their uniforms, not Texas Guard. The same for the
> Army Guard. Their uniforms say US Army.
>
> In fact 98% of the money that the Guard has to spend comes from
> federal sources, not state. The states spend very little for the
> Guard. While many states do mismanage their Guard programs, that
> does not belittle those who serve in the Guard.

That does not change a thing. Whether or not you agree, the ANG is NOT a part
of the active establishment until it is federalized and activated. Until that
time, they answer to their governors only, regardless of where the money for
their operations comes from.
>
> .....Frankly those who have not served need to keep quiet on these
> matters.

I've got three wars under MY belt.....how many do you have (not counting the
iddy biddy ones like Panama or Granada)? I paid my dues to be able to speak,
and if you don't like what I'm saying, just change the station because I'm not
about to shut up just because you think I should.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Peter Stickney wrote:
> In article >,
> "George Z. Bush" > writes:
>>
>> "Ace" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>>
>>> He did join the US Air Force.
>>
>> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
>
> They'd better go repaint those airplanes, then.
> And change the uniforms.

No need. The governors all have permission. Anyway, the aircraft are all
clearly marked with the names of the states that own them when they're not
federalized. Don't take my word for it.....just go out to an ANG base and see
for yourself.

George Z.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>From: Bert Hyman
>Date: 7/12/2004 8:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Jack Linthicum) wrote in
om:
>
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>> message
>> t>...
>>> "Brooks Gregory" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>> >
>>> > Why didn't John Edwards?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Given that John Kerry has made Vietnam service the primary issue
>>> of his campaign, why didn't he choose someone with military
>>> experience for his running mate?
>>
>> John Edwards was 22 and in college at North Carolina State when the
>> draft was ended. ...
>
>So, he's a draft dodger who used an education deferment to avoid
>service.
>
>Isn't that the way you'd put it?
>
>--
>Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |


Anything to take the focus off Bush.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:59:55 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>Peter Stickney wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "George Z. Bush" > writes:
>>>
>>> "Ace" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:10:39 +0100,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>>>
>>>> He did join the US Air Force.
>>>
>>> The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
>>
>> They'd better go repaint those airplanes, then.
>> And change the uniforms.
>
>No need. The governors all have permission. Anyway, the aircraft are all
>clearly marked with the names of the states that own them when they're not
>federalized. Don't take my word for it.....just go out to an ANG base and see
>for yourself.
>
>George Z.
>

And, if you find an air defense alert barn with Eagles or Vipers
lurking therein, you might want to ask the guard at the gate who has
launch authority for those ANG jets, the governor? And, if the unit
has been deployed recently, as virtually all ANG and AFRES flying
units have, you might want to ask what sort of missions the governor
was ordering them to fly.

You'll find out that ANG flying units are a component of the USAF and
that they are under the operational command and control of the USAF.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:06:08 +0000, Fred J. McCall wrote:

[snip]

> Mr Weeks is a liar.

Fred!
I'm shocked.
I'm speechless.
Surely it cannot be so.
Why that would be unthinkable....
A fine upstanding citizen like John A. Weeks III a
foul smelling gob****e of a liar.
My entire world view is collapsing.
Say it ain't so ;)

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Gary Thomas]

> You are incorrect. The National Guard (both Air and Army) are
> components of the US Air Force and US Army. When not federalized they
> are under control of the states. You got your cart before your horse.
> The Fed doesn't take them away, the resume control of them.

Exactamundo my friend...glad someone got it right. I've been following this
post and was about to say as you did.
I served in the Ky National Guard from 1971 through 1998 and heard this
debate over and over...

The last four words of our National Anthem?.....
"Gentlemen, start your engines"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> I say again. George W Bush *did* join the US Air Force. And that's a
> fact!
>

Yes, but there's no way to get that fact across to these loons.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anything to take the focus off Bush.
>

We've looked at Bush thoroughly. The focus should be on Kerry.

[Ragnar]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:23:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ace" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I say again. George W Bush *did* join the US Air Force. And that's a
> >> fact!
> >>
> >
> >Yes, but there's no way to get that fact across to these loons.
>
> President George III joined the US Air Force after being selected as
> the Air Force's commander-in-chief by a politburo of self-confessed
> corrupt supreme court judges.

Sounds like someone hasn't actually read the Supreme Court decision and the
background behind it.

[Pepperoni]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ace" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:23:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Ace" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> I say again. George W Bush *did* join the US Air Force. And that's
a
> > >> fact!
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yes, but there's no way to get that fact across to these loons.
> >
> > President George III joined the US Air Force after being selected as
> > the Air Force's commander-in-chief by a politburo of self-confessed
> > corrupt supreme court judges.
>
> Sounds like someone hasn't actually read the Supreme Court decision and
the
> background behind it.

He's some sort of Brit Educator; too busy to read Article II, Section I of
the U.S. Constitution. (A.K.A. ".....the background behind it.")

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

He's still miffed because King GeorgeIII had more sense than the average
Brit Educator does today.


Pepperoni

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> President George III joined the US Air Force after being selected as
> the Air Force's commander-in-chief by a politburo of self-confessed
> corrupt supreme court judges.
>

George Bush was elected president in accordance with the law. The role of
the USSC was only to insure that law was followed.

[BUFDRVR]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>And, if you find an air defense alert barn with Eagles or Vipers
>lurking therein, you might want to ask the guard at the gate who has
>launch authority for those ANG jets, the governor?

Don't bother the sentry, just look at the command patches worn by ANG
personnel. You won't find any Texas ANG or NJANG patches, you'll find ACC
patches, AMC patches or even SPACECOM patches, all *USAF* MAJCOMs.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Bob McKellar]

"R. David Steele" wrote:

> |> > >>> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
> |> > >>
> |> > >> He did join the US Air Force.
> |> > >
> |> > > The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
> |> >
> |> > Is that like saying that the SeaBees aren't really part of the navy?
> |>
> |> The Texas ANG is a state organization until such time as it's activated, and the
> |> only time its members are in the USAF as such is when they've been activated,
> |> either as a unit or as individuals. In Dubya's case, he was only active during
> |> his flight training.....the rest of his service was in a state organization.
> |> The Seabees were different....they were an integral part of the Navy at the
> |> time, as was the submarine service, etc. If you enlisted in the Seabees, you
> |> were in the Navy from day one.
> |>
> |> To the best of my knowledge, the Texas ANG was never federalized as a unit
> |> during the VN War, although individual members who may have volunteered would
> |> have been activated and assigned to active USAF units.
> |>
> |> See the difference?
> |
> |
> |You are incorrect. The National Guard (both Air and Army) are
> |components of the US Air Force and US Army. When not federalized they
> |are under control of the states. You got your cart before your horse.
> | The Fed doesn't take them away, the resume control of them.
>
> The Guard is dual hated.

Freudian slip?

Bob McKellar ( not actually a Freudian himself )

[RTO Trainer]

"Gary Thomas" > wrote in message >...
> > You are incorrect. The National Guard (both Air and Army) are
> > components of the US Air Force and US Army. When not federalized they
> > are under control of the states. You got your cart before your horse.
> > The Fed doesn't take them away, the resume control of them.
>
> Exactamundo my friend...glad someone got it right. I've been following this
> post and was about to say as you did.
> I served in the Ky National Guard from 1971 through 1998 and heard this
> debate over and over...
>


Pleased to meet ya. We have some Kentucky boys here in the 'Stan with
our Task Force.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
> that was pure coincidence?

Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
down there since 1963.

[WalterM140]

>He didn't go to officer candidate school because the Air National Guard
>doesn't have one. You have been told that repeatedly but keep
>repeating the same old tired lies even when you know they are lies.

Someone -- I didn't keep track -- said that Bush DID go to OTS. When I asked
if OTS attendees were considered to be enlisted men, I got nothing back.

It's also been alleged that the ANG was part of the Air Force. "No", that's
not right", someone else said.

Now I know in the Marine Corps the training requirements for reserve and
regular officers are identical. Every Marine officer goes through TBS, the
Basic School, even the academy graduates.

And I know that the National Guard are not strictly speaking reserve forces.
That is, they report to the governors of the various states in a way, and under
certain conditions, that the active reserves do not.

Maybe I missed it, but can anyone confirm that ANG fliers do receive officer
specific training or not? Bush's military resume states he went from an
enlisted status to an officer status on the following day. James Webb
characterized this service by saying that Bush never attended OCS (I think that
was the term he used).

Who's got the straight scoop on this?

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>> >Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>>>
>>> He did join the US Air Force.
>>
>>The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the U. S. Air Force.
>
>It is a COMPONENT of the Air Force just as the Reserves, Retired Reserves etc
>are.
>

So do flying officers in the US Air Force go through six weeks of training --
as enlisted men -- and then are commissioned as officers?

Do -any- Air Force officers do that?

Bush's military resume clearly states that he was an enlisted man one day and a
commissoned officer the next.

There has been a lot of back and forth on this, but no consensus on through
which means officers are accessed into the ANG vice the Air Force.

I'd really be surprised to find that the Air Force runs potential officers
through a six week program in which they are considered enlisted men. In the
Marine Corps, officer candidates are NOT considered enlisted men. I know
there are some differences between the Guard/Reserve and also between the
Army/Air Force and the Marine Corps/Navy way of doing things.

But going straight from being an enlisted man, as Bush did, to being an officer
the very next day seems pretty strange.

And here's the link to Bush's military resume:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc14.gif

I can tell by some subsequent follow on notes, that people are not going to
these links I post, but I can't help that.

If some of ya'll can screw up your courage and actually look at that link,
you'll see that it makes -no- mention of Bush -ever- being in Alabama.

The reason for that is pretty clear. Bush skipped out on the last two years
of his commitment.

Walt

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
> that was pure coincidence?
>

It is following the law to adhere to the Constitution. Conservatives, by
definition, do that. Liberals do not.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 13 Jul 2004 09:24:01 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>So do flying officers in the US Air Force go through six weeks of training --
>as enlisted men -- and then are commissioned as officers?

Since 1962 all entries to USAF Undergraduate Pilot Training enter as
commissioned officers. Since 1964 all entries to Navigator training
enter as commissioned officers. (Prior to that the Aviation Cadet
program allowed for two years of college to qualify and a dual
training program that resulted in both a commission and an
aeronautical rating, AKA "wings.")
>
>Do -any- Air Force officers do that?

USAF line officers are commissioned through USAFA, AFROTC and OTS.
Officer Training School requires a four-year college degree to enter.
The cadets are subject to the UCMJ and are paid at enlisted rates.
While they do not hold a specific enlisted rank, they are considered
to be enlisted. On completion of the program they are commissioned as
USAF officers.
>
>Bush's military resume clearly states that he was an enlisted man one day and a
>commissoned officer the next.

Day before completion of OTS, you're enlisted. Get sworn in and handed
the commission, you're officer.
>
>There has been a lot of back and forth on this, but no consensus on through
>which means officers are accessed into the ANG vice the Air Force.

There is no requirement for "consensus." Facts do not require
consensus. Get out your Funk & Wagnall's and look up the word.
>
>I'd really be surprised to find that the Air Force runs potential officers
>through a six week program in which they are considered enlisted men. In the
>Marine Corps, officer candidates are NOT considered enlisted men. I know
>there are some differences between the Guard/Reserve and also between the
>Army/Air Force and the Marine Corps/Navy way of doing things.

Great. You've had a breakthrough. There are differences between USMC,
Army, USAF, Guard, Reserve. Good.
>
>But going straight from being an enlisted man, as Bush did, to being an officer
> the very next day seems pretty strange.

Virtually everyone who ever went through OTS/OCS did exactly that.
>
>And here's the link to Bush's military resume:
>
>http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc14.gif
>
>I can tell by some subsequent follow on notes, that people are not going to
>these links I post, but I can't help that.

I go to some, but quite often the domain indicates that the
information is biased at best and falsified at the worst. A "users"
domain is for individual bloggers. It doesn't connote any great degree
of credibility. Sorry about that.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Brooks Gregory]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 01:24:12 -0500, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Ace" > wrote
> >>
> >> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
> >> that was pure coincidence?
> >
> >Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
> >trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
> >They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
> >down there since 1963.
>
> Who won the popular vote?

Who won the Grammy?


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

[Brooks Gregory]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you
think
> >> >> that was pure coincidence?
> >> >
> >> >Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
> >> >trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
> >> >They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
> >> >down there since 1963.
> >>
> >> Who won the popular vote?
> >
> >Who won the Grammy?
>
> I see. When you find an uncomfortable question you answer with a
> different question.
>
> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.

Go find yourself a playmate kid. I was in the political arena way too long
to play your games.


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

[Brooks Gregory]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:45:21 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> > wrote:
>
> >Go find yourself a playmate kid. I was in the political arena way too
long
> >to play your games.
>
> The truth is too painful to admit. I see.

Yea, if that works, take it.

PLONK

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:24:01 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

[snip]

> So do flying officers in the US Air Force go through six weeks of training --
> as enlisted men -- and then are commissioned as officers?

What part of Ed Rasimus' explanation did you not understand?
And what was common 30 years ago is probably not so today.

> The reason for that is pretty clear. Bush skipped out on the last two years
> of his commitment.

No he did not. This too has been explained in detail by those who
have some chance of getting it right.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Leslie Swartz]

Ace:

Do your homework. Fact- not opinion, fact- is that eht so-called "popular
vote" was undecided. A statistical tie, more accurately. We will *never*
know who actually received the most votes, because:

1) Not all votes were counted. It's legal in most places to discard votes
if they won't tip the electoral scales. Therefore, in the "Bush" states
many Gore votes (and potential additional Bush votes) were discarded, and
vice versa.
2) Out of the votes that *were* counted, the totals were within the margin
of errors of the mechanical counting systems used. Even with "perfectly"
filled out ballots, the machine counters have margins of error (within a 95%
confidence interval) of ~3% of total votes cast. Basically, any vote tally
within 6% of each other is at least 5% chance we gave the win to the wrong
guy . . . as teh tallies get closer, the probability of error gets higher.
3) *Now* you may apply whatever sense of the typical "irregularites"
(10,000 absentee ballots discarded in Florida) you feel exist, and hte
margins are even higher.

STOP REPEATING HTE "GORE WON POPULAR ELECTION" BULL****!

You are no longer ignorant- if you repeat this lie, you are evil.

Steve Swartz





"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you
think
> >> >> that was pure coincidence?
> >> >
> >> >Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
> >> >trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
> >> >They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
> >> >down there since 1963.
> >>
> >> Who won the popular vote?
> >
> >Who won the Grammy?
>
> I see. When you find an uncomfortable question you answer with a
> different question.
>
> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.

[Leslie Swartz]

You are one ignorant- or evil- SOB, Ace.

Steve Swartz



"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:25:13 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> > wrote:
>
> >> The truth is too painful to admit. I see.
> >
> >Yea, if that works, take it.
> >
> >PLONK
>
> Another one bites the dust!!!

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 01:24:12 -0500, "D. Strang"
> >"Ace" > wrote
> >>
> >> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
> >> that was pure coincidence?
> >
> >Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
> >trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
> >They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
> >down there since 1963.
>
> Who won the popular vote?

Who cares.

[Mike Williamson]

WalterM140 wrote:
>>He didn't go to officer candidate school because the Air National Guard
>>doesn't have one. You have been told that repeatedly but keep
>>repeating the same old tired lies even when you know they are lies.
>
>
> Someone -- I didn't keep track -- said that Bush DID go to OTS. When I asked
> if OTS attendees were considered to be enlisted men, I got nothing back.
>

Personnel attending officer training programs typically do have
enlisted rank, even if only for administrative purposes (IIRC, I was an
E-2 while in ROTC in college, although the closest I ever came to
wearing a uniform with enlisted rank were the cadet ranks during my
first two years of ROTC).

Several enlisted troops in my group have been selected for OTS, and
will maintain their enlisted rank until completion of training, at which
time they will be discharged from enlisted service and then sworn in
as 2Lt's.

Mike Williamson

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Ace > wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
> >> >> that was pure coincidence?
> >> >
> >> >Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
> >> >trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
> >> >They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
> >> >down there since 1963.
> >>
> >> Who won the popular vote?
> >
> >Who won the Grammy?
>
> I see. When you find an uncomfortable question you answer with a
> different question.
>
> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.

According to the Constitution, he was.

You've heard of the document, I suspect.

[Mike Williamson]

George Z. Bush wrote:

>
> That does not change a thing. Whether or not you agree, the ANG is NOT a part
> of the active establishment until it is federalized and activated. Until that
> time, they answer to their governors only, regardless of where the money for
> their operations comes from.

Not strictly true- they follow the appropriate Regulations or
Instructions appropriate to their service and operational requirements.
In the Air Force these would be all of the appropriate Air Force
Instructions (AFIs).

In addition, they are inspected and evaluated under a program
which includes Guard and Reserve representation, but they are
inspected under the same standards as active duty units and
their inspection teams will have both active and non-active members.

Mike

[Mike Williamson]

Ace wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
>>>>>that was pure coincidence?
>>>>
>>>>Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
>>>>trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
>>>>They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
>>>>down there since 1963.
>>>
>>>Who won the popular vote?
>>
>>Who won the Grammy?
>
>
> I see. When you find an uncomfortable question you answer with a
> different question.
>
> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.

In point of fact, no one won a majority of the popular vote, nor did
they in the previous presidential election. But neither of those
tidbits are relevant to the discussion, as the President of the United
States has never been elected via a popular vote. The number of
people in the news (including, IIRC, Chelsea Clinton) who expressed
surprise and dismay at this fact should be made to retake high school
civics. As should those who still seem to cling to it as though it
does, or ever did, have some relevance. If you want a leader elected
through direct popular vote, move to -- hmm, having a hard time
finding one. Even Castro was listed as being elected via
"legislative vote."

Mike

[Ian MacLure]

Steve Hix > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Ace > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
>> > wrote:

[snip

>> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.
>
> According to the Constitution, he was.
>
> You've heard of the document, I suspect.

Hmmm, might be an unsafe bet on this occasion.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Ian MacLure]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in
:

> You are one ignorant- or evil- SOB, Ace.

The one doesn't preclude the other.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
> votes count, others don't?

Obviously you don't understand the US electoral process. Do a little
research and come back. Right now you are too ignorant to communicate
intelligently with.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> Is that the one riddled with various ad-hoc amendments, and provides
> for children to kill each other with their daddy's guns with wanton
> abandon?

Nope. Keep searching.

[Rytkönen]

"Mike Williamson" > wrote:
> ...
> does, or ever did, have some relevance. If you want a leader elected
> through direct popular vote, move to -- hmm, having a hard time
> finding one. Even Castro was listed as being elected via
> "legislative vote."
>
> Mike
>

If you want a leader elected through direct popular vote, move to Finland!
http://www.presidentti.fi/eng/institution/

Kalle

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:17:22 +0100, Ace > wrote:

>So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
>votes count, others don't?
>
>(Just a question, not a statement from this "ignorant" Limey - so
>don't go having a temper tantrum.)

Ahh, an outsider commenting upon the American Constitutional process.
(Ours is written, so it's much easier to refer to than the British one
which has to be cobbled together from miscellanous ramblings of the
Parliament and the courts over centuries.)

Now, pay attention. The popular vote is not definitive in electing the
President of the United States. It is done, according to the
Constitution by an Electoral College.

The EC has one vote for each member of House/Senate of each state. The
states themselves determine how to select their electors and the
procedure for the electors to vote. Most states mandate that all
electors of the state vote for the plurality winner of that state's
presidential balloting.

A majority of the EC votes is required to win election, not a
plurality. Since a relationship between margin of victory in the
various states and the total vote of the EC is not direct, it is very
possible to have an EC victory without winning the nationwide popular
vote.

These were the rules going into the election and all the players knew
them. The popular vote (even if it were accurately determined) is not
the means of electing our president.

BTW, how do you guys elect your PM? Oh, you don't have a nationwide
popular vote? What kind of democracy is that?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ian maclure]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:31:18 +0300, Rytkönen wrote:

[snip]

> If you want a leader elected through direct popular vote, move to Finland!
> http://www.presidentti.fi/eng/institution/

Yeah but who wants to pay $7 for a beer.
( or at least thats what a friend told it was in the 1980's )
Most I ever paid for a beer was $7.50 for a Tracquair House
( low volume high end Scottish beer ).

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Leslie Swartz]

And when did you acknowledge the facts aboutt he so-called "Popular
Election" results?

Still sulking, Ace?

Steve Swartz


"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:03:13 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >You are one ignorant- or evil- SOB, Ace.
>
> I'm not the one who sulks in a corner, ignoring the person who has won
> an argument against me.

[Leslie Swartz]

Still sulking about being wrong on the whole "Won The Popular Vote" myth you
raised?

Steve Swartz

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:52:05 -0700, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Ace > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you
think
> >> >> >> that was pure coincidence?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
> >> >> >trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like
Gore.
> >> >> >They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
> >> >> >down there since 1963.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who won the popular vote?
> >> >
> >> >Who won the Grammy?
> >>
> >> I see. When you find an uncomfortable question you answer with a
> >> different question.
> >>
> >> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.
> >
> >According to the Constitution, he was.
> >
> >You've heard of the document, I suspect.
>
> Is that the one riddled with various ad-hoc amendments, and provides
> for children to kill each other with their daddy's guns with wanton
> abandon?

[Leslie Swartz]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:16:13 GMT, Mike Williamson
> > wrote:
>
> >>>>Who won the popular vote?
>
> >> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.
>
> > In point of fact, no one won a majority of the popular vote, nor did
> >they in the previous presidential election.
>
> I wasn't taking about a *majority of the popular vote*. I was asking
> about the *popular* vote - the greater number of votes.

AND YOU ARE STILL WRONG!

Steve Swartz

[Leslie Swartz]

Not what I'm saying at all.

In "The Great Republic" (NOT "Democracy") all votes are certainly not
counted.

Some by default, some by desing.

Oh By The Way- this fact of error rates in ballot counting apply to all
countries using those systems . . . not just the U.S.

Steve Swartz



"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >Ace:
> >
> > Do your homework. Fact- not opinion, fact- is that eht so-called
"popular
> >vote" was undecided. A statistical tie, more accurately. We will
*never*
> >know who actually received the most votes, because:
> >
> >1) Not all votes were counted. It's legal in most places to discard
votes
> >if they won't tip the electoral scales. Therefore, in the "Bush" states
> >many Gore votes (and potential additional Bush votes) were discarded, and
> >vice versa.
> >2) Out of the votes that *were* counted, the totals were within the
margin
> >of errors of the mechanical counting systems used. Even with "perfectly"
> >filled out ballots, the machine counters have margins of error (within a
95%
> >confidence interval) of ~3% of total votes cast. Basically, any vote
tally
> >within 6% of each other is at least 5% chance we gave the win to the
wrong
> >guy . . . as teh tallies get closer, the probability of error gets
higher.
> >3) *Now* you may apply whatever sense of the typical "irregularites"
> >(10,000 absentee ballots discarded in Florida) you feel exist, and hte
> >margins are even higher.
> >
> >STOP REPEATING HTE "GORE WON POPULAR ELECTION" BULL****!
> >
> >You are no longer ignorant- if you repeat this lie, you are evil.
>
> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
> votes count, others don't?
>
> (Just a question, not a statement from this "ignorant" Limey - so
> don't go having a temper tantrum.)

[Duck Dog]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 03:34:28 GMT, R. David Steele
/OMEGA> wrote:

>Spell checker with a mind of its own!!

And greg dean, with no mind at all.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
> Gore?

Bush. He had the most electoral votes.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> So the system is flawed?

Yes. But the flaws would be exaggerated with a popular vote. The
Electoral vote reduces the impact of the flaws. No voting system
is perfect, except in a dictatorship.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:13:56 -0500, "D. Strang"
>
> >"Ace" > wrote
> >>
> >> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
> >> votes count, others don't?
> >
> >Obviously you don't understand the US electoral process. Do a little
> >research and come back. Right now you are too ignorant to communicate
> >intelligently with.
>
> I make no such claim. I asked a simple question. I'll rephrase for
> your benefit.
>
> In *The Great Democracy* are some people's votes worth more than
> others?

No. They are equal. Everyone in the same state has the same 1 vote.
People from other states also have 1 vote, but their state may have more
electors. This is taught in most American high schools, and you will probably
learn it soon unless you drop out.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:14:55 -0500, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Ace" > wrote
> >>
> >> Is that the one riddled with various ad-hoc amendments, and provides
> >> for children to kill each other with their daddy's guns with wanton
> >> abandon?
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Pray enlighten me then.

Finish school, and then come back.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:34:53 -0500, "D. Strang"
> wrote:

>"Ace" > wrote

>> In *The Great Democracy* are some people's votes worth more than
>> others?
>
>No. They are equal. Everyone in the same state has the same 1 vote.
>People from other states also have 1 vote, but their state may have more
>electors. This is taught in most American high schools, and you will probably
>learn it soon unless you drop out.
>
>

Well, not exactly. Based on the Supreme Court decision in Reynold vs
Sims, each citizen's vote should provide equal representation. The
decennial census counts the population and reapportions representation
among the states to keep the House of Representatives at 435 members.
During the last census, the number of citizens to get a representative
came out to about 715,000. So, since the Electoral College membership
is equal to the Congressional delegation of the state (same as the
state's number of representatives and senators) a voter in a more
populous state with more electors, has about the same influence as a
voter in a state with few electors.

Of course, that's skewed by the winner-take-all mandate for EC voting,
but I think the point is that our Agincourt Ace doesn't know what he's
talking about, but he's got an axe to grind. An axe from Agincourt?
Nah, that's too literal.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:57:29 +0100, Ace > wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:35:42 -0500, "D. Strang"
> wrote:
>
>>Finish school, and then come back.
>
>I suspect I'm rather better educated than you. I will be delighted to
>be proven wrong.

You clearly operate under a delusion of grandeur. Or, possibly your
education is in some field other than political science.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:58:50 +0100, Ace > wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:29:00 -0500, "D. Strang"
> wrote:
>
>>"Ace" > wrote
>>>
>>> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
>>> Gore?
>>
>>Bush. He had the most electoral votes.
>
>You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
>their favour?

I and several others in this forum have tried to inform you that while
the popular vote is entertaining, it isn't the method described in the
U. S. Constitution for selection of the chief executive.

In other words, it doesn't matter who got the greater number of
popular votes. That might not be the perfect system in some minds, but
in a federation it works to provide some balance in the representation
between large and small states.

Now, start paying attention, because there is going to be a test.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Brooks Gregory]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:58:50 +0100, Ace > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:29:00 -0500, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"Ace" > wrote
> >>>
> >>> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
> >>> Gore?
> >>
> >>Bush. He had the most electoral votes.
> >
> >You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
> >their favour?
>
> I and several others in this forum have tried to inform you that while
> the popular vote is entertaining, it isn't the method described in the
> U. S. Constitution for selection of the chief executive.
>
> In other words, it doesn't matter who got the greater number of
> popular votes. That might not be the perfect system in some minds, but
> in a federation it works to provide some balance in the representation
> between large and small states.
>
> Now, start paying attention, because there is going to be a test.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

To think that these poor *******s still hang on to this just goes to show
you how vacant they have become on ideas that will help this country. I find
it most comical.


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

[Leslie Swartz]

WE DON'T KNOW- AND PROBABLY CAN'T EVER KNOW- WITH OUR CURRENT TECHNOLOGY
AND PROCESSES!

HAVEN"T YOU BEEN PAYING ANY ATTENTION AT ALL?

HELLO? HELLO?

Steve


"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:11:49 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ace" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:16:13 GMT, Mike Williamson
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>Who won the popular vote?
> >>
> >> >> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.
> >>
> >> > In point of fact, no one won a majority of the popular vote, nor
did
> >> >they in the previous presidential election.
> >>
> >> I wasn't taking about a *majority of the popular vote*. I was asking
> >> about the *popular* vote - the greater number of votes.
>
> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
> Gore?

[Leslie Swartz]

For Pete's Sake.

Come back when you get a clue.

So much for the wonderful powers of the european educational system.

Steve Swartz




"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:14:01 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >Not what I'm saying at all.
> >
> >In "The Great Republic" (NOT "Democracy") all votes are certainly not
> >counted.
> >
> >Some by default, some by desing.
> >
> >Oh By The Way- this fact of error rates in ballot counting apply to all
> >countries using those systems . . . not just the U.S.
>
> So the system is flawed?

[Leslie Swartz]

Checking watch, waiting for apology . . . checking calendar, waiting for
apology . . . yeah, right.

Steve Swartz



"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:08:03 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >And when did you acknowledge the facts aboutt he so-called "Popular
> >Election" results?
> >
> >Still sulking, Ace?
>
> I never sulk. When proved wrong, I admit it. I did so when corrected
> on the issue of George Washington's title of General. I believed that
> he had no more right than Osama bin Laden, for example, to assume the
> title of General.

[sanjian]

Ace wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:18:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ace" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> President George III joined the US Air Force after being selected as
>>> the Air Force's commander-in-chief by a politburo of self-confessed
>>> corrupt supreme court judges.
>>>
>>
>> George Bush was elected president in accordance with the law. The
>> role of the USSC was only to insure that law was followed.
>
> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
> that was pure coincidence?

That cuts both ways. It should have been 9-0 in favor of Bush, but four
radical justices voted along party lines, as opposed to in accordance with
the constitution. (why is it that those who complain about voting along
party lines always miss the point that such a thing requires -both- groups
to be partisan?)

[sanjian]

Ace wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 01:24:12 -0500, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Ace" > wrote
>>>
>>> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you
>>> think that was pure coincidence?
>>
>> Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
>> trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like
>> Gore. They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the
>> boat down there since 1963.
>
> Who won the popular vote?

Nobody knows. All the votes weren't even counted (including many military
absentee ballots, especially in states where one candidate won by a margin
that was greater than the number of absentee ballots). If they ever do a
popular vote, then we'll worry about it.

[sanjian]

Ace wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:

> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
> votes count, others don't?

When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???

[sanjian]

Leslie Swartz wrote:
> Ace:
>
> Do your homework. Fact- not opinion, fact- is that eht so-called
> "popular vote" was undecided. A statistical tie, more accurately.
> We will *never* know who actually received the most votes, because:
>
> 1) Not all votes were counted. It's legal in most places to discard
> votes if they won't tip the electoral scales. Therefore, in the
> "Bush" states many Gore votes (and potential additional Bush votes)
> were discarded, and vice versa.

The majority of which were military absentee ballots.

[sanjian]

Ace wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:19:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>> It is following the law to adhere to the Constitution.
>> Conservatives, by definition, do that. Liberals do not.
>
> Oh, I see. Those whose views you don't believe in don't adhere to the
> law!?

No, those who do not follow the law do not have views I believe in.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:29:00 -0500, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Ace" > wrote
> >>
> >> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
> >> Gore?
> >
> >Bush. He had the most electoral votes.
>
> You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
> their favour?

Bush. He had 271 votes, and Gore had 266:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Here's a calculator for the next election:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/ev/

[B2431]

>From: Mike Williamson
>Date: 7/13/2004 11:16 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ace wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
>>>>>>that was pure coincidence?
>>>>>
>>>>>Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
>>>>>trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
>>>>>They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
>>>>>down there since 1963.
>>>>
>>>>Who won the popular vote?
>>>
>>>Who won the Grammy?
>>
>>
>> I see. When you find an uncomfortable question you answer with a
>> different question.
>>
>> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.
>
> In point of fact, no one won a majority of the popular vote, nor did
>they in the previous presidential election. But neither of those
>tidbits are relevant to the discussion, as the President of the United
>States has never been elected via a popular vote.


Gee, and all this time I thought the Electoral College was where they teach the
newly elected president where the restrooms are. How could I have been so
wrong?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[D. Strang]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote
> WE DON'T KNOW- AND PROBABLY CAN'T EVER KNOW- WITH OUR CURRENT TECHNOLOGY
> AND PROCESSES!

I know. It was Bush: 271 votes, he won (actually if I remember, he won 3 times during
recounts).

[D. Strang]

"sanjian" > wrote
> Ace wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > > wrote:
>
> > So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
> > votes count, others don't?
>
> When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???

1776 or there-abouts

A democracy exists when there is an Executive, Legislative, and a
Judicial branch of government. We are also a Federal Republic because
we elect people to represent us in daily government affairs. For example,
Iraq was a Republic, but it was not a democracy.

[Dave Holford]

"D. Strang" wrote:
>
>
> A democracy exists when there is an Executive, Legislative, and a
> Judicial branch of government.



That is your definition of democracy?

So if there is a guy (or gal) as head of the executive committe (or some
such group), and some other group that passes laws, and a judiciary
that's it?

Sounds sort of like some communist countries that come to mind.
Certainly must be a lot more democracies that I thought there were.

I always understood democracy had something to do with the poplation at
large electing their rulers in a free vote - must have been mistaken.

Dave

[sanjian]

D. Strang wrote:
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote
>> WE DON'T KNOW- AND PROBABLY CAN'T EVER KNOW- WITH OUR CURRENT
>> TECHNOLOGY AND PROCESSES!
>
> I know. It was Bush: 271 votes, he won (actually if I remember, he
> won 3 times during recounts).

At least. Most of us stopped counting.

[sanjian]

D. Strang wrote:
> "sanjian" > wrote
>> Ace wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
>>> votes count, others don't?
>>
>> When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???
>
> 1776 or there-abouts
>
> A democracy exists when there is an Executive, Legislative, and a
> Judicial branch of government. We are also a Federal Republic because
> we elect people to represent us in daily government affairs. For
> example, Iraq was a Republic, but it was not a democracy.

That's a strange definition of democracy.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article <EylJc.1429$8v2.407@lakeread01>, "sanjian"
> wrote:

> D. Strang wrote:
> > "sanjian" > wrote
> >> Ace wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
> >>> votes count, others don't?
> >>
> >> When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???
> >
> > 1776 or there-abouts
> >
> > A democracy exists when there is an Executive, Legislative, and a
> > Judicial branch of government. We are also a Federal Republic because
> > we elect people to represent us in daily government affairs. For
> > example, Iraq was a Republic, but it was not a democracy.
>
> That's a strange definition of democracy.
>
>

Saddam had once studied law but hadn't completed the progam. He decided,
as president, that he would like the degree. So, he showed up at the
oral exams with two bodyguards, and looked at the professors while
cleaning his fingernails with the blade sight of his pistols.

After the professors retired to deliberate, one said "Shocking! He does
not demonstrate the slightest knowledge of Iraqi law."

A wiser professor countered. "No. He has just given us a demonstration
that he understands current Iraqi law, perfectly."

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Ace > wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:52:05 -0700, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Ace > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you
> >> >> >> think
> >> >> >> that was pure coincidence?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
> >> >> >trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
> >> >> >They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
> >> >> >down there since 1963.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who won the popular vote?
> >> >
> >> >Who won the Grammy?
> >>
> >> I see. When you find an uncomfortable question you answer with a
> >> different question.
> >>
> >> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.
> >
> >According to the Constitution, he was.
> >
> >You've heard of the document, I suspect.
>
> Is that the one riddled with various ad-hoc amendments, and provides
> for children to kill each other with their daddy's guns with wanton
> abandon?

I see that you're not.

Pity.

[Ian MacLure]

Ace > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:14:01 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
>>Not what I'm saying at all.
>>
>>In "The Great Republic" (NOT "Democracy") all votes are certainly not
>>counted.
>>
>>Some by default, some by desing.
>>
>>Oh By The Way- this fact of error rates in ballot counting apply to all
>>countries using those systems . . . not just the U.S.
>
> So the system is flawed?

All systens are flawed.
Its a matter of reducing the margin of error to an acceptable
level for a reasonable cost.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Ian MacLure]

Ace > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:34:53 -0500, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
>
>>No. They are equal. Everyone in the same state has the same 1 vote.
>>People from other states also have 1 vote, but their state may have
>>more electors. This is taught in most American high schools, and you
>>will probably learn it soon unless you drop out.
>
> How is it, then, that the person who wins most votes isn't elected?
> Surely there is at least on section of the community whose votes count
> for less than another section of the community.

Two words.
Electoral College.
Simply put add the number of Senators and Representatives a state
sends to Washington. That is its number of electors.
How states determine who those electors vote for depends on the
state in question but assume for simplicity if you win the popular
vote in a state you get all that state's electoral votes.
You could win 49 states by one vote each, not get any votes, hell not
even be on the ballot in oh say California and thus loose the popular
vote by some 10s of millions of votes yet still have a landslide in
the electoral college ( 400+ to 57 IIRC )

> BTW - I did not attend high school in either of the two American
> continents.

OK.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Ian MacLure]

Ace > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:31:44 -0500, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Ace" > wrote
>>>
>>> So the system is flawed?
>>
>>Yes. But the flaws would be exaggerated with a popular vote. The
>>Electoral vote reduces the impact of the flaws. No voting system
>>is perfect, except in a dictatorship.
>
> The Swiss model seems pretty good to me.

What? A bunch of men with swords showing up in the town square
and yelling at each other?

The Swiss Confederation is a different model. Hell, the Cantons
control who gets to be a citizen.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Daryl]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:58:50 +0100, Ace >
wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:29:00 -0500, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"Ace" > wrote
> >>>
> >>> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour?
Bush or
> >>> Gore?
> >>
> >>Bush. He had the most electoral votes.
> >
> >You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast
in
> >their favour?
>
> I and several others in this forum have tried to inform you that
while
> the popular vote is entertaining, it isn't the method described in
the
> U. S. Constitution for selection of the chief executive.
>
> In other words, it doesn't matter who got the greater number of
> popular votes. That might not be the perfect system in some minds,
but
> in a federation it works to provide some balance in the
representation
> between large and small states.
>
> Now, start paying attention, because there is going to be a test.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Dang Ed, where you been?

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> It still sounds to me like some people's votes count for less than
> others. Am I correct? A simple *yes* or *no* will suffice.

No.

As Ed has shown, each state has a number of electors based on the
census taken every 10 years. The more people a state has, the more
electors they have. Equal representation.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> Do you consider the US voting system to be perfect?

It is perfect in the sense that any abuse can be taken care of with
a gun.

No matter what the politicians or lawyers decide, they have to make
it fair enough, that the public won't burn it down, and kill everyone in
rebellion.

The founders of the Constitution knew full well, that an armed public
would keep things right.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
> On 15 Jul 2004 03:23:38 GMT, Ian MacLure > wrote:
>
> >>>Oh By The Way- this fact of error rates in ballot counting apply to all
> >>>countries using those systems . . . not just the U.S.
> >>
> >> So the system is flawed?
> >
> > All systens are flawed.
>
> At last an admission that the US system is flawed! We can now bring
> this section of the thread to a close.

Hell, there's 300 million people here, what kind of perfection are you looking
for?

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> I like being entertained. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
> their favour. Bush or Gore?

Bush. He had 271, Gore had 266

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
> >
> >Bush. He had 271 votes, and Gore had 266:
>
> Out of 250,000,000 or so voters? You are changing the question again.

The public votes for electors, the electors vote for the President.

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> So you are saying that four of the Supreme Court Judges do not follow
> the law?

The only law they follow is the Constitution. All other laws are judged
to be constitutional or not. In the case of Gore vs America, the Supreme
Court decided his case lacked merit, and that he would have to recount
all counties, not just the ones he thought he could win.

[George Z. Bush]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:EylJc.1429$8v2.407@lakeread01...
> D. Strang wrote:
> > "sanjian" > wrote
> >> Ace wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
> >>> votes count, others don't?
> >>
> >> When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???
> >
> > 1776 or there-abouts
> >
> > A democracy exists when there is an Executive, Legislative, and a
> > Judicial branch of government. We are also a Federal Republic because
> > we elect people to represent us in daily government affairs. For
> > example, Iraq was a Republic, but it was not a democracy.
>
> That's a strange definition of democracy.

Why strange? Saddam'd be the first to tell you that he headed a
democracy.....he was the executive, he had a parliament that enacted whatever
laws he told them to enact, and a judiciary to make sure that the parliament's
laws stuck.

Nothing strange at all about that definition.

George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Jul 2004 03:36:14 GMT, Ian MacLure > wrote:
>
> >Ace > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:34:53 -0500, "D. Strang"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>No. They are equal. Everyone in the same state has the same 1 vote.
> >>>People from other states also have 1 vote, but their state may have
> >>>more electors. This is taught in most American high schools, and you
> >>>will probably learn it soon unless you drop out.
> >>
> >> How is it, then, that the person who wins most votes isn't elected?
> >> Surely there is at least on section of the community whose votes count
> >> for less than another section of the community.
> >
> > Two words.
> > Electoral College.
> > Simply put add the number of Senators and Representatives a state
> > sends to Washington. That is its number of electors.
> > How states determine who those electors vote for depends on the
> > state in question but assume for simplicity if you win the popular
> > vote in a state you get all that state's electoral votes.
> > You could win 49 states by one vote each, not get any votes, hell not
> > even be on the ballot in oh say California and thus loose the popular
> > vote by some 10s of millions of votes yet still have a landslide in
> > the electoral college ( 400+ to 57 IIRC )
>
> It still sounds to me like some people's votes count for less than
> others. Am I correct? A simple *yes* or *no* will suffice.

It sounds to a lot of people that an accurate answer should have been "yes".
And then there are those who will spend 20 or so lines to explain the
complexities of the system just so they won't have to say "yes".

George Z.

George Z.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?
>

It isn't one on paper. It has become one in fact, unfortunately.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> I like being entertained. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
> their favour. Bush or Gore?
>

Bush

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> Out of 250,000,000 or so voters? You are changing the question again.
>

No, out of 535 voters.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you are saying that four of the Supreme Court Judges do not follow
> the law?
>

They frequently do not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:C5uJc.1561$Zr.178@okepread01...
>
> The only law they follow is the Constitution.
>

If only they did actually follow it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who won the popular vote?
>

Who won the most states? Who won the most counties?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.
>

Wasn't the winner of what?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:bEhJc.502$Zr.197@okepread01...
>
> No. They are equal. Everyone in the same state has the same 1 vote.
> People from other states also have 1 vote, but their state may have more
> electors. This is taught in most American high schools, and you will
probably
> learn it soon unless you drop out.
>

It is? It's not taught very well then.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now, pay attention. The popular vote is not definitive in electing the
> President of the United States. It is done, according to the
> Constitution by an Electoral College.
>

The national popular vote is less than definitive in electing the president,
it is meaningless.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wrong analogy, Ed.
> The POTUS is head of state - in Britain that would be the Queen.
> You should have addressed how we elected our Queen. <EG>
>

His analogy is correct. The US president is both chief of state and the
head of government.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> I suspect I'm rather better educated than you. I will be delighted to
> be proven wrong.
>

You probably will. Will you recognize the proof when it is delivered?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, I see. Those whose views you don't believe in don't adhere to the
> law!?
>

You don't see.

[Leslie Swartz]

Perfect? How old are you?

Have you ever- ever- even heard of anything in reality (outside of various
faith systems) ever even remotely considered "Perfect" anywhere, anytime?

What are you, nuts? Or just a kid?

Sorry for the sarcasm and "impoliteness."

But this feigned ignorance as a way to bait an unasked question is, well,
sophomoric. Therefore, I feel free to sink to your level without regret.

Steve Swartz

(Note: *You're* the one assuming a voting system can be made perfect. I'm
the one claiming all along that there is a measurable margin of error in
*all* voting systems- even hand-counting with a panel of unbiased judges,
you're going to have measurable error.)


"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:32:47 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >Oh By The Way- this fact of error rates in ballot counting apply to
all
> >> >countries using those systems . . . not just the U.S.
> >>
> >> So the system is flawed?
> >
> >Come back when you get a clue.
>
> It was a question, not a statement.
>
> Do you consider the US voting system to be perfect?

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:39:44 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Wrong analogy, Ed.
>> The POTUS is head of state - in Britain that would be the Queen.
>> You should have addressed how we elected our Queen. <EG>
>>
>
>His analogy is correct. The US president is both chief of state and the
>head of government.
>

And we were talking about the selection of the Chief Executive. I
think the monarch relingquished most executive responsibilities in the
UK along with his head during the reign of Charles I.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Leslie Swartz]

Look, Ace, I'm a teacher, but I am not certified in Special Education.

Steve Swartz

(p.s it's a REPUBLIC; representative, yes; but NOT A DEMOCRACY)




"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:13:48 -0400, "sanjian" >
> wrote:
>
> >Ace wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
> >> votes count, others don't?
> >
> >When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???
>
> Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:56:43 -0600, "Daryl" >
wrote:

>> Now, start paying attention, because there is going to be a test.
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus

>Dang Ed, where you been?

Not cross-posting under the mistaken assumption that our "Ace" would
be reading the responses in groups to which he delivers his inanities.
My mistake.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Leslie Swartz]

Yes, evidence suggests that it is more likely that the ballots thrown out
(primarily, but not exclusively, absentee ballots) would have trended
strongly republican or at least conservative.

However, since they weren't counted, we can never know for certain. Past
studies suggest that ~80% of absentee ballots tossed out would have gone for
Bush.

Steve Swartz



"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:v%jJc.1221$8v2.1119@lakeread01...
> Leslie Swartz wrote:
> > Ace:
> >
> > Do your homework. Fact- not opinion, fact- is that eht so-called
> > "popular vote" was undecided. A statistical tie, more accurately.
> > We will *never* know who actually received the most votes, because:
> >
> > 1) Not all votes were counted. It's legal in most places to discard
> > votes if they won't tip the electoral scales. Therefore, in the
> > "Bush" states many Gore votes (and potential additional Bush votes)
> > were discarded, and vice versa.
>
> The majority of which were military absentee ballots.
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:39:44 +0100, Ace > wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:24:26 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:
>
>>>>> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
>>>>> Gore?
>>>>
>>>>Bush. He had the most electoral votes.
>>>
>>>You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
>>>their favour?
>>
>>the popular vote is entertaining
>
>I like being entertained. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
>their favour. Bush or Gore?

You like being an asshole. I'm not sure about your desire for
entertainment. Let's start by once again reiterating that the popular
vote is meaningless in the US with regard to election of the
President. Constitutionally the process is handled by the Electoral
College.

But, since you continue to ask, I'll tell you. The analysis conducted
in great detail regarding the popular vote for President in 2000 seems
to indicate from a number of independent sources that George W. Bush
received the greater number of popular votes.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Leslie Swartz]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're real putz, Ace.

Still checking the calendar for that apology on your statement that "Gore
Won The Popular Vote."

Steve Swartz




"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Jul 2004 03:23:38 GMT, Ian MacLure > wrote:
>
> >>>Oh By The Way- this fact of error rates in ballot counting apply to all
> >>>countries using those systems . . . not just the U.S.
> >>
> >> So the system is flawed?
> >
> > All systens are flawed.
>
> At last an admission that the US system is flawed! We can now bring
> this section of the thread to a close.
>
> You may have the last word in defeat.

[Leslie Swartz]

Ian-

No, Algore did NOT "receive the most votes cast in the popular election."

That falsehood has definitely entered the popular folklore, apparently.

Full circle argument; back to the beginning.

Steve Swartz


"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
...
> Ace > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
> > You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
> > their favour?
>
> Algore. Trouble is they weren't where he needed them to be.
> And-uh there was no way the Daley brothers were able to work their
> electoral magic after the polls closed so Gore lost.
> Them was the rules. Same rules that got previous administrations
> elected.
>
> IBM
>
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________
___
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

No way to know, Ace.

Jeeze, you really need to pay attention.

Do I get two apologies now: One for the first time youj told this fib, and
a second one for the second time?

Steve Swartz



"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:24:26 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
>
> >>>> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
> >>>> Gore?
> >>>
> >>>Bush. He had the most electoral votes.
> >>
> >>You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
> >>their favour?
> >
> >the popular vote is entertaining
>
> I like being entertained. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
> their favour. Bush or Gore?

[ian maclure]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:21:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

[snip]

> Washington was a traitor to his King and to his country. Not that

Yeah, the Rebellion Against LAwful Authority is problematic
if viewed from that perspective but I dare say precious few
in These United States look at it that way.

> different from Osama bin Laden - but Washington styled himself
> *general*. However, after the King granted the lessor portion of the
> North American continent, now known as the US, their independence, the

Vae Victis. A gentleman Brennus established that principle
in a fashion we still remember these two millenia and more
later. Winners usually get to dictate the terms.

> peoples of the US had the right to afford the King's namesake status
> of general.

It should be noted that this is shysterish hairsplitting.
Washington filled a billet that calls for a General in most
armies of the period if not a Field Marshal/Prince of the Blood.
If Congress or the several states never got around to instituting
a formal system of rank and promotions I think they can be forgiven
and one suspects that the attitude was probably George knows best
how to run that end of the business lets let him get on with
the job.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:35:54 +0100, Ace wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:13:48 -0400, "sanjian" >
> wrote:
>
>>Ace wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
>>> votes count, others don't?
>>
>>When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???
>
> Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?

Its a Republic. We elect all sorts of critters to various
levels of Gummint. Whether it is a Democracy ( upper case D )
in the strictest sense of the word is up to you to decide.
It is certainly far more of a democracy (lower case d) than
any of the so-called "Democratic or People's Republics" with
which this world is infested.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is very rum.
>
> I ask a simple question and I get three different answers.
>
> Q: Who had the greater number of votes [popular vote by context] cast
> in their favour, Bush or Gore?
>
> A1: Bush
> A2: It doesn't matter
> A3: No one knows
>

Actually, context implies electoral votes simply because the national
popular vote is meaningless.


>
> I suspect the answer is Gore and you are all wrong.
>

The best answer regarding the national popular vote then is "unknown". The
difference was within the margin of error. There were a number of overseas
absentee ballots thrown out, those traditionally favor the Republican
candidate. There were instances of multiple voting and other fraudulent
voting that traditionally favor the Democratic candidate. It's likely more
valid votes were actually cast for Bush than for Gore.


>
> My information is that Al Gore won 50,999,897 votes and George Bush
> won 50,456,002 votes.
>

But Bush won more states and more counties than Gore.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> The public vote.
>

If by "public vote" you're referring to the national popular vote total,
it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the election of the president.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?
> >
>
> Its a Republic.
>

It's a republic on paper, a democracy in fact.

[ian maclure]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:41:54 +0100, Ace wrote:

[snip]

>>Bush. He had 271 votes, and Gore had 266:
>
> Out of 250,000,000 or so voters? You are changing the question again.

No, he's denying your antecedents.
that's how you deal with nonsensical questions if you find simply
stating "Mu" to be intellectally unsatisfying.
And by the way, the total population of the US is something like
270 Million IIRC. Means there's probably something like 100+
Million voters.

If you'd ask us your real question I'm sure we could answer it
but don't try to restrict the answers to inappropriate values.

You'll find trying to lawyer makes you really unpopular.

IBM



__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:43:50 +0100, Ace wrote:

[snip]

>>No, those who do not follow the law do not have views I believe in.
>
> So you are saying that four of the Supreme Court Judges do not follow
> the law?

OK, now here's a question with a short simple answer.

Yes!

Thats exactly what we are saying.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Jack]

Brooks Gregory wrote:

> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote...:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:58:50 +0100, Ace > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:29:00 -0500, "D. Strang"...wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ace" > wrote:


> To think that these poor *******s still hang on to this just goes to show
> you how vacant they have become on ideas that will help this country. I find
> it most comical.

Which poor *******(s) are you talking about?

A little judicious editing of previous posts would sure help the
presentation of whatever idea it is you were trying to present.

When it come to vacancy neither major party has the advantage. How to
spend the money and get more of it is the main activity in Washington DC.


Jack

[B2431]

>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 7/15/2004 12:23 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"ian maclure" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> > Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?
>> >
>>
>> Its a Republic.
>>
>
>It's a republic on paper, a democracy in fact.

Democracy means essentially majority wins. This means 50% of the votes plus 1
is all that is required to pass a bill or elect a president. If that is the
case not one person won the 2000 election since no one got 50% plus 1 or
better.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> So some people's votes ate worth more than other's?
>

Ehh? Votes don't eat.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >If by "public vote" you're referring to the national popular vote total,
> >it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the election of the
president.
> >
>
> Eh!?
>

What part did you not understand?

[Jack]

Ace wrote:

> ...after the King granted the lessor portion of the
> North American continent, now known as the US, their independence....

It was no gift, and we don't pay rent, but we did win a "new lease on
life" so to speak. Perhaps that is what you meant.

Ol' George simply acknowledged the new reality, and "granted" nothing.


The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783: <http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/paris.html>

"Article 1:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States...
to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them
as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all
claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the
same and every part thereof."



Jack

[Brooks Gregory]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> Brooks Gregory wrote:
>
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote...:
> >
> >>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:58:50 +0100, Ace > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:29:00 -0500, "D. Strang"...wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"Ace" > wrote:
>
>
> > To think that these poor *******s still hang on to this just goes to
show
> > you how vacant they have become on ideas that will help this country. I
find
> > it most comical.
>
> Which poor *******(s) are you talking about?
>
> A little judicious editing of previous posts would sure help the
> presentation of whatever idea it is you were trying to present.
>
> When it come to vacancy neither major party has the advantage. How to
> spend the money and get more of it is the main activity in Washington DC.
>

Go here and look up Phase10 Consultants, Chairman of the Board and see if
you really want to tell *me* how Washington DC operates.
http://www.theaapc.org/


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory


>
> Jack

[Jack]

Brooks Gregory wrote:

> Jack wrote:

>>When it come to vacancy neither major party has the advantage. How to
>>spend the money and get more of it is the main activity in Washington DC.
>
>
> Go here and look up Phase10 Consultants, Chairman of the Board and see if
> you really want to tell *me* how Washington DC operates.
> http://www.theaapc.org/

So you're basically one of 'em -- that explains some of your postings.

And, yes, being the world's foremost expert on my own opinion, I will
tell you how Washington operates, from the standpoint of a guy that pays
his share of the bill for all that "operating".

Since you haven't said otherwise, apparently you agree with me but
mostly just want me to be impressed. It's not working.



Jack

[Brooks Gregory]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> Brooks Gregory wrote:
>
> > Jack wrote:
>
> >>When it come to vacancy neither major party has the advantage. How to
> >>spend the money and get more of it is the main activity in Washington
DC.
> >
> >
> > Go here and look up Phase10 Consultants, Chairman of the Board and see
if
> > you really want to tell *me* how Washington DC operates.
> > http://www.theaapc.org/
>
> So you're basically one of 'em -- that explains some of your postings.
>
> And, yes, being the world's foremost expert on my own opinion, I will
> tell you how Washington operates, from the standpoint of a guy that pays
> his share of the bill for all that "operating".
>
> Since you haven't said otherwise, apparently you agree with me but
> mostly just want me to be impressed. It's not working.
>
>
>
> Jack

No, I am no longer a part of it. Retired in 2000. And, in a round about way,
I was agreeing with you. It is a cesspool of corruption. But don't get your
hopes up. The sleazyiest crooks up there belong to just one party. The
politician party. The only person up there that gives a **** about you is
the poor little summer clerk that earns a job by getting a buck out of you.
And as soon as the buck arrives, you're even off their most favorite list.


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

[D. Strang]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Now, pay attention. The popular vote is not definitive in electing the
> > President of the United States. It is done, according to the
> > Constitution by an Electoral College.
> >
>
> The national popular vote is less than definitive in electing the president,
> it is meaningless.

It's not meaningless. How else would the electors be seated?

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> THE US ELECTORAL SYSTEM IS FLAWED

No ****. But it works good enough. Just wait until the electors
have a tie vote, then you will see "more" flawed, when the Legislative
branch elects the Executive branch.

If it wasn't flawed, 10,000 lawyers would be out of work.

[D. Strang]

The United States of America is a Democracy.

You better go get re-certified, as I think your students are not getting
all they paid for.

Start with this:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/coredocs.html


"Leslie Swartz" > wrote
> Look, Ace, I'm a teacher, but I am not certified in Special Education.
>
> Steve Swartz
>
> (p.s it's a REPUBLIC; representative, yes; but NOT A DEMOCRACY)

[Jack]

Brooks Gregory wrote:

> ...in a round about way, I was agreeing with you.
> It is a cesspool of corruption.

[....]

> The only person [in D.C.] that gives a **** about you is
> the poor little summer clerk that earns a job by getting
> a buck out of you.

I savor the sweet fragrance of agreement.

Do people in Washington vote, or would it be viewed as wasted effort?



Jack

[D. Strang]

"Ace" > wrote
>
> Now, let's say that in 19 of those 20 states only one person votes per
> state and that vote is cast for candidate A, and in one of those 20
> states 20 people vote for candidate B.
>
> In the popular vote candidate A receives 19 votes and candidate B
> receives 20 votes.
>
> Which candidate is elected, and by what majority?

Candidate A will receive 19 electoral votes, and Candidate B will receive
1 electoral vote. Candidate A is the winner 19:1

[Brooks Gregory]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> Brooks Gregory wrote:
>
> > ...in a round about way, I was agreeing with you.
> > It is a cesspool of corruption.
>
> [....]
>
> > The only person [in D.C.] that gives a **** about you is
> > the poor little summer clerk that earns a job by getting
> > a buck out of you.
>
> I savor the sweet fragrance of agreement.
>
> Do people in Washington vote, or would it be viewed as wasted effort?
>
>
>
> Jack

Not hardly anyone in my precinct, I was both a chairman and an election
judge, ever voted. Of course, we all lived inVirginia. I would imagine the
guys and gals on K go out and pick up some of the derelicts and take them to
the polls. I used to have that job.


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

[Brett]

"D. Strang" > wrote:
> "Ace" > wrote
> >
> > Now, let's say that in 19 of those 20 states only one person votes per
> > state and that vote is cast for candidate A, and in one of those 20
> > states 20 people vote for candidate B.
> >
> > In the popular vote candidate A receives 19 votes and candidate B
> > receives 20 votes.
> >
> > Which candidate is elected, and by what majority?
>
> Candidate A will receive 19 electoral votes, and Candidate B will receive
> 1 electoral vote. Candidate A is the winner 19:1

There has never been an election with only 20 States the 1820 election
included 23 and there were 235 electoral votes available. The 1816 election
included 19 States and there were 221 electoral votes available.

btw. Any post by "Ace" should be ignored.

[Leslie Swartz]

By your math, that would show the system estimated the preliminary
("popular") votes cast were around 50.27% for Gore, and 49.73% for Bush.

1) If the known uncounted ballots went 65% for Bush (best estimates show
~80% would have gone to Bush), this estimate would have to be adjusted to
give Bush the higher number;

and

2) Given the error rate (one-tailed) of 3% around the estimates, we can
only say we are less than 60% confident that the actual number of votes cast
for Gore were more than those cast for Bush- not exactly Vegas odds, where
slot machines pay off 97.5% or better. The estimates of the preliminary
("popular") voting show a solid tie.

and

3) The actual votes cast for either man were cast by the electors. The
Electoral College, with a much lower margin of error, decisively cast the
higher number of votes for Bush than Gore.

(Note: one of the reasons why we have an electoral college in the first
place is to "break ties" such as these; avoiding the parliamentary system of
installing partial governements.)

O.K.- that's the third time this has been explained to you.

If you persist in your delusions, you must be Stoopid or Evil.

Steve Swartz


"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:37:29 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >>>> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush
or
> >> >>>> Gore?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Bush. He had the most electoral votes.
> >> >>
> >> >>You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
> >> >>their favour?
> >> >
> >> >the popular vote is entertaining
> >>
> >> I like being entertained. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
> >> their favour. Bush or Gore?
> >
> >No way to know, Ace.
> >
> >Jeeze, you really need to pay attention.
> >
> >Do I get two apologies now: One for the first time youj told this fib,
and
> >a second one for the second time?
>
> This is very rum.
>
> I ask a simple question and I get three different answers.
>
> Q: Who had the greater number of votes [popular vote by context] cast
> in their favour, Bush or Gore?
>
> A1: Bush
> A2: It doesn't matter
> A3: No one knows
>
> I suspect the answer is Gore and you are all wrong.
>
> My information is that Al Gore won 50,999,897 votes and George Bush
> won 50,456,002 votes.

[Leslie Swartz]

Except in states where the electoral votes are not earned "all or nothing"
but on a proportional basis.

Not very many states do this, IIRC.

Steve Swartz


"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:%sDJc.2057$Zr.1567@okepread01...
> "Ace" > wrote
> >
> > Now, let's say that in 19 of those 20 states only one person votes per
> > state and that vote is cast for candidate A, and in one of those 20
> > states 20 people vote for candidate B.
> >
> > In the popular vote candidate A receives 19 votes and candidate B
> > receives 20 votes.
> >
> > Which candidate is elected, and by what majority?
>
> Candidate A will receive 19 electoral votes, and Candidate B will receive
> 1 electoral vote. Candidate A is the winner 19:1
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

EVERYTHING IS FLAWED

Grow up

Still waiting for my apology; now two apologies.

Steve Swartz



"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:19:10 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >> So the system is flawed?
> >> >
> >> >Come back when you get a clue.
> >>
> >> It was a question, not a statement.
> >>
> >> Do you consider the US voting system to be perfect?
> >
> >Perfect? How old are you?
> >
> >Have you ever- ever- even heard of anything in reality (outside of
various
> >faith systems) ever even remotely considered "Perfect" anywhere, anytime?
> >
> >What are you, nuts? Or just a kid?
> >
> >Sorry for the sarcasm and "impoliteness."
> >
> >But this feigned ignorance as a way to bait an unasked question is, well,
> >sophomoric. Therefore, I feel free to sink to your level without regret.
>
> If the system ain't perfect it's flawed - which was my point several
> messages ago.
>
> THE US ELECTORAL SYSTEM IS FLAWED

[ian maclure]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:26:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

[snip]

>>But Bush won more states and more counties than Gore.
>
> So some people's votes ate worth more than other's?

Only if they live in a district with a large number of
illegals and non-citizens who get counted for purposes
of enumeration but don't get to vote thereby diluting the
vote of someone who lives in a district where everyone is
a citizen.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:16:46 +0100, Ace wrote:

> On 15 Jul 2004 16:47:27 GMT, "ian maclure" > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:21:22 +0100, Ace wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Washington was a traitor to his King and to his country. Not that
>>
>> Yeah, the Rebellion Against LAwful Authority is problematic
>> if viewed from that perspective but I dare say precious few
>> in These United States look at it that way.
>
> I can't really see it in any other way. George Washington was a in
> the British army and turned mutiny against his overlords.

No, at the time he was a Colonel in the Viriginia Militia.
He was never a British Regular.
And you're still hair-splitting. Your distinction would only
have mattered had the British won. And, somebody correct me
if I'm wrong, they didn't.

[snip]

> The King granted the US its independence in Paris on 3rd September
> 1783.

What other choice did he have?
You can call it what you like.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[sanjian]

Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <EylJc.1429$8v2.407@lakeread01>, "sanjian"
> > wrote:

>> That's a strange definition of democracy.
>>
>>
>
> Saddam had once studied law but hadn't completed the progam. He
> decided, as president, that he would like the degree. So, he showed
> up at the oral exams with two bodyguards, and looked at the
> professors while cleaning his fingernails with the blade sight of his
> pistols.
>
> After the professors retired to deliberate, one said "Shocking! He
> does not demonstrate the slightest knowledge of Iraqi law."
>
> A wiser professor countered. "No. He has just given us a demonstration
> that he understands current Iraqi law, perfectly."

Fortunately, his idea of jurisprudence will not help him now.

[Brett]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote:
> Except in states where the electoral votes are not earned "all or nothing"
> but on a proportional basis.
>
> Not very many states do this, IIRC.

Even then his count is "wrong" - the minimum number of electoral votes a
State can have is 3.



>
> Steve Swartz
>
>
> "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> news:%sDJc.2057$Zr.1567@okepread01...
> > "Ace" > wrote
> > >
> > > Now, let's say that in 19 of those 20 states only one person votes per
> > > state and that vote is cast for candidate A, and in one of those 20
> > > states 20 people vote for candidate B.
> > >
> > > In the popular vote candidate A receives 19 votes and candidate B
> > > receives 20 votes.
> > >
> > > Which candidate is elected, and by what majority?
> >
> > Candidate A will receive 19 electoral votes, and Candidate B will
receive
> > 1 electoral vote. Candidate A is the winner 19:1
> >
> >
>
>

[sanjian]

ian maclure wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:21:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

> It should be noted that this is shysterish hairsplitting.
> Washington filled a billet that calls for a General in most
> armies of the period if not a Field Marshal/Prince of the Blood.

In other words, if Washington was not a general, then the word has no
meaning.

[sanjian]

Ian MacLure wrote:
> Ace > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
>> Gore?
>
> That would only be relevant if the popular vote determined who got
> to be president.
>
> You know full well thats not how the system works.
> Algore could have lost 49 states by oh say a number just larger
> than the margin of error, won Kalifornia by a lanslide and lost
> the election notwithstanding that he might have a majority or
> plurality of the popular vote.
>
> And-uh note that this is not the first time a President did not
> win the popular vote.

The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's actually
fully counted.

[sanjian]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "ian maclure" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?
>>>
>>
>> Its a Republic.
>>
>
> It's a republic on paper, a democracy in fact.

Hardly. We still elect representatives to do our theft for us. Thus, we
are still a republic.

[sanjian]

Ace wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:13:48 -0400, "sanjian" >
> wrote:
>
>> Ace wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>> So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
>>> votes count, others don't?
>>
>> When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???
>
> Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

[D. Strang]

"sanjian" > wrote
>
> The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's actually
> fully counted.

The big answer is that it is about as fully counted as the census.

[sanjian]

Ace wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:19:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:

>> But Bush won more states and more counties than Gore.
>
> So some people's votes ate worth more than other's?

Since my vote, and those of many in the military weren't counted, that would
seem to be the case. The current laws in most states allow for absentee
ballots to be discarded if there are fewer ballots than the margin by which
either candidate wins the state.

[D. Strang]

"sanjian" > wrote
> >
> > Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?
>
> That's exactly what I'm saying.


What do you call a political system that has a Legislature, a Judiciary,
and an Executive branch of government?

[sanjian]

Ace wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:17:11 -0400, "sanjian" >
> wrote:
>
>> Ace wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:19:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is following the law to adhere to the Constitution.
>>>> Conservatives, by definition, do that. Liberals do not.
>>>
>>> Oh, I see. Those whose views you don't believe in don't adhere to
>>> the law!?
>>
>> No, those who do not follow the law do not have views I believe in.
>
> So you are saying that four of the Supreme Court Judges do not follow
> the law?

Yep. Now, here's a bit of logic for you (if you can handle it).

Five of the justices ruled one way. Four ruled the exact opposite way. By
definition, one of the two sides ruled against the constitution. All that's
left is to decide which one (which has been shown to be those ruling in
favor of the Fla Supreme Court).

That's the problem with assuming the infallability of public officials...
when they disagree, it's pretty clear that they're fallable.

[sanjian]

Leslie Swartz wrote:
> Yes, evidence suggests that it is more likely that the ballots thrown
> out (primarily, but not exclusively, absentee ballots) would have
> trended strongly republican or at least conservative.
>
> However, since they weren't counted, we can never know for certain.
> Past studies suggest that ~80% of absentee ballots tossed out would
> have gone for Bush.

And since the system grossly undercounts votes for one candidate, it casts
even more doubt apon the validity of the "popular vote."

[B2431]

>From: "D. Strang"

>
>If it wasn't flawed, 10,000 lawyers would be out of work.


99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"ian maclure" > wrote:

> [snip]
>
> > The King granted the US its independence in Paris on 3rd September
> > 1783.

Sorry, wrong.

The king granted nothing, he only admitted to the facts; he no longer
had any realistic say in the issue.

[sanjian]

D. Strang wrote:
> "sanjian" > wrote
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?
>>
>> That's exactly what I'm saying.
>
>
> What do you call a political system that has a Legislature, a
> Judiciary, and an Executive branch of government?

Not necessarily a democracy. If a dictatorial executive appoints his
legislature (or they come from the nobility) and Judiciary, does that make
it a democracy? A democracy is a form of government where the people make
the laws. A democratic government is one where the power is derived from
the people. Seperation of powers has nothing to do with a democratic
govenrment, other than the fact that it is a common feature, much in the
same way that air bags are common features in cars.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article <FBFJc.56$fB4.25@lakeread01>, "sanjian"
> wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> > In article <EylJc.1429$8v2.407@lakeread01>, "sanjian"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> That's a strange definition of democracy.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Saddam had once studied law but hadn't completed the progam. He
> > decided, as president, that he would like the degree. So, he showed
> > up at the oral exams with two bodyguards, and looked at the
> > professors while cleaning his fingernails with the blade sight of his
> > pistols.
> >
> > After the professors retired to deliberate, one said "Shocking! He
> > does not demonstrate the slightest knowledge of Iraqi law."
> >
> > A wiser professor countered. "No. He has just given us a demonstration
> > that he understands current Iraqi law, perfectly."
>
> Fortunately, his idea of jurisprudence will not help him now.
>
>

Amen.

[BUFDRVR]

D. Strang wrote:

>> The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's actually
>> fully counted.
>
>The big answer is that it is about as fully counted as the census.
>

Now, I'll admit to not knowing much about the census, but I *assumed* the
census tried to count every U.S. citizen. Is this not correct? If it is
correct, than the popular vote is *not* as fully counted. I'm willing to bet
none of my absentee ballots for the last 4 presidential elections have ever
been opened. Conversly, I'm confident my last two census forms were processed.
Why wouldn't they be?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Brett]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote:
> D. Strang wrote:
>
> >> The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's
actually
> >> fully counted.
> >
> >The big answer is that it is about as fully counted as the census.
> >
>
> Now, I'll admit to not knowing much about the census, but I *assumed* the
> census tried to count every U.S. citizen. Is this not correct?

The census count is supposed to count everyone, including illegal aliens.

> If it is
> correct, than the popular vote is *not* as fully counted. I'm willing to
bet
> none of my absentee ballots for the last 4 presidential elections have
ever
> been opened. Conversly, I'm confident my last two census forms were
processed.
> Why wouldn't they be?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Jack]

Brett wrote:

> The census count is supposed to count everyone, including illegal aliens.

I don't believe that is entirely correct. It is understood that it will
be impossible to count everyone, and therefor certain statistical
"refinements" are made to the actual count. These adjustments use
different formulas for different areas/neighborhoods, depending on how
accurate the actual count is expected to be in a given community.


Jack

[MMM]

***Special CONFIRMED Report. ****Assassins; who put Al-Qaeda to Shame.
The Number three most powerful man , after Dick Cheney & G.W. BUSH .

ALL Ariel Sharon's servants , Thugs & Mruderers.

Karl ROVE & Ariel Sharon banking on their Syrian killers & Murdereres &
Special Syrian Assassins of Assef Shawkat & Roustom Ghazali .

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052104Madsen/052104madsen.html


Karl Rove's White House " Murder, Inc."

By Wayne Madsen .
Online Journal Contributing Writer .



JULY, 2004- On September 15, 2001, just four days after the 9-11 attacks,
CIA Director George Tenet provided President [sic] Bush with a Top Secret
"Worldwide Attack Matrix"-a virtual license to kill targets deemed to be a
threat to the United States in some 80 countries around the world. The Tenet
plan, which was subsequently approved by Bush, essentially reversed the
executive orders of four previous U.S. administrations that expressly
prohibited political assassinations.

According to high level European intelligence officials, Bush's counselor,
Karl Rove, used the new presidential authority to silence a popular Lebanese
Christian politician who was planning to offer irrefutable evidence that
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorized the massacre of hundreds of
Palestinian men, women, and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra
and Shatilla in 1982. In addition, Sharon provided the Lebanese forces who
carried out the grisly task. At the time of the massacres, Elie Hobeika was
intelligence chief of Lebanese Christian forces in Lebanon who were battling
Palestinians and other Muslim groups in a bloody civil war. He was also the
chief liaison to Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel in Lebanon. An
official Israeli inquiry into the massacre at the camps, the Kahan
Commission, merely found Sharon "indirectly" responsible for the slaughter
and fingered Hobeika as the chief instigator.

The Kahan Commission never called on Hobeika to offer testimony in his
defense. However, in response to charges brought against Sharon before a
special war crimes court in Belgium, Hobeika was urged to testify against
Sharon, according to well-informed Lebanese sources. Hobeika was prepared to
offer a different version of events than what was contained in the Kahan
report. A 1993 Belgian law permitting human rights prosecutions was unusual
in that non-Belgians could be tried for violations against other
non-Belgians in a Belgian court. Under pressure from the Bush
administration, the law was severely amended and the extra territoriality
provisions were curtailed.

Hobeika headed the Lebanese forces intelligence agency since the mid- 1970s
and he soon developed close ties to the CIA. He was a frequent visitor to
the CIA's headquarters at Langley, Virginia. After the Syrian invasion of
Lebanon in 1990, Hobeika held a number of cabinet positions in the Lebanese
government, a proxy for the Syrian occupation authorities. He also served in
the parliament. In July 2001, Hobeika called a press conference and
announced he was prepared to testify against Sharon in Belgium and revealed
that he had evidence of what actually occurred in Sabra and Shatilla.
Hobeika also indicated that Israel had flown members of the South Lebanon
Army (SLA) into Beirut International Airport in an Israeli Air Force C130
transport plane. In full view of dozens of witnesses, including members of
the Lebanese army and others, SLA troops under the command of Major Saad
Haddad were slipped into the camps to commit the massacres. The SLA troops
were under the direct command of Ariel Sharon and an Israeli Mossad agent
provocateur named Rafi Eitan. Hobeika offered evidence that a former U.S.
ambassador to Lebanon was aware of the Israeli plot. In addition, the IDF
had placed a camera in a strategic position to film the Sabra and Shatilla
massacres. Hobeika was going to ask that the footage be released as part of
the investigation of Sharon.

After announcing he was willing to testify against Sharon, Hobeika became
fearful for his safety and began moves to leave Lebanon. Hobeika was not
aware that his threats to testify against Sharon had triggered a series of
fateful events that reached well into the White House and Sharon's office.

On January 24, 2002, Hobeika's car was blown up by a remote controlled bomb
placed in a parked Mercedes along a street in the Hazmieh section of Beirut.
The bomb exploded when Hobeika and his three associates, Fares Souweidan,
Mitri Ajram, and Waleed Zein, were driving their Range Rover past the
TNT-laden Mercedes at 9:40 am Beirut time. The Range Rover's four passengers
were killed in the explosion. In case Hobeika's car had taken another route
through the neighborhood, two additional parked cars, located at two other
choke points, were also rigged with TNT. The powerful bomb wounded a number
of other people on the street. Other parked cars were destroyed and
buildings and homes were damaged. The Lebanese president, prime minister,
and interior minister all claimed that Israeli agents were behind the
attack.

It is noteworthy that the State Department's list of global terrorist
incidents for 2002 worldwide failed to list the car bombing attack on
Hobeika and his party. The White House wanted to ensure the attack was
censored from the report. The reason was simple: the attack ultimately had
Washington's fingerprints on it.

High level European intelligence sources now report that Karl Rove
personally coordinated Hobeika's assassination. The hit on Hobeika employed
Syrian intelligence agents. Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to
curry favor with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9-11 and was
more than willing to help the White House. In addition, Assad's father,
Hafez Assad, had been an ally of Bush's father during Desert Storm, a period
that saw Washington give a "wink and a nod" to Syria's occupation of
Lebanon. Rove wanted to help Sharon avoid any political embarrassment from
an in absentia trial in Brussels where Hobeika would be a star witness. Rove
and Sharon agreed on the plan to use Syrian Military Intelligence agents to
assassinate Hobeika. Rove saw Sharon as an indispensable ally of Bush in
ensuring the loyalty of the Christian evangelical and Jewish voting blocs in
the United States. Sharon saw the plan to have the United States coordinate
the hit as a way to mask all connections to Jerusalem.

The Syrian hit team was ordered by Assef Shawkat, the number two man in
Syrian military intelligence and a good friend and brother in law of Syrian
President Bashar Assad. Assad's intelligence services had already cooperated
with U.S. intelligence in resorting to unconventional methods to extract
information from al Qaeda detainees deported to Syria from the United States
and other countries in the wake of 9-11. The order to take out Hobeika was
transmitted by Shawkat to Roustom Ghazali, the head of Syrian military
intelligence in Beirut. Ghazali arranged for the three remote controlled
cars to be parked along Hobeika's route in Hazmieh; only few hundred yards
from the Barracks of Syrian Special Forces which are stationed in the area
near the Presidential palace , the ministry of Defense and various
Government and officers quarters . This particular area is covered 24/7 by a
very sophisticated USA multi-agency surveillance system to monitor Syrian
and Lebanese security activities and is a " Choice " area to live in for its
perceived high security .

The plan to kill Hobeika had all the necessary caveats and built-in denial
mechanisms. If the Syrians were discovered beforehand or afterwards, Karl
Rove and his associates in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans would be
ensured plausible deniability.

Hobeika's CIA intermediary in Beirut, a man only referred to as "Jason" by
Hobeika, was a frequent companion of the Lebanese politician during official
and off-duty hours. During Hobeika's election campaigns for his
parliamentary seat, Jason was often in Hobeika's office offering support and
advice. After Hobeika's assassination, Jason became despondent over the
death of his colleague. Eventually, Jason disappeared abruptly from Lebanon
and reportedly later emerged in Pakistan.

Karl Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika may not have been
the last "hit" he ordered to help out Sharon. In March 2002, a few months
after Hobeika's assassination, another Lebanese Christian with knowledge of
Sharon's involvement in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres was gunned down
along with his wife in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A bullet fired at Michael Nassar's
car flattened one of his tires. Nassar pulled into a gasoline station for
repairs. A professional assassin, firing a gun with a silencer, shot Nassar
and his wife in the head, killing them both instantly. The assailant fled
and was never captured. Nassar was also involved with the Phalange militia
at Sabra and Shatilla. Nassar was also reportedly willing to testify against
Sharon in Belgium and, as a nephew of SLA Commander General Antoine Lahd,
may have had important evidence to bolster Hobeika's charge that Sharon
ordered SLA forces into the camps to wipe out the Palestinians.

Based on what European intelligence claims is concrete intelligence on
Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika, the Bush administration
can now add political assassination to its laundry list of other misdeeds,
from lying about the reasons to go to war to the torture tactics in
violation of the Geneva Conventions that have been employed by the Pentagon
and "third country" nationals at prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and
columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan
administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the
co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of
George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil,
Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at:


This is some of the evidence for you and for the World ....


~~~encrypted/logs/access ~~~

Not to mention hundreds of private companies and governments. Anyway...
Lines 10-36
of my logfiles show a lot of interest in this article:

# grep sid=1052 /encrypted/logs/access_log|awk '{print $1,$7}'|sed -n
'10,36p'

spb-213-33-248-190.sovintel.ru /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
ext1.shape.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
server1.namsa.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
ns1.saclantc.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
bxlproxyb.europarl.eu.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
wdcsun18.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
wdcsun21.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay1.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay2.cia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay2.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
n021.dhs.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
legion.dera.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gateway-fincen.uscg.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler2.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler1.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gateway101.gsi.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gate11-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gate13-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
fw1-a.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler13.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
fw1-b.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
bouncer.nics.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
beluha.ssu.gov.ua /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
zukprxpro02.zreo.compaq.com
/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052....


To be continued ....
HOLLYWOOD FL.... ATTA & Aris2Chatte
DENVER CO
ART STUDENTS...
MOOVERS INC.@IL

[Brett]

"Jack" > wrote:
> Brett wrote:
>
> > The census count is supposed to count everyone, including illegal
aliens.
>
> I don't believe that is entirely correct. It is understood that it will
> be impossible to count everyone, and therefor certain statistical
> "refinements" are made to the actual count.

Not when the purpose of the count is to assign seats in Congress to the
various States.

> These adjustments use
> different formulas for different areas/neighborhoods, depending on how
> accurate the actual count is expected to be in a given community.

And are used for a purpose other than assigning seats in Congress.

[Billy Preston]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> D. Strang wrote:
>
> >> The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's actually
> >> fully counted.
> >
> >The big answer is that it is about as fully counted as the census.
> >
>
> Now, I'll admit to not knowing much about the census, but I *assumed* the
> census tried to count every U.S. citizen. Is this not correct? If it is
> correct, than the popular vote is *not* as fully counted. I'm willing to bet
> none of my absentee ballots for the last 4 presidential elections have ever
> been opened. Conversly, I'm confident my last two census forms were processed.
> Why wouldn't they be?

They just found a young girl and her mother who have been hiding for 9 years.
I bet they didn't fill out the census form... :-) Well OK, they probably didn't vote
either.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:EcDJc.1947$Zr.12@okepread01...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> >
> > The national popular vote is less than definitive in electing the
president,
> > it is meaningless.
> >
>
> It's not meaningless. How else would the electors be seated?
>

The electors are chosen by the popular vote in individual states.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where you say that the peoples' vote is irrelevant and has nothing to
> do with the election of the president.
>

I didn't say that. I said the total of the national popular vote is
irrelevant. It is. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the election.

[Jack]

Brett wrote:

>> The census count is supposed to count everyone, including illegal
>> aliens.

What is the point of counting illegal aliens for the purposes of
assigning seats in Congress?


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>
> How the people vote has everything to do with the election.
>

Read the words below. Read them over and over again until you understand
them.

The total of the national popular vote is irrelevant. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with the election.

[Steve Hix]

In article >, Jack >
wrote:

> Brett wrote:
>
> >> The census count is supposed to count everyone, including illegal
> >> aliens.
>
> What is the point of counting illegal aliens for the purposes of
> assigning seats in Congress?

The census count is done for several purposes (at least, it is now),
only one of which is congressional distribution.

[BUFDRVR]

Billy Preston wrote:

>They just found a young girl and her mother who have been hiding for 9 years.
>I bet they didn't fill out the census form... :-)

I'm willing to bet *thousands* of people are uncounted in the census. I'm also
willing to bet there are nearly "tens of thousands" of absentee ballots that
are never counted.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Brett]

"Jack" > wrote:
> Brett wrote:
>
> >> The census count is supposed to count everyone, including illegal
> >> aliens.
>
> What is the point of counting illegal aliens for the purposes of
> assigning seats in Congress?

The same reason that slaves counted as three fifths of a person in Article I
Section 2 of The Constitution of the United States.

[Brett]

"Steve Hix" > wrote:
> In article >, Jack >
> wrote:
>
> > Brett wrote:
> >
> > >> The census count is supposed to count everyone, including illegal
> > >> aliens.
> >
> > What is the point of counting illegal aliens for the purposes of
> > assigning seats in Congress?
>
> The census count is done for several purposes (at least, it is now),
> only one of which is congressional distribution.

But the un-estimated body count of peoples living within a State DOES
determine how many Congressional representatives a State gets.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> The same reason that slaves counted as three fifths of a person in Article
I
> Section 2 of The Constitution of the United States.
>

I don't see the similarity. The slaves were in this country legally.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Brett" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote:
> > In article >, Jack >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Brett wrote:
> > >
> > > >> The census count is supposed to count everyone, including illegal
> > > >> aliens.
> > >
> > > What is the point of counting illegal aliens for the purposes of
> > > assigning seats in Congress?
> >
> > The census count is done for several purposes (at least, it is now),
> > only one of which is congressional distribution.
>
> But the un-estimated body count of peoples living within a State DOES
> determine how many Congressional representatives a State gets.

Never said otherwise. The point being that that is not the only current
purpose of the census count.

[Brett]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The same reason that slaves counted as three fifths of a person in
Article
> I
> > Section 2 of The Constitution of the United States.
> >
>
> I don't see the similarity. The slaves were in this country legally.

If you don't understand the reason why slaves were counted in a census that
divided up Congressional seats to the various States while being considered
someone's property; you would probably never understand why the XIV
amendment refers to persons but specifically excludes Indians and how those
numbers may be reduced when the XIV amendment could have been refined to
just say citizens of the United States.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you don't understand the reason why slaves were counted in a census
that
> divided up Congressional seats to the various States while being
considered
> someone's property; you would probably never understand why the XIV
> amendment refers to persons but specifically excludes Indians and how
those
> numbers may be reduced when the XIV amendment could have been refined to
> just say citizens of the United States.
>

I understand completely why slaves were counted in the census.

[Brett]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If you don't understand the reason why slaves were counted in a census
> that
> > divided up Congressional seats to the various States while being
> considered
> > someone's property; you would probably never understand why the XIV
> > amendment refers to persons but specifically excludes Indians and how
> those
> > numbers may be reduced when the XIV amendment could have been refined to
> > just say citizens of the United States.
> >
>
> I understand completely why slaves were counted in the census.

So why do you demonstrate an inability to understand why illegal aliens are
counted when the Constitution doesn't specifically say they should not be.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> So why do you demonstrate an inability to understand why illegal aliens
are
> counted when the Constitution doesn't specifically say they should not be.
>

Your inability to explain your position says nothing about my ability to
understand. You said illegal aliens are counted for the purposes of
assigning seats in Congress for the same reason that slaves counted as three
fifths of a person in Article I Section 2 of The Constitution of the United
States. There is no similarity between a slave and an illegal alien.

[Brett]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So why do you demonstrate an inability to understand why illegal aliens
> are
> > counted when the Constitution doesn't specifically say they should not
be.
> >
>
> Your inability to explain your position says nothing about my ability to
> understand.

I did explain, the fact that you are a moron explains why you don't
understand that even an illegal alien qualifies as a person.

> You said illegal aliens are counted for the purposes of
> assigning seats in Congress for the same reason that slaves counted as
three
> fifths of a person in Article I Section 2 of The Constitution of the
United
> States. There is no similarity between a slave and an illegal alien.

No similarity, you really are a moron were they and are they allowed a vote
yet they both count in assigning Congressional seats.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > So why do you demonstrate an inability to understand why illegal
aliens
> > are
> > > counted when the Constitution doesn't specifically say they should not
> be.
> > >
> >
> > Your inability to explain your position says nothing about my ability to
> > understand.
>
> I did explain, the fact that you are a moron explains why you don't
> understand that even an illegal alien qualifies as a person.
>
> > You said illegal aliens are counted for the purposes of
> > assigning seats in Congress for the same reason that slaves counted as
> three
> > fifths of a person in Article I Section 2 of The Constitution of the
> United
> > States. There is no similarity between a slave and an illegal alien.
>
> No similarity, you really are a moron were they and are they allowed a
vote
> yet they both count in assigning Congressional seats.
>

You resort to name calling because you are unable to present a cogent
argument. Clearly, you are not familiar with the US Constitution or the
arguments presented at the Constitutional Convention.

[Brett]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > So why do you demonstrate an inability to understand why illegal
> aliens
> > > are
> > > > counted when the Constitution doesn't specifically say they should
not
> > be.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your inability to explain your position says nothing about my ability
to
> > > understand.
> >
> > I did explain, the fact that you are a moron explains why you don't
> > understand that even an illegal alien qualifies as a person.
> >
> > > You said illegal aliens are counted for the purposes of
> > > assigning seats in Congress for the same reason that slaves counted as
> > three
> > > fifths of a person in Article I Section 2 of The Constitution of the
> > United
> > > States. There is no similarity between a slave and an illegal alien.
> >
> > No similarity, you really are a moron were they and are they allowed a
> vote
> > yet they both count in assigning Congressional seats.
> >
>
> You resort to name calling because you are unable to present a cogent
> argument.

No, my reference to you as a moron is valid.

> Clearly, you are not familiar with the US Constitution or the
> arguments presented at the Constitutional Convention.

Counting slaves and counting illegal aliens achieves the same goal and the
comparison of the two is valid.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, my reference to you as a moron is valid.
>

Because I asked a question you couldn't answer?


>
> Counting slaves and counting illegal aliens achieves the same goal and the
> comparison of the two is valid.
>

Partially correct. See? That wasn't nearly as hard as you thought it would
be.

[Brett]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, my reference to you as a moron is valid.
> >
>
> Because I asked a question you couldn't answer?

No moron, I answered the question you originally asked which was "I don't
see the similarity. The slaves were in this country legally".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> No moron, I answered the question you originally asked which was "I don't
> see the similarity. The slaves were in this country legally".
>

Who's the moron? There's no question there.

[Brett]

"Steven P. McNicoll" Who's the moron? There's no question there.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" Who's the moron? There's no question there.
>

You have certainly answered that question!

[Ian MacLure]

"sanjian" > wrote in
news:yYFJc.67$fB4.59@lakeread01:

[snip]

> The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's
> actually fully counted.

That is the ideal for which the system strives. Its never
going to be 100% error free ( thats a shyster's fantasy )
but we should be able to make it pretty darn close.
However no matter how idiot proof we make balloting we'll
always find ourselves one step behind the really cutting edge
idiots.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Billy Preston]

"Ian MacLure" > wrote
>
> Your statement of the problem is incomplete.
> Are all 20 of those states winner take all or do they
> apportion their electors?
>
> This is vital information without which the question is
> unanswerable.

Vital? You're on drugs. The idiot asked a hypothetical question,
so just give him a hypothetical answer. Sheesh! Don't act like an
idiot yourself.

[Ian MacLure]

"D. Strang" > wrote in
news:u5GJc.2976$Zr.1934@okepread01:

[snip]

> What do you call a political system that has a Legislature, a Judiciary,
> and an Executive branch of government?

OK, what do you call it.

Sounds most like a Republic but could also apply to other
forms of gummint.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Ian MacLure]

Ace > wrote in
:

[snip]

> You're splitting hairs. It still sounds like independence was
> granted. But if it makes you less humiliated, call it by another
> name.

As I said, call it what you will.
It was a recognition of the facts that a succesful rebellion had
established. At that point he could have declared himself King
of Coney Island for all the effect that would have had. The US
delegation wouldn't have signed such a treaty of course but it
wouldn't have altered the basic facts on the ground one smidge,
jot, tittle, or iota.
To get a really good example of rhetoric avoiding unpleasantness
one could do worse than the words of the Showa Emperor (Hirohito)
announcing to this subjects that the situation had not developed
entirely to japan's advantage. That was a monumental understatement.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Ian MacLure]

Ace > wrote in
:

[snip]

> That's exactly what I thought.

You thought?
That would be news to us. You've never shown
the slightest evidence of thought before.

And we still don't know how electors in your
hypothetical situation are seated.
So we cannot say how it would turn out without
making assumptions whith which you may be at odds.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[twitchell]

And who are you to ask?... foreigner.


wrote:

> Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
> _____________________________________________
>
> Why did he become a weekend warrior when
> he could have become a full-time warrior ?
>
> _____________________________________________



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Billy Preston]

> Why did he become a weekend warrior when
> he could have become a full-time warrior?

Suppose you went to a recruiter and they said they didn't have any pilot
slots available. You could join the USAF and take what they have.

You could go over to the Guard outfit and find that they have some slots
available, but you have to join the Guard first.

Suppose you join the Guard as enlisted, get selected for pilot training, and
receive a commission.

Presto, you're a pilot trainee, instead of a clerk in the payroll office, or stuck
in a rocket silo in Montana.

Would you rather be a pilot, or be a PFC burning **** in Sihanoukville?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
...
> Ace > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
> > Where you say that the peoples' vote is irrelevant and has nothing to
> > do with the election of the president.
>
> Irrelevant is perhaps overstating the case.
> The popular vote IS relevant in that it determines
> what electors are seated but does not directly determine
> the outcome of the Presidential race.
>
> Its not mysterious or secret.
>

He's altering my words. This is what I said:

"If by 'public vote' you're referring to the national popular vote total,
it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the election of the president."

The popular vote is not irrelevant, but the figure that is derived by adding
the popular votes cast for each candidate in each state is irrelevant. It's
a meaningless statistic.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>From: "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
>Date: 7/17/2004 5:00 AM Pacific Standard Time

>Amendment X
>> :
>> :The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
>> :prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
>> :or to the people.

The interesting thing is that while we now have both an administration and
Supreme Court that gives preference to states rights, the Federal government
now has never been larger, more powerful and spent more than ever before.


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 interesting thing is that while we now have both an administration and
> Supreme Court that gives preference to states rights, the Federal
government
> now has never been larger, more powerful and spent more than ever before.
>

We do not now have an administration or a Supreme Court that gives
preference to states rights.

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> the Federal government now has never been larger, more powerful
> and spent more than ever before.

The federal government has never been larger than it was in 1941-1946.

P.S. Active duty military forces are part of the Federal government.

[Leslie Swartz]

The much more "interesting thing" is that Art can make completely false
(amazing in their purity of falsehood; breathtaking, actually) statements in
total opposition to anything resembling the truth or logic (see below) and
build an entire worldview out of it!

" . . . an administration and a Supreme Court that gives preference to
state's rights . . . "

Wow.

This newsgroup has turned into one of those logical syllogism exercises
where Vince or Art start with "The Sky Is Red" or "You Do Not Exist" and the
class then attempts to support or refute the premise.

And of course all without the benefit of training or a disciplined mind(s) .
.. .

Steve Swartz




"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
> >From: "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
> >Date: 7/17/2004 5:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >Amendment X
> >> :
> >> :The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> >> :prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively,
> >> :or to the people.
>
> The interesting thing is that while we now have both an administration and
> Supreme Court that gives preference to states rights, the Federal
government
> now has never been larger, more powerful and spent more than ever before.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[sanjian]

Ian MacLure wrote:
> "sanjian" > wrote in
> news:yYFJc.67$fB4.59@lakeread01:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's
>> actually fully counted.
>
> That is the ideal for which the system strives. Its never
> going to be 100% error free ( thats a shyster's fantasy )
> but we should be able to make it pretty darn close.
> However no matter how idiot proof we make balloting we'll
> always find ourselves one step behind the really cutting edge
> idiots.

That's all fine and good, but when we are noticably, and preventably far
from that idea, we've got to question the value of any conclusions drawn
from that idea. Votes that were overwhelmingly for one side in the election
were discarded, and legally so, in order to save time an money. While that
is perfectly acceptable for the given conditions, it greatly limits our
ability to draw other conclusions from the election, and invalidates the
popular vote.

[sanjian]

Billy Preston wrote:
>> Why did he become a weekend warrior when
>> he could have become a full-time warrior?
>
> Suppose you went to a recruiter and they said they didn't have any
> pilot
> slots available. You could join the USAF and take what they have.
>
> You could go over to the Guard outfit and find that they have some
> slots available, but you have to join the Guard first.
>
> Suppose you join the Guard as enlisted, get selected for pilot
> training, and receive a commission.
>
> Presto, you're a pilot trainee, instead of a clerk in the payroll
> office, or stuck in a rocket silo in Montana.
>
> Would you rather be a pilot, or be a PFC burning **** in
> Sihanoukville?

Well, other than the fact that there is no PFC in the Air Force... But the
rest of your argument pretty much stands.

[Billy Preston]

"John A. Stovall" > wrote
>
> Being in a rocket silo in Montana is fine duty why are you knocking
> it?

Pilots run checklists and take-off. Missile officers run checklists, eat breakfast,
then more checklists, eat lunch, then run more checklists, then eat dinner, then
run more checklists, then eat mid-night chow, then run more checklists, then eat
breakfast, then they go back to the O-Club for lunch, and then they go home and
run the wives checklist... The damned rockets just sit there, until we get tired of
paying for them.

"The best fighter ever designed is a rocket out of Montana"--General LeMay, USAF

[Brooks Gregory]

"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
news:O7bKc.6144$Zr.1408@okepread01...
> "John A. Stovall" > wrote
> >
> > Being in a rocket silo in Montana is fine duty why are you knocking
> > it?
>
> Pilots run checklists and take-off. Missile officers run checklists, eat
breakfast,
> then more checklists, eat lunch, then run more checklists, then eat
dinner, then
> run more checklists, then eat mid-night chow, then run more checklists,
then eat
> breakfast, then they go back to the O-Club for lunch, and then they go
home and
> run the wives checklist... The damned rockets just sit there, until we
get tired of
> paying for them.
>
> "The best fighter ever designed is a rocket out of Montana"--General
LeMay, USAF
>
>


--

Let me introduce you to John Kerry:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
http://www.pow-miafamilies.org/
http://www.jpac.pacom.mil/
http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssctest.html
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php


Brooks Gregory

[Billy Preston]

"Brooks Gregory" > wrote
>
> Let me introduce you to John Kerry:

Khrushchev had more personality, and a better 5 year plan
for the Collectives...

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 7/17/2004 7:50 AM Pacific Standard Time

>The UK is quite decidely a republic (small R). It is similarly a
>"constitutional democracy"--meaning it is a form defined by a
>constitution (albeit unwritten)

It is written. Just not all in one place


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

[Billy Preston]

"John A. Stovall" > wrote
>
> And what does the nonsense you posted have to do with missile silo
> duty?

Brooks (like all nerds) has a pocket protector...

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:40:17 GMT, John A. Stovall
> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:28:50 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> wrote:

>>> "John A. Stovall" > wrote
>>> >
>>> > Being in a rocket silo in Montana is fine duty why are you knocking
>>> > it?
>
>And what does the nonsense you posted have to do with missile silo
>duty?

Dunno for the life of me why you jumped in with such a strong defense
of missile silo duty. The initial argument was regarding the question
of whether you had a choice of going to pilot training in the ANG or
going into the USAF with no pilot training slots available, which
would be a better option. Seems like if you had aspirations to fly
jets and one route was open while another one wasn't, the choice would
be the classic "no-brainer."

During the period in question, I was running the Training Command
personnel shop that handled UPT/UNT/UPT-H input and output
assignments. The place we put pilot training washouts who didn't want
to got to navigator training was either missile officer or weapons
controller (GCI scope-dope.)

I don't recall anyone facing the assignment to missiles as being
particularly grateful nor viewing it as "fine duty." They did get
pretty polyester ascots, vinyl caps and a chance to get a Master's
degree during their days in the hole. And, other than cholesterol
build-up from chow hall food, the hazards during the Vietnam war were
minimal in the silo. Casualties were low and few POW's were taken.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Billy Preston]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> During the period in question, I was running the Training Command
> personnel shop that handled UPT/UNT/UPT-H input and output
> assignments.

So you're the SOB! :-)

Actually, I wanted to fly in the USAF, but I ran out of money in college.
So I enlisted and tried to go bootstrap to finish my degree. Alas, after the
war ended, the USAF had no use for bootstrap, and only selected a few
during my tour. Anyway, my life was better as a male stripper...

The one thing I liked about the 70's, was you could use your GI bill to
not only get your Instrument and Commercial, but also the initial training.
My first assignment to Kingsley Field had a wonderful Piper school. I used
to love getting cleared for the ILS, and then watch the F-106's fly two
orbits waiting for me, ha. "Tower, permission for a stop and go?" "Negative!
get that piece of **** off the runway!"

There is something worse than missiles, and it's called Long Range
Radar (LRR)...

[Ian MacLure]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in
:

[snip]

> I don't recall anyone facing the assignment to missiles as being
> particularly grateful nor viewing it as "fine duty." They did get
> pretty polyester ascots, vinyl caps and a chance to get a Master's
> degree during their days in the hole. And, other than cholesterol
> build-up from chow hall food, the hazards during the Vietnam war were
> minimal in the silo. Casualties were low and few POW's were taken.

Missileers were subject to some very rigorous pshychological
screening AIUI. I would imagine not wanting that particular
assignment would raise some red flags for the screeners as
would a surfeit of enthusiasm for the job.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 7/17/2004 10:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:20:19 -0400, Peter Skelton >
>wrote:
>
>>when did this turn into alt.failed.polysci101?
>>
>>Peter Skelton
>
>I think it was with the arrival of Walt$49.95 and ACE,
>

Political Science is a contradiction in terms. If it is political it ain't
science. If it is science it ain't political.


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

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Political Science is a contradiction in terms. If it is political it ain't
> science. If it is science it ain't political.

You'll have to talk to Plato about it. You're both about the same age,
although not peers.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 17 Jul 2004 17:59:09 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>Political Science is a contradiction in terms. If it is political it ain't
>science. If it is science it ain't political.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

While that is cute, it isn't very new and it also isn't correct.
Political Science is the study of politics, not the practice. In other
words, it is the observation of phenomena in the hope of understanding
it. It involves both traditional schools and behavioral.

The traditionalists tend to research history and attempt to understand
the political processess that led to successes or failures. For
example there has been a lot of study of the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban
Missile Crisis, the failures of the Vietnam War, the US success in the
Cold War, etc.

The behavioralists tend toward statistical analysis. Here you get
polling, measurement, focus groups, attempts at prediction,
measurement of public opinion, etc.

Now, your turn for another inanity.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[BUFDRVR]

Billy Preston wrote:

>The damned rockets just sit there, until we get tired of
>paying for them.

Are you insinuating neither the "rockets" nor the operators are serving, or
have served a purpose? Are you saying the ICBM has made no contribution to
national defense?




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>I don't recall anyone facing the assignment to missiles as being
>particularly grateful nor viewing it as "fine duty."

For the life of me Ed, I can't figure out why you impugn the service of
missileers. Did you have a run in with one at the O' Club? Honestly Ed, you
sound like Art Kramer every time you discuss the "dreaded missileer" and ICBM
duty.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Billy Preston]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> Billy Preston wrote:
>
> >The damned rockets just sit there, until we get tired of
> >paying for them.
>
> Are you insinuating neither the "rockets" nor the operators are serving, or
> have served a purpose? Are you saying the ICBM has made no contribution to
> national defense?

Don't get your panties in a bunch, I was just trying to be funny...

I think MIRV ICBM's made more sense then a lot of bombers we fielded, but I
don't thing Lt Bush was interested much in rocketry.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
>From: "sanjian"
>Date: 7/17/2004 6:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <RmkKc.2440$fB4.1010@lakeread01>
>
>Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> democratic and prepublican principles can exist side by side. they
>>>> are not in contra distinction.
>>>
>>>
>>> There you've made a meaningless statement. Equally we might note that
>>> democratic and communistic principles can exist side by side.
>>>
>>
>> They can of course. we can democratically decide on our economic
>> system. equally dictatorships can be capitalistic. one does not
>> implicate the other.
>
>However, certain political systems and economic systems are likely to see
>grouped than others.
>

China today is an example of a communist capitalisic sytem Or it can be called
a capitalist dictatorship.


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

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> China today is an example of a communist capitalisic sytem Or it can be called
> a capitalist dictatorship.

Thank you Professor...

[B2431]

>From: (ZZBunker)


<snip>
>
> A monarchy is not a government, since it's nothing but Kings
> illegally giving stuff to Dukes. Since there has never
> been a Monarchy in the entire history of Earth, that didn't
> somehow also think that is was an Empire, graced by some
> non-existent spirits in the woods, such as Robin Hood.
>
So monarchies aren't governments? I'm sure the UK would be surprised to hear
that. If you are referring to preparliamentary marnarchies they were in fact
governents in that the made law raised taxes and armies etc.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired