PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

What's a neocon? Why won't you answer that question?


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

ubject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
From: Dweezil Dwarftosser
Date: 9/14/2004 10:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:


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

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

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



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




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

Steve wrote in reply to:
Those that can, do; those that can't, teach.


Those who can't do either become supervisors

The following

Yup. School administrations are full of them.

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

Rick

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
From: "Leadfoot"
Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04


"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

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

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

Because the supreme court elected him,

Remember the other guy had more people vote for him


That will never be forgotten

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

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

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

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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Leadfoot"
Date: 9/14/2004 9:39 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04


"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

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

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

Because the supreme court elected him,

Remember the other guy had more people vote for him

But Bush won the Electoral College.

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

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

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



Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

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

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

Because the supreme court elected him,

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

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




Remember the other guy had more people vote for him

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

"ian maclure" wrote in message
news

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


And in any case, irrelevant.


Yup.



Its the Electoral College votes that matter.


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



You may not like that but its the law.


I have no problem with it.

ArtKramr wrote:

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

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

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

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

Jack G.
Presidents elected without a majority of the popular vote:

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