Leaving the community

"John T" wrote in message
That was Peter's statement, not mine. I've made no claims one way or
another about Saddam/9-11.

That was bad quoting on my part. I knew it was his, put it on the wrong
thread I guess.

"Frank" wrote in message ...
John T wrote:

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m

snip

Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for
the wealthy, the group that Bush was caught referring to during a
private dinner that was videotaped and to whom he referred to as "My
own people" ---- Got that right, W. Thank goodness there was
someone looking out for the common man (and still is,,,, as a
Senator) as John Kerry.

Sorry, but you lose points on this issue. Kerry, *the* richest person
in
Congress, paid less in 2003 taxes (both in percentage and in raw
dollars)
than Bush (whose net worth is a fraction of Kerry's). Feel free to
Google
for their 2003 tax returns and do the math. While you're at it, notice
the difference in charitable donations, too.

And clearly stated that he was against the tax cuts even though he
benefited
from them. In fact he was, in effect, advocating raising his own taxes.

And while we're on the subject of Kerry's (Theresa's) wealth.... I will
never understand why this was seen as such a negative. He came upon it
honorably. More important, it insulates him from some of the special
interest pressure. After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?

The same way you bribe a poor man.



snip
--
Frank....H

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message


They're not.

Such as?

Assuming you were looking for states that weren't quite so cold in the
winter there's Georgia, for starters.
Then there's Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona - even Florida
(at least away from Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Palm Beach).

If you're looking for a conservative home that's not hot in the summer, you
might consider splitting time between Alaska and one of the Southern states.


--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Greg Butler" wrote in message
. ..

He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day --
all
the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"

The funny part is that is exactly right.

Now wait a minute.........it's hard work sitting at home waiting for the
government check to show up.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John T wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message


Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
winter?


They're not.


Such as?

Most of the south?



Matt

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:32:43 -0700, Newps wrote:

Do you even know what a Mauser is?

A cat that keeps the rodent population down? ;-)

--
Steve
E-mail: steve at flyingtigerwebdesign dot com
Hong Kong, 05/11/2004 13:48:10

"John T" wrote in message
m...
Perhaps. Would you kindly parse this for me and let me know what you
really meant, then?

I meant exactly what I wrote. Nowhere in the statement that you quoted is
anything that could be construed as meaning "anybody voting for Bush failed
to pay attention or chose to ignore the facts". As I've stated elsewhere,
some 36% of the people voting for Bush did apparently have the facts.
"Anybody voting for Bush" would imply 0%, and I've not once said that.

Pete

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Polls are facts about statistics.

I'd say just the opposite. Polls are statistics about facts.

Statistics are always about facts. Polls are the facts about the
statistics.

Yes, most of these polls have significant biases.

Such as?

"Newps" wrote in message
...
Polls are facts about statistics.

A poll isn't a fact about anything except the people who participated.

The poll itself is a fact about the statistical sample taken. Which is
exactly what I said (though apparently not in a verbose enough way for some
of you).

If you feel you have some good reason to dispite the Gallup poll results,
I'm all ears. If all you can come up with is "well, there's a 0.000000001%
chance that the poll is incorrect", then while that may be perfectly true,
it's a pretty useless statement.

The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll correctly
describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

Pete

"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:8RBid.98486$tU4.72620@okepread06...
What survey are you talking about? I find this number hard to believe.

Sorry, you're right. I misremembered. It's "only" 62%. Anywhere, here's
one article:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000653667

Google can easily find you as many other references to the poll as you'd
like to see.