Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

So, Tom, how many of these countries had populations exceeding 100 million?

What difference does that make? About as much as what percentage wore
bicycle helmets to the polls.

Hey, I like that! A new bicycle-safety campaign:

"Always Wear A Helmet. These people didn't wear a helmet when they
went to the polls, and look who they voted for!"

A Muzi wrote:
Well, I did. And I wrote RNC two checks this summer.

Chalo wrote:
I am deeply disappointed that you chose to underwrite the political
manifestation of bigotry, deception, greed, and mass murder. On
ordinary matters of political issues, I am willing to differ, but for
this I am afraid I can no longer count you among my friends.

(am)The pervasive view of this sharp and motivated man of
action
as an 'imbecile' or 'moron' works very much to his favor.
Thanks for underestimating him.

(cc) Don't you mean "misunderestimating" him?
He is a disgrace to the country and so are his supporters. I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm very much enriched by
knowing and coresponding with you and I only hope this is
overstated in the week after an election.

Look, Clinton engendered similar feelings, and more, out
here in non-coastal America but that didn't make Dole any
less of a putz. Elections are about choices and seldom about
an ideal candidate.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi wrote:
Well, I did. And I wrote RNC two checks this summer.

Chalo wrote:
I am deeply disappointed that you chose to underwrite the political
manifestation of bigotry, deception, greed, and mass murder. On
ordinary matters of political issues, I am willing to differ, but for
this I am afraid I can no longer count you among my friends.

(am)The pervasive view of this sharp and motivated man of
action
as an 'imbecile' or 'moron' works very much to his favor.
Thanks for underestimating him.

(cc) Don't you mean "misunderestimating" him?
He is a disgrace to the country and so are his supporters. I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm very much enriched by
knowing and coresponding with you and I only hope this is
overstated in the week after an election.

Look, Clinton engendered similar feelings, and more, out
here in non-coastal America but that didn't make Dole any
less of a putz. Elections are about choices and seldom about
an ideal candidate.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

(Carl Fogel) wrote:

Chalo wrote:
I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

Are you really so rich in friends that you can
throw us away like this?

I see it this way: can I afford to count racists, queer-baiters, and
supporters of violence against the weak among my friends? No, I
can't. And I don't have to-- among the scores of people I have
considered my friends here in Seattle, there are maybe (just maybe)
three who might be so lacking in common decency that they voted for
Bush.

As for them, what can I do?

Wipe. Flush. To do otherwise just wouldn't be hygienic.

If this is how you treat friends, what will you
do to strangers who come to your shop?

If someone were to defecate on my rug, assault my spouse, poison my
pets, cut down my trees, loot my pantry and set fire to the neighbors'
houses, I would assume that he was not a friend to me. I can extend
that principle to those who do the same to my country.

I hope that the rest of the world will divest from the United States
pending some return to political sanity. Likewise I think it would be
a good idea for decent people in the humane parts of the U.S. to
boycott the endarkened "red states" on the same condition. But I
won't wait for these things to happen-- I am already exercising some
basic standards as to whom I will accept as a peer. Along with
slavers, murderers, torturers, swindlers, child abusers, rapists, and
thugs, Bush voters now appear on my personal embargo list (having
approved the activities of the aforementioned).

What could be attributed to ignorance in 2000 has been confirmed as
malice in 2004. So, good riddance to the reprobates-- I'll be having
no more of them.

Chalo Colina

(Carl Fogel) wrote:

Chalo wrote:
I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

Are you really so rich in friends that you can
throw us away like this?

I see it this way: can I afford to count racists, queer-baiters, and
supporters of violence against the weak among my friends? No, I
can't. And I don't have to-- among the scores of people I have
considered my friends here in Seattle, there are maybe (just maybe)
three who might be so lacking in common decency that they voted for
Bush.

As for them, what can I do?

Wipe. Flush. To do otherwise just wouldn't be hygienic.

If this is how you treat friends, what will you
do to strangers who come to your shop?

If someone were to defecate on my rug, assault my spouse, poison my
pets, cut down my trees, loot my pantry and set fire to the neighbors'
houses, I would assume that he was not a friend to me. I can extend
that principle to those who do the same to my country.

I hope that the rest of the world will divest from the United States
pending some return to political sanity. Likewise I think it would be
a good idea for decent people in the humane parts of the U.S. to
boycott the endarkened "red states" on the same condition. But I
won't wait for these things to happen-- I am already exercising some
basic standards as to whom I will accept as a peer. Along with
slavers, murderers, torturers, swindlers, child abusers, rapists, and
thugs, Bush voters now appear on my personal embargo list (having
approved the activities of the aforementioned).

What could be attributed to ignorance in 2000 has been confirmed as
malice in 2004. So, good riddance to the reprobates-- I'll be having
no more of them.

Chalo Colina

Actually, I wrote nothing in this post.
Please me a bit more careful with your attributions as you cut, paste to
suit your needs.

ED3
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
| "Edward Dike, III" writes:
|
| | I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage
| | of "registered" voters who actually voted. According to
| |
| | http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf
| |
| | the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually
| | voted in the 2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure
| | for this election.
|
| If only 85% had voted... There are several pieces of relevant math-
| what percentage of the population was registered to vote, and what
| percentage of registered voters went to the polls on Election Day.
|
| In 2000, 70% of citizens were registered and 60% of those turned out
| to vote. So, 42% of the population plus one Supreme Court judge
| detemined who was President. This is at odds with the figures you
| cite. See:
|
|
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...es/001643.html
|
| 114,000,000 Americans voted in 1992, a record high at that time (per
| the Cesus Bureau link above). Only 111,000,000 voted in 2000. For
| 2004, the total voting age population was 217,800,000 although some of
| those were not elegible voters. The total population estimate for the
| US in mid-2004 was 293,633,000, meaning that 74% of the total
| population was registered. 115,979,503 voters- a new record high-
| cast ballots in the Presidential race in 2004, according to the New
| York Times- 53% of voting age people in America. This means that only
| 39% of the population decided the Presidency.
|
| That looks like a decline in participation as a percentage of the
| population from 2000 to 2004, but I don't know if apples are being
| compared to apples- whether the Census Bureau data from 2000 indicates
| 70% of the total population was registered to vote or 70% of the
| voting age population. That would make a difference. In Minnesota
| the 2004 percentage was reported at 77.3% of registered voters, and I
| think that was the highest in the nation.
|
| Other interesting information about the US:
|
| http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/demography.html showing a 3.3%
| decrease in median income 1999 - 2003 and an almost flat increase in
| median household net worth 1993 - 2003. This is despite a home
| ownership rate of 69% (which seems pretty decent to me, but I don't
| know how that stacks up to other parts of the world).
|
| http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/education.html especially reading
| achievement
|
| http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/health.html
|
| http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/

Actually, I wrote nothing in this post.
Please me a bit more careful with your attributions as you cut, paste to
suit your needs.

ED3
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
| "Edward Dike, III" writes:
|
| | I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage
| | of "registered" voters who actually voted. According to
| |
| | http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf
| |
| | the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually
| | voted in the 2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure
| | for this election.
|
| If only 85% had voted... There are several pieces of relevant math-
| what percentage of the population was registered to vote, and what
| percentage of registered voters went to the polls on Election Day.
|
| In 2000, 70% of citizens were registered and 60% of those turned out
| to vote. So, 42% of the population plus one Supreme Court judge
| detemined who was President. This is at odds with the figures you
| cite. See:
|
|
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...es/001643.html
|
| 114,000,000 Americans voted in 1992, a record high at that time (per
| the Cesus Bureau link above). Only 111,000,000 voted in 2000. For
| 2004, the total voting age population was 217,800,000 although some of
| those were not elegible voters. The total population estimate for the
| US in mid-2004 was 293,633,000, meaning that 74% of the total
| population was registered. 115,979,503 voters- a new record high-
| cast ballots in the Presidential race in 2004, according to the New
| York Times- 53% of voting age people in America. This means that only
| 39% of the population decided the Presidency.
|
| That looks like a decline in participation as a percentage of the
| population from 2000 to 2004, but I don't know if apples are being
| compared to apples- whether the Census Bureau data from 2000 indicates
| 70% of the total population was registered to vote or 70% of the
| voting age population. That would make a difference. In Minnesota
| the 2004 percentage was reported at 77.3% of registered voters, and I
| think that was the highest in the nation.
|
| Other interesting information about the US:
|
| http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/demography.html showing a 3.3%
| decrease in median income 1999 - 2003 and an almost flat increase in
| median household net worth 1993 - 2003. This is despite a home
| ownership rate of 69% (which seems pretty decent to me, but I don't
| know how that stacks up to other parts of the world).
|
| http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/education.html especially reading
| achievement
|
| http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/health.html
|
| http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/

"Chuck Davis" wrote in message ...
"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
om...
....
Explain to me why the USA is so bad.
....

I realize that your reply is to Tom Sherman, but since I'm quoted I have to
ask: Who says that the USA is so bad? If you look at the link that I
provided, you'll see that the USA in 2000 topped every country in the
Presidential Elections category except Austria when comparing percentages of
registered voters who voted. This is according to your reference of

http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf

and my reference of

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

I don't see how that equates to "bad".

I don't see it as bad either. But to read most of the thoughts in this
thread you'd think that not voting in an election in which you'd be
willing to accept either candidate is tantemount to killing your
mother.

"Chuck Davis" wrote in message ...
"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
om...
....
Explain to me why the USA is so bad.
....

I realize that your reply is to Tom Sherman, but since I'm quoted I have to
ask: Who says that the USA is so bad? If you look at the link that I
provided, you'll see that the USA in 2000 topped every country in the
Presidential Elections category except Austria when comparing percentages of
registered voters who voted. This is according to your reference of

http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf

and my reference of

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

I don't see how that equates to "bad".

I don't see it as bad either. But to read most of the thoughts in this
thread you'd think that not voting in an election in which you'd be
willing to accept either candidate is tantemount to killing your
mother.

In article ,
says...
Funny how that socialism disappears directly over the borders of their
own countries.

Be fair. This has nothing to do with socialism. It is fairly typical
corporate behaviour. How many companies from ANY country do you know of
that provides all workers in all countries the same benefits they do in
their home countries?

Rick