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

(Chalo) wrote in message . com...
A Muzi wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

I hope that you think some more about this.

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

What if the rest of your friends start wondering
whether Andrew is losing anything of value?

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

Carl Fogel

David Kerber wrote:

In article ,
says...
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"Fiona Reynolds" writes:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

That's right. There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
nothing but the fallibility of polls.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

David Kerber wrote:

In article ,
says...
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"Fiona Reynolds" writes:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

That's right. There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
nothing but the fallibility of polls.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Pete" 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.

This is one of the reasons Kerry lost.

It's precisely the reason Kerry lost.

No matter who won this election, it was only going to be those
hopelessly blinded by rhetoric who would really get their knickers in
a major twist - whether they were brainwashed by Rush or by Michael
Moore... the rest of us would just assume there would be a correction
in another four years if things got marginally worse.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Pete" 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.

This is one of the reasons Kerry lost.

It's precisely the reason Kerry lost.

No matter who won this election, it was only going to be those
hopelessly blinded by rhetoric who would really get their knickers in
a major twist - whether they were brainwashed by Rush or by Michael
Moore... the rest of us would just assume there would be a correction
in another four years if things got marginally worse.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"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/

"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/

"Pete" writes:

"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.

This is one of the reasons Kerry lost.

A lot of people see and think about the world very differently than
Chalo (or myself, for that matter). Greed, corruption, graft,
influence peddling are acceptable- faggots getting married and sexual
assault victims having abortions is not. People vote on what is
important to them.

IMHO no real Christian could vote for George W. Bush since his actions
defy the teachings of Christ at almost every turn- and yet many people
of good will and sincere belief did vote for Bush with a clear
conscience. The Democrats had better come to some kind of
understanding of these folks, because there's enough of them to put
Jeb Bush in the White House in 2008.

"Pete" writes:

"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.

This is one of the reasons Kerry lost.

A lot of people see and think about the world very differently than
Chalo (or myself, for that matter). Greed, corruption, graft,
influence peddling are acceptable- faggots getting married and sexual
assault victims having abortions is not. People vote on what is
important to them.

IMHO no real Christian could vote for George W. Bush since his actions
defy the teachings of Christ at almost every turn- and yet many people
of good will and sincere belief did vote for Bush with a clear
conscience. The Democrats had better come to some kind of
understanding of these folks, because there's enough of them to put
Jeb Bush in the White House in 2008.

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!"