A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Rides
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 7th 04, 05:02 PM
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Less than one-third of the eligible voters chose Bush II. The real winner,
chosen by 40% of the eligible voters was "none of the above".


Good, then you DO have a citation to back up that preposterous claim?


Ads
  #2  
Old November 7th 04, 05:12 PM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Kunich wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Less than one-third of the eligible voters chose Bush II. The real winner,
chosen by 40% of the eligible voters was "none of the above".



Good, then you DO have a citation to back up that preposterous claim?


Bush II received approximately one-half of the vote of the approximately
60% [1] of the eligible voters who voted. That is approximately 30% of
the eligible voters choosing Bush II, or less than one-third.

40% did not choose either Kerry or Bush II, thereby indicating their
preference for "none of the above".

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/.

--
Tom Sherman - Greater QCA

  #3  
Old November 7th 04, 05:12 PM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Kunich wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Less than one-third of the eligible voters chose Bush II. The real winner,
chosen by 40% of the eligible voters was "none of the above".



Good, then you DO have a citation to back up that preposterous claim?


Bush II received approximately one-half of the vote of the approximately
60% [1] of the eligible voters who voted. That is approximately 30% of
the eligible voters choosing Bush II, or less than one-third.

40% did not choose either Kerry or Bush II, thereby indicating their
preference for "none of the above".

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/.

--
Tom Sherman - Greater QCA

  #4  
Old November 7th 04, 06:14 PM
psycholist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Less than one-third of the eligible voters chose Bush II. The real
winner, chosen by 40% of the eligible voters was "none of the above".



Good, then you DO have a citation to back up that preposterous claim?


Bush II received approximately one-half of the vote of the approximately
60% [1] of the eligible voters who voted. That is approximately 30% of the
eligible voters choosing Bush II, or less than one-third.

40% did not choose either Kerry or Bush II, thereby indicating their
preference for "none of the above".

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/.

--
Tom Sherman - Greater QCA


Your math is sound. Your conclusion, in my opinion, is not. You give those
folks who didn't vote too much credit. I don't believe they were making the
statement, "none of the above" at all. I believe they were making the
statement, "whatever you think is OK with me" or, "I don't care, pass the
(beer, drugs)" or "I'm just too plain lazy."

Bob C.


  #5  
Old November 7th 04, 06:14 PM
psycholist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Less than one-third of the eligible voters chose Bush II. The real
winner, chosen by 40% of the eligible voters was "none of the above".



Good, then you DO have a citation to back up that preposterous claim?


Bush II received approximately one-half of the vote of the approximately
60% [1] of the eligible voters who voted. That is approximately 30% of the
eligible voters choosing Bush II, or less than one-third.

40% did not choose either Kerry or Bush II, thereby indicating their
preference for "none of the above".

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/.

--
Tom Sherman - Greater QCA


Your math is sound. Your conclusion, in my opinion, is not. You give those
folks who didn't vote too much credit. I don't believe they were making the
statement, "none of the above" at all. I believe they were making the
statement, "whatever you think is OK with me" or, "I don't care, pass the
(beer, drugs)" or "I'm just too plain lazy."

Bob C.


  #6  
Old November 7th 04, 06:27 PM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

psycholist wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Tom Kunich wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Less than one-third of the eligible voters chose Bush II. The real
winner, chosen by 40% of the eligible voters was "none of the above".


Good, then you DO have a citation to back up that preposterous claim?


Bush II received approximately one-half of the vote of the approximately
60% [1] of the eligible voters who voted. That is approximately 30% of the
eligible voters choosing Bush II, or less than one-third.

40% did not choose either Kerry or Bush II, thereby indicating their
preference for "none of the above".

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/.

--
Tom Sherman - Greater QCA



Your math is sound. Your conclusion, in my opinion, is not. You give those
folks who didn't vote too much credit. I don't believe they were making the
statement, "none of the above" at all. I believe they were making the
statement, "whatever you think is OK with me" or, "I don't care, pass the
(beer, drugs)" or "I'm just too plain lazy."


Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
inspire people to vote. I do not see how anyone could have been excited
by either Kerry or Bush II, as neither of them was honest with the
people (both ducked answering question by going off into spin with
distressing frequency) and both would primarily serve the interest of a
small corporate elite. The only real difference with on a few social
issues such as abortion, which neither party wants to outlaw [1]. Both
candidates were much more interested in political power, than
representing the interests of the common good.

Face it, the US has a broken democracy that needs significant reforms.
Hell, even votes can not be counted correctly (as evidence mounts of
incorrectly counted optically scanned votes in Florida and serious
disagreements with exit polls in Florida, Ohio, and other states).

[1] The Republicans need to keep abortion legal so they have it as a
campaign issue.

--
Tom Sherman

  #7  
Old November 7th 04, 06:27 PM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

psycholist wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Tom Kunich wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Less than one-third of the eligible voters chose Bush II. The real
winner, chosen by 40% of the eligible voters was "none of the above".


Good, then you DO have a citation to back up that preposterous claim?


Bush II received approximately one-half of the vote of the approximately
60% [1] of the eligible voters who voted. That is approximately 30% of the
eligible voters choosing Bush II, or less than one-third.

40% did not choose either Kerry or Bush II, thereby indicating their
preference for "none of the above".

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/.

--
Tom Sherman - Greater QCA



Your math is sound. Your conclusion, in my opinion, is not. You give those
folks who didn't vote too much credit. I don't believe they were making the
statement, "none of the above" at all. I believe they were making the
statement, "whatever you think is OK with me" or, "I don't care, pass the
(beer, drugs)" or "I'm just too plain lazy."


Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
inspire people to vote. I do not see how anyone could have been excited
by either Kerry or Bush II, as neither of them was honest with the
people (both ducked answering question by going off into spin with
distressing frequency) and both would primarily serve the interest of a
small corporate elite. The only real difference with on a few social
issues such as abortion, which neither party wants to outlaw [1]. Both
candidates were much more interested in political power, than
representing the interests of the common good.

Face it, the US has a broken democracy that needs significant reforms.
Hell, even votes can not be counted correctly (as evidence mounts of
incorrectly counted optically scanned votes in Florida and serious
disagreements with exit polls in Florida, Ohio, and other states).

[1] The Republicans need to keep abortion legal so they have it as a
campaign issue.

--
Tom Sherman

  #8  
Old November 7th 04, 06:50 PM
Rick Warner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:27:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
wrote:


incorrectly counted optically scanned votes in Florida and serious
disagreements with exit polls in Florida, Ohio, and other states).


My favorite at the moment is the precint in Ohio where less than 700
folks voted but W got something like 3600 votes. It was an outsider
scanning the results who noticed the inconsistency, which election
officials are calling an isolated malfunction of a single voting
machine. Hmmmmmm. Brings to mind the old saying 'vote early and
vote often'. Apparently so.

- rick
  #9  
Old November 7th 04, 06:50 PM
Rick Warner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:27:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
wrote:


incorrectly counted optically scanned votes in Florida and serious
disagreements with exit polls in Florida, Ohio, and other states).


My favorite at the moment is the precint in Ohio where less than 700
folks voted but W got something like 3600 votes. It was an outsider
scanning the results who noticed the inconsistency, which election
officials are calling an isolated malfunction of a single voting
machine. Hmmmmmm. Brings to mind the old saying 'vote early and
vote often'. Apparently so.

- rick
  #10  
Old November 7th 04, 08:10 PM
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"psycholist" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Less than one-third of the eligible voters chose Bush II. The real
winner, chosen by 40% of the eligible voters was "none of the above".


Good, then you DO have a citation to back up that preposterous claim?


Bush II received approximately one-half of the vote of the approximately
60% [1] of the eligible voters who voted. That is approximately 30% of

the
eligible voters choosing Bush II, or less than one-third.

40% did not choose either Kerry or Bush II, thereby indicating their
preference for "none of the above".

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/.

--
Tom Sherman - Greater QCA


Your math is sound. Your conclusion, in my opinion, is not. You give

those
folks who didn't vote too much credit. I don't believe they were making

the
statement, "none of the above" at all. I believe they were making the
statement, "whatever you think is OK with me" or, "I don't care, pass the
(beer, drugs)" or "I'm just too plain lazy."

Bob C.


Now YOU are giving them too much credit.

"Election? What that this month?"
"Did Hilary win? I Hope not."


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq Tom Kunich Rides 4 November 10th 04 05:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.