Odd interaction with a road rager



On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 01:02:09 -0700, "Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
>> few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
>> in 'Nam.
>
>It always amazes me how the left claims President Bush isn't "smart". Yet
>somehow he managed to rise to the position of - THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON
>EARTH.

There are always kingmakers, Raoul, always ;)
 
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 01:02:09 -0700, "Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
>> few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
>> in 'Nam.
>
>It always amazes me how the left claims President Bush isn't "smart". Yet
>somehow he managed to rise to the position of - THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON
>EARTH.

There are always kingmakers, Raoul, always ;)
 
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 01:39:02 -0700, "Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> The chimp is the figurehead for a small coterie of pretty nasty people.
>Not very
>> bright himself, he nonetheless had the talk to convince almost as many
>people to
>> vote for him as for his opponent.
>>
>> Of course, in a democracy he wouldn't be president, but c'est la vie.
>
>If Gore were so much smarter, how come he didn't pull it off?

Well, let me see.

He got more vote than the chimp.

He probably thought that the US was a democracy and that was all he needed.

Misguided faith in the democratic process of your country shouldn't really
indicate a lack of intelligence.


>And if you
>are so much smarter than Bush, how come YOU aren't President?

I've no interest in becoming a politician. That in and of itself says nothing
about the relatve intelligence of myself and the little chimp currently running
the whitehouse on behalf of Halliburton and the rest.
 
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 01:39:02 -0700, "Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> The chimp is the figurehead for a small coterie of pretty nasty people.
>Not very
>> bright himself, he nonetheless had the talk to convince almost as many
>people to
>> vote for him as for his opponent.
>>
>> Of course, in a democracy he wouldn't be president, but c'est la vie.
>
>If Gore were so much smarter, how come he didn't pull it off?

Well, let me see.

He got more vote than the chimp.

He probably thought that the US was a democracy and that was all he needed.

Misguided faith in the democratic process of your country shouldn't really
indicate a lack of intelligence.


>And if you
>are so much smarter than Bush, how come YOU aren't President?

I've no interest in becoming a politician. That in and of itself says nothing
about the relatve intelligence of myself and the little chimp currently running
the whitehouse on behalf of Halliburton and the rest.
 
Raoul Duke wrote:

> It always amazes me how the left claims President Bush isn't "smart".
> Yet somehow he managed to rise to the position of - THE MOST POWERFUL
> PERSON ON EARTH. Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing, and yet no
> one questions his intelligence.

Maybe the independent evidence of Clinton's smartness (e.g. Rhodes scholar
at Oxford) is more convincing that the independent evidence of Bush's
smartness.

Reagan was a smart man who managed to play the "ordinary Joe" card very
effectively. I think Shrub tries for the same thing but his issues with use
of the English language, for example, make it impossible for him to carry it
off.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
Raoul Duke wrote:

> It always amazes me how the left claims President Bush isn't "smart".
> Yet somehow he managed to rise to the position of - THE MOST POWERFUL
> PERSON ON EARTH. Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing, and yet no
> one questions his intelligence.

Maybe the independent evidence of Clinton's smartness (e.g. Rhodes scholar
at Oxford) is more convincing that the independent evidence of Bush's
smartness.

Reagan was a smart man who managed to play the "ordinary Joe" card very
effectively. I think Shrub tries for the same thing but his issues with use
of the English language, for example, make it impossible for him to carry it
off.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:16:15 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:54:45 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:44:05 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>*VERY* strange that if the chimp ever volunteered for service this is not common
>>>>knowledge, since it would go some way to placating those who think he spent the
>>>>time when he ought to have been in 'nam, in a funk hole back home.
>>>
>>> Funny, but I knew about Mr. Bush's request, as did my friends.
>>>It came up in 2000, but the Democrats did not push it since Bill
>>>Clinton spent the war studying in Europe. You need some better news
>>>sources.
>>
>>??? Why would the democrats push it.
>
> I was referring to the 2000 Democrat attack on Bush's military
>record, until the GOP began to bring up Clinton's dodging of the
>draft, and Gore's rear etchelon job he got through his daddy. Then the
>subject died down quickly since none of the three was any kind of
>warrior.

Fair enough.

Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his life
on the line in a war zone.
 
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:25:32 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 07:53:50 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>>>Well, he's been pulling the chimp's strings for the last four years ;)
>>>
>>> Funny stuff. These folks sometimes forget whether Bush is
>>>supposed to be an evil, crafty dictator, or a puppet. Call it a
>>>problem of not getting their talking points straight.
>>
>>Nobody said he was a dictator.
>
Alright then, *I* didn't say he was a dictator.

>A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
>
>We have crossed over into the first stage of a dictatorship when
>American citizens can no longer exercise their First Amendment rights
>in the presence of an unelected president who, by his own admission,
>prefers dictatorships to democracies.

They should learn to stop while they're ahead. If they had said:

>We have crossed over into the first stage of a dictatorship when
>American citizens can no longer exercise their First Amendment rights
>in the presence of the president

They would have been right on the money.

And, did you see what happened when he went to Britain?

Unlike any other president, republican or democrat, he had to be shielded from
the population because he is so universally reviled.

And yet they loved Regan, so it's not a left/right thing.

>>He damn nearly got elected!
>
> The Democrats love to say that since Bush got fewer popular
>votes, he lost the election.

You can't actually say he lost.

He won according to the rules.

Unfortunately the US is not a democracy, otherwise the candidate with the most
rules would get the job.

Let's hope that whoever wins this time, it's the person who gets the most votes.
 
Muttley wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:25:32 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>> The Democrats love to say that since Bush got fewer popular
>> votes, he lost the election.
>
> You can't actually say he lost.
>
> He won according to the rules.
>
> Unfortunately the US is not a democracy, otherwise the candidate with
> the most rules would get the job.

Assumed typo.

> Let's hope that whoever wins this time, it's the person who gets the
> most votes.

You know, it's quite possible that Bush could get more votes this time and
Kerry win the election (he's still ahead in electoral college polls,
right?). Now THAT could spur some fun bitterness!

Bill "free ticket to hate for four years?" S.
 
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:45:24 -0700, "Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> There are always kingmakers, Raoul, always ;)
>
>In this case the "kingmakers" happen to be the American people.

Yes, it's just a pity that more of American people wanted the Gore to be "king".

Still, as I said, c'est la vie!
 
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:53:19 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:


>You know, it's quite possible that Bush could get more votes this time and
>Kerry win the election (he's still ahead in electoral college polls,
>right?). Now THAT could spur some fun bitterness!

Oh, God help us, *don't* say that :(

The jibe about the US not being a democracy is just that, a jibe. A lot of so
called democracies could quite easily get themselves into a situation where the
person who got elected to the top job got less votes than another candidate.

It's an unfortunate result of the people who set the rules not trusting the
electorate.

It's just unfortunately very visible with the US system.

And, of course, what made it 10 times worse was that a lot of the problems were
in a state controlled by Bush's brother, where the officials responsible for the
election were demonstrably not professionaly disinterested.
 
Muttley wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:53:19 GMT, "S o r n i"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> You know, it's quite possible that Bush could get more votes this
>> time and Kerry win the election (he's still ahead in electoral
>> college polls, right?). Now THAT could spur some fun bitterness!
>
> Oh, God help us, *don't* say that :(
>
> The jibe about the US not being a democracy is just that, a jibe. A
> lot of so called democracies could quite easily get themselves into a
> situation where the person who got elected to the top job got less
> votes than another candidate.
>
> It's an unfortunate result of the people who set the rules not
> trusting the electorate.

Not sure it's that, but a flat out popular vote would be fine with me.

> It's just unfortunately very visible with the US system.
>
> And, of course, what made it 10 times worse was that a lot of the
> problems were in a state controlled by Bush's brother, where the
> officials responsible for the election were demonstrably not
> professionaly disinterested.

Weren't most of the elections officials in FL Democrats (INCLUDING the
person who designed the ballot)?!?

Bill "the whole world was watching" S.
 
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:54:49 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley) wrote:

>Yes, it's just a pity that more of American people wanted the Gore to be "king".

When some networks announced (incorrectly as it turned out) that Gore
had won Florida and that the election would go to Gore, several areas
still open - including the Florida panhandle - experienced lower than
expected turnout from Republican voters. The effect evidently is that
when there is a winner announced, the supporters of the winner
continue to show up to vote to be part of the bandwagon, while the
supporters of the loser vote in far smaller numbers.

The difference in expected turnout in the Florida panhandle alone
could have made both the close vote in Florida and the total voters
much different. The result of the miscalled results for Gore could
easily created the situation that so fixates the Democrats to this
day.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:03:44 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley) wrote:

>It's an unfortunate result of the people who set the rules not trusting the
>electorate.
>
>It's just unfortunately very visible with the US system.

More accurately, it is the result of the small states not trusting the
large ones. Pretty much an extension of the same rules that made the
Senate and the House, albeit later. Better than by the state
legislatures, which was the equivalent of a triple refined voting
system (relevant small subset of the population voting on members of
the 'ruling aristocracy' who then vote for the
President/Vice-President).

Its just too bad they got rid of the original rules that would permit
the President from one party and the Vice-President from another. That
would be fun today...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:31:09 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:54:49 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley) wrote:
>
>>Yes, it's just a pity that more of American people wanted the Gore to be "king".
>
>When some networks announced (incorrectly as it turned out) that Gore
>had won Florida and that the election would go to Gore, several areas
>still open - including the Florida panhandle - experienced lower than
>expected turnout from Republican voters. The effect evidently is that
>when there is a winner announced, the supporters of the winner
>continue to show up to vote to be part of the bandwagon, while the
>supporters of the loser vote in far smaller numbers.
>
>The difference in expected turnout in the Florida panhandle alone
>could have made both the close vote in Florida and the total voters
>much different. The result of the miscalled results for Gore could
>easily created the situation that so fixates the Democrats to this
>day.

You could play what ifs all day long.


End of the day?

Gore got more votes than Bush and the US does not have a democratically elected
president.
 
"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his
life
> on the line in a war zone.

2/3 of the 9 million+ active duty force during the Vietnam era never saw
service in SEA.

And your dates of service were/are?

Pete
 
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:47:26 GMT, "Pete" <ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com>
wrote:

>> Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his
>> life on the line in a war zone.
>
>2/3 of the 9 million+ active duty force during the Vietnam era never saw
>service in SEA.

Fortunately it's documented that Kerry did, and saw action, and was decorated.

Bush stayed home.
 
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour

Are you saying that Kerry is bilingual? As opposed to Dubya who has
not even mastered English yet? ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:34:39 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:37:46 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>> I was referring to the 2000 Democrat attack on Bush's military
>>>record, until the GOP began to bring up Clinton's dodging of the
>>>draft, and Gore's rear etchelon job he got through his daddy. Then the
>>>subject died down quickly since none of the three was any kind of
>>>warrior.
>>
>>Fair enough.
>>
>>Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his life
>>on the line in a war zone.
>
> Which the president has acknowledged repeatedly.

Congratulations.

See, once you stop trying to worm your way out of the facts, it will all go
away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back