Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ylojceq

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Tom Sherman, Nov 7, 2004.

  1. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    > You blithering idiots! You re-elected that imbecile George Bush as your President.
    > He? a complete moron and so are most of you!
    > -
    > Don? you care what the rest of the world thinks of you? Don? you care what impact
    > American foreign policy has on the rest of the planet? Does Iraq look like a success
    > to anyone? Doesn? it bother you that he? alienated every friend you have?
    > What were you thinking???
    > -
    > Prior to this, it was American policy and the American government that was so universally
    > hated around the world. Now it's going to be 'Americans' we hate. More sympathy
    > for Bin Laden... More attacks on American institutions... More isolation. How blind
    > can you dumb rednecks in middle-America be, not to see this?
    > -
    > If you get hit again, or your economy goes into a deep depression, the American
    > people will be getting exactly what they deserve!
    > -
    > <back turned>


    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".

    --
    Tom Sherman – Greater QCA
     
    Tags:


  2. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [email protected] 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?
     
  3. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Tom Kunich wrote:

    > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>[email protected] 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. psycholist

    psycholist Guest

    "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    >> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>[email protected] 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. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    psycholist wrote:

    > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Tom Kunich wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>[email protected] 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
     
  6. Rick Warner

    Rick Warner Guest

    On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:27:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
    <[email protected]> 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
     
  7. Chris

    Chris Guest

    "psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Tom Kunich wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >>>[email protected] 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."
     
  8. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On 11/7/04 8:12 AM, in article [email protected], "Tom Sherman"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    >> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>> Victim[email protected] 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/>.


    You made an EXPLICIT statement with no proof to back it up.
    This logical conclusion of yours is IMPLICIT and is based more on apathy for
    politics, indifference or even laziness!

    There was no "write-in" choice for None of the above.....
     
  9. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    >> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>[email protected] 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/>.


    Not voting does not mean a vote against Bush. I know that this is really
    hard for the extremists to understand, but Bush wasn't only voted in on one
    of the most important Presidential elections in half a century, but the
    Republicans extended their leads in the Senate, the House, many state
    legislatures and governorships. He will probably replace three or four
    Supreme Court Justices which will hopefully end the idea that the Supreme
    Court should be ruling this land rather than the elected officials as the
    founders chose.

    The Democratic Party has become so obviously a party of radical Liberal
    extremists instead of the "Party of the people" it was when Kennedy cheated
    his way into the Presidency that unless moderate Democrats take the party
    back they are doomed to become less than one third of the Congress come the
    next election cycle.

    Here's a suggestion - if you maintain that people like Kerry, Edwards and
    Dean should represent the whacko left this country will be getting in some
    pretty serious trouble with a one party system in place of the two party
    system envisioned by people more worthy of consideration than you.
     
  10. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
    > inspire people to vote.


    I guess that's why this was the biggest turnout in election history.
     
  11. Paul Cassel

    Paul Cassel Guest

    Tom Sherman 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".
    >


    Damn sight better than corrupt clinton got.
     
  12. Tom Sherman wrote:

    >Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>[email protected] wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    "..... absolutely nothing at all to do with bicycles, yet cross posted
    to every bicylcing group."

    Who are all *you* bliterhing idiots?

    Take it somewhere else!

    --
    *****************************
    Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
    http://www.CycleTourist.com
    Integrity is obvious.
    The lack of it is common.
    *****************************
     
  13. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Tom Kunich wrote:

    > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
    >>inspire people to vote.

    >
    >
    > I guess that's why this was the biggest turnout in election history.


    In US election history for total numbers of voters, yes.

    Many recent elections in other countries have had voter turnouts of
    better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004 US election to shame.

    --
    Tom Sherman
     
  14. DT

    DT Guest

    MESSAGE BLOCK SENDER

    "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > > You blithering idiots! You re-elected that imbecile George Bush as your

    President.
    > > He? a complete moron and so are most of you!
    > > -
    > > Don? you care what the rest of the world thinks of you? Don? you care

    what impact
    > > American foreign policy has on the rest of the planet? Does Iraq look

    like a success
    > > to anyone? Doesn? it bother you that he? alienated every friend you

    have?
    > > What were you thinking???
    > > -
    > > Prior to this, it was American policy and the American government that

    was so universally
    > > hated around the world. Now it's going to be 'Americans' we hate. More

    sympathy
    > > for Bin Laden... More attacks on American institutions... More

    isolation. How blind
    > > can you dumb rednecks in middle-America be, not to see this?
    > > -
    > > If you get hit again, or your economy goes into a deep depression, the

    American
    > > people will be getting exactly what they deserve!
    > > -
    > > <back turned>

    >
    > 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".
    >
    > --
    > Tom Sherman - Greater QCA
    >



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/04
     
  15. Chuck Davis

    Chuck Davis Guest

    "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >.....
    > Many recent elections in other countries have had voter turnouts of better
    > than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004 US election to shame.


    You got that right. In 2002, 100% of eligible voters went to the polls in
    Iraq and re-elected Saddam Hussein.

    Chuck Davis
     
  16. Dan

    Dan Guest

    "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote

    > > You blithering idiots!

    Tom! I have read that half of all Americans are below average intelligence!
    Wow! you hit that nail on the head! But it makes us happy to have you here
    blithering with us!

    > > He? a complete moron and so are most of you!

    Well, about half of us are part moron anyway! I had to look up moron: "A
    person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years
    and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of
    academic or vocational education." Well, at least we got them comunication
    skills so's we can read this stuff on an internet.

    > > Now it's going to be 'Americans' we hate.

    Now thats a lotta people to hate. Did you know there are 179,383,500 people
    in Brazil alone!?

    > > can you dumb rednecks in middle-America be, not to see this?

    You may be in the wrong place here. Any count on how many dumb rednecks read
    rec.bicycle?
     
  17. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Chuck Davis wrote:

    > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>.....
    >>Many recent elections in other countries have had voter turnouts of better
    >>than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004 US election to shame.

    >
    >
    > You got that right. In 2002, 100% of eligible voters went to the polls in
    > Iraq and re-elected Saddam Hussein.


    Don't be stupid.

    Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
    Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
    <http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf>.

    --
    Tom Sherman
     
  18. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Dan who? wrote:

    > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> DID NOT write
    >
    >
    >>>You blithering idiots!

    >
    > Tom! I have read that half of all Americans are below average intelligence!
    > Wow! you hit that nail on the head! But it makes us happy to have you here
    > blithering with us!
    >
    >
    >>>He? a complete moron and so are most of you!

    >
    > Well, about half of us are part moron anyway! I had to look up moron: "A
    > person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years
    > and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of
    > academic or vocational education." Well, at least we got them comunication
    > skills so's we can read this stuff on an internet.
    >
    >
    >>>Now it's going to be 'Americans' we hate.

    >
    > Now thats a lotta people to hate. Did you know there are 179,383,500 people
    > in Brazil alone!?
    >
    >
    >>>can you dumb rednecks in middle-America be, not to see this?

    >
    > You may be in the wrong place here. Any count on how many dumb rednecks read
    > rec.bicycle?


    You are not very clever in trying to make it look like I wrote something
    that I did not. If nothing else the double layer quotation indicators
    give it away, not to mention the previous postings in the thread.

    No one is impressed. A good thing you did not sign your full name to it.

    --
    Tom Sherman
     
  19. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    says...

    ....

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


    Whose exit polls? The early ones published on the internet? Exit polls
    are known to have problems trying to predict the winners because those
    who choose to answer the questions are self-selected, and over-represent
    voters who tend to vote for the Democratic party. Nobody seems to know
    why, but Republicans tend to be less willing to participate in exit
    polls.

    ....

    --
    Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
    newsgroups if possible).
     
  20. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
    > > inspire people to vote.

    >
    > I guess that's why this was the biggest turnout in election history.


    In RECENT history maybe; IIRC, it beat '68, but not '60.

    --
    Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
    newsgroups if possible).
     
Loading...
Loading...