Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

94% Believe Bush is a Liar

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:15:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

The 6% are so dumb it's amazing.

Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with
Iraq? * 35123 responses

Yes
94%

No
6%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey

More about : bush liar

Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:15:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

Looks like the unemployed anti-Bushies have nothing better to do than
stack the voting in unscientific surveys as if doing so would actually
mean something. Of course, these same kinda folks hated Reagan just as
much back in the 80s -- and he turned out to be one of the most revered
presidents ever.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:15:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

Hi "U Are With Us Or Against Us".


STILL a partisan, liEberal-biased, propaganda-spewing ANONYMOUS pussy,
eh?
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:15:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

>Too bad it's MSNBC, which has a pretty >conservative bent itself.

Umm, NBC is certainly no conservative bastion. It's as liberal as CBS.
Besides, this kind of thing has happened before. Liberals have flooded
their unscientific surveys in a laughable hope that somehow they can
trick people into believing that the tide is turning. Unfortunately for
them, when it really counts and people actually go to the polls, their
ideas are roundly rebuked.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:35:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Freedom Fries" <bushwasresponsible@911.com> wrote in message
news:42b37594_2@x-privat.org...
> The 6% are so dumb it's amazing.
>
> Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with
> Iraq? * 35123 responses
>
> Yes
> 94%
>
> No
> 6%
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey

You left out this:

Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/

Not to mention that PMSNBC is far more popular among liberals than
conservatives and no effort was made to ensure a proper cross section of
poll takers.

And of course the missing follow up question: Do you care?

LG
--
To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the
affection of children...to leave the world a better place...to know even one
life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have
succeeded. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 2:37:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

In article <1119058527.389036.19200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
trijcomm (trijcomm@yahoo.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...

> Looks like the unemployed anti-Bushies have nothing better to do than
> stack the voting in unscientific surveys as if doing so would actually
> mean something. Of course, these same kinda folks hated Reagan just as
> much back in the 80s -- and he turned out to be one of the most revered
> presidents ever.
>

Too bad it's MSNBC, which has a pretty conservative bent itself.

--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:14:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

In article <1119066824.399427.210440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
trijcomm (trijcomm@yahoo.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...

> >Too bad it's MSNBC, which has a pretty >conservative bent itself.
>
> Umm, NBC is certainly no conservative bastion.

No but we're talking about its spin-off station MSNBC, which is a
different station altogether.

> It's as liberal as CBS.
> Besides, this kind of thing has happened before. Liberals have flooded
> their unscientific surveys in a laughable hope that somehow they can
> trick people into believing that the tide is turning. Unfortunately for
> them, when it really counts and people actually go to the polls, their
> ideas are roundly rebuked.
>
>

Except that we're not talking about broadcast TV, we're talking about a
cable station that doesn't have anything in common with it's parent
company. NBC doesn't dictate MSNBC programming, to my knowledge.


--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:15:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"trijcomm" <trijcomm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately for them, when it really counts and people
> actually go to the polls, their ideas are roundly rebuked.

51-48% national popular vote and an electoral college hinging on a
single state constitutes a "round rebuking"?

-Poot
....why do I bother
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 11:31:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:35:11 -0400, Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!
wrote:

>
> "Freedom Fries" <bushwasresponsible@911.com> wrote in message
> news:42b37594_2@x-privat.org...
>> The 6% are so dumb it's amazing.
>>
>> Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with
>> Iraq? * 35123 responses
>>
>> Yes
>> 94%
>>
>> No
>> 6%
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey
>
> You left out this:
>
> Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/
>
> Not to mention that PMSNBC is far more popular among liberals than
> conservatives and no effort was made to ensure a proper cross section of
> poll takers.

I'm betting that this poll was snapped up by someone on Democratic
Underground. They have a history of acting like ignorant jackoffs and
stacking polls in their favor, then losing their asses off in national
elections.

GregoryD
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 12:03:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

trijcomm wrote:
>>Too bad it's MSNBC, which has a pretty >conservative bent itself.
>
>
> Umm, NBC is certainly no conservative bastion.

Yer nuts.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:26:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

I had just copied that and was ready to post it.

Bravo.


"Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!" <lordgow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11b6uiilv7r6786@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Freedom Fries" <bushwasresponsible@911.com> wrote in message
> news:42b37594_2@x-privat.org...
>> The 6% are so dumb it's amazing.
>>
>> Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war
>> with
>> Iraq? * 35123 responses
>>
>> Yes
>> 94%
>>
>> No
>> 6%
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey
>
> You left out this:
>
> Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/
>
> Not to mention that PMSNBC is far more popular among liberals than
> conservatives and no effort was made to ensure a proper cross section of
> poll takers.
>
> And of course the missing follow up question: Do you care?
>
> LG
> --
> To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the
> affection of children...to leave the world a better place...to know even
> one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have
> succeeded. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:53:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:15:42 -0400, "Freedom Fries"
<bushwasresponsible@911.com> wrote:
>The 6% are so dumb it's amazing.
>
> Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with
>Iraq? * 35123 responses
>
> Yes
>94%
>
>No
>6%
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey
>

MSNBC = Newsweek = Blatant Liberal Bias. Only a moron would believe
the accuracy of their polls.

Further adding to your stupidity, "misled" does not equal "lie".
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:05:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!" <lordgow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11b6uiilv7r6786@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
>
That is true.

> Not to mention that PMSNBC is far more popular among liberals than
> conservatives and no effort was made to ensure a proper cross section of
> poll takers.
>

That may be true, I wouldn't doubt it.


> And of course the missing follow up question: Do you care?
>

About the poll or the question the poll asked?

The poll itself may be an exaggerated version of what a real poll would look
like today, but it would still reflect recent trends. Bush's job approval
numbers have hit rock bottom, and pessimism about the "war" is growing even
within staunch Republican ranks. It's not possible to avoid reality any
more. Over two years later and things are worse, not better, and
anti-American hatred is up, not down, and Iraq never had anything to do with
the 9/11 fiasco or any other credible threat to America.

Not only that, but aren't you just a LITTLE sick of our open border with
Mexico while our military is getting beat up for virtually nothing ten
thousand miles away? What the hell is wrong with our brains when we don't
recognize a true threat, and go marching off to deal with a phony threat
half way around the world? We've been so badly misled by lies and
propaganda that we can't even recognize a real threat from a phony one any
more.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:45:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Poot Rootbeer" <poot@dork.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967929355A1Apootrootbeer@216.196.97.136...
> "trijcomm" <trijcomm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately for them, when it really counts and people
>> actually go to the polls, their ideas are roundly rebuked.
>
> 51-48% national popular vote and an electoral college hinging on a
> single state constitutes a "round rebuking"?

How many consecutive election losses must be suffered by the Democrat party
before they internalize the message the electorate is sending?

And yes, 51-48 and being out of power at EVERY level - House, Senate,
Executive, Statehouses, Governorships. Just by blind luck the Democrats
should win an election at some point. Of course, when that happens, it will
be immediately hailed as a validation of the same principles that got them
run out of office in the first place...

Venger
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:53:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:15:42 -0400, "Freedom Fries"
<bushwasresponsible@911.com> wrote:

>The 6% are so dumb it's amazing.
>
> Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with
>Iraq? * 35123 responses

Not noting the fact that this is an Internet poll, the question is
whether or not Bush misled us in going to war, not if that
misconception was deliberate. The idea that Bush misled us is pretty
obvious; otherwise he wouldn't have used the old bait-and-switch by
changing from talking mainly about WMDs to talking mainly about Iraqi
freedom when we couldn't find WMDs there. (Oh, and then there was
that part where the adminstration said that Iraq was linked to 9/11,
but did it in such a way as to disavow it later.) As to whether he
knowingly lied, I don't know. I think there's a pretty good chance
that Bush jumped onto the idea of WMDs in Iraq, hoping that it really
was true.

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 6:02:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On 17 Jun 2005 18:35:27 -0700, "trijcomm" <trijcomm@yahoo.com> wrote:

>mean something. Of course, these same kinda folks hated Reagan just as
>much back in the 80s -- and he turned out to be one of the most revered
>presidents ever.

One of the most overrated Presidents, too.

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 6:42:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> 51-48% national popular vote and an electoral college hinging on
>> a single state constitutes a "round rebuking"?
>
> How many consecutive election losses must be suffered by the
> Democrat party before they internalize the message the electorate
> is sending?

The message is "about half of us agree with your platform", twit.

-Poot
June 18, 2005 11:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

GregoryD wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:35:11 -0400, Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Freedom Fries" <bushwasresponsible@911.com> wrote in message
>>news:42b37594_2@x-privat.org...
>>
>>>The 6% are so dumb it's amazing.
>>>
>>>Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with
>>>Iraq? * 35123 responses
>>>
>>>Yes
>>>94%
>>>
>>>No
>>>6%
>>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey
>>
>>You left out this:
>>
>>Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
>>
>>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/
>>
>>Not to mention that PMSNBC is far more popular among liberals than
>>conservatives and no effort was made to ensure a proper cross section of
>>poll takers.
>
>
> I'm betting that this poll was snapped up by someone on Democratic
> Underground. They have a history of acting like ignorant jackoffs and
> stacking polls in their favor, then losing their asses off in national
> elections.


It's called freeping a poll.

And guess where the term "freeping" came from?

The extreme rightwing conservative FreeRepublic.com web site.

They're famous for freeping polls.

On any given day, there's a dozen or more calls to freep on-line polls
from their members.


--
"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944
June 18, 2005 11:04:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

GregoryD wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:35:11 -0400, Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Freedom Fries" <bushwasresponsible@911.com> wrote in message
>>news:42b37594_2@x-privat.org...
>>
>>>The 6% are so dumb it's amazing.
>>>
>>>Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with
>>>Iraq? * 35123 responses
>>>
>>>Yes
>>>94%
>>>
>>>No
>>>6%
>>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey
>>
>>You left out this:
>>
>>Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
>>
>>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/
>>
>>Not to mention that PMSNBC is far more popular among liberals than
>>conservatives and no effort was made to ensure a proper cross section of
>>poll takers.
>
>
> I'm betting that this poll was snapped up by someone on Democratic
> Underground. They have a history of acting like ignorant jackoffs and
> stacking polls in their favor, then losing their asses off in national
> elections.


Oh, and as a paying member of DU, I can say with complete knowledge,
freeping of polls isn't done anywhere near the frequency as
freerepublic.com, and is discouraged at DU while encouraged at FR.



--
"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 11:14:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

In article <pan.2005.06.18.12.31.07.186449@hotmail.com>, GregoryD
(hagar@hotmail.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:35:11 -0400, Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Freedom Fries" <bushwasresponsible@911.com> wrote in message
> > news:42b37594_2@x-privat.org...
> >> The 6% are so dumb it's amazing.
> >>
> >> Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with
> >> Iraq? * 35123 responses
> >>
> >> Yes
> >> 94%
> >>
> >> No
> >> 6%
> >>
> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey
> >
> > You left out this:
> >
> > Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
> >
> > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/
> >
> > Not to mention that PMSNBC is far more popular among liberals than
> > conservatives and no effort was made to ensure a proper cross section of
> > poll takers.
>
> I'm betting that this poll was snapped up by someone on Democratic
> Underground. They have a history of acting like ignorant jackoffs and
> stacking polls in their favor, then losing their asses off in national
> elections.
>
> GregoryD
>


11000 votes later, it's the same percentage.

--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 3:05:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

Rob Browning opined:

>I think there's a pretty good chance
>that Bush jumped onto the idea of WMDs in Iraq, hoping that it really
>was true.

I think there's a much better chance that Dubya entered office looking
for an excuse, ANY excuse, to invade Iraq and take out Saddam, and that
he cynically manipulated the post-9/11 hysteria to do exactly that...

I also think that the recent wave of memos from Britain, starting with
the infamous "Downing Street Memo", paints exactly that picture...
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 6:17:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On 18 Jun 2005 23:05:07 -0700, bearlair@shentel.net wrote:

>Rob Browning opined:
>
>>I think there's a pretty good chance
>>that Bush jumped onto the idea of WMDs in Iraq, hoping that it really
>>was true.
>
>I think there's a much better chance that Dubya entered office looking
>for an excuse, ANY excuse, to invade Iraq and take out Saddam, and that
>he cynically manipulated the post-9/11 hysteria to do exactly that...

Well, yeah. That doesn't disagree with what I said at all.

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"
June 19, 2005 10:12:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

bearlair@shentel.net wrote:
> Rob Browning opined:
>
>
>>I think there's a pretty good chance
>>that Bush jumped onto the idea of WMDs in Iraq, hoping that it really
>>was true.
>
>
> I think there's a much better chance that Dubya entered office looking
> for an excuse, ANY excuse, to invade Iraq and take out Saddam, and that
> he cynically manipulated the post-9/11 hysteria to do exactly that...
>
> I also think that the recent wave of memos from Britain, starting with
> the infamous "Downing Street Memo", paints exactly that picture...


Paul O'Neill and Larry Lindsey, two of Bush's original cabinet members,
have both said Bush was talking about overthrowing Saddam the second he
walked into the White House on January 21, 2001.


--
"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 1:00:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote:

> As long as it isn't the pop-up book you've been reading, because
> the majority of elections are within a 5 point swing, dipshit.

I still don't see how this supports your argument that the
electorate has rejected wholesale the message of the Democratic
Party.

Oh, right, it doesn't.

> Don't flatter yourself, the attention buttholes like you get isn't
> obsession, it's pitied reproach.

Whatever. Either way, you still dance for me.

-Poot
June 20, 2005 6:17:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:57:39 GMT, T_Hull <XXXthull1@columbus.rr.com>
wrote:


>hehe, especially when 51% of the voting populace proved they were idiots
>minipulated by a moron on 10/2/05...

Priceless. This was written on 5/19/05.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:21:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Poot Rootbeer" <poot@dork.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967ADFE4F6A2Bpootrootbeer@216.196.97.136...
> "Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As long as it isn't the pop-up book you've been reading, because
>> the majority of elections are within a 5 point swing, dipshit.
>
> I still don't see how this supports your argument that the
> electorate has rejected wholesale the message of the Democratic
> Party.

That wasn't the argument, assgasket. Let me REQUOTE my post for you:

"How many consecutive election losses must be suffered by the Democrat party
before they internalize the message the electorate is sending?

And yes, 51-48 and being out of power at EVERY level - House, Senate,
Executive, Statehouses, Governorships. Just by blind luck the Democrats
should win an election at some point. Of course, when that happens, it will
be immediately hailed as a validation of the same principles that got them
run out of office in the first place..."

Now, internalize this into that vaccuous cavern above your neck - the
Democrat party is out of power at EVERY level. They don't control the House,
the Senate, the White House, the state houses, the Governor's mansions. Just
WHAT has to be done for you leftist retards to figure out that you are
electorally IRRELEVANT anymore? The nutty fringists who create an
alt.impeach.bush group are the reason your party isn't competitive
nationally. People are voting in the elections, and with their feet. People
are leaving the blue states, and moving to the red states.

Your party is fundamentally BROKEN. People like Harmon, Lieberman, Ford,
Bayh, etc., are the only ones who have a connection to reason, and they are
pariah's in the party. Perhaps the nuts will get so desperate for a victory
they'll support one of them - but it's doubtful.

> Oh, right, it doesn't.

What color is the sky on your planet? How long do election trends need to
bury the Democrat party for you guys to figure this out? DITCH the militant
fringe left, embrace a moderate and pragmatic approach to the center, and
try and regain viability. This means ditching those who want slavery
reparations, abortion on demand, all the fringe nuts need to go. You'll lose
their votes, but regain the trust of middle America, and with that,
viability.

There is a reason the only viable Democrat nominees for 2008 were all and
are all pro-Iraq War.

>> Don't flatter yourself, the attention buttholes like you get isn't
>> obsession, it's pitied reproach.
>
> Whatever. Either way, you still dance for me.

I've got a receipt for you around here somewhere...

Venger
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:21:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote:
> "How many consecutive election losses must be suffered by the
> Democrat party before they internalize the message the electorate
> is sending?
>
> And yes, 51-48 and being out of power at EVERY level - House,
> Senate, Executive, Statehouses, Governorships. Just by blind luck
> the Democrats should win an election at some point. Of course,
> when that happens, it will be immediately hailed as a validation
> of the same principles that got them run out of office in the
> first place..."
>
> Now, internalize this into that vaccuous cavern above your neck -
> the Democrat party is out of power at EVERY level. They don't
> control the House, the Senate, the White House, the state houses,
> the Governor's mansions. Just WHAT has to be done for you leftist
> retards to figure out that you are electorally IRRELEVANT anymore?

My god are you a stupid stupid man. Do you understand that the
difference between "the Democratic Party's message is rejected
wholesale" and "the Democrat party is electrorally IRRELEVANT" is
minor and semantic at best?

> I've got a receipt for you around here somewhere...

Oh, how clever, you're saying you "own" me. What's your next play
from the Generic Troll Playbook? Maybe you'll challenge me to a
real-life fistfight? Maybe you'll threaten to report me to my ISP?
Maybe you'll flame me for a spelling mistaek?

Whatever it is, I'm looking forward to it!

-Poot
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 4:58:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

JustForFun wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:57:39 GMT, T_Hull <XXXthull1@columbus.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> hehe, especially when 51% of the voting populace proved they were
>> idiots minipulated by a moron on 10/2/05...
>
> Priceless. This was written on 5/19/05.

You got the point though. He just made a typo, everything else he said was
true.

Ryan
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 6:17:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Poot Rootbeer" <poot@dork.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967B906EE7CBpootrootbeer@216.196.97.136...
> "Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> "How many consecutive election losses must be suffered by the
>> Democrat party before they internalize the message the electorate
>> is sending?
>>
>> And yes, 51-48 and being out of power at EVERY level - House,
>> Senate, Executive, Statehouses, Governorships. Just by blind luck
>> the Democrats should win an election at some point. Of course,
>> when that happens, it will be immediately hailed as a validation
>> of the same principles that got them run out of office in the
>> first place..."
>>
>> Now, internalize this into that vaccuous cavern above your neck -
>> the Democrat party is out of power at EVERY level. They don't
>> control the House, the Senate, the White House, the state houses,
>> the Governor's mansions. Just WHAT has to be done for you leftist
>> retards to figure out that you are electorally IRRELEVANT anymore?
>
> My god are you a stupid stupid man. Do you understand that the
> difference between "the Democratic Party's message is rejected
> wholesale" and "the Democrat party is electrorally IRRELEVANT" is
> minor and semantic at best?

Jesus Joseph and Mary... YES, they are the same observation, and since I
made both of them, you can be assured I am aware of their meaning. The key
to the requote is to show you the BASIS for those statements - you are out
of power at every level of government, have a notable history of elections
losses, and despite record motivation and financing, you still got buried by
3 points last November. Do you understand now? Your party is a foundered
wreck. If you want off the rocks, you gotta dump some rotten cargo...

>> I've got a receipt for you around here somewhere...
>
> Oh, how clever, you're saying you "own" me.

"Whatever. Either way, you still dance for me."

Clever appears to be contagious.

> What's your next play from the Generic Troll Playbook?

It would be my first, chum.

> Maybe you'll challenge me to a real-life fistfight?

Why add to your verbal beating?

> Maybe you'll threaten to report me to my ISP?

Being stupid isn't a TOS violation.

> Maybe you'll flame me for a spelling mistaek?

Sorry, I write extemporaneously and as a result have numerous typos and
homophones all over my posts, you won't catch me correcting spelling (though
if some grammar busybody makes it a point to appear, I will analyze their
post for the delicious irony of it).

Oh, and if someone types loosing instead of losing, I have to point that
out... pet peeve.

> Whatever it is, I'm looking forward to it!

You should spend less time worrying about what I might write and more time
examining what I wrote.

Venger
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 7:07:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:17:15 GMT, "Venger" <venger@augustmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Poot Rootbeer" <poot@dork.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns967B906EE7CBpootrootbeer@216.196.97.136...

>> My god are you a stupid stupid man. Do you understand that the
>> difference between "the Democratic Party's message is rejected
>> wholesale" and "the Democrat party is electrorally IRRELEVANT" is
>> minor and semantic at best?
>
>Jesus Joseph and Mary... YES, they are the same observation, and since I
>made both of them, you can be assured I am aware of their meaning. The key
>to the requote is to show you the BASIS for those statements - you are out
>of power at every level of government, have a notable history of elections
>losses, and despite record motivation and financing, you still got buried by
>3 points last November. Do you understand now? Your party is a foundered

If the Democrats' message was rejected wholesale, then why did half of
the country who bothered to vote vote for them? And we don't know how
many people would've voted for them if they voted. You do know what
"wholesale" means, don't you?

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"
June 20, 2005 7:38:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:58:22 -0400, "DarkSheer"
<rdettl@_____dundee.net> wrote:

>JustForFun wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:57:39 GMT, T_Hull <XXXthull1@columbus.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> hehe, especially when 51% of the voting populace proved they were
>>> idiots minipulated by a moron on 10/2/05...
>>
>> Priceless. This was written on 5/19/05.
>
>You got the point though. He just made a typo, everything else he said was
>true.

The only point is the irony of a "typo" in a post calling others
"idiots" and "morons". If you're going to challenge the intelligence
of others, you better make sure your text doing so is squeaky clean.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:34:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"DarkSheer" <rdettl@_____dundee.net> wrote in message
news:ZO2dnQ-LQsA3aCvfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
> JustForFun wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:57:39 GMT, T_Hull <XXXthull1@columbus.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> hehe, especially when 51% of the voting populace proved they were
>>> idiots minipulated by a moron on 10/2/05...
>>
>> Priceless. This was written on 5/19/05.
>
> You got the point though. He just made a typo, everything else he said
> was true.
>
> Ryan

You evidently didn't get the point. Him calling someone else a moron would
be like telling someone they're not "intellijent"

Rod
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 9:52:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

JustForFun wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:58:22 -0400, "DarkSheer"
> <rdettl@_____dundee.net> wrote:
>
>> JustForFun wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:57:39 GMT, T_Hull <XXXthull1@columbus.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> hehe, especially when 51% of the voting populace proved they were
>>>> idiots minipulated by a moron on 10/2/05...
>>>
>>> Priceless. This was written on 5/19/05.
>>
>> You got the point though. He just made a typo, everything else he
>> said was true.
>
> The only point is the irony of a "typo" in a post calling others
> "idiots" and "morons". If you're going to challenge the intelligence
> of others, you better make sure your text doing so is squeaky clean.

Why, brain power isn't measured in typos. They say einstein couldn't spell
worth a damn, and made plenty of mistakes when writing.

Ryan
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 9:52:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

Rodney Parker wrote:
> "DarkSheer" <rdettl@_____dundee.net> wrote in message
> news:ZO2dnQ-LQsA3aCvfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>> JustForFun wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:57:39 GMT, T_Hull <XXXthull1@columbus.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> hehe, especially when 51% of the voting populace proved they were
>>>> idiots minipulated by a moron on 10/2/05...
>>>
>>> Priceless. This was written on 5/19/05.
>>
>> You got the point though. He just made a typo, everything else he
>> said was true.
>>
>> Ryan
>
> You evidently didn't get the point. Him calling someone else a moron
> would be like telling someone they're not "intellijent"
>
> Rod

Ofcourse I did, but it's a stupid point.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:23:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6r4eb1lnka1hlih86vjel6qhops2fml2dl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:17:15 GMT, "Venger" <venger@augustmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Jesus Joseph and Mary... YES, they are the same observation, and since I
>>made both of them, you can be assured I am aware of their meaning. The key
>>to the requote is to show you the BASIS for those statements - you are out
>>of power at every level of government, have a notable history of elections
>>losses, and despite record motivation and financing, you still got buried
>>by
>>3 points last November. Do you understand now? Your party is a foundered
>
> If the Democrats' message was rejected wholesale, then why did half of
> the country who bothered to vote vote for them?

What is the point of this non-sequitur? The less than half that voted for
them obviously bought into what they are peddling. However, more than half
did not, and they aren't buying it locally, in their state politics, or in
their national politics, from their representatives in their districts to
at-large Senators to the Executive. One cannot examine the Democrat party
from a macroscopic level and conclude other than it is a party in disarrayed
regression.

> And we don't know how
> many people would've voted for them if they voted. You do know what
> "wholesale" means, don't you?

Uh, yeah, extensive, broad or quantitatively large. Being out of power
everywhere is broad and extensive, the sum total of your rejection
quantitatively large. Is your argument that the Democrats are just so close
to being the party in power across the board? Because that fella is
whistling past the graveyard...

Venger
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:23:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:yBFte.231$Lj2.203@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6r4eb1lnka1hlih86vjel6qhops2fml2dl@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:17:15 GMT, "Venger" <venger@augustmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Jesus Joseph and Mary... YES, they are the same observation, and since I
> >>made both of them, you can be assured I am aware of their meaning. The
key
> >>to the requote is to show you the BASIS for those statements - you are
out
> >>of power at every level of government, have a notable history of
elections
> >>losses, and despite record motivation and financing, you still got
buried
> >>by
> >>3 points last November. Do you understand now? Your party is a foundered
> >
> > If the Democrats' message was rejected wholesale, then why did half of
> > the country who bothered to vote vote for them?
>
> What is the point of this non-sequitur? The less than half that voted for
> them obviously bought into what they are peddling. However, more than half
> did not, and they aren't buying it locally, in their state politics, or in
> their national politics, from their representatives in their districts to
> at-large Senators to the Executive. One cannot examine the Democrat party
> from a macroscopic level and conclude other than it is a party in
disarrayed
> regression.

They sure were regressing when Gore received more votes than Bush. Of course
since you hate democracy that means nothing to you.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:23:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote:
> Uh, yeah, extensive, broad or quantitatively large. Being out of
> power everywhere is broad and extensive, the sum total of your
> rejection quantitatively large. Is your argument that the
> Democrats are just so close to being the party in power across the
> board? Because that fella is whistling past the graveyard...

Losing elections by very narrow margins BY DEFINITION means that they
are "just so close to being the party in power".

Okay, the GOP won the electoral college and with it the presidency.
Okay, the GOP has a majority in both houses of the US Congress.
Those facts are relevant. And they're also just about as likely to
change in the next 4 years as they are to stay the same, statistically.

Any other statistics you cite--for example, pointing out that there are
more Republican governors than Democrats--don't mean anything. It's
not like it matters to the voters of New Jersey who the governor of
Ohio is, because they don't vote for him, and aren't affected by his
policies.

> One cannot examine the Democrat party from a macroscopic level and
> conclude other than it is a party in disarrayed regression.

Rather, one cannot even conclude that. One can conclude nothing.

Maybe the Dems would get the extra boost they need to regain power if
they moved closer to center. But on the other hand, maybe their
centrist tendencies so far have been alienating the further-left
factions, who have been deciding to stay home rather than vote for
either of two parties who don't uphold their principles. People a lot
smarter than you have put a lot more thought into this than you have,
and they've yet to figure out what the Democratic Party's problem is.
How are you so sure YOU know the answer?

-Poot
June 21, 2005 12:24:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:37:29 -0400, "Freedom Fries"
<bushwasresponsible@911.com> wrote:

>
>"Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote in message
>news:yBFte.231$Lj2.203@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6r4eb1lnka1hlih86vjel6qhops2fml2dl@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:17:15 GMT, "Venger" <venger@augustmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Jesus Joseph and Mary... YES, they are the same observation, and since I
>> >>made both of them, you can be assured I am aware of their meaning. The
>key
>> >>to the requote is to show you the BASIS for those statements - you are
>out
>> >>of power at every level of government, have a notable history of
>elections
>> >>losses, and despite record motivation and financing, you still got
>buried
>> >>by
>> >>3 points last November. Do you understand now? Your party is a foundered
>> >
>> > If the Democrats' message was rejected wholesale, then why did half of
>> > the country who bothered to vote vote for them?
>>
>> What is the point of this non-sequitur? The less than half that voted for
>> them obviously bought into what they are peddling. However, more than half
>> did not, and they aren't buying it locally, in their state politics, or in
>> their national politics, from their representatives in their districts to
>> at-large Senators to the Executive. One cannot examine the Democrat party
>> from a macroscopic level and conclude other than it is a party in
>disarrayed
>> regression.
>
>They sure were regressing when Gore received more votes than Bush. Of course
>since you hate democracy that means nothing to you.

It means nothing because we are NOT a democracy. We are a
representative republic. An advanced form of democracy neccessary in a
country with huge population disparity.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:30:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Poot Rootbeer" <poot@dork.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967BC66095234pootrootbeer@216.196.97.136...
> "Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> Uh, yeah, extensive, broad or quantitatively large. Being out of
>> power everywhere is broad and extensive, the sum total of your
>> rejection quantitatively large. Is your argument that the
>> Democrats are just so close to being the party in power across the
>> board? Because that fella is whistling past the graveyard...
>
> Losing elections by very narrow margins BY DEFINITION means that they
> are "just so close to being the party in power".

That's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "if we hadn't lost, we'd have
won".

They aren't close to being in power. They are weak in both the Senate and
the House - it's not like they just need a pickup here or there. They aren't
just a whisper away - just check the trendlines. Look at party ID,
registration, look at the trend in growing states. There is an undeniable
shift away from the Democrats, because they have radicalized as a party of
disparate special interests.

> Okay, the GOP won the electoral college and with it the presidency.
> Okay, the GOP has a majority in both houses of the US Congress.
> Those facts are relevant. And they're also just about as likely to
> change in the next 4 years as they are to stay the same, statistically.

Except they aren't. The House has been in no danger of moving to the
Democrats since 1994, and isn't in 2006. The Democrats have major seat
defenses coming up in the Senate. And they turned over every rock looking
for Democrats in 2004, and still came up far short. I will say this for
you - you at least haven't claimed electoral theft, and for that, you
deserve recognition for being a rational actor.

> Any other statistics you cite--for example, pointing out that there are
> more Republican governors than Democrats--don't mean anything. It's
> not like it matters to the voters of New Jersey who the governor of
> Ohio is, because they don't vote for him, and aren't affected by his
> policies.

But each party stands for things. What do the Democrats stand for? There
isn't a single attractive issue the Democrats have. You can disagree with
Republican policies and their execution, but you must agree that the concept
of lower taxes, strong defense, less government interference are appealing
to voters. That doesn't mean Bush or whoever pulls it off every time, but it
means voters have an idea of what the party stood for. The Democrats don't
have ANY of that. They aren't even the party against the Iraq War. Democrats
expect to get votes on laurels, or because enough people just don't like the
other guy. Not enough to pull the wagon...

>> One cannot examine the Democrat party from a macroscopic level and
>> conclude other than it is a party in disarrayed regression.
>
> Rather, one cannot even conclude that. One can conclude nothing.
>
> Maybe the Dems would get the extra boost they need to regain power if
> they moved closer to center. But on the other hand, maybe their
> centrist tendencies so far have been alienating the further-left
> factions, who have been deciding to stay home rather than vote for
> either of two parties who don't uphold their principles.

There simply AREN'T that many far-left people in America. Most people aren't
far left or right, they just want the government to leave them alone and not
screw things up for them. American's dont trust Democrats on defense and
national security - simply don't. A party that is home to anti-war radicals
and those who think 9/11 was a Republican inside job is not going to be
trusted to do what is needed to keep the country safe. That's not to say
John Kerry was a patsy - I don't think he'd just sit by and let America be
attacked, I believe he would do everything he could to defend America. But
people look at the people in the party, and the rhetoric of the fringe left,
and wince. They may not love the Iraq War, but they do think he needed to go
and don't doubt that Bush wakes up every day thinking of new ways to kick
terrorist ass. And they will vote for him again and again because of it.

> People a lot
> smarter than you have put a lot more thought into this than you have,
> and they've yet to figure out what the Democratic Party's problem is.

This isn't groundbreaking news, many have said much to the same effect as I
have - and while I don't want to sound like a braggart, I'm a pretty smart
chap myself, and when you get down to it, most people - just aren't that
smart. Politicians, leaders, captains of industry - they each have strength
and weaknesses like you or I, and I've yet to meet one of them who I thought
deserved special dispensation for their opinions just because they were
"smarter" than the rest of us.

> How are you so sure YOU know the answer?

Because it is one of the few rational explanations that happens to fit the
facts. The problems I have listed are not the complete compendium of
problems faced by the Democrat Party, and there surely are facets to the
problem I am understating. But by and large, I know of what I speak.

And please know that while I happen to be conservative by and large, I
believe what I believe on the Democrat party because I believe it is
correct, not because it salves my partisanship. In fact, I WANT the Democrat
Party revitalized and viable. Part of what took the Democrat ship into the
rocks was unchecked power in the House for decades. The Republican party
will suffer a similar fate if the Democrats aren't there to provide a
counterweight. No party has a monopoly on good ideas or good people, and
this nation, and the Republicans, need a strong, responsible Democrat party
to keep Republicans responsive to the electorate and to provide honest but
decent criticism.

This means that yes, some day, I expect their ship to be righted, and for
them to take back the Congress, at least for a short spell. Every blade is
sharpened by a grind against a strong stone.

Venger
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:30:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

Venger wrote:
> "Poot Rootbeer" <poot@dork.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns967BC66095234pootrootbeer@216.196.97.136...
>> "Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote:
>>> Uh, yeah, extensive, broad or quantitatively large. Being out of
>>> power everywhere is broad and extensive, the sum total of your
>>> rejection quantitatively large. Is your argument that the
>>> Democrats are just so close to being the party in power across the
>>> board? Because that fella is whistling past the graveyard...
>>
>> Losing elections by very narrow margins BY DEFINITION means that they
>> are "just so close to being the party in power".
>
> That's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "if we hadn't lost, we'd
> have won".
>
> They aren't close to being in power. They are weak in both the Senate
> and the House - it's not like they just need a pickup here or there.
> They aren't just a whisper away - just check the trendlines. Look at
> party ID, registration, look at the trend in growing states. There is
> an undeniable shift away from the Democrats, because they have
> radicalized as a party of disparate special interests.
>


The system is fixed by redistricting.
Democracy is dying in America.
For many Americans, their vote doesn't count
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 5:48:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:QcJte.262$Lj2.258@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Poot Rootbeer" <poot@dork.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns967BC66095234pootrootbeer@216.196.97.136...
> > "Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote:
> >> Uh, yeah, extensive, broad or quantitatively large. Being out of
> >> power everywhere is broad and extensive, the sum total of your
> >> rejection quantitatively large. Is your argument that the
> >> Democrats are just so close to being the party in power across the
> >> board? Because that fella is whistling past the graveyard...
> >
> > Losing elections by very narrow margins BY DEFINITION means that they
> > are "just so close to being the party in power".
>
> That's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "if we hadn't lost, we'd have
> won".
>
> They aren't close to being in power. They are weak in both the Senate and
> the House - it's not like they just need a pickup here or there. They
aren't
> just a whisper away - just check the trendlines. Look at party ID,
> registration, look at the trend in growing states. There is an undeniable
> shift away from the Democrats, because they have radicalized as a party of
> disparate special interests.
>
> > Okay, the GOP won the electoral college and with it the presidency.
> > Okay, the GOP has a majority in both houses of the US Congress.
> > Those facts are relevant. And they're also just about as likely to
> > change in the next 4 years as they are to stay the same, statistically.
>
> Except they aren't. The House has been in no danger of moving to the
> Democrats since 1994, and isn't in 2006. The Democrats have major seat
> defenses coming up in the Senate. And they turned over every rock looking
> for Democrats in 2004, and still came up far short. I will say this for
> you - you at least haven't claimed electoral theft, and for that, you
> deserve recognition for being a rational actor.
>
> > Any other statistics you cite--for example, pointing out that there are
> > more Republican governors than Democrats--don't mean anything. It's
> > not like it matters to the voters of New Jersey who the governor of
> > Ohio is, because they don't vote for him, and aren't affected by his
> > policies.
>
> But each party stands for things. What do the Democrats stand for? There
> isn't a single attractive issue the Democrats have. You can disagree with
> Republican policies and their execution, but you must agree that the
concept
> of lower taxes, strong defense, less government interference are appealing
> to voters. That doesn't mean Bush or whoever pulls it off every time, but
it
> means voters have an idea of what the party stood for. The Democrats don't
> have ANY of that. They aren't even the party against the Iraq War.
Democrats
> expect to get votes on laurels, or because enough people just don't like
the
> other guy. Not enough to pull the wagon...
>
> >> One cannot examine the Democrat party from a macroscopic level and
> >> conclude other than it is a party in disarrayed regression.
> >
> > Rather, one cannot even conclude that. One can conclude nothing.
> >
> > Maybe the Dems would get the extra boost they need to regain power if
> > they moved closer to center. But on the other hand, maybe their
> > centrist tendencies so far have been alienating the further-left
> > factions, who have been deciding to stay home rather than vote for
> > either of two parties who don't uphold their principles.
>
> There simply AREN'T that many far-left people in America. Most people
aren't
> far left or right, they just want the government to leave them alone and
not
> screw things up for them. American's dont trust Democrats on defense and
> national security - simply don't. A party that is home to anti-war
radicals
> and those who think 9/11 was a Republican inside job is not going to be
> trusted to do what is needed to keep the country safe. That's not to say
> John Kerry was a patsy - I don't think he'd just sit by and let America be
> attacked, I believe he would do everything he could to defend America. But
> people look at the people in the party, and the rhetoric of the fringe
left,
> and wince. They may not love the Iraq War, but they do think he needed to
go
> and don't doubt that Bush wakes up every day thinking of new ways to kick
> terrorist ass. And they will vote for him again and again because of it.
>
> > People a lot
> > smarter than you have put a lot more thought into this than you have,
> > and they've yet to figure out what the Democratic Party's problem is.
>
> This isn't groundbreaking news, many have said much to the same effect as
I
> have - and while I don't want to sound like a braggart, I'm a pretty smart
> chap myself, and when you get down to it, most people - just aren't that
> smart. Politicians, leaders, captains of industry - they each have
strength
> and weaknesses like you or I, and I've yet to meet one of them who I
thought
> deserved special dispensation for their opinions just because they were
> "smarter" than the rest of us.
>
> > How are you so sure YOU know the answer?
>
> Because it is one of the few rational explanations that happens to fit the
> facts. The problems I have listed are not the complete compendium of
> problems faced by the Democrat Party, and there surely are facets to the
> problem I am understating. But by and large, I know of what I speak.
>
> And please know that while I happen to be conservative by and large, I
> believe what I believe on the Democrat party because I believe it is
> correct, not because it salves my partisanship. In fact, I WANT the
Democrat
> Party revitalized and viable. Part of what took the Democrat ship into the
> rocks was unchecked power in the House for decades. The Republican party
> will suffer a similar fate if the Democrats aren't there to provide a
> counterweight. No party has a monopoly on good ideas or good people, and
> this nation, and the Republicans, need a strong, responsible Democrat
party
> to keep Republicans responsive to the electorate and to provide honest but
> decent criticism.
>
> This means that yes, some day, I expect their ship to be righted, and for
> them to take back the Congress, at least for a short spell. Every blade is
> sharpened by a grind against a strong stone.
>
> Venger
>
>

I think you could lay these problems at the feet of both parties, Venger.
Both parties are suffer from a lack of fortitude these days.

At least, unlike your other friends in the GOP, you see things as they are,
and not as you would pretend they are.
I commend you for that.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 5:56:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

" Ford Prefect" <tommysfanclub@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ElKte.8189$eM6.2010@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>
>> This means that yes, some day, I expect their ship to be righted, and for
>> them to take back the Congress, at least for a short spell. Every blade
>> is
>> sharpened by a grind against a strong stone.
>>
>> Venger
>
>
>
> I think you could lay these problems at the feet of both parties, Venger.
> Both parties are suffer from a lack of fortitude these days.

I think fortitude in general is in short supply in America these days...

> At least, unlike your other friends in the GOP, you see things as they
> are,
> and not as you would pretend they are.
> I commend you for that.

Well thanks, I think... there are others in the GOP who think like I do,
jast as there are those who are partisan for partisanships sake, as every
side has. The most effective approach is to be passionate and dignified when
dignity is warranted, and treat each other with respect as men, and once
that is done, we often find we aren't as all that far apart on things as we
think we are...

Venger
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:09:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Venger" <venger@augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:vtKte.282$Lj2.168@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> " Ford Prefect" <tommysfanclub@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ElKte.8189$eM6.2010@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> >>
> >> This means that yes, some day, I expect their ship to be righted, and
for
> >> them to take back the Congress, at least for a short spell. Every blade
> >> is
> >> sharpened by a grind against a strong stone.
> >>
> >> Venger
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you could lay these problems at the feet of both parties,
Venger.
> > Both parties are suffer from a lack of fortitude these days.
>
> I think fortitude in general is in short supply in America these days...
>
> > At least, unlike your other friends in the GOP, you see things as they
> > are,
> > and not as you would pretend they are.
> > I commend you for that.
>
> Well thanks, I think... there are others in the GOP who think like I do,
> jast as there are those who are partisan for partisanships sake, as every
> side has. The most effective approach is to be passionate and dignified
when
> dignity is warranted, and treat each other with respect as men, and once
> that is done, we often find we aren't as all that far apart on things as
we
> think we are...
>
> Venger
>
>

I think that anyone as passionate about politics as you are or some of my
other fellow former republicans are, have a deep love for their country and
only want to see it thrive and prosper.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:32:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HLKte.116784$lQ3.65913@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>> That's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "if we hadn't lost, we'd
>> have won".
>>
>> They aren't close to being in power. They are weak in both the Senate
>> and the House - it's not like they just need a pickup here or there.
>> They aren't just a whisper away - just check the trendlines. Look at
>> party ID, registration, look at the trend in growing states. There is
>> an undeniable shift away from the Democrats, because they have
>> radicalized as a party of disparate special interests.
>>
>
>
> The system is fixed by redistricting.

The system has always been gerrymandered. But look at 1994 - big changes can
happen.

> Democracy is dying in America.

I can't agree with that.

> For many Americans, their vote doesn't count

That either. Everyone's vote counts the same. Look at 2000, or 2004 in
Washington State, small margins matter. Everyone wants to be the difference
maker, and we all can't be the deciding vote. I vote in a heavily Republican
state, in the most Republican county in the United States. My vote still
counts as it would in a 50/50 district. The only vote that doesn't count is
one that isn't cast.

Venger
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

Venger wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:HLKte.116784$lQ3.65913@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>> That's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "if we hadn't lost, we'd
>>> have won".
>>>
>>> They aren't close to being in power. They are weak in both the
>>> Senate and the House - it's not like they just need a pickup here
>>> or there. They aren't just a whisper away - just check the
>>> trendlines. Look at party ID, registration, look at the trend in
>>> growing states. There is an undeniable shift away from the
>>> Democrats, because they have radicalized as a party of disparate
>>> special interests.
>>
>>
>> The system is fixed by redistricting.
>
> The system has always been gerrymandered. But look at 1994 - big
> changes can happen.
>
>> Democracy is dying in America.
>
> I can't agree with that.
>
>> For many Americans, their vote doesn't count
>
> That either. Everyone's vote counts the same. Look at 2000, or 2004 in
> Washington State, small margins matter. Everyone wants to be the
> difference maker, and we all can't be the deciding vote. I vote in a
> heavily Republican state, in the most Republican county in the United
> States. My vote still counts as it would in a 50/50 district. The
> only vote that doesn't count is one that isn't cast.
>
> Venger


Wrong.

An example.

Clay Shaw nearly lost his seat in congress.

So the Florida legislature moved some precincts that vote Democratic out of
his district and moved some Republican precincts into his district.

Florida has a district that runs along I-95.
Another district that starts in Broward Country and goes along the largely
uninhabited "Alligator Alley" (I-75) to the western part of South Florida.

They did the same sort of thing in Texas.

Our votes are counted but they don't count
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Clay Shaw nearly lost his seat in congress.
>
> So the Florida legislature moved some precincts that vote
> Democratic out of his district and moved some Republican precincts
> into his district.

To be fair, Democrats will likewise take every available opportunity
to redistrict to their advantage, as well.

Districts should be determined by statistics and mathematical
formulae, not by partisan self-interested lawmakers.

-Poot
June 21, 2005 7:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:46:01 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Venger wrote:
>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:HLKte.116784$lQ3.65913@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>> That's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "if we hadn't lost, we'd
>>>> have won".
>>>>
>>>> They aren't close to being in power. They are weak in both the
>>>> Senate and the House - it's not like they just need a pickup here
>>>> or there. They aren't just a whisper away - just check the
>>>> trendlines. Look at party ID, registration, look at the trend in
>>>> growing states. There is an undeniable shift away from the
>>>> Democrats, because they have radicalized as a party of disparate
>>>> special interests.
>>>
>>>
>>> The system is fixed by redistricting.
>>
>> The system has always been gerrymandered. But look at 1994 - big
>> changes can happen.
>>
>>> Democracy is dying in America.
>>
>> I can't agree with that.
>>
>>> For many Americans, their vote doesn't count
>>
>> That either. Everyone's vote counts the same. Look at 2000, or 2004 in
>> Washington State, small margins matter. Everyone wants to be the
>> difference maker, and we all can't be the deciding vote. I vote in a
>> heavily Republican state, in the most Republican county in the United
>> States. My vote still counts as it would in a 50/50 district. The
>> only vote that doesn't count is one that isn't cast.
>>
>> Venger
>
>
>Wrong.
>
>An example.
>
>Clay Shaw nearly lost his seat in congress.
>
>So the Florida legislature moved some precincts that vote Democratic out of
>his district and moved some Republican precincts into his district.

Please do provide the evidence that supports this claim of "the"
reason those precincts were moved.

>Florida has a district that runs along I-95.
>Another district that starts in Broward Country and goes along the largely
>uninhabited "Alligator Alley" (I-75) to the western part of South Florida.
>
>They did the same sort of thing in Texas.
>
>Our votes are counted but they don't count
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:54:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:p XLte.117161$lQ3.104153@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>> That either. Everyone's vote counts the same. Look at 2000, or 2004 in
>> Washington State, small margins matter. Everyone wants to be the
>> difference maker, and we all can't be the deciding vote. I vote in a
>> heavily Republican state, in the most Republican county in the United
>> States. My vote still counts as it would in a 50/50 district. The
>> only vote that doesn't count is one that isn't cast.
>>
>> Venger
>
>
> Wrong.
>
> An example.
>
> Clay Shaw nearly lost his seat in congress.
>
> So the Florida legislature moved some precincts that vote Democratic out
> of his district and moved some Republican precincts into his district.
>
> Florida has a district that runs along I-95.
> Another district that starts in Broward Country and goes along the largely
> uninhabited "Alligator Alley" (I-75) to the western part of South Florida.
>
> They did the same sort of thing in Texas.

I am *IN* Texas, so don't sell me that line. The Democrats gerrymandered
this state for over a century, and the FIRST time they lost power, they
blocked redistricting efforts forcing a court to simply carve two districts
in, leaving the 1990 Democrat gerrymander intact. Now, after redistricting,
the Texas congressional delegation actually reflects Texas. Can't speak to
Florida, but if you think this is new, you've not familiarized yourself with
districting history in the United States.

The only reason there are as many minorities in Congress as there are is
because of gerrymandering. Otherwise, there'd be less than a third as many.
Creating large, minority black districts is the only way most black
Congressmen can get elected. Put them in with a majority white population,
and watch them fall. So don't make it sound like this is just the wicked
majority taking advantage here, the minority gains advantages that you do
not take into account. In Texas, an additional Hispanic district was created
by redistricting.

> Our votes are counted but they don't count

Claptrap.

Venger
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:04:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

Venger wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:HLKte.116784$lQ3.65913@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>> That's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "if we hadn't lost, we'd
>>> have won".
>>>
>>> They aren't close to being in power. They are weak in both the
>>> Senate and the House - it's not like they just need a pickup here
>>> or there. They aren't just a whisper away - just check the
>>> trendlines. Look at party ID, registration, look at the trend in
>>> growing states. There is an undeniable shift away from the
>>> Democrats, because they have radicalized as a party of disparate
>>> special interests.
>>
>>
>> The system is fixed by redistricting.
>
> The system has always been gerrymandered. But look at 1994 - big
> changes can happen.
>
>> Democracy is dying in America.
>
> I can't agree with that.
>
>> For many Americans, their vote doesn't count
>
> That either. Everyone's vote counts the same. Look at 2000, or 2004 in
> Washington State, small margins matter. Everyone wants to be the
> difference maker, and we all can't be the deciding vote. I vote in a
> heavily Republican state, in the most Republican county in the United
> States. My vote still counts as it would in a 50/50 district. The
> only vote that doesn't count is one that isn't cast.
>

Question, do you think the patriate act was a good idea. Or do you think it
gives away too much power in the name of 'stopping terrorism'?

Ryan
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:08:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

JustForFun wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:46:01 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Venger wrote:
>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:HLKte.116784$lQ3.65913@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>>> That's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "if we hadn't lost,
>>>>> we'd have won".
>>>>>
>>>>> They aren't close to being in power. They are weak in both the
>>>>> Senate and the House - it's not like they just need a pickup here
>>>>> or there. They aren't just a whisper away - just check the
>>>>> trendlines. Look at party ID, registration, look at the trend in
>>>>> growing states. There is an undeniable shift away from the
>>>>> Democrats, because they have radicalized as a party of disparate
>>>>> special interests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The system is fixed by redistricting.
>>>
>>> The system has always been gerrymandered. But look at 1994 - big
>>> changes can happen.
>>>
>>>> Democracy is dying in America.
>>>
>>> I can't agree with that.
>>>
>>>> For many Americans, their vote doesn't count
>>>
>>> That either. Everyone's vote counts the same. Look at 2000, or 2004
>>> in Washington State, small margins matter. Everyone wants to be the
>>> difference maker, and we all can't be the deciding vote. I vote in a
>>> heavily Republican state, in the most Republican county in the
>>> United States. My vote still counts as it would in a 50/50
>>> district. The only vote that doesn't count is one that isn't cast.
>>>
>>> Venger
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> An example.
>>
>> Clay Shaw nearly lost his seat in congress.
>>
>> So the Florida legislature moved some precincts that vote Democratic
>> out of his district and moved some Republican precincts into his
>> district.
>
> Please do provide the evidence that supports this claim of "the"
> reason those precincts were moved.

You always ask for proof when you already know the answer.

>> Florida has a district that runs along I-95.
>> Another district that starts in Broward Country and goes along the
>> largely uninhabited "Alligator Alley" (I-75) to the western part of
>> South Florida.
>>
>> They did the same sort of thing in Texas.
>>
>> Our votes are counted but they don't count
!